Do Republicans have a realistic chance of winning the next presidential election? Some analysts suggest that the answer is no. They argue that there is a 240-electoral-vote “blue wall” of 18 states and D.C. that have gone Democratic in the last six presidential elections.
A Democratic nominee needs only 30 more electoral votes to win the presidency, they note accurately. A Republican nominee, they suggest, has little chance of breaking through the blue wall. He (or she) would have to win 270 of the 298 other electoral votes.
Democrats do have an advantage in the electoral vote, because heavily Democratic clusters clinch about 170 electoral votes for them, while Republicans have a lock on only about 105. But the blue-wall theory, like all political rules of thumb, is true only till it’s not. And this one could easily prove inoperative in a competitive 2016 race.
To see why, go back and put yourself in the shoes of a Democratic strategist after the 2004 presidential race. Assume that a stronger 2008 Democratic nominee will win all of John Kerry’s 252 electoral votes (which happened). Then take a look at the states in which Kerry won 43 percent or more of the popular vote.
The four states in which Kerry won 48 percent or more — Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada — were obvious targets, seriously contested in three or four of the previous four elections. Add Florida (47 percent for Kerry and obviously closely contested) and you have 318 electoral votes easily accessible in a good Democratic year.
What states should you target beyond that? It depends on who your nominee is. If it’s Hillary Clinton, you might look at Missouri, Arkansas, Arizona, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Bill Clinton won Arizona once and the other four twice, and Hillary Clinton won all but Missouri in the 2008 primaries. These states’ 43 electoral votes raise the potential win to 361.
If your nominee is Barack Obama, your targets are different. You might look at Colorado, Virginia, and North Carolina, plus Missouri. All but Colorado have large minority populations, and all but Missouri have large blocs of upscale whites — groups among which Obama demonstrated strong appeal in 2008 primaries.
These states had 48 electoral votes in 2008. Obama won all but Missouri’s eleven and made up for that by winning eleven in Indiana, a 39-percent-Kerry state.
The lesson here is that in a favorable opinion climate, a party can successfully target previously unwinnable states containing voting blocs that it can move or just mobilize. It helps greatly if, like Obama, they increase their turnout in primaries.
Likewise, a Republican strategist looking ahead to 2016 sees twelve states in which Mitt Romney won 43 to 49 percent of the vote in 2012. Add some significant share of their 146 electoral votes to the 206 Romney won, and you get well above the 270 majority.
I would like to see an Iraq or Afghanistan vet run for federal offices, including the presidency.
@Smorgasbord: I believe you spell that persons name WEST.
@UpChuck.Liberals: You’re kidding. West couldn’t even win in in The House–he won’t run.
You want a Navy Cross V.N vet — Jim Webb
@Rich Wheeler: Jim Who?
It would be nice to have to choose WHICH vet to vote for.
@Redteam:You enjoy following me around R.T.? You forget your wife’s card?
How ya doing Smorg?
I wouldn’t consider that 240 as set in stone anymore.
Dems have been alienating their base something fierce lately…..
*68% of voters are not college grads, for instance.
But Dems denigrate not having a degree.
*While Dems abandon the white vote white voters are the ONLY one to favor gay marriage!
Hispanics oppose it and black oppose it by a bigger margin!
*People who expected endless entitlements and got them became so numbed that they didn’t bother to come out to vote last election.
Perhaps Dems will not be able to afford to keep buying their votes in future.
I don’t know if these low info voters will all sit home or not but many of them will.
Yeah, Rich, and I’d bet that in 2008, you said the GOP should run McCain.
@ThunderGod: Yes, I liked Mac. Couldn’t stomach Palin. Who’s your pick in 2016?
@Rich Wheeler: No, I didn’t forget the card and a huge bouquet of red roses. She gave me a large heart of candy.
Follow you? Jim who?
because he’s a lib.
@Redteam: Glad you liked Mac. You’ll like highly decorated Marine Combat Vet Jim Webb even more.
Thank you for following my comments so closely.
@Rich Wheeler: I haven’t heard that Jim Who is running for any office. You seem to be the only one tooting his horn. Is that because he’s a lib? I did like Mc because he flew off the Forrestal, my ship, but when it became obvious that he’s senile, I don’t think we need that in office. He seems to be for a completely open border, no requirements for citizenship and he’s seems to be a vindictive person in trying to get all the Republican committee persons in Arizona thrown out of office.
