Conservatives have been in denial about Virginia for years

[Skill and Chance]

As we can see conservatives have been in denial Ohio as well just like they don't think Kasick or Portman is vulnerable. If Va was in play along with counterparts NV and Co they can't win. They, the GOP, have a 2004 strategy lock up Ohio and win prez. Never mind Va.

Becoming more populist would seem to be the dominant strategy.  Reach out to Hispanic voters and ramp up Midwestern SoCon turnout simultaneously. VA and NH would get worse for them, but they could take back the SW, improve in WI/MN/IA and, critically, keep FL away from the precipice:

[opebo]

Becoming more populist would seem to be the dominant strategy.  Reach out to Hispanic voters

What do you mean by populist?  If they're not going to move left of the Democratic Party they're not going to make sufficient inroads into the hispanic vote to win New Mexico or Nevada.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

NM and Ohio as well as Ia and NH is Hillary country. The GOP winning strategy isn't there in Ohio as we can see Bush needed 20 percent of the Black vote in Ohio. The others can be argued.

[barfbag]

NM and Ohio as well as Ia and NH is Hillary country. The GOP winning strategy isn't there in Ohio as we can see Bush needed 20 percent of the Black vote in Ohio. The others can be argued.

No one has a lock on it three years out.

[hopper]

NM and Ohio as well as Ia and NH is Hillary country. The GOP winning strategy isn't there in Ohio as we can see Bush needed 20 percent of the Black vote in Ohio. The others can be argued.

I thought Bush W. won 15% of the Black Vote in Ohio not 20%. I don't know about Iowa and New Hampshire being Hillary Country both have a lot of moderate voters. Hillary will probably win New Mexico I'll give you that,

[DS0816]

… I get bothered sometimes when one thinks that one party will dominate for a generation or more (which is the aspiration of many D's around here too). Its pretty unprecedented and hasn't happened since post Lincoln.…

Your response wasn't directed at me. But I can say that a part of what you're touching on is what I find intriguing. I think not too many forum posters with their impressive knowledge historically concerning the Electoral College had that before they arrived here. (Oh, some did!) What I will admit is that I didn't notice five, ten, twenty years ago that the country has had many periods of living in realigning elections in which one party was dominant with winning the presidency.  

I am a believer in Walter Dean Burnham's 30- to 40-year estimate of "cycles." That there is at least one catalyst which prompts a change that lasts for a long term. From when the Republican party first competed in 1856, those realigning elections began in 1860 (Republican; 7 of the next 9 cycles). The ones which followed were in 1896 (Republican; 7 of the next 9); 1932 (Democratic; 7 of the next 9); 1968 (Republican; 7 of the next 10); and I'll add to this 2008 (Democratic).

Realigning presidential periods were cited even before the Republicans of the 1850s. Though forum poster barfbag alluded to a pattern where one party tends to win no more than [2] consecutive cycles before a party-flipping of the White House, barfbag also has acknowledged, to some extent, cycles which went beyond two in a row. The last realignment saw a three-peat for the Republicans, with all from the 1980s, and no realigning presidential period—pitting Team Red-vs.-Team Blue—has had a limit of just two. Mathematically it cannot play out that way.

[barfbag]

… I get bothered sometimes when one thinks that one party will dominate for a generation or more (which is the aspiration of many D's around here too). Its pretty unprecedented and hasn't happened since post Lincoln.…

Your response wasn't directed at me. But I can say that a part of what you're touching on is what I find intriguing. I think not too many forum posters with their impressive knowledge historically concerning the Electoral College had that before they arrived here. (Oh, some did!) What I will admit is that I didn't notice five, ten, twenty years ago that the country has had many periods of living in realigning elections in which one party was dominant with winning the presidency.  

I am a believer in Walter Dean Burnham's 30- to 40-year estimate of "cycles." That there is at least one catalyst which prompts a change that lasts for a long term. From when the Republican party first competed in 1856, those realigning elections began in 1860 (Republican; 7 of the next 9 cycles). The ones which followed were in 1896 (Republican; 7 of the next 9); 1932 (Democratic; 7 of the next 9); 1968 (Republican; 7 of the next 10); and I'll add to this 2008 (Democratic).

