"The Democrats start with 246 electoral votes"

[Mac1958]

I'm seeing threads about polls on the direction of the country and Obama's numbers, but elections remain all about electoral votes. This piece is written by a conservative writer and blogger named Myra Adams:

Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever?

From the piece, the key point:

3. The GOP’s biggest problem is that Democrats start with 246 electoral votes

As Republicans gear up to “take back the White House” conservatives need to be aware of one startling fact: in 2012 if Romney had won the three swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, he still would have lost the election.


If you want to explore this new reality, check out www.270towin.com. There you can play around with the interactive map and plot out your favorite candidate’s path to 270.

For instance, let’s look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it’s coveted “battleground” status as polls begin to show its “blue” reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.

Or take Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, and New York, with 29—both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and blue they will remain. Then there’s the mega-rich electoral state of California with its 55 votes that turned red for the last time in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won that “California guy” Reagan’s “third term.”


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.)

Thoughts?
.
.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Bush at this time in office was around 20% compared to 50% for Obama. Obama isn't doing too bad!

The reason the democrats have 246 electoral votes right out of the gate is because most people want their government to govern. They don't want cut, slash and burn! They want infrastructure, science institutions, police, education, minimum wage, ssi, and on down the list. They believe republicans are fucking crazy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Give Romney Florida, Virgina, Nh and co and he still loses by 277 to 266.

George W Bush won Ohio and Iowa...That is why he won. I honestly doubt a kookpublican can win nev with the 10% hispanic shift. And Virginia and Ohio depend on the government too much to vote kookpublican.

Ohio made the difference all by its self.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Looking at 2016 electoral set up the republican could win florida, Virgina, North Carolina, Ohio...But lose Co, Nev, Nh and Iowa and lose the election 272 to 266.

2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College

 

[Derideo_Te]

The OP highlights the importance of not alienating the Hispanic voter base because they are vital in the swing states.

And no, not just in the states with large Latino populations. If the voter base contains only 5% Hispanics but if 3 or 4 out of 5 vote Dem that can be the difference between winning and losing that state.

 

[candycorn]

Give it 10-20 years. I will be very hard for a Democrat to win.
The GOP is dominating the State legislatures and State houses. A giant GOP farm team is forming and you'll see some of them win great popularity in a Dem Stronghold like California or New York.

As we saw with Trump, you don't need to be a republican to be popular with republican, just call yourself one and the WWE caucus takes up your cause; much like moths to a flame or pigs to a trough if you prefer.

At some point, when someone like this arises, they will be a more hybrid form of conservative; likely pro choice but definitely pro gun, pro DOMA, anti AA. The hard right will have to wonder if they are going to cut off their nose to spite their face or swallow hard and vote for whomever this newcomer is. As population shifts and the blatant racist in the GOP die off, you'll se a more congenial GOP take its place. The newcomer from Orange County or Westchester will win out.

Even now, democrats are being relegated to smaller enclaves.This will continue.

In truth, there are far more shades of purple out there than this map indicates but hardly enough to keep the status quo.

 

[Freewill]

I'm seeing threads about polls on the direction of the country and Obama's numbers, but elections remain all about electoral votes. This piece is written by a conservative writer and blogger named Myra Adams:

Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever?

From the piece, the key point:

3. The GOP’s biggest problem is that Democrats start with 246 electoral votes

As Republicans gear up to “take back the White House” conservatives need to be aware of one startling fact: in 2012 if Romney had won the three swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, he still would have lost the election.


If you want to explore this new reality, check out www.270towin.com. There you can play around with the interactive map and plot out your favorite candidate’s path to 270.

For instance, let’s look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it’s coveted “battleground” status as polls begin to show its “blue” reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.

Or take Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, and New York, with 29—both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and blue they will remain. Then there’s the mega-rich electoral state of California with its 55 votes that turned red for the last time in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won that “California guy” Reagan’s “third term.”


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.)

Thoughts?
.
.

Reagan did it twice.
GHWBush once
GWBush twice. and that was in a span of 30 years. So yes, there are enough sane democrats to make a difference. What the other insane democrats want you to believe is that the election is over before it started. Surrender now!!! Resistance is futile!!!!!

 

[JoeB131]

Reagan did it twice.
GHWBush once
GWBush twice. and that was in a span of 30 years.

Actually, GWBush stole the 2000 election, and the only reason he barely won in 2004 was because America has never fired a president in the middle of a war.

But here's the problem with your whole bit of reasoning about Pre-1988.

In 1988, Bush-41 won the same percentages by racial groups that the Weird Mormon Robot did in 2012. He got 60% of the White vote, Romney got 59. He got 8% of the black vote, Romney got 6. He got 30% of the Hispanic vote, Romney got 29.

But Whites were only 72% of the electorate in 2012, as opposed to 88% of the vote in 1988.

The thing is, the Democrat hasn't won the white vote since 1964, when even white people weren't crazy enough to give Barry Goldwater.

