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

[Adam Griffin]

At least under all other Obama 2012 conditions.

Does this surprise or shock you? It shocked me. Winning a whopping 70% of the white vote only gives Republicans 53.6% of the PV (marginally more than Obama 08) and 358 EVs (less than Obama 08). Democrats still get two-thirds of the way to EC victory and still win 13 states + DC.

How embarrassing for Republicans, who continue to alienate the only groups that could possibly allow them to win a resounding mandate in a presidential election, because there's no way 70% of whites are going to be voting Republican in this generation.

[YaBoyNY]

Even worse for the Republicans is that they have zero chance to get 70% of the white vote.

Unfortunately for them, 35 - 40% of white Americans understand that the Democrats have the path to actual success for this nation, and are in touch with reality enough to realize that the Republicans are backwards, uncaring, and out of touch.

[Lyin' Steve]

Under what scenario would Republicans get 70% of the white vote while all their other demographics remain the same?

Demographic groups aren't giant monoliths that all think the same way.  If there's something about the Republican candidate that's so appealing to white voters, it's probably appealing to voters of other minority groups as well.  Even if it's a targeting of a particular group, the way democrats seem to think that Trump is targeting hispanics, there's no reason black and asian voters won't be just as enthusiastic about that as white voters.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Black turnout will probably decrease a bit and neither Hillary nor Sanders will get as high a percentage as Obama.

[bagelman]

what website is that screenshot from?

[Penelope]

what website is that screenshot from?

It's an interactive demographic calculator developed back when Nate Silver & FiveThirtyEight were partnered with the New York Times.

[Adam Griffin]

Under what scenario would Republicans get 70% of the white vote while all their other demographics remain the same?

Demographic groups aren't giant monoliths that all think the same way.  If there's something about the Republican candidate that's so appealing to white voters, it's probably appealing to voters of other minority groups as well.  

Right: non-white voters as a whole would likely be even more Democratic under a scenario in which 70% of whites are voting Republican than they were in 2012 (a future of hyper-racially polarized politics), so it's likely even more than 70% of whites would be needed for Republicans to pull an Obama 08-style victory.

However, the broader point here was obviously saying that the opposite needs to occur.

[Adam Griffin]

Black turnout will probably decrease a bit and neither Hillary nor Sanders will get as high a percentage as Obama.

I more or less disagree with the notion that black turnout will decrease by any meaningful amount in 2016. The best barometer we have for this is the South as a whole over the past few decades, which has consistently seen black turnout as a percentage of the electorate either remain flat or rise in between two comparable elections (very rarely has it dropped in this regard, and even when that has happened, it has been statistically insignificant; however, in the South, even a small drop in black turnout can have a pretty big effect on the statewide total).

In fact, in modern GA history, the black share of the electorate hasn't contracted by more than 6% of its size (as a share of the electorate) between a presidential year and a mid-term (this instance occurred in 2010, from 30.1% of the electorate to 28.3% of the electorate; was still substantially larger than 4 years prior).



Black support for Democrats...only in the race for President will that affect anything, but yes, there will be a reduction there. Black support for non-Obama candidates (regardless of race), however, has been at a fixed 90% in practically every electoral contest before and during the Obama years.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Black turnout will probably decrease a bit and neither Hillary nor Sanders will get as high a percentage as Obama.

I more or less disagree with the notion that black turnout will decrease by any meaningful amount in 2016. The best barometer we have for this is the South as a whole over the past few decades, which has consistently seen black turnout as a percentage of the electorate either remain flat or rise in between two comparable elections (very rarely has it dropped in this regard, and even when that has happened, it has been statistically insignificant; however, in the South, even a small drop in black turnout can have a pretty big effect on the statewide total).

In fact, in modern GA history, the black share of the electorate hasn't contracted by more than 6% of its size (as a share of the electorate) between a presidential year and a mid-term (this instance occurred in 2010, from 30.1% of the electorate to 28.3% of the electorate; was still substantially larger than 4 years prior).



Black support for Democrats...only in the race for President will that affect anything, but yes, there will be a reduction there. Black support for non-Obama candidates (regardless of race), however, has been at a fixed 90% in practically every electoral contest before and during the Obama years.

In 2012, the black turnout rate was higher than whites. I'm thinking that doesn't happen next time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/black-voter-turnout-2012-election_n_3173673.html

[Adam Griffin]

Black turnout will probably decrease a bit and neither Hillary nor Sanders will get as high a percentage as Obama.

