ZeletDude
The Lion
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,490
Well worldwide Red is the liberal party, and blue is the conservative one.
I don't understand your second statement.
Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
Well worldwide Red is the liberal party, and blue is the conservative one.
I don't understand your second statement.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
That's how USelectionatlas does it.
GhostWriter16
Deity
The GOP, in my opinion, is supportive of way too much government involvement in the economic sector, people's personal lives, and foreign policy. For them to become even more liberal on economics, or on gun control (Which is probably a heck of a lot more likely than them moderating their imperial foreign policy or softening up on drugs) would be to make them even more useless to me than they already are.
ZeletDude
The Lion
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,490
That's all dandy and nice but the GOP certainly shouldn't listen to you or their prospects of being a national party would all but disappear.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
For a second, I thought MobBoss just posted that. Until I did a split take and noticed, it's just Dommy.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Which is why I said I hope the Tea Party punishes them if they dare to move any closer to the "Center".
I don't give a crap about winning, I give a crap about principle. Although Rand Paul is trying to do both at the same time. I don't think its actually going to work, but I wish him luck anyways...
Same here, which is why I haven't signed up yet despite referring to their what-if analyses and threads for the battleground states thread. I was thinking of giving a fake one.
DT said:
To be fair, his map highlighted Louisiana as a flip and not Mississippi, and at least with the city of New Orleans that sounds a little more plausible. However, I largely agree wit DT's look at the trendlines. The Republicans best immediate bet is in the Midwest where they have invested so much to bring the states closer to the national average but haven't quite flipped them yet. The second would be reviving the Northeast wing of their party; that does involve moving a bit more towards the center on social issues. The third might be rebuilding some rapport with Hispanic voters (looking at issues besides immigration, they aren't as right-leaning on economic issues as the Republicans would want them to be).
So if the Republicans can carry Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and maybe Iowa in the next election, they are in business for a 289-249 victory. If they can put New Hampshire and Colorado in play, doubly good for them, they could crack 300 EVs or have a cushion if they can't win one of the targeted states I mentioned in the first list.
I think the highest level Warren could achieve in the cursus honorum of American politics would be the Secretary of the Treasury in the next Democratic administration, and her confirmation somehow doesn't get filibustered. It's rare that a guy like Obama came out of nowhere to win the nomination within 2 years of becoming a national figure.
I think whether or not Hillary Clinton runs comes down to her health in 2015 and 2016. If she's in the hospital, even one more time, it's going to bring up all the same questions that were raised about McCain's age and health again, except the Democrats are on the losing side of that argument. Whoever she picks for VP would be more likely to inherit the remainder of her term, so additional scrutiny would be put on that candidate.
That's a pretty reasonable set of Dems for the primary, I'd think. Maybe one more runs early on, hoping to gain traction.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I'm curious why anyone here would call Cuomo "Conservative..."
sophie
Break My Heart
Because he's a right-leaning Democrat?
Outside of his advocacy for SSM, his major accomplishments have come from balancing budgets, establishing a cap on property taxes, limiting the power of local unions and limiting their pay increases and increasing their health care contributions.
Is he a "conservative"? Not really. Is his record of accomplishment more conservative than say, O'Malley? Yes. The progressive-wing, outside of LGBTQ advocates, is probably not going to go crazy for this guy.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
I think the Democrats can come back to the South. The Democrats have never won an election without winning a Southern State.
1960
1968
1976
1980
1992
1996
Democrats have traditionally relied on the South for winning elections, and will continue to win states there.
1960
Spoiler :
1968
Spoiler :
1976
Spoiler :
1980
Spoiler :
1992
Spoiler :
1996
Spoiler :
Democrats have traditionally relied on the South for winning elections, and will continue to win states there.
madviking
north american scum
Well the thing is Carter and Clinton were both Southerners...
Here, I think about the Gore and Kerry strategies, both of which needed Florida's EVs (and Ohio's, for that matter). So even in the post-Civil Rights era, the Dems have been competing in a couple Southern states to try and hold the Republicans back. Recently, Democrats have strengthened themselves in the West--used to be everything west of the Minnesota-Louisiana line was Republican except for Texas, which used to be the state that no Democrat had won the presidency without. This change has made the loss of their former Southern base more survivable.
True, as was Gore (Tennessee). And it goes back further than this: Kennedy was from Massachusetts, but he won his fairly close race with Nixon with the support of Lyndon Johnson, a Texan Democrat, who went on to win a landslide victory of his own. Before that, we had Truman, from Missouri, and his VP (Barkley) was from Kentucky.
Obama's presidency is unique in the fact that not only he has a post-Civil Rights Democratic coalition backing him that is strong enough to carry national elections, but he's also from the Midwest and his VP is the Mid-Atlantic Northeast. No strong Southerners on the ticket. Previously, when guys like Adlai Stevenson or Humphrey or Dukakis ran, they got beat.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
Personally I'm more interested in the senate (and house to a lesser extent) elections. Presidential elections are pretty meh
Aren't they pretty much decided in Idaho?
GhostWriter16
Deity
Idaho is heavily red, IIRC. There's also usually at least ninety-nine percent support for the same candidate.
Red, yes. 99%? Hell no.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I wasn't talking about Idaho with the 99%. I was talking about the nation. Admittedly, those 99% did hit two different names when voting for the same candidate...
Similar threads