@Rich Wheeler: #6
As I have mentioned different times, when two or more people are commenting on something that I have lost interest in, I usually don’t read their comments any more. Since your comment was a short one, I read it.
I don’t know how many others don’t read all of the comments, so I suggest that anyone commenting put ALL of the ones they are commenting to at the beginning, or I might not read it.
Since you asked how I am doing, I would say that I am about the same as always, except that I am getting even more fearful for MY country, especially fter the obama administration says that we should help ISIS find jobs so that they would quit attacking us.
Maybe we should bring them to the USA to fill the millions of open jobs that we have to import workers from Mexico. Maybe the slogan could be, “Give ISIS a job and they won’t cut your head off, or burn you alive.”
Please comment on obama’s job fair offer. The democrats ALWAYS say that lack of money is ALWAYS the problem. Please show me some links to where giving away money actually helped.
Whoever created this image couldn’t have said it any better.
@Nanny G #7:
“white voters are the ONLY one to favor gay marriage!
Hispanics oppose it and black oppose it by a bigger margin!”
I REALLY hope the GOP makes gay marriage a big issue in 2016.
I’m willing to bet that this issue loses the GOP more votes than it wins them.
If you think that your poll numbers tell you otherwise, keep that fire burning, and see where it gets you.
Somebody’s trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge – probably the same con artists that convinced Romney he was going to win.
Smorg, I’m sure Rich thinks it’s a great idea. He hasn’t seen an Obama plan he didn’t love. I’m relatively sure the ISIS gang won’t take Obozo up on the offer though, they have almost full employment, by the time they get through raping and pillaging, they don’t have much time left for a regular job. But i’m sure Obozo won’t abandon his plan. Job Fair for ISIS.
Why? why do you hope that? I’m not sure how that can help the country, maybe elect a lesbian president?
Since there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’ I don’t see how it can be a real issue. Calling it a marriage doesn’t make it more of a marriage than saying a gay is a happy person.
One thing muslims are taught is to get on welfare. It would be interesting to know what percentage of muslims are on welfare. How many other countries help fund their enemies that want to destroy them, and how many other countries allow their enemies to build training camps INSIDE THE COUNTRY THEY WANT TO DESTROY?
Every war and battle America ever fought was against our ENEMY, until we started fighting the muslims. Now, we are fighting EXTREMISTS. What is the difference between the two?
“I REALLY hope the GOP makes gay marriage a big issue in 2016.”
“Why? why do you hope that? I’m not sure how that can help the country, maybe elect a lesbian president?”
Sorry that you are having difficulty following the conversation I was having with Nanny G. Let me spell it out simply enough that your reading comprehension will not be overwhelmed:
Nanny G wrote in her #7 post:
“white voters are the ONLY one to favor gay marriage!
Hispanics oppose it and black oppose it by a bigger margin!”
This information that she posted implied that Democrats were risking their political future by supporting gay marriage – which Nanny G is suggesting is UNPOPULAR. Are you following that so far?
Then, I responded in my #15 post:
“I REALLY hope the GOP makes gay marriage a big issue in 2016.
I’m willing to bet that this issue loses the GOP more votes than it wins them.
If you think that your poll numbers tell you otherwise, keep that fire burning, and see where it gets you.”
I said that because I KNOW exactly what the GOP leadership also knows: The gay marriage issue is dead for the GOP. Public opinion has turned on this issue so much that focusing on opposition to gay marriage will cost the GOP more votes than it gains.
That was the point of my comment. Anyone with a smidgeon of common sense understands this, and also appreciates that my comment was NOT an effort to encourage YOU to resurrect your very tiresome tirade over whether gay marriage does or does not exist. That question remains open in your mind and hardly anywhere else, and certainly nowhere that matters.
Grow some spine, and put your brain where your mouth is. Predict the outcome of the June SCOTUS decision on gay marriage, and predict what will happen if the GOP nominates Cruz, Jindal, Perry, Carson or Huckabee – the most strident opponents of gay marriage and the candidates most committed to making gay marriage an issue in 2016.
