Are the Republicans locked out of the Electoral College?

[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

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.

My view is that we don't know. I think that if the Republicans continue on the path of Trump, there is a decent chance they do turn themselves into a rump regional party that is essentially irrelevant in presidential elections. If they change course, I think there is a clear path back to national viability.

For the record, I hope the Republican party does recover at some point. Having a coherent debate over real issues is important and we are being disadvantaged as a nation if we don't have those meaningful debates.

[uti2]

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.

My view is that we don't know. I think that if the Republicans continue on the path of Trump, there is a decent chance they do turn themselves into a rump regional party that is essentially irrelevant in presidential elections. If they change course, I think there is a clear path back to national viability.

For the record, I hope the Republican party does recover at some point. Having a coherent debate over real issues is important and we are being disadvantaged as a nation if we don't have those meaningful debates.

What do you mean continue in his path? They have other problems relating to the EV map, that is due to the coalition of social conservatives + fiscal conservatives that make them unappealing to various regions in the first place. Like Socon views alienating modern VA, and fiscal con views alienating the midwest and the southwest. Trump just exploited that dynamic, it's actually beyond Trump. Being less socially conservative or fiscally conservative would be disqualifier in the primary in the first place, but those attributes would make them less appealing to the GE, see Kasich.

[Young Conservative]

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.

In florida we have a Republican governor, a supermajority republican house, a republican senate majority, a republican senator, and a majority republican hose delegation. But tell me again how Florida is out of reach for republicans....

[Desroko]

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.

In florida we have a Republican governor, a supermajority republican house, a republican senate majority, a republican senator, and a majority republican hose delegation. But tell me again how Florida is out of reach for republicans....

Democrats were competitive or dominant at the state level in the South for over a generation after 1965. How'd they do in presidential elections?

[Virginiá]

Republicans aren't locked out yet, but they currently face an increasingly hard time getting even the bare minimum EVs to win. I'd say we are at the point where a really good win for Republicans would be 2004's margins, assuming Democrats field an OK candidate, and not some Trump-style buffoon.

If the GOP wants a place in the White House, they will need to figure out how to make inroads with minorities and young people. This whites-only strategy will be the end of them if they can't move past that, and post-Trump it will be exceedingly difficult.

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.

No we're not. Depending what time period you define the current Democratic realignment as starting in, it probably hasn't even peaked yet. Republicans are still completely bombing with young voters, worse than ever even. Republican minority support is looking to reach low levels never seen before. The GOP is losing support among virtually every part of the electorate that is growing, while doubling down on the parts that are shrinking. Even the states seen as most likely to shift to the GOP column in the future (in the rust belt/GL region), they are losing electoral votes to states Democrats are taking from you guys. What all of this says is that the Republican party hasn't even hit rock bottom yet.

Whatever realignment you think is overdue is not coming yet.

[uti2]

Republicans aren't locked out yet, but they currently face an increasingly hard time getting even the bare minimum EVs to win. I'd say we are at the point where a really good win for Republicans would be 2004's margins, assuming Democrats field an OK candidate, and not some Trump-style buffoon.

If the GOP wants a place in the White House, they will need to figure out how to make inroads with minorities and young people. This whites-only strategy will be the end of them if they can't move past that, and post-Trump it will be exceedingly difficult.

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.

No we're not. Depending what time period you define the current Democratic realignment as starting in, it probably hasn't even peaked yet. Republicans are still completely bombing with young voters, worse than ever even. Republican minority support is looking to reach low levels never seen before. The GOP is losing support among virtually every part of the electorate that is growing, while doubling down on the parts that are shrinking. Even the states seen as most likely to shift to the GOP column in the future (in the rust belt/GL region), they are losing electoral votes to states Democrats are taking from you guys. What all of this says is that the Republican party hasn't even hit rock bottom yet.

Whatever realignment you think is overdue is not coming yet.

Young people support Bernie's economic policies, yet the GOP is pushing policies that are the polar opposite of that , minorities also lean economically left. Even GWB figured that out with 'compassionate conservatism', pushing hard-right economic policies is what is wanted by the donors including the Kochs, not necessarily the base, which consists of social backlash voters.

[Ljube]

Yes, the Pubs are already locked out of the EC. They became locked out in 1992 and only special circumstances helped George W. Bush win 2 elections. The Pub disadvantage in the EC is more and more pronounced with every succeeding election. If Trump can't win in 2016 with his max out whites strategy, the Pubs are locked out for good.

[BlueSwan]

Of course they are not locked out. Someone like Mitt Romney, who isn't a terribly exciting candidate, would likely be leading the polls right now, given how Clinton has been struggling. Rubio or Kasich would likely be leading as well.

[Desroko]

Of course they are not locked out. Someone like Mitt Romney, who isn't a terribly exciting candidate, would likely be leading the polls right now, given how Clinton has been struggling. Rubio or Kasich would likely be leading as well.

The fact that most Republicans probably agree with these baseless assertions is yet another feather in the Democrats' cap. They don't understand that Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

[Wisconsin+17]

Republicans are doing just fine. Trump on the other hand...

[Cruzcrew]

I wouldn't say locked out but they begin at a heavy disadvantage. For this election, Trump is very close to being locked out with Pennsylvania, New Hamlshire, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Virginia all being roughly double digit leads for Hillary so it would take special circumstances to recover from that.

[muon2]

Republicans aren't locked out yet, but they currently face an increasingly hard time getting even the bare minimum EVs to win. I'd say we are at the point where a really good win for Republicans would be 2004's margins, assuming Democrats field an OK candidate, and not some Trump-style buffoon.

If the GOP wants a place in the White House, they will need to figure out how to make inroads with minorities and young people. This whites-only strategy will be the end of them if they can't move past that, and post-Trump it will be exceedingly difficult.

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.

No we're not. Depending what time period you define the current Democratic realignment as starting in, it probably hasn't even peaked yet. Republicans are still completely bombing with young voters, worse than ever even. Republican minority support is looking to reach low levels never seen before. The GOP is losing support among virtually every part of the electorate that is growing, while doubling down on the parts that are shrinking. Even the states seen as most likely to shift to the GOP column in the future (in the rust belt/GL region), they are losing electoral votes to states Democrats are taking from you guys. What all of this says is that the Republican party hasn't even hit rock bottom yet.

Whatever realignment you think is overdue is not coming yet.

What you are describing sounds like a realignment. A realignment doesn't necessarily produce a new presidential majority. It does involve shifting individual subgroups within the party coalitions. The current divide is sharpest between urban and rural white voters. If college educated whites move Dem and non-college educated whites move Pub that would be a realignment to an axis based on education instead of population density.

[uti2]

Republicans are doing just fine. Trump on the other hand...

Every single Republican was down in the VA polls, not just Trump, .e.g.

[Stranger in a strange land]

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.

When Trump loses, three things will happen on different corners of the Right:

1) Establishment conservatives will write him off as a fluke and continue with business as usual
2) His supporters will claim he was stabbed in the back, especially if the RNC effectively renounces him and Republican officials continue to disavow him or at least tamper down their support. This will lead to them becoming even more bitter and angry, likely leading him to being the early frontrunner for 2020
3) The Tea Party/Religious Right/Radio Right will, as always, claim that he lost because he wasn't conservative enough, leading them to push for an even more hard right conservative. Ted Cruz is already positioning himself for his 2020 campaign.

[Sir Mohamed]

Well, I wouldn’t say locked out but it has become much more difficult to reach to magic number of 270 electoral votes. This has mainly to do with the demographic changes in many purple states (and the country as a whole as well), which saw an increase of Democratic-leaning voters like latinos and blacks. Take VA, CO and NV, they’re all trending blue (NV to a lesser extent in current polls). All of them were won by W but are almost out of reach for the GOP unless they manage a to win the national popular vote by a larger margin; say three for four points. NM is another example; won by W in 2004, it is now de facto a blue state. Due to these demographic changes that saw a substantial decrease of white voters, more states trend into the Dem’s column while no blue states trend right (PA and WI are still not really in play). AZ and GA are other examples, which became purple or just barely red states, but were considered solid Republican territory ten years ago. Even if PA is trending red in the near future, meaning 2020 and onward, the “losses” on the other hand can’t compensate this. The GOP would need WI, MN and MI for example, but I can’t see that happening any time soon. Even not in PA’s case at this time.