Realigning presidential periods were cited even before the Republicans of the 1850s. Though forum poster barfbag alluded to a pattern where one party tends to win no more than [2] consecutive cycles before a party-flipping of the White House, barfbag also has acknowledged, to some extent, cycles which went beyond two in a row. The last realignment saw a three-peat for the Republicans, with all from the 1980s, and no realigning presidential period—pitting Team Red-vs.-Team Blue—has had a limit of just two. Mathematically it cannot play out that way.

Do you think we're in a realignment period? If you look at the 1970's and 1980's we see most states were or would have been trending especially if not for such landslides. However, in the 1990's and 2000's most states stayed about the same and had the same competitive battleground states. However, in the last two elections it's beginning to look like we'll be living in an age where we have 5 maybe but no more than 10 battleground states for each cycle. Some states are trending as well. Are we in another period of transition?

[roadkill]

Do you think we're in a realignment period? If you look at the 1970's and 1980's we see most states were or would have been trending especially if not for such landslides. However, in the 1990's and 2000's most states stayed about the same and had the same competitive battleground states. However, in the last two elections it's beginning to look like we'll be living in an age where we have 5 maybe but no more than 10 battleground states for each cycle. Some states are trending as well. Are we in another period of transition?

I think we're in the middle of a demographic transition and at the beginning of a transition that's going to happen in the Republican party because of it.  If you do a quick comparison between 2000 and 2012, you'll see that Romney did better with Republicans than Bush, 93% vs. 91%, and better with Independents, 50% vs. 48%, yet Romney lost by almost 4%. It's not that it's becoming impossible for Republicans to win.  It's just becoming slightly harder each passing election, building up tension within the party.  Sooner or later that tension is going to break, and there's going to be a shift.   

[barfbag]

Do you think we're in a realignment period? If you look at the 1970's and 1980's we see most states were or would have been trending especially if not for such landslides. However, in the 1990's and 2000's most states stayed about the same and had the same competitive battleground states. However, in the last two elections it's beginning to look like we'll be living in an age where we have 5 maybe but no more than 10 battleground states for each cycle. Some states are trending as well. Are we in another period of transition?

I think we're in the middle of a demographic transition and at the beginning of a transition that's going to happen in the Republican party because of it.  If you do a quick comparison between 2000 and 2012, you'll see that Romney did better with Republicans than Bush, 93% vs. 91%, and better with Independents, 50% vs. 48%, yet Romney lost by almost 4%. It's not that it's becoming impossible for Republicans to win.  It's just becoming slightly harder each passing election, building up tension within the party.  Sooner or later that tension is going to break, and there's going to be a shift.   

People are also wanting a more personal message than before.

[PolitiJunkie]

NM and Ohio as well as Ia and NH is Hillary country. The GOP winning strategy isn't there in Ohio as we can see Bush needed 20 percent of the Black vote in Ohio. The others can be argued.

No one has a lock on it three years out.

Of course not, but I do think the OC's overarching point that NM/OH/IA/NH will be friendlier to Hillary, whereas she may face more obstacles in CO and VA, is definitely on point. She's very strong with Hispanics and rural, working-class whites, but weak with latte liberal westerners common in Colorado and young suburban white professionals common in Virginia; both groups might go for Christie over her.

[barfbag]

NM and Ohio as well as Ia and NH is Hillary country. The GOP winning strategy isn't there in Ohio as we can see Bush needed 20 percent of the Black vote in Ohio. The others can be argued.

No one has a lock on it three years out.

Of course not, but I do think the OC's overarching point that NM/OH/IA/NH will be friendlier to Hillary, whereas she may face more obstacles in CO and VA, is definitely on point. She's very strong with Hispanics and rural, working-class whites, but weak with latte liberal westerners common in Colorado and young suburban white professionals common in Virginia; both groups might go for Christie over her.

If they run against each other it should shake things up. She'll have to campaign in trending states like CO, NM, and NV while Christie would have to back track in the Appalachians.

[Non Swing Voter]

If we can't eat into the north, then we'll be stuck under 300 EV. PA, NH, and possibly ME are the only winnable ones unless Christie runs and then NJ.

Isn't that the big worry among Republican strategists?  That it's becoming harder and harder for their candidate to have a clear path to winning.  They're having to depend more and more on winning just about every toss-up and/or getting slight upsets in Dem. leaning states.  Where as the Dem. candidate only has to win the states they're suppose to win plus one or maybe two battleground states.