While you did a fair job of writing at a first grade level, you made the common mistake of tryiing to impress yourself while failing to answer the original question. which was:
While you proclaim it to be a ‘dead’ issue, you fail to explain how a ‘dead’ issue can affect an election. If it’s dead, it won’t impact anything. You’ve said repeatedly that you agree with everything the GOP stands for over the Dims except for the homosexual issue. So if that’s a dead issue, why don’t you prefer that the GOP doesn’t make it an issue so that we can get along with all the other issues that you say you agree with the GOP on. So you have my permission to move up to the 2nd grade level and attempt to actually answer my question rather than trying to toot your own horn.
Simple question. Since our dear leader is a member of the muslim organization, it can hardly be declared as the home of the extremists. Therefore the need to “Label” them ‘something else”
Gay marriage is a dead issue in the sense that legally speaking, it is a battle that is over. Finished. Well, if you really think that there’s a snowball’s chance in Hell that the SCOTUS will NOT make it a nation-wide right in June, maybe you can make a weak point that it isn’t finished just yet. But the GOP leadership understands what you evidently do not: that gay marriage is a losing issue for Republicans. You fought it and you lost. Better to drop it and forget that you were on the wrong side of history on this one.
I suppose that it ISN’T a dead issue if you are not really trying to win a national election, but instead are trying to rile up the evangelical base of the GOP so that you can demand a higher price from Fox News when they take you back, like Huckabee is doing. The issue certainly isn’t dead for him. It’s a money pump, or so he thinks.
And if your constituency still opposes gay marriage, like Jindal’s evidently does, then you might as well pander to them and not risk your job. Politicians so rarely move beyond their own self-interests…
And for people like you and Retire05, who get all hot under the collar over it, gay marriage isn’t “dead” either, any more than a thorn in your side is “dead.” It’s the gift that keeps on giving, the bitch that bites you every time you think of it.
No, I suppose that gay marriage isn’t really a dead issue any more than slavery is, but as far as the legal aspects of it are concerned, it is.
And as far as the next presidential election is concerned, this “Dead Issue” will KILL the chances of the GOP nominee if he brings the issue to life in an attempt to win with it. Remember how vampires are supposed to die if they try to suck the blood of a dead person? Same sort of thing here. Make it an issue in 2016, and watch what happens.
I don’t think that I can make that any more clear. I DON’T WANT THE GOP TO GO DOWN IN FLAMES! Make gay marriage an issue in 2016, and it WILL! Mark my words. I said that I hope the GOP DOES make gay marriage an issue in 2016 because I’m selfish. I WANT the GOP to prove that I’m right. If the GOP ignores the issue, win or lose, it won’t prove me right. Is that too hard for you to grasp?
@George Wells: LOL.
It took you about 4 paragraphs to get to the answer. You think it’s a dead issue, you support GOP on everything but Homosexuality, you want the GOP to make it an issue so they will lose. Then you have to put up with 4 years with a lesbian president. Wait, now it’s obvious, you want Hillary to win.
So you still won’t admit the REAL reason why you don’t want the GOP to win.
You have now revealed what double speak is all about.
By the way.
I never had to fight it. I’m on the 98% side.
“I never had to fight it (gay marriage). I’m on the 98% side.”
A majority of the “98% side,” as you put it, now approves of gay marriage. You are NOT on their side.
A majority of the other 2% also approves of gay marriage.
You “never had to fight it,” but you DID, and you lost.
So where does that leave you now? Marginalized in the company of similarly-thinking throwbacks yearning for a return of the Confederacy. Good luck with that.
A “lesbian president”? Is THAT what you are now worried about? We’ve had gay presidents before, so what? Just another one of your smear campaigns. Pity you have such a low opinion of yourself that you must sully others to feel good about yourself.
Strange I don’t recall ‘participating in a fight’ that I lost. If making the statement that a marriage is between one man and one woman can be considered a ‘fight’, then I can’t figure out how you decide who ‘won’ or ‘lost’ because a marriage is still just one man and one woman. By the same standard, I guess if you can say that you’re “gay” and that makes you ‘happy’, then all that means is that restating the meaning of a word is a ‘victory’.
Also, I see it as a loss for you that you say you are on the GOP side of every issue except homosexuality yet you support the side that is against 99.99% of those things while only agreeing with you on .01% of the issues. talk about being a ‘real loser’.
Interesting that you say we’ve had homosexual presidents in the past. Want to tell us who your Gaydar has identified.
George, just read this interesting article:
here’s a quote from it:
One thing I don’t understand is, if she’s ‘really’ a lesbian, how did she get pregnant?
