Comments

1
Editor! not, not, not!
2
Typo in your lede
3
If mail-in voting produces bigger voter numbers than expected, especially here in WA State, what is stopping the democrats for pushing for that, especially democratic governers? I know that it's not perfect, but it's one part of the equation, right? People can't get to the polls, or they don't go because once they are there, they have no idea what to vote for. Voting with a computer handy is the free-est I have ever felt. I also have no idea what states do mail-in voting and if it can be done at a district level.
4
Jesus, Dan! I thought you and I were on the same page when it comes to jinxiness!
5
Nothing that a little election fraud can't fix!
@4 nailed it.
6
That all seems very nice and rational, but how many of those contention and "impossibly Democratic" states have their election apparatus in the hands of Republicans, i.e. the party w/ a proven track record of election rigging? If that's not taken into account, you're just blowing smoke up your own ass.
7
Yeah, expect a huge push for Voter-ID laws, voter roll "updates", proportional electoral college delegations and similar shenanigans over the next two years.

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.
8
Oh great! Not only have you just jinxed it, but now we can be assured that Nader or some Nader-esque asshole will run as well. Thanks...
9
Great. Republican writes Dems-can't-lose political porn; Dems, after a long string of losses (and failures-to-launch) gobble it up.

This should not be the legacy of the Urban Archipelago brain trust.
10
It's only 204!
11
Eh, all else fails, they'll dig up another actor.



Norris/Rubio '16
13
Like @10 said: It's only 204, Dan. We still have two more years to go until 2016, so don't jinx it for us, we need all the properly-channeled anxiety we can get.
14
I'd love to believe in random GOP blogger. I mean his credibility is so well established because of the... well he... Oh yeah: he has no credibility. I'll go back to my scotch now.
15
The Democrats need to make get out and vote adds. People like you, Dan, need to do these adds. We have compulsory voting in Australia. One is fined for not voting. Not a big fine, it all seems to work though. The country takes it's elections seriously..
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?
16
If Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton decides not to run, it's a whole new game.
17
@6 and Dan, in the past few weeks several commentators (Matt Yglesias, among others) have pointed out the the Rs can do something that is completely legal and terrifying, and there's nothing progressives can do about it. Several of those blue states now have Republican legislatures and/or governors. If they wanted to, nothing is preventing them from passing a law changing the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes. They could change it to award EVs proportionally, for example. So instead of getting all of Pennsylvania's 20 EVs, the D might get 12 and the R 8. Add Wisconsin, maybe Michigan, other blue states with red state governments, and you've lost much of the advantage discussed in the article.
18
The irony that never stops galling me is the juxtaposition of "Republicans, with their traditional leadership on commercial issues" and "Democrats hold power in the states that generate the most wealth".

At some point enough evidence will pile up to convince the last diehards that Republicans don't know how to generate wealth.
19
All that plus the absolute jerkness/doucheness/stupidity of nearly every single Republican candidate.

I cannot WAIT for the GOP debates. Pass the popcorn.
20
No chance in WI? That's why Scott Walker has been re-elected twice? Didn't Gov Snyder also just easily win re-election?
21
@17, As far as I'm concerned, when the state elects a Republican Governor and or majority legislature, it ceases to be a blue state; A purple one if not red.



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.
22
It's debatable whether WI and PA are solidly blue. Blue leaning, certainly.
23
I wouldn't take this too seriously. Many of the states in that "blue wall" were won by Obama by less than five points.
24
I love how both parties are so quick after any election to proclaim: "The American people have spoken. This is what they want." Bullshit! The vast majority of "The American people" don't even participate, so most election results do NOT necessarily reflect the true wishes of the American people. The truth is, the majority of "those who voted" has spoken. But that would be too truthful and honest for any scumbag pol to utter. I've lost all hope in our gov't, elections, the system in general. The ONLY way "The American People" will ever REALLY have a voice is when things are changed so that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS actually vote! This can be achieved by mail-in ballots, scheduling all elections on a weekend so nobody has to take off work, eliminating stupid voter ID laws, and....most importantly.....creating a safe & secure way for everyone to vote online. I know, I know...I can already hear everyone saying "But it's impossible to make online voting secure", yadda-yadda. Bullshit! Our current system isn't all that secure and is rife with all kinds of inaccuracy, graft, corruption, breaches, & miscalculations. If they really wanted to, they could figure out a way to make online voting as safe as our current antiquated/inconsistent system. But nobody really wants it to change because neither parter REALLY wants the majority of people to vote. It doesn't serve either party's agenda or best interests. They wanna be able to control the process, which would be impossible if everyone actually had a voice in the governing our country. So...we're stuck with a very ineffective, broken system that's being strongly protected by all the powers that be. Welcome to America in 2014, the land of the frauds and the home of the UNrepresented.
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.
25
Oh great! Not only have you just jinxed it, but now we can be assured that Nader or some Nader-esque asshole will run as well. Thanks...

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.
26
@24 Oh give me a fucking break. The American people are by and large complete idiots. They have no idea what they want. If they can be said to want anything it is usually whatever yellow journalists are flogging this week and it will be something entirely different next week.
27
No chance in WI? That's why Scott Walker has been re-elected twice? Didn't Gov Snyder also just easily win re-election?

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.
28
@18
Except that Red States are growing faster and have less poverty than blue state. You know, those annoying little facts that undermine racist liberalism:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nati…
29
@22: I would put Iowa, Ohio, and Colorado in the same category (coming from the other direction, of course). That is to say, they're all blue-leaning swing states.
30
@28: I think I speak for everyone else here when I say--You've convinced me! I'm voting Republican from now on. GOP in 2016, woo-hoo!
31
@23I wouldn't take this too seriously. Many of the states in that "blue wall" were won by Obama by less than five points.

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.
32
This article is just plain wrong. Wisconsin is *NOT* a Democratic fortress state. It can VERY EASILY go Republican in a Presidential election.
33
From @28's link:

"The big drivers of red state income growth: energy and government benefit payments such as food stamps."

ROFLMAO
34
This is hilarious. So much assuming with TWO YEARS before an election. Do you REALLY THINK that many people will come out to vote in 2016 as did in 2008, when Obama was running against the failure of Bush? He would have lost 2012 if the GOP had a better candidate, and he LOST VOTES in 2012. And the GOP still held the Congress in 2012 and the majority of governorships. Plus, the GOP is actually talking about their problems with race relations and such. What oh what are the Dems doing to win rural voters?
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…
35
He would have lost 2012 if the GOP had a better candidate, and he LOST VOTES in 2012.

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.
36
@16: In your dreams. She's running, and will mop the floor with the GOP nominee in the general.
37
That, and the next generation coming up is actually fiscally moderate to conservative and only support the Dems for social issues.

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:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201…
38
@33: KEK
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."
Oops.
39
If you follow Collectivism Sucks "rare.us" link, you'll see an effort to characterize the results of a poll as demonstrating a libertarian turn amongst millennials. But the telltale sign that it's BS is they don't compare millennials' answers to those questions to other generations, because they didn't ask anyone else. That's just simply not a serious way to attempt to differences in opinion or attitudes across generations.
40
Positive Thought and Positive Action.
No, No, No, to a third Bush fuckwit.
You guys can't let this happen.
41
Love California and the whole west coast, they are as Blue as the skies, hahahahahahahahahaha I am loving it!!! Yes!!!!!!!! Stay Blue!!!!!
42
@28:

Here's a list of poverty rates by-state. Now, what were you saying about red states having less poverty than blue states?
43
A Cleopatra Award to Mr Savage.
44
I refuse to put any stock into anyone's predictions when the election is still two years away, however comforting I might find them.
45
Yeah, I just gotta move to Atlantis for the next two years is all.
46
Arizona is beige on the map but really blue/purple in reality. The reason it goes Republican/Libertarian every year is because Democrat votes are tossed in the trash bin.



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/…



http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/27/…



http://blogforarizona.net/gop-vote-riggi…


47
I'm so glad to see this analysis, because I was just saying this to my father the other day -- I almost feel comfortable calling the 2016 election for a Democrat right now just based on liberal turnout being so much higher for presidential elections.





But I agree with Paul, let's not jinx it.
48
This is full of shit. He marks WV as a swing state despite a PVI of R+13 and Minnesota and Wisconsin as blue states despite PVIs of D+2. Don't listen to this guy just because he's telling you what you want to hear. He's flat wrong.
49
I wrote a little something about Democratic prospecs. If this is the case then there's even less reason not to shake things up a bit: http://higherprogress.com/2014/11/10/thr…
50
This is amazingly like the Urban Archipelago column that sustained me after the 2004 election. How was that 10 years ago?
51
As someone who lives in WV and has had politician relatives, I agree with @48. It's blue on paper, but this state doesn't produce liberals who can hack it in the major parties. The only difference in WV politics between Republican and Democrat is how honest you are about your corruption.
52
Folks:

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.

Vey foolish....

(Stumm!)
53
@28 Low income states tend to grow quickly because there's lots and lots of room to grow. And as @42 points out, you're wrong. I like that "racist liberals" bit though. Cute. Typical bleeding heart conservative nonsense.
54
This is full of shit. He marks WV as a swing state despite a PVI of R+13 and Minnesota and Wisconsin as blue states despite PVIs of D+2. Don't listen to this guy just because he's telling you what you want to hear. He's flat wrong.

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.

Please wait...

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.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.