Nate Silver: No, the Democrats don’t have a lock on an Electoral College majority

Hot Air ^ | May 12, 2015 | Noah Rothman

[Sasparilla]

If a state registers people to vote when they get drivers licences, then illegals in states that grant drivers licences to illegals will get registered while they are there.
The question asked at the in “motor voter” states at the license office is “ Want to get registered to vote today too?”

[Sasparilla]

If a state registers people to vote when they get drivers licences, then illegals in states that grant drivers licences to illegals will get registered while they are there.
The question asked at the in “motor voter” states at the license office is “ Want to get registered to vote today too?”

[MrB]

Their explanation of that was that people give the pollsters politically correct answers and then when the secret ballot comes up, they vote differently.

Now, the left’s solution, obviously, is to apply the same politically correct pressures in the ballot as apply in the pollsters’ questions.

[Comment Not Approved]

Always enjoy reading your posts. This one is spot on.

Amnesty kills the GOP off for good ... and maybe that’s not such a bad thing if it gets us closer to resetting the system. Because the political system as it exists today is beyond repair, the infection runs too deep.

[nathanbedford]

Thanks

[Din Maker]

Here's where we can get the 5 percent popular vote increase we need to change the EV count in 2016. I'm relatively certain that at least 5 percent of Blacks who voted for B. Hussein Obama in 2008 and 2012 will NOT be voting in 2016. They have had their Black President. The new has worn off and the novelty is gone. Not to mention that many in the Black community feel that the Brotha did nothing for them during his time in the White House. The Dems will NOT have a Black candidate in 2016. They will not empty out the jail houses, crack houses and HO houses on Election Day for Hillary like they did for Obozo in '08 and '12. And, that could be the 5 percent swing we need to change the EV count. Somebody give me some input on this. Am I right or wrong?

[Hawthorn]

>> Vermont is California with cows and maple syrup <<

And no state gun laws.

And a U. S. Senator (Sanders) who — unlike Boxer and her CA Dhimmi colleagues — is honest enough to declare OPENLY that he is a Socialist.

And no state taxes on trust fund incomes, which means the state has been overrun with filthy rich trust-fund kids from Beacon Hill MA and Manhattan NY.

And rural poverty that sometimes looks like the poorest parts of West Virginia and SE Kentucky.

In other words, as Howell Heflin might say, “Lotsa contradictions goin’ on!”

[Din Maker]

Plz give me your opinion of my Post #46. Thanks.

Din Maker

[MrB]

Sure sounds reasonable.

[max americana]

Where he can predict with the rest of leftard obama ass kissers on BSPN and teach Klownie the kenyan to spell “SYCACUSE”.

[nathanbedford]

I accept your premise that a 5% swing in the popular vote is needed to change electoral college vote count. And that raises the question, where will the change occur because geography is so important? It doesn't much matter what happens to the vote in California or Massachusetts but what happens in Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Florida and a few more swing states means everything.

This brings us to the question of ground game and the ability of an elitist, top-heavy, detached, elitist Republican party to match the proven abilities of the Democrat party to mobilize their voters. The Democrats have institutional advantages built-in, they have union power, both private and public unions, they have the unchallenged control of the African-American voting demographic which they have turned into a block and which they might be able to mobilize enough. I agree with you that the air has gone out of the balloon, but I simply do not know how efficient and thoroughgoing is their machine in the battleground states.

The African-American voting demographic is being eclipsed now by the Hispanic vote and the same question arises, how thoroughgoing and efficient will the Democrat ground game prove to be? I am skeptical that either Ted Cruz (whom I support) or Marco Rubio can make serious inroads into the Hispanic vote because they are of Cuban origin and there is evidence that that does not play out with Mexican-American and other South American voters.

My feeling is that the Hispanic voting block offers greater opportunity than the African-American demographic but either one of these groups should it be approached with a sound conservative message, one that speaks to middle-class aspirations. In other words, appealing to middle-class aspirations is not in any way inconsistent with a sound conservative message.

For example, immigration should be argued as a threat to middle-class jobs, jobs sought by Hispanics and African-Americans and being lost to an endless supply of illegal immigrants. There is no reason why conservatism and populism cannot be combined. Another example, crony capitalism can be attacked and they're sending jobs abroad while importing cheap labor can be a centerpiece of any conservative campaign.

There is utterly no chance that this approach will be taken by the likes of Jeb Bush or any other Rino because they have sold out to Wall Street. Marco Rubio has clearly forfeited any chance to seize this issue. But a real and serious fight on this level can win a generation of Hispanic voters to conservatism.

[Din Maker]

Thanks for your input. Very informative. I agree with you except on one point: I think that Rubio can redeem himself on the “Immigration” thing; but, time will tell. If we have a non-Hispanic nominee, I’d like to see Gov. Susana Martinez of NM be in the VP slot. She IS Conservative and would neuter the Dems “War on Women” strategy and would dilute Hillary’s appeal just because she is a female.

[MSF BU]

I’ve often thought that if Walker keeps making life tougher for the parasites then they would leave Wisconsin for greener pastures.