Ceilings

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

What is the ceiling that either party can get in a Presidential Election these days?  For popular vote I'll say 52-48 for the GOP and 54-46 for the Democrats assuming there's no  third parties.  Let's post maps though and see what you have.  I see MT as the ceiling for Democrats and ME as the ceiling for Republicans.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

This should be in Presidential Election Trends, by the way. I'd say 56 - 44 Democrats (Trump as nominee), 53 - 47 GOP (Kasich or Rubio after economy slumps).

How do I move it?  I think Trump can do very well despite what the left want to have happen to him.  I'm not one to favor polls, but you'd expect him doing extremely poor in states like MI and PA where he's been leading lately.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

This should be in Presidential Election Trends, by the way. I'd say 56 - 44 Democrats (Trump as nominee), 53 - 47 GOP (Kasich or Rubio after economy slumps).

How do I move it?  I think Trump can do very well despite what the left want to have happen to him.  I'm not one to favor polls, but you'd expect him doing extremely poor in states like MI and PA where he's been leading lately.

Dallas or another mod will probably do it, but you may want to PM one of them. I wonder what role national vs. state polls play, as many have Sanders + Clinton up 10+ on Trump but have Trump ahead in many "swing" states.

You're right about that it doesn't add up.  It's important to look at who is being sampled and especially at this point in the cycle, find out when the polls were taken. I'll be following VA, OH, FL, and CO closely.  Republicans need all of them to break through the firewall unless they can peel off NV or NH instead of CO. 

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

http://

I stretched it to give the Democrats WV, TN, MS, LA, SC, GA, and AZ.  This is my ceiling for the Democrats.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

http://

Here is my Republican ceiling. Sanders may not be able to win ME, IL, DE, and CT.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Was I too hard on the GOP proposing a 52-48 ceiling in the PV?

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

http://

When looking at the 2014 midterm data as I included in another thread.  This would be the GOP ceiling and a highly likely map if Sanders is the nominee.  However, sometimes I wonder if Sanders is capable of winning DE. 

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I have presented the evidence numerous times.  Y'all just don't like that Mitt won the 18-20 vote in 2012!

That's because he didn't.

I wondered about that.  I've also heard that Romney won 52% of the gay vote.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I have presented the evidence numerous times.  Y'all just don't like that Mitt won the 18-20 vote in 2012!

Romney did win 18-20 year olds from between 54% - 59% in 2012 and those age groups, adjusted +2yr, did skew slightly more Republican in 2014, but the problem here is you're trying to declare a pattern/predict the future based on 2 data points. Millennials overall were less Democratic in 2010, and more in 2012, so just like youth support can flip in a span of 4 years one way, it can the other way. I'm not saying 18-20 year olds will vote in 2016 as they did in 2008 (far from it), but what you're saying is it'll be a swing group and there is no actual way to know that.

During the 2 years prior to when those 18-20 year olds voted in 2012, they both watched their parents worry about finances and bitch about ObamaCare day-in, day-out, so the swing in that election is understandable. Obama started his presidency with the worst recession since the GD, and a great deal of voters tend to blame the president in office for this stuff. There was no way around it, they blamed Bush for the wars (rightfully so), and they blamed Obama for the economic mess.

The problem here is, the GOP is on the wrong side of a lot of issues for the majority of young voters. Now that the bulk of the economic woes are out of the way, whether or not those young voters who broke for Republicans back then stick with them, and whether new younger voters follow the same path is largely dependent on whether Republicans represent what they want from their leaders.

There won't always be a massive recession and a Democratic president to blame it on.

All you're suggesting is that they're swing voters who will continue to vote based on the nature of the times.?

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

All you're suggesting is that they're swing voters who will continue to vote based on the nature of the times.?

No, I stated that there were particular reasons they went for Romney over Obama. We won't have a constant recession or a new, massive social program unliked by these kids parents happening in the 1-2 years prior to every election. A lot of people turned on Democrats in 2010 and white voters in particular in 2012. Voters turning on parties en masse like that doesn't tend to happen frequently.

