Republicans need to win 70% of the white vote to have an Obama 08 style victory

[DS0816]

I pushed hispanic up to 85% and dropped black down to 93% and white down to 35% (of dem share).  So the GOP wins 65% of white votes, increases its share of the black vote by a mere 2%, and collapses with hispanics.

Obama-esque GOP victory with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

If anyone thinks that the democrats are going to get the same turnout and share of the black vote in 2016 that they got when Obama was running for president, you're simply wrong.


Someone else in this thread mentioned 10% of blacks as a standard Republican number.  I gave the GOP that, 65% of whites, and 15% of latinos, and the democrats still don't win until 2024.

Republicans are not going to reach 65 percent from whites nationwide.

[DS0816]

It's not surprising that they would need that much. Republican strategy is almost totally reliant on increasing the white vote and not worrying about other demographics.

That’s because approximately 90 percent of the percentage of the U.S. Popular Vote—as received by a Republican presidential nominee—comes from whites [nationwide].

[DS0816]

If 70% of whites are voting Republican, then the Democrat is probably an incompetent fool who is widely unpopular.  I imagine that Republicans would make gains with minority voters in this situation.

^This, again.

I am getting so sick and tired of this whole "permanent majority" talk. Your party would be nothing if it wasn't for White voters in New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, etc.
Not to mention that Democrats won't win back the Congress for at least another 10 years if Hillary wins in 2016.

Because everyone knew that the Democrats would get slaughtered in 2010 and 2014 after Obama's strong election and re-elect.

I hate these declaratives...

The Democrats will have a tough time in mid-terms, regardless of which Democrat wins. This is the pattern now.

TNvolunteer is a Republican hack.

I notice that no one on the GOP side reflects on how awful it was that Ronald Reagan didn't have a Republican House. Why is that?

[DS0816]

A fair warning: extrapolation of a current trend, however tempting and easy it might be, and however appealing the curve of the trend may be, is one of the riskiest predictions available. Just think of how the stock markets were doing in the middle of 1929.


Can cultural trends tear down the Democratic Party? They did in the 1970s and 1980s. Can a Democratic President push too far and too fast, inspiring well-heeled elites to finance a counterattack that forces some of the most reactionary politics ever upon America? That is exactly what happened.   

Can Republicans push too far and too fast, alienating large numbers of voters? Stay tuned.

American politics implies coalitions of voters, some of those coalitions extremely fragile because of contradicting interests among members of those coalitions. The ascendancy of one Party over the other has typically involved one Party then in the minority poaching members of the current coalition of recent victories, members whose satisfaction with recent results is shaky at best.   

To put it another way: Neither of the two major political parties wins or loses all the time.