US Presidential Election 2016...because it's never too early - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-24-2015, 08:54 AM   #226
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:40 AM
Wow. Just five more states! SO CLOSE!

If the GOP wants to win the White House they need to change many of their policy positions, not simply wait it out. The longer they wait, the more Texas and Georgia will trend blue.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 10:10 AM   #227
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 310
Local Time: 04:40 AM
I remember the 1980, 1984, and 1988 elections very well. In 1980, Carter only won 6 states. In 1984, Mondale barley won a single state. In 1988, Dukakis only won 10 states. Imagine what it would have taken to turn those elections around? Flipping 5 states for them certainly would not have changed the election and in fact, it would not of even change the the level of the defeat. Five states is not close in the way 2000 and 2004 were, but overall historically, its nothing to sneeze about either.
As another poster in here said before, what puts the Democrats in such a favorable position at the moment is 1. Demographics 2. Current split in electoral college 3. Hillary's popularity, recognition, and sex. 4. Then coming in fourth would be policy positions.
Texas and Georgia are more solidly red than Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are solidly blue. Just as the Republicans won't be flipping any states in the Democrats Blue Wall anytime soon, the Democrats have even longer before they can seriously think of winning Texas or Georgia.
__________________

__________________
wolf is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 11:06 AM   #228
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,882
Local Time: 03:40 AM
PA will be blue again, the GOP's disastrous run in the governor's seat for the last six years assured that.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 11:46 AM   #229
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,410
Local Time: 03:40 AM
Five states is a full 10% of the entire country swinging the complete opposite direction, you realize that right? So close!
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 12:18 PM   #230
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:40 AM
the theoretical idea of an unknown GOP candidate flipping 5 states against an unknown Democratic challenger is, of course, clearly possible. my guess is Jeb Bush could flip 5 states if he were up against Bernie Sanders. i mean, anything is possible.

but to frame the 2012 as Romney losing by "only" 5 states to Obama is to minimize the size of his reelection and pretend that it was closer than it ever actually was.

also, do we not see the connection between demographics and policy positions?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 02:24 PM   #231
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,439
Local Time: 02:40 AM
I don't see Clinton's election as a given. Ultimately the issue here is voter turnout. Clinton seems like a totally viable candidate, but I'm wary of her ability to energize/excite people the way Obama has done on both of his election days. The biggest dangers the Democratic Party is facing are apathy and complacency.
__________________
iron yuppie is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 02:33 PM   #232
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 03:40 AM
Take me to 'Out of Touch' Court because I think the New York Times is liberal and not centrist. That's the gist I'm getting


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 02:53 PM   #233
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
Take me to 'Out of Touch' Court because I think the New York Times is liberal and not centrist. That's the gist I'm getting


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Small part...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 02:54 PM   #234
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
I don't see Clinton's election as a given. Ultimately the issue here is voter turnout. Clinton seems like a totally viable candidate, but I'm wary of her ability to energize/excite people the way Obama has done on both of his election days. The biggest dangers the Democratic Party is facing are apathy and complacency.
.


__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 04:49 PM   #235
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 310
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
Five states is a full 10% of the entire country swinging the complete opposite direction, you realize that right? So close!
I didn't say it was "so close" or even close in the sense of the 2000 or 2004 election. By a five state lead is not an insurmountable lead for either party to overcome by the next election. Out of 126 million votes, if just 500,000 votes had changed in those five states in 2012, Obama would have lost to Romney.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
the theoretical idea of an unknown GOP candidate flipping 5 states against an unknown Democratic challenger is, of course, clearly possible. my guess is Jeb Bush could flip 5 states if he were up against Bernie Sanders. i mean, anything is possible.

but to frame the 2012 as Romney losing by "only" 5 states to Obama is to minimize the size of his reelection and pretend that it was closer than it ever actually was.

also, do we not see the connection between demographics and policy positions?
There is a slight chance though unlikely that Jeb Bush could flip Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and New Mexico against Hillary in 2016. Bush would have a better chance though if he were facing Biden, Web, or Warren. Bush can certainly win Florida, and if he picks Susana Martinez to be his running mate he will take New Mexico. I think Colorado and Nevada would follow. Virginia is not going to budge though. So in that scenario Hillary takes the election by a one state margin.
As for Obama's reelection, it was essentially only by five states. Romney got 47% of the vote to 51% of the vote for Obama. It was certainly larger than Bush's reelection in 2004, but Bush won with the Republicans holding an increasing their lead in the House and Senate. Obama on the other hand lost control of the House which has hampered his policy in both his first and second term.
Certainly there is a connection between demographics and policy positions. But the type of demographics that are causing the Republicans problems is that "White non-Hispanic people", who are more likely to vote Republican, are declining as a percentage of the overall US population. In 1990, white non-Hispanic people were 75% of the United States population. Today they are only 60%. That is what is hurting Republicans the most in national elections.
Also, the policy positions of a single candidate in a single election are unlikely to move entire blocks of people that have been voting Democratic for decades. Had white non-Hispanic fertility kept up with Hispanic emigration and fertility the past two decades the voting environment would be easier for republicans today.
__________________
wolf is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 05:21 PM   #236
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf View Post
Certainly there is a connection between demographics and policy positions. But the type of demographics that are causing the Republicans problems is that "White non-Hispanic people", who are more likely to vote Republican, are declining as a percentage of the overall US population. In 1990, white non-Hispanic people were 75% of the United States population. Today they are only 60%. That is what is hurting Republicans the most in national elections.
Also, the policy positions of a single candidate in a single election are unlikely to move entire blocks of people that have been voting Democratic for decades. Had white non-Hispanic fertility kept up with Hispanic emigration and fertility the past two decades the voting environment would be easier for republicans today.

Is this what republicans mean by "taking their country back"?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 05:23 PM   #237
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,410
Local Time: 03:40 AM
US Presidential Election 2016...because it's never too early

.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 05:41 PM   #238
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,255
Local Time: 03:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
And when your base is that old and not getting replaced.
Well, the Republican base is technically getting replaced in the voter rolls. Just not with Republicans.

Old white dude dies and he's replaced on the rolls by an 18 year old latina that feels strongly about immigration reform. Then the process repeats itself the next day and the next..



In all seriousness, it's literally impossible for Republicans to win the Presidency ever again, but their base is so delusional that they think there's an actual possibility. There's only three possible ways they get back in...

1) Democrats involving the country in an unpopular foreign war. This is so damn unlikely nowadays, especially given how less hawkish the blue side happens to be.

2) An actual scandal occurs that is either party-wide or involved the President. Possible, but fairly unlikely.

3) An economic collapse that happens while the Democrats are in power. This is the most likely situation. Take a look at European countries that went with a Leftist ticket for years and then got scared when things turned to shit and shifted to the right. Of course, the right typically only stays in power a few years before they piss everyone off by trying to sell out the middle class while the economy continues to struggle (see France). But this is the actual way they can get back in and the only way I expect we'll see another Republican president in our lifetimes.


And I haven't even gotten in to voter turnout. You give people across the country the ability to do same-day registration and/or automatically vote by mail and/or vote in their precincts for weeks before election and/or vote online and turnout will shoot through the roof. It hovered around 60% in the last Presidential election.

There was polling done right before the 2012 election of people that were certain they wouldn't vote. 70% supported Obama compared to only 13% for Romney (I'm assuming the rest were undecided). So if 70% of the remaining 40% that don't vote support the Democrats, then it's clear that only a marginal faction of the country supports GOP politics. Yet they turn out in such great numbers that it makes it appear that it's a 50/50 split (and things aren't helped by the pathetically low turnouts in midterm elections). A FiveThirtyEight article the other day confirmed that only 25% of voters are actual social/economic conservatives...but when almost half the country doesn't even vote in the big election...
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 05:54 PM   #239
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,255
Local Time: 03:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf View Post
The Republicans control the Senate and the House. They also have a majority of the state governors.
1) House is literally impossible for Democrats to retake due to gerrymandering that occurred after the 2010 census along with the fact that a majority of Democrats are clustered around major urban areas. For example, an extra 5% to every Democratic House candidate in 2012 would still have kept it in GOP hands. Best hope for the Democrats is that they do well in 2020 elections in state houses and then can redistrict in their favor...it's possible that the districting can keep the GOP as potential House owners through 2030, but by then it will be basically game over due to the aforementioned demographics.

2) As far as the Senate is concerned, the Democrats were already playing defense trying to defend seats they barely won via the Obama-train six years prior. You then factor in the lowest turnout since World War II and voila. 2016's slate is actually horrible for the GOP because they'll be defending the Republican wave from 2010...a lot of seats that were barely won and/or won because of the lower turnout. Turnout is going to be high in 2016. GOP voters will be fired up and Democrats will want to elect the first female President...it should at least exceed 60%...and when people vote, it's always bad for the GOP.

3) State governors is also a poor thing to turn to as evidence. A majority of the state governorships don't even have elections in even numbered years, if I remember correctly...so some Republican winning in a blue state in 2013 or whatever isn't all that surprising given that nobody votes in those years.



The smart move would be to have four year House and Senate terms and also tie-in State house votes, etc. Then the public could just vote once every four years...but we all know what would happen then...The Gipper would be rolling over in his grave.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 04-24-2015, 06:04 PM   #240
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:40 AM
US Presidential Election 2016...because it's never too early

At least the GOP is doing all they can to stop black people and the youngs from voting. "Voter fraud" and subsequent ID laws were cooked up for a reason.

Comparisons to the past are irrelevant. We live in a 45/45 country, as evidenced in the fact that while Obama's approval ratings have never been very high, they also haven't been very low. There aren't many persuadable voters the way there were in 1988 or 1980. Politics is more polarized than ever, and it will take something truly calamitous and destructive and ruinous like the Iraq War concocted by an evil forest creature who steals our children and pushed through by a discredited half-wit president to get that 45% on either side to turn against their candidate. It comes down to the independents, and turning out the base. And as the 45% who vote GOP start to die off, all that may be left is voter suppression. Unless policies -- on SSM, on immigration -- start to change.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com