Are the Republicans locked out of the Electoral College?

[uti2]

A slaughtering of Trump maybe gets the party back on course. That said there is still a chance the far right conservatives demand one of their own in 2020.

Just like it did for Goldwater? No, Nixon very carefully put together the modern Republican coalition and all its factions, but there is no modern Nixon that can appeal to all the factions.

Unless something changes, the answer is yes --- the Northeast is inaccessible; they've lost Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada; Florida, Georgia, Arizona are going quickly; and the Midwest is stubborn (i.e. PA).

The good news, however, is that they can effect the necessary changes. They just need to realize that they need to change because 2012 didn't do it.

But they don't realize WHAT they need to change (or rather they do, but the Kochs and other donors are holding them hostage), pushing hard right economic policies is what makes them disliked, by appealing to the rubes they've artificially have had hard-right econ policies implemented in the first place. Without them, the party has to go back to eisenhower-style centrism.

[uti2]

It's more of a diversity problem than an electoral college problem. It's getting harder and harder every election cycle to win with a whites only strategy.

Because what they don't want to acknowledge is that thanks to appealing to racial and religious resentment, they were able to get a captive base of lunatics that would support them no matter what and would let them push hard-right econ policies as a result, but that's not a natural coalition based on reason. The original post-new deal party was more like Eisenhower. They thought that they could play this game for a couple of more cycles, i.e. get the rubes to vote against their interests, while we try to be sneaky, and also appeal to some minorities, what they didn't expect was for their 'captive' base to actually rebel.

The reality is that this is a sick devious strategy, and if they wanted to be more honest to both minorities and their own base, they would move to the economic center again.

[uti2]

Of course not. Trump has set us back, but that doesn't mean we won't eventually make inroads and turn Iowa into a red state and Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan into swing states once more. Also, Florida remains a swing state and North Carolina a tilt red state. Don't let the "Trump effect" fool you. When President Obama won people asked this. It isn't emblematic of a permanent trend.

You make the assumption that people cared about Ted Cruz's hard-right economic policies and social policies, when in reality they didn't. Bush lost the PV in 2000. The whole reason why those hard-right policies were able to be pushed was due to the 'Trump Effect' voters voting as a social backlash, not for those actual policies. If you lose those social backlash voters, you can't win, since those actual policies are unattractive.

Yes and no. Like other posters have said, it really all depends on the direction the Republicans take in the eventuality of a Trump loss.

It seems pretty clear that the platform/strategy the party currently operates has run its course. Facing a map with PA/VA/CO/NH/NV realistically out of reach and NC/AZ/GA as swing states, there is no path to 270 for the Republicans.

The good news for the party is that they aren't married to their current platform, and parties have been changing and adapting for as long as the republic has existed. I do think that losing in the EV in five out of the last seven elections and losing the PV in six out of the last seven elections will be enough to put the R's in serious soul-search mode and eventually cause the cataclysmic change they need.

I think Hillary would be a very vulnerable candidate in 2020. She's likely to come into the White House without a large mandate, since so many votes are being cast against Trump as opposed to for her. The 2018 election is expected to be brutal for Democrats, and a 73-year-old unpopular president who just got smacked in the midterms would seem like a pretty good guess to become the first unseated incumbent since 1992.

But even favorable conditions like those could be screwed up by selecting the wrong nominee. A Ted Cruz/Chris Christie type would likely keep the map locked where it is no matter how unpopular President Hillary is. However, a positive candidate who can make in-roads with Latinos and young people could conceivably push Republicans into the 280-290 EV range.

However, I do believe George H.W. Bush will go down as the last Republican candidate in American history to get over 300 EV's.

Mid-terms is based on turnout, which will come down to a number of factors, even if Clinton had won a tight race against any Republican, this would be same argument, just as it was for Obama, yet Obama wasn't unseated. Of course, this is based on the assumption, that you can pander to middle class latinos while keeping working class whites, while keeping in mind that those 2 groups have different interests. Young people favor bernie's economic policies.

[uti2]

They aren't locked out of the EC, but Trump is.

VA is gone for generic republicans, it's now part of the NE, can't win without social liberalism. NM for other reasons, Hispanics lean economically left. PA also leans economically liberal. WI leans left due to antipathy towards big business, not even Bush 04 could get it. What map?

Perhaps Kasich could make a MW + SW play, but someone like Kasich would unlikely get past the primary.

[uti2]

Of course not. Not in 2016 and not ever.

This question has been asked over and over again about the party not in power and somehow, they overcome the "odds" and win the Presidency at some point.

Except the Whigs and the Federalists

I am talking about modern times, obviously. The Republicans hold the House and the Senate and most state gubernatorial mansions and legislatures. This can't win meme is overblown.

My view is that we don't know. I think that if the Republicans continue on the path of Trump, there is a decent chance they do turn themselves into a rump regional party that is essentially irrelevant in presidential elections. If they change course, I think there is a clear path back to national viability.

For the record, I hope the Republican party does recover at some point. Having a coherent debate over real issues is important and we are being disadvantaged as a nation if we don't have those meaningful debates.

What do you mean continue in his path? They have other problems relating to the EV map, that is due to the coalition of social conservatives + fiscal conservatives that make them unappealing to various regions in the first place. Like Socon views alienating modern VA, and fiscal con views alienating the midwest and the southwest. Trump just exploited that dynamic, it's actually beyond Trump. Being less socially conservative or fiscally conservative would be disqualifier in the primary in the first place, but those attributes would make them less appealing to the GE, see Kasich.

[uti2]

Republicans aren't locked out yet, but they currently face an increasingly hard time getting even the bare minimum EVs to win. I'd say we are at the point where a really good win for Republicans would be 2004's margins, assuming Democrats field an OK candidate, and not some Trump-style buffoon.

If the GOP wants a place in the White House, they will need to figure out how to make inroads with minorities and young people. This whites-only strategy will be the end of them if they can't move past that, and post-Trump it will be exceedingly difficult.

No more than the Democrats were locked out by Bush and Rove's "permanent Republican majority" of 2004. The GOP clearly has an obvious structural disadvantage on the national level, but the U.S. is overdue for an electoral realignment.

No we're not. Depending what time period you define the current Democratic realignment as starting in, it probably hasn't even peaked yet. Republicans are still completely bombing with young voters, worse than ever even. Republican minority support is looking to reach low levels never seen before. The GOP is losing support among virtually every part of the electorate that is growing, while doubling down on the parts that are shrinking. Even the states seen as most likely to shift to the GOP column in the future (in the rust belt/GL region), they are losing electoral votes to states Democrats are taking from you guys. What all of this says is that the Republican party hasn't even hit rock bottom yet.

Whatever realignment you think is overdue is not coming yet.

Young people support Bernie's economic policies, yet the GOP is pushing policies that are the polar opposite of that , minorities also lean economically left. Even GWB figured that out with 'compassionate conservatism', pushing hard-right economic policies is what is wanted by the donors including the Kochs, not necessarily the base, which consists of social backlash voters.

[uti2]

Republicans are doing just fine. Trump on the other hand...

Every single Republican was down in the VA polls, not just Trump, .e.g.

[uti2]

Well, I wouldn’t say locked out but it has become much more difficult to reach to magic number of 270 electoral votes. This has mainly to do with the demographic changes in many purple states (and the country as a whole as well), which saw an increase of Democratic-leaning voters like latinos and blacks. Take VA, CO and NV, they’re all trending blue (NV to a lesser extent in current polls). All of them were won by W but are almost out of reach for the GOP unless they manage a to win the national popular vote by a larger margin; say three for four points. NM is another example; won by W in 2004, it is now de facto a blue state. Due to these demographic changes that saw a substantial decrease of white voters, more states trend into the Dem’s column while no blue states trend right (PA and WI are still not really in play). AZ and GA are other examples, which became purple or just barely red states, but were considered solid Republican territory ten years ago. Even if PA is trending red in the near future, meaning 2020 and onward, the “losses” on the other hand can’t compensate this. The GOP would need WI, MN and MI for example, but I can’t see that happening any time soon. Even not in PA’s case at this time.

The trend becomes also clear by looking at the maximal potential for each party: Democrats can easily win over 300 electoral votes, even over 350. Since 1992, Democrats received well over 300 electoral votes in each of their victories and got at least 250 in every single election, including the two lost races. The GOP only won the EC twice, and by close margins (W in 2000 and 2004). Flip either FL or OH in these contests, and the end result is different. Since 1992, only in three elections they managed to get 200 electoral votes; in Romney’s case it just crossed the line barely. It’s fair to say that Bush 41 will likely remain the last Republican who has won over 300 electoral votes. Even if the Trumpster were still competitive now, his ceiling is at 280 or 290 electoral votes. Hillary’s ceiling is at 370 or 380 votes.

What the GOP needs is a renewal in their platform. They should remain conservative, but open its doors for minorities and moderate their views on immigration while advocating fiscal conservatism and include more elements of libertarism to appeal younger voters. And: End the total obstruction in congress. It serves nobody, except a few tea-party nuts who hold the rest of the party as hostage.

While this is the current problem for the GOP, Democrats have huge problems with governors and state legislatures, but that has more to do with low voter turnout in off-year elections and gerrymandering.

What does 'opening doors for minorities' mean? Mccain had moderate views on immigration. Reagan even granted amnesty, yet Dems overwhelmingly won the minority vote, even when Bill Clinton campaigned against illegal immigration, he still won the vote. The only parts of 'libertarianism' the youth is interested in are social issues and foreign policy (basically the 2 parts that the GOP won't accept).

The GWB team figured out that most minorities and Hispanics are interested in economic issues, this is why he sold 'compassionate conservatism', which was more of a centrist economic approach.

[uti2]

Well, I wouldn’t say locked out but it has become much more difficult to reach to magic number of 270 electoral votes. This has mainly to do with the demographic changes in many purple states (and the country as a whole as well), which saw an increase of Democratic-leaning voters like latinos and blacks. Take VA, CO and NV, they’re all trending blue (NV to a lesser extent in current polls). All of them were won by W but are almost out of reach for the GOP unless they manage a to win the national popular vote by a larger margin; say three for four points. NM is another example; won by W in 2004, it is now de facto a blue state. Due to these demographic changes that saw a substantial decrease of white voters, more states trend into the Dem’s column while no blue states trend right (PA and WI are still not really in play). AZ and GA are other examples, which became purple or just barely red states, but were considered solid Republican territory ten years ago. Even if PA is trending red in the near future, meaning 2020 and onward, the “losses” on the other hand can’t compensate this. The GOP would need WI, MN and MI for example, but I can’t see that happening any time soon. Even not in PA’s case at this time.

The trend becomes also clear by looking at the maximal potential for each party: Democrats can easily win over 300 electoral votes, even over 350. Since 1992, Democrats received well over 300 electoral votes in each of their victories and got at least 250 in every single election, including the two lost races. The GOP only won the EC twice, and by close margins (W in 2000 and 2004). Flip either FL or OH in these contests, and the end result is different. Since 1992, only in three elections they managed to get 200 electoral votes; in Romney’s case it just crossed the line barely. It’s fair to say that Bush 41 will likely remain the last Republican who has won over 300 electoral votes. Even if the Trumpster were still competitive now, his ceiling is at 280 or 290 electoral votes. Hillary’s ceiling is at 370 or 380 votes.

What the GOP needs is a renewal in their platform. They should remain conservative, but open its doors for minorities and moderate their views on immigration while advocating fiscal conservatism and include more elements of libertarism to appeal younger voters. And: End the total obstruction in congress. It serves nobody, except a few tea-party nuts who hold the rest of the party as hostage.

While this is the current problem for the GOP, Democrats have huge problems with governors and state legislatures, but that has more to do with low voter turnout in off-year elections and gerrymandering.

What does 'opening doors for minorities' mean? Mccain had moderate views on immigration. Reagan even granted amnesty, yet Dems overwhelmingly won the minority vote, even when Bill Clinton campaigned against illegal immigration, he still won the vote. The only parts of 'libertarianism' the youth is interested in are social issues and foreign policy (basically the 2 parts that the GOP won't accept).

The GWB team figured out that most minorities and Hispanics are interested in economic issues, this is why he sold 'compassionate conservatism', which was more of a centrist economic approach.

McCain lost for other reasons, 2008 was a very bad year for the GOP. What they should do: push for immigration reform, allow illegal immigrants to stay in and apply for work visas (which need to be reformed as well; make it easier to get one). Don’t demonize these all the illegals, because most of them are law-abiding people. The GOP should also try to connect more with these people: Seek exchanges on all levels, through politicians, organizations, the media etc. Try to find out what their problems are and then work on common-sense solutions for these problems. Take police violence for example. Most GOP officials are very one-sided in favor of the police; some are even racist (though not openly). But being one-sided won’t solve the problems.

'Law and Order', that's one of the centerpoints of conservatism that exists in all countries that have RW parties on the planet.  Those immigrants want more moderate economic policies like many of them have even in their home countries (even mexico has a form of universal healthcare + they even have gay marraige, etc.). Immigration policy is not that important relative to other concerns:

http://www.salon.com/2000/01/13/latinos/

Of course the GOP knows this, but in order to get funds from the Koch brothers and top donors they are told to push hard-right economic policies.

[uti2]

Well, I wouldn’t say locked out but it has become much more difficult to reach to magic number of 270 electoral votes. This has mainly to do with the demographic changes in many purple states (and the country as a whole as well), which saw an increase of Democratic-leaning voters like latinos and blacks. Take VA, CO and NV, they’re all trending blue (NV to a lesser extent in current polls). All of them were won by W but are almost out of reach for the GOP unless they manage a to win the national popular vote by a larger margin; say three for four points. NM is another example; won by W in 2004, it is now de facto a blue state. Due to these demographic changes that saw a substantial decrease of white voters, more states trend into the Dem’s column while no blue states trend right (PA and WI are still not really in play). AZ and GA are other examples, which became purple or just barely red states, but were considered solid Republican territory ten years ago. Even if PA is trending red in the near future, meaning 2020 and onward, the “losses” on the other hand can’t compensate this. The GOP would need WI, MN and MI for example, but I can’t see that happening any time soon. Even not in PA’s case at this time.

The trend becomes also clear by looking at the maximal potential for each party: Democrats can easily win over 300 electoral votes, even over 350. Since 1992, Democrats received well over 300 electoral votes in each of their victories and got at least 250 in every single election, including the two lost races. The GOP only won the EC twice, and by close margins (W in 2000 and 2004). Flip either FL or OH in these contests, and the end result is different. Since 1992, only in three elections they managed to get 200 electoral votes; in Romney’s case it just crossed the line barely. It’s fair to say that Bush 41 will likely remain the last Republican who has won over 300 electoral votes. Even if the Trumpster were still competitive now, his ceiling is at 280 or 290 electoral votes. Hillary’s ceiling is at 370 or 380 votes.

What the GOP needs is a renewal in their platform. They should remain conservative, but open its doors for minorities and moderate their views on immigration while advocating fiscal conservatism and include more elements of libertarism to appeal younger voters. And: End the total obstruction in congress. It serves nobody, except a few tea-party nuts who hold the rest of the party as hostage.

While this is the current problem for the GOP, Democrats have huge problems with governors and state legislatures, but that has more to do with low voter turnout in off-year elections and gerrymandering.

What does 'opening doors for minorities' mean? Mccain had moderate views on immigration. Reagan even granted amnesty, yet Dems overwhelmingly won the minority vote, even when Bill Clinton campaigned against illegal immigration, he still won the vote. The only parts of 'libertarianism' the youth is interested in are social issues and foreign policy (basically the 2 parts that the GOP won't accept).

The GWB team figured out that most minorities and Hispanics are interested in economic issues, this is why he sold 'compassionate conservatism', which was more of a centrist economic approach.

McCain lost for other reasons, 2008 was a very bad year for the GOP. What they should do: push for immigration reform, allow illegal immigrants to stay in and apply for work visas (which need to be reformed as well; make it easier to get one). Don’t demonize these all the illegals, because most of them are law-abiding people. The GOP should also try to connect more with these people: Seek exchanges on all levels, through politicians, organizations, the media etc. Try to find out what their problems are and then work on common-sense solutions for these problems. Take police violence for example. Most GOP officials are very one-sided in favor of the police; some are even racist (though not openly). But being one-sided won’t solve the problems.

'Law and Order', that's one of the centerpoints of conservatism that exists in all countries that have RW parties on the planet.  Those immigrants want more moderate economic policies like many of them have even in their home countries (even mexico has a form of universal healthcare + they even have gay marraige, etc.). Immigration policy is not that important relative to other concerns:

http://www.salon.com/2000/01/13/latinos/

Of course the GOP knows this, but in order to get funds from the Koch brothers and top donors they are told to push hard-right economic policies.

I agree about economic and social issues, which I mentioned in the first post. But the fact that the 2013 immigration bill, which gave something to both sides, has failed didn’t help the GOP’s image among Hispanics. That’s for sure.

That bill was supposed to be repeat of Reagan's deal in the 80s where he granted amnesty, it would've passed if not for the base rebelling against the Republicans with David Brat succeeding in his primary challenge against Cantor.

Anyway, this hack strategy of convincing poor white working class to vote against their own interests in exchange for less than nothing (immigration was their last straw) + trying to win over a slightly higher percentage of hispanics (Jeb's strategy) is actually a devious strategy to the entire electoral demographic, it's neither honorable nor fair to anyone. If the GOP reforms, it should be to actually moderate by appealing to working class people of all races with positive economic programs for them in the form of the economic centrist model that Eisenhower had. The GOP was only able to push these hard-right economic programs thanks to their racial resentment strategy, and when they had thought that white working class voters were captive to them no matter what, they didn't think that they would rebel. So all that happened this cycle was seeing those logical inconsistencies in the GOP finally exposed.

[uti2]

I agree about economic and social issues, which I mentioned in the first post. But the fact that the 2013 immigration bill, which gave something to both sides, has failed didn’t help the GOP’s image among Hispanics. That’s for sure.

For the GOP, the 2007 immigration bill is actually more heartbreaking than the 2013 bill was.

The 2013 bill came on the back of Obama's massive wins among non-whites in 2012, which makes the Republicans look opportunistic; and the final, enduring image would have been a Democrat's signing the paper under the Statue of Liberty.

The 2007 bill, on the other hand, was promoted heavily by a Republican President who had recently won 40-44% Hispanics in the general. Had that bill passed, it's possible (though speculative) that GOP might have made inroads with non-whites.

GWB won ~35% of the Hispanic vote (which is the normal rate for the GOP, e.g. Reagan and Nixon had those numbers), and still lost the PV to Gore. 2004 was a state of terror and panic thanks to 9/11, it was not normal conditions.