Electoral College problems for Republicans

[Ljube]

In other words, can this be a plausible Christie victory?

[The Mikado]

I think there's a lot to the conventional wisdom that with the current map the Republicans need to win the popular vote by 1-2% in order to reliably win the electoral college.  That's not a major handicap, but it could be a critical factor in the next extremely close race.

[Rockefeller GOP]

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.

Romney won "affluent voters" by a comfortable margin and won affluent Whites by an even larger margin.  Gaining back "Eisenhower business types" isn't the problem; even though Democrats act snobby about the GOP and portray it as a collection of religious zealots and redneck xenophobes, that business-esque group is already in the fold.

With the exception of Blacks and White Southerners, the GOP is winning the same type of people it's been winning since the freaking 1800s ... The problem is those people are making up a smaller and smaller percent of the electorate, especially during Presidential elections.  The GOP's recipe for a comeback will be convincing middle- and upper-income minorities that the party does not contain an anti-minority element and getting their votes on the same economic grounds that it currently wins middle- and upper-income Whites.  That will be an uphill battle, but it's easily the best and only strategy going forward, IMO.

[kohler]

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

From 1932-2008 the combined popular vote for Presidential candidates added up to  Democrats: 745,407,082 and Republican: 745,297,123 — a virtual tie.  Republicans have done very well in the national popular vote.

On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.

On March 25, in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

In May 2011, Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in “National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans:” "I strongly support National Popular Vote.   It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America.    National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome. 
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States [that then existed in 2011].
   
National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans.  . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . .  We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."
   
The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson.

Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote" http://www.every-vote-equal.com/  include:
 
Laura Brod who served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.
   
 Ray Haynes who served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly.  He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010.  He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce who served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

[Rockefeller GOP]

^ Boom.

[pbrower2a]

Here's the problem for the Republican Party:

The states and districts in deep red have given a majority of the popular vote to the Democrat in every Presidential election beginning in 2000 and a plurality in all Presidential elections from 1992 on. That's 232 electoral votes out of contest barring an unusually-weak Democratic nominee, which means that the Democrats have nearly 86% of the electoral votes that they need without really trying.   That is very charitable; that suggests that Wisconsin is available (and it will be if Scott Walker is re-elected. If the Koch brothers tell him to rig the Presidential election, then he just might do it). That's what I think of Scott Walker, and your opinion may differ. These states have comparatively few members of arch-conservative religious groups -- Mormons, Lutherans, or Christian Protestant fundamentalists.


OK -- what of the other side? I can put the states that have not voted for any Democrat since 1980 (as that involves two Reagan landslides), and have gone twice by at least 10% against Barack Obama in deep blue -- and that leaves only 86 sure electoral votes for a Republican no matter who the Democrat is. That is a tough standard, but I need a parallel.  

Those in medium red have voted for a Republican Presidential nominee at most once (Wisconsin never!) beginning in 1992.  That is 25 electoral votes. These states  are tough wins for Republicans in Presidential elections, and if the Republican picks off any of them he has likely won.  For another parallel I put those states that Republicans have gotten in all elections since 1980 and have gone to the Republican by less than 10% in 2008. That comprises three states and a measly 14 electoral votes (the two Dakotas and South Carolina).

257-100. Ouch. The Republicans have a lock on only 19% of the electoral votes against any Democratic nominee beginning with Bill Clinton. The Republicans cannot beat a "new Bill Clinton" if there is one. Democrats have nearly 48% of the electoral votes that they need with a "new Al Gore".

Areas in pale blue are those states and NE-02 that Democrats have won at most once beginning in 1992 and the one that Clinton won twice but Obama barely missed in 2008 (Missouri). Such accounts for 51 electoral votes on the fringe of a real contest in 2016. Surprisingly, not one of those states except for Georgia or North Carolina could itself win the election for a Democratic nominee. But if the Democrat wins North Carolina or Missouri he is also winning Virginia; if he wins Georgia he has won Virginia and Florida; if he wins Arizona or Montana he has also won Colorado and Nevada; if he wins Indiana he has also won Ohio -- and the Presidency.

(OK -- Bill Clinton won five states in both 1992 and 1996 that Obama lost by huge margins twice. It could be that Barack Obama is the worst possible match for those states since George McGovern. 38 electoral votes, same as Texas. If a Democrat picks these up we have a landslide on our hands. But that is boring). Barring that a populist swing occurs in 2016, those should be considered safe Republican.

The rest are states that Republican nominees cannot afford to lose. One of Florida, Ohio, or Virginia (white) or the pair of  Colorado and Nevada (which are politically if not culturally and demographically similar) wins it.    


 

[Likely Voter]

The GOP have an EV path that is very doable, it is the states Bush won at least once (minus NM and NV). So Romney + FL, OH, VA, CO, IA,  NH gets you to 285. They should spend 90%+ of their cash on these states (including NC and any other Romney states the Dems go after)

This path allows some buffer with a loss of one or even two small states, but FL and OH are 'must win' in this scenario (realistically it is hard to see any GOP victory without both). Don't get distracted by PA, MI, WI, NV or other so-called battlegrounds unless you really see some traction in any of them (or have a favorite son, like Romney did with Ryan in WI).

[Ljube]

OK. For that victory path (Romney + FL, OH, CO, VA + extras IA and NH) you need to get the percentage of the Hispanic vote that G. W. Bush got. I guess, the only candidate that could get similar percentage is another Bush.

So, is Jeb Bush the best Republican candidate at the moment? Will his last name hurt him?


And just like pbrower2a said: there is no room for error. Republicans need all battleground states. Another path to victory simply doesn’t exist because of the high floor the Democrats have in the Electoral College.

[Mr. Smith]

@pbrower: Minnesota, the last non-Democratic vote there was against McGovern

[Mister Mets]

@pbrower: Minnesota, the last non-Democratic vote there was against McGovern

States change.

We have other threads about whether Hillary Clinton can plausibly win states Obama lost by more than eight points in a good year for Democrats. It seems reasonable to suggest that Republicans have a shot at winning a state Romney lost by eight points in a bad year for that party.

[King]

@pbrower: Minnesota, the last non-Democratic vote there was against McGovern

States change.

We have other threads about whether Hillary Clinton can plausibly win states Obama lost by more than eight points in a good year for Democrats. It seems reasonable to suggest that Republicans have a shot at winning a state Romney lost by eight points in a bad year for that party.

States change, but Minnesota in 2016?

Romney lost by 8 when he lost by 4 nationally. McCain lost there by 11 when he lost by 7 nationally.  Bush lost by 4 when he won by 2 nationally.

There's no trend in favor of the GOP. The only thing they've done recently is knock out their Republican Governor and Senator.

[Mister Mets]

@pbrower: Minnesota, the last non-Democratic vote there was against McGovern

States change.

We have other threads about whether Hillary Clinton can plausibly win states Obama lost by more than eight points in a good year for Democrats. It seems reasonable to suggest that Republicans have a shot at winning a state Romney lost by eight points in a bad year for that party.

States change, but Minnesota in 2016?

Romney lost by 8 when he lost by 4 nationally. McCain lost there by 11 when he lost by 7 nationally.  Bush lost by 4 when he won by 2 nationally.

There's no trend in favor of the GOP. The only thing they've done recently is knock out their Republican Governor and Senator.

A state that was four points more liberal than the rest of the nation can easily go to Republicans. We don't know what the circumstances will be in 2016, but a five point Republican win isn't outside the realm of possibility. Obama has consistently flipped several states Kerry and Gore by 4-6 points.

[Devils30]

New Jersey is not going red in 2016, Christie's approvals there are way down and doubtful he can beat Hillary. A lot of Republicans are overconfident about 2016, Obama in the mid 40s probably will not sink Hillary. Hillary had led Jeb and Rubio in every single Florida poll and the electorate there will only be around 64% white in 2016.

[King]

A state that was four points more liberal than the rest of the nation can easily go to Republicans. We don't know what the circumstances will be in 2016, but a five point Republican win isn't outside the realm of possibility. Obama has consistently flipped several states Kerry and Gore by 4-6 points.

A five point Republican win is out of the realm of possibility. The bottom has fallen out on the GOP with minority voters. Winning by 5 would require 68% of the white vote or so.  Impossible.

Republicans at the moment have a minute chance of winning narrowly against Hillary Clinton and no chance in their current form to win convincingly against any remotely formidable Democrat.

[Mister Mets]

New Jersey is not going red in 2016, Christie's approvals there are way down and doubtful he can beat Hillary. A lot of Republicans are overconfident about 2016, Obama in the mid 40s probably will not sink Hillary. Hillary had led Jeb and Rubio in every single Florida poll and the electorate there will only be around 64% white in 2016.

New Jersey's probably not going for Republicans.

Although Obama's approval rating has generally been a bit worse than Mid-40s. The RCP average is 41.1 percent, with three recent polls showing him at 39 percent (although one Rasmussen poll did him at 47 percent, an improvement over other polls.) That would be a slightly different scenario for the next Democratic nominee.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

[Rockefeller GOP]

New Jersey is not going red in 2016, Christie's approvals there are way down and doubtful he can beat Hillary. A lot of Republicans are overconfident about 2016, Obama in the mid 40s probably will not sink Hillary. Hillary had led Jeb and Rubio in every single Florida poll and the electorate there will only be around 64% white in 2016.

If the election were in, say, two weeks between Clinton and Christie, this is how I'd see the map:

Dark Blue = Safe GOP
Blue = Probable GOP
Light Blue = Lean GOP
Gray = Tossup
Light Red = Lean DEM
Red = Probable GOP
Dark Red = Safe DEM

[Ljube]

I agree.

Is Bush more electable than Christie?
With a sensible platform (minimum wage rise, expanded Medicaid, comprehensive immigration reform) could he win back Latinos and carry all required states (FL, CO and VA). OH would be the most problematic of the must win swing states.
I am assuming he can win Georgia and North Carolina, in spite of the current polls.

[pbrower2a]

I agree.

Is Bush more electable than Christie?
With a sensible platform (minimum wage rise, expanded Medicaid, comprehensive immigration reform) could he win back Latinos and carry all required states (FL, CO and VA). OH would be the most problematic of the must win swing states.
I am assuming he can win Georgia and North Carolina, in spite of the current polls.

The problem is that Jeb would still need to separate himself from his brother. He would need to denounce the bad choices of Dubya that led to the economic meltdown that looked eerily like the prelude to the Great Depression. 

[5280]

Instead of worrying about the EC, just make Hillary Clinton drop out of the race in 2016?

[DS0816]

Is this the only plausible victory that the Republicans can have in presidential elections? If so, they need a candidate that can carry Florida and Ohio (and Virginia and Iowa on top of that) with absolute certainty, or at least with better than 50% chance. Does a candidate like that exist?

Colorado would end up in that Republican column with Virginia and Iowa.

Margin spreads, Colorado-vs.-Virginia, have been tightly connected since 1996.

Margin spreads, Colorado-vs.-Iowa, were 4.00 percentage points (the most) since 2004.

Colorado and Iowa have some intrinsic connection: from 1920 to 1984, they carried the same every time. They had a break from each other in 1988, 1996, and 2000. (Look back to the 1930s and 1940s, they aligned with Democrat Franklin Roosevelt in his first two winning cycles, 1932 and 1936, and flipped Republican for 1940 Wendell Wilkie and 1944 Thomas Dewey and, four years later, said no to Dewey and flipped Democratic for the full term election of Harry Truman in 1948.) So, for the last 92 years and 24 election cycles, these two states have carried the same outcomes in 21.

Colorado and Virginia also have an intrinsic connection. Since 1948, they have carried differently just once—in 1992 (when Bill Clinton was the Democratic-presidential pickup winner who flipped Colorado but came up short in Virginia; Bob Dole flipped Colorado to his losing Republican column, in 1996, and the states' margins spreads have been tight ever since). That amounts to 64 years and 17 elections cycles in which they carried the same outcomes in 16 of those 17.


So, your suggested map came very close.

[DS0816]

Is it possible that Hillary will perform much worse with men than Obama did?
If that happens, she may get less than 38% of the vote.
She won't get more women than Obama already got. I think Obama maxed out on women.


In those circumstances, which candidate would be best: Bush, Christie, or Rubio?
I know that Paul is a serious candidate and I support him, but I don’t think that 2016 will be his year because of ISIS.

I haven't been following your posts at this site.

What is your thinking for the 2016 U.S. presidential election?

Republican pickup — or — Democratic hold?

[Ljube]

Hillary is a strong candidate, so at this point I'd say a Democratic hold.
But there is a chance for a Republican pickup, because the Democrats have held the presidency for 2 cycles. In fact, any other possible Democratic nominee would have lower chances than Bush, Christie, or Rubio.

[DS0816]

Hillary is a strong candidate, so at this point I'd say a Democratic hold.
But there is a chance for a Republican pickup, because the Democrats have held the presidency for 2 cycles. In fact, any other possible Democratic nominee would have lower chances than Bush, Christie, or Rubio.

What are you basing that on?

[Ljube]

Gore - Bush basically. Voters fatigue.

[Ljube]

OK, here are the numbers:

The electorate in two years is going to be 71% white, 12% black, 12% hispanic, 3% asian and 2% others. This is due to depressed black turnout. Hispanics may rise even up to 13%, but let's have them at 12%.

The following numbers are, in my opinion, best case scenario numbers for Republicans against Hillary. I'll list Jeb's numbers:

60% whites, 11% blacks, 38% hispanics, 41% asians, 40% others.

These numbers give Jeb a 1% margin of victory in the popular vote. But that 1% victory may not be enough for him to win the presidency. And these numbers are the most generous numbers to a Republican I could think of.