Ceilings

[hopper]

More like exploding Mexican(Hispanic) Population because Hispanics have been the fastest growing ethnic minority group for the past 3.5 decades and Mexicans are like 2/3 of the Hispanic Population in the United States. On the negative side for Dems on the demographic side immigration from Mexico hasn't been booming and has bottomed out totally from the way it was from 1977-2005 and Mexicans aren't having kids like they were during the housing boom.

Yes, but only negative in terms of Democrats not getting a never-ending exploding population of Democratic voters. Right now, so, so many Hispanics are aging into the electorate and is driving whites into minority status rather quickly. If Republicans don't find a way to snatch away a large portion of these voters from Democrats, they will be essentially locked out of the White House for a long time due to these voters influence in key states. This doesn't even factor in immigration reform / pathway to citizenship, which will bring a lot of Democratic-leaning voters into the fold one day.

Gay Marriage-Ok yeah Millenials is sticking point with them.

Climate Change-They said we were going to have an "ice age" under Carter now they say we are "burning" as in the outside weather being too hot. In my opinion its just one cycle after another. The Climate goes through different weather cycles.

Education Funding-Do you know how much the US spends on education? We spend more than any developed country I think on education.

Constant Tax Breaks for the Wealthy-Well most of the "Bush Tax Cuts" were ended in real late 2012 except for the ones in which people and/or households make 250,000 dollars a year or less I think.

Amnesty-Are you serious? The people that came here illegally they have to go back to the back of the line and apply for citizenship the way it was supposed to be done the first time. If they don't apply they have to go back to their respective country.

Look, I was only pointing out that Millennials, by a very comfortable majority, support these things. It's irrelevant if you or anyone is against them, because it's still a favored policy position among them. But I'll go over a few:

1. 'Education funding' may have been the wrong term, but rather young kids want affordable college without crippling debt. Republicans have been overtly indifferent or even hostile to higher education in a lot of places. In North Carolina, they gained power after a century in minority status and almost immediately slashed funding for the university system - That pesky school system that has brought so much growth and students to North Carolina. Walker cut funding in Wisconsin, yet had no problem spending many millions on a *@#(#@ing sports stadium. They need to reevaluate their position on this issue, because it's not really popular with many people.

2. Tax breaks - Yes, those expired, but giving tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy/corporations is not popular and yet they cling to it. Inequality and the rich gaming the system has become "the issue" of our time, just like "big government" and anti-social programs was during Reagan's era. This time around, it is Republicans who are on the wrong side of it. Look what happened to Democrats a decade later? If Republicans don't also reevaluate their position on this, they will be in a rude awakening one of these days.

3. Amnesty - Once again, I was just pointing it out. Whatever your position on this is, Millennials by a comfortable majority approve of this.

I'm inclined to say that 90% of first time young voters vote for the same candidate as their parents.

Honestly, as per resources I've posted numerous times, this isn't really true. If it was true, then we'd still be in a flourishing Republican era because all those Reagan/Nixon parents would have had children that voted Republican. Instead, those children developed positions on many issues that directly contradicted their parents. More so, they grew up under relatively successful Democratic presidents and highly unsuccessful Republicans (Bush). This caused them to lean Democratic for most years except very early 2000s and 2010-2012.

Affordale College-In my opinion Obama played a part when the Government took over the student loan business. He took competition away in the private sector for the student loan business. I'm not saying Obama is all to blame for student loan debt but he made it worse doing what he did. About cutting funding for schools that's a state issue like in WI and NC as you used as an example. If WI and NC want to elect Dem Governors next time around to increase college funding those states respective voters can do that. Cooper will probably win in NC next time around anyway.

Tax Breaks and Corporations Gaming System-Well Obama can veto what he wants. If he wants to send a bill back that the Congressional Republicans passed that included crony capitalism on he is free do to do that. Inequality has gotten worse under Obama not better by the way from the Bush W. years.

Amnesty-Yeah Millenials opinion drives me nuts. I would not go into their country illegally so why would they would go into the US illegally? They broke our laws. I don't want to deport anybody especially these parents kids because their lives are here. Just go through the normal process.

I do agree with you that Republicans have to find a way to reach minority voters but if you look at it the Hispanic Population boomed from being 4% of the US population in 1980 to being 16% in the 2010 US Census and being 17% of the US Population in 2014. No other minority group had that kind of population growth in that time frame. Maybe Dems will add new voters to the rolls when Immigration Reform happens whenever that is because of the Levin's, Hannity's, and Coulters will be protesting it just like Limbaugh did in 2007 the next time the immigration debate comes again.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Democratic Party: 437 EVs
Republican Party: 101 EVs

[/]

Well, within reason...

408-130

360-178

[This account no longer in use.]

I can't be the only one who thinks that the Democrats would have a chance at Alaska with an "outsider" candidate.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I can't be the only one who thinks that the Democrats would have a chance at Alaska with an "outsider" candidate.

You have to figure in no one wants to spend high travel expenses for such a small state. It would have to be about 56-57% PV for the Democrats to have the curtails. I don't see them getting that high.

[Virginiá]

I do agree with you that Republicans have to find a way to reach minority voters but if you look at it the Hispanic Population boomed from being 4% of the US population in 1980 to being 16% in the 2010 US Census and being 17% of the US Population in 2014. No other minority group had that kind of population growth in that time frame. Maybe Dems will add new voters to the rolls when Immigration Reform happens whenever that is because of the Levin's, Hannity's, and Coulters will be protesting it just like Limbaugh did in 2007 the next time the immigration debate comes again.

In regards to the other part of the post, like before, I was just saying that those issues are important to Millennials and Republicans are really on the wrong side of them, which makes reaching out to Millennials so much harder. If they don't want to, then fine, but they can't expect Millennials to just waltz into their arms when the GOP is, in some cases, fighting the issues Millennials want resolved.

As for Hispanic growth - I agree with you that they are a very large force now and growing rapidly. They still aren't nearly as large though, and influence is centered in specific areas. Anyway, yes, path to citizenship will fatten the Democratic voter rolls for sure and with GOP support among Hispanics being what it is, they should be afraid of that. Especially considering the number of Hispanics in Texas, Florida and California.

They have a lot of work to do, unless they hope to just stick to their guns and wait years for voters to change their views to something that fits with their agenda, which will probably never happen.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I do agree with you that Republicans have to find a way to reach minority voters but if you look at it the Hispanic Population boomed from being 4% of the US population in 1980 to being 16% in the 2010 US Census and being 17% of the US Population in 2014. No other minority group had that kind of population growth in that time frame. Maybe Dems will add new voters to the rolls when Immigration Reform happens whenever that is because of the Levin's, Hannity's, and Coulters will be protesting it just like Limbaugh did in 2007 the next time the immigration debate comes again.

In regards to the other part of the post, like before, I was just saying that those issues are important to Millennials and Republicans are really on the wrong side of them, which makes reaching out to Millennials so much harder. If they don't want to, then fine, but they can't expect Millennials to just waltz into their arms when the GOP is, in some cases, fighting the issues Millennials want resolved.

As for Hispanic growth - I mean, I agree with you that they are a very large force now and growing rapidly, but on the other hand, Asian growth is technically the fastest at the moment (unless something has changed in past months). They still aren't nearly as large though, and influence is centered in specific areas. Anyway, yes, path to citizenship will fatten the Democratic voter rolls for sure and with GOP support among Hispanics being what it is, they should be afraid of that. Especially considering the number of Hispanics in Texas, Florida and California.

They have a lot of work to do, unless they hope to just stick to their guns and wait years for voters to change their views to something that fits with their agenda, which will probably never happen.

I hope my party starts supporting amnesty every few years for this reason. Red tape has never helped anyone and that's part of their frustration. We're not even vocal on the issue.

[Virginiá]

The evidence is strong that very few people people change their political views to the point of switching parties (some people will always be swing voters) after age 25.  The young = liberal, old = conservative narrative doesn't hold up.  Note that the baby boomers were never reliably liberal even in the 60's/70's.  2016 is the last chance for the GOP to bring the Millennial vote to near 50/50, or risk getting swamped for a long period in the 2020's/early 2030's when they reach peak voting years.  If Democrats post one more >60% performance with the youth vote, it does mean long term trouble.  

