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.

[NeverAgain]

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).

[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.

[NeverAgain]

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.

[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. 

[Maxwell]

I'd say Democrats could win 56%-44%, but not with Trump as the GOP Nominee. It would be Carly Fiorina as nominee, imo.

And then GOP probably 54-46 or 55-45, and that would probably be some kind of empty suit (a more talented Rubio, a less damaged Christie, or even Paul Ryan) vs. Martin O'Malley in an economic slump.

[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.

[Kingpoleon]

1932 style scenarios:

416
122

394
144

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

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

[LLR]

If everything broke right for the Dems:

457-81

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The GOP ceiling is not lower (and, looking at history, it's higher) than the Democratic ceiling.  Keep sticking to your false narratives, liberals!

Democratic Ceiling: 2008
Republican Ceiling (54-44 GOP):

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump is probably going to lose anyways.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Trump is probably going to lose anyways.

Can we all pin this as possibly the most OC moment of all-time?

[Virginiá]

The GOP ceiling is not lower (and, looking at history, it's higher)

I can't exactly guesstimate the ceiling for either right now, but I can tell you that the Democratic ceiling is growing significantly as the non-white share of the electorate expands and the white voter share contracts (by about 2% every 4 years, actually). Further, Millennials and pro-Democratic groups (single men/women, secular people, minorities, etc) are rapidly expanding their share of the electorate, and by 2020, Millennials will constitute just under half of the electorate. For a group of voters that went 66% Democratic in 2008 and 60% in 2012, that should say all that needs to be said about ceilings 4-8 years from now.

With all those things in mind, I think either party breaking past 53/47 in 2016 will be difficult, but more so for Republicans.

[RINO Tom]

If ceiling literally means like a huge landslide, it's insane to not put WV, AR and KY still in the Democrats' ceiling.  Those states would flip before the solid Western states and I think even before TN or the Dakotas.

[YaBoyNY]

The GOP ceiling is not lower (and, looking at history, it's higher) than the Democratic ceiling.  Keep sticking to your false narratives, liberals!

Democratic Ceiling: 2008
Republican Ceiling (54-44 GOP):

have you ever put out a reasonable and/or not totally retarded post/map

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The GOP ceiling is not lower (and, looking at history, it's higher)

I can't exactly guesstimate the ceiling for either right now, but I can tell you that the Democratic ceiling is growing significantly as the non-white share of the electorate expands and the white voter share contracts (by about 2% every 4 years, actually). Further, Millennials and pro-Democratic groups (single men/women, secular people, minorities, etc) are rapidly expanding their share of the electorate, and by 2020, Millennials will constitute just under half of the electorate. For a group of voters that went 66% Democratic in 2008 and 60% in 2012, that should say all that needs to be said about ceilings 4-8 years from now.

With all those things in mind, I think either party breaking past 53/47 in 2016 will be difficult, but more so for Republicans.

Millennials (particularly young millennials) will be a swing demographic going forward.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The GOP ceiling is not lower (and, looking at history, it's higher) than the Democratic ceiling.  Keep sticking to your false narratives, liberals!

Democratic Ceiling: 2008
Republican Ceiling (54-44 GOP):

have you ever put out a reasonable and/or not totally retarded post/map

You just don't like that I subscribe to the view that we are entering a major Republican era.  By the way, John Judis of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" recanted that in 2015 with "The Coming Republican Dominance".

[This account no longer in use.]

DEM ceiling:

GOP ceiling:

[Virginiá]

You just don't like that I subscribe to the view that we are entering a major Republican era.  By the way, John Judis of "The Emerging Democratic Majority" recanted that in 2015 with "The Coming Republican Dominance".

The article was titled, "The Emerging Republican Advantage", and it quite literally said this in it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What he's basically saying here is that Republicans have an advantage in midterms and Democrats in presidential years, which has always been sort of the case since 1992 but now it is becoming overwhelming in presidential years due to the massive losses Republicans are experiencing from the exploding non-white population, non-married voters and Millennials. He also states part of the advantage the GOP has here is basically reliable voters - Grassroots from churches and such, which is interesting because a lot less people are attending church regularly and the secular portion of the population has been rising relatively steeply (compared to decades ago) among Millennials. This is a long way of saying their church-based outreach efforts will begin to be a lot less relevant into the future, like unions are becoming to Democrats.

Further, when doing statistical justifications, he mostly just uses the comparison of 2006 to 2014 to show this advantage. 2006 was a wave year for Democrats in the 6th year (6-year itch!) of the very unpopular Bush's tenure. Then he compares that to 2014, where Republicans had a wave when Obama was doing badly in polls as well (not as bad as Bush in 2006, though). This seems like a bad selection of election years to base a trend on. Both had the results they had because of specific reasons and the mood was based on the incumbent president. If we had compared, say, 2000 to 2006, we could just as easily conclude a "emerging Democratic advantage". Consider this: By similar metrics, he could have said Democrats were doomed with white voters because in 1984, they only won 36% of the white vote, and in 1988, just barely reaching 40%. However, their numbers ended up stabilizing at a higher percentage for most elections going into the future, instead of going further down like some postulate will happen now.

It's funny, because he has basically split with Ruy Teixeira on this issue since their 2002 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority". Judis is completely basing his opinion on the shift in working-class and "office-job" white voters, improperly using just a handful of issue/incumbent-based midterms, while Stanley Greenberg, and to a lesser extent, Teixeira, base future projections on the voting patterns and issue preferences of Millennials and non-white voters. There is good research that shows people mostly keep their voting habits that were formed early in life, with only major events changing them. This shows that once Millennials take up the bulk of the electorate - By 2020 - 2030, Democratic prospects will begin to change in the state legislatures and Congress, while a shift towards the GOP at the presidential level could occur, as it has in the past.

You just don't like that I subscribe to the view that we are entering a major Republican era

So as you said here, we've already been in a Republican-dominated era since the 70s, at the presidential level. Their dominance shifted to the Congressional/state level by the 90s. Many agree that Clinton/Bush changed the voting habits of the younger generation towards Democrats and Obama was the result of this (in addition to the massive and continuing expansion of non-white voters). To say this shift is already changing (or rather, continuing) towards Republicans seems ill-informed. The only favorable trends for Republicans are in specific groups of white voters, who continue to decline in their share of the electorate nationally and in key states the GOP needs to win the White House and reliably hold the Senate. The only advantage they have now is due to their share of the white vote, which is much more evenly distributed across the country and thus best for district-based elections. Gubernatorial advantage bodes well for a party that represents a large amount of rural, conservative states whereas Democrats undoubtedly govern a much larger amount of people in a smaller number of states. Democrats will continue to have an advantage in presidential elections until Republicans find a way to get more of the non-white vote.

[Figueira]

The GOP ceiling is not lower (and, looking at history, it's higher)

I can't exactly guesstimate the ceiling for either right now, but I can tell you that the Democratic ceiling is growing significantly as the non-white share of the electorate expands and the white voter share contracts (by about 2% every 4 years, actually). Further, Millennials and pro-Democratic groups (single men/women, secular people, minorities, etc) are rapidly expanding their share of the electorate, and by 2020, Millennials will constitute just under half of the electorate. For a group of voters that went 66% Democratic in 2008 and 60% in 2012, that should say all that needs to be said about ceilings 4-8 years from now.

With all those things in mind, I think either party breaking past 53/47 in 2016 will be difficult, but more so for Republicans.

Millennials (particularly young millennials) will be a swing demographic going forward.

Why do people always repeat this claim with no evidence whatsoever?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The GOP ceiling is not lower (and, looking at history, it's higher)

I can't exactly guesstimate the ceiling for either right now, but I can tell you that the Democratic ceiling is growing significantly as the non-white share of the electorate expands and the white voter share contracts (by about 2% every 4 years, actually). Further, Millennials and pro-Democratic groups (single men/women, secular people, minorities, etc) are rapidly expanding their share of the electorate, and by 2020, Millennials will constitute just under half of the electorate. For a group of voters that went 66% Democratic in 2008 and 60% in 2012, that should say all that needs to be said about ceilings 4-8 years from now.

With all those things in mind, I think either party breaking past 53/47 in 2016 will be difficult, but more so for Republicans.

Millennials (particularly young millennials) will be a swing demographic going forward.

Why do people always repeat this claim with no evidence whatsoever?

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

[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. 

[Figueira]

The GOP ceiling is not lower (and, looking at history, it's higher)

I can't exactly guesstimate the ceiling for either right now, but I can tell you that the Democratic ceiling is growing significantly as the non-white share of the electorate expands and the white voter share contracts (by about 2% every 4 years, actually). Further, Millennials and pro-Democratic groups (single men/women, secular people, minorities, etc) are rapidly expanding their share of the electorate, and by 2020, Millennials will constitute just under half of the electorate. For a group of voters that went 66% Democratic in 2008 and 60% in 2012, that should say all that needs to be said about ceilings 4-8 years from now.

With all those things in mind, I think either party breaking past 53/47 in 2016 will be difficult, but more so for Republicans.

Millennials (particularly young millennials) will be a swing demographic going forward.

Why do people always repeat this claim with no evidence whatsoever?

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

The sample size was nonexistent in that poll.