Does the Democratic Party have an electoral block in 2016?

[Edgetho]

have a electoral map from back then, showing that?

Yes, they are all over the internet. The '84 election was so long ago it shows us nothing about current voting trends.

OK, then was Reagan expected to win that landslide?

Yes, the final poll in 1984 matched the election result.

Now what was it 2-3 months before?

Reagan winning by a large margin.

Gallup Presidential Election Trial-Heat Trends 1936-2004

In Feb of 1984 it was tied.

 

[rightwinger]

Half of those Reagan voters are dead

Looks like they now vote Democratic

Dead people vote Democrat. We already knew that, thus voter id laws. It is big of you to admit it.

Don't blame me if Republicans can't draw the deceased vote

 

[AceRothstein]

Yes, they are all over the internet. The '84 election was so long ago it shows us nothing about current voting trends.

OK, then was Reagan expected to win that landslide?

Yes, the final poll in 1984 matched the election result.

Now what was it 2-3 months before?

Reagan winning by a large margin.

Gallup Presidential Election Trial-Heat Trends 1936-2004

In Feb of 1984 it was tied.

Oh wow, one poll 9 months before the election showed it was tied.

 

[Meathead]

Half of those Reagan voters are dead

Looks like they now vote Democratic

Dead people vote Democrat. We already knew that, thus voter id laws. It is big of you to admit it.

Don't blame me if Republicans can't draw the deceased vote

Yeah, they don't have the support of NGOs like ACORN.

 

[rightwinger]

Half of those Reagan voters are dead

Looks like they now vote Democratic

Dead people vote Democrat. We already knew that, thus voter id laws. It is big of you to admit it.

Don't blame me if Republicans can't draw the deceased vote

Yeah, they don't have the support of NGOs like ACORN.

You forgot Low Information Voters

 

[Meathead]

You forgot Low Information Voters

Yeah, but you can't stop them from voting. That's how Obama became president. Remember Hope & Change?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

And even less likely with a Republican agenda hostile to immigrants, women, and gay Americans.

 

[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?

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.

As I said depends on the candidates and policies again I have heard both parties are done many times. The one thing you can always count in politics is there is no sure thing .

 

[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

And even less likely with a Republican agenda hostile to immigrants, women, and gay Americans.

While Republicans have solidified their stranglehold on red states with recent policy changes, they have moved more battleground states toward the blue

Winning strategy for the House, losing strategy for the White House