Electoral College problems for Republicans

[New_Conservative]

Virginia is a lost cause at this point, in my opinion. Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Hampshire are better targets for the GOP.

[Nichlemn]

JMO, but this board severely overrates how loyal NH is to the Democratic Party.

This board in generally severely overrates the degree to which past performance are indicative of future results. Like see:

I agree on NH, but MN, PA and ME-02 are pipedreams. As a rule of thumb, I'd say if Bush could not win it in either 2000 or 2004, it is unattainable in 2016. (I include WI as a Bush 2004 win, he just never bothered to challenge the close result there.)

This irrationally over-weights the significance of the 2004 political environment while ignoring clear trends since. It'd be like saying in 2006 that Democrats were more likely to win Kentucky than Virginia in 2008, because Clinton won Kentucky twice but lost Virginia twice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This map is consistent of a GOP popular vote win of 2-4 points (and some trends reversing). And you're saying that only has a 1 in 1000 chance of happening? There haven't been close to 1000 elections in US history and even then there have been many large victories, even in open seats. I'd say the GOP have better than 1 in a 1000 odds of a 50 state sweep. The chance of the GOP winning a modest victory of this magnitude are at least 10% (if you're bullish on Dems) and more realistically 20%+.

[BlueSwan]

JMO, but this board severely overrates how loyal NH is to the Democratic Party.  It would go GOP in a favorable environment with a solid candidate.  A Republican ceiling right now (not counting a big landslide/unordinary candidates) still looks like this, IMO:

Now yes, this is a CEILING, but it's possible.  It's not likely, but presenting the OP as the "best the GOP can do" is way wrong.

I still have a hard time seeing Minnesota go for the GOP, but otherwise I think this map is pretty spot on.

And I don't even think it is that unlikely. I think this board tends to overestimate trends and demographics and underestimate the effectiveness of the Obama campaign when explaining the 2012 results.

Lets not forget that in 2016, we will have had a democratic president for 2 periods. If there is one semi-universal rule in western democracies, it is that people want change after about a decade or so. Sure there are exceptions, like long conservative rule in Britain and Germany in the 80's to mid 90's or long social democratic rule in Scandinavian countries in the 50's, 60's and 70's, but generally speaking, unless the party in charge is very popular, it is hard for that party to maintain power for much more than a decade.

That has certainly been the case regarding the US presidency. The only post-Truman exception is Bush the Elder, who really was trailing Dukakis pretty badly and would likely have lost if it hadn't been for the Willie Horton/Kitty Dukakis debacle. Even Al Gore who followed a popular outgoing president Clinton, couldn't defeat a not-particularly-formidable GOP candidate.

I'm definitely not saying that the dems can't win 2016. Infact, if Hillary is on the ballot I think they will win. But they really do need her on the ballot.

But there are a number of factors that could make that map come true for the GOP:

1) If Hillary is not on the ballot and the dems nominate a typical generic technocrat.

2) If the GOP nominates someone electable (i.e. not Cruz or Santorum)

3) If there's an economic downturn or other major Obama-backlash

If all three of the above are true, I think that map is a pretty likely result. However, as it is now, the following circumstances look more likely:

1) The dems nominate Hillary.

2) The GOP has a spectacle of a primary and ends up picking someone electable but still leaving the impression that the party is full of wingnuts - i.e. just like in 2012.

3) Things are pretty much as they are now politically and economically.

In that case, Hillary is going to be tough to beat.

[Ljube]

I don't expect the Republicans to repeat the debacle of the 2012 primaries.
In addition to this, the candidates this time look better.
In addition to this, Hillary is a weaker candidate than Obama.
In addition to this, Hillary is too old. That fact alone will play a big role.


Ted Cruz will be dead in the water after Iowa and New Hampshire, or maybe even before that.

I see Bush, Christie and Rubio as established candidates.
Ryan is a possibility, but his fiscal conservatism would be inappropriate for 2016, because Republicans need high margins with whites, and they don't want to put off the white worker class.

Which one of those I mentioned would stand a chance against Hillary?
Which other candidate I didn't mention could be a serious contender?

[kohler]

By 2016, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.   

[King]

As a citizen of 2012, I recall nobody thought the economy was good. It was not up for debate.

Hillary's floor is not 34%. She's not going to do 5 points worse than the black man and 10 points worse than her husband with white people.

[Ljube]

OK. But if her floor is 38% whites, then the election is already lost.
Hence this thread.

It may be necessary to resort to a candidate being personally able to carry FL, VA, OH and IA without winning the popular vote, like G. W. Bush.

[Devils30]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/30/hillary-clinton-electoral-college-problem

This article might be correct on Iowa and Colorado but it neglects Hillary's numbers in Florida. I also caution against comparing polls from different pollsters in different states.

[Stockdale for Veep]

By 2016, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.   

If that ever passes the threshold of states, both parties will litigate it for years. It's easier to campaign in 9 states than dozens of population centers.

[New_Conservative]

By 2016, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.   

If that ever passes the threshold of states, both parties will litigate it for years. It's easier to campaign in 9 states than dozens of population centers.

I agree, there is no way that bill passes.

[pbrower2a]

With a Tea Party electorate, Republicans win the Presidency in a landslide.

That's not to say that the Tea Party is not past its peak influence.  

Virginia? Government employees.

[kohler]

By 2016, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.   

If that ever passes the threshold of states, both parties will litigate it for years. It's easier to campaign in 9 states than dozens of population centers.

      
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.
      
