2016 Will be a Blowout of Proportions

[dahilt]

I don't know what these voters think about the 2016 election, but it seems that it's set for another big time rejection of the Republican Party even larger than that of 2008. 

Clinton is doing well in the Obama states and the Obama swing states. She could even win Indiana and Missouri (maybe that's why the media hasn't polled them yet lol.)

Florida remains quite competitive at this stage and North Carolina is NOT gone to the GOP column, which is impressive.

The Senate will go Democratic in 2 years because it's like 2014 but even more so. It'll be another 2006. (Can you believe that?)

The House is going to be redrawn in 2016.

So far the only region I'm concerned about is honestly electorally insignificant: the South. The South is a reward if Clinton can manage to win there as well.

This is shaping out to be a Clinton sweep making Obama's look like 2000.

[The Free North]

HillaryLandslide2016...is that you?

[The Other Castro]

[Maistre]

I actually could see a Clinton blowout if we give the nomination to the fat man.

Everyone else I'm pretty sure could at least keep it to McCain 2008 levels.

[Xing]

I don't think 2016 is likely to be a blowout for either party, unless something changes drastically. I honestly don't think the battleground map will look that different from how it looked in 2012.

[Türkisblau]

This forum is a magnet for Hillary Hacks.

[solarstorm]

I actually could see a Clinton blowout if we give the nomination to the fat man.

To which? To the fat man from Florida, or to the fat man from New Jersey?

[SWE]

Pls leave

[The_Doctor]

What is with the pro-Hillary mini-orgy of electoral projections that seems intended as parody? Perhaps we're wrong, they may be conservatives parodying the Clinton hype?

[Rockefeller GOP]

I actually could see a Clinton blowout if we give the nomination to the fat man.

Everyone else I'm pretty sure could at least keep it to McCain 2008 levels.

LOL, only you would think Christie would do worse than nutjob candidates like Cruz, Santorum, Carson, etc.

[Mister Mets]

Looking at the headline, it's certainly possible.

But I think a close Hillary loss is likelier than a blowout loss.

[Maistre]

I actually could see a Clinton blowout if we give the nomination to the fat man.

Everyone else I'm pretty sure could at least keep it to McCain 2008 levels.

LOL, only you would think Christie would do worse than nutjob candidates like Cruz, Santorum, Carson, etc.

Polls have given an indication that the fat man has a weakness in southern states, putting many in range of Clinton taking them (and mind you these are polls of a pretty anti-Democratic electorate) and makes up for it with a small boost in Northern states, which does not amount to anything.

Make no mistake, the fat man will do worse than 2008 McCain's performance against Clinton in 2016.

It is you and several other no-brain Republican consultants who constantly say that the fat man is the best candidate because he's "from a blue state", because he's "moderate", because he's "a governor" when the evidence seems to contradict that.

[IceSpear]

This forum is a magnet for Hillary Hacks.

Uh, not really. This forum is actually broadly unrepresentative of the population in terms of ANTI-Hillary sentiment. I've never seen her get a net "FF" rating in any polls here, whereas she's always on positive ground in scientific polls. In addition, she has 90%+ favorability among Democrats in nearly every poll I've seen, but among Atlas Democrats it's like, 60/40 at best.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

The House is going to be redrawn in 2016.

Uh, no. Ditto on the rest of your post.

[Lincoln Republican]

Where do these Hillary worshippers come from, Hackhaven, Connecticut?

[Prince of Salem]

I don't think 2016 is likely to be a blowout for either party, unless something changes drastically. I honestly don't think the battleground map will look that different from how it looked in 2012.

[bobloblaw]

""The House is going to be redrawn in 2016.""

Youre completely deranged and this quote of yours proves it. There is NO redrawing in 2016.

Not since 1904 has the party that held the white house for 8 years gotten more popular votes in the third election and that includes FDR in 1940. Hillary may win, but it will be as close as 2012 or closer

[pbrower2a]

I actually could see a Clinton blowout if we give the nomination to the fat man.

To which? To the fat man from Florida, or to the fat man from New Jersey?

Or the fat man from Arkansas?

[bobloblaw]

I actually could see a Clinton blowout if we give the nomination to the fat man.

To which? To the fat man from Florida, or to the fat man from New Jersey?

Or the fat man from Arkansas?