The trend becomes also clear by looking at the maximal potential for each party: Democrats can easily win over 300 electoral votes, even over 350. Since 1992, Democrats received well over 300 electoral votes in each of their victories and got at least 250 in every single election, including the two lost races. The GOP only won the EC twice, and by close margins (W in 2000 and 2004). Flip either FL or OH in these contests, and the end result is different. Since 1992, only in three elections they managed to get 200 electoral votes; in Romney’s case it just crossed the line barely. It’s fair to say that Bush 41 will likely remain the last Republican who has won over 300 electoral votes. Even if the Trumpster were still competitive now, his ceiling is at 280 or 290 electoral votes. Hillary’s ceiling is at 370 or 380 votes.

What the GOP needs is a renewal in their platform. They should remain conservative, but open its doors for minorities and moderate their views on immigration while advocating fiscal conservatism and include more elements of libertarism to appeal younger voters. And: End the total obstruction in congress. It serves nobody, except a few tea-party nuts who hold the rest of the party as hostage.

While this is the current problem for the GOP, Democrats have huge problems with governors and state legislatures, but that has more to do with low voter turnout in off-year elections and gerrymandering.

[uti2]

Well, I wouldn’t say locked out but it has become much more difficult to reach to magic number of 270 electoral votes. This has mainly to do with the demographic changes in many purple states (and the country as a whole as well), which saw an increase of Democratic-leaning voters like latinos and blacks. Take VA, CO and NV, they’re all trending blue (NV to a lesser extent in current polls). All of them were won by W but are almost out of reach for the GOP unless they manage a to win the national popular vote by a larger margin; say three for four points. NM is another example; won by W in 2004, it is now de facto a blue state. Due to these demographic changes that saw a substantial decrease of white voters, more states trend into the Dem’s column while no blue states trend right (PA and WI are still not really in play). AZ and GA are other examples, which became purple or just barely red states, but were considered solid Republican territory ten years ago. Even if PA is trending red in the near future, meaning 2020 and onward, the “losses” on the other hand can’t compensate this. The GOP would need WI, MN and MI for example, but I can’t see that happening any time soon. Even not in PA’s case at this time.

The trend becomes also clear by looking at the maximal potential for each party: Democrats can easily win over 300 electoral votes, even over 350. Since 1992, Democrats received well over 300 electoral votes in each of their victories and got at least 250 in every single election, including the two lost races. The GOP only won the EC twice, and by close margins (W in 2000 and 2004). Flip either FL or OH in these contests, and the end result is different. Since 1992, only in three elections they managed to get 200 electoral votes; in Romney’s case it just crossed the line barely. It’s fair to say that Bush 41 will likely remain the last Republican who has won over 300 electoral votes. Even if the Trumpster were still competitive now, his ceiling is at 280 or 290 electoral votes. Hillary’s ceiling is at 370 or 380 votes.

What the GOP needs is a renewal in their platform. They should remain conservative, but open its doors for minorities and moderate their views on immigration while advocating fiscal conservatism and include more elements of libertarism to appeal younger voters. And: End the total obstruction in congress. It serves nobody, except a few tea-party nuts who hold the rest of the party as hostage.

While this is the current problem for the GOP, Democrats have huge problems with governors and state legislatures, but that has more to do with low voter turnout in off-year elections and gerrymandering.

What does 'opening doors for minorities' mean? Mccain had moderate views on immigration. Reagan even granted amnesty, yet Dems overwhelmingly won the minority vote, even when Bill Clinton campaigned against illegal immigration, he still won the vote. The only parts of 'libertarianism' the youth is interested in are social issues and foreign policy (basically the 2 parts that the GOP won't accept).

The GWB team figured out that most minorities and Hispanics are interested in economic issues, this is why he sold 'compassionate conservatism', which was more of a centrist economic approach.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Any candidate who wins the popular vote by more than 1% will win the electoral vote.  Start with 2000 (which, btw is now 285 EVs thanks to a net 14-EV loss in Gore states).  Take away VA and and you still have 272 EVs.  Take away NV and NH and add IA and WI, and you have 278.  Take away CO, and the GOP will probably pick up either PA or MI.  And so on...

The real question is: Are the Republicans locked out of a popular vote plurality?  And the answer to that is, unless they change, and barring a spectacularly bad Democratic candidate or a significant third party challenge, yes.

[Desroko]

Any candidate who wins the popular vote by more than 1% will win the electoral vote.  Start with 2000 (which, btw is now 285 EVs thanks to a net 14-EV loss in Gore states).  Take away VA and and you still have 272 EVs.  Take away NV and NH and add IA and WI, and you have 278.  Take away CO, and the GOP will probably pick up either PA or MI.  And so on...

The real question is: Are the Republicans locked out of a popular vote plurality?  And the answer to that is, unless they change, and barring a spectacularly bad Democratic candidate or a significant third party challenge, yes.

Unfounded assumptions there.

[Sir Mohamed]

Well, I wouldn’t say locked out but it has become much more difficult to reach to magic number of 270 electoral votes. This has mainly to do with the demographic changes in many purple states (and the country as a whole as well), which saw an increase of Democratic-leaning voters like latinos and blacks. Take VA, CO and NV, they’re all trending blue (NV to a lesser extent in current polls). All of them were won by W but are almost out of reach for the GOP unless they manage a to win the national popular vote by a larger margin; say three for four points. NM is another example; won by W in 2004, it is now de facto a blue state. Due to these demographic changes that saw a substantial decrease of white voters, more states trend into the Dem’s column while no blue states trend right (PA and WI are still not really in play). AZ and GA are other examples, which became purple or just barely red states, but were considered solid Republican territory ten years ago. Even if PA is trending red in the near future, meaning 2020 and onward, the “losses” on the other hand can’t compensate this. The GOP would need WI, MN and MI for example, but I can’t see that happening any time soon. Even not in PA’s case at this time.

The trend becomes also clear by looking at the maximal potential for each party: Democrats can easily win over 300 electoral votes, even over 350. Since 1992, Democrats received well over 300 electoral votes in each of their victories and got at least 250 in every single election, including the two lost races. The GOP only won the EC twice, and by close margins (W in 2000 and 2004). Flip either FL or OH in these contests, and the end result is different. Since 1992, only in three elections they managed to get 200 electoral votes; in Romney’s case it just crossed the line barely. It’s fair to say that Bush 41 will likely remain the last Republican who has won over 300 electoral votes. Even if the Trumpster were still competitive now, his ceiling is at 280 or 290 electoral votes. Hillary’s ceiling is at 370 or 380 votes.

What the GOP needs is a renewal in their platform. They should remain conservative, but open its doors for minorities and moderate their views on immigration while advocating fiscal conservatism and include more elements of libertarism to appeal younger voters. And: End the total obstruction in congress. It serves nobody, except a few tea-party nuts who hold the rest of the party as hostage.

While this is the current problem for the GOP, Democrats have huge problems with governors and state legislatures, but that has more to do with low voter turnout in off-year elections and gerrymandering.

What does 'opening doors for minorities' mean? Mccain had moderate views on immigration. Reagan even granted amnesty, yet Dems overwhelmingly won the minority vote, even when Bill Clinton campaigned against illegal immigration, he still won the vote. The only parts of 'libertarianism' the youth is interested in are social issues and foreign policy (basically the 2 parts that the GOP won't accept).

The GWB team figured out that most minorities and Hispanics are interested in economic issues, this is why he sold 'compassionate conservatism', which was more of a centrist economic approach.