He's saying they will be swing voters in the near future, when there is nothing to suggest they will be perpetually bouncing around. The Republican party's platform is more geared towards older religious white people, not a heavily diverse Millennial generation who actually believes in things such as gay marriage, climate change, education funding, no constant tax breaks for the wealthy, amnesty and so on.

You're right about that, but I must say that people tend to become more conservative as the get older.  If these Romney voters had conservative parents, but as you suggest are liberal on social issues, then they're more likely to be socially conservative as well in 10 years.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

You're right about that, but I must say that people tend to become more conservative as the get older.  If these Romney voters had conservative parents, but as you suggest are liberal on social issues, then they're more likely to be socially conservative as well in 10 years.

Read this: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/

This is why he suggested the GOP was coming into dominance - Because young people tend to keep their voting preferences after voting that way a few times as a young adult. There isn't really any reliable data to suggest people get more conservative as they age, but even if they did, there is plenty of data to suggest it doesn't actually make a difference in regards to how they vote.

But I would ask then, if people's views changed as they aged, for kids who grew up hating gay marriage, wouldn't they then approve of gay marriage when they get older, and vice versa?

edited- It's worth noting too that peoples attitudes and views on issues do change as they age (sometimes), but it doesn't always mean they would become conservative. A young adult who had money troubles in their 20s may become fiscally conservative later on, while a young adult who came from a fiscally conservative household may land a career job, well-paid, and become fiscally liberal. It can go either way.

As for gay marriage, if anything they become more against it one would think.  If you grow up against it, then you're most likely to keep that position.  Although, I myself have become more moderate even though my rhetoric is still there when speaking about candidates and campaigns.  Either way I'd say 90% of people vote for the same party as their parents and out of that 90%, at least 3/4 don't change.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Again, you shouldn't make these conclusions based on such small sample sizes. It's like all the people who think that the Republicans won the Asian vote in 2014.

Then wouldn't I have to ignore/minimize all the other polls of how age groups voted? As I understand it, this poll obviously targeted a narrow age range but was as statistically significant as the others. I can't just willfully doubt all polls that go against my party. I suppose I could/should say, "polls suggest Romney won x, y, z...". At the very least though, I think we can conclude that in 2012, Obama did worse with 18-20 year olds than he did with the Millennial generation as a whole.

However, my conclusion was that Republicans winning a majority of that very narrow age range's vote in 2012 means little in terms of future Republican party strength because how one votes in one presidential election doesn't necessarily reflect how they vote in the future, especially when that vote was heavily influenced by both a recession and a new social program some of their parents hated. So whether or not this poll is entirely reliable or not doesn't actually affect my conclusion.

I can agree it means little if we know the turnout for 18-20. Is your name Virginia or are you from there?

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I can agree it means little if we know the turnout for 18-20. Is your name Virginia or are you from there?

My name is Virginia.

Do we have the turnout for 18-20 year olds?

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Hopper brought up a very interesting debate about genetic party affiliation.  I'm inclined to say that 90% of first time young voters vote for the same candidate as their parents.  On my dad's side of the family, every single one of his siblings is a Republican and so are their kids and parents.  However, my grandfather was a Democrat until the 1960's.  He wore a Kennedy tie.  On my mom's side it was the opposite until the 2000's.  Now they're Republicans too.  My mom was in high school during Reagan's first term and registered as a Republican though.  I grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh and Jim Quinn.  Now she's married to a Democrat whose family is all Democrats.  His cousin is a Democrat judge in Pittsburgh and married them.  One variable is the degree to which a family is involved in politics.  For example, the Kennedys who I don't see ever changing and the same with the Bushes.  The Republican party runs deep in my blood and has played an enormous role in my formation as an American and a man.  Another thing I've come to realize though is that 60-70% of what gets passed would be similar regardless of which party was in the White House. Religion plays a big role in families too which can be a factor in their political affiliation.  I'm going to start a thread about this.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

More like exploding Mexican(Hispanic) Population because Hispanics have been the fastest growing ethnic minority group for the past 3.5 decades and Mexicans are like 2/3 of the Hispanic Population in the United States. On the negative side for Dems on the demographic side immigration from Mexico hasn't been booming and has bottomed out totally from the way it was from 1977-2005 and Mexicans aren't having kids like they were during the housing boom.