The GOP made a conscious decision with Nixon and the Southern Strategy to play on the fears of White People. Now that doesn't work for them anymore.

 

[jwoodie]

I'm seeing threads about polls on the direction of the country and Obama's numbers, but elections remain all about electoral votes. This piece is written by a conservative writer and blogger named Myra Adams:

Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever?

From the piece, the key point:

3. The GOP’s biggest problem is that Democrats start with 246 electoral votes

As Republicans gear up to “take back the White House” conservatives need to be aware of one startling fact: in 2012 if Romney had won the three swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, he still would have lost the election.


If you want to explore this new reality, check out www.270towin.com. There you can play around with the interactive map and plot out your favorite candidate’s path to 270.

For instance, let’s look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it’s coveted “battleground” status as polls begin to show its “blue” reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.

Or take Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, and New York, with 29—both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and blue they will remain. Then there’s the mega-rich electoral state of California with its 55 votes that turned red for the last time in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won that “California guy” Reagan’s “third term.”


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.)

Thoughts?
.
.

The geographical split is a lot like 1860. The question is how many of the swing states will vote for more Obama/Clinton. If the Democrats win again, the GOP should be disbanded in favor of a new political party.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Bush at this time in office was around 20% compared to 50% for Obama. Obama isn't doing too bad!

The reason the democrats have 246 electoral votes right out of the gate is because most people want their government to govern. They don't want cut, slash and burn! They want infrastructure, science institutions, police, education, minimum wage, ssi, and on down the list. They believe republicans are fucking crazy.

Isn't it time for Jeopardy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm seeing threads about polls on the direction of the country and Obama's numbers, but elections remain all about electoral votes. This piece is written by a conservative writer and blogger named Myra Adams:

Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever?

From the piece, the key point:

3. The GOP’s biggest problem is that Democrats start with 246 electoral votes

As Republicans gear up to “take back the White House” conservatives need to be aware of one startling fact: in 2012 if Romney had won the three swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, he still would have lost the election.


If you want to explore this new reality, check out www.270towin.com. There you can play around with the interactive map and plot out your favorite candidate’s path to 270.

For instance, let’s look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it’s coveted “battleground” status as polls begin to show its “blue” reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.

Or take Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, and New York, with 29—both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and blue they will remain. Then there’s the mega-rich electoral state of California with its 55 votes that turned red for the last time in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won that “California guy” Reagan’s “third term.”


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.)

Thoughts?
.
.

We need to break up CA electoral votes evenly into Northern CA and El Norte

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The geographical split is a lot like 1860. The question is how many of the swing states will vote for more Obama/Clinton. If the Democrats win again, the GOP should be disbanded in favor of a new political party.

If Trump gets the nomination the Democrats will win the White House and the Senate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Bush at this time in office was around 20% compared to 50% for Obama. Obama isn't doing too bad!

The reason the democrats have 246 electoral votes right out of the gate is because most people want their government to govern. They don't want cut, slash and burn! They want infrastructure, science institutions, police, education, minimum wage, ssi, and on down the list. They believe republicans are fucking crazy.

Isn't it time for Jeopardy?

How am I wrong? What other reasons would most sane people vote democrat???

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm seeing threads about polls on the direction of the country and Obama's numbers, but elections remain all about electoral votes. This piece is written by a conservative writer and blogger named Myra Adams:

Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever?

From the piece, the key point:

3. The GOP’s biggest problem is that Democrats start with 246 electoral votes

As Republicans gear up to “take back the White House” conservatives need to be aware of one startling fact: in 2012 if Romney had won the three swing states of Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, he still would have lost the election.


If you want to explore this new reality, check out www.270towin.com. There you can play around with the interactive map and plot out your favorite candidate’s path to 270.

For instance, let’s look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it’s coveted “battleground” status as polls begin to show its “blue” reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.

Or take Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, and New York, with 29—both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and blue they will remain. Then there’s the mega-rich electoral state of California with its 55 votes that turned red for the last time in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won that “California guy” Reagan’s “third term.”


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.)

Thoughts?
.
.

The geographical split is a lot like 1860. The question is how many of the swing states will vote for more Obama/Clinton. If the Democrats win again, the GOP should be disbanded in favor of a new political party.

The reason republicans fail is because the majority of the American people like ssi, medicade, infrastructure, science institutions and everything your party promises to cut. How is forming a even more rightward party going to win?? Your problem is a shit ton of moderates and some moderate republicans agree with the liberals on the basics of civilization.

 

[Freewill]

Reagan did it twice.
GHWBush once
GWBush twice. and that was in a span of 30 years.

Actually, GWBush stole the 2000 election, and the only reason he barely won in 2004 was because America has never fired a president in the middle of a war.

But here's the problem with your whole bit of reasoning about Pre-1988.

In 1988, Bush-41 won the same percentages by racial groups that the Weird Mormon Robot did in 2012. He got 60% of the White vote, Romney got 59. He got 8% of the black vote, Romney got 6. He got 30% of the Hispanic vote, Romney got 29.

