Posted on 02/17/2015 4:17:04 AM PST by Kaslin
Do Republicans have a realistic chance to win the next presidential election? Some analysts suggest 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 following 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 11 and made up for that by winning 11 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 can be moved or just mobilized. It helps greatly if, like Obama, they increase their turnout in primaries.
Likewise, a Republican strategist looking ahead to 2016 has 12 states where 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.
At the top of the list are perennial targets Florida and Ohio. Just below, at 47 percent in favor of Romney, are Virginia and -- part of the supposedly immoveable blue wall -- Pennsylvania. Republicans nearly beat a popular Democratic senator in Virginia last year and have been making steady gains in blue-collar Western Pennsylvania. Those four states added to Romney's would give Republicans 286 electoral votes -- George W. Bush's winning total in 2004.
What states could Republicans target beyond that? A nominee with Midwestern appeal might go after Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota (42 electoral votes). One with Hispanic appeal could target Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (20 electoral votes). One with appeal to upscale whites could target Colorado, New Hampshire and Minnesota (23 electoral votes). One with working-class appeal might choose Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan (32 electoral votes).
Critics might ask whether a 2016 Republican nominee can count on all the Romney states. Certainly not, if the party is as unpopular as it was in 2008. And North Carolina, a 48 percent Obama state, certainly looks like a realistic Democratic target in a close race.
But Obama got no more than 45 percent in other Romney states. Of the six where he got 44 or 45 percent, Democrats have had little success lately, even when running candidates better adapted to the local terrain than Hillary Clinton would be. None looks like a good Democratic target.
Republicans looking to 2016 can learn from Democrats' 2008 success. Target wisely, and think of states you haven't carried in years. And use the primaries to expand potentially favorable blocs.
Who ran in 1984 that was like Cruz?
Obviously Reagan a conservative. Bush41, Dole, Bush43, McCain and Romney were no where near Reagan or Cruz as conservatives. They were Republican candidates. Bush 41 ran as a conservative in 1988 and promptly said screw you conservatives after his vistory and governed like a mushy liberal Republican and lost second time around. Aside from Bush 43 who won by the skin of his teeth both times, the gope liberal Republican candidates have gotten their asses handed too them. And these all ran as far away from Reagan as possible except for Bush 41 in 1988. They wanted nothing to do with conservatives except our votes and money. As you put it they ran like it was not 1984 each election save 1988 and lost in most cases.
All these liberal Republicans have managed to produce in they way of change was welfare reform in the mid-90’s and that was primarily the House under Gingrich. Throw in Justices Thomas and Alito and that’s all the bones conservatives have got in 30 yrs. of blind support for the liberal and duplicitous Republican party.
Reagan was already in office in 1984, so he was running a "stay the course" campaign -- or at least a lot of people who voted for him understood him as running such a campaign. In that sense, he wasn't as different from the other candidates you put down as one might think. If Ted Cruz gets the nomination and runs the campaign many expect, he wouldn't be running a "stay the course" campaign and wouldn't be able to count on support in some of the places where Reagan did well.
Also, how much more liberal in practice do you really think Bob Dole was than Reagan? In practice, that is, in terms of deeds rather than words. I get that Reagan talked about going further, but a lot of his support came from the perception that there was only so much that he'd be able to get through Congress. Maybe Dole should have been more rousing and promised conservative voters more (it wouldn't have won him the election), but maybe he recognized just how much change any president could really make in the system and didn't overpromise.
And also, is the country today the same as it was in 1984? Hasn't the political environment changed a lot since then?
Big Difference between then and now
Demographics
When things get bad White Socialist will cross over and vote Republican. Black and Hispanics will vote Socialist everytime no matter what
Unfortunately, the ethnicity and political principles of American voters have changed dramatically in 30 years.
Reagan voters in 1984:
White - 66%
Black - 9%
Hispanic - 34%
In 1984, 86% of voters where white.
In 2012, just 72% of voters where white (the 4 million who "stayed home" were Obama voters, not GOP voters).
Thought experiment...
What if Reagan had run against Obama in 2012?
What if Reagan got exactly the same percentages against Obama in 2012 that Reagan got in his landslide against Mondale in 1984?
Answer...
The popular vote between Reagan and Obama in 2012 would have been approximately Reagan 52% - Obama 47%.
The Electoral Vote for Reagan-Obama 2012 would be much more complex to calculate.
But, just estimating, it looks like Obama might win about 240, and Reagan would win about 300.
By the way...
What if Reagan ran against Obama in 2012 and got the same percentages Reagan got against Carter in 1980?
Reagan would have probably lost to Obama!
Unfortunately, 1980 was a "three man" race.
Reagan got just 56% of the white vote, but John Anderson, a left wing Republican, got 8% of the white vote.
No one agrees on how the white vote would have split between Reagan and Carter if John Anderson had dropped out of the race.
I don't think so. About 30% of the country really is conservative, and they will always vote for small government. Less than 15% really is socialist. The remaining 15% of democrats are big government liberals but not socialist, and the low-information voters who often vote democrat simply vote for The Other. Right now, with Obama in power, republicans are The Other and have an advantage with low-information voters. We're not guaranteed to win in 2016, but our odds are good. That's why we have to work so hard to nominate a real conservative.
Well Reagan promoted amnesty and got it done, GWB tried and failed. Is Cruz promoting amnesty? I don't see the connection between those two.
I hear the same thing on talk radio, the term ‘conservative’ is thrown around loosely like the term ‘the force’ was in the Lucas films.
If they are for something like shutting down the government, then its ‘conservative’. Sort of makes it meaningless.
RE Kansas fight Fire with Fire
Stellar band. One of my favorites.
RE 38 Special “Hold On Loosely” (1981). “Caught Up in You” (1982)
Same here.
RE Ozzy, Shot in the Dark
Jake Lee on Guitar - a MONSTER musician.
RE Rainbow (rock band) - “Stone Cold”,
Ritchie Blackmore (from Deep Purple) with Joe Lyn Turner on vocals... one of the premiere mid 80s hard rock bands. I learned all of his solos note for note; he IS Guitar 101...
RE Scandel, Goodbye to You
She was just plain CUTE...
LOL
:-D
Reminds of 2004 when I proposed the democratic ticket of Sharpton and Byrd, the Slave/Massa ticket.
That’s awesome!
Oh...FRANK RIZZO!!!
The flaw in your analysis is that freedom is a black-or-white (or black-vs-white) argument.
That is Democrat plantation-think.
Offer most people, regardless of skin color, the choice between subsistence via handouts and by productive labor and they will choose the latter. Sure, there are gibmedats that will vote for handouts, but they are not restricted to any racial or ethnic group.
The challenge is to communicate that vision with confidence and clarity. It is not a message of austerity, it is a message of growth and prosperity.
The argument that Democrats have XXX electoral votes locked up is defeatist and unproductive.
Believe it or not... I do NOT remember that one at all.
Maybe because I was into heavier stuff at the time. More guitar-oriented.
Dole was the ultimate liberal Republican. He was no more inclined to fight the democrats than McCain, Boner or McConnell are today. He surrendered on the Gingrich backed government shutdown at the very moment Clinton was about to surrender because the senate was looking bad. Dole wasn’t about a change in direction he just wanted his turn to run the show and control the $$$.
If I accept your premise the political environment has changed then the self-outing of the Republican party as socialist lite should have helped them correct? They ran Dole, GWBush with his compassionate conservative BS, McCain who is a traitor and should never have been called conservative or a Republican and Romney who should own the name Waffle House, all liberals and if your premise is correct they should have had a chance, especially Romney and yet lost and badly. The Republicans have accepted your premise which the media has perpetuated and have lost in most cases and barely won twice.
If you accept the changed political environment you promote then Jeb, Krispy Kreme or Romeny again should be a shoe in for 2016 and yet no one wants them except big business and liberal democrats/republicans. The conservatives loath all three of them. Democrats voters are not going to vote for them why should they?
Why would any self-respecting mooch vote for someone who says here have some other persons money, say $300 a month which you might have to pay back when the out of the closet liberal democrat says, here take a cool $1000 I took from this other guy and paying it back, don’t worry about that, just remember who stole it for you and gave it too you when you vote.
Yeah there is a choice but the choice is cheap liberal versus the real thing. How is that a choice? The only difference we are being offered in this new environment is the price tag each party will offer for votes. For a country that claims to be 60% conservative in nature that is no choice so tell me why am I going to waste my time voting and supporting someone who is liberal lite?
There has been no stark choice from either party since the 1984 election and in 1980 and 1984, the country was offered a very different path by each party. Since then we have been offered one path with the speed we travel down it being the only difference. My question is do we get another squish liberal go along, get along candidate or a real choice?
Reagan was promised border security and Congress reneged on that part of the deal. GWBush, obama and the current crop of liberal republican leadership all promise real border security and everyone knows it is a bald face lie. Where is the wall that was enacted into law in 2007 and funded yet has hardly been touched???
Some day, maybe soon, conservative sentiment will be so strong in the electorate that it will sweep a conservative to the Republican nomination and the White House, but if conservatives haven't been able to win the nomination since Reagan, could that be a sign that conservative sentiment in the country isn't as strong as some people think, and may not be strong enough in itself to carry any of the conservatives who've run to the nomination, let alone the presidency?
It could be that 60% of the country is conservative enough about some things to call themselves conservatives (Gallup says it's less than that, with almost as many people calling themselves moderates as conservatives, and we know how a lot of those moderates vote), but that doesn't mean that those voters are conservative about everything and would respond to a candidate who is conservative in ways that they aren't.
With people who say they are fiscally or economically conservative but socially liberal and those who are socially conservative but think Republicans are for the rich guys, it can be hard for Republicans or conservatives to get to 50%.
The trouble is the Republicans are no longer conservative in any sense of the word. They sold out on taxes and spending, they sold out on abortion, they sold out on immigration, they are in the process of selling out to the gay mafia and joining their sordid and tyrannical ranks, they sold out on obamacare. They are not socially or fiscally as they spend like drunken sailors with 6 months back pay everyday. About the only think they haven’t sold out is the 2nd Amendment-—yet, mainly because the NRA would tear them a new one and they know it. So they no longer offer a viable alternative to liberalism, just a cheaper version of it.
I don't have an “argument,” certainly not about “freedom,” anyway.
I just listed the non-white voting data, which has moved steadily to the Left for at least three decades.
If Thomas Sowell ran for mayor of Washington D.C., he wouldn't get 20% of the Black vote.
Re: “Offer most people, regardless of skin color, the choice between subsistence via handouts and by productive labor and they will choose the latter.”
Sorry, that's just not serious.
I've been in the workforce for 50 years. If I could have had the same standard of living by not working, I would have voted “YES” every day.
By the way - I've worked most of my life with blue collar ethnic groups, primarily immigrants, from every part of the world.
Since I'm a really nice, hard working, approachable person, many immigrants see me as source of wisdom on all things “American.”
You want to know the most commonly asked “lowered voice” question I've heard since 1960?
“What's wrong with American Black people?”
And what would you trade your 50 years of a productive life for? Would you be happy? Would you appreciate the things you had?
I know quite a few people that could retire and live very comfortably for the rest of their lives. These same people are also the-hardest working people I know. They are also some of the happiest people I know.
YMMV
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.