Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

The 2016 Electoral Map Favors Democrats

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 6:18:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's stop looking at individual demographics for a moment and just take a look at the map.

If Clinton wins the following states and DC, that would be enough to win the election: WA, OR, CA, NV, NM, CO, MN, WI, MI, IL, NY, MD, DL, NJ, CT, RI, MA, NH, VT, ME, and FL. It would get her 275 electoral votes.

I think that at least 17 of those 22 places are safe for the Democrats. Those places are: WA, OR, CA, IL, MN, MI, MD, DL, NJ, NY, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, DC, and ME. That means that she would only need to worry about winning 5 more places.

NV, NM, and CO tend to vote blue in presidential elections. All three have high levels of Latinos, which traditionally vote blue. I could see CO going red, though in a Presidential year, with high turnouts, I would tentatively wager that it will vote blue. I would say that it is more likely that a democrat wins those state than a republican. Florida is true for similar reasons, though it is perhaps more iffy. But really, the only reason Rick Scott was reelected was that Miami-Dade didn't turnout in high enough numbers to push Christ over the finish line; that lack of turnout won't occur in 2016.

WI is the other state likely to vote blue, for all the same reasons as above, just minus the Latinos. Despite its election of Scott Walker, I think that as more voters turn out, the blue votes will outweigh the red votes.

And, supposing that the Democrats don't win all of the areas that I predict they will, they are traditionally competitive in PA, and Virginia has been slowly sliding into the blue category. It voted for Obama twice, has Democratic senators, and a Democratic governor. This purple state could go blue in 2016. In Ohio, Obama was voted for twice, and it is likely that despite Kasich's strength there, that Clinton would be competitive. Iowa, which voted blue 3 out of the last 4 presidential elections, will also be a state that Clinton can hope to win.

NC, IN, and MT all have had increased blue support over the years, with NC and IN voting for Obama in 2008, and Obama only barely losing NC in 2012. It is likely that Clinton could put up a fight in those states, even if I think she could only realistically hope to win NC, and even that's an outside chance. Finally, the Clinton's have historically polled well among Democrats in KY, MO, AR, and LA. Bill Clinton was from AR. It is not unimaginable that they could make one or two of these states competitive given their roots and connections in these historically red areas, esp. after Alison Lundergan-Grimes gave McConnell and run for his money in KY, and considering that LA, AR, and MO have had Democratic senators in recent memory.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that Clinton could realistically win a handful (perhaps 3 or 4) of the following PA, VA, IA, OH, NC, IN, MT, KY, MO, AR, or LA. Even if she doesn't, the more places she makes competitive, the more money the GOP has to divert to keeping these states loyally red or winning over purple states (PA isn't loyally red, but it's slowly trending red; but all the others are traditionally purple or red states). And that means they will have less cash to spend on winning over traditional swing states, like FL or CO. That plays into Clinton's hand.

Either way, I think the map shows that it is very hard for a Republican, even one who wins the popular vote, to actually become President. Thoughts?

See and play with the electoral map here: http://www.270towin.com...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 8:24:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Bump.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:23:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 6:18:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I think that at least 17 of those 22 places are safe for the Democrats. Those places are: WA, OR, CA, IL, MN, MI, MD, DL, NJ, NY, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, DC, and ME. That means that she would only need to worry about winning 5 more places.

So, pretty much like every other election in the last 50 years.
My work here is, finally, done.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:24:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 8:38:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Republicans have good reason to be hopeless, let's just say that...

Lol...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:24:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 8:59:44 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Let's just leave this thread alone till 2016.

I can't. I love politics too much.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:25:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:23:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/20/2015 6:18:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I think that at least 17 of those 22 places are safe for the Democrats. Those places are: WA, OR, CA, IL, MN, MI, MD, DL, NJ, NY, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, DC, and ME. That means that she would only need to worry about winning 5 more places.

So, pretty much like every other election in the last 50 years.

The difference here is that the democrats are virtually guaranteed to win at least 5 extra states based on past voting patterns.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:28:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:25:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:23:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/20/2015 6:18:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I think that at least 17 of those 22 places are safe for the Democrats. Those places are: WA, OR, CA, IL, MN, MI, MD, DL, NJ, NY, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, DC, and ME. That means that she would only need to worry about winning 5 more places.

So, pretty much like every other election in the last 50 years.

The difference here is that the democrats are virtually guaranteed to win at least 5 extra states based on past voting patterns.

I think 2016 may be rough for Dems with Obamacare kicking in. Time will tell.
There are plenty of people who aren't going to be happy to learn they owe 2% of their income in taxes for being alive, and will owe $695/person "next" April.

