Wisconsin voters and Walker's presidential prospects

[Ljube]

What this proves is that the current Democratic coalition only performs when Obama is on the ballot.

[Ljube]

What this proves is that the current Democratic coalition only performs when Obama is on the ballot.

The current Democratic coalition performed in 2006.

It also worked for McAuliffe in the 2013 Virginia Governor's race.

The Democratic coalition of 2006 wasn't the current/Obama Democratic coalition. Youth were 12%, blacks were 10% and Hispanics were 8%. Women were 51%.

So it was not the Obama coalition. It was a backlash against a very unpopular incumbent president:

VOTED TODAY TO...

Support Bush (22%)
Oppose Bush (36%)
Bush Not a Factor (39%)    


About Virginia in 2013, I don't know. I think Virginia is too far gone for Republicans, same as Georgia for Democrats.

[Ljube]

I'm clearly biased, but unless the election is held under favorable GOP conditions, Walker is not going to beat Clinton here.

Here's a question for you. If Walker doesn't win in 2016, when do you think a Wisconsinite will ever again be in a position to win the presidential election? So, why not take this unique opportunity and vote for him?

If you are still biased and won't vote for Walker even in light of such strong argument, imagine what other Wisconsinites will do when looking at a ballot with Walker's name on it. Surely, at least some 10% of his opponents will back him simply counting on him doing something for Wisconsin.

[Ljube]

The question is whether Walker would do things to deliver the electoral votes of Wisconsin through some legislative chicanery. Here is his optimum:

Base the electoral vote on a winner-take-all basis on Congressional districts, so that if the Republican wins five districts by 51-49 margins and loses three by  70-30 margins, Wisconsin could go nearly 55-45 for the Democrat and still give ten electoral votes to the Republican.

It's not fair. It's just what the Governor's string-pullers want. Whether the US Supreme Court would stand for something that so distorts the popular vote is in doubt.

Now that you mention this, let's do it in Michigan!

[Ljube]

The question is whether Walker would do things to deliver the electoral votes of Wisconsin through some legislative chicanery. Here is his optimum:

Base the electoral vote on a winner-take-all basis on Congressional districts, so that if the Republican wins five districts by 51-49 margins and loses three by  70-30 margins, Wisconsin could go nearly 55-45 for the Democrat and still give ten electoral votes to the Republican.

It's not fair. It's just what the Governor's string-pullers want. Whether the US Supreme Court would stand for something that so distorts the popular vote is in doubt.

Now that you mention this, let's do it in Michigan!

Since you endorse undemocratic government, why don't you move to where it already exists?

Russia has one of the richest cultures in the world.
Chinese women are beautiful. 

I was joking, of course.
I don't see any of that happening. Ever.
And I would most definitely be against it.

[Ljube]

I'm clearly biased, but unless the election is held under favorable GOP conditions, Walker is not going to beat Clinton here.

Here's a question for you. If Walker doesn't win in 2016, when do you think a Wisconsinite will ever again be in a position to win the presidential election? So, why not take this unique opportunity and vote for him?

If you are still biased and won't vote for Walker even in light of such strong argument, imagine what other Wisconsinites will do when looking at a ballot with Walker's name on it. Surely, at least some 10% of his opponents will back him simply counting on him doing something for Wisconsin.

He is so polarizing here that that argument will not make a dent, look how Ryan moved the dial here. 500k Obama voters didn't show up this year. 80% of them will vote in '16, game over.

Why would they vote in 2016? Why didn't they vote in 2014?