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders.  It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
         
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently.  In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.   
         
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
               
NationalPopularVote      

[Ljube]

If that happens, Republicans can forget about winning in presidential election.

[politicus]

If that happens, Republicans can forget about winning in presidential election.

The electoral college favours the Democrats at this point.

[Ljube]

Yes, but so does the overall electorate. If the Dems could turn out all those dormant voters in large states...
That would be a true landslide.

[Mister Mets]

As a citizen of 2012, I recall nobody thought the economy was good. It was not up for debate.

Hillary's floor is not 34%. She's not going to do 5 points worse than the black man and 10 points worse than her husband with white people.

Her floor is not comparable to people who have won. It's comparable to people who have lost.

In addition, Democrats have lost ground with white voters since Bill Clinton's administration.

[Devils30]

I think this is a realistic PVI map (that means if the country splits exactly 50/50, not who wins each state). Florida and Wisconsin are the tough ones here. A lot of people here don't think Florida can lean D but that only takes a 2.99% trend. In years with new candidates (2000, 2008) that number is very common either way as opposed to re-election years (2004, 2012).

[Likely Voter]

Obama's 39% with whites is actually quite low. It is worse than both Gore and Kerry. It is even worse than Dukakis. As I have noted here before, if Hillary just gets Kerry's numbers with whites and non-whites, then it goes from a modest GOP victory to essentially tied PV with winner coming down to just how many whites show up vs. non-whites. And bear in mind that Bush in 04 got record high numbers with Latinos and Asians (around 44%) by pushing comprehensive immigration reform and even got 11% of blacks (matching his Dad's numbers in 1988).

To win in 2016 the GOP needs a candidate that can get Romney numbers with whites and Bush 04 numbers with non-whites. Good luck with that.

[IceSpear]

To win in 2016 the GOP needs a candidate that can get Romney numbers with whites and Bush 04 numbers with non-whites. Good luck with that.

Ding ding. The GOP's demographic problem in a nutshell. The fact that they have to try to hold Hillary Clinton, who dominated among working class whites in the 2008 primary, to a lower share of the white vote than John f'ing Kerry perfectly sums up the problems the GOP will have in 2016.

Not that it can't be done, but the "muh Democratic fatigue" sweeping the GOP into the White House like many blue avatars seem to think will happen won't be quite so easy.

[pbrower2a]

To win, Republicans must win back the sorts of people who believe in thrift, investment, enterprise, and rational thought -- essentially the sorts who would have voted for Eisenhower in the 1950s. They have no use for attempts to impose fundamentalist Christianity in the schools or regulate sexuality.

If Republicans ignore such people, then Democrats will pick them up.

[BlueSwan]

Yes, but so does the overall electorate. If the Dems could turn out all those dormant voters in large states...

I tend to agree. Without having seen any numbers, I would guess that turnout is lower in safe dem states than in safe GOP states. If the president is elected by popular vote, I would guess that the dems have a larger "untapped resource" of voters to mobilize, than the GOP does. Maybe someone with insight into these numbers could comment?

[BlueSwan]

I think this is a realistic PVI map (that means if the country splits exactly 50/50, not who wins each state). Florida and Wisconsin are the tough ones here. A lot of people here don't think Florida can lean D but that only takes a 2.99% trend. In years with new candidates (2000, 2008) that number is very common either way as opposed to re-election years (2004, 2012).

Florida more dem than Iowa?

[Ljube]

To win in 2016 the GOP needs a candidate that can get Romney numbers with whites and Bush 04 numbers with non-whites. Good luck with that.

Ding ding. The GOP's demographic problem in a nutshell. The fact that they have to try to hold Hillary Clinton, who dominated among working class whites in the 2008 primary, to a lower share of the white vote than John f'ing Kerry perfectly sums up the problems the GOP will have in 2016.

Not that it can't be done, but the "muh Democratic fatigue" sweeping the GOP into the White House like many blue avatars seem to think will happen won't be quite so easy.

Key to winning working class whites is nominating a populist, the sort of compassionate conservative who is a complete opposite to my own political views (social conservative and economical populist). The second part of the winning combo is linking Hillary to Obama. She won't be able to escape that association.

While that linking will persuade whites to support the Republican, it will not energize the blacks and the Hispanics to support her. Linking her to Obama is a win-win option, so I see that it will be the crux of the Republican campaign from very early on (March 2016).

[Ljube]

To win, Republicans must win back the sorts of people who believe in thrift, investment, enterprise, and rational thought -- essentially the sorts who would have voted for Eisenhower in the 1950s. They have no use for attempts to impose fundamentalist Christianity in the schools or regulate sexuality.

If Republicans ignore such people, then Democrats will pick them up.

These people are rational and they understand that it is usually necessary to vote for someone who isn't a perfect fit for their own vies and beliefs, but who is a far lesser evil. Of course, Ted Cruz and his lookalikes would be off-putting to these people.

[Ljube]

I think this is a realistic PVI map (that means if the country splits exactly 50/50, not who wins each state). Florida and Wisconsin are the tough ones here. A lot of people here don't think Florida can lean D but that only takes a 2.99% trend. In years with new candidates (2000, 2008) that number is very common either way as opposed to re-election years (2004, 2012).

OK. Let's say the popular vote is 50/50.

This is a terrible loss for Republicans. To win with 50/50, they need FL and another state.
Could Christie put New Jersey in play? Democrats are very skilled at winning swing states on turnout, but since New Jersey is not a swing state, they could have problems winning it, if it became competitive.