The 2016 Results We Can Already Predict...By LARRY J. SABATO

[mystery-ak]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-predictions-117554.html?hp=t1_r#.VUdtmJOGNOU

The 2016 Results We Can Already Predict

The battleground states will give you déjà vu.

By LARRY J. SABATO, KYLE KONDIK and GEOFFREY SKELLEY

May 03, 2015

As the country has become more divided and polarized, the number of swing states has steadily shrunk. Even in 2000, when 537 votes in Florida elected a president, just 12 states were decided by five points or less. That number contracted to just four states in 2012.

When Jimmy Carter defeated President Gerald Ford in 1976, every big state was competitive: California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois and Ohio all had at least 25 electoral votes, and each one was decided by less than five points. All told, 20 of 50 states were won by five points or less. This wasn’t unique; an earlier close election, the 1960 match-up between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, produced razor-thin results in exactly the same number of states, with almost all the mega-states of that day recording tight margins.

We don’t really have elections like 1960 and 1976 anymore. In the current Electoral College battlefield, 40 of 50 states have voted for the same candidate in all four elections since 2000. And, of the 10 exceptions, three were fluky: New Mexico’s pluralities were wafer-thin in both 2000, when it went for Al Gore, and 2004, when George W. Bush took the state. It has now trended mainly Democratic. Indiana and North Carolina, meanwhile, narrowly went for Barack Obama in 2008, in part because Obama’s campaign invested heavily in field operations and advertising in those states while John McCain, out of necessity, neglected them. Overall, Hoosiers are still predominantly Republican and Tar Heels marginally so. That leaves just seven super-swingy states: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia, all of which backed Bush and Obama twice each, and Iowa and New Hampshire, which have voted Democratic in three of the last four elections.

So it’s no wonder that these special seven states start as the only obvious toss-ups on our first 2016 Electoral Map.






Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-predictions-117554.html#ixzz3ZAsY3rRe

[Fishrrman]

The numbers are turning against the Republicans, insofar as again winning the presidency is concerned.

Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa -- all beginning to "tilt left". How long until they topple?

Colorado and Nevada -- both essentially lost to the other side. The only factor that gives Republicans a chance in these two states is support for the Second Amendment, while it lasts.

The best the Pubbies will be able to hope for in the next 2-3 decades (before they're finally rendered irrelevant by demographics) will be a majority in the House, and a toss-up at winning the Senate during off-years for the democrats...

[truth_seeker]

I wish I could grab some articles about the GOP after the 2012  Romney loss. There were several about the recognition they needed to do something about their situation with Hispanics, with younger voters, etc.

The old adage was "run to the right in the primary, to get the nomination, then run to the center for the general election."

But after running to the right for WAY OVER a year in the pre-pre-primary it seems futile to turn back to the center.

The GOP has LOST the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. There is a good chance the democrats will take back the majority in the Senate.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I wish I could grab some articles about the GOP after the 2012  Romney loss. There were several about the recognition they needed to do something about their situation with Hispanics, with younger voters, etc.

The old adage was "run to the right in the primary, to get the nomination, then run to the center for the general election."

But after running to the right for WAY OVER a year in the pre-pre-primary it seems futile to turn back to the center.

The GOP has LOST the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. There is a good chance the democrats will take back the majority in the Senate.

You've been making the point that demographic trends favor the rats electorally over time.  I agree with much of your analysis, but it is not a forgone conclusion that those trends will sustain.  The GOP is aggressively pursuing women and minorities.
https://gop.com/groups/rnc-women/
https://gop.com/groups/gop-hispanics/
https://gop.com/groups/black-republican-activists/

Small incremental progress is all that is needed to blunt the demographic trends.

The voter participation rates for blacks will drop in 2016, and the rats are about to go through their own Tea Party phase.  The rats have no love for Hitlery.  Few of them are excited about her running and if Hitlery loses in 2016 (likely IMO) the rats will fracture further.  The rat fringe will say Hitlery was too centrist and there is no difference between the democrats and the GOP.

