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.
sickoflibs would nominate a Jeb Bush type just so we could appeal to the moderates and Latino voters. /sarc
One size never fits all. I wonder if it's possible to have a politician say I'm all for higher taxes and bigger gov and going bankrupt in the cities, and lower taxes and less gov and sound budgets in the exburbs. If they could deliver, I'd vote for them no matter their Pepsi or Coke brand. Let the cities have what they want and implode like an atomic warhead went off.
The Detroit example:
I disagree:
Harry S Truman 8 years, democrat.
Dwight D. Eisenhower 8 years, republican.
JFK/LBJ 8 years, democrat.
Nixon/Ford 8 years, republican.
Jimmy Carter only 4 years, democrat.
Reagan/Bush finishing Carter's last four plus the GOP 8 for 12 years, republican.
Bill Clinton 8 years, democrat.
George W. Bush 8 years, republican.
Barack Hussein Obama 8 years, communist.
Other than Carter's abject failure, we have alternated with the socialists every eight years. My guess - we'll go GOP in 2016 for eight years. If we elect a conservative firebrand, America may survive. If we elect a RINO, America will die in abject poverty and misery during the next liberal 8 year cycle. This is by far the most dangerous time in America's history. We cannot afford a weak candidate who will merely hold the line on government encroachment into our lives. We must elect someone who will roll back the creeping (and creepy) misery of FedGov overreach.
Understood. I think he could clear it all up though with an official stated position on it that won’t change for the next two years. Here’s hoping.
“All Walker needs to do is to categorically establish a clear position on it. Say that he is against legalizing illegals that are here (illegally) and not for allowing any of them to obtain citizenship in any fashion.”
He did that in the interview with Bret Baier a while back.
I hope your right, but I am just doing analysis. I just post Cold War presidential elections and they don’t look good. Also, our country was in paltry shape in 2012, especially the economy, yet buffoons ate up the media fed lies and re-elected an epic fail of an administration.
Yep, I am a regular old Bush-bot, everybody knows that, especially OWF
‘HE KEPT US SAFE’
I figure that Hillary will probably win all of the Kerry states. They were worth 252 back in the previous decade, but now they’re worth 246. Hillary will probably do a tiiiiiny bit better than Obama did among working class white voters and females, which should help her hold onto those Rust Belt states.
Nevada & New Mexico look like they’ve been invaded successfully by Obama’s “Dreamers.” That’s another 11.. 257EVs.
So they need 13 more out of VA(13)/NC(15)/FL(27)/OH(18)/IA(7)/CO(9).
We need to drive conservative turnout like no other year ever.
George H.W. Bush got over 400 electoral votes with 61% of the white vote. Mitt Romney got half of that with 61% of the white vote. We have to find a way to appeal to non-white voters - but as far as I’m concerned, the country isn’t worth saving if it takes selling our souls.
To my mind, Federal Government has no business in creating jobs, supporting or bailing out cities controlled by urban politicians or any of that extra-constitutional crap it has been doing for near a century.
IMO, its duty is to protect us from without and provide an unfettered environment that allows opportunity within.
I could give a rat’s pattootie what happens to any urban city or state that allows its own largess to overload its capacity to maintain it. They get what they asked for.
Perfect example, Rush spits out this narrative all the time.
But he predicted that both Romney and MCcain would beat Obama in landslides.
Similarly Levin was pretty happy with Romney till he lost. After the 2012 election he made it sound like he warned us all along.
“I just think the overwhelming problem are the idiot voters who are brainwashed in publik skools all their life and then watch Jon Stewart for their news and think they are informed.”
Ultimately government, and its leaders, reflect the intelligence and morals of the population. An intelligent, well read, self sufficient, and moral population would not elect or tolerate 98% of the politicians running government today.
Yep. I watched that interview. His answer was “I’m against Amnesty.” Along with “secure borders”. Brett’s follow up about what to do with the 11 million here was met with [paraphrased] “....we’ll talk about it later....” or similar. If you go ask Boehner or McConnell, they’ll outright tell you they’re against amnesty, but you know in the back of their little minds they’ve redefined what they really want to not be amnesty.
Look, we’ve all been there done that with a politician’s fondness for triangulating on the specific “Amnesty - I’m against it....” but then comes the equivocation in the specifics about pathways, legalization, normalization, fines apply this apply that. It just doesn’t wash.
Amnesty to mean means any form of capitulation, legalization, pathway, sidewalk, fines, go home-come back, ANY of that mess. Current law says illegals are criminals and verified criminals should not be allowed to attain citizenship.
Regardless, I’ll look forward to Walker’s elucidation on what exactly his statements about “...talk about that later...” actually means. He’s gonna have to really explain it if he wants my vote.
Unfortunately, FR sometimes takes people there too.
If one's only political discussions are with freepers or like minded people, it's easy to fall into dreaming about a conservative base tsunami which will overwhelm the GOP and the nation.
This is fun to dream about, in the same way someone would dream about winning the lottery.
But then on the Wednesday after primary or election day, you see lots of people on FR who have had their beebers thoroughly stuned, mumbling about secret mind control rays coming from Karl Rove's basement, or something....
1984!!!
But not Orwell's 1984, but rather Reagan's.
How I wish is was!
From "Where's the beef?" to "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."
A few of my favorite 1984 tunes...
Thomspon Twins, "Hold me now"
Madonna, "Borderline"
Michael Jackson, "Thriller"
Sheila E., "The Glamorous Life"
John Waite, "Missing You"
Nena, "99 Luftballons"
Sade, "Smooth Operator"
a-ha, "Take on Me"
Van Halen, "Jump"
Pat Benatar, "Love Is a Battlefield"
Steve Perry, "Oh Sherrie"
Ray Parker Jr., "Ghostbusters"
Scorpions, "Rock You Like a Hurricane"
"Weird Al" Yankovic, "Eat It" (Better than "Beat it")
Eurythmics, "Here Comes the Rain Again"
Cyndi Lauper, :Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"
Movies of 1984
The Terminator
Ghostbusters
Red Dawn
Footloose
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Amadeus
16 Candles
The Karate Kid
Johnny Dangerously
Beverly Hills Cop
Gremlins
The Killing Fields
Since the GOP hasn’t had a Conservative POTUS candidate since Regan, what do you base your opinion on?
ROTFL
Those were the days, BEFORE calling the Bushes what they are was cool. In fact it was downright frowned upon, the Bushbots were legion. “My president right or wrong”! Or left.
Please try not to confuse the bad news with its bearer.
Who would you have rather had in charge on 9-11, Gore or Kerry?
Our last 3 failed nominees,
Romney, would have been the 4th oldest (just a day behind #3 James Buchanan, an awful President, #2 was WH Harrison who sadly got sick and died after a month. he might have been decent)
McCain (would have been the oldest)
Dole (would have been the oldest, even older than McCain was in 2008)
Relevant? I sure think so. Ronald Reagan was one of a kind.
Hopefully it’s a major issue for Shillery, who would supplant Harrison as #2.
Given that GWB fought the war at about 60% effort and then left office with it un-won after seven years, in the long run it sadly did not make a lot of difference.
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.