Total Posts:108|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Death Tolls May Determine the 2016 Election

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 5:29:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is well known that older citizens of the US are more conservative than the younger generations. This is a huge problem for the GOP - since 2012, many more Republicans have died than Democrats, and the GOP is failing to attract the young vote to fill the void. This could mean that the most important swing states can be determined by death.

5,488,091 people aged 60-64 voted for Romney in 2012. Using mortality rates for that age group from the US Census Bureau, roughly 230,000 of Republican 2012 voters will be dead next November.

Using mortality rates from the Census Bureau, roughly 450,000 (plus or minus a few thousand) more Republican voters will be dead than Democrats on Election Day.

The way to fight this is by getting enough millennials to fill the gap. Unfortunately for the GOP, they have a reputation among many for being too socially conservative - especially among the youngest of the millennials, making the new voters unwilling to vote for the Republicans.

In 2012, there were about 13 million in the 15-17 year old demographic who will be eligible to vote in 2016. The turnout for this group is roughly 45% at every election, bringing in roughly 6,000,000 voters for 2016. The split for Democrat-Republican over the last two elections was about 65%-35%. Democrats have almost 2,000,000 more on their side in the demographic of these voters.

This makes it imperative for the GOP to attract older millennials. They cannot rely on the vote of the Baby Boomers now, and they need the younger vote more than ever. They only have a shot at the Presidency if they can cut the 2,500,000 voter gap between death and new voters - which may prove extremely difficult, especially if they choose a bad candidate.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:23:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 5:29:58 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
It is well known that older citizens of the US are more conservative than the younger generations. This is a huge problem for the GOP - since 2012, many more Republicans have died than Democrats, and the GOP is failing to attract the young vote to fill the void. This could mean that the most important swing states can be determined by death.

5,488,091 people aged 60-64 voted for Romney in 2012. Using mortality rates for that age group from the US Census Bureau, roughly 230,000 of Republican 2012 voters will be dead next November.

Using mortality rates from the Census Bureau, roughly 450,000 (plus or minus a few thousand) more Republican voters will be dead than Democrats on Election Day.

The way to fight this is by getting enough millennials to fill the gap. Unfortunately for the GOP, they have a reputation among many for being too socially conservative - especially among the youngest of the millennials, making the new voters unwilling to vote for the Republicans.

In 2012, there were about 13 million in the 15-17 year old demographic who will be eligible to vote in 2016. The turnout for this group is roughly 45% at every election, bringing in roughly 6,000,000 voters for 2016. The split for Democrat-Republican over the last two elections was about 65%-35%. Democrats have almost 2,000,000 more on their side in the demographic of these voters.

This makes it imperative for the GOP to attract older millennials. They cannot rely on the vote of the Baby Boomers now, and they need the younger vote more than ever. They only have a shot at the Presidency if they can cut the 2,500,000 voter gap between death and new voters - which may prove extremely difficult, especially if they choose a bad candidate.

I think you raise a really good point there, but I think that 2024-2028 are going to be the first presidential elections where you really start to see the full impact of what will be a situation where Boomers are actually too old to get to the polls.

I wrote a lengthy response to a manifestly stupid homophobe about this a long time ago, actually. The nature of and extent to which population demographics (especially when considered with regard to variances between generations) really has always fascinated me.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:25:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:23:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 5:29:58 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
It is well known that older citizens of the US are more conservative than the younger generations. This is a huge problem for the GOP - since 2012, many more Republicans have died than Democrats, and the GOP is failing to attract the young vote to fill the void. This could mean that the most important swing states can be determined by death.

5,488,091 people aged 60-64 voted for Romney in 2012. Using mortality rates for that age group from the US Census Bureau, roughly 230,000 of Republican 2012 voters will be dead next November.

Using mortality rates from the Census Bureau, roughly 450,000 (plus or minus a few thousand) more Republican voters will be dead than Democrats on Election Day.

The way to fight this is by getting enough millennials to fill the gap. Unfortunately for the GOP, they have a reputation among many for being too socially conservative - especially among the youngest of the millennials, making the new voters unwilling to vote for the Republicans.

In 2012, there were about 13 million in the 15-17 year old demographic who will be eligible to vote in 2016. The turnout for this group is roughly 45% at every election, bringing in roughly 6,000,000 voters for 2016. The split for Democrat-Republican over the last two elections was about 65%-35%. Democrats have almost 2,000,000 more on their side in the demographic of these voters.

This makes it imperative for the GOP to attract older millennials. They cannot rely on the vote of the Baby Boomers now, and they need the younger vote more than ever. They only have a shot at the Presidency if they can cut the 2,500,000 voter gap between death and new voters - which may prove extremely difficult, especially if they choose a bad candidate.

I think you raise a really good point there, but I think that 2024-2028 are going to be the first presidential elections where you really start to see the full impact of what will be a situation where Boomers are actually too old to get to the polls.

I wrote a lengthy response to a manifestly stupid homophobe about this a long time ago, actually. The nature of and extent to which population demographics (especially when considered with regard to variances between generations) really has always fascinated me.

Yeah, the GOP needs to re-brand itself so it survives the next decade.

And given the pool of candidates this election...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:28:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think the bigger problem that the GOP has is the diversity and size of the candidate pool. The risk is that after the primaries the constituency becomes apathetic because their guy did not get the nod in the primary.