McCain lost for other reasons, 2008 was a very bad year for the GOP. What they should do: push for immigration reform, allow illegal immigrants to stay in and apply for work visas (which need to be reformed as well; make it easier to get one). Don’t demonize these all the illegals, because most of them are law-abiding people. The GOP should also try to connect more with these people: Seek exchanges on all levels, through politicians, organizations, the media etc. Try to find out what their problems are and then work on common-sense solutions for these problems. Take police violence for example. Most GOP officials are very one-sided in favor of the police; some are even racist (though not openly). But being one-sided won’t solve the problems.

[uti2]

Well, I wouldn’t say locked out but it has become much more difficult to reach to magic number of 270 electoral votes. This has mainly to do with the demographic changes in many purple states (and the country as a whole as well), which saw an increase of Democratic-leaning voters like latinos and blacks. Take VA, CO and NV, they’re all trending blue (NV to a lesser extent in current polls). All of them were won by W but are almost out of reach for the GOP unless they manage a to win the national popular vote by a larger margin; say three for four points. NM is another example; won by W in 2004, it is now de facto a blue state. Due to these demographic changes that saw a substantial decrease of white voters, more states trend into the Dem’s column while no blue states trend right (PA and WI are still not really in play). AZ and GA are other examples, which became purple or just barely red states, but were considered solid Republican territory ten years ago. Even if PA is trending red in the near future, meaning 2020 and onward, the “losses” on the other hand can’t compensate this. The GOP would need WI, MN and MI for example, but I can’t see that happening any time soon. Even not in PA’s case at this time.

The trend becomes also clear by looking at the maximal potential for each party: Democrats can easily win over 300 electoral votes, even over 350. Since 1992, Democrats received well over 300 electoral votes in each of their victories and got at least 250 in every single election, including the two lost races. The GOP only won the EC twice, and by close margins (W in 2000 and 2004). Flip either FL or OH in these contests, and the end result is different. Since 1992, only in three elections they managed to get 200 electoral votes; in Romney’s case it just crossed the line barely. It’s fair to say that Bush 41 will likely remain the last Republican who has won over 300 electoral votes. Even if the Trumpster were still competitive now, his ceiling is at 280 or 290 electoral votes. Hillary’s ceiling is at 370 or 380 votes.

What the GOP needs is a renewal in their platform. They should remain conservative, but open its doors for minorities and moderate their views on immigration while advocating fiscal conservatism and include more elements of libertarism to appeal younger voters. And: End the total obstruction in congress. It serves nobody, except a few tea-party nuts who hold the rest of the party as hostage.

While this is the current problem for the GOP, Democrats have huge problems with governors and state legislatures, but that has more to do with low voter turnout in off-year elections and gerrymandering.

What does 'opening doors for minorities' mean? Mccain had moderate views on immigration. Reagan even granted amnesty, yet Dems overwhelmingly won the minority vote, even when Bill Clinton campaigned against illegal immigration, he still won the vote. The only parts of 'libertarianism' the youth is interested in are social issues and foreign policy (basically the 2 parts that the GOP won't accept).

The GWB team figured out that most minorities and Hispanics are interested in economic issues, this is why he sold 'compassionate conservatism', which was more of a centrist economic approach.

McCain lost for other reasons, 2008 was a very bad year for the GOP. What they should do: push for immigration reform, allow illegal immigrants to stay in and apply for work visas (which need to be reformed as well; make it easier to get one). Don’t demonize these all the illegals, because most of them are law-abiding people. The GOP should also try to connect more with these people: Seek exchanges on all levels, through politicians, organizations, the media etc. Try to find out what their problems are and then work on common-sense solutions for these problems. Take police violence for example. Most GOP officials are very one-sided in favor of the police; some are even racist (though not openly). But being one-sided won’t solve the problems.

'Law and Order', that's one of the centerpoints of conservatism that exists in all countries that have RW parties on the planet.  Those immigrants want more moderate economic policies like many of them have even in their home countries (even mexico has a form of universal healthcare + they even have gay marraige, etc.). Immigration policy is not that important relative to other concerns:

http://www.salon.com/2000/01/13/latinos/

Of course the GOP knows this, but in order to get funds from the Koch brothers and top donors they are told to push hard-right economic policies.