Yes, but only negative in terms of Democrats not getting a never-ending exploding population of Democratic voters. Right now, so, so many Hispanics are aging into the electorate and is driving whites into minority status rather quickly. If Republicans don't find a way to snatch away a large portion of these voters from Democrats, they will be essentially locked out of the White House for a long time due to these voters influence in key states. This doesn't even factor in immigration reform / pathway to citizenship, which will bring a lot of Democratic-leaning voters into the fold one day.

Gay Marriage-Ok yeah Millenials is sticking point with them.

Climate Change-They said we were going to have an "ice age" under Carter now they say we are "burning" as in the outside weather being too hot. In my opinion its just one cycle after another. The Climate goes through different weather cycles.

Education Funding-Do you know how much the US spends on education? We spend more than any developed country I think on education.

Constant Tax Breaks for the Wealthy-Well most of the "Bush Tax Cuts" were ended in real late 2012 except for the ones in which people and/or households make 250,000 dollars a year or less I think.

Amnesty-Are you serious? The people that came here illegally they have to go back to the back of the line and apply for citizenship the way it was supposed to be done the first time. If they don't apply they have to go back to their respective country.

Look, I was only pointing out that Millennials, by a very comfortable majority, support these things. It's irrelevant if you or anyone is against them, because it's still a favored policy position among them. But I'll go over a few:

1. 'Education funding' may have been the wrong term, but rather young kids want affordable college without crippling debt. Republicans have been overtly indifferent or even hostile to higher education in a lot of places. In North Carolina, they gained power after a century in minority status and almost immediately slashed funding for the university system - That pesky school system that has brought so much growth and students to North Carolina. Walker cut funding in Wisconsin, yet had no problem spending many millions on a *@#(#@ing sports stadium. They need to reevaluate their position on this issue, because it's not really popular with many people.

2. Tax breaks - Yes, those expired, but giving tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy/corporations is not popular and yet they cling to it. Inequality and the rich gaming the system has become "the issue" of our time, just like "big government" and anti-social programs was during Reagan's era. This time around, it is Republicans who are on the wrong side of it. Look what happened to Democrats a decade later? If Republicans don't also reevaluate their position on this, they will be in a rude awakening one of these days.

3. Amnesty - Once again, I was just pointing it out. Whatever your position on this is, Millennials by a comfortable majority approve of this.

I'm inclined to say that 90% of first time young voters vote for the same candidate as their parents.

Honestly, as per resources I've posted numerous times, this isn't really true. If it was true, then we'd still be in a flourishing Republican era because all those Reagan/Nixon parents would have had children that voted Republican. Instead, those children developed positions on many issues that directly contradicted their parents. More so, they grew up under relatively successful Democratic presidents and highly unsuccessful Republicans (Bush). This caused them to lean Democratic for most years except very early 2000s and 2010-2012.

Not if their turnout is low enough.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I can't be the only one who thinks that the Democrats would have a chance at Alaska with an "outsider" candidate.

You have to figure in no one wants to spend high travel expenses for such a small state. It would have to be about 56-57% PV for the Democrats to have the curtails. I don't see them getting that high.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I do agree with you that Republicans have to find a way to reach minority voters but if you look at it the Hispanic Population boomed from being 4% of the US population in 1980 to being 16% in the 2010 US Census and being 17% of the US Population in 2014. No other minority group had that kind of population growth in that time frame. Maybe Dems will add new voters to the rolls when Immigration Reform happens whenever that is because of the Levin's, Hannity's, and Coulters will be protesting it just like Limbaugh did in 2007 the next time the immigration debate comes again.

In regards to the other part of the post, like before, I was just saying that those issues are important to Millennials and Republicans are really on the wrong side of them, which makes reaching out to Millennials so much harder. If they don't want to, then fine, but they can't expect Millennials to just waltz into their arms when the GOP is, in some cases, fighting the issues Millennials want resolved.

As for Hispanic growth - I mean, I agree with you that they are a very large force now and growing rapidly, but on the other hand, Asian growth is technically the fastest at the moment (unless something has changed in past months). They still aren't nearly as large though, and influence is centered in specific areas. Anyway, yes, path to citizenship will fatten the Democratic voter rolls for sure and with GOP support among Hispanics being what it is, they should be afraid of that. Especially considering the number of Hispanics in Texas, Florida and California.

They have a lot of work to do, unless they hope to just stick to their guns and wait years for voters to change their views to something that fits with their agenda, which will probably never happen.

I hope my party starts supporting amnesty every few years for this reason. Red tape has never helped anyone and that's part of their frustration. We're not even vocal on the issue.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

People who don't vote shouldn't be automatically registered. They're not getting blocked, they're simply not doing their part and being passive about registration. 

Should people who own drones be required to register through the FAA? No. Again, it's more government coercion and meddling.

They would have the chance to opt-out. In addition, it would reduce the money spent on voter registration efforts and instead allow more to be spend on turnout operations and thus more participation. It's not just about being passive - A lot of people forget to register until it's too late or possibly don't even realize they weren't registered. If people move and do not update their information, that can also cause issues. Most people don't really think about elections much and these things happen a lot.

But fine, if auto-registration is an issue, then same-day registration with non-provisional ballots should be OK then?

I disagree. If someone doesn't pay attention then they shouldn't be voting. People didn't die so the uninformed could screw up election.  In other words if someone doesn't know they have to register then they shouldn't participate. Paying attention in school helps learn the requirements or at least should be taught.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

What kind of strategy/personal attributes would the Democratic candidate have to have to sweep up Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana? Those seem like very hard states to get at this point, even in a big win.

They'd have to have an R next to their name.  WV had a negative approval rating for Obama 22-77.  It's nearing DC territory on the other side.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

What kind of strategy/personal attributes would the Democratic candidate have to have to sweep up Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana? Those seem like very hard states to get at this point, even in a big win.

They'd have to have an R next to their name.  WV had a negative approval rating for Obama 22-77.  It's nearing DC territory on the other side.

Obama was an insanely odd fit for those states.  Politics didn't start in 2012, and those states were solidly Dem before that at the state and local level.

I don't think they'd vote D anytime soon, but all of those states likely would have voted for Hillary in 2008, so I'd say a Democrat running a populist, "folksy" campaign (doesn't describe Obama at all) in a bad environment for Republicans (like 2008).

I don't think she'd win but she'd do better. AR hasn't been blue for a while except for Clinton. As for WV it's been trending to the right since 1984 every election.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

What kind of strategy/personal attributes would the Democratic candidate have to have to sweep up Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana? Those seem like very hard states to get at this point, even in a big win.

They'd have to have an R next to their name.  WV had a negative approval rating for Obama 22-77.  It's nearing DC territory on the other side.

Obama was an insanely odd fit for those states.  Politics didn't start in 2012, and those states were solidly Dem before that at the state and local level.

I don't think they'd vote D anytime soon, but all of those states likely would have voted for Hillary in 2008, so I'd say a Democrat running a populist, "folksy" campaign (doesn't describe Obama at all) in a bad environment for Republicans (like 2008).

I don't think she'd win but she'd do better. AR hasn't been blue for a while except for Clinton. As for WV it's been trending to the right since 1984 every election.

Most polls showed Hillary comfortably winning WV vs. McCain, IIRC.  I'm not sure about AR, but given her connection and that it re-elected Pryor in a LANDSLIDE (did he even have an opponent?), I'm inclined to believe it'd have voted for her, too.  I mean, she won more votes in the WV Democratic primary in 2008 than Obama did in the general election...

That's interesting