Mark my words, that will be why the GOP looses to Hillary.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:30:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:25:25 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:23:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 5:29:58 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
It is well known that older citizens of the US are more conservative than the younger generations. This is a huge problem for the GOP - since 2012, many more Republicans have died than Democrats, and the GOP is failing to attract the young vote to fill the void. This could mean that the most important swing states can be determined by death.

5,488,091 people aged 60-64 voted for Romney in 2012. Using mortality rates for that age group from the US Census Bureau, roughly 230,000 of Republican 2012 voters will be dead next November.

Using mortality rates from the Census Bureau, roughly 450,000 (plus or minus a few thousand) more Republican voters will be dead than Democrats on Election Day.

The way to fight this is by getting enough millennials to fill the gap. Unfortunately for the GOP, they have a reputation among many for being too socially conservative - especially among the youngest of the millennials, making the new voters unwilling to vote for the Republicans.

In 2012, there were about 13 million in the 15-17 year old demographic who will be eligible to vote in 2016. The turnout for this group is roughly 45% at every election, bringing in roughly 6,000,000 voters for 2016. The split for Democrat-Republican over the last two elections was about 65%-35%. Democrats have almost 2,000,000 more on their side in the demographic of these voters.

This makes it imperative for the GOP to attract older millennials. They cannot rely on the vote of the Baby Boomers now, and they need the younger vote more than ever. They only have a shot at the Presidency if they can cut the 2,500,000 voter gap between death and new voters - which may prove extremely difficult, especially if they choose a bad candidate.

I think you raise a really good point there, but I think that 2024-2028 are going to be the first presidential elections where you really start to see the full impact of what will be a situation where Boomers are actually too old to get to the polls.

I wrote a lengthy response to a manifestly stupid homophobe about this a long time ago, actually. The nature of and extent to which population demographics (especially when considered with regard to variances between generations) really has always fascinated me.

Yeah, the GOP needs to re-brand itself so it survives the next decade.

And given the pool of candidates this election...

What's going to be interesting is what Rand Paul does. Rand used to be the guy who would rail on the NSA, Big Government, imperial exercises of political power in foreign policy, general governmental overreach, etc. He used to be a quasi-Libertarian; or a libertarian cloaked in the Republican party's red embrace for political expediency.

But now, that he's got -apparently- presidential aspirations, he's doing this weirdshit pied-piper song and dance where he drifts further and further over to the right. I anticipate that he'll roll that garbage back by the time the general rolls around so he doesn't pull a Paul Ryan and scare away every independent in the country because he's preaching political quackery.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:37:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:30:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:25:25 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:23:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 5:29:58 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
It is well known that older citizens of the US are more conservative than the younger generations. This is a huge problem for the GOP - since 2012, many more Republicans have died than Democrats, and the GOP is failing to attract the young vote to fill the void. This could mean that the most important swing states can be determined by death.

5,488,091 people aged 60-64 voted for Romney in 2012. Using mortality rates for that age group from the US Census Bureau, roughly 230,000 of Republican 2012 voters will be dead next November.

Using mortality rates from the Census Bureau, roughly 450,000 (plus or minus a few thousand) more Republican voters will be dead than Democrats on Election Day.

The way to fight this is by getting enough millennials to fill the gap. Unfortunately for the GOP, they have a reputation among many for being too socially conservative - especially among the youngest of the millennials, making the new voters unwilling to vote for the Republicans.

In 2012, there were about 13 million in the 15-17 year old demographic who will be eligible to vote in 2016. The turnout for this group is roughly 45% at every election, bringing in roughly 6,000,000 voters for 2016. The split for Democrat-Republican over the last two elections was about 65%-35%. Democrats have almost 2,000,000 more on their side in the demographic of these voters.

This makes it imperative for the GOP to attract older millennials. They cannot rely on the vote of the Baby Boomers now, and they need the younger vote more than ever. They only have a shot at the Presidency if they can cut the 2,500,000 voter gap between death and new voters - which may prove extremely difficult, especially if they choose a bad candidate.

I think you raise a really good point there, but I think that 2024-2028 are going to be the first presidential elections where you really start to see the full impact of what will be a situation where Boomers are actually too old to get to the polls.

I wrote a lengthy response to a manifestly stupid homophobe about this a long time ago, actually. The nature of and extent to which population demographics (especially when considered with regard to variances between generations) really has always fascinated me.

Yeah, the GOP needs to re-brand itself so it survives the next decade.

And given the pool of candidates this election...

What's going to be interesting is what Rand Paul does. Rand used to be the guy who would rail on the NSA, Big Government, imperial exercises of political power in foreign policy, general governmental overreach, etc. He used to be a quasi-Libertarian; or a libertarian cloaked in the Republican party's red embrace for political expediency.

But now, that he's got -apparently- presidential aspirations, he's doing this weirdshit pied-piper song and dance where he drifts further and further over to the right. I anticipate that he'll roll that garbage back by the time the general rolls around so he doesn't pull a Paul Ryan and scare away every independent in the country because he's preaching political quackery.

He's not going to get any nomination because he's not aggressive enough in foreign policy.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:38:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:25:25 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:23:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 5:29:58 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
It is well known that older citizens of the US are more conservative than the younger generations. This is a huge problem for the GOP - since 2012, many more Republicans have died than Democrats, and the GOP is failing to attract the young vote to fill the void. This could mean that the most important swing states can be determined by death.

5,488,091 people aged 60-64 voted for Romney in 2012. Using mortality rates for that age group from the US Census Bureau, roughly 230,000 of Republican 2012 voters will be dead next November.

Using mortality rates from the Census Bureau, roughly 450,000 (plus or minus a few thousand) more Republican voters will be dead than Democrats on Election Day.

The way to fight this is by getting enough millennials to fill the gap. Unfortunately for the GOP, they have a reputation among many for being too socially conservative - especially among the youngest of the millennials, making the new voters unwilling to vote for the Republicans.

In 2012, there were about 13 million in the 15-17 year old demographic who will be eligible to vote in 2016. The turnout for this group is roughly 45% at every election, bringing in roughly 6,000,000 voters for 2016. The split for Democrat-Republican over the last two elections was about 65%-35%. Democrats have almost 2,000,000 more on their side in the demographic of these voters.

This makes it imperative for the GOP to attract older millennials. They cannot rely on the vote of the Baby Boomers now, and they need the younger vote more than ever. They only have a shot at the Presidency if they can cut the 2,500,000 voter gap between death and new voters - which may prove extremely difficult, especially if they choose a bad candidate.

I think you raise a really good point there, but I think that 2024-2028 are going to be the first presidential elections where you really start to see the full impact of what will be a situation where Boomers are actually too old to get to the polls.

I wrote a lengthy response to a manifestly stupid homophobe about this a long time ago, actually. The nature of and extent to which population demographics (especially when considered with regard to variances between generations) really has always fascinated me.

Yeah, the GOP needs to re-brand itself so it survives the next decade.

If people beocme more socially conservative, then the mortality rate of the older generation isn't a problem, because new Republicans will fill their place. The 65%-35% demographic of young voters will become more even as they get older, and by the time they're in their 50s and 60s their votes will be going more toward the GOP.

And given the pool of candidates this election...

The GOP has a lot of young candidates this election, which would probably be more appealing to young voters. All the Democrats have are Clinton, Warren, and Sanders, who are all relatively old in contrast with Cruz, Rubio, Paul, etc.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:39:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:28:07 PM, slo1 wrote:
I think the bigger problem that the GOP has is the diversity and size of the candidate pool. The risk is that after the primaries the constituency becomes apathetic because their guy did not get the nod in the primary.

Mark my words, that will be why the GOP looses to Hillary.

The problem isn't a lack of diversity; diversity is a byproduct of institutional success, not a driving factor of it.

The problem is that the Republicans are fvcking stupid, with regard to how they orient themselves -or, rather, fail to do so- as a party. They've got Jeb Bush who basically has said that he is proud of GWB's decision to go into Iraq; Marco Rubio who actually defended the decision; Rand Paul who is acting like a wannabe-tea-bagger pied-piper; Scott Walker whose political significance begins where it ends (read: nowhere); a Canadian-Cuban-transplant cartoon character whose song and dance is exclusively purposed to getting a billion dollar war chest from the Koch brothers and doesn't give a sh!t about anyone other than himself (read: Ted Cruz); and a clusterfuck of others who will doom the party from the get-go because they have lost their identity.

Bush was, quite possibly, the greatest Republican president since Ike. That's saying something, but Bush's legacy has destroyed the party by creating the kind of conditions where rivaling ideological factions within the party are competing against each other rather than uniting against Democrats. That's totally cool with me, because they will fail... and they will continue to shape their messages to "reach the people where they are" rather than lead the country to where it should be going.

That is why Romney lost, and it's why whatever Republican presidential nominee who gets picked is going to lose. He is going to fail to unite the party, by picking a stupid failed strategy to unite rivaling factions who hate each other more than they hate Democrats. That's great, because the Democrats have become so freaking moderate that they govern like George H. W. Bush anyway.

Basically, until the GOP stops repeating the same stupid mistakes it's been making since McCain-Palin, they are going to continue to lose elections. I see zero indication that any such change has occurred, or will occur.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:40:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:37:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
But now, that he's got -apparently- presidential aspirations, he's doing this weirdshit pied-piper song and dance where he drifts further and further over to the right. I anticipate that he'll roll that garbage back by the time the general rolls around so he doesn't pull a Paul Ryan and scare away every independent in the country because he's preaching political quackery.

He's not going to get any nomination because he's not aggressive enough in foreign policy.

Pre-Iraq, I would have agreed with you. But, Iraq changed the game.... people are seriously skeptical about using American power to ensure justice and peace in the world... even if it means allowing ISIS to do what it's doing.... which is sad.

ISIS should have been destroyed before it ever began.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:42:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:38:27 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:25:25 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:23:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 5:29:58 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
It is well known that older citizens of the US are more conservative than the younger generations. This is a huge problem for the GOP - since 2012, many more Republicans have died than Democrats, and the GOP is failing to attract the young vote to fill the void. This could mean that the most important swing states can be determined by death.

5,488,091 people aged 60-64 voted for Romney in 2012. Using mortality rates for that age group from the US Census Bureau, roughly 230,000 of Republican 2012 voters will be dead next November.

Using mortality rates from the Census Bureau, roughly 450,000 (plus or minus a few thousand) more Republican voters will be dead than Democrats on Election Day.

The way to fight this is by getting enough millennials to fill the gap. Unfortunately for the GOP, they have a reputation among many for being too socially conservative - especially among the youngest of the millennials, making the new voters unwilling to vote for the Republicans.

In 2012, there were about 13 million in the 15-17 year old demographic who will be eligible to vote in 2016. The turnout for this group is roughly 45% at every election, bringing in roughly 6,000,000 voters for 2016. The split for Democrat-Republican over the last two elections was about 65%-35%. Democrats have almost 2,000,000 more on their side in the demographic of these voters.

This makes it imperative for the GOP to attract older millennials. They cannot rely on the vote of the Baby Boomers now, and they need the younger vote more than ever. They only have a shot at the Presidency if they can cut the 2,500,000 voter gap between death and new voters - which may prove extremely difficult, especially if they choose a bad candidate.

I think you raise a really good point there, but I think that 2024-2028 are going to be the first presidential elections where you really start to see the full impact of what will be a situation where Boomers are actually too old to get to the polls.

I wrote a lengthy response to a manifestly stupid homophobe about this a long time ago, actually. The nature of and extent to which population demographics (especially when considered with regard to variances between generations) really has always fascinated me.

Yeah, the GOP needs to re-brand itself so it survives the next decade.

If people beocme more socially conservative, then the mortality rate of the older generation isn't a problem, because new Republicans will fill their place. The 65%-35% demographic of young voters will become more even as they get older, and by the time they're in their 50s and 60s their votes will be going more toward the GOP.

They're a different generation than the Baby Boomers. They're less inclined to be socially conservative. Younger people are more cosmopolitan - and many of them see the GOP as the antithesis of it.

And given the pool of candidates this election...

The GOP has a lot of young candidates this election, which would probably be more appealing to young voters. All the Democrats have are Clinton, Warren, and Sanders, who are all relatively old in contrast with Cruz, Rubio, Paul, etc.

I don't think any of those three will be nominated.

Factor in the extra female turnout for Clinton, too.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:44:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think there is another underrated demographic edge for the Democrats: dead voters. :P
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:47:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:40:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:37:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
But now, that he's got -apparently- presidential aspirations, he's doing this weirdshit pied-piper song and dance where he drifts further and further over to the right. I anticipate that he'll roll that garbage back by the time the general rolls around so he doesn't pull a Paul Ryan and scare away every independent in the country because he's preaching political quackery.

He's not going to get any nomination because he's not aggressive enough in foreign policy.

Pre-Iraq, I would have agreed with you. But, Iraq changed the game.... people are seriously skeptical about using American power to ensure justice and peace in the world... even if it means allowing ISIS to do what it's doing.... which is sad.

He's not going to get a Republican nomination. Remember, this is the Republican Party. The majority of them see ISIS as a major threat.

ISIS should have been destroyed before it ever began.

Then...we shouldn't have armed it.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:50:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The other -huge- thing that the GOP has going against them is that within each little contextual "flavor" of crazy, there are individuals that are possessed of the unique combination of being both crazy, vocal, and contemptuous.

Ted Cruz, for example, is a poster boy for all that is wrong with American politics. No rational person should trust him. He is a guy who seeks to be a bought-and-paid for political crony for the Koch brothers. That's his intention... to court them and their money, which is why he's saying the monumentally stupid sh!t that he is, which really would have appeal in Redneck America.

Now, I don't disparage Redneck America; I pity it. Those people need help; they need the government's help more than any class of people in this country, and their lives and the experiences they have endured make them the most distrustful of outside authority, the least cooperative, and the most hostile to the very policies that would help them the most. But that's another conversation. But I digress...

Redneck America -being stupid and naive as they are- will vote for Cruz, because he speaks their language. He talks about God and country and freedom and patriotism; he disparages gays and Democrats and the like. He is someone they will trust, even though he would support tax policies that steal money from the poor to give to the rich because they do not understand how things *ought* to be, or even if they do they are too afraid of losing what little they have to change anything. It's very sad, and they will suffer because of it.

BUT, Redneck america is not the majority; working america is the majority, and working America will vote for Hillary.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:53:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:47:26 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:40:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:37:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
But now, that he's got -apparently- presidential aspirations, he's doing this weirdshit pied-piper song and dance where he drifts further and further over to the right. I anticipate that he'll roll that garbage back by the time the general rolls around so he doesn't pull a Paul Ryan and scare away every independent in the country because he's preaching political quackery.

He's not going to get any nomination because he's not aggressive enough in foreign policy.

Pre-Iraq, I would have agreed with you. But, Iraq changed the game.... people are seriously skeptical about using American power to ensure justice and peace in the world... even if it means allowing ISIS to do what it's doing.... which is sad.

He's not going to get a Republican nomination. Remember, this is the Republican Party. The majority of them see ISIS as a major threat.

ISIS is a major threat, and Rand Paul would have taken action to curtail them. He just wouldn't have has another lengthy middle eastern adventure.

ISIS should have been destroyed before it ever began.

Then...we shouldn't have armed it.

It's not that we -per se- armed ISIS. It's really that we were in Iraq, disbanded the (nepotistic) Iraqi military, which caused huge sectarian tension, which gave rise to ISIS, who took advantage of some stuff that we left for the Iraqi military we attempted to reconstruct -but which was largely staffed by the profoundly incompetent, who in many ways have been "bested" by Saddam's former military and some psychopathic terrorists (read: ISIS) who got together to destroy the fledgling political order that we sought to establish in Iraq.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:54:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:44:46 PM, TN05 wrote:
I think there is another underrated demographic edge for the Democrats: dead voters. :P

Vote early, vote often, even from the grave if necessary.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:58:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:53:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:47:26 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:40:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:37:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
But now, that he's got -apparently- presidential aspirations, he's doing this weirdshit pied-piper song and dance where he drifts further and further over to the right. I anticipate that he'll roll that garbage back by the time the general rolls around so he doesn't pull a Paul Ryan and scare away every independent in the country because he's preaching political quackery.

He's not going to get any nomination because he's not aggressive enough in foreign policy.

Pre-Iraq, I would have agreed with you. But, Iraq changed the game.... people are seriously skeptical about using American power to ensure justice and peace in the world... even if it means allowing ISIS to do what it's doing.... which is sad.

He's not going to get a Republican nomination. Remember, this is the Republican Party. The majority of them see ISIS as a major threat.

ISIS is a major threat, and Rand Paul would have taken action to curtail them. He just wouldn't have has another lengthy middle eastern adventure.

Let me clarify. The majority of Republicans think ISIS is a major direct threat to the security of the US.

They're not voting for a non-interventionist.

ISIS should have been destroyed before it ever began.

Then...we shouldn't have armed it.

It's not that we -per se- armed ISIS. It's really that we were in Iraq, disbanded the (nepotistic) Iraqi military, which caused huge sectarian tension, which gave rise to ISIS, who took advantage of some stuff that we left for the Iraqi military we attempted to reconstruct -but which was largely staffed by the profoundly incompetent, who in many ways have been "bested" by Saddam's former military and some psychopathic terrorists (read: ISIS) who got together to destroy the fledgling political order that we sought to establish in Iraq.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 6:59:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:44:46 PM, TN05 wrote:
I think there is another underrated demographic edge for the Democrats: dead voters. :P

Lol!

Don't forget illegals.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:09:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In all seriousness, Democrats have their own demographic problems. They won by roughly 5 million votes (4% MOV) in 2012, but they won 55% of women (53% of the voters). Racially, they had to win 94% of African Americans (13% of voters), 71% of Hispanics (10% of voters), and 73% of Asians (3% of voters). That's the Obama coalition. Does it turn out in elections where Obama is not running? I doubt it. The gender vote is really telling. Based on exit polls, this is approximately what the vote turned out like:
129,085,403 total voters
*68,415,264 (53%) women
**37,628,396 (55%) Obama
**30,102,718 (44%) Romney
*60,670,139 (47%) men
**31,548,473 (52%) Romney
**27,301,563 (45%) Obama

To even up the 5 million vote gap, the Republican needs to maintain his male vote and switch 2.5 million women (3.6% of women) from Obama to himself. If that were to happen, the share would be 35,128,396 (51%) Democrat women and 32,602,718 (48%) Republican women. This has happened before: in 2004, with 54% of voters being women, Kerry won 51% of women and Bush won 48%. In that election, Bush also won 55% of men, while Kerry won 44%. So a slight Republican win would probably require the Republican win around 48% of women and around 54% of men - which isn't unheard of.
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:10:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:42:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:38:27 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:25:25 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:23:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 5:29:58 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
It is well known that older citizens of the US are more conservative than the younger generations. This is a huge problem for the GOP - since 2012, many more Republicans have died than Democrats, and the GOP is failing to attract the young vote to fill the void. This could mean that the most important swing states can be determined by death.

5,488,091 people aged 60-64 voted for Romney in 2012. Using mortality rates for that age group from the US Census Bureau, roughly 230,000 of Republican 2012 voters will be dead next November.

Using mortality rates from the Census Bureau, roughly 450,000 (plus or minus a few thousand) more Republican voters will be dead than Democrats on Election Day.

The way to fight this is by getting enough millennials to fill the gap. Unfortunately for the GOP, they have a reputation among many for being too socially conservative - especially among the youngest of the millennials, making the new voters unwilling to vote for the Republicans.

In 2012, there were about 13 million in the 15-17 year old demographic who will be eligible to vote in 2016. The turnout for this group is roughly 45% at every election, bringing in roughly 6,000,000 voters for 2016. The split for Democrat-Republican over the last two elections was about 65%-35%. Democrats have almost 2,000,000 more on their side in the demographic of these voters.

This makes it imperative for the GOP to attract older millennials. They cannot rely on the vote of the Baby Boomers now, and they need the younger vote more than ever. They only have a shot at the Presidency if they can cut the 2,500,000 voter gap between death and new voters - which may prove extremely difficult, especially if they choose a bad candidate.

I think you raise a really good point there, but I think that 2024-2028 are going to be the first presidential elections where you really start to see the full impact of what will be a situation where Boomers are actually too old to get to the polls.

I wrote a lengthy response to a manifestly stupid homophobe about this a long time ago, actually. The nature of and extent to which population demographics (especially when considered with regard to variances between generations) really has always fascinated me.

Yeah, the GOP needs to re-brand itself so it survives the next decade.

If people beocme more socially conservative, then the mortality rate of the older generation isn't a problem, because new Republicans will fill their place. The 65%-35% demographic of young voters will become more even as they get older, and by the time they're in their 50s and 60s their votes will be going more toward the GOP.