[Sir Mohamed]

Well, I wouldn’t say locked out but it has become much more difficult to reach to magic number of 270 electoral votes. This has mainly to do with the demographic changes in many purple states (and the country as a whole as well), which saw an increase of Democratic-leaning voters like latinos and blacks. Take VA, CO and NV, they’re all trending blue (NV to a lesser extent in current polls). All of them were won by W but are almost out of reach for the GOP unless they manage a to win the national popular vote by a larger margin; say three for four points. NM is another example; won by W in 2004, it is now de facto a blue state. Due to these demographic changes that saw a substantial decrease of white voters, more states trend into the Dem’s column while no blue states trend right (PA and WI are still not really in play). AZ and GA are other examples, which became purple or just barely red states, but were considered solid Republican territory ten years ago. Even if PA is trending red in the near future, meaning 2020 and onward, the “losses” on the other hand can’t compensate this. The GOP would need WI, MN and MI for example, but I can’t see that happening any time soon. Even not in PA’s case at this time.

The trend becomes also clear by looking at the maximal potential for each party: Democrats can easily win over 300 electoral votes, even over 350. Since 1992, Democrats received well over 300 electoral votes in each of their victories and got at least 250 in every single election, including the two lost races. The GOP only won the EC twice, and by close margins (W in 2000 and 2004). Flip either FL or OH in these contests, and the end result is different. Since 1992, only in three elections they managed to get 200 electoral votes; in Romney’s case it just crossed the line barely. It’s fair to say that Bush 41 will likely remain the last Republican who has won over 300 electoral votes. Even if the Trumpster were still competitive now, his ceiling is at 280 or 290 electoral votes. Hillary’s ceiling is at 370 or 380 votes.

What the GOP needs is a renewal in their platform. They should remain conservative, but open its doors for minorities and moderate their views on immigration while advocating fiscal conservatism and include more elements of libertarism to appeal younger voters. And: End the total obstruction in congress. It serves nobody, except a few tea-party nuts who hold the rest of the party as hostage.

While this is the current problem for the GOP, Democrats have huge problems with governors and state legislatures, but that has more to do with low voter turnout in off-year elections and gerrymandering.

What does 'opening doors for minorities' mean? Mccain had moderate views on immigration. Reagan even granted amnesty, yet Dems overwhelmingly won the minority vote, even when Bill Clinton campaigned against illegal immigration, he still won the vote. The only parts of 'libertarianism' the youth is interested in are social issues and foreign policy (basically the 2 parts that the GOP won't accept).

The GWB team figured out that most minorities and Hispanics are interested in economic issues, this is why he sold 'compassionate conservatism', which was more of a centrist economic approach.

McCain lost for other reasons, 2008 was a very bad year for the GOP. What they should do: push for immigration reform, allow illegal immigrants to stay in and apply for work visas (which need to be reformed as well; make it easier to get one). Don’t demonize these all the illegals, because most of them are law-abiding people. The GOP should also try to connect more with these people: Seek exchanges on all levels, through politicians, organizations, the media etc. Try to find out what their problems are and then work on common-sense solutions for these problems. Take police violence for example. Most GOP officials are very one-sided in favor of the police; some are even racist (though not openly). But being one-sided won’t solve the problems.

'Law and Order', that's one of the centerpoints of conservatism that exists in all countries that have RW parties on the planet.  Those immigrants want more moderate economic policies like many of them have even in their home countries (even mexico has a form of universal healthcare + they even have gay marraige, etc.). Immigration policy is not that important relative to other concerns:

http://www.salon.com/2000/01/13/latinos/

Of course the GOP knows this, but in order to get funds from the Koch brothers and top donors they are told to push hard-right economic policies.