Artificial insem? Doubtful.
@Redteam #25 & 26:
You might think that something in these two posts deserves comment, But I don’t.
You are in denial.
If you ever move beyond that condition, let me know.
.Said by someone that has no answers.
Your #25 consisted of 90% rehash. You added nothing new – just your same old recording, which I have already answered. Read my past posts if you need a refresher course.
Your question regarding past gay presidents shows how little you know, but you have already demonstrated an inability to learn from me, so I’ll not bother to educate you myself. If you really want to know something, look it up. If you think that the NEXT president is going to be a lesbian, what makes you think that the LAST one wasn’t gay? They both are married, they both have children…
Per your #26 silly comments and questions: You are commenting on what someone said about what someone else said. I can’t answer for such comments – I don’t know OR respect either of the individuals involved. Seems to me that someone’s opinion of someone else’s wish isn’t news-worthy, and it certainly isn’t comment-worthy. How did the woman get pregnant? Well, like they taught y’all in school down there in your neck of the WOODS, you get pregnant by sitting on a toilet seat in a public restroom. Don’t you know ANYTHING?
That is certainly how lesbian women get pregnant.
@George Wells: To RT If you think the next Prez. is gonna be a lesbian what makes you think the last one–wasn’t gay. They both had children.
That’s a good question RT.
@Rich Wheeler: “They both had children.” I’m not so sure about that. They don’t all seem to have birth certificate’s either.
@Redteam Not sure? pls expound. I could use a good laugh. Thanks
@Rich Wheeler: Geez, Rich, do you depend on this blog for all your info?
@Redteam: Info I get elsewhere–I love the humor you so consistently provide. Thanks again–F.A would be boring without you.
You seem to be very concerned about people’s birth certificates. Are you a peeping Tom as well?
Soooo, you weren’t looking for info……………….
@Redteam: Well I would ask you to explain your comment in #32 and if this has anything to do with your peeping Tom tendencies–Thanks
I thought you knew I wasn’t a lib.
@Redteam: You’re checking birth certificates and looking in bedroom windows RT. You ask George for his address?
Asked and Answered. The answer repeated was “I’m not a lib”
Your were right about RT. He reminds me of a child who has just discovered his fingers, busily amusing himself while his parents look away in embarrassment.
I’m having a rather stimulating conversation with Pete right now, reminding me that my exchange with RT is like unrequited love – no matter what you put in, you get nothing worth squat in return.
Isn’t it interesting how I’ve got two libs all tied up in knots because they are so fascinated with me that they don’t have time to do something they would ‘claim’ is more worthwhile.
I guess it is more of a challenge to find something I’m wrong about than it is to find something Obozo is wrong about. Since everything he says is wrong, that’s no challenge.
Here we have a homosexual guy who ‘claims’ his agenda is strictly ‘homosexual’ and he won’t even advocate that DWTS have Homosexual pairs on their show, while at the same time he wants a heterosexual to have to violate their religious principle to capitulate to homosexuals that want to insist that the heterosexual have to cater their wedding. Apparently the homo’s don’t think other homo’s can do a good job of catering. I guess George thinks the same thing about homosexual dancers, that they HAVE to be paired with a heterosexual to be judged fairly. Well, give it a try. See if all those people he ‘claims’ are for homosexuals all being treated equally are really for it. Will they vote for the homo pair or not?
Poor child. You must be thinking – wrongly – that I watch television. Television is used either to control minds or to anesthetize them, either way turning them into mush.
I don’t watch “entertainment” on television because I don’t find it entertaining. It’s far too slow, and suited only for the entertainment of slow people. Go watch and be entertained by your television, but if you can’t follow what you see there, ask someone else.
And you got all that from watching television. Hmmmmm.
You don’t watch it and you don’t find it entertaining. Uhhhh….how do you know? I guess you figured out it wasn’t entertaining while sitting on that toilet seat in the public restroom that fertilizes all those lesbians that have children without having to cohabit with ‘ugh’, men.
Osmosis anyone? You don’t watch it, but know it’s not entertaining, far too slow and suited for slow people. Sounds as if you’ve about studied it enough to write a doctoral thesis. Why don’t you find something more entertaining than entertainment tv to spend your research time on? You’ve been exposed. Gasp! an entertainment tv watcher. How dreadful?