It will all depend on what wedge issue takes the forefront.
My work here is, finally, done.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:30:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:28:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:25:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:23:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/20/2015 6:18:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I think that at least 17 of those 22 places are safe for the Democrats. Those places are: WA, OR, CA, IL, MN, MI, MD, DL, NJ, NY, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, DC, and ME. That means that she would only need to worry about winning 5 more places.

So, pretty much like every other election in the last 50 years.

The difference here is that the democrats are virtually guaranteed to win at least 5 extra states based on past voting patterns.

I think 2016 may be rough for Dems with Obamacare kicking in. Time will tell.

Obamacare is becoming less and less of a deadweight for Democrats as time goes on though.

http://www.theguardian.com...
http://hotair.com...
http://obamacarefacts.com...

Even so, the map speaks volumes. The math is much, much harder for the GOP.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:40:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:30:59 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:28:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:25:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:23:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/20/2015 6:18:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I think that at least 17 of those 22 places are safe for the Democrats. Those places are: WA, OR, CA, IL, MN, MI, MD, DL, NJ, NY, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, DC, and ME. That means that she would only need to worry about winning 5 more places.

So, pretty much like every other election in the last 50 years.

The difference here is that the democrats are virtually guaranteed to win at least 5 extra states based on past voting patterns.

I think 2016 may be rough for Dems with Obamacare kicking in. Time will tell.

Obamacare is becoming less and less of a deadweight for Democrats as time goes on though.
Again, we'll see.
Even so, the map speaks volumes. The math is much, much harder for the GOP.
It's too early to tell anything. I still say it depends on the wedge issue.
History is on the GOP's side, though. (at least, for the presidency)
My work here is, finally, done.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:44:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:40:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:30:59 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Even so, the map speaks volumes. The math is much, much harder for the GOP.
It's too early to tell anything. I still say it depends on the wedge issue.
History is on the GOP's side, though. (at least, for the presidency)

I disagree. the GOP only has 17 totally safe states, and they would need to get 11 more to win. The math is stacked against them, esp. in a country where the demographics of Presidential elections are sliding increasing to the left.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:46:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"The Electoral College And The "Emerging Democratic Majority." What about that "blue wall" " the supposed advantage that Democrats hold in the Electoral College?

Mostly, the "blue wall" was the effect of Obama"s success in 2008 and 2012, not the cause of it. If the economy had collapsed in the summer of 2012, Obama would probably have lost the election, and most of those blue states would have turned red.

It"s true that in both elections, the "tipping-point state" (in both years it was Colorado) was slightly more Democratic than the country as a whole. That implies Obama would have won if the popular vote had been very close. But it would have had to be very close indeed " within a percentage point or two.

That advantage is small enough that it might have been the result of circumstances peculiar to Obama and his campaign. If Clinton has an ever-so-slightly different coalition " say more working-class whites vote for her but fewer African-Americans " this small advantage could evaporate or reverse itself. (The Electoral College favored Republicans as recently as 2000, after all.) The same might be true if she isn"t as effective as Obama at mobilizing voters in swing states." http://fivethirtyeight.com...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 10:24:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Speaking of Latinos voting blue, what's her current stance on the border issue? An interview resurfaced that has her giving an unfavorably hard line on immigration.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 11:11:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I was too lazy to go through it but NM is a swing state. They voted for Bush in 2004 because he got 45% of the Latino vote. Jeb and Marco, assuming they win and not some dumb candidate, could carry NM. Ohio and Florida are red leaning swing states imo. If the republicans win the base and OH and Fl, and one other state (NM, CO, NH, Iowa) they win.

I think they will lose. Which is sh!tty. But whatever. Time for 50 years of judicial activism
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 11:13:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 10:24:45 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Speaking of Latinos voting blue, what's her current stance on the border issue? An interview resurfaced that has her giving an unfavorably hard line on immigration.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Same as Jeb and Marco. She won't have an edge if Rubio is the candidate, and since Jeb speaks Spanish he could go to Spanish areas and give speeches in their language. I think Jeb and Marco could do really well with hispanics--and Rubio = all the cubans in florida come out to vote.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 9:49:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:25:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:23:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/20/2015 6:18:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I think that at least 17 of those 22 places are safe for the Democrats. Those places are: WA, OR, CA, IL, MN, MI, MD, DL, NJ, NY, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, DC, and ME. That means that she would only need to worry about winning 5 more places.

So, pretty much like every other election in the last 50 years.

The difference here is that the democrats are virtually guaranteed to win at least 5 extra states based on past voting patterns.