I agree about economic and social issues, which I mentioned in the first post. But the fact that the 2013 immigration bill, which gave something to both sides, has failed didn’t help the GOP’s image among Hispanics. That’s for sure.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Any candidate who wins the popular vote by more than 1% will win the electoral vote.  Start with 2000 (which, btw is now 285 EVs thanks to a net 14-EV loss in Gore states).  Take away VA and and you still have 272 EVs.  Take away NV and NH and add IA and WI, and you have 278.  Take away CO, and the GOP will probably pick up either PA or MI.  And so on...

The real question is: Are the Republicans locked out of a popular vote plurality?  And the answer to that is, unless they change, and barring a spectacularly bad Democratic candidate or a significant third party challenge, yes.

Unfounded assumptions there.

Any candidate who wins the popular vote by more than 1% is going to win the Electoral Collage more than 75% of the time.  That the Electoral College is that much tilted to the Democrats is an unfounded assumption.  The electoral math has a way of adding up.  Try creating a scenario in which the GOP wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral, using either of these tools:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/widgets/2016/turnout_two_party_vote.html

I've been able to give Republicans a EC victory without the PV, but not the other way around.

[uti2]

Well, I wouldn’t say locked out but it has become much more difficult to reach to magic number of 270 electoral votes. This has mainly to do with the demographic changes in many purple states (and the country as a whole as well), which saw an increase of Democratic-leaning voters like latinos and blacks. Take VA, CO and NV, they’re all trending blue (NV to a lesser extent in current polls). All of them were won by W but are almost out of reach for the GOP unless they manage a to win the national popular vote by a larger margin; say three for four points. NM is another example; won by W in 2004, it is now de facto a blue state. Due to these demographic changes that saw a substantial decrease of white voters, more states trend into the Dem’s column while no blue states trend right (PA and WI are still not really in play). AZ and GA are other examples, which became purple or just barely red states, but were considered solid Republican territory ten years ago. Even if PA is trending red in the near future, meaning 2020 and onward, the “losses” on the other hand can’t compensate this. The GOP would need WI, MN and MI for example, but I can’t see that happening any time soon. Even not in PA’s case at this time.

The trend becomes also clear by looking at the maximal potential for each party: Democrats can easily win over 300 electoral votes, even over 350. Since 1992, Democrats received well over 300 electoral votes in each of their victories and got at least 250 in every single election, including the two lost races. The GOP only won the EC twice, and by close margins (W in 2000 and 2004). Flip either FL or OH in these contests, and the end result is different. Since 1992, only in three elections they managed to get 200 electoral votes; in Romney’s case it just crossed the line barely. It’s fair to say that Bush 41 will likely remain the last Republican who has won over 300 electoral votes. Even if the Trumpster were still competitive now, his ceiling is at 280 or 290 electoral votes. Hillary’s ceiling is at 370 or 380 votes.

What the GOP needs is a renewal in their platform. They should remain conservative, but open its doors for minorities and moderate their views on immigration while advocating fiscal conservatism and include more elements of libertarism to appeal younger voters. And: End the total obstruction in congress. It serves nobody, except a few tea-party nuts who hold the rest of the party as hostage.

While this is the current problem for the GOP, Democrats have huge problems with governors and state legislatures, but that has more to do with low voter turnout in off-year elections and gerrymandering.

What does 'opening doors for minorities' mean? Mccain had moderate views on immigration. Reagan even granted amnesty, yet Dems overwhelmingly won the minority vote, even when Bill Clinton campaigned against illegal immigration, he still won the vote. The only parts of 'libertarianism' the youth is interested in are social issues and foreign policy (basically the 2 parts that the GOP won't accept).

The GWB team figured out that most minorities and Hispanics are interested in economic issues, this is why he sold 'compassionate conservatism', which was more of a centrist economic approach.

McCain lost for other reasons, 2008 was a very bad year for the GOP. What they should do: push for immigration reform, allow illegal immigrants to stay in and apply for work visas (which need to be reformed as well; make it easier to get one). Don’t demonize these all the illegals, because most of them are law-abiding people. The GOP should also try to connect more with these people: Seek exchanges on all levels, through politicians, organizations, the media etc. Try to find out what their problems are and then work on common-sense solutions for these problems. Take police violence for example. Most GOP officials are very one-sided in favor of the police; some are even racist (though not openly). But being one-sided won’t solve the problems.

'Law and Order', that's one of the centerpoints of conservatism that exists in all countries that have RW parties on the planet.  Those immigrants want more moderate economic policies like many of them have even in their home countries (even mexico has a form of universal healthcare + they even have gay marraige, etc.). Immigration policy is not that important relative to other concerns:

http://www.salon.com/2000/01/13/latinos/

Of course the GOP knows this, but in order to get funds from the Koch brothers and top donors they are told to push hard-right economic policies.

I agree about economic and social issues, which I mentioned in the first post. But the fact that the 2013 immigration bill, which gave something to both sides, has failed didn’t help the GOP’s image among Hispanics. That’s for sure.

That bill was supposed to be repeat of Reagan's deal in the 80s where he granted amnesty, it would've passed if not for the base rebelling against the Republicans with David Brat succeeding in his primary challenge against Cantor.

Anyway, this hack strategy of convincing poor white working class to vote against their own interests in exchange for less than nothing (immigration was their last straw) + trying to win over a slightly higher percentage of hispanics (Jeb's strategy) is actually a devious strategy to the entire electoral demographic, it's neither honorable nor fair to anyone. If the GOP reforms, it should be to actually moderate by appealing to working class people of all races with positive economic programs for them in the form of the economic centrist model that Eisenhower had. The GOP was only able to push these hard-right economic programs thanks to their racial resentment strategy, and when they had thought that white working class voters were captive to them no matter what, they didn't think that they would rebel. So all that happened this cycle was seeing those logical inconsistencies in the GOP finally exposed.

[uti2]

I agree about economic and social issues, which I mentioned in the first post. But the fact that the 2013 immigration bill, which gave something to both sides, has failed didn’t help the GOP’s image among Hispanics. That’s for sure.

For the GOP, the 2007 immigration bill is actually more heartbreaking than the 2013 bill was.

The 2013 bill came on the back of Obama's massive wins among non-whites in 2012, which makes the Republicans look opportunistic; and the final, enduring image would have been a Democrat's signing the paper under the Statue of Liberty.

The 2007 bill, on the other hand, was promoted heavily by a Republican President who had recently won 40-44% Hispanics in the general. Had that bill passed, it's possible (though speculative) that GOP might have made inroads with non-whites.

GWB won ~35% of the Hispanic vote (which is the normal rate for the GOP, e.g. Reagan and Nixon had those numbers), and still lost the PV to Gore. 2004 was a state of terror and panic thanks to 9/11, it was not normal conditions.

[Virginiá]

What you are describing sounds like a realignment. A realignment doesn't necessarily produce a new presidential majority. It does involve shifting individual subgroups within the party coalitions. The current divide is sharpest between urban and rural white voters. If college educated whites move Dem and non-college educated whites move Pub that would be a realignment to an axis based on education instead of population density.

That's a fair point, but in the context of my response I was more responding to a "majority realignment" rather than just coalition shifting as you mentioned. I'm not 100% sure if the movement of college educated whites to Democrats and non-college to Republicans started prior to Trump, even if only marginal changes, so it might be correct to attribute this to the current ongoing realignment.

One part of the current realignment that is still going strong is young voters, who went from a swing group to solidly Democratic post-2000 and has more or less remained 60%+ until Trump. Minority growth seems poised to deliver even more states to Democrats in the electoral college as well. I wouldn't consider them part of a realignment (minus Asian voters), as they were already solid Democratic and are now just expanding in size.

In a way I guess it depends on how you want to define 'realignment.' Voter groups could stop shifting but states in the electoral college could continue, as what I think will be the case from at least 2016-2024. When Republicans return the 18-29 demographic to close to 50/50 or more and make inroads with minority groups/critical electoral college states, I'll consider it either the end or the beginning of the end of the current Democratic realignment.