The rats are already eating their own.  http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/05/the-left-eats-its-own-and-liberals-dont-like-it-much-at-all/

The GOP, on the other, hand has co-opted much of the Tea Party and the adults are in charge. 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/15/congress-gop-100-days-mcconnell/25822517/

Though there have been miscalculations and early setbacks, the first 100 days of the 114th Congress offered signs of progress. A rare alignment of policy goals between Republicans and the Obama administration on issues such as trade and cybersecurity combined with the party's desire to prove it can govern responsibly before the 2016 elections contribute to a political climate that could yield results.

"What I want the American people to think about this new Congress is that we're a responsible, right-of-center, governing majority ... and if you give us the opportunity to join this right-of-center, responsible governing majority with a Republican president, we'll change the country," McConnell said.

I know holding the Senate will be tough but it is possible.


May 4th was Star Wars Day (May The "Forth" be with you).  I couldn't celebrate yesterday so...May the fifth be in you.  I'm always thankful for reading your thoughts.

[truth_seeker]

Latest poll again has Rand Paul running the strongest, against Hillary. He does this, because he is the only Republican to top her with Independents.

Similar polls consistently have the farthest right GOP hopefuls running worst against any and all democrats.

Reagan did NOT win because he convinced voters he was far, far right. He won because he sold his ideas, and convinced voters he was mainstream. Plus it didn't hurt to run against an horrific failure, Carter. In 1980 Reagan got 50.8% of the vote.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Latest poll again has Rand Paul running the strongest, against Hillary. He does this, because he is the only Republican to top her with Independents.

Similar polls consistently have the farthest right GOP hopefuls running worst against any and all democrats.

Reagan did NOT win because he convinced voters he was far, far right. He won because he sold his ideas, and convinced voters he was mainstream. Plus it didn't hurt to run against an horrific failure, Carter. In 1980 Reagan got 50.8% of the vote.

I like Senator Paul and I can see why he is attractive to independents, but I believe the GOP could put up a ham sandwich and beat Hitlery.  Her poll numbers are dropping rapidly and IMO Obama fatigue ensures a GOP win.  IMO it only matters who wins the GOP primary because that person will be the next President, not because they will beat Hitlery by a wider margin than some other GOP candidate.  Fortunately for me I see many good traits in all the candidates.  I'm having trouble wording that precisely...I hope i makes sense to you.

The latest WSJ/NBC poll shows Senator Rubio and Governor Bush in the top spots.  Each addition to a crowded field benefits Governor Bush most I think.  Not my preference but I've moved beyond the "Anybody but the most likely candidate" primary games of 2008 and 2012.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/jeb-bush-marco-rubio-win-top-gop-spots-new-nbc-n353366

[truth_seeker]

Interesting. None of the top four, are the Bible thumpers.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Interesting. None of the top four, are the Bible thumpers.

Governor Walker will do very well with evangelicals.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/scott-walker-slammed-tweeting-bible-verse-article-1.1727756
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/21/scott-walker-says-he-wont-cave-to-atheists-demand-to-pull-bible-verse/

Here is a part of an unflattering column about his faith.
 
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/christianityfortherestofus/2011/02/god-in-wisconsin-scott-walkers-obedience.html

Scott Walker is neither Roman Catholic nor a mainline churchgoer.  The son of a Baptist pastor, born in Colorado Springs, the heartland of the Religious Right, Walker is a member of Meadowbrook Church in Wauwatosa, a non-denominational evangelical church.  Meadowbrook’s statement of faith, a fairly typical boilerplate of conservative evangelical theology, includes beliefs in biblical inerrancy, sin, exclusive salvation through Christ, and eternal damnation.

In other words, Scott Walker does not give a rip about pronouncements by the Roman Catholic Church, any Lutheran, Episcopal, or Methodist bishop, or the Protestant social justice pastors.  These religious authorities, steeped in centuries of theology and Christian ethics mean absolutely nothing in Scott Walker’s world.  His spiritual universe is that of 20th century fundamentalism, in its softer evangelical form, a vision that emphasizes “me and Jesus” and personal salvation.

