The 'Rats may have "won" the popular vote 5 of the last 6 times, but only 2 of those were majorities.
In the last 70 years there have been only 3 times when a Democratic nominee received 51% of the popular vote--LBJ in 1964 and Obama in 2008 and 2012. Carter apparently got barely more than exactly half of the popular votes, but less than 51%.
Since the Civil War, the Democrats have won 51% of the popular vote only 7 times--the 3 just mentioned and the 4 times FDR ran for President.
Of course what matters is the electoral college, where they have an advantage. The Republican must win most of the evenly-divided states to win.
I read that article and it focuses waaaay too much on popular vote instead of electoral college. The Democrat candidate starts with a small number of large-elector states - and demographic changes in key swing states are not on our side.
Take Kerry’s states. They’re worth 246. He won those after a horrible terror attack in the middle of a war. Hillary is probably going to outperform Obama in the rust belt (white working class voters, particularly women, will be a bit more gullible to her message), which means she should have a very good shot at holding on to those states.
Then all she needs is 24 more. We couldn’t beat a lousy Democrat candidate in Virginia in a huge Republican wave year like 2014, and the growth of commie votes from the DC suburbs to the north is only going to help them in a year with presidential turnout.
That’s 259.
Out of FL/NC/OH/IA/CO/NM/NV, the Democrat would then need 11 more. Not a very tall order.
The only way we win is if we nominate someone who lights a fire under the conservative base. Hillary stumbling along the way would help immensely, too.
I desperately want to believe that we have a decent shot at beating this wicked woman, but the model these profs use is wayyyyy to full of hocus-locus for me to fully buy into it, and it fails to take into account the whole voting-with-one’s-ladyparts factor.