They're a different generation than the Baby Boomers. They're less inclined to be socially conservative. Younger people are more cosmopolitan - and many of them see the GOP as the antithesis of it.

Young people have always been less conservative. The difference between now and the past is that everyone, overall, was more conservative in the '60s than in the 2010's. This isn't because people were more right-wing, but that the standards were different. Both parties were more conservative, but only in comparison with today, not with each other. So really it doesn't make a difference because both parties and voters have changed up to today. The only thing that probably could be argued is that the Baby Boomers were a wave of people who are now older.

And given the pool of candidates this election...

The GOP has a lot of young candidates this election, which would probably be more appealing to young voters. All the Democrats have are Clinton, Warren, and Sanders, who are all relatively old in contrast with Cruz, Rubio, Paul, etc.

I don't think any of those three will be nominated.

Well, we'll see, but as I said they will appeal to younger voters, which could help their chances.

Factor in the extra female turnout for Clinton, too.

Yeah, but gender isn't correspondent with age, so it's not really relevant to the mortality rate. Unless you want to argue that women live longer than men.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:11:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:59:08 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:44:46 PM, TN05 wrote:
I think there is another underrated demographic edge for the Democrats: dead voters. :P

Lol!

Don't forget illegals.

Funny you should say that. According to a study, votes from illegal immigrants almost certainly led to both the Minnesota Senate win for Democrats (the one decided by 178 votes), and likely led to the North Carolina presidential win for Democrats (http://www.washingtonpost.com...).
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:15:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 7:09:31 PM, TN05 wrote:
In all seriousness, Democrats have their own demographic problems. They won by roughly 5 million votes (4% MOV) in 2012, but they won 55% of women (53% of the voters). Racially, they had to win 94% of African Americans (13% of voters), 71% of Hispanics (10% of voters), and 73% of Asians (3% of voters). That's the Obama coalition. Does it turn out in elections where Obama is not running? I doubt it. The gender vote is really telling. Based on exit polls, this is approximately what the vote turned out like:
129,085,403 total voters
*68,415,264 (53%) women
**37,628,396 (55%) Obama
**30,102,718 (44%) Romney
*60,670,139 (47%) men
**31,548,473 (52%) Romney
**27,301,563 (45%) Obama

To even up the 5 million vote gap, the Republican needs to maintain his male vote and switch 2.5 million women (3.6% of women) from Obama to himself. If that were to happen, the share would be 35,128,396 (51%) Democrat women and 32,602,718 (48%) Republican women. This has happened before: in 2004, with 54% of voters being women, Kerry won 51% of women and Bush won 48%. In that election, Bush also won 55% of men, while Kerry won 44%. So a slight Republican win would probably require the Republican win around 48% of women and around 54% of men - which isn't unheard of.

Do you think Republicans can win that many women against Hillary?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Varrack
Posts: 2,411
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:15:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 7:11:33 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:59:08 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:44:46 PM, TN05 wrote:
I think there is another underrated demographic edge for the Democrats: dead voters. :P

Lol!

Don't forget illegals.

Funny you should say that. According to a study, votes from illegal immigrants almost certainly led to both the Minnesota Senate win for Democrats (the one decided by 178 votes), and likely led to the North Carolina presidential win for Democrats (http://www.washingtonpost.com...).

That's interesting. The article said non-citizens, which isn't the same as illegals, but the same concept exists. Illegals tend to vote for the party that gives them the most goodies without having to work, so I don't see that as any surprise.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:17:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 7:10:00 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:42:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:38:27 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:25:25 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:23:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 5:29:58 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
It is well known that older citizens of the US are more conservative than the younger generations. This is a huge problem for the GOP - since 2012, many more Republicans have died than Democrats, and the GOP is failing to attract the young vote to fill the void. This could mean that the most important swing states can be determined by death.

5,488,091 people aged 60-64 voted for Romney in 2012. Using mortality rates for that age group from the US Census Bureau, roughly 230,000 of Republican 2012 voters will be dead next November.

Using mortality rates from the Census Bureau, roughly 450,000 (plus or minus a few thousand) more Republican voters will be dead than Democrats on Election Day.

The way to fight this is by getting enough millennials to fill the gap. Unfortunately for the GOP, they have a reputation among many for being too socially conservative - especially among the youngest of the millennials, making the new voters unwilling to vote for the Republicans.

In 2012, there were about 13 million in the 15-17 year old demographic who will be eligible to vote in 2016. The turnout for this group is roughly 45% at every election, bringing in roughly 6,000,000 voters for 2016. The split for Democrat-Republican over the last two elections was about 65%-35%. Democrats have almost 2,000,000 more on their side in the demographic of these voters.

This makes it imperative for the GOP to attract older millennials. They cannot rely on the vote of the Baby Boomers now, and they need the younger vote more than ever. They only have a shot at the Presidency if they can cut the 2,500,000 voter gap between death and new voters - which may prove extremely difficult, especially if they choose a bad candidate.

I think you raise a really good point there, but I think that 2024-2028 are going to be the first presidential elections where you really start to see the full impact of what will be a situation where Boomers are actually too old to get to the polls.

I wrote a lengthy response to a manifestly stupid homophobe about this a long time ago, actually. The nature of and extent to which population demographics (especially when considered with regard to variances between generations) really has always fascinated me.

