|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 10:47:29 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virginiá)
  2020 Reapportionment should simplify the GOP path to 270
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 2020 Reapportionment should simplify the GOP path to 270  (Read 12883 times)
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,185
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 30, 2014, 09:28:31 am »

The Democrats currently have a popular vote advantage in Presidential elections.

For Mitt Romney to have won in the Electoral College he needed the national popular vote to shift a net 5.4%, this would have netted him FL (lost by 0.9%), OH (lost by 3.0%), VA (lost by 3.9%) and either CO or PA where he lost both by 5.4%.  Thus, although he lost the popular vote by "only" 3.8% he actually would have needed a much bigger margin in the popular vote to have won in the Electoral College.  Thus in close race the Democrats could win in the electoral college while losing the popular vote by as much as 1.5%.  A similar result occurred in 2008, McCain lost the popular vote by 7.3% but would needed a net shift in the popular vote by 9.5% to have won in the Electoral College (although a shift of 9% would have caused a tie and thrown the contest to the House).

So what will happen to the Electoral College after 2020?  Current projections of population growth for each state by the Census Bureau suggest this Democrat's advantage will vanish.
(see http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-future-shape-of-the-house/ ).  Seven states will lose 1 EV each and 6 will gain a total of 7, with a net shift towards GOP states of 5.

Thus, if current trends continue, a GOP candidate would "only" need to hold the Romney states and add OH, FL, and VA to reach the minimum needed to win, 270 Electoral votes.
Logged
WeAreDoomed
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2014, 10:26:13 am »

That's nice to know, but we will need to find a substitute for Virginia, preferably Pennsylvania. Then we need to appeal more to Hispanics to keep Florida in play, and then we are actually in good shape. But we have a lot of work to do.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,546


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2014, 01:57:47 pm »

Maybe that's true if you hold the rest of the dynamics constant.  However, the reason behind the reapportionment is population change.  You have to ask yourself, is the United States going to be a more demographically friendly country to the GOP in 6 years?  Probably not. 
Logged
Skill and Chance
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,155
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2014, 02:15:50 pm »

It's true that the Kerry+IA+CO+NV+NM  path will close for Democrats after 2020.  In 2008, they could have given up one of I or NV and still won.  As others have pointed out, though VA will likely be at least as tough for the GOP as present-day Colorado by then.  And the whole point is moot if VA (or FL) ever moves left of CO.

The real problem for the GOP would be if FL moves left of the nation.  That would be very, very hard for them to counter.
Logged
Beezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,910


Political Matrix
E: 1.61, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2014, 02:21:17 pm »
« Edited: January 30, 2014, 02:23:47 pm by Beezer »

Strong leaning GOP states (states that the GOP has won at least 5 times in the presidential contests between 1992 and 2012) have gained 12 seats/electoral votes since the 1990s (GA, TX, and AZ account for all 12 additional votes though and they may very well become more competitive in future cycles). Strong leaning Democratic states (6-0/5-1) on the other hand have lost 14 seats/electoral votes during the same period. Where has this gotten the GOP? It's true that the population has shifted into red states but this may come back to bite them eventually.
Logged
illegaloperation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 783


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2014, 01:00:39 am »

What is wrong here is the assumption that the voting pattern would be the same.

For example, sure, North Carolina may gain more electoral votes, but that's because of population growth in Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area (known as the Research Triangle) and in Charlotte which is moving the state as a whole to the left.
Logged
Devils30
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,911
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2014, 10:41:15 pm »

Florida is a potential problem for the GOP as its maxed out the white vote in northern FL and losing big in the growing areas. What's happening in parts of Miami to the GOP is similar to what happened to Dems in coal country WV, KY. Would not be shocked to see Dade go 66-33 for Hillary and possibly 70% in the future for Ds. Look at that latest Florida poll and while its early, Hillary would be a great fit for the state. There's little chance the GOP can maintain their majorities in FL with a whites only strategy. FL legislature is secure for now but if a Dem wins in 2014, 2018 the map gets vetoed and Dems can win under a court-drawn one in the 2020s.
Logged
Non Swing Voter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,257


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2014, 10:33:50 pm »

That's a great strategy, except for the fact that 2 of the 3 states you are relying on pushing into the GOP column (FL and VA) are trending Democrat... VA is already long gone for the GOP.
Logged
WeAreDoomed
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2014, 10:36:31 pm »

FL won't be trending D for long if the GOP starts to court Hispanics more, which they are already starting to.
Buy VA will be gone for the GOP by 2020.
Logged
Flake
JacobTiver
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,698
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2014, 05:06:19 am »

FL won't be trending D for long if the GOP starts to court Hispanics more, which they are already starting to.

How?
Logged
WeAreDoomed
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2014, 08:30:27 am »

FL won't be trending D for long if the GOP starts to court Hispanics more, which they are already starting to.

How?
Immigration reform, and of course, the new anti poverty agenda by Rubio.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,546


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2014, 08:41:45 am »

FL won't be trending D for long if the GOP starts to court Hispanics more, which they are already starting to.

How?
Immigration reform, and of course, the new anti poverty agenda by Rubio.

Regardless of whether that's true, which I doubt, what if the Hispanic population of Florida increases?  Couldn't that offset any percentage gains Republicans could hypothetically make based on immigration reform or whatever Rubio said?
Logged
WeAreDoomed
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2014, 11:03:35 am »

That's the point?
Top Republicans and donors are already onto this, in fact recently the Koch brothers have announced they are fundraising Hispanic conservative groups now.
Anyway, by 2020 NC may be gone for the GOP also, and by 2024, maybe Georgia. We will have to wait and see for them.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2014, 04:57:40 pm »

FL won't be trending D for long if the GOP starts to court Hispanics more, which they are already starting to.
Buy VA will be gone for the GOP by 2020.

The problem is: there are two effects with Hispanics in Florida. Because there are, at least, two very distinct Hispanic demographics there. Firstly, there are Cubans - and then there are the rest. Cubans have long been a Republican mainstay there, of course - but they are likely not going to be that in the coming future. The old generation, for which anti-communism was the determining factor, is being replaced by the younger, American-born Cubans, and these are a lot more elastic, at best - or Dem friendly, at worst. Even if Republicans improve among the Hispanics in general, they will have to deal with Cubans becoming more like the rest of the urban ethnic minorities.  And, even assuming Republicans are incredibly successful in their Hispanic outreach (of which, at present, we have no evidence whatsoever), it is far from clear which effect dominates.
Logged
WeAreDoomed
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2014, 04:59:48 pm »

We will of course disagree on which effect outweighs the other.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2014, 05:00:30 pm »

FL won't be trending D for long if the GOP starts to court Hispanics more, which they are already starting to.
Buy VA will be gone for the GOP by 2020.

And, of course, it remains to be seen that the Republican Hispanic outreach is successful at all. It is not enough for some elements of the party to declare this as a desirable objective. It has to actually happen - and be credible in the target population. This will be hard EVEN if none of your fellow-Republicans get off message - and it is a pretty safe assumption that quite a few of them will. You are right in that appealing to Hispanics is a good idea - but, I am afraid, you are underestimating the difficulty.
Logged
WeAreDoomed
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2014, 05:04:10 pm »

What I am worried about is Rick Scott, especially if he wins re election. He is one who could go off message.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,546


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2014, 05:14:17 pm »

A few points:

Just to reiterate, if Democrats win 2% less Hispanic voters in 2016, but there are 1% more Hispanic voters total, that's going to cut against the hypothetical Republican net gain. 

Obama did worse than Hillary in the 2008 primaries among Hispanics.  It's a viable hypothesis that Clinton will outperform Obama among Hispanics.  Bill Clinton in 1996 actually did better than Obama among Hispanics, correct?

Hispanics are not single issue voters on immigration regulation.  I would wager certain Hispanic American groups, especially Puerto Ricans, are not extremely driven by that issue. 

Also, IF the immigration bill passes, (it probably won't) there's no guarantee that people will credit Republicans for whatever positives they see.  Obama and the Democrats could get more of the credit, improving Democratic chances in the future.

Republicans have been systemically avoiding a Hispanic outreach effort since 2005 and the failure of the McCain immigration bill.  It might not be an easy or quick process to win people back.
Logged
WeAreDoomed
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,717
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2014, 05:16:53 pm »

The thing is, Bill Clinton became less popular with Cubans after the incident, which Republicans will likely bring back up.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,546


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2014, 05:20:19 pm »

The thing is, Bill Clinton became less popular with Cubans after the incident, which Republicans will likely bring back up.

Are the Republicans also going to campaign on how we're not prepared for Y2K?
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,397
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2014, 08:57:09 pm »

One thing is for sure is that the entire 2004 strategy of just trying limit Republican inroads in the Midwest. Republicans will probably be able to afford to go a path where they can afford to lose New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio just have to pick up Colorado and one state that Bush only won once. They will still need Florida, though.
Logged
SamInTheSouth
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 389


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2014, 06:05:19 pm »

We need to expand the size of the House.  Right now the average Congressional district is 700k.  No one person is capable of representing a group that large effectively because it is too diverse.  We're also beginning to see the concentration of representation in the hands of just a few states.  Personally, I think the House should double in size over the next couple of decades.
Logged
Non Swing Voter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,257


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2014, 10:18:52 pm »

We need to expand the size of the House.  Right now the average Congressional district is 700k.  No one person is capable of representing a group that large effectively because it is too diverse.  We're also beginning to see the concentration of representation in the hands of just a few states.  Personally, I think the House should double in size over the next couple of decades.

I don't see how the last point is true.  If representation was concentrated in a few states then New York and California would be controlling everything, but they're not.

Even Texas, which has a lot of seats and is in the majority party isn't controlling much.  It seems like key legislation on a lot of legislation is coming from a diverse group of representatives from smaller states.
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,398
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2014, 12:03:10 pm »

Here's a smart idea for the GOP, try to go after ALL the states and not just 270. They might just get up to 300 electoral votes.
Logged
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Pessimistic Antineutrino
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,712
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2014, 02:05:19 pm »

We need to expand the size of the House.  Right now the average Congressional district is 700k.  No one person is capable of representing a group that large effectively because it is too diverse.  We're also beginning to see the concentration of representation in the hands of just a few states.  Personally, I think the House should double in size over the next couple of decades.

I don't see how the last point is true.  If representation was concentrated in a few states then New York and California would be controlling everything, but they're not.

Even Texas, which has a lot of seats and is in the majority party isn't controlling much.  It seems like key legislation on a lot of legislation is coming from a diverse group of representatives from smaller states.

Besides, even if that point is true, there's no point trying to alleviate it. That's why we have the Senate.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines