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.
That reminds me of MTV from 1981 (Video killed the radio Star) till the late 1980s, the Martha Quinn days.
I recall my college Union food and hangout place had MTV on a big screen and we watched it, and or studied, between classes.
What a different country and world.
MTV is a cesspool now.
Similarly Levin was pretty happy with Romney till he lost. After the 2012 election he made it sound like he warned us all along.
And what did you expect Rush and Levin to do after McCain and Romney were the nominees?
Living in lib-land Maryland is funny to hear silly analogies on talk radio about how Ted Cruz would win states like mine, NY, CA, MA, if only he were nominated, because Reagan won them 31 years ago in his re-election.
It all sounds sooo easy... just like the shutdown in 2013 would repeal Obamacare...sooo easy.
Back to planet Earth, beating Dems in POTUS (high turnout) elections is only going to get tougher.
Steve Forbes.
As Gore would ask “are you being cereal”? Look, I voted for Bush, but his horrendous 2nd term is the reason the rats took Congress and Obama won the next election, 2003-6 the first extended period of time the GOP had Congress and the White House since the 20’s and it was a disaster. He was a failure and not a conservative and deserves to be called that, Alito is about the only lasting good thing he did, honorable mention for TRYING to get socialist security reform. Saying that doesn’t mean you wish Gore or Kerry was President any more than saying McCain and Romney are pieces of shite means you wanted Obama to be President.
And saying Jeb can go straight to hell doesn’t mean you want Hillary to be President.
How about before they were?
BTW : Rush telling us that they were going to win in landslides didn't make them win in landslides
The options in the 2000 and 2004 races were Bush, or Gore/Kerry.
It makes no sense to be upset now that Bush won, unless you think the others would have been better.
Spend your time getting the conservative nominated in 2016, and be thankful Bush won those two races.
You’re talking about age *when first elected*, right? Because Eisenhower turned 70 before leaving office.
I feel the same about Jeb as you do, he is a worthless turd and I’ll do all I can to see he doesn’t get nominated.
Cruz, Walker, perhaps Pence. I don’t see anyone else worth working to get elected.
Yup.
I left for Woomera, Australia in 1982. Did NOT have Cable TV—never had it, just the stations on the air...
Came back to the US of A in Feb 1984 and stationed in Wash DC. Had cable in the bachelor enlisted quarters. I think I watched MTV for 24 hours straight the first time. I remember “Jump”, “Hold Me Now” and “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun” as the top videos. Could not believe it!!!
I really missed the transition from disco and soft pop (Air Supply, Christopher Cross, etc.) to punk but I was happy to see it change!!!
Point taken and assimilated.
FReegards!
The ONLY WAY the Republicans CAN EVER win big is by following my tag line. I’ll update my home page soon with some detail.
And it was a different time too, a very different time and world and country.
No way could have an Obama been elected POTUS back then.
The economy mechanics was much different too back then, not just morals.
In fact same with the world situation regarding the military, war, and diplomacy, way different then now.
Recall it was the Cold War then, nothing like today in middle East. We dealt with nation states that could just be bombed.
Speaking of Alito just who was Dubya’s first choice to replace O’Connor?
Harriet Miers.
That supports your contention. I was happy to see Miers withdraw and Alito get the nod, but I was dismayed by Miers as Bush’s choice to begin with. That started the slide for my Dubya-love.
A few Years ago I collected my favorite MTV (1980s) era music vids, some are :
Go-Gos Our Lips are Sealed(and a few others)
Belinda Carlisle Mad about Love (man she was the hottest in that video)
Kansas fight Fire with Fire
38 Special “Hold On Loosely” (1981). “Caught Up in You” (1982)
Buggles , Video Killed the Radio star
Ozzy, Shot in the Dark
Rainbow (rock band) - “Stone Cold”,
Scandel, Goodbye to You
Takes about eight years, and the citizenry is fed up with the administration, and switches. Unfortunately, it’s the only game in town, and either choice usually sucks.
I was a Bushbot at the time, so I DEFENDED the selection, in the defiance of reason. I wised up.
BTW, this is a technicality but his FIRST choice to replace S D O’C was Roberts, then Rehnquist died and Bush withdrew Roberts and nominated him for Chief instead.
The country doesn’t “look” like that any more.
Not even close.
Look at the California and NY state elections over the 3 decades since then.
Now that Cali has the “jungle” primary there are a bunch of districts where the R candidate doesn’t even make it to the November election because the Democrats are the top two vote getters.
Yes, age at election. Or technically, inauguration, as those were figures I was looking at.
I’m upset that he ****ed up, not that he didn’t lose to the democrat. Major distinction.
You can support something shitey over an even worse option and still hate and bemoan it. We must remember the lessons of Bush 1 and 2, they both hurt the Republican party and let the democrats back in.
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.