I was wondering, in your opinion, let's say for arguments sake that a Democrat won the next two presidential elections with anywhere from 58% - 62% of the 18-29 vote (and anywhere from 52% - 58% for the two midterms), what would be the long-term effect on Congress, when would it begin to manifest in Congress, and how long would it last (assuming 18-29yr olds support for Democrats dropped off <= 50% in 2024+), assuming that their voting habits stick?

[hopper]

I do agree with you that Republicans have to find a way to reach minority voters but if you look at it the Hispanic Population boomed from being 4% of the US population in 1980 to being 16% in the 2010 US Census and being 17% of the US Population in 2014. No other minority group had that kind of population growth in that time frame. Maybe Dems will add new voters to the rolls when Immigration Reform happens whenever that is because of the Levin's, Hannity's, and Coulters will be protesting it just like Limbaugh did in 2007 the next time the immigration debate comes again.

In regards to the other part of the post, like before, I was just saying that those issues are important to Millennials and Republicans are really on the wrong side of them, which makes reaching out to Millennials so much harder. If they don't want to, then fine, but they can't expect Millennials to just waltz into their arms when the GOP is, in some cases, fighting the issues Millennials want resolved.

As for Hispanic growth - I mean, I agree with you that they are a very large force now and growing rapidly, but on the other hand, Asian growth is technically the fastest at the moment (unless something has changed in past months). They still aren't nearly as large though, and influence is centered in specific areas. Anyway, yes, path to citizenship will fatten the Democratic voter rolls for sure and with GOP support among Hispanics being what it is, they should be afraid of that. Especially considering the number of Hispanics in Texas, Florida and California.

They have a lot of work to do, unless they hope to just stick to their guns and wait years for voters to change their views to something that fits with their agenda, which will probably never happen.

I hope my party starts supporting amnesty every few years for this reason. Red tape has never helped anyone and that's part of their frustration. We're not even vocal on the issue.

Well the Hard-Right or "The Immigration Hard-Liners" jump all over the issue when the subject comes up. They basically suck all the oxygen out of the room for us Republicans that want the issue resolved. Its not like the 11.3 million illegal immigrants are going anywhere anytime soon.

I made a mistake by the way in my last post Hispanics made up 6.4% of the US Population not 4% in 1980.

[hopper]

More like exploding Mexican(Hispanic) Population because Hispanics have been the fastest growing ethnic minority group for the past 3.5 decades and Mexicans are like 2/3 of the Hispanic Population in the United States. On the negative side for Dems on the demographic side immigration from Mexico hasn't been booming and has bottomed out totally from the way it was from 1977-2005 and Mexicans aren't having kids like they were during the housing boom.

Yes, but only negative in terms of Democrats not getting a never-ending exploding population of Democratic voters. Right now, so, so many Hispanics are aging into the electorate and is driving whites into minority status rather quickly. If Republicans don't find a way to snatch away a large portion of these voters from Democrats, they will be essentially locked out of the White House for a long time due to these voters influence in key states. This doesn't even factor in immigration reform / pathway to citizenship, which will bring a lot of Democratic-leaning voters into the fold one day.

Gay Marriage-Ok yeah Millenials is sticking point with them.

Climate Change-They said we were going to have an "ice age" under Carter now they say we are "burning" as in the outside weather being too hot. In my opinion its just one cycle after another. The Climate goes through different weather cycles.

Education Funding-Do you know how much the US spends on education? We spend more than any developed country I think on education.

Constant Tax Breaks for the Wealthy-Well most of the "Bush Tax Cuts" were ended in real late 2012 except for the ones in which people and/or households make 250,000 dollars a year or less I think.

Amnesty-Are you serious? The people that came here illegally they have to go back to the back of the line and apply for citizenship the way it was supposed to be done the first time. If they don't apply they have to go back to their respective country.

Look, I was only pointing out that Millennials, by a very comfortable majority, support these things. It's irrelevant if you or anyone is against them, because it's still a favored policy position among them. But I'll go over a few:

1. 'Education funding' may have been the wrong term, but rather young kids want affordable college without crippling debt. Republicans have been overtly indifferent or even hostile to higher education in a lot of places. In North Carolina, they gained power after a century in minority status and almost immediately slashed funding for the university system - That pesky school system that has brought so much growth and students to North Carolina. Walker cut funding in Wisconsin, yet had no problem spending many millions on a *@#(#@ing sports stadium. They need to reevaluate their position on this issue, because it's not really popular with many people.

2. Tax breaks - Yes, those expired, but giving tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy/corporations is not popular and yet they cling to it. Inequality and the rich gaming the system has become "the issue" of our time, just like "big government" and anti-social programs was during Reagan's era. This time around, it is Republicans who are on the wrong side of it. Look what happened to Democrats a decade later? If Republicans don't also reevaluate their position on this, they will be in a rude awakening one of these days.

3. Amnesty - Once again, I was just pointing it out. Whatever your position on this is, Millennials by a comfortable majority approve of this.

I'm inclined to say that 90% of first time young voters vote for the same candidate as their parents.

Honestly, as per resources I've posted numerous times, this isn't really true. If it was true, then we'd still be in a flourishing Republican era because all those Reagan/Nixon parents would have had children that voted Republican. Instead, those children developed positions on many issues that directly contradicted their parents. More so, they grew up under relatively successful Democratic presidents and highly unsuccessful Republicans (Bush). This caused them to lean Democratic for most years except very early 2000s and 2010-2012.

Nixon-Actually according to Pew Research the voters that turned 18 under Nixon's Presidency have voted more Dem than the national average every year since 1996 except for 2006 in which those voters voted 1 point more R than the actual ending result(52-45%D) I think. 2014 election info wasn't available though.

In comparison voters that turned 18 under Kennedy/Johnson have voted more R than the electorate as a whole since the 2000 Presidential Election. So the R's won Kennedy/Johnson every electoral year with the exception of 2006 since 2000.

Just call it shifting coalitions maybe!

[DS0816]

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.

The "ceiling" isn't really the point. The two parties seem to have a behind-the-scenes agreement to operate on a 20/20/10 system. An estimate of 20 states for Republicans (even in presidential elections the party loses); an estimate 20 states for Democrats (even in presidential elections the party loses); and an estimate of 10 states which will be God (er, "battlegrounds").

It's become boring.

At this point, if this is going to continue for at least a few more presidential election cycles, the answer to your questions is, "Who cares?!"

[5280]

I do agree with you that Republicans have to find a way to reach minority voters but if you look at it the Hispanic Population boomed from being 4% of the US population in 1980 to being 16% in the 2010 US Census and being 17% of the US Population in 2014. No other minority group had that kind of population growth in that time frame. Maybe Dems will add new voters to the rolls when Immigration Reform happens whenever that is because of the Levin's, Hannity's, and Coulters will be protesting it just like Limbaugh did in 2007 the next time the immigration debate comes again.

In regards to the other part of the post, like before, I was just saying that those issues are important to Millennials and Republicans are really on the wrong side of them, which makes reaching out to Millennials so much harder. If they don't want to, then fine, but they can't expect Millennials to just waltz into their arms when the GOP is, in some cases, fighting the issues Millennials want resolved.

As for Hispanic growth - I mean, I agree with you that they are a very large force now and growing rapidly, but on the other hand, Asian growth is technically the fastest at the moment (unless something has changed in past months). They still aren't nearly as large though, and influence is centered in specific areas. Anyway, yes, path to citizenship will fatten the Democratic voter rolls for sure and with GOP support among Hispanics being what it is, they should be afraid of that. Especially considering the number of Hispanics in Texas, Florida and California.

They have a lot of work to do, unless they hope to just stick to their guns and wait years for voters to change their views to something that fits with their agenda, which will probably never happen.

I hope my party starts supporting amnesty every few years for this reason. Red tape has never helped anyone and that's part of their frustration. We're not even vocal on the issue.

Well the Hard-Right or "The Immigration Hard-Liners" jump all over the issue when the subject comes up. They basically suck all the oxygen out of the room for us Republicans that want the issue resolved. Its not like the 11.3 million illegal immigrants are going anywhere anytime soon.

I made a mistake by the way in my last post Hispanics made up 6.4% of the US Population not 4% in 1980.