Pretty much.  The states that both Gore and Kerry won are still pretty solid for the Democrats, with maybe 1 or 2 shifting to battleground states.

New Mexico has now moved to solid Democrat.  Nevada is really there as well. 

If you throw in Virginia and Colorado, which are trending fast, it starts to become almost impossible for the GOP to win without some upsets.

[DC Al Fine]

If we can't eat into the north, then we'll be stuck under 300 EV. PA, NH, and possibly ME are the only winnable ones unless Christie runs and then NJ.

Isn't that the big worry among Republican strategists?  That it's becoming harder and harder for their candidate to have a clear path to winning.  They're having to depend more and more on winning just about every toss-up and/or getting slight upsets in Dem. leaning states.  Where as the Dem. candidate only has to win the states they're suppose to win plus one or maybe two battleground states.

Pretty much.  The states that both Gore and Kerry won are still pretty solid for the Democrats, with maybe 1 or 2 shifting to battleground states.

New Mexico has now moved to solid Democrat.  Nevada is really there as well. 

If you throw in Virginia and Colorado, which are trending fast, it starts to become almost impossible for the GOP to win without some upsets.

This. The Dem states trending GOP are leaners turning into swing states while the GOP states turning Dem are swing states turning into leaners.

[hopper]

If we can't eat into the north, then we'll be stuck under 300 EV. PA, NH, and possibly ME are the only winnable ones unless Christie runs and then NJ.

Isn't that the big worry among Republican strategists?  That it's becoming harder and harder for their candidate to have a clear path to winning.  They're having to depend more and more on winning just about every toss-up and/or getting slight upsets in Dem. leaning states.  Where as the Dem. candidate only has to win the states they're suppose to win plus one or maybe two battleground states.

Pretty much.  The states that both Gore and Kerry won are still pretty solid for the Democrats, with maybe 1 or 2 shifting to battleground states.

New Mexico has now moved to solid Democrat.  Nevada is really there as well. 

If you throw in Virginia and Colorado, which are trending fast, it starts to become almost impossible for the GOP to win without some upsets.

Nevada is not Soild D. I don't why you D's think that.  Colorado is not trending fast it has been erratic in its PVI shifts through the last 3-4 decades if you really look at it. VA is a big worry I agree with you there on the R side. NOVA is left of center poltically and the R;s have lost contact with the political center nationally.

[opebo]

New Mexico has now moved to solid Democrat.  Nevada is really there as well. 

Nevada is not Soild D. I don't why you D's think that. 

Hispanics, really, I suppose.  Demographic change.  Also lots of Blacks and Asians there.  The chance of a Republican victory there gets less and less with each election cycle - by 2016 it is fairly remote.

[hopper]

New Mexico has now moved to solid Democrat.  Nevada is really there as well. 

Nevada is not Soild D. I don't why you D's think that. 

Hispanics, really, I suppose.  Demographic change.  Also lots of Blacks and Asians there.  The chance of a Republican victory there gets less and less with each election cycle - by 2016 it is fairly remote.

I heard Romney got like 48% of the Asian Vote in 2012 in NV so that's not a impossible demographic for the R's there. Hispanics yes that's a problem. Blacks always vote D by huge margins so nothing new there.

[opebo]

Nevada is not Soild D. I don't why you D's think that. 

Hispanics, really, I suppose.  Demographic change.  Also lots of Blacks and Asians there.  The chance of a Republican victory there gets less and less with each election cycle - by 2016 it is fairly remote.

I heard Romney got like 48% of the Asian Vote in 2012 in NV so that's not a impossible demographic for the R's there.

Pshaw, I'd wager he didn't get over 30% of Asians in Nevada, probably not even that.  Whats the source of your 'hearing' 48% voting Romney?

[ElectionsGuy]

Nevada is not Soild D. I don't why you D's think that. 

Hispanics, really, I suppose.  Demographic change.  Also lots of Blacks and Asians there.  The chance of a Republican victory there gets less and less with each election cycle - by 2016 it is fairly remote.

I heard Romney got like 48% of the Asian Vote in 2012 in NV so that's not a impossible demographic for the R's there.

