In the Face of the Blue Wall, The 2016 Presidential Election IS the Democratic Primary

[Evil_Captor]

The Blue Wall is the theory that the Democrats hold an unbeatable edge in Presidential races because the states that are solidly Democratic hold a total of 270 electoral college votes (accepting the notion that Virginia has swung Democratic in Presidential elections). And that happens to be precisely the number of electoral college votes you need to win a Presidential election.

The Republicans, by contrast, have solid majorities of Presidential voters in states that have a total of 149 electoral college votes.

There are only nine states in the US that are contestable, that is, where either party has a good chance of fielding a winning candidate.

That means for a Republican Presidential candidate to win, he has to get all of his base states, win all nine of the contested states AND pick off a Blue Wall state.

Here’s the article (with a chart showing the various states) that started the Blue Wall meme. It was written by a Republican.

My thought is that given that the Democrats have a lock on the Presidency, the REAL Presidential election in 2016 will be the Democratic primary. Hillary vs. Whomever.

Or to put it in ideological terms, Center Right Wall Street Toady Warhawk Republican-Lite Moneygrubbers vs. Progressives.

I’m heartened to see Bernie Sanders talking about making a run for the Presidency. His interest is in getting progressive issues to the fore, that is, merely DISCUSSED in this election. But I think even a failed candidacy can do much more than that: it can scare the pee out of the DLC types, just as the Tea Party scared the pee out of Republicans in the last two electoral cycles.

We need to see a lot of primarying of not just Hillary, but Democratic candidates for Congress from the left. Primaries based on the failures of Democrats to take up causes that are popular with ALL voters but ESPECIALLY Democratic voters: getting corporate money out of politics, getting a leash on the financial sector, raising taxes on the rich, rebuilding the social safety net, helping immigrants to become citizens and most most most of all, fighting wealth inequality and rebuilding middle class prosperity.

We’ll see how things play out, should be an interesting Presidential election … for Democrats. For Repubicans, ah … not so much. Boo hoo.

[2ManyTacos]

I firmly believe that the so-called Blue Wall absolutely exists, BUT…I don’t think that it’s as unassailable as you make it out to be. Simply put, it’s there, yes, but the Dems still need to exert constant effort in order to strengthen it & make it insurmountable for the GOP.

Beyond that, I’m on board with your other analyses. I’ve been pretty adamant on these boards that HRC isn’t my top '16 choice to succeed Obama, but she’s still nevertheless the most inspiring politico that would increase the likelihood of a third consecutive Democratic presidency. No matter how you slice it, the sheer wishy-washiness of the American electorate makes it very difficult for the same party to hold the presidency for more than two straight terms, so HRC would likely provide that extra pizazz to nullify any semblances of Democratic fatigue amongst the electorate.

In my gut, though, I’d still greatly prefer Liz Warren or Brian Schweitzer over Hillary. I’m thrilled that Sanders is openly talking about running, but yeah…he has no chance of winning, though a contested primary will certainly drag HRC kicking & screaming to the left.

[Little_Nemo]

@Evil_Captor

I’m heartened to see Bernie Sanders talking about making a run for the Presidency. His interest is in getting progressive issues to the fore, that is, merely DISCUSSED in this election. But I think even a failed candidacy can do much more than that: it can scare the pee out of the DLC types, just as the Tea Party scared the pee out of Republicans in the last two electoral cycles.

We need to see a lot of primarying of not just Hillary, but Democratic candidates for Congress from the left. Primaries based on the failures of Democrats to take up causes that are popular with ALL voters but ESPECIALLY Democratic voters: getting corporate money out of politics, getting a leash on the financial sector, raising taxes on the rich, rebuilding the social safety net, helping immigrants to become citizens and most most most of all, fighting wealth inequality and rebuilding middle class prosperity.

I think you’re illustrating the self-limiting nature of political success. When a party starts counting on winning elections, it gets over-confident. And being over-confident, it assumes victory and then drifts away from the center. And by drifting away from the center, it endangers its success in elections.

People like me have been voting for Democrats like Clinton and Obama because they are moderate centrist candidates in opposition to the right wing conservatives the Republicans have been nominating.