But Whites were only 72% of the electorate in 2012, as opposed to 88% of the vote in 1988.

The thing is, the Democrat hasn't won the white vote since 1964, when even white people weren't crazy enough to give Barry Goldwater.

The GOP made a conscious decision with Nixon and the Southern Strategy to play on the fears of White People. Now that doesn't work for them anymore.

I am really tired of the left wing continuing to lie out their asses. The same SCOTUS that made law concering Obamacare and Gay marriage that you on the left LOVE ruled properly there was no stealing. Gore couldn't even win his own state, he is the one who tried to steal an election. Every recount said Bush won.

If Gore's lawyer had not lied to the SCOF, and he did lie, the thing would have ended there. But another democrat lies and gets away with it and now you lie about Bush stealing an election. Time to grow up and be honest.

You top it off whit the southern strategy lies. Those who keep trying to make the southern strategy about racism have had their ass handed to them so much it isn't funny but yet you continue on. Time to grow up and be honest.

I don't mind debate, I don't mind conflicting opinions but when a post is nothing but regenerated lies that kinda gets under my skin.

 

[mamooth]

I am really tired of the left wing continuing to lie out their asses

No, you're butthurt about being called out on your support of brazen election fraud.

Every recount said Bush won.

Every recount pointed out that, by any chad standard, Gore had more legal votes than Bush. Of course, they buried those numbers on the back pages, and trumpeted "Bush Wins!" on the front page, because that's what our conservative media is paid to do.

Again, by any chad standard, Gore had more legal votes than Bush in Florida. You can pout and scream and rage all you want, but when you're done, that unpleasant fact will still be there.
.
Why? Because under every version of Florida law, overvotes with clear voter intent were legal votes. Those votes should have been counted. They were never counted anywhere, not even once. They were spit out uncounted by the counting machines, and then rejected a second or third time during any "recounts". If there had been a full statewide manual recount of all votes under a consistent standard, as the Florida SC directed, those votes would have been counted, and Gore would have won comfortably.

It wasn't the Gore team that filed a lawsuit with the SC to prevent the legal votes from being counted. Your heroes did that. The chads were just the excuse they used to stop the legal votes from being counted.

You cheated, you won, so get over it already. Stop being such a sore winner. Isn't the pride you should take in your successful cheating enough for you?

 

[Freewill]

I am really tired of the left wing continuing to lie out their asses

No, you're butthurt about being called out on your support of brazen election fraud.

Every recount said Bush won.

Every recount pointed out that, by any chad standard, Gore had more legal votes than Bush. Of course, they buried those numbers on the back pages, and trumpeted "Bush Wins!" on the front page, because that's what our conservative media is paid to do.

Again, by any chad standard, Gore had more legal votes than Bush in Florida. You can pout and scream and rage all you want, but when you're done, that unpleasant fact will still be there.
.
Why? Because under every version of Florida law, overvotes with clear voter intent were legal votes. Those votes should have been counted. They were never counted anywhere, not even once. They were spit out uncounted by the counting machines, and then rejected a second or third time during any "recounts". If there had been a full statewide manual recount of all votes under a consistent standard, as the Florida SC directed, those votes would have been counted, and Gore would have won comfortably.

It wasn't the Gore team that filed a lawsuit with the SC to prevent the legal votes from being counted. Your heroes did that. The chads were just the excuse they used to stop the legal votes from being counted.

You cheated, you won, so get over it already. Stop being such a sore winner. Isn't the pride you should take in your successful cheating enough for you?

you are a liar beyond belief and that takes some on this board. What exact real count did Bush lose? The original count had Bush winning and whinner Gore already conceded. That is until his handlers told him that if they lied enough there might be a chance. And they did lie, they even lied in front of the SCOF and got away with it.

Why would I be butt burned it was your guy who lost, I suggest Prep H if it is still bothering you. Read the following an go and lie no more.

Vote Analysis: Bush Wins, Again

 

[mamooth]

QUOTE]What exact real count did Bush lose?

That's the point, shit-for-brains. There was no "real count" because the the Bush team sued to stop the real count that the Florida SC had ordered.

Damn, you're stupid.

On the plus side, you're not a liar, being you're actually stupid enough to honestly believe the crap you spout.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Republicans need to win Florida, Virgina, Ohio and either take Co or Iowa.

Bush won because he won Nev, Co and ohio...Nev is gone! And Ohio is worth 3 electoral less then it was in 2004.

Lose Ohio = lose the election. No matter if they win Florida, Virgina, co and Iowa.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Hispanic population is at least 1% larger now in florida then it was in 2010. Florida will be harder to win for them and this is before considering the growth of the asian and black population...Virgina's white population has also declined along with Co. Any of these three states could easily be lost by the republicans on election night

Iowa also hasn't been won since George w Bush in 2004 and either has Ohio that most important state needed.

Right now the odds are 75% that our next president will be a democrat. A massive turn out of whites would have to come out and the non-white population would need to stay home for the republicans to win. 2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map and History of the Electoral College