Skip to comments.The Republican Party’s uphill path to 270 electoral votes in 2016
Posted on 01/19/2014 9:22:33 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
A recent conversation with a veteran of GOP presidential campaigns raised this question: Which, if any, of the recent battleground states are likely to become more Republican by 2016? The consensus: very few.
That reality highlights one problem Republicans face as they seek to regain the White House after six years under President Obama. Lots of factors affect elections: the quality of the candidates, the state of the economy, the effectiveness of the campaigns. But in a country whose demographics continue to change, Republicans will begin this campaign with one significant disadvantage.
Over the past three decades, the political leanings of many states have shifted dramatically. What once was a sizable Republican advantage in the electoral college has become a decided Democratic advantage.
One way to look at this is by comparing two overlapping 20-year periods. In the first, 1980 through 2000, Republicans won four of six presidential elections. In the second, 1992 through 2012, Democrats won four of six.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I suspect they will not reform themselves and will crash to the ground again.
Lose Willard and any other liberal who “needs” or “deserves” the GOP nomination to satisfy an over stuffed ego or victimhood...
We’re fighting the products of public education and outright democrat fraud. It’s going to take another Reagan to turn things around. ‘I want to believe that a miracle is possible.’ But the chances are very hazy and may, in fact, be gone.
Why, when your opponent is the party of incompetence and perversion, should it be an uphill battle?
Its because we ceded the infrastructure of the war of ideas. Schools and universities, the news and entertainment media.
Who controls these controls the politics. We’re always just hanging on for the next election, hoping for a miracle that will turn the Titanic around while our enemies raise and educate our children, write our history, decide what happened and what didn’t, whats important and what isn’t, and define what is good and what is bad.
The road back to sanity is a long road that requires us to regain control of the education of our children, establish news sources that we trust, and forgive me if I suggest you get your family into church. If the church of your childhood has gone over to the dark side, find another. But take control of the moral education as well as the academic education of your family.
Time to practice saying,
“President Hillary Clinton.”
The GOP could not beat my cat running as a dem, barring some divine intervention...
We need someone who would make Ronald Reagan look like a wimp.
God bless Ronald Reagan.
Ohio is moving to R.
That means for gop to win, they need all the romney states plus Ohio and Michigan and florida for a 269-269 tie with the house of representatives deciding the election.
Winning the romney states plus ohio and FL is doable.
Michigan is the question.
Another path is OH, FL plus VA and something else.
With 109 locked up in perpetuity (Cal, Ill, NY) the Dems start the race with a huge lead. Then add in Mass, RI, MD, DC, etc and they’re halfway to a win without spending a dime.
What is interesting to me is that many of the states listed above are now exporting liberals to other states turning them blue.
BUT the exporting state remains or grows more liberal due to immigration.
Finding 60 more will not be that difficult...
When factoring in fraud and cheating...she's a shoe in...
Of course 2016 is still a few years away and anything can happen....
Not holding my breath...
“The GOP could not beat my cat running as a dem”
I’d much prefer to have your cat in the White House than Hillary. I’ll even contribute some catnip.
It’s clear that the Left has already certified Hillary Clinton as the next president. While I’m no fan of Christie, the glee with which the mainstream media has ripped him apart shows that someone out there thought he had a shot of winning.
Great post! Good analysis.
The reason the average millennial knows more about climate change than the US Constitution is the education system and the media.
No mention here of rampant voter fraud which seems to be occuring in an increasing number of states.
PLUS, I’ve been visitning my 100 year old mother in her assisted living facility this week and also chatting with some of the other residents. I really don’t think that 1 in 5 should be voting. But, we all know that all of them are with the assistance of Democrat operatives.
Do you think a protectionistic platform would seal the deal for the Rust Belt states?
I'm not as convinced yet. Waiting to see where the Chicago Mob lines up. Watch Axlegrease, Gibbs, and Plouffy. No doubt in my mind they could torpedo the Clinton Crime Family once again if they choose to.
Blue states need to be re-flipped to Red.
A long term plan needs to be created to start moving more to Red.
Another reason they are attacking Christie...he is the leader of the GOP governors Assn and the gop governors are accomplishing reforms.
Best way to stop this is to take down the leader.
So how's that Hispandering working out for you, Stupid Party?
You can pretty much forget Virginia.
I’d say Michigan and Colorado are the best bets to try and get. Remember, Paul and Cruz have been running ahead of Hitlery in Colorado recently, and Michigan may prove to be a big upset victory for Republicans in 2014.
CA - 55
NY - 31
IL - 21
NJ - 15
CT - 7
WA - 11
OR - 7
PA - 21
HI - 4
184 lib vote without even trying...
It is not “Willard’s” fault.
It is really hard to defeat an incumbent president.
It has been done 3 times in the last hundred years (Hoover, Carter, Bush 41).
And it took the great depression to get Hoover out, the almost great depression to get Carter out and a recession plus Ross Perot to get Bush 41 out.
Say goodbye to freedom.
It would seal the deal that many “conservatives” are economic welfare cases. I say no to protectionism. Can I call you a new deal FDR Republican?
“Do you think a protectionistic platform would seal the deal for the Rust Belt states?”
No. Protectionism just is not high on the list of anyone.
There is a large anti wall street feeling and despite what everyone has been led to believe, wall street money and votes go democrat.
I think in an year without an incumbent president, OH and FL will turn republican, making for a very close election in 2016
paints an ugly picture.
One wonders if the RNC really wants to win.
The answer to that is yes. One of the parties is eventually going to seize that issue and it might as well be the Republicans. If they can tie it to income tax rate reductions and economic stimulation it will be a winner.
The last two Republicans in the White House were both named Bush: George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush. I be hard-pressed to come up with two individuals who have done more to damage the name and reputation of the Republican Party than these two.
Let's keep in mind that for most of the eight years that the younger Bush was in office, he also had a Republican House and Senate. And yet his tenure in office was a complete disaster in terms of foreign/military policy abroad and crony capitalism here at home -- which is how we ended up with a jug-eared idiot in the White House today.
That's where you're wrong. Neither major party has any interest in this issue, since both of them are firmly in the back pockets of major international corporate interests.
Interestingly, "protectionism" is likely to become increasingly irrelevant as the value of the U.S. dollar slides and it becomes more and more attractive to manufacture products here in the U.S. over time. I read a fascinating article a couple of months ago about this subject, and the author made the case that by 2016 it will be more cost-effective to manufacture most consumer products sold in the U.S. in Alabama and South Carolina than in coastal China.
I think Reagan crushed Mondale because of the Harley Davidson tariffs and the voluntary import restrictions imposed on Japanese automakers, among other protectionistic policies he backed. Ultimately, I think this was important because it sent a signal to Rust Belt manufacturing workers being shellacked by layoffs that the GOP cared about them. While free trade is not a bad overall policy, exceptions might have to be made as a concession to electoral trends. I'm not talking about Brazilian-style economic autarky, but targeted tariffs and sanctions to address public concerns.
We’re going Galt. The country is going Detroit.
That’s remarkable, isn’t it?
Every now and then there’s a bit of hope.
Reduced or non existent tariffs are good if the exporters standard of living is the same or better than your countries standard of living. However what we have now is a progressive income tax combined with low(or no) import tariffs which is importing a 3rd standard of living into the USA. The worst possible combination.
Dems capture the states with the largest cities and they win, plain and simple. We the people don’t choose, they the dependency class do.
One man one vote is a big fail, when the “one” man is an idiot.
Central America has lower wage costs than China, so that's an additional benefit. Shipping costs obviously go down some, as well as turnaround time.
Let's face it -- Most people who spend a career in politics are seriously damaged in some way, and when you get to the upper reaches of government you end up with a veritable freak show of disordered personalities.
The problem is that a fouled-up freak appeals to mainstream Democratic voters, but turns off a lot of conservatives who rightly question whether it's in the country's best interest to have people like this in powerful positions.
“Let’s keep in mind that for most of the eight years that the younger Bush was in office, he also had a Republican House and Senate.”
You are just barely right. From jan 2001 to july 2001, he had a 50-50 senate with Jim Jeffords on our side and also had Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, and Lincoln Chaffee. From July 2001 to Jan. 2003, the senate was 51-49 dem. when Jeffords swithed.
Only from Jan 2003 to Jan 2007 did bush have the house and senate.
Although you are just barely right, the reality is Bush had the house and senate for half the time.
Reagan spoke with a forked tongue when it came to trade. I believe that the protectionist actions he took were more than overshadowed by the FTA between Canada and the US.
A good first step would be ditching Boehner.
He has neutralized the House and consequently the Republican party.
>> Its because we ceded the infrastructure of the war of ideas.
They’re about to cede the country to foreigners. Republicans must know they will not be the electoral beneficiary of Amnesty. The US will be harmed immeasurably yet the Republicans forge ahead with the Amnesty agenda.
Republicans have ceded their brains to Democrats.
If we lose Texas, that will just about be it.
The best way would be to distribute Electoral Votes proportionally by county.
Rust Belt ? Nah. The whole country would vote for the Republicans. The GOP threw the working family middle class under the bus by exporting their jobs with government to government 'fleece trade' agreements. The opening is there. Obama wants more free trade but the GOP Wall Streeters make the calls. Money = speech and they have a lot of money. So expect nothing from the GOP except Obamacare and Benghazi, rinse and repeat.