But if the Democrats start nominating left wing liberals like Sanders then you’re going to lose the moderates like me. We’re no more interested in voting for Bernie Sanders than we are for Ted Cruz.

[XT]

@Little_Nemo

I think you’re illustrating the self-limiting nature of political success. When a party starts counting on winning elections, it gets over-confident. And being over-confident, it assumes victory and then drifts away from the center. And by drifting away from the center, it endangers its success in elections.

People like me have been voting for Democrats like Clinton and Obama because they are moderate centrist candidates in opposition to the right wing conservatives the Republicans have been nominating.

But if the Democrats start nominating left wing liberals like Sanders then you’re going to lose the moderates like me. We’re no more interested in voting for Bernie Sanders than we are for Ted Cruz.

Pretty much this. I do believe the ‘blue wall’ exists, but like 2ManyTacos says it needs to be maintained, and if the Dems become overconfident and start nominating people who don’t connect with the center but instead pander to the left then they will be in the same boat as Republicans who do the same with right wing candidates.

On a side note, anyone who thinks that Clinton is ‘Center Right Wall Street Toady Warhawk Republican-Lite Moneygrubbers’ is so far out of touch that one can merely shake ones head. As Nemo says, I voted for Obama and would vote for Clinton, but if the Dems were to run Sanders I’d be looking either 3rd party or perhaps even Republican, depending on who they decide on (if it’s Cruz then it will definitely be 3rd party). And I seriously doubt I’ll be alone in that.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@Little_Nemo

I think you’re illustrating the self-limiting nature of political success. When a party starts counting on winning elections, it gets over-confident. And being over-confident, it assumes victory and then drifts away from the center. And by drifting away from the center, it endangers its success in elections.

People like me have been voting for Democrats like Clinton and Obama because they are moderate centrist candidates in opposition to the right wing conservatives the Republicans have been nominating.

But if the Democrats start nominating left wing liberals like Sanders then you’re going to lose the moderates like me. We’re no more interested in voting for Bernie Sanders than we are for Ted Cruz.

I was about to post this very same point. As well as over confidence I think we can add corruption. Any party that believes it is the natural party of government has a tendency to become just that little bit more corrupt.

[Evil_Captor]

@2ManyTacos

I firmly believe that the so-called Blue Wall absolutely exists, BUT…I don’t think that it’s as unassailable as you make it out to be. Simply put, it’s there, yes, but the Dems still need to exert constant effort in order to strengthen it & make it insurmountable for the GOP.

Sure, Democrats have a long history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I feel confident that they can do this even from behind the Blue Wall. It doesn’t make the Republican’s position any less daunting, however. Having to rely on your opponent to totally fuck up in order to win is a terrible position to be in, even when your opponent is the Democratic Party.

Beyond that, I’m on board with your other analyses. I’ve been pretty adamant on these boards that HRC isn’t my top '16 choice to succeed Obama, but she’s still nevertheless the most inspiring politico that would increase the likelihood of a third consecutive Democratic presidency. No matter how you slice it, the sheer wishy-washiness of the American electorate makes it very difficult for the same party to hold the presidency for more than two straight terms, so HRC would likely provide that extra pizazz to nullify any semblances of Democratic fatigue amongst the electorate.

I’m not all that inspired by “pizzazz” it sounds too much like the “special sauce” that pundits use to manipulate the numbers their way when they analyze an election. I think the American public is well to the left of the Democratic Party centrists on many issues, and that a candidate who carefully targets those issues can, if not win, at least make a serious enough bid to force concessions from the centrists on those key issues.

In my gut, though, I’d still greatly prefer Liz Warren or Brian Schweitzer over Hillary. I’m thrilled that Sanders is openly talking about running, but yeah…he has no chance of winning, though a contested primary will certainly drag HRC kicking & screaming to the left.

I’d love to see Hillary dragged kicking and scheming … er, screaming … to the left. Wouldn’t you?

[adaher]

The Blue Wall exists, but let’s be clear: it’s about as insurmountable as the wall on the southern border. If the Obama coalition doesn’t come out when he’s not on the ballot, the Republicans will plow right through it.

I think the 2016 electorate is going to be a lot closer to 2004’s than 2012’s and 2008’s was a fluke.

[Evil_Captor]

@Little_Nemo

I think you’re illustrating the self-limiting nature of political success. When a party starts counting on winning elections, it gets over-confident. And being over-confident, it assumes victory and then drifts away from the center. And by drifting away from the center, it endangers its success in elections.

People like me have been voting for Democrats like Clinton and Obama because they are moderate centrist candidates in opposition to the right wing conservatives the Republicans have been nominating.

But if the Democrats start nominating left wing liberals like Sanders then you’re going to lose the moderates like me. We’re no more interested in voting for Bernie Sanders than we are for Ted Cruz.

Clinton and Obama are Republican Lites, Nemo. And the Democratic Party as constituted at present has been pulled so far to the right that the place it will be drifiting leftward to is the center, the place where you CLAIM to be. Especially on money issues the DLC center right types are going to be leashed by their Wall Street masters and will not be able to move with the Democratic electorate. They are NOT representative of the bulk of Americans, and I see no reason why it’s to the Democratic Party’s advantage to represent the views which you apparently hold.

[Evil_Captor]

@adaher

The Blue Wall exists, but let’s be clear: it’s about as insurmountable as the wall on the southern border. If the Obama coalition doesn’t come out when he’s not on the ballot, the Republicans will plow right through it.

I think the 2016 electorate is going to be a lot closer to 2004’s than 2012’s and 2008’s was a fluke.

Well as you are a Republican it’s nice that you have opinions and all, but the numbers clearly show that your opinions won’t matter in terms of the 2016 Presidential election. Being a progressive in Georgia, I totally understand how you feel.

[Chronos]

One thing to be careful of in analyses like this: It’s easy to say “Republicans would have to sweep all of the marginal states, and what are the odds of that?”. But the odds aren’t as long as they look. You can’t take the chance of them winning Nevada and the chance of them winning Colorado and the chance of them winning Ohio and so on and multiply them all together, because that assumes that their prospects in each state are independent. But while there is some degree of independence between states, there’s also a lot of correlation: If the Republicans nominate someone the people really like, or back popular policies in their platform, that’s going to help them everywhere at once, and it might be fairly easy for them to sweep all of those competitive states.

[adaher]

@Evil_Captor

Well as you are a Republican it’s nice that you have opinions and all, but the numbers clearly show that your opinions won’t matter in terms of the 2016 Presidential election. Being a progressive in Georgia, I totally understand how you feel.

As Chronos said, sweeps happen a lot in politics. If the GOP candidate is clearly superior in the polls to the Democratic candidate, he’ll win all the swing states and maybe even get Michigan or Pennsylvania too.

Worrying about the electoral college is silly in any case because we haven’t yet had an election in our lifetimes where the Republican won the popular vote yet lost the election. If Republicans win a majority, they will still win the election 95% of the time.

[Evil_Captor]

@XT

Pretty much this. I do believe the ‘blue wall’ exists, but like 2ManyTacos says it needs to be maintained, and if the Dems become overconfident and start nominating people who don’t connect with the center but instead pander to the left then they will be in the same boat as Republicans who do the same with right wing candidates.

No they won’t because the American electorate is to the left of the “centrist” Dems on many issues.

On a side note, anyone who thinks that Clinton is ‘Center Right Wall Street Toady Warhawk Republican-Lite Moneygrubbers’ is so far out of touch that one can merely shake ones head.

Perhaps you have not been paying attention, then. "Wall Street Toady Republican Lite Monegrubber?Check. Warhawk? Check.

One of is out of touch, all right. But it’s not me.

As Nemo says, I voted for Obama and would vote for Clinton, but if the Dems were to run Sanders I’d be looking either 3rd party or perhaps even Republican, depending on who they decide on (if it’s Cruz then it will definitely be 3rd party). And I seriously doubt I’ll be alone in that.

There are no Blue Dog Democrats left in Washington, XT. If you want to vote Repubilcan, you should vote Republican.

[Ravenman]

Blue Wall = stupid idea.

Nevada: Has elected Republican governors for a decade and a half, and Harry Reid’s win in 2010 over a terrible candidate was not confidence inspiring, and his 1998 reelection was by a mere 400 votes.

Pennsylvania: any state that elects Rick Santorum and Pat Toomey can’t be called part of a Blue Wall.

Wisconsin: Scott Walker. Nuff said.

Throw those states into the toss-up category, and the Blue Wall is down to 221 EVs, just a little better than what Mitt Romney gathered two years ago. That’s not a wall.

[Onomatopoeia]

@adaher

As Chronos said, sweeps happen a lot in politics. If the GOP candidate is clearly superior in the polls to the Democratic candidate, he’ll win all the swing states and maybe even get Michigan or Pennsylvania too.

Worrying about the electoral college is silly in any case because we haven’t yet had an election in our lifetimes where the Republican won the popular vote yet lost the election. If Republicans win a majority, they will still win the election 95% of the time.

I correctly called the last two midterms and the last two presidental elections, so let me go out on a very short limb here and ask you to watch this space because as sure as I am sitting here, a Democrat will be the next president. I’d love for it to be Warren, but my gut says Hillary. It definitely, without a shred of doubt in my mind, won’t be any of the current crop of Repsyclopaths. And I just don’t think ol’ Jeb has it in him to crazy it up enough for the rabid GOP base to allow him to get through the primary.

You know what else? What the heck, I’ll go ahead and call the next midterms for the Republicans.

[Smapti]

@Evil_Captor

They are NOT representative of the bulk of Americans, and I see no reason why it’s to the Democratic Party’s advantage to represent the views which you apparently hold.

So who is representative of the bulk of Americans, and how come nobody’s voting for them?

[Little_Nemo]

@Evil_Captor

Clinton and Obama are Republican Lites, Nemo.

I’m a Republican Lite. That’s the formula that the Democrats have been winning with. They run candidates that attract Democrats and non-conservative Republicans.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
There are no Blue Dog Democrats left in Washington, XT. If you want to vote Repubilcan, you should vote Republican.
[/QUOTE]

If by ‘Blue Dog Democrats’ you mean moderates, then first I think your assessment is flawed (as is your assessment of Clinton), and second if that really were the case then the Dems are fucked, so look forward to many years of painful losses.

No they won’t because the American electorate is to the left of the “centrist” Dems on many issues.

Keep telling yourself that, Evil…it’s the same line of horseshit right wing Republicans keep trying to convince themselves of as well.

Perhaps you have not been paying attention, then. "Wall Street Toady Republican Lite Monegrubber? Check. Warhawk? Check.

Oh, from YOUR perspective I have no doubt that this is indeed your assessment. I simply disagree and your cites demonstrate zero except for your own confirmation bias. shrug

One of is out of touch, all right. But it’s not me.

Again, keep telling yourself that. It’s worked out really well for the right winger types.

[pkbites]

I believe the blue wall exists. At least for now. And the biggest flip was Virginia.

But a lot of pundits are saying the GOP candidate will, or at least should be a mid-western governor. A Kasich/Walker ticket (or vice versa) may be able to take Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and that one district in Maine that sometimes goes Republican. That alone would give the GOP a 270-268 electoral edge without taking Virginia or any other Democrat states.

Depending on who the Democratic candidate is, the black vote may not come out in the droves in did in 08/12. I’m certain the Dems are aware of this and it’s significance.

[Evil_Captor]

@Little_Nemo

I’m a Republican Lite. That’s the formula that the Democrats have been winning with. They run candidates that attract Democrats and non-conservative Republicans.

The Democratic candidates in the last election got SLAUGHTERED running as Republican-lites. Those days are over. Or should be. Many Democratic Congressmen ARE Republican lites, they’ll want to run as such in 2016. That would be a mistake.

[Evil_Captor]

@Smapti

So who is representative of the bulk of Americans, and how come nobody’s voting for them?

Elizabeth Warren comes to miind. She recently got elected to the Senate. Al Franken got re-elected in this election running as a progressive. Problem is, the Received Wisdom in Washington is that Dems HAVE to run Republican-Lite so most do. As I pointed out, a slaughter resulted in 2014.