• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Looks like Rick Perry's going to jump on the Presidential candidate bandwagon.

ok then just look at the last 24 years. 8 years of clinton, 8 years of bush, 8 years of obama. back and forth.

i didn't claim it was a complicated analysis, so i don't know what your sarcasm was supposed to add to that post.

i still don't think that any one side has a "lock" on the white house, despite the "controversial analysis from a Republican analyst" that you cite as proof of something in the market watch article.

i admit the gop has a lot of fringe candidates, but when it comes down to the general election, just one party vs. the other, the margins of victory in popular vote % have been close. again, not claiming to be a political scientist, but in the last 75 years, only 5 elections have had a double digit margin of victory (4 R, 1 D). electoral college margins have been greater, but both sides have landslide wins by that metric as well in recent history

additionally, in the last hundred years, voter turnout in presidential elections has hovered between 50-60%. i get the arguments and predictions about shifts in demographics that should favor democrats, but the bottom line (and the data so far seems to support) that it's still more or less a coin flip. for all the new minorities that are coming here that are supposed to favor the D, there are 10,000 people per day retiring that should then in theory favor the R by virtue of the "old, rich, hands off my medicare" crowd.

even john judis, co author of the "the emerging democratic majority" is walking back that prediction...

While your 100 year back and forth analysis is interesting, it lacks the sophistication to be relevant. For example, we have firmly entrenched Red states and Blue states, making the idea of a electoral college landslide an interesting phenomena of the PAST. Now, more than ever, past performance is not at all indicative of future results.

The prevailing winds are stiffly against a Republican presidency. While a Republican presidency is not impossible, it is quite improbable. The Dems start with between 240 and 260 electoral votes and need to win ONE of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado&NH, Georgia, North Carolina or Arizona to prevail while the Reps need to win ALL of them. The party is doing NOTHING to reverse the demographic shifts the are working against them. Furthermore, Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia, all traditionally Red states, are moving toward "at play status". Only WVa, has moved from Blue to "at play".

If the party goes Conservative (which they might), they have ZERO shot of sweeping the "at play states", which is what they must do (again, they have to sweep... not win a few). It's tough sledding for the GOP.


That all said, I did finally find a good analysis of the John Jurdis "walk back" (not written by Barone) that was an interesting read and something to ponder (and does offer some hope of the GOP, though I do not believe fully refutes the above)...

http://eppc.org/publications/submerging-democratic-majority-gop-election-2016/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom