Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
@4 nailed it.
The safe money is still on Hillary (retch) in 2016, but I'd give only 3-to-1 against the GOP candidate (whichever scumbag it is) setting the record for the largest percentage loss in the popular vote that somehow still turned into a victory in the electoral college.
This should not be the legacy of the Urban Archipelago brain trust.
I can't fathom why so many Americans don't vote. What the US does effects the planet, yet it's citizens don't take their rights seriously. Why?
At some point enough evidence will pile up to convince the last diehards that Republicans don't know how to generate wealth.
I cannot WAIT for the GOP debates. Pass the popcorn.
If you've got purple plus red states, the general election is in play for a 3rd generation Bush, who would have enough elite support to rival Hillary and as well as the voting machine companies.
If I had my way, Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren would be our next Prez/VP, respectively. But that's a pipe dream that will NEVER come to pass.
I wouldn't worry about that. When Nader gave the world Bush and the Iraq war, 3rd party purity voters on the left grew up and wised up(except for some loud dead-enders on the internet), and neither Nader or anyone else has had anything like a hint of the support Nader got that year. With the Republican party getting more frightening by the month, there's no reason to think that'll change any time soon.
WI runs its gubernatorial elections in non-presidential years. It's an entirely different electorate. A lot more people show up in Presidential elections, and those people make Wisconsin a very tough state for the Republicans, who haven't won it since they won 49 states in Reagan's re-election. The same is true for Michigan, which has gone to the D's by larger margins in presidential years recently, and the R's haven't carried the state since Bush Sr. won in 1988.
If we had gubernatorial elections in off years Rossi and/or McKenna almost certainly would have won, given how close Gregoire and Inslee's incompetent campaigning allowed them to come. But that wouldn't be any reason to infer the Republicans have a prayer here in 2016. Same deal for WI and MI.
Except that Red States are growing faster and have less poverty than blue state. You know, those annoying little facts that undermine racist liberalism:
Why are you lying? This is a straightforwardly and demonstrably false statement. in 2012, exactly zero of the blue wall states went for Obama by less than 5%. The closest, Colorado, was a 5.3% margin.
"The big drivers of red state income growth: energy and government benefit payments such as food stamps."
Spoiler: nothing, and the rural dems are dying. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/21…
That, and the next generation coming up is actually fiscally moderate to conservative and only support the Dems for social issues. So if a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican came around, she or he could easily win the libertarian generation that is coming: http://rare.us/story/new-survey-shows-li…
So it is far from over. All the GOP needs to do is win 20% or so more minorities and urban voters and they win. And yes, they have plan to do so: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteveryt…
1. Virtually all presidents lose support in the re-election bid; Reagan was the only recent exception.
2. The best social science research suggests this is highly unlikely. Candidate quality varies less than most people think, and there's nothing in the empirical scholarship on American elections that suggests a candidate capable of producing a ~4% swing in a highly polarized electorate existed.
This article is just plain wrong. Wisconsin is *NOT* a Democratic fortress state. It can VERY EASILY go Republican in a Presidential election.
And yet, in the last seven elections, they've failed to do so. Wisconsin isn't quite as solid as Pennsylvania, but it's similar in structure--it's generally pretty close, so people assume it could swing the other way. What they fail to account for is that (unlike Ohio and Florida, for example) WI (and PA) have very few swing voters. So those 6-8 point margins for Obama are likely to be fairly stable. At best, in an election year very favorable to the Republicans, they can push WI to a virtual tie, but if they do that they probably won't need the electoral votes.
This particular myth is heavily promoted by Reason Magazine, a libertarian publication trying desperately to make their ideology seem hip and cool. They do this in part through advocacy polls, designed to show exactly that. But if you look at polling in general, rather than their (rather dubious) effort in isolation, you'll see there's very little evidence for this position.
One of the most straightforward ways to measure this is a simple question: do you want a bigger government, with more services or smaller govt with less services?
In the 2013 Pew Research poll asking this question, Millennials were the only generation to prefer bigger government, and it was by a wide margin: 53-38. Gen X preferred smaller 49-43, Boomers preferred smaller 59-32; Silents preferred smaller 64-22. Looking at Pew--the state of the art on such polls--suggests Millennials veer more sharply to the left on basic economic issues than they do social of foreign policy issues.
Jonathan Chait brings the data to debunk the myth Collectivism Sucks falls for:
He doesn't read his links before he posts them; he just scans them for a few words he likes and then throws them at us. Often times the links explicitly contradict his claims, as seen here.
@28: Your link doesn't say anything about poverty rates. It does say this though:
"By contrast, Democratic blue states are more affluent but were hit harder by the downturn. Connecticut, dependent on the financial industry, suffered the largest income drop except swing-state Nevada. Yet Connecticut residents still make $10,000 a year more on average than people in fast-growing North Dakota."
No, No, No, to a third Bush fuckwit.
You guys can't let this happen.
Here's a list of poverty rates by-state. Now, what were you saying about red states having less poverty than blue states?
But I agree with Paul, let's not jinx it.
Since it's only 204, that means that Elagabalus has been Imperator for but a single year, and though some have been foolishly (VERY foolishly, I would say) sceptical of a Syrian priest's succession to the Throne of Augustus, I'd say it were...uh...foolish in the extreme to talk, let alone write, of this surely-immortal ruler's ever needing replacement.
You're right about WV; it'll get closer one the black man goes away but at the national level it's going to be safe R for the foreseeable future.
But close doesn't mean contestable. The Republicans simply can't win in a presidential election in Wisconsin and Minnesota, because even though it's superficially close, there aren't enough undecideds for them to win over. It's like Indiana for the D's--under a very specific set of circumstances, they could win the state (2008), but they won't need it if they do, because it'll be a landslide.
Minnesota hasn't gone to an R since 1972's landslide; Wisconsin not since 1984's landslide. Neither is trending toward the R's demographically. That's more telling than their PVI ranking.