How is appealing to Hispanics through amnesty going to get GOP votes? There's more to just that issue. You know, a lot of them also want freebies from the government like SNAP, housing, college tuition, drivers license, automatic voter registration, etc. Those are things the GOP cannot sway them over to unless they make serious changes in their policies. Hard working people who play by the rules don't want to see that happening.

[Virginiá]

How is appealing to Hispanics through amnesty going to get GOP votes? There's more to just that issue. You know, a lot of them also want freebies from the government like SNAP, housing, college tuition, drivers license, automatic voter registration, etc. Those are things the GOP cannot sway them over to unless they make serious changes in their policies. Hard working people who play by the rules don't want to see that happening.

I'm getting the vibe that these hard working people don't want to see that happening because they think they will be footing the bill? All these undocumented immigrants would also be paying taxes - Back taxes as well, so let's not act like they won't be contributing just like all those other peoples. They are as hard working as anyone else. That's really not fair at all.

Also, what exactly does automatic voter registration have to do with it? That idea is meant to make sure as many people as possible do not get blocked from voting because they missed some arbitrary, outdated registration deadline that serves absolutely no purpose anymore except to block potential voters. There's no good reason for anyone to be against it.

[5280]

How is appealing to Hispanics through amnesty going to get GOP votes? There's more to just that issue. You know, a lot of them also want freebies from the government like SNAP, housing, college tuition, drivers license, automatic voter registration, etc. Those are things the GOP cannot sway them over to unless they make serious changes in their policies. Hard working people who play by the rules don't want to see that happening.

I'm getting the vibe that these hard working people don't want to see that happening because they think they will be footing the bill? All these undocumented immigrants would also be paying taxes - Back taxes as well, so let's not act like they won't be contributing just like all those other peoples. They are as hard working as anyone else. That's really not fair at all.

Also, what exactly does automatic voter registration have to do with it? That idea is meant to make sure as many people as possible do not get blocked from voting because they missed some arbitrary, outdated registration deadline that serves absolutely no purpose anymore except to block potential voters. There's no good reason for anyone to be against it.

People who don't vote shouldn't be automatically registered. They're not getting blocked, they're simply not doing their part and being passive about registration. 

Should people who own drones be required to register through the FAA? No. Again, it's more government coercion and meddling.

[Virginiá]

People who don't vote shouldn't be automatically registered. They're not getting blocked, they're simply not doing their part and being passive about registration. 

Should people who own drones be required to register through the FAA? No. Again, it's more government coercion and meddling.

They would have the chance to opt-out. In addition, it would reduce the money spent on voter registration efforts and instead allow more to be spend on turnout operations and thus more participation. It's not just about being passive - A lot of people forget to register until it's too late or possibly don't even realize they weren't registered. If people move and do not update their information, that can also cause issues. Most people don't really think about elections much and these things happen a lot.

But fine, if auto-registration is an issue, then same-day registration with non-provisional ballots should be OK then?

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

People who don't vote shouldn't be automatically registered. They're not getting blocked, they're simply not doing their part and being passive about registration. 

Should people who own drones be required to register through the FAA? No. Again, it's more government coercion and meddling.

They would have the chance to opt-out. In addition, it would reduce the money spent on voter registration efforts and instead allow more to be spend on turnout operations and thus more participation. It's not just about being passive - A lot of people forget to register until it's too late or possibly don't even realize they weren't registered. If people move and do not update their information, that can also cause issues. Most people don't really think about elections much and these things happen a lot.

But fine, if auto-registration is an issue, then same-day registration with non-provisional ballots should be OK then?

I disagree. If someone doesn't pay attention then they shouldn't be voting. People didn't die so the uninformed could screw up election.  In other words if someone doesn't know they have to register then they shouldn't participate. Paying attention in school helps learn the requirements or at least should be taught.

[RINO Tom]

CEILING, to me, means an absolute thrashing.  Now, given our polarized era, this will not be a 49-state landslide ala 1972 and 1984, but it's also still going to be a lot more impressive than a 2008-type victory.  And while I agree with Skill and Chance that elasticity needs to be taken into account more, I strongly believe that would lead to traditionally Democratic/Republican areas returning to the fold well before places like Utah or the Dakotas would go Democrat.

Democrats' absolute ceiling in the next two-three cycles:

Same for Republicans:

[Virginiá]

What kind of strategy/personal attributes would the Democratic candidate have to have to sweep up Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana? Those seem like very hard states to get at this point, even in a big win.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

What kind of strategy/personal attributes would the Democratic candidate have to have to sweep up Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana? Those seem like very hard states to get at this point, even in a big win.

They'd have to have an R next to their name.  WV had a negative approval rating for Obama 22-77.  It's nearing DC territory on the other side.

[RINO Tom]

What kind of strategy/personal attributes would the Democratic candidate have to have to sweep up Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana? Those seem like very hard states to get at this point, even in a big win.

They'd have to have an R next to their name.  WV had a negative approval rating for Obama 22-77.  It's nearing DC territory on the other side.

Obama was an insanely odd fit for those states.  Politics didn't start in 2012, and those states were solidly Dem before that at the state and local level.

I don't think they'd vote D anytime soon, but all of those states likely would have voted for Hillary in 2008, so I'd say a Democrat running a populist, "folksy" campaign (doesn't describe Obama at all) in a bad environment for Republicans (like 2008).

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

What kind of strategy/personal attributes would the Democratic candidate have to have to sweep up Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana? Those seem like very hard states to get at this point, even in a big win.

They'd have to have an R next to their name.  WV had a negative approval rating for Obama 22-77.  It's nearing DC territory on the other side.

Obama was an insanely odd fit for those states.  Politics didn't start in 2012, and those states were solidly Dem before that at the state and local level.

I don't think they'd vote D anytime soon, but all of those states likely would have voted for Hillary in 2008, so I'd say a Democrat running a populist, "folksy" campaign (doesn't describe Obama at all) in a bad environment for Republicans (like 2008).

I don't think she'd win but she'd do better. AR hasn't been blue for a while except for Clinton. As for WV it's been trending to the right since 1984 every election.

[RINO Tom]

What kind of strategy/personal attributes would the Democratic candidate have to have to sweep up Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana? Those seem like very hard states to get at this point, even in a big win.

They'd have to have an R next to their name.  WV had a negative approval rating for Obama 22-77.  It's nearing DC territory on the other side.

Obama was an insanely odd fit for those states.  Politics didn't start in 2012, and those states were solidly Dem before that at the state and local level.

I don't think they'd vote D anytime soon, but all of those states likely would have voted for Hillary in 2008, so I'd say a Democrat running a populist, "folksy" campaign (doesn't describe Obama at all) in a bad environment for Republicans (like 2008).

I don't think she'd win but she'd do better. AR hasn't been blue for a while except for Clinton. As for WV it's been trending to the right since 1984 every election.

Most polls showed Hillary comfortably winning WV vs. McCain, IIRC.  I'm not sure about AR, but given her connection and that it re-elected Pryor in a LANDSLIDE (did he even have an opponent?), I'm inclined to believe it'd have voted for her, too.  I mean, she won more votes in the WV Democratic primary in 2008 than Obama did in the general election...

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

What kind of strategy/personal attributes would the Democratic candidate have to have to sweep up Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana? Those seem like very hard states to get at this point, even in a big win.

They'd have to have an R next to their name.  WV had a negative approval rating for Obama 22-77.  It's nearing DC territory on the other side.

Obama was an insanely odd fit for those states.  Politics didn't start in 2012, and those states were solidly Dem before that at the state and local level.

I don't think they'd vote D anytime soon, but all of those states likely would have voted for Hillary in 2008, so I'd say a Democrat running a populist, "folksy" campaign (doesn't describe Obama at all) in a bad environment for Republicans (like 2008).

I don't think she'd win but she'd do better. AR hasn't been blue for a while except for Clinton. As for WV it's been trending to the right since 1984 every election.

Most polls showed Hillary comfortably winning WV vs. McCain, IIRC.  I'm not sure about AR, but given her connection and that it re-elected Pryor in a LANDSLIDE (did he even have an opponent?), I'm inclined to believe it'd have voted for her, too.  I mean, she won more votes in the WV Democratic primary in 2008 than Obama did in the general election...

That's interesting