Or the fat lady from NY. I guess we'll know when the election is over. Hillary will break out in song

[The Other Castro]

Where do these Hillary worshippers come from, Hackhaven, Connecticut?

I'll have you know that Hackhaven is very nice this time of year, thank you very much.

[pbrower2a]

Not since 1904 has the party that held the white house for 8 years gotten more popular votes in the third election and that includes FDR in 1940. Hillary may win, but it will be as close as 2012 or closer

Rules of that sort can always be broken. Much of that depends upon the quality of the opponent.

[Adam Griffin]

[bobloblaw]

Not since 1904 has the party that held the white house for 8 years gotten more popular votes in the third election and that includes FDR in 1940. Hillary may win, but it will be as close as 2012 or closer

Rules of that sort can always be broken. Much of that depends upon the quality of the opponent.

So you think the GOP candidate in 2016 will be worse than Wendell Wilkie in 1940 relative to FDR?

I think that trend has held becasue it has to do with macro issues. There is such as thing as a "Time For A Change" attiitude among the voters.

[pbrower2a]

Not since 1904 has the party that held the white house for 8 years gotten more popular votes in the third election and that includes FDR in 1940. Hillary may win, but it will be as close as 2012 or closer

Rules of that sort can always be broken. Much of that depends upon the quality of the opponent.

So you think the GOP candidate in 2016 will be worse than Wendell Wilkie in 1940 relative to FDR?

I think that trend has held becasue it has to do with macro issues. There is such as thing as a "Time For A Change" attiitude among the voters.

Let's look at the worst blowouts in the last weighty years:

1932 -- gross failure of economic stewardship of the economy by an  incumbent seeking re-election. Not relevant this time. Obama isn't running for a third term.

1936 -- half-hearted campaign by the nominee of a Party that had failed so catastrophically before against an incumbent who had shaken things up mostly for the good. 

1952 -- war hero vs. a man who had earned his time for loyal service to the Party. Completely irrelevant scenario this time.

1956 -- repeat main candidates of 1952. No change, and no change in result.  Not relevant this time.

1964, 1972 -- incumbent vs. an opposition that had melted down to someone easily cast as an extremist. People do not fall for extremists except in catastrophic times.

1980 -- charismatic challenger against someone who failed to fit his initial image. Not going to happen.

1984 -- basically 1952 or 1956, except with  the states very homogeneous in their voting. 

1988 -- meltdown of someone who started looking promising but just wasn't up to it.

Next one? The situation will be very different.

The Republican Party has plenty of opportunity to wound the sensibilities of millions of people, and whoever is the GOP nominee could lose for that. 

[bobloblaw]

Not since 1904 has the party that held the white house for 8 years gotten more popular votes in the third election and that includes FDR in 1940. Hillary may win, but it will be as close as 2012 or closer

Rules of that sort can always be broken. Much of that depends upon the quality of the opponent.

So you think the GOP candidate in 2016 will be worse than Wendell Wilkie in 1940 relative to FDR?

I think that trend has held becasue it has to do with macro issues. There is such as thing as a "Time For A Change" attiitude among the voters.

Let's look at the worst blowouts in the last weighty years:

1932 -- gross failure of economic stewardship of the economy by an  incumbent seeking re-election. Not relevant this time. Obama isn't running for a third term.

1936 -- half-hearted campaign by the nominee of a Party that had failed so catastrophically before against an incumbent who had shaken things up mostly for the good. 

1952 -- war hero vs. a man who had earned his time for loyal service to the Party. Completely irrelevant scenario this time.

1956 -- repeat main candidates of 1952. No change, and no change in result.  Not relevant this time.

1964, 1972 -- incumbent vs. an opposition that had melted down to someone easily cast as an extremist. People do not fall for extremists except in catastrophic times.

1980 -- charismatic challenger against someone who failed to fit his initial image. Not going to happen.

1984 -- basically 1952 or 1956, except with  the states very homogeneous in their voting. 

1988 -- meltdown of someone who started looking promising but just wasn't up to it.

Next one? The situation will be very different.

The Republican Party has plenty of opportunity to wound the sensibilities of millions of people, and whoever is the GOP nominee could lose for that. 

I predict 2016 is most like 1988. Of course no VP running but the fundamentals will be the similar.