Pshaw, I'd wager he didn't get over 30% of Asians in Nevada, probably not even that.  Whats the source of your 'hearing' 48% voting Romney?

Nevada Exit Polls

White (64%) = 56% Romney, 43% Obama
Hispanic (19%) = 71% Obama, 24% Romney
Black (9%) = 92% Obama, 6% Romney
Asian (5%) = 50% Obama, 47% Romney
Other (4%) = 51% Obama, 46% Romney

Hispanics is where Romney really f***ed up.

[opebo]

Nevada Exit Polls

White (64%) = 56% Romney, 43% Obama
Hispanic (19%) = 71% Obama, 24% Romney
Black (9%) = 92% Obama, 6% Romney
Asian (5%) = 50% Obama, 47% Romney

Wow, that Asian vote is radically out of whack compared to the national number of 73 to 26 in favor of Obama.   Perhaps a mix of a very unusual mix of Asian ethnicities in NV and the inaccuracy of exit polls.

[ElectionsGuy]

Nevada Exit Polls

White (64%) = 56% Romney, 43% Obama
Hispanic (19%) = 71% Obama, 24% Romney
Black (9%) = 92% Obama, 6% Romney
Asian (5%) = 50% Obama, 47% Romney

Wow, that Asian vote is radically out of whack compared to the national number of 73 to 26 in favor of Obama.   Perhaps a mix of a very unusual mix of Asian ethnicities in NV and the inaccuracy of exit polls.

Yep. Even if it is inaccurate its very interesting (its only 5% of the electorate though). However, where republicans really need to do better is with Hispanics. A combination of whites getting more republican and Hispanics getting more republican will make Nevada a true swing state against like it was for the Bush elections.

[barfbag]

Nevada Exit Polls

White (64%) = 56% Romney, 43% Obama
Hispanic (19%) = 71% Obama, 24% Romney
Black (9%) = 92% Obama, 6% Romney
Asian (5%) = 50% Obama, 47% Romney

Wow, that Asian vote is radically out of whack compared to the national number of 73 to 26 in favor of Obama.   Perhaps a mix of a very unusual mix of Asian ethnicities in NV and the inaccuracy of exit polls.

Yep. Even if it is inaccurate its very interesting (its only 5% of the electorate though). However, where republicans really need to do better is with Hispanics. A combination of whites getting more republican and Hispanics getting more republican will make Nevada a true swing state against like it was for the Bush elections.

Wow very interesting.

[opebo]

A combination of whites getting more republican and Hispanics getting more republican will make Nevada a true swing state against like it was for the Bush elections.

Yeah but unfortunately for your side, the opposite trends are manifesting themselves, and more importantly, whites are declining significantly as a share of the electorate everywhere and particularly in states like Nevada.

[barfbag]

Now that we're on Nevada instead of Virginia, there will come a day where the state is light blue even when Republicans win elections. It's just a matter of when. Right now it's just left of center and hopefully will be in play for one or two more elections.

[hopper]

Nevada Exit Polls

White (64%) = 56% Romney, 43% Obama
Hispanic (19%) = 71% Obama, 24% Romney
Black (9%) = 92% Obama, 6% Romney
Asian (5%) = 50% Obama, 47% Romney

Wow, that Asian vote is radically out of whack compared to the national number of 73 to 26 in favor of Obama.   Perhaps a mix of a very unusual mix of Asian ethnicities in NV and the inaccuracy of exit polls.

No actually the Romney Campaign put emphasis on the Asian Vote in NV(for some reason.) I heard this from a Republican Strategist on a C-Span Panel. The Asian Vote is partly why Dean Heller is still a US Senator that and the Independent Vote in NV.

[ElectionsGuy]

A combination of whites getting more republican and Hispanics getting more republican will make Nevada a true swing state against like it was for the Bush elections.

Yeah but unfortunately for your side, the opposite trends are manifesting themselves, and more importantly, whites are declining significantly as a share of the electorate everywhere and particularly in states like Nevada.

Whites are becoming increasingly unimportant and also becoming more conservative, or as you would put it "more racist". The emphasis for Hispanics will increase year by year for a while. And while it does, its important that either they vote more republican or whites vote republican enough to make up for their losses in the electorate.