Which Republican can win the Bronx?

[Nicodeme Depape]

If any?

[Psychic Octopus]

Is that even possible? anyway, Steele vs. Chris Mathews

[Holmes]

You mean Micheal Steele? The guy who couldn't even win the black vote in his senate race... in Maryland?

I'm going with none.

[minionofmidas]

Rod Blagojevich, of course.

[Psychic Octopus]

You mean Micheal Steele? The guy who couldn't even win the black vote in his senate race... in Maryland?

I'm going with none.

vs. Chris Matthews?

[Verily]

You mean Micheal Steele? The guy who couldn't even win the black vote in his senate race... in Maryland?

I'm going with none.

vs. Chris Matthews?

Your point seems to be lacking. What, exactly, would the Bronx have against Chris Matthews? It's not as if they don't vote for rich white people all the time (Clinton, Schumer, etc.).

Anyway, the Bronx is more Hispanic than black these days. Even if Steele narrowly won the black vote (which can't possibly happen), if he made few inroads with Hispanics, he'd still lose the borough.

[Smash255]

Is that even possible? anyway, Steele vs. Chris Mathews

Steele won a tad under 24% of the vote in Prince George's County during his senate run in 06......

[RosettaStoned]

yeah RIGHT!

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Abraham Lincoln running against Theodore Bilbo. Even then, the margin would be razor-thin.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Lincoln didn't even win NYC when he ran in 1860 or 1864. There's no reason to believe he would win it now.

[Eraserhead]

Lincoln didn't even win NYC when he ran in 1860 or 1864. There's no reason to believe he would win it now.

Uh, Lincoln's reputation has been ... elevated in the past 150 years or so.

But as for the Bronx, who cares?  Nobody wants the votes of a bunch of murderous thugs and crackheads anyway.  What kind of name is "the Bronx" anyway?  No other city puts a definite article in front of its name.  Screw them.

I'd love to see Vander Blubb in The Bronx.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Lincoln didn't even win NYC when he ran in 1860 or 1864. There's no reason to believe he would win it now.

Uh, Lincoln's reputation has been ... elevated in the past 150 years or so.

     He also didn't run against Bilbo.

[Smid]

There are certain places where people don't vote on the issues, they don't vote on the candidates, they aren't influenced by the campaign - they vote for a particular party because they've always voted for that party, and their parents voted for that party and their grandparents voted for that party. It's most commonly true in areas where education levels are lower because those areas seem to correlate with areas where voter participation levels are also lower and if a voter isn't interested in participating, it's easier for them to blindly follow one particular party or another. This statement is as equally true of some solidly Republican voting areas as it is of Democrat voting areas, and I don't know whether the Bronx fits into this classification but if it does and if there are enough "party voters" in the area, it is possible that there is NO Republican who could win it, no matter what their opinion was. They could be the most left-wing Republican in the history of the US against the most right-wing Democrat and if enough people will automatically vote for the Democrat the Republican would still lose.

[memphis]

There are certain places where people don't vote on the issues, they don't vote on the candidates, they aren't influenced by the campaign - they vote for a particular party because they've always voted for that party, and their parents voted for that party and their grandparents voted for that party. It's most commonly true in areas where education levels are lower because those areas seem to correlate with areas where voter participation levels are also lower and if a voter isn't interested in participating, it's easier for them to blindly follow one particular party or another. This statement is as equally true of some solidly Republican voting areas as it is of Democrat voting areas, and I don't know whether the Bronx fits into this classification but if it does and if there are enough "party voters" in the area, it is possible that there is NO Republican who could win it, no matter what their opinion was. They could be the most left-wing Republican in the history of the US against the most right-wing Democrat and if enough people will automatically vote for the Democrat the Republican would still lose.

Most people are like this. Any presidential election, GOP and Dems are completely guaranteed 40% of the vote each. That leaves only 20% of the electorate that is in any way swayable. And at least half of these folks are only swayable in an unusually large (1964, 1972, 1984...) landslide.

[SPC]

Maybe if David Duke had won the Democratic nomination in 1988, Bush could have won it.

[Smid]

There are certain places where people don't vote on the issues, they don't vote on the candidates, they aren't influenced by the campaign - they vote for a particular party because they've always voted for that party, and their parents voted for that party and their grandparents voted for that party. It's most commonly true in areas where education levels are lower because those areas seem to correlate with areas where voter participation levels are also lower and if a voter isn't interested in participating, it's easier for them to blindly follow one particular party or another. This statement is as equally true of some solidly Republican voting areas as it is of Democrat voting areas, and I don't know whether the Bronx fits into this classification but if it does and if there are enough "party voters" in the area, it is possible that there is NO Republican who could win it, no matter what their opinion was. They could be the most left-wing Republican in the history of the US against the most right-wing Democrat and if enough people will automatically vote for the Democrat the Republican would still lose.

Most people are like this. Any presidential election, GOP and Dems are completely guaranteed 40% of the vote each. That leaves only 20% of the electorate that is in any way swayable. And at least half of these folks are only swayable in an unusually large (1964, 1972, 1984...) landslide.

Precisely - and there are some areas which have well over 80% partisan voters (along with some areas which have less than that). Of course, some areas can be won by the party with the minority, sometimes based on a particular candidate with a high personal vote but more frequently it's because the dominant side didn't turn out to vote for the candidate. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'm guessing turnout was quite low in that Idaho district that turned in this election (as opposed to a large number of swinging voters).

On a slight side note, in Australia I've seen booth results where voters have swung 15-20% between two consecutive elections, and I've seen booths in which the federal and state results can vary by 20% or more.

Compare:
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/state1999TCPbyVCKnoxDistrict.html and
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/state2002TCPbyVCFerntreeGullyDistrict.html

This is the same electorate, but a redistribution changed some of the boundaries and the name of the electorate. Observe the Heany Park booth. The population growth at that booth was not due to the redistribution, it was due to population growth of a new part of the suburb. In 1999, the election result was about 64.37% two party preferred to the Liberals. In 2002, that swung to just 45.22% two party preferred, or a swing of 19.15%. Federally, the same booth in 2004 returned a two party preferred result of 63.73% - so the change between 1999 and 2002 was a genuine swing as opposed to changing demographics due to population growth. Here are the 2004 federal election results: http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-12246-31743.htm

I found a few other examples, but that one should suffice for now.

[Progressive]

As a NY-er I'm proud to say that no Republican will win the Bronx

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Jesus Christ (R) wouldn't win the Bronx.