CA - 55
NY - 31
IL - 21
NJ - 15
MA -12
CT - 7
WA - 11
OR - 7
PA - 21
HI - 4
184 lib vote without even trying...
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 ...
CA - 55
NY - 31
IL - 21
NJ - 15
MA -12
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.
WI
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 exporter’s 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.