Republicans have a massive electoral map problem that has nothing to do with Donald Trump - Washington Post

[TomSea]

Please see map at link.

This is from the Washington Post originally, couldn't find the link to the WaPo.

  The darned blue wall as Hannity says is basically what it is. I hate this and we get terrible politicians.   It's rather discouraging, will we ever even get a decent President again?

Republicans have a massive electoral map problem that has nothing to do with Donald Trump



Politico reported Monday on a Florida poll conducted for a business group in the state that shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 13 points and Ted Cruz by nine.

Why is that important? Because if Clinton wins Florida and carries the 19 states (plus D.C.) that have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in each of the last six elections, she will be the 45th president. It's that simple.

Here's the underlying math. If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 and you get 271. Game over.

The Republican map - whether with Trump, Cruz or the ideal Republican nominee (Paul Ryan?) as the standard-bearer - is decidedly less friendly. There are 13 states that have gone for the GOP presidential nominee in each of the last six elections. But they only total 102 electorate votes. That means the eventual nominee has to find, at least, 168 more electoral votes to get to 270. Which is a heck of a lot harder than finding 28 electoral votes.

Many Republicans - particularly in Washington - are already preparing to blame a loss this fall, which many of them view as inevitable, on the divisiveness of Trump. That's not entirely fair to Trump, though.

While his dismal numbers among women and Hispanics, to name two groups, don't help matters and could - in a worst-case scenario - put states like Arizona and even Utah in play for Democrats, the map problems that face the GOP have very, very little to do with Trump or even Cruz.

Read More At: http://www.tylerpaper.com/TP-Politics/235223/republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump

[libertybele]

Please see map at link.

This is from the Washington Post originally, couldn't find the link to the WaPo.

  The darned blue wall as Hannity says is basically what it is. I hate this and we get terrible politicians.   It's rather discouraging, will we ever even get a decent President again?

The electoral map is even less favorable due to the courts ruling that districts need to be redrawn more fairly; mostly favoring the DEMS. I know what the article states; but you can't go around insulting large groups of people; women, Hispanics, disabled, etc., and expect to win in the general election.

It's been discouraging. I thought for sure McCain would lose to Hillary and she would make such a terrible president that the GOP would be a shoe in next time around.  Never in my wildest dreams did I think Obama would be elected, nor did I think Romney would lose to him.  We had 16 hopeful candidates, full of promise and we should never be facing losing not only the White House but the majority in Congress this election.  I have felt from the beginning of this election, that Cruz is this country's very last hope.  IF Trump is our nominee, the White House goes to Hillary, we will have a liberal SCOTUS and we will lose many of our rights. If that happens, no, I don't see that we will have a decent president anytime soon, nor do I see our country staying in tact.   

[Right_in_Virginia]

Well, by all means...let's continue to fracture.

[sinkspur]

Well, by all means...let's continue to fracture.

By all means.  Blame your fascist heartthrob for that.

[Right_in_Virginia]

By all means.  Blame your fascist heartthrob for that.

Ping me when you have new material.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

"Blue wall" is overrated IMO.

THe GOP just continually nominates crappy, unlikable candidates. Same problem the Dems had from 1972 to 1992.

Nominate better candidates, get better elections.

As for Trump, I was firmly convinced he was a "crappy candidate". Lately I'm wondering if the Trumpites are on to something. Either way, we're over the cliff with him as far as I can tell. Cruz has maybe a 1/10 chance of winning tomorrow, if that.

With Hillary, the "blue wall" is built on quicksand. With the right candidate, the GOP could break it.

The popular vote is a great indicator of who will win in November. The popular vote fails to elect a President only once every 100 years or so. Get a candidate who is personally appealing in 50 states and we will win.

I hope Trump is that man.

[jmyrlefuller]

"Blue wall" is overrated IMO.

THe GOP just continually nominates crappy, unlikable candidates. Same problem the Dems had from 1972 to 1992.

Nominate better candidates, get better elections.

As for Trump, I was firmly convinced he was a "crappy candidate". Lately I'm wondering if the Trumpites are on to something. Either way, we're over the cliff with him as far as I can tell. Cruz has maybe a 1/10 chance of winning tomorrow, if that.

With Hillary, the "blue wall" is built on quicksand. With the right candidate, the GOP could break it.

The popular vote is a great indicator of who will win in November. The popular vote fails to elect a President only once every 100 years or so. Get a candidate who is personally appealing in 50 states and we will win.

I hope Trump is that man.

There's just one problem with that: the Democrats have been breeding their next generation of voters for decades now: through immigration and birth control. Take a look at the trendline for the popular vote from 1972 to 2012: slowly but surely, Democrats have taken up more and more of the vote, and Republicans less and less. This while certain demographic groups have grown in proportion to the rest of the country, and these groups conveniently vote 2-1 Democrat or more—and not just Democrat, but as this year showed, MACHINE Democrat.

We're drifting toward a banana republic status, and it ought to frighten anyone who wants the government to leave them alone.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

There's just one problem with that: the Democrats have been breeding their next generation of voters for decades now: through immigration and birth control. Take a look at the trendline for the popular vote from 1972 to 2012: slowly but surely, Democrats have taken up more and more of the vote, and Republicans less and less. This while certain demographic groups have grown in proportion to the rest of the country, and these groups conveniently vote 2-1 Democrat or more—and not just Democrat, but as this year showed, MACHINE Democrat.

We're drifting toward a banana republic status, and it ought to frighten anyone who wants the government to leave them alone.

You're actually factually wrong. Obama won by a huge amount in 2008, yet he won by a more modest amount in 2012. Why? According to the demographic theory, he should have won by an even bigger amount in 2012 than in 2008, because vastly more non-white people are in the nation.

If Democrats are depressed and do not vote, we may not need many of them at all to vote in this election. Everyone talks about the minority vote, but nobody mentions how paltry that vote can be, or how few of them vote.

[jmyrlefuller]

You're actually factually wrong. Obama won by a huge amount in 2008, yet he won by a more modest amount in 2012. Why? According to the demographic theory, he should have won by an even bigger amount in 2012 than in 2008, because vastly more non-white people are in the nation.

If Democrats are depressed and do not vote, we may not need many of them at all to vote in this election. Everyone talks about the minority vote, but nobody mentions how paltry that vote can be, or how few of them vote.

As with any trend, there is some noise that happens along the way, depending on the short-term conditions at the time. But keep in mind: Obama was the first Democrat to be elected with back-to-back majorities since JFK and LBJ did it in '60 and '64. Only once did a Democrat win a majority at all between then and 2008, and that was when Jimmy Carter won '76; he was swiftly defeated the next time around. Bill Clinton won by splitting his opposition vote both times.

The emerging majority not only embraces the machine Democrats, they reject conservatism and expect a bigger, more intrusive government in the style of Europe. To fight against that mindset is going to be nearly impossible.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

As with any trend, there is some noise that happens along the way, depending on the short-term conditions at the time. But keep in mind: Obama was the first Democrat to be elected with back-to-back majorities since JFK and LBJ did it in '60 and '64. Only once did a Democrat win a majority at all between then and 2008, and that was when Jimmy Carter won '76; he was swiftly defeated the next time around. Bill Clinton won by splitting his opposition vote both times.

The emerging majority not only embraces the machine Democrats, they reject conservatism and expect a bigger, more intrusive government in the style of Europe. To fight against that mindset is going to be nearly impossible.

I strongly disagree. If they select unlikable candidates and we select likable candidates, we can win. You're just buying the media hype. Latinos will "Americanize" and slowly become like Italians/Irish before them. Already "Hispanics" and "Latinos" are increasingly identifying as white. Look it up.

[sinkspur]

"Blue wall" is overrated IMO.

THe GOP just continually nominates crappy, unlikable candidates. Same problem the Dems had from 1972 to 1992.

Nominate better candidates, get better elections.

As for Trump, I was firmly convinced he was a "crappy candidate". Lately I'm wondering if the Trumpites are on to something. Either way, we're over the cliff with him as far as I can tell. Cruz has maybe a 1/10 chance of winning tomorrow, if that.

With Hillary, the "blue wall" is built on quicksand. With the right candidate, the GOP could break it.

The popular vote is a great indicator of who will win in November. The popular vote fails to elect a President only once every 100 years or so. Get a candidate who is personally appealing in 50 states and we will win.

I hope Trump is that man.

With three quarters of women and eight out of ten Hispanics having a very unfavorable view of him, there's little chance of that.

[libertybele]

There's just one problem with that: the Democrats have been breeding their next generation of voters for decades now: through immigration and birth control. Take a look at the trendline for the popular vote from 1972 to 2012: slowly but surely, Democrats have taken up more and more of the vote, and Republicans less and less. This while certain demographic groups have grown in proportion to the rest of the country, and these groups conveniently vote 2-1 Democrat or more—and not just Democrat, but as this year showed, MACHINE Democrat.

We're drifting toward a banana republic status, and it ought to frighten anyone who wants the government to leave them alone.

LBJ's 'Great Society' (1964) was the flagship of Democrat policies to ensure them generations upon generations of voters through dependency on government.  Enlarging government through various different programs and fully 'liberalizing' all aspects of our lives is now seen and accepted as politically correct.  The last mid-term election was a rejection of that liberalism and liberal policies; only the corruption in Washington is so rampant that very little change took place.

One person in Washington standing up against that corruption is Cruz and he is now in for the political fight of his life.  If he loses, and Trump becomes president,  he will create the ultimate dependency on government through more liberal policies, enlarging government programs and lining his pockets. He will be an even more corrupt dictator than Obama.   No one has stopped Obama, no one will be able to stop Trump.  We will have given one of the most wealthiest men in the world one of the most powerful positions in the world.  Banana Republic at best.  One World Order more likely.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

With three quarters of women and eight out of ten Hispanics having a very unfavorable view of him, there's little chance of that.

Welp, his supporters seem to think he has this "he's a sunova bitch but he's our sunova bitch" thing going for him. 

It's all we got now, frankly.

[Fishrrman]

Wierd wrote:
""Blue wall" is overrated IMO."

No.
It's real.
And "the wall" is expanding, growing higher.

The leftist states are full to bursting with liberals.
And they're "spilling over" into formerly-red states, the same way the water in the bow of the Titanic crept up over one bulkhead and then spilled into the next, and the next.

We've seen how states like Oregon, Colorado and Nevada have "tipped" in the west.
We've seen how once-fiercely-conservative New Hampshire now leans left due to the inflow from Massachusetts.
Once Connecticut was "the land of steady habits" -- now it's the land of steadily-elected leftists.
Look at Virginia -- until recently, proud of its Confederate past, now a modest leftist state. It may not vote Republican again.

How does leaving an unenforced southern border do anything but exacerbate this problem?
"The wall" is the bulkhead we need to preserve what's left, if even that can make a difference.

To those of you who still naively believe that the Republican party can attract the votes of the Hispanics, the Asians, the blacks, the Jews -- what does the historical record tell you? When have we ever received more than token support from such groups? After the first term of obama, something like 70% of the Jews -STILL- voted for the muslim-in-chief.

I wish I had optimism to offer.
But I don't.
I see "what is".
And the reality is that time is runnin' out for traditional-minded folks who still believe in "the old ways" in America.
The left has been at war with that ideal since the early twentieth century, and they never give up. Why should they? They're winning.

But, I've said this before and I'll say it once more:
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves..."

[TomSea]

All I can say, is the GOP and supporters can have some hope in how, it controls the House, Senate, most Governorships and most of the legislatures in the country.