Before he was elected governor, Walker shared his testimony with a group of Christian businessmen.  In it, he said that his religious life was expressed in the words of an old hymn, “Trust and Obey.”  From childhood onward, Walker recounted how God specifically directed his life, how he had learned to trust that direction, and how he sought to obey Christ in all
things and at all times.  He related the biblical story of the apostle Peter in a boat, whom Jesus directed to walk on the water.  At first, Peter followed Jesus and did, indeed, walk upon water.  But Peter became fearful and sank.  According to Walker, this is a parable of the whole Christian life.  If you “fail to trust and obey,” Walker said, “You sink.”  Doubt is not allowed.  Only obedience.

 

[Oceander]

You've been making the point that demographic trends favor the rats electorally over time.  I agree with much of your analysis, but it is not a forgone conclusion that those trends will sustain.  The GOP is aggressively pursuing women and minorities.
https://gop.com/groups/rnc-women/
https://gop.com/groups/gop-hispanics/
https://gop.com/groups/black-republican-activists/

Small incremental progress is all that is needed to blunt the demographic trends.

The voter participation rates for blacks will drop in 2016, and the rats are about to go through their own Tea Party phase.  The rats have no love for Hitlery.  Few of them are excited about her running and if Hitlery loses in 2016 (likely IMO) the rats will fracture further.  The rat fringe will say Hitlery was too centrist and there is no difference between the democrats and the GOP.

The rats are already eating their own.  http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/05/the-left-eats-its-own-and-liberals-dont-like-it-much-at-all/

The GOP, on the other, hand has co-opted much of the Tea Party and the adults are in charge. 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/15/congress-gop-100-days-mcconnell/25822517/


I know holding the Senate will be tough but it is possible.


May 4th was Star Wars Day (May The "Forth" be with you).  I couldn't celebrate yesterday so...May the fifth be in you.  I'm always thankful for reading your thoughts.

[Fishrrman]

Once-Ler wrote above:
[[ I believe the GOP could put up a ham sandwich and beat Hitlery ]]

Umm... that's EXACTLY what was said about obama back in 2008.
Wasn't it Mark Levin who claimed that?

Well, obama was "beaten" -- TWICE.

O'er-the-Hillary starts the race just as obama did, with 42-44% of the popular vote GUARANTEED.
She's even going to get Republican women secretly voting for her, because it's time for someone with lady parts to be president, so there!

That leaves the wishy-washy "independents", who are of little mind at all, many of them "waving wheats" (leaning toward whichever direction the prevailing winds are a-blowin'). The democrats will get at least 40-45% of them.

So...
... It will be relatively easy for Hillary to "get from where she is to over-the-top".
It will be FAR more difficult for any Republican candidate to accomplish that.

Looking at the map above, in the years to come Republicans are going to have an increasingly difficult time just "overcoming the electoral college handicap".

Finally, regarding Jeb...
Americans will vote (even grudgingly) for another Clinton in the White House.
But they AREN'T going to vote for another Bush.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Once-Ler wrote above:
[[ I believe the GOP could put up a ham sandwich and beat Hitlery ]]

Umm... that's EXACTLY what was said about obama back in 2008.
Wasn't it Mark Levin who claimed that?

Well, obama was "beaten" -- TWICE

Did Levin say that before or after the housing market collapsed?  It doesn't matter.

I didn't say the GOP could put up a ham sandwich after 8 years of Bush and I was pretty sure the rats would win in 2008 and be re-elected in 2012.  I hoped I was wrong but recent history shows a trend of the President switching parties every 8 years

1946-1952 FDR/Truman
1952-1960 Eisenhower
1960-1968 JFK/Johnson
1968-1976 Nixon/Ford
1976-1984 Carter/Reagan(the one exception)
1984-1992 Reagan/Bush
1992-2000 Clinton
2000-2008 Bush
2008-2016 Obama
2016-2024 GOP Ham Sandwich

Thanks for your reply.