In terms of Presidential elections, name some blue states that are turning purple and then red aside from WV. VA has always been within the Beltway orbit, but it voted Rep for President for 40 years prior to 2008. What is Iowa's excuse for being so dependable Dem?
We are seeing them rise up everywhere and winning primaries, even sometimes if they are seriously flawed. Your examples contradict your own statement.
Everywhere? And you can expect the GOPe to strike back as the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove are doing right now. Money is the mother's milk of politics and the GOPe has most of it. We will see in the upcoming primaries if McConnell and Cornyn, among others, will lose to a more conservative candidate. Rove has already predicted that none of these challengers will take down a Rep incumbent in the primaries.
Frankly, for as much as he’s put out, the executive hasn’t gotten all that much done.
I don't know what metric you are using, but from my vantage point, Obama has gotten a lot done.
He has taken over one-sixth of the economy with Obamacare, which will not be repealed. He has used the EPA and other agencies to attack and shut down the coal industry. He has given a backdoor amnesty to 500,000 Dreamers, including issuing them work permits. The GOP will be proposing its own version of the Dream Act, which could give amnesty to 1.4 million and this is not counting the parents of the Dreamers who can be sponsored by those getting amnesty 21 and older. Obama has added over $7 trillion to the national debt and it will over $20 trillion when he leaves office. Obama has done many other things involving foreign policy, national security, the military, etc. that I could list. He has been wildly successful in achieving his agenda.
Your blatant ignorance isn’t my problem. Romney lost because too many white people stayed home or skipped the ballot. We failed to turn out our base because Romney was too flawed and contradictory. This explains it pretty well:
The first link you provided gives no facts, just assertions that aren't borne out by the facts. Obama beat McCain by 10 million votes and Romney by 5 million. Obama received 69 million votes in 2008 and 65 million votes in 2012, the two highest vote totals in American history. If Obama's voters had turned out like they did in 2008, it would have been no contest. McCain only won 55% on the non-Hispanic white vote.
The 165Kswing comes from this article, and it was 4 states not 5:
The article is wrong. It did not include the final vote totals. Go to this link to get the final official results
Romney lost Florida’s 29 electoral college votes by a margin of 73,858. Obama won with 4,236,032 to Romney's 4,162,174.
Obama won FL 4,237,756 to 4,163,447, a difference of 74,309.
Romney lost Ohio’s 18 electoral college votes by a margin of 103,481. Obama won with 2,697,260 to Romney’s 2,593,779
Obama beat Romney 2,827,709 to 2,661,437, a difference of 166,272.
Romney lost Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes by a margin of 115,910. Obama won with 1,905,528 to Romney’s 1,789,618.
Obama beat Romney 1,971,820 to 1,822,522, a difference of 149,298.
Romney lost New Hampshire’s 4 electoral college votes by a margin of 40,659. Obama won with 368,529 to Romney’s 327,870
Obama beat Romney 369,561 to 329,918, a difference of 39,643.
Adding the vote totals up for the four states, this amounts to a difference of 429,522 votes not the 333,000 in the article. Nor does the article include states that Romney barely won like NC in this swing scenario. This is the way losers look at elections similar to what Gore and Kerry said about their narrow losses to Bush. Gore actually received more popular votes than Bush.
The article you linked also made the following false statement:
Overall, voter turnout was down, from 131 million in 2008 to 122 million in 2012. Obama won 7.6 million fewer votes than he did in 2008, and Romney won 1.3 million fewer than McCain in 2008.
Voter turnout in 2012 was 129,231,960. Obama won 4 million less votes than 2008 and Romney won 1 million more votes than McCain. Next time get your facts straight.
And at 71 you are still bound by the thinking of your age group that is still living in the USA of 50 years ago. This is not then. It’s great that you’ve drawn breath for that long, but that doesn’t translate into you actually knowing something. You have things all laid out and wrapped in a pretty bow, but your chain of logic is weak and doesn’t fit with what’s actually going on. You are quite ignorant to many other factors beyond simple demographics.
LOL. You are missing the point. I am saying that this is no longer the America of 50 years ago. We have an entirely different demographic and electorate. In 1970 89% of the population was non-Hispanic white compared to 66% today. In 1970 one in 21 was foreign born, today it is one in 8. It has electoral consequences.
I’m 45 and I have 20 years experience in politics, including 15 years of running campaigns at all levels, and also in country and district leadership in the party. There are many who know more than me, but I guarantee you I know more than YOU. You have NOT analyzed what’s going on more than me, as I guarantee you I’ve put in a far more intense and grueling level of study on a far broader range of election issues than you have. You are overly focused on one thing and not very knowledgeable beyond that.
I have been active in politics far longer than you have. I also have two advanced degrees in political science. My grandfather was a ward healer for Frank Hague. I understand how politics work at every level. I lobby on the Hill. But I do understand one thing that you seemingly do not. Numbers matter. And when the other side outnumbers you and is continually adding to its numbers while ours are decreasing, you have a political problem. The growing percentage of minorities and immigrants (strong Dem constituencies) as part of the electorate has an impact on electoral politics. It always has if you know our history. We are now heading into uncharted territory. Samuel Huntington wrote about it.
Voter ID is not going to change the equation as much as we would like it to. It just delays the inevitable. I have been working with a group here in VA on that issue and we have been successful in making some important changes legislatively. However, as a poll watcher, I can see the changing electorate and they are voting legally.
You live in Iowa, which is far from being representative of what is happening in the rest of the country. Talk to Steve King sometime about immigration and its impact on electoral politics. I had him on a panel I organized at CPAC.
What I’m talking about is using what advantages we have, particularly at the state level, to start dismantling the Democrat party. It can be done because we’ve started doing it in places like WI, MI, and IN, among others. That and becoming more efficient and researched and using our momentum better as a party. Considering the disparity of effort between us and the Dems, the Dems should own it all by now. Obviously they have flaws we can exploit. We just need to stop holding on to outdated thinking and start moving forward.
Yes, there are some small triumphs at the state and local levels and we should try to build on them. But in terms of the larger picture, we are losing both electorally and on the issues. There is a generational gap and a demographic gap. By 2019, half of the children 18 and under will be minorities as defined by the USG. And by 2046, half of the country will be minorities. The Dems understand this, which is why they will focus their efforts on solidifying that support and painting the Reps as racists, bigots, and xenophobes. And they are joined in those efforts by the likes of McCain, Graham, Rove, the Bushes, etc.
The one holding to outdated thinking is you and the rest of the GOPe. You think that we just have to do a better job of communicating our message of limited government and lower taxes and elections will be won. As Jeff Sessions has said many times, the way for the party to win is to move away from the corporate elite and move towards being the party protecting the American worker and jobs. Both parties have abandoned the American worker. Here is an article I wrote for the American Thinker a few months ago.
Of course, you disclaimer by narrowing your assertions to Presidential elections. Your own ignorance is showing right there if you forget to include Congress and the State Legislatures, where we are doing far better. You understand that under the Constitution, our divided govt consists of more than just a President? If you look deeper at Iowa, you will realize that in everything but President it's going more GOP, like most of the rest of the Midwest and South. A difference of 3% would have meant we'd have the Governorship and both Houses of the legislatures. You are so focused on Presidential politics you don't see the forest for the trees.
Everywhere? And you can expect the GOPe to strike back as the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove are doing right now. Money is the mother's milk of politics and the GOPe has most of it. We will see in the upcoming primaries if McConnell and Cornyn, among others, will lose to a more conservative candidate. Rove has already predicted that none of these challengers will take down a Rep incumbent in the primaries
Let's see, Nevada, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Alaska, New York, Utah, Kentucky, to name a few. That doesn't count the state level. Against guys with more money, where you again show your political ignorance, because primaries aren't always won with more money. So hype the Rove bogeyman as they are nothing but unproven assertions.
He has taken over one-sixth of the economy with Obamacare, which will not be repealed. He has used the EPA and other agencies to attack and shut down the coal industry. He has given a backdoor amnesty to 500,000 Dreamers, including issuing them work permits.
Obamacare was passed by Congress, it was not a unilateral Executive decision. The EPA regs have been his one major victory, the backdoor amnesty to the Dreamers is small potatoes considering the 20M or so illegal immigrants in this country. The national debt is a function of Congress, the Executive cannot unilaterally spend on it's own. Considering how much he's tried to do, it hasn't yielded much more than a few victories.
Adding the vote totals up for the four states, this amounts to a difference of 429,522 votes not the 333,000 in the article. Nor does the article include states that Romney barely won like NC in this swing scenario. This is the way losers look at elections similar to what Gore and Kerry said about their narrow losses to Bush. Gore actually received more popular votes than Bush.
And again you show your political ignorance. In terms of swing it's still only a few votes per precinct. Any bush league campaign manager understands this, why don't you? Frankly, for as much money as Obama spent, it wasn't much of a victory.
Voter turnout in 2012 was 129,231,960. Obama won 4 million less votes than 2008 and Romney won 1 million more votes than McCain. Next time get your facts straight.
Non sequitor. Those aren't my facts, but the articles, In the wash, small potatoes. Nice try at Alinsky tactics though.
LOL. You are missing the point. I am saying that this is no longer the America of 50 years ago.
And yet your analysis, conclusions, and solutions are based on 50 year old thinking. You see the data, but you don't comprehend it, or better, you see it without context. You frontload with all sorts of assumptions about how things will turn out, and then reason away in a hermetically sealed test tube. Your scenarios are too one dimensional to be worth much of anything.
I have been active in politics far longer than you have. I also have two advanced degrees in political science. My grandfather was a ward healer for Frank Hague. I understand how politics work at every level. I lobby on the Hill. But I do understand one thing that you seemingly do not. Numbers matter. And when the other side outnumbers you and is continually adding to its numbers while ours are decreasing, you have a political problem. The growing percentage of minorities and immigrants (strong Dem constituencies) as part of the electorate has an impact on electoral politics. It always has if you know our history. We are now heading into uncharted territory. Samuel Huntington wrote about it.
Who cares how long you've been active? I know people who've been active in my local party as long as I've been alive, and they are far more ignorant about politics than I, because they don't learn and grow. I don't care about degrees or what your grandfather did, what I want to know is IF YOU HAVE RAN CAMPAIGNS. Until you've done that, in the real world and not on paper, and gotten your hands dirty at that level, you really don't understand politics. Wrapping up things in pretty little bows with one dimensional abstract conclusions that aren't borne out by what's on the ground is meaningless.
Voter ID is not going to change the equation as much as we would like it to. It just delays the inevitable. I have been working with a group here in VA on that issue and we have been successful in making some important changes legislatively. However, as a poll watcher, I can see the changing electorate and they are voting legally.
Again, you see things from your one precinct perspective and applying it across the country. I'm aware of the immigration issue, but I just don't necessarily draw the same conclusions that you do. Voter ID is but one change we need to make in the states to stop voter fraud. Public union busting is another. Take away the union ATM machine and the ability to commit vote fraud and the Dems start losing.
Yes, there are some small triumphs at the state and local levels and we should try to build on them. But in terms of the larger picture, we are losing both electorally and on the issues. There is a generational gap and a demographic gap. By 2019, half of the children 18 and under will be minorities as defined by the USG. And by 2046, half of the country will be minorities. The Dems understand this, which is why they will focus their efforts on solidifying that support and painting the Reps as racists, bigots, and xenophobes. And they are joined in those efforts by the likes of McCain, Graham, Rove, the Bushes, etc.
Yes, assuming all those trends hold and every one of them vote the way you assume. You also underestimate the ability of the Dems to drive demographics away with the issues, such as younger voters. You also overestimate the power of the MSM that seemingly wasn't able, with all it's power, to prevent a GOP sweep in 2010, or 1994 for that matter. The 'small triumphs' that you poo-pooh are far more significant than you understand, especially in terms of funding and winning close races. Vote reform and public union busting are not small potatoes. Nor is proportioning electoral votes by congressional district.
The one holding to outdated thinking is you and the rest of the GOPe. You think that we just have to do a better job of communicating our message of limited government and lower taxes and elections will be won. As Jeff Sessions has said many times, the way for the party to win is to move away from the corporate elite and move towards being the party protecting the American worker and jobs. Both parties have abandoned the American worker.
The only place I've said those things is in your head. Jobs are only one piece of the puzzle. Issues are only one piece of the puzzle. We need to get much better at election mechanics, and more sophisticated in our organization, and more strategic in our thinking, far beyond just electoral demographics.
You obviously aren't interested in that as you want to use the same old saws to solve the problem. What we need to do, again, is focus on areas where the Dems are weak - on issues, in mechanics, on structure - anywhere we can exploit that weakness. The Dems have built an artifice that, if we know where and how to poke, can defeat them. You want to give in to defeat because you have all this academic data to point to that in your mind makes our defeat certain.
I'm telling you that in spite of everything there is and we can form a strategy to combat it. It can be done because I've done it and so are others because we aren't accepting the old thinking, or rather, narrowly focusing on one aspect of things as our path to victory. It's time to use all the tools in the toolbox.