If Jeb or Rubio are the nominee, the GOP will win Florida. Don’t be silly. Romney lost Florida by a hair. Why wouldn’t Jeb or Rubio outperform him there?
Oh goody! Another prediction!
Rack 'em up, friends.
Florida is the mother lode of geezers, older people are more prone to be bigots and less likely to vote for a black man. Now with Hillary, race is off the table. She will win it in her sleep.
That one I’ll be happy to stand by. You have no basis for making such a prediction. I do. And if you want states the GOP can win in 2016 that they didn’t win in 2012?
Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia.
Other than that even the most Electable candidate your party could come up with then, or now, couldn’t beat even such a weak candidate as you claim Obama to be there? No, that’s the big reason, and it’s pretty much enough.
Yours is called “hope”. Or maybe “desperation”. But not “extrapolation” or “comparison”.
Not can, will. And, once again, how? And for a bonus question, how many EV’s does that add up to, and how many of those can the GOP afford to lose?
Which hand would you rather play?
It’s too early to predict the outcome of the election. I haven’t predicted a Republican win. But if Rubio or Jeb are the nominees, Florida goes red. That by itself is obviously not enough for a win. Whether they win the states I said they could win remains to be seen. And those are not the only states Republicans are capable of winning. Iowa and New Hampshire can also go red, and if a Republican wins the popular vote by more than 10, that turns states like Michigan and Pennsylvania red as well.
The popular vote matters, and despite your Kennedy snark, if the Republican candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college, it doesn’t go to the Supreme Court. The Democrat wins. But that’s a very unlikely result. A Republican who wins the popular vote by 1 point almost certainly wins Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado, which is good for 275. Winning by 3 probably nets PA, NH, IA, NV, and WI as well.
But if you notice Clinton trailing by 5 and you’re still sure she’s going to win, by all means announce that loudly here. You can join me in the Laughably Bad Predictions club.
That hasn’t stopped you yet. Not even in this post.
That’s the GOP hope, yes. But it’s based on considering only their positives there, not their negatives.
Once again: How? What else besides hope do you have?
How?
You’ve discussed electoral mechanics only, but not politics. Not how your guy gets those mechanics to work. How does a Republican (pick any name you like even though you know it’ll be Jeb and you know why too) make a case that more voters will agree with than will agree with Hillary’s?
Since this is the Clinton thread, I’d turn that question around and ask how you think Clinton will get people to support her. Because even among Democrats, it seems that they’d rather be supporting someone else, if only there was someone else.
The short answer is that I’m not Karl Rove or David Axelrod. What campaign tactics and messages will work depends on the times and the candidate’s strengths and your opponents’ weaknesses. I assume “change” will be a big mantra, since Clinton is the antithesis of change. I assume there will be a focus on youth. There will be a focus on portraying the GOP nominee as ‘regular folk’ who is comfortable around other regular folk while Clinton keeps herself away from the hoi polloi as much as possible. In terms of actual issues, the Republicans will try to focus on economic issues and keep social issues at bay. They’ll force Clinton to defend or criticize Obama’s more unpopular decisions, which is always a problem for a successor candidate since it’s a catch-22: support those decisions and lose independents. Oppose those decisions and demotivate Obama supporters.
To sum up, even if Clinton wins, we’re going to have fun with this one. She’s a perfect foil. Maybe her argument about experience will win out. Maybe demographics do doom the Republicans no matter how well they campaign. But unlike the Romney and McCain races against Obama, I think that Republicans will enjoy this election and really like the nominee, whoever that is.
Hey, look at that! You answered your own question! Good job!
Mainly because they already do. She’s been around a while, she’s familiar, she’s trusted by a majority large enough to frustrate the hell out of you, she’s been through every attack you guys have dreamed up and emerged even more popular every time. She has not been as populist/activist as many like, she’s been too cozy with Wall Street for many of us, but she’s essentially already made the case.
Are you getting that from somewhere other than the manufactured “buyer’s remorse” stories the desperate media always manufactures?
Or an answerer of questions about how you derive your confidence in your views.
Your guys are already trying out the tactic of portraying Clinton as Romney. How’s that workin’ out for ya?
Yes, they’ll focus on gutting Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare, while pretending they never heard of gay marriage or abortion. That’s agreed.
Except they still don’t understand which ones those are, as their 50+ repeal votes demonstrate. Did you mean others? Ones that wouldn’t stick even tighter to Jeb?
You guys have been trying to destroy her, and her husband, both politically and personally, for over twenty years. Maybe a couple more will finally put you over the top, huh? Please proceed.
The smaller their support base, the purer and the more self-righteous it can be, yes. That part is fun. Losing eventually gets old, though.
The Presidency is just one office, and if the GOP controls enough of everything else they can dismantle its power base with laws and constitutional amendments. That’s the price of not voting except in Presidential elections.
Setting aside your ignorance of the veto or executive order: You consider that approach to be accomplishment, or even responsible governance, not simple vandalism? Really?
You are right about one thing - needing a more responsible electorate with more dedication to turning out, and more ability to do so without undue hindrance. You are, however, overlooking that your claim is also that your party wins when it does despite democracy, not because of it. That’s not something to boast about.
Democracy is informed voters casting informed votes. Democrats only win when enough uninformed people turn out. The polling is clear: if the populace becomes more informed and educated, the Republicans will win.
Priceless. 
Even you can’t believe this. Can you name me three intelligent people who would vote for Ted Cruz who are not related to him?
I would, to ratfuck an open primary. Not quite what you meant, I know.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/race/house#exit-polls
The only group that Democrats won when voters were asked how closely people were following the campaigns were people who weren’t following them too closely.
That’s why Democrats are so hyperfocused on “big names”. Because otherwise they fear they can’t get their base out. C’mon, you guys know your base has a poor attention span, and I know you know it because you ACT as if it’s true. Actions speak louder than words.
All the high-minded talk about democracy is meaningless when you’re choosing candidates based on their celebrity factor rather than their actual quality as a candidate. It’s even more meaningless when you make direct appeals to various demographics as if they were one issue voters who won’t bother to come out unless you get them riled up on their one issue.
You don’t know what we think. You’re always wrong on this – why do you keep pretending to be a mind-reader?
And again, if Democrats are so in love with “big names”, how the heck did Obama get elected? He was only a “big name” because he was overtaking Clinton in the primary… so how did he overtake her to begin with?