Yeah, the GOP needs to re-brand itself so it survives the next decade.

If people beocme more socially conservative, then the mortality rate of the older generation isn't a problem, because new Republicans will fill their place. The 65%-35% demographic of young voters will become more even as they get older, and by the time they're in their 50s and 60s their votes will be going more toward the GOP.

They're a different generation than the Baby Boomers. They're less inclined to be socially conservative. Younger people are more cosmopolitan - and many of them see the GOP as the antithesis of it.

Young people have always been less conservative. The difference between now and the past is that everyone, overall, was more conservative in the '60s than in the 2010's. This isn't because people were more right-wing, but that the standards were different. Both parties were more conservative, but only in comparison with today, not with each other. So really it doesn't make a difference because both parties and voters have changed up to today. The only thing that probably could be argued is that the Baby Boomers were a wave of people who are now older.

And given the pool of candidates this election...

The GOP has a lot of young candidates this election, which would probably be more appealing to young voters. All the Democrats have are Clinton, Warren, and Sanders, who are all relatively old in contrast with Cruz, Rubio, Paul, etc.

I don't think any of those three will be nominated.

Well, we'll see, but as I said they will appeal to younger voters, which could help their chances.

Social issues, man. Young people love their social issues.

Factor in the extra female turnout for Clinton, too.

Yeah, but gender isn't correspondent with age, so it's not really relevant to the mortality rate. Unless you want to argue that women live longer than men.

Not only that, but there would probably be an increased female turnout for a female candidate, as there was an increased black turnout for Obama.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:18:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 7:15:45 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 7:09:31 PM, TN05 wrote:
In all seriousness, Democrats have their own demographic problems. They won by roughly 5 million votes (4% MOV) in 2012, but they won 55% of women (53% of the voters). Racially, they had to win 94% of African Americans (13% of voters), 71% of Hispanics (10% of voters), and 73% of Asians (3% of voters). That's the Obama coalition. Does it turn out in elections where Obama is not running? I doubt it. The gender vote is really telling. Based on exit polls, this is approximately what the vote turned out like:
129,085,403 total voters
*68,415,264 (53%) women
**37,628,396 (55%) Obama
**30,102,718 (44%) Romney
*60,670,139 (47%) men
**31,548,473 (52%) Romney
**27,301,563 (45%) Obama

To even up the 5 million vote gap, the Republican needs to maintain his male vote and switch 2.5 million women (3.6% of women) from Obama to himself. If that were to happen, the share would be 35,128,396 (51%) Democrat women and 32,602,718 (48%) Republican women. This has happened before: in 2004, with 54% of voters being women, Kerry won 51% of women and Bush won 48%. In that election, Bush also won 55% of men, while Kerry won 44%. So a slight Republican win would probably require the Republican win around 48% of women and around 54% of men - which isn't unheard of.

Do you think Republicans can win that many women against Hillary?

I don't have a shallow enough opinion of women to think they will turn out in droves just to vote for a woman, no.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:19:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 7:18:20 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 7:15:45 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 7:09:31 PM, TN05 wrote:
In all seriousness, Democrats have their own demographic problems. They won by roughly 5 million votes (4% MOV) in 2012, but they won 55% of women (53% of the voters). Racially, they had to win 94% of African Americans (13% of voters), 71% of Hispanics (10% of voters), and 73% of Asians (3% of voters). That's the Obama coalition. Does it turn out in elections where Obama is not running? I doubt it. The gender vote is really telling. Based on exit polls, this is approximately what the vote turned out like:
129,085,403 total voters
*68,415,264 (53%) women
**37,628,396 (55%) Obama
**30,102,718 (44%) Romney
*60,670,139 (47%) men
**31,548,473 (52%) Romney
**27,301,563 (45%) Obama

To even up the 5 million vote gap, the Republican needs to maintain his male vote and switch 2.5 million women (3.6% of women) from Obama to himself. If that were to happen, the share would be 35,128,396 (51%) Democrat women and 32,602,718 (48%) Republican women. This has happened before: in 2004, with 54% of voters being women, Kerry won 51% of women and Bush won 48%. In that election, Bush also won 55% of men, while Kerry won 44%. So a slight Republican win would probably require the Republican win around 48% of women and around 54% of men - which isn't unheard of.

Do you think Republicans can win that many women against Hillary?

I don't have a shallow enough opinion of women to think they will turn out in droves just to vote for a woman, no.

But you think blacks are?

I don't even view those things as shallow, anyway, but...
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:23:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 6:58:01 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:53:42 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:47:26 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:40:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/20/2015 6:37:11 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
But now, that he's got -apparently- presidential aspirations, he's doing this weirdshit pied-piper song and dance where he drifts further and further over to the right. I anticipate that he'll roll that garbage back by the time the general rolls around so he doesn't pull a Paul Ryan and scare away every independent in the country because he's preaching political quackery.

He's not going to get any nomination because he's not aggressive enough in foreign policy.

Pre-Iraq, I would have agreed with you. But, Iraq changed the game.... people are seriously skeptical about using American power to ensure justice and peace in the world... even if it means allowing ISIS to do what it's doing.... which is sad.

He's not going to get a Republican nomination. Remember, this is the Republican Party. The majority of them see ISIS as a major threat.

ISIS is a major threat, and Rand Paul would have taken action to curtail them. He just wouldn't have has another lengthy middle eastern adventure.

Let me clarify. The majority of Republicans think ISIS is a major direct threat to the security of the US.

They're not voting for a non-interventionist.

If by "they" you mean "the base" then I'm going to go ahead and say that that's uncertain. Again, pre-Iraq I would have agreed with you.... but people are skeptical now. Even Republicans.

The basic thing here is that you've got a spectrum of pro-interventionalism, that ranges from intermittent isolationists like Rand Paul, to cautious advocates of military force like Jeb Bush, to war mongers like Rick Perry, to wannabe crusaders like Rick Santorum.

Generally, the range of permissible foreign policy paradigms with regard to primary elections has been somewhere between Jeb Bush and Rick Perry. But, now, we're between Rand Paul and Jeb Bush.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:24:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 7:19:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 7:18:20 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 7:15:45 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 7:09:31 PM, TN05 wrote:
In all seriousness, Democrats have their own demographic problems. They won by roughly 5 million votes (4% MOV) in 2012, but they won 55% of women (53% of the voters). Racially, they had to win 94% of African Americans (13% of voters), 71% of Hispanics (10% of voters), and 73% of Asians (3% of voters). That's the Obama coalition. Does it turn out in elections where Obama is not running? I doubt it. The gender vote is really telling. Based on exit polls, this is approximately what the vote turned out like:
129,085,403 total voters
*68,415,264 (53%) women
**37,628,396 (55%) Obama
**30,102,718 (44%) Romney
*60,670,139 (47%) men
**31,548,473 (52%) Romney
**27,301,563 (45%) Obama

To even up the 5 million vote gap, the Republican needs to maintain his male vote and switch 2.5 million women (3.6% of women) from Obama to himself. If that were to happen, the share would be 35,128,396 (51%) Democrat women and 32,602,718 (48%) Republican women. This has happened before: in 2004, with 54% of voters being women, Kerry won 51% of women and Bush won 48%. In that election, Bush also won 55% of men, while Kerry won 44%. So a slight Republican win would probably require the Republican win around 48% of women and around 54% of men - which isn't unheard of.

Do you think Republicans can win that many women against Hillary?

I don't have a shallow enough opinion of women to think they will turn out in droves just to vote for a woman, no.

But you think blacks are?

I don't even view those things as shallow, anyway, but...

Blacks will never, as a majority, vote for Republicans. They -rightfully- see Ben Carson as an uncle tom jackass, and they don't trust any Politician who caters to rich white people. If only poor white people could be so wise.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:26:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The one thing that's remarkable to me is that Black people, unlike white people, on balance vote rationally. More Blacks live in poverty than whites, and I think that the poverty rate for blacks is higher than whites. But, even though Blacks have historically been less politically active than whites, ***when*** they are politically active, they vote for Democrats. Read: they vote consistent with their economic interests.

Comparably poor white people, in the alternative, vote for Republicans who would give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires while ignoring public services, cutting public funding, scaling back infrastructure spending, etc.
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 7:29:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 7:19:38 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 7:18:20 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/20/2015 7:15:45 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 5/20/2015 7:09:31 PM, TN05 wrote:
In all seriousness, Democrats have their own demographic problems. They won by roughly 5 million votes (4% MOV) in 2012, but they won 55% of women (53% of the voters). Racially, they had to win 94% of African Americans (13% of voters), 71% of Hispanics (10% of voters), and 73% of Asians (3% of voters). That's the Obama coalition. Does it turn out in elections where Obama is not running? I doubt it. The gender vote is really telling. Based on exit polls, this is approximately what the vote turned out like:
129,085,403 total voters
*68,415,264 (53%) women
**37,628,396 (55%) Obama
**30,102,718 (44%) Romney
*60,670,139 (47%) men
**31,548,473 (52%) Romney
**27,301,563 (45%) Obama

To even up the 5 million vote gap, the Republican needs to maintain his male vote and switch 2.5 million women (3.6% of women) from Obama to himself. If that were to happen, the share would be 35,128,396 (51%) Democrat women and 32,602,718 (48%) Republican women. This has happened before: in 2004, with 54% of voters being women, Kerry won 51% of women and Bush won 48%. In that election, Bush also won 55% of men, while Kerry won 44%. So a slight Republican win would probably require the Republican win around 48% of women and around 54% of men - which isn't unheard of.

Do you think Republicans can win that many women against Hillary?

I don't have a shallow enough opinion of women to think they will turn out in droves just to vote for a woman, no.

But you think blacks are?

Not in the same sense, no. 95% is a high-water mark, but it's not really far off from the usual high-80s share. 2008 was the biggest Democratic landslide in 40 years and as big a landslide as we will get nowadays, and the black vote + the Obama effect reflected that. Hillary, on the other hand, is not an amazing, well spoken candidate (she ran behind Al Gore in New York in 2000 and lost to Obama in 2008).

I don't even view those things as shallow, anyway, but...

I mean, women didn't turn out in 1984 to vote for Geraldine Ferraro for VP or in 2008 for Palin for VP, and even though they are a majority of the electorate we don't normally see women beating male candidates just because they are women. A 'Hillary effect' would require precedent to be made. Moreover, psychologically studies have shown many women are really jealous of successful women. Will they change their mind? I just don't think this is going to be some gender war.