Are the Republicans locked out of the Electoral College?

[ill ind]

Are the Republicans locked out of the Electoral College in 2016 and beyond?
The reason I ask is that back in the 80's after 3 significant losses (80,84,88) this same question was posed only it was about the Democrats and them being locked out of the EC.  However in 1992 they put all that talk to rest. Will the GOP be able to do the same in 2016 or beyond.  Personally 2016 is probably gone so that leaves 2020.

[MT Treasurer]

No.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Not yet. It depends on what direction the Republican party takes post-November.

[Ronnie]

This year, yeah.  But I think it's too presumptuous to say that the EC is in the bag for Dems in future elections.  It depends a lot on who the GOP nominates, as well as the general direction of the party.  If it continues to fall down the Cruz/Trump rabbit hole, they'll probably be locked out for several cycles.  If they can somehow change course, and become less radioactive towards minorities, then perhaps they'll have a shot.  They have a lot of work to do, though.

[Fargobison]

A slaughtering of Trump maybe gets the party back on course. That said there is still a chance the far right conservatives demand one of their own in 2020.

[Redban]

Unless something changes, the answer is yes --- the Northeast is inaccessible; they've lost Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada; Florida, Georgia, Arizona are going quickly; and the Midwest is stubborn (i.e. PA).

The good news, however, is that they can effect the necessary changes. They just need to realize that they need to change because 2012 didn't do it.

[IceSpear]

It's more of a diversity problem than an electoral college problem. It's getting harder and harder every election cycle to win with a whites only strategy.

[Yank2133]

No.....but they are getting there.

[wolfsblood07]

The OP answered his own question.  Eventually the Democrats will lose the presidency.  The courts are another matter.

[Adam Griffin]

Either the Democrats are going to have really wear out their welcome, or there will need to be a schism on the left that leads to or helps embolden an actual Perot-esque third party candidate to break this cycle in the next 4-8 years. I fully understand what the exit polling data for 1992 said with regard to where Perot drew his support, but I think that without the shake-up in that election, the GOP would have still won then (and maybe beyond that).

Conventional political trends are not going to provide a way. Either one of those two things above will need to happen, there will have to be a political realignment, or both need to occur for the GOP to break 270 in the EC.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

No more than the Democrats were locked out by Bush and Rove's "permanent Republican majority" of 2004. The GOP clearly has an obvious structural disadvantage on the national level, but the U.S. is overdue for an electoral realignment.

[ProudModerate2]

I wouldn't say "locked out," but the Pubs will continue to see an electoral "automatic" disadvantage in future elections.
Unless the "white only attitude" changes, the GOP will not survive long-term.

[uti2]

A slaughtering of Trump maybe gets the party back on course. That said there is still a chance the far right conservatives demand one of their own in 2020.

Just like it did for Goldwater? No, Nixon very carefully put together the modern Republican coalition and all its factions, but there is no modern Nixon that can appeal to all the factions.

Unless something changes, the answer is yes --- the Northeast is inaccessible; they've lost Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada; Florida, Georgia, Arizona are going quickly; and the Midwest is stubborn (i.e. PA).

The good news, however, is that they can effect the necessary changes. They just need to realize that they need to change because 2012 didn't do it.

But they don't realize WHAT they need to change (or rather they do, but the Kochs and other donors are holding them hostage), pushing hard right economic policies is what makes them disliked, by appealing to the rubes they've artificially have had hard-right econ policies implemented in the first place. Without them, the party has to go back to eisenhower-style centrism.

[uti2]

It's more of a diversity problem than an electoral college problem. It's getting harder and harder every election cycle to win with a whites only strategy.

Because what they don't want to acknowledge is that thanks to appealing to racial and religious resentment, they were able to get a captive base of lunatics that would support them no matter what and would let them push hard-right econ policies as a result, but that's not a natural coalition based on reason. The original post-new deal party was more like Eisenhower. They thought that they could play this game for a couple of more cycles, i.e. get the rubes to vote against their interests, while we try to be sneaky, and also appeal to some minorities, what they didn't expect was for their 'captive' base to actually rebel.

The reality is that this is a sick devious strategy, and if they wanted to be more honest to both minorities and their own base, they would move to the economic center again.

[Young Conservative]

Of course not. Trump has set us back, but that doesn't mean we won't eventually make inroads and turn Iowa into a red state and Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan into swing states once more. Also, Florida remains a swing state and North Carolina a tilt red state. Don't let the "Trump effect" fool you. When President Obama won people asked this. It isn't emblematic of a permanent trend.

[twenty42]

Yes and no. Like other posters have said, it really all depends on the direction the Republicans take in the eventuality of a Trump loss.

It seems pretty clear that the platform/strategy the party currently operates has run its course. Facing a map with PA/VA/CO/NH/NV realistically out of reach and NC/AZ/GA as swing states, there is no path to 270 for the Republicans.

The good news for the party is that they aren't married to their current platform, and parties have been changing and adapting for as long as the republic has existed. I do think that losing in the EV in five out of the last seven elections and losing the PV in six out of the last seven elections will be enough to put the R's in serious soul-search mode and eventually cause the cataclysmic change they need.

I think Hillary would be a very vulnerable candidate in 2020. She's likely to come into the White House without a large mandate, since so many votes are being cast against Trump as opposed to for her. The 2018 election is expected to be brutal for Democrats, and a 73-year-old unpopular president who just got smacked in the midterms would seem like a pretty good guess to become the first unseated incumbent since 1992.

But even favorable conditions like those could be screwed up by selecting the wrong nominee. A Ted Cruz/Chris Christie type would likely keep the map locked where it is no matter how unpopular President Hillary is. However, a positive candidate who can make in-roads with Latinos and young people could conceivably push Republicans into the 280-290 EV range.

However, I do believe George H.W. Bush will go down as the last Republican candidate in American history to get over 300 EV's.

[uti2]

Of course not. Trump has set us back, but that doesn't mean we won't eventually make inroads and turn Iowa into a red state and Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan into swing states once more. Also, Florida remains a swing state and North Carolina a tilt red state. Don't let the "Trump effect" fool you. When President Obama won people asked this. It isn't emblematic of a permanent trend.

You make the assumption that people cared about Ted Cruz's hard-right economic policies and social policies, when in reality they didn't. Bush lost the PV in 2000. The whole reason why those hard-right policies were able to be pushed was due to the 'Trump Effect' voters voting as a social backlash, not for those actual policies. If you lose those social backlash voters, you can't win, since those actual policies are unattractive.

Yes and no. Like other posters have said, it really all depends on the direction the Republicans take in the eventuality of a Trump loss.

It seems pretty clear that the platform/strategy the party currently operates has run its course. Facing a map with PA/VA/CO/NH/NV realistically out of reach and NC/AZ/GA as swing states, there is no path to 270 for the Republicans.

The good news for the party is that they aren't married to their current platform, and parties have been changing and adapting for as long as the republic has existed. I do think that losing in the EV in five out of the last seven elections and losing the PV in six out of the last seven elections will be enough to put the R's in serious soul-search mode and eventually cause the cataclysmic change they need.

I think Hillary would be a very vulnerable candidate in 2020. She's likely to come into the White House without a large mandate, since so many votes are being cast against Trump as opposed to for her. The 2018 election is expected to be brutal for Democrats, and a 73-year-old unpopular president who just got smacked in the midterms would seem like a pretty good guess to become the first unseated incumbent since 1992.

But even favorable conditions like those could be screwed up by selecting the wrong nominee. A Ted Cruz/Chris Christie type would likely keep the map locked where it is no matter how unpopular President Hillary is. However, a positive candidate who can make in-roads with Latinos and young people could conceivably push Republicans into the 280-290 EV range.

However, I do believe George H.W. Bush will go down as the last Republican candidate in American history to get over 300 EV's.

Mid-terms is based on turnout, which will come down to a number of factors, even if Clinton had won a tight race against any Republican, this would be same argument, just as it was for Obama, yet Obama wasn't unseated. Of course, this is based on the assumption, that you can pander to middle class latinos while keeping working class whites, while keeping in mind that those 2 groups have different interests. Young people favor bernie's economic policies.

[Trapsy]

The republican party is so broken. They traditionally operate as an ideological party. atm its super confusing what the republican party stands for ideological and Trump exposed it severely. Republicans will struggle to compete on a national basis with their current ideology and platform. They can't even bring themselves to accept climate change.

[Seriously?]

Of course not. Not in 2016 and not ever.

This question has been asked over and over again about the party not in power and somehow, they overcome the "odds" and win the Presidency at some point.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Of course not. Not in 2016 and not ever.

This question has been asked over and over again about the party not in power and somehow, they overcome the "odds" and win the Presidency at some point.

Except the Whigs and the Federalists

[Seriously?]

Of course not. Not in 2016 and not ever.

This question has been asked over and over again about the party not in power and somehow, they overcome the "odds" and win the Presidency at some point.

Except the Whigs and the Federalists

I am talking about modern times, obviously. The Republicans hold the House and the Senate and most state gubernatorial mansions and legislatures. This can't win meme is overblown.

[Dr. Arch]

They aren't locked out of the EC, but Trump is.

[ProudModerate2]

They aren't locked out of the EC, but Trump is.

[uti2]

They aren't locked out of the EC, but Trump is.

VA is gone for generic republicans, it's now part of the NE, can't win without social liberalism. NM for other reasons, Hispanics lean economically left. PA also leans economically liberal. WI leans left due to antipathy towards big business, not even Bush 04 could get it. What map?

Perhaps Kasich could make a MW + SW play, but someone like Kasich would unlikely get past the primary.

[muon2]

The Pubs have a disadvantage if the two parties have equal or nearly equal vote totals. It's a function of the EV assignments and natural lean of the states. If the Pubs win by 1 or 2% in the PV then they win the EC anyway just due to the available swing states.

After 2020 the analysis gets a fresh start based on the EV assignments.