Posted on 05/12/2015 7:15:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Like the proverbial general waging the last war, America’s pundit class has dug in around a Maginot Line of conventional wisdom erected around President Barack Obama’s electoral coalition in preparation for the next engagement.
In a May article for Politico Magazine, the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics crew took an admittedly early look at the electoral map ahead of the 2016 contest and came up with some disappointing conclusions for Republicans. While it’s true that it’s too early to make any concrete assumptions about how the race for the White House will develop, it’s fair to note that the seven tossup states will give readers a sense of “déjà vu.”
“It’s effectively the same map we featured for much of the 2012 cycle, and it unmistakably suggests the Democratic nominee should start the election as at least a marginal Electoral College favorite over his or (probably) her Republican rival,” they wrote. “However, at the starting gate it is wiser to argue that the next election is basically a 50-50 proposition.”
Politico’s Dylan Byers chose to ignore that last sentence. “Let’s be honest with ourselves for a second: This is Hillary Clinton’s election to lose,” he declared.
On Nov. 8, 2016, Clinton will start — start — with a minimum 247 of the 270 electoral votes she needs to win. If you give her Colorado and Virginia — which many political strategists would, given the Hispanic population in one and the rising influence of the northern-centered population in the other — she’ll start with 269. That means Clinton doesn’t need Ohio or Florida. She just needs one small state like Iowa, Nevada or New Hampshire to put her over the edge. And because she’s got a boatload of money and no viable primary challenger, she’ll have plenty of time and resources to lock up at least one of those states.
Sure, Florida and Ohio are, as they have been for the better part of a half-century, must-win states for Republicans if they hope to secure 270 Electoral College votes. But Democrats have seen their firewall states in the Upper Midwest teeter over the course of the Obama presidency. What’s more, Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado – three states in which the “coalition of the ascendant” were supposed to deliver a generation of unbroken Democratic governance – are pure tossups or GOP-favored states at this early stage of the race.
Byers’ fatalism is not sitting well with statistics guru and FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver. In his latest piece, Silver took a dive into the historical data from 1992 to today and determined that electoral “locks” are made to be broken.
“[W]hen commentators talk about the Democrats’ ‘blue wall,’ all they’re really pointing out is that Democrats have had a pretty good run in presidential elections lately,” Silver wrote. “And they have, if you conveniently draw the line at 1992 (it doesn’t sound so impressive to instead say Democrats have won five of the 12 elections since 1968).”
He performed a series of tests to see how the Electoral College would swing with relatively minor shifts in the popular vote. A universally applied 5-point swing in popular vote results in a number of states shifting from one camp to the other and an Electoral College landslide. It’s a pretty fascinating dive into recent electoral history and fully worth the read.
Hey, look: I can get carried away, too. If the 2016 election turns out to be close, we’ll be sweating the small stuff by October and November. The difference between a 50 percent and a 55 percent chance of victory for Clinton or Marco Rubio or whomever because of Electoral College dynamics will seem like a pretty big deal.
But for now? The Electoral College just isn’t worth worrying about much. If you see analysts talking about the “blue wall,” all they’re really saying is that Democrats have won a bunch of presidential elections lately — an obvious fact that probably doesn’t have much predictive power for what will happen this time around.
I’m not saying Clinton is doomed. Rather, I think the “fundamentals” point toward her chances being about 50-50, and I wouldn’t argue vigorously if you claimed the chances were more like 60-40 in one or the other direction. But Clinton is no sort of lock, and if she loses the popular vote by even a few percentage points, the “blue wall” will seem as archaic as talk of a permanent Republican majority.
If there is smart money on the 2016 election, it’s still in the bright gamblers’ pockets. It’s far too early to begin making pronouncements about either party’s viability based solely on either the Democratic Party’s advantage with minority voters or the historical headwinds that will hinder Democratic prospects and benefit Republicans in 2016. It’s foolish to ignore the lessons of the last war, but no one ever has the fortune of being able to refight the battles of the past.
Same clown who was completely wrong in the UK elections.
The utterly disgraced far-left pundit, Nate Silver, is trying to pose himself as fair. The reality is that he’s 100% for the ‘RAT candidate in every single election. He’s a pointy-headed, pencil-necked metrosexual...and really, not at all bright in spite of the reputation that liberals have bestowed upon him.
The only way the Democrat party takes another Presidential election is if the Republican party runs another Democrat in an R jersey like McCain and Romney.
If they want to lose again, nominate Jeb Bush.
If they nominate Ted Cruz, everybody wins.
I don’t get what’s so impressive about him. He predicted a handful of swing states. Big whoop.
If we nominate the same usual milquetoast middling candidate, we’ll see the same results. If we nominate someone who inspires conservative turnout, we see different/better results. We’ve tried it the establishment’s way the last few times. Got lucky with Bush in 2004. But something has to change.
Well I am still dejected, as I there would have to be a nationwide awakening to actually thinking on their vote for a Republican to win office.
To be honest, Silver has been pretty much on, but has been off the last 2 years. I do think that he takes pride in his statistical work and does not take these last screwups lightly. I remember 2012. He did not predict the GOP overperforming in the 2014 midterms, but he did predict a losing night for the dems (of which the left ignored and screamed at him about).
Iirc...
He predicted 51 seats most likely with 52 plausible and 54 possible but unlikely.
Here’s the prediction:
Hillary and Faucahontes REALLY bloody each other and split the Dems between the new left and the old but form a ticket with Thighness as Pres and Faux as VP
The GOP repeats its last two elections by the book hoping third time is a charm with their establishment candidates flooding the primaries.
Of them, Walker emerges but will not overcome Cruz and a THOROUGHOLY fed up base. The battle for the top spot will be epic and Cruz will win because he has the guts to fight. Thus a Cruz/Walker ticket.
The sheer volume of cash spent will dwarf anything predicted today as the left pulls out all stops to deep six the evil racist homophobes. There will be 24/7 WARS by the MSM to crucify the Repub ticket on subjects that have yet to be invented.
The result will be a solid but non landslide win for Cruz/Walker, a now COMPLETELY divided America that ends up in violence beginning as the returns come back in and then the “fun” really begins.
Thats my prediction.
Basically it comes down to Florida and Ohio and right now I give the edge to GOP.
The number of hispanic citizens eligible to vote legally is still only 10% of the electorate. There are 20 million people out there who have given up on voting because there has been no one to vote FOR. Most campaigns have been about voting AGAINST.
Reagan Democrats are still out there, disgusted by the communists running their party, but not wanting to vote for plaid pants country club candidates that the GOP has offered.
Give them a Constitutional conservative and watch what happens.
Ted Cruz is aiming to bring in those millions that have given up voting.
I question the accuracy of a lot of the predictions for GOP/Dem Electorial College numbers. The reason being the Obamacare crap, illegal crap and the Trade/Iran crap. Both ways.
Ultimately I think we end up a lot more purple in the end. And in that purple, the states will see more blue to the cities and red to the rural areas. Yes, even more than the near completeness now. The city populations will be the driver of the purple.
I think thats right. Even with those predictions the left was yelling at him.
If I had known in 2004 that he had cut border and interior enforcement and that he was going to back McCain/Kennedy, I wouldn’t have voted for him again.
Cruz/Rubio (Not Martinez) is the strongest ticket available. It would be the equivalent of what was Clinton/Gore for the Dems but without all the scandals and evironmental whackism. It would be 2 young men with similar ideas doubling down.
All of a sudden the Democrats are in trouble in CO, NV, and NM. And Oregon won’t be a picnic for Hillary either.
If the GOP can’t win FL with this ticket then this whole exercise is pointless anyway, but Cruz/Rubio would be a lock. NC and MO wouldn’t be close.
VA would return as a Red State. NH would be a real battleground along with IA, OH, MI and WI.
PA would still tilt the slightest of blue and it would take a good deal of voter fraud to keep it that way because that state would be in play too. Those guys would dominate the suburbs even more than Bush did in 2000/04 when it was close.
Cruz/Rubio is an Electoral College landslide for conservatives waiting to happen.
Yeah Yeah, Walker/Rubio would be ok too, but not exciting as Cruz/Rubio and all of the states would be much closer.
That made my night. :)
That dems start with an almost 15 percent lead because of blacks hurts, but you are right. A Massive turnout among conservative white voters would be unstoppable.
In a recent poll, republicans, independents and even DEMOCRATS said they want the republican candidate to be more conservative
NOT EVEN CLOSE
The Republicans, if they perform as they did in 2014 - which means NOT RUNNING AWAY FROM CONSERVATIVES (or to put it another way...see my tag line) - have a LOCK on the South - will not even be close.
They also can EASILY lock-up the purple states (i.e., Florida, Ohio, Virgina, Colorado)...if they give whites something to vote for. Those are basically red state, and they will swing back.
Then comes the blue-leaning states (Michigan, Wisconsin, PA, and even possibly NJ and MN). Win one or two of them and it is OVER...and that is also VERY EASY as most whites in those states are FED UP with this bunch in DC and WILL NOT listen to their puppet-union-bosses in 2016 - and WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN if the Republican seems to stand for something.
...Cruz.
“The number of hispanic citizens eligible to vote legally is still only 10% of the electorate.”
What is the percentage of the electorate that are Hispanics here illegally and voting anyway??
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.