I more or less disagree with the notion that black turnout will decrease by any meaningful amount in 2016. The best barometer we have for this is the South as a whole over the past few decades, which has consistently seen black turnout as a percentage of the electorate either remain flat or rise in between two comparable elections (very rarely has it dropped in this regard, and even when that has happened, it has been statistically insignificant; however, in the South, even a small drop in black turnout can have a pretty big effect on the statewide total).

In fact, in modern GA history, the black share of the electorate hasn't contracted by more than 6% of its size (as a share of the electorate) between a presidential year and a mid-term (this instance occurred in 2010, from 30.1% of the electorate to 28.3% of the electorate; was still substantially larger than 4 years prior).



Black support for Democrats...only in the race for President will that affect anything, but yes, there will be a reduction there. Black support for non-Obama candidates (regardless of race), however, has been at a fixed 90% in practically every electoral contest before and during the Obama years.

In 2012, the black turnout rate was higher than whites. I'm thinking that doesn't happen next time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/black-voter-turnout-2012-election_n_3173673.html

Oh, by that metric, sure. The only thing I really care about or think that matters, however, is a group's share of the electorate. I don't necessarily care if there is a nominal drop in turnout among my groups if there is a nominal drop in turnout among the opposition groups, too; if the reduction is similar, then their comparable shares of the electorate will remain similar to the last election as well.

[pbrower2a]

Even worse for the Republicans is that they have zero chance to get 70% of the white vote.

Unfortunately for them, 35 - 40% of white Americans understand that the Democrats have the path to actual success for this nation, and are in touch with reality enough to realize that the Republicans are backwards, uncaring, and out of touch.

Republicans can get 70% of the white vote in a few states -- Utah (influence of the LDS Church, and not race); Idaho, Wyoming, and Oklahoma (the states are simply ultra-conservative) without trying; and (probably due to racial polarization) -- Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In other states any effort to play ethnic divisions would backfire.

[I support Sanders]

Because of this, it is nearly impossible for Republicans to win the 2016 election. The only way a Republican would get 70% or more of the white vote is if the Democrats nominated a non-white racial extremist who actively encourage racial division, and turning white voters off. I can't think of any current Democratic politician who would meet that criterion.

[Adam Griffin]

Even worse for the Republicans is that they have zero chance to get 70% of the white vote.

Unfortunately for them, 35 - 40% of white Americans understand that the Democrats have the path to actual success for this nation, and are in touch with reality enough to realize that the Republicans are backwards, uncaring, and out of touch.

Republicans can get 70% of the white vote in a few states -- Utah (influence of the LDS Church, and not race); Idaho, Wyoming, and Oklahoma (the states are simply ultra-conservative) without trying; and (probably due to racial polarization) -- Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In other states any effort to play ethnic divisions would backfire.

FYI

Obama's Share of the White Vote by State:

DC: 87.3%
Vermont: 66.3%
Hawaii: 65.3%
Rhode Island: 60.2%
Massachusetts: 57.8%
Maine: 55.5%
Connecticut: 52.6%
Oregon: 51.3%
New York: 51.2%
Washington: 51.1%
New Hampshire: 50.3%
Iowa: 50.1%
California: 49.0%
Delaware: 48.4%
Minnesota: 48.4%
Wisconsin: 48.2%
Colorado: 46.7%
Maryland: 45.7%
Illinois: 45.4%
New Jersey: 44.7%
Michigan: 44.3%
Pennsylvania: 44.0%
Ohio: 42.0%
Nevada: 40.7%
New Mexico: 39.1%
Florida: 38.3%
Indiana: 38.0%
Montana: 37.8%
Virginia: 37.3%
Arizona: 36.6%
Missouri: 35.8%
North Dakota: 35.4%
South Dakota: 35.3%
Nebraska: 33.4%
W. Virginia: 32.8%
Alaska: 32.7%
Kansas: 32.5%
Kentucky: 31.5%
Tennessee: 30.8%
North Carolina: 30.6%
Idaho: 28.1%
Arkansas: 27.1%
Oklahoma: 27.1%
Wyoming: 25.4%
South Carolina: 23.4%
Georgia: 19.6%
Texas: 19.6%
Utah: 18.3%
Alabama: 15.8%
Louisiana: 14.4%
Mississippi: 11.4%

[YaBoyNY]

Even worse for the Republicans is that they have zero chance to get 70% of the white vote.

Unfortunately for them, 35 - 40% of white Americans understand that the Democrats have the path to actual success for this nation, and are in touch with reality enough to realize that the Republicans are backwards, uncaring, and out of touch.

Republicans can get 70% of the white vote in a few states -- Utah (influence of the LDS Church, and not race); Idaho, Wyoming, and Oklahoma (the states are simply ultra-conservative) without trying; and (probably due to racial polarization) -- Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In other states any effort to play ethnic divisions would backfire.

FYI

Obama's Share of the White Vote by State:

DC: 87.3%
Vermont: 66.3%
Hawaii: 65.3%
Rhode Island: 60.2%
Massachusetts: 57.8%
Maine: 55.5%
Connecticut: 52.6%
Oregon: 51.3%
New York: 51.2%
Washington: 51.1%
New Hampshire: 50.3%
Iowa: 50.1%
California: 49.0%
Delaware: 48.4%
Minnesota: 48.4%
Wisconsin: 48.2%
Colorado: 46.7%
Maryland: 45.7%
Illinois: 45.4%
New Jersey: 44.7%
Michigan: 44.3%
Pennsylvania: 44.0%
Ohio: 42.0%
Nevada: 40.7%
New Mexico: 39.1%
Florida: 38.3%
Indiana: 38.0%
Montana: 37.8%
Virginia: 37.3%
Arizona: 36.6%
Missouri: 35.8%
North Dakota: 35.4%
South Dakota: 35.3%
Nebraska: 33.4%
W. Virginia: 32.8%
Alaska: 32.7%
Kansas: 32.5%
Kentucky: 31.5%
Tennessee: 30.8%
North Carolina: 30.6%
Idaho: 28.1%
Arkansas: 27.1%
Oklahoma: 27.1%
Wyoming: 25.4%
South Carolina: 23.4%
Georgia: 19.6%
Texas: 19.6%
Utah: 18.3%
Alabama: 15.8%
Louisiana: 14.4%
Mississippi: 11.4%

So the good whites of the liberal north and west coast (and those brave southern holdouts) will keep the Republicans from reaching 70%.

[Kingpoleon]

Even worse for the Republicans is that they have zero chance to get 70% of the white vote.

Unfortunately for them, 35 - 40% of white Americans understand that the Democrats have the path to actual success for this nation, and are in touch with reality enough to realize that the Republicans are backwards, uncaring, and out of touch.

As long as we're being hacks, we should really mention that the GOP is a white nationalist party that will never win, is heartless, and completely despicable.

[YaBoyNY]

Even worse for the Republicans is that they have zero chance to get 70% of the white vote.

Unfortunately for them, 35 - 40% of white Americans understand that the Democrats have the path to actual success for this nation, and are in touch with reality enough to realize that the Republicans are backwards, uncaring, and out of touch.

As long as we're being hacks, we should really mention that the GOP is a white nationalist party that will never win, is heartless, and completely despicable.

Sometimes the truth seems hackish, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the truth.

[Lyin' Steve]

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.

[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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[Lyin' Steve]

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.

This thread is about them needing 70%.  My point is that if you give them a non-Obama-year share of the black vote, they don't need 70% even if Hispanics vote for the democrats in droves.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

What you just described yields 291 Democrats, 247 Republicans.

[Ljube]

That tool is useless. You can't get Iowa to switch unless you pump up the white percent for Pubs.

It's a nice tool to play with, but it's not suitable for scientific research or projections.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

In 2012, the black turnout rate was higher than whites. I'm thinking that doesn't happen next time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/28/black-voter-turnout-2012-election_n_3173673.html

And in 2012 all the pundits said black voter turn out wouldn't be as high as 2008.

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

One issue is they don't need an Obama '08 style victory.  All they need and want is a Bush '00 victory.  They don't even care if they lose the popular vote.

[RINO Tom]

I am strongly of the opinion (speaking as a political "adviser," not a human being, LOL) that the GOP needs to shed its image of being "racist" or "xenophobic" and make serious inroads into affluent minorities, especially as those groups become more assimilated.  Asians are the obvious target first (need to tone down rhetoric on climate change), and Latinos would logically be next.  It will probably be hard to make many inroads into the Black vote, unfortunately, but that is not a reason not to try.  Wealthier and more educated voters come to the polls in WAY higher numbers than the rest of the country, and if you can run up your numbers with them, you'll win.  The problem is you can't just run up your numbers with the Whites among them.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

TL;DR: if the Obama coalition holds together, the Republicans lose. Thanks Captain Obvious.