Does the Democratic Party have an electoral block in 2016?

[JimH52]

Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever - The Daily Beast

After totaling the electoral votes in all the terminally blue states, an inconvenient math emerges, providing even a below average Democrat presidential candidate a potential starting advantage of 246. Here are the states and their votes:

CA (55), NY (29), PA (20), IL (20), MI (16), NJ (14), WA (12), MA (11), MN (10), WI (10), MD (10), CT (7), OR (7), HI (4), ME (4), NH (4), RT (4), VT (3), DE (3), DC (3).

Let me repeat, if only for the shock value: 246 votes out of 270 is 91 percent. That means the Democrat candidate needs to win only 24 more votes out of the remaining 292. (There are a total of 538 electoral votes.)

So can the GOP win 270 electoral votes in 2016.....OR EVERY AGAIN?

Will we be burdened with a dysfunctional government until gerrymandering by the GOP becomes ineffective due to demographic changes?

This is a very inconvenient truth....which of course will be denied by all of the RW loons on USMB.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OH, FL, NC, VA will be the battleground states.

 

[JimH52]

OH, FL, NC, VA will be the battleground states.

True, that seems to be the case. I thought it was an interesting article with some "uncomfortable" truths that I am sure the GOP is running away from. If you consider the fact that the Dems start with 246 electoral votes in 2016 with the fact that the changing demographics are making it harder and harder for the GOP to gerrymander Congressional districts, the future success of the GOP is very much in doubt.

The midterms of 2014 was a battle that the GOP won, due mainly to Ebola, Fear of ISIS, and misinformation about the ACA. But battles are won, when all the signs point to a war that the GOP is losing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's all up to, "Will real Cherokees support Liz Warren"?

 

[rightwinger]

Under ideal conditions, Republicans are capable of just reaching 270 EV. Look at Bush in 2000 and 2004

But the demographics in battleground states has shifted to make it less likely Republicans can sweep those states

 

[The Rabbi]

It will depend on the extent to which Dems can mobilize the dead, illegal, and disenfranchised to vote.

 

[Moonglow]

If you look at history, the next president will be a democratic one...

 

[rightwinger]

It will depend on the extent to which Dems can mobilize the dead, illegal, and disenfranchised to vote.

FAIL

You left out "Free Stuff" and a liberal media

 

[blackhawk]

It depends on who the candidates are and what their policies are. When the Republicans took the Presidency three straight times with Reagan and Bush the elder we heard the Democrats were done then Clinton won two straight and the Republicans were done but wait Bush the younger won two straight then Obama did the same thing. Anyone else notice the pattern here?

 

[BULLDOG]

It will depend on the extent to which Dems can mobilize the dead, illegal, and disenfranchised to vote.

Well, none of that is actually true, but if that's what you have to tell yourself to maintain self respect, then go for it. Bottom line......you will lose even if you can't bring yourself to admit the real reason.

 

[Moonglow]

The GOP is still splintered as a party for presidential campaigns...

 

[rightwinger]

Its interesting to note that in the last six election cycles that when Democrats have won, they have won by huge EV margins and when Republicans have won, they barely reached 270

The margin for error with Republicans is very small. Everything has to go right for them to win.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that the OP left 7 states out of his calculations

 

[JimH52]

It will depend on the extent to which Dems can mobilize the dead, illegal, and disenfranchised to vote.

That is getting to be an old, tired, worn out excuse for the GOP to disenfranchise voters. In other words, try a different lie....

 

[The Rabbi]

It will depend on the extent to which Dems can mobilize the dead, illegal, and disenfranchised to vote.

That is getting to be an old, tired, worn out excuse for the GOP to disenfranchise voters. In otherwise, try a different lie....

Truth hurts, eh?

 

[AceRothstein]

It depends on who the candidates are and what their policies are. When the Republicans took the Presidency three straight times with Reagan and Bush the elder we heard the Democrats were done then Clinton won two straight and the Republicans were done but wait Bush the younger won two straight then Obama did the same thing. Anyone else notice the pattern here?

There are a number of states that the Democratic Party candidate has won in each election dating back to 2000. The electoral votes of those states adds up to 242. If you add in New Mexico & New Hampshire, have gone blue 3 of the last 4 elections, then you are up to 251. The Republicans basically need a clean sweep of every swing state in order to win a presidential election.

The only way this doesn't hold true is if you think the Republicans can start turning some of those solid blue states into swing states.

 

[AceRothstein]

Odd that the OP left 7 states out of his calculations

???

The OP only listed the solidly blue states.

 

[GHook93]

OH, FL, NC, VA will be the battleground states.

True, that seems to be the case. I thought it was an interesting article with some "uncomfortable" truths that I am sure the GOP is running away from. If you consider the fact that the Dems start with 246 electoral votes in 2016 with the fact that the changing demographics are making it harder and harder for the GOP to gerrymander Congressional districts, the future success of the GOP is very much in doubt.

The midterms of 2014 was a battle that the GOP won, due mainly to Ebola, Fear of ISIS, and misinformation about the ACA. But battles are won, when all the signs point to a war that the GOP is losing.

Most people recognize this. However, I think PA-20, MI-16 and WI-10 are more in play (although left leaning) then you want to give credit for?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that the OP left 7 states out of his calculations

???

The OP only listed the solidly blue states.

 

[rightwinger]

Last 6 Presidential elections

92 Dems 370 Repubs 168
96 Dems 379 Repubs 159
00 Dems 266 Repubs 271
04 Dems 251 Repubs 286
08 Dems 365 Repubs 173
08 Dems 332 Repubs 206


Under the best of conditions, the Repubs barely reach 270 EVs while the Dems run up well into the 300+ range

This puts the Republicans at a distinct disadvantage in winning the Whitehouse