Great post, bsh!

I disagree with the statement here though. Past voting patterns aren't the most reliable indicator, especially with constantly changing demographics.

In 2012, the Democrats did pretty well; 2014 was a different story, with a number of governors and senators outed by Tea Party candidates. That is more common in off-year elections (fewer Democrats vote in off years) but could be an indicator that the national tide is swinging Republican. I don't find that hard to believe, as Barack Obama hasn't had the most successful presidency.

Clinton should do well if she's challenged by Cruz or Paul. She will probably struggle competing against a more moderate Republican, though.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 10:49:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
IMO you are being way too optimistic.

There are 12 states and one district where Obama finished within 3% the national mean (51.06%) They are:
*North Carolina (48.35%)
*Florida (50.01%)
*Ohio (50.67%)
*Virginia (51.16%)
*Colorado (51.49%)
*Pennsylvania (51.97%)
*New Hampshire (51.98%)
*Iowa (51.99%)
*Nevada (52.36%)
*Minnesota (52.83%)
*Wisconsin (52.83%)
*Maine 2nd district (52.94%)
*New Mexico (52.99%)

Notice how close these margins are? In six of these states, Obama's performance was within 1% of the national vote. Accordingly:
*If a Republican won just the states where Obama finished lower than his national percent (NC, Florida and Ohio), they'd have 253 electoral votes (out of 270 needed to win).
*If a Republican won North Carolina, plus the four least Democratic Obama states (Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado), they would have 275 electoral votes (enough for a win)
*If a Republican won all states where Obama finished within 1% of the national vote, they would have 305.
*If a Republican won all of these states (landslide scenario), they'd have 337 electoral votes.

Hardly a blue wall.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 10:55:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 11:13:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/20/2015 10:24:45 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Speaking of Latinos voting blue, what's her current stance on the border issue? An interview resurfaced that has her giving an unfavorably hard line on immigration.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Same as Jeb and Marco. She won't have an edge if Rubio is the candidate, and since Jeb speaks Spanish he could go to Spanish areas and give speeches in their language. I think Jeb and Marco could do really well with hispanics--and Rubio = all the cubans in florida come out to vote.

So you're saying there is no hope for Hispanics?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 10:58:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 10:55:40 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/20/2015 11:13:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/20/2015 10:24:45 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Speaking of Latinos voting blue, what's her current stance on the border issue? An interview resurfaced that has her giving an unfavorably hard line on immigration.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Same as Jeb and Marco. She won't have an edge if Rubio is the candidate, and since Jeb speaks Spanish he could go to Spanish areas and give speeches in their language. I think Jeb and Marco could do really well with hispanics--and Rubio = all the cubans in florida come out to vote.

So you're saying there is no hope for Hispanics?

I do not understand what you are saying.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 10:59:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 10:58:19 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/22/2015 10:55:40 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/20/2015 11:13:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/20/2015 10:24:45 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Speaking of Latinos voting blue, what's her current stance on the border issue? An interview resurfaced that has her giving an unfavorably hard line on immigration.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Same as Jeb and Marco. She won't have an edge if Rubio is the candidate, and since Jeb speaks Spanish he could go to Spanish areas and give speeches in their language. I think Jeb and Marco could do really well with hispanics--and Rubio = all the cubans in florida come out to vote.

So you're saying there is no hope for Hispanics?

I do not understand what you are saying.

I wasn't talking about who Latinos are voting for, I was asking about her stance on immigration.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 11:00:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 10:59:48 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/22/2015 10:58:19 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/22/2015 10:55:40 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 4/20/2015 11:13:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/20/2015 10:24:45 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Speaking of Latinos voting blue, what's her current stance on the border issue? An interview resurfaced that has her giving an unfavorably hard line on immigration.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Same as Jeb and Marco. She won't have an edge if Rubio is the candidate, and since Jeb speaks Spanish he could go to Spanish areas and give speeches in their language. I think Jeb and Marco could do really well with hispanics--and Rubio = all the cubans in florida come out to vote.

So you're saying there is no hope for Hispanics?

I do not understand what you are saying.

I wasn't talking about who Latinos are voting for, I was asking about her stance on immigration.

Well all of them support amnesty, so I think Hispanics will do fine.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 11:10:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 6:18:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Let's stop looking at individual demographics for a moment and just take a look at the map.

If Clinton wins the following states and DC, that would be enough to win the election: WA, OR, CA, NV, NM, CO, MN, WI, MI, IL, NY, MD, DL, NJ, CT, RI, MA, NH, VT, ME, and FL. It would get her 275 electoral votes.

I think that at least 17 of those 22 places are safe for the Democrats. Those places are: WA, OR, CA, IL, MN, MI, MD, DL, NJ, NY, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI, DC, and ME. That means that she would only need to worry about winning 5 more places.

NV, NM, and CO tend to vote blue in presidential elections. All three have high levels of Latinos, which traditionally vote blue. I could see CO going red, though in a Presidential year, with high turnouts, I would tentatively wager that it will vote blue. I would say that it is more likely that a democrat wins those state than a republican. Florida is true for similar reasons, though it is perhaps more iffy. But really, the only reason Rick Scott was reelected was that Miami-Dade didn't turnout in high enough numbers to push Christ over the finish line; that lack of turnout won't occur in 2016.

WI is the other state likely to vote blue, for all the same reasons as above, just minus the Latinos. Despite its election of Scott Walker, I think that as more voters turn out, the blue votes will outweigh the red votes.

And, supposing that the Democrats don't win all of the areas that I predict they will, they are traditionally competitive in PA, and Virginia has been slowly sliding into the blue category. It voted for Obama twice, has Democratic senators, and a Democratic governor. This purple state could go blue in 2016. In Ohio, Obama was voted for twice, and it is likely that despite Kasich's strength there, that Clinton would be competitive. Iowa, which voted blue 3 out of the last 4 presidential elections, will also be a state that Clinton can hope to win.

NC, IN, and MT all have had increased blue support over the years, with NC and IN voting for Obama in 2008, and Obama only barely losing NC in 2012. It is likely that Clinton could put up a fight in those states, even if I think she could only realistically hope to win NC, and even that's an outside chance. Finally, the Clinton's have historically polled well among Democrats in KY, MO, AR, and LA. Bill Clinton was from AR. It is not unimaginable that they could make one or two of these states competitive given their roots and connections in these historically red areas, esp. after Alison Lundergan-Grimes gave McConnell and run for his money in KY, and considering that LA, AR, and MO have had Democratic senators in recent memory.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that Clinton could realistically win a handful (perhaps 3 or 4) of the following PA, VA, IA, OH, NC, IN, MT, KY, MO, AR, or LA. Even if she doesn't, the more places she makes competitive, the more money the GOP has to divert to keeping these states loyally red or winning over purple states (PA isn't loyally red, but it's slowly trending red; but all the others are traditionally purple or red states). And that means they will have less cash to spend on winning over traditional swing states, like FL or CO. That plays into Clinton's hand.

Either way, I think the map shows that it is very hard for a Republican, even one who wins the popular vote, to actually become President. Thoughts?

See and play with the electoral map here: http://www.270towin.com...

I must point out a few things.

(1) The Fed has ceased QE.
(2) The inflation rate is now 0%.

Why is this important? Both of those turn an already sluggish recovery into something more sluggish. Of course, the market has some correcting mechanisms, but the Fed ceasing its aggressive monetary policy could trigger a new recession. The Bush tax cuts also expired, leading to long-term and short-term growth decreases (of course, we are fortunate that other policies made up for it). Sequestration also caused economic problems--cutting spending short term makes recessions worse but significantly increases growth in the long term. These two factors--decreased spending and tax increases--make the next few months recession prone. It may or may not happen, but if it does she will not win.

I also think you are underestimating the republican's ability to get the Hispanic vote and are only looking at the last two elections. Permanent coalitions tend to not exist in politics, and if you look just to Bush's presidency you can get some interesting results. He won in 2000 *without* the popular vote. All red states were red and NM and CO went red as well (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Why? The latino vote--or at least for CO and NM. Bush did very well amongst Latinos, I think around 40%. Jeb has even more appeal: he is even more pro-immigration and is fluent in Spanish. He could to Spanish ads with himself talking and give speeches in the slums. Hispanics are also very social conservative, so Jeb or Marco preaching family values in Spanish could bring them very far (assuming the economy doesn't go to sh!t), and if it does, they can preach both. This gives them some leeway. They still need OH and FL--which is possible (Jeb/Portman, for example--and Portman is pro-SSM)--but they could afford to lose VA and still win by one electoral vote. Iowa is also a swing state, so we shouldn't assume they will go Red. Walker is having popularity issues in Wisconsin, but if he can bring those up Wisconsin may become a toss-up, too.

I think you focus on 2008 and 2012, but I do not think they are comparable. Rubio with his Obama-skill and "don't go back to yesterday" could win him with young and Hispanic voters. Will it be hard? Heck yeah. But I think you make it more implausible than it actually is. This is very much a toss-up election. And Clinton can't say nothing to the media forever.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross