Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: onyx

Not trying to be a pessimist here, but let’s stay realistic. Um, “monster vote”…?

I do think Trump was the best viable choice, but this still looks like a longshot at the moment.

Problem is the demographics of the electoral college have been creeping ever leftwards since at least 2000, if not prior. Consider that Bush’s 2004 reelection was considered a ‘mandate’ +2.5% net popular vote—yet a mere 17 electoral vote difference could’ve given it to Kerry instead.

We’ve had 12 years of increasingly shrill Progressivism since then. Which is a long time, and much has changed.


9 posted on 05/07/2016 11:28:18 PM PDT by Utmost Certainty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Utmost Certainty

Many people just haven’t bothered to vote until Trump came along. The “creeping Progressivism” is due to people not voting.

You say, much has changed; I say nonsense. There were people attending Trump’s rallies, people in their eighties, who felt they never had a reason to vote before he came along. Trump will be a game changer.


11 posted on 05/07/2016 11:41:52 PM PDT by SatinDoll (A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS BORN IN THE USA OF TWO USA CITIZENS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Utmost Certainty

In what you say you have completely discounted as any possibility the existence of the “monster vote”. You claim since 2000 the electorate has moved ever leftward and while that may be true it is tantamount to saying because this has happened it will be forever so.

No difference between what you are saying and those who claim if the stock market moves up for a prolonged period of time it will never go down. Those who discard any possibility of a change all say the same thing, “it’s different this time.”

I don’t know if the election turnout will include these previously disconnected voters but they DO exist. If they come out all or in part it surely will make a difference and from what we have seen in the vote totals for the candidates these previously dormant voters will in the main come out for Trump if he is the nominee, which seems probable at this time.


13 posted on 05/08/2016 12:55:46 AM PDT by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Utmost Certainty
"Consider that Bush’s 2004 reelection was considered a ‘mandate’ +2.5% net popular vote—yet a mere 17 electoral vote difference could’ve given it to Kerry instead."

2004:
B [R] 62,040,610
K [D] 59,028,439
Total: 121,069,049

I don't remember anyone calling this a mandate, but I do remember it taken more as an affirmation of Bush v Gore.

This, on the other hand, was a wave election, and Bobo did claim a mandate:

2008:
M [R] 59,950,323
O [D] 69,499,428
Total: 129,449,751

Which Bobo promptly squandered on ObysmalCare:

2010:
House [D] 35,377,756 (46.2%)
House [R] 41,128,504 (53.8%)
Total: 76,506,260

The real question is, what percentage of awakening The Monster Vote is sufficient, when added to the number of Dems who will stay home this time?

50 posted on 05/08/2016 7:34:12 AM PDT by StAnDeliver ("Too bad your overhauled unicorn start-up failed, Ted.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson