Can Any Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Montana

Thanks for that info, that brings some perspective into the discussion.

The issue though is can the GOP win a majority of those 100 "unlocked" EC votes by behaving the way they have been? This "no compromise" attitude that I see being flaunted looks great to those already entrenched, but to those people somewhere in the middle who may be fiscally conservative but socially liberal (a growing trend) -- how does the GOP attract those voters?

I have often wondered that myself. Taking last mid-terms as an example, I interpreted the results not as an uptick in republican voters rushing to the pols, rather many refuting the Administration's agenda. Taking a gander at the current GOP offerings for 2016, it's a sideshow with limited voter appeal. Honestly, which GOP candidate identifies with frustrated, fed up voters? Rand Paul supporters, IMO, come closest yet none of the Rep. candidates motivate voters as Sanders or the non-candidate Warren does.

Unless the GOP can support an unknown quantity(perhaps a current or former Gov. successful in executive experience with widespread state appeal that can translate to a national stage) like BHO prior to his first term, I don't see how they can win the election. I have often stated the President should be the best this country has to offer, but I don't see that from either party. Just my .02.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

They have very little chance of winning if they put up another progressive establishment goon like Romney, McCain, or Bush.

The Republican party has not nominated a conservative since Reagan.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Setting aside for the moment the "your vote doesn't mater because TPTB decide things" idea, I've always thought it would be much better to have a presidential election determined by actual popular vote.

The idea being: Yes, your vote actually DOES count.

Too many voters claim that they do not vote because "my vote doesn't count" and they really do believe it. With the way the EC works, I can't really argue against anyone thinking that.

A popular vote now: that would be different. Very much so in this digital day of the internet and computers. Every one would actually have their vote count.

Let the actual people decide. Not how many votes each state get's via the EC.

That sounds great until you realize that if you are that farmer in the Midwest, your vote will never, ever count again. You will never, ever see any candidate come to your state again.

The candidate will only ever pander to the big, urban areas and what they want because that's where the mass concentrations of people are, and from then on, policy will reflect that.

Like little electric cars with no range? Great! That's what urban voters think are awesome, but if you're a farmer who actually needs that pickup or a car with some range to it ... sucks to be you.

Like lots of gun control? Great! That's what urban voters like. But again, if you're a farmer and a rifle is a necessary tool of daily life ... sucks to be you.

There are a lot of things that make the idea of spread out even representation and proportional representation that the EC gives us worthwhile. Where the brute force of direct democracy is really just a tyranny of the majority.

You can study the current lock of the SCOTUS to get an idea of why maybe direct democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

You know funny you should bring that up.

One of the reasons we have a Represenative Republic was because of the difficulty in the country's entire population being able to vote on things that affect them (IE federal laws, amendments to the US constitution, etc).

It's not a new idea as it's been done before in Roman times (of course very limited version of it compared to what we have today).

But, let's think about that now......would it really be that hard now?

The internet, computers, smart phones, tablets.....even if you don't have one, you know someone that does, or can have access to one at a library, coffee house, etc.

Think about it: if people actually could vote for things themselves would they? Especially if it would depend on that actual population of the country?

The technology and software is there.

That then begs the question: Do we REALLY need all those 435 represenatives.......who are paid all that money for that job?

Sorry to go off topic....but it's something that I was thinking about the other day.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, this is exactly why we now have an EC. To counteract the large population centers.

I guess the perfect system hasn't come around yet.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I really don't like these, "such and such party is doomed" threads because they always turn out to be untrue, but I do find it interesting that a Republican wrote this article. At least SOME Republicans are noticing the problems in their party, but keep in mind, it only takes a few to change the direction of the party which could lead to a resurfacing of the party back into a prime spotlight instead of a party that exists just to be contrary to the Democrats.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's the reason it caught my eye -- I tend to like to read stuff by people I don't always agree with so I can get their perspective on the situation.

I don't think the GOP is "doomed" -- but I think they really need to re-evaluate their position and strategy to stay relevant in an ever-increasing science-drive society.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: MystikMushroom

They have very little chance of winning if they put up another progressive establishment goon like Romney, McCain, or Bush.

The Republican party has not nominated a conservative since Reagan.

As I recall the campaign from that election, Reagan WAS the guy who appealed to the middle. That's how he got elected. Funny that he is now being held up as a conservative.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

That is the truth. In fact, if the Republicans would just stop denying science, they'd probably get more votes without even appealing to minority demographics. But I think that would only work for so long. Minority demographics are ever growing and there will come a point in the future that white people won't have the majority in the country anymore. And before that happens, there will come a time when there aren't enough white people to sympathize with Republicans ideals while trying to battle off all the minorities voting against them.

Republicans are going to have to accept minorities and science if they want to start seriously competing for the Presidency again. They may be able to pull off a few tricks here and there to gain seats in Congress, but I can't see them winning the Presidency with the way they behave now. They are just too contrarian.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well, back in the Bush/Gore election if memory serves me correctly Gore would have won if it was a popular vote.

So, the EC doesn't really favor any political party, I see it as favoring whatever social ideology is trending in a given decade.

Great topic, actually. And you're correct about the Bush/Gore election. Oddly enough, without the EC, I'm not sure the Republicans could win a presidential election and that's because, like it or not, the Republican party is an ever shrinking demographic on the one hand and the nation as a whole is drifting further and further to the left.

With that in mind, it might well be the case that for all practical purposes, the US could well be a One Party State after the 2016 election, and that would be especially true assuming an Democrat takes the White House in 2016. (and I don't see any Republican with the possible exception of Rubio being able to win but Rubio won't get the nomination). When you look at the situation i the major Metro areas across the US, they are already One Party Jurisdictions with everyone of them being Democrat Party Vote Plantations.

I've been predicting that the US would become a One Party Nation State for years now and while it hasn't happened yet, for all practical purposes, its nearly there. The two biggest problems with the One Party State is that 1) they tend to become dictatorial and 2) they nearly always have to invoke mandatory voting in order to obtain some degree of legitimacy and at least the appearance of some margin of a popular mandate after an election.

If you can get rid of the EC and go to having a popular vote election for the White Hut, that will pretty much seal the deal for the Democrats. The biggest problem that may create is that the Red States may be even more desirous of exiting the Union. Ultimately there's going to be a Constitutional Crisis of some magnitude over the crummy election system. With the Etcha Sketch voting machines and the voting faud in the Major Metro Areas, the election system is already on its last leg.

a reply to: TonyS

If the country became a one party nation, it would only be a matter of time before that party (the Democratic party in this case) would split in half and create two parties again. Every time we've had a one party system in the past, this has always happened down the line.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How 'bout if we skip the consolidation this time, split the two we have now into four, and have a REAL election and government for once? I'm up for that!

originally posted by: Montana
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How 'bout if we skip the consolidation this time, split the two we have now into four, and have a REAL election and government for once? I'm up for that!

I'd love it myself, but that isn't how our country has historically behaved. Though, keep in mind, the more major parties there are, the more likely it will be for a party of crazies to get the nomination. This is how the Nazi Party rose to power in 1930's Germany. They won something like 30% of the vote, but because there were so many other political parties, they still had the most votes.

I feel that Scott Walker (Gov of Wisconsin) can win 270 Electoral Votes if he loosens up and becomes more animated. Wisconsin people might not mind having a "stiff" governor, but Americans in general want a more jovial President. I know it's a frivolous, shallow thing, but that's what Hollywood has created.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: MystikMushroom

They have very little chance of winning if they put up another progressive establishment goon like Romney, McCain, or Bush.

The Republican party has not nominated a conservative since Reagan.

Reagan would be not be nearly conservative enough now. That is the type of Republican that has been driven from the GOP. Reagan who game Amnesty to 3 million illegals, had only 4000 border patrol agents compared to Obama''s 20,000, barely deporting any illegals at about 80,000 a year compared to Obamas 400,000, He cut taxes but, not spending doubled the debt so that those that followed did the same thing. he grew the size of the federal government, he sold weapons to Iran, and worst of all in the eyes of modern Republicans he worked with and compromised with the Democrats. Today Reagan would be called a RINO.

Reagan was conservative for his time when the GOP was more of center right party. They tossed the center out and now are left with people who a far right and have no appeal to most Americans. This is why the GOP can not take the White House with what they consider a conservative candidate today.

a reply to: MrSpad

Right.

I get the feeling after talking to my conservative friends that they've "compromised" enough just having Obama president for 8 years. To them, having to put up with that was enough -- no more compromises, time to get tough, tighten the reigns and get a *real* conservative elected!

That's their problem, they aren't willing to compromise. The Democrats basically have had to compromise at every turn the last 8 years because the GOP has stood shoulder to shoulder in opposition anything put forth by the Democratic party. Want Obamacare? Tweak it all around so it doesn't even resemble the original and then it'll just barley squeak through.

This is going to be a HUGE problem the for the GOP moving forward, they're going to have to compromise and get stuff done. Just being an obstructionist *isn't* compromise! Having to put up with the first black president and a Democrat to boot for 8 years isn't a compromise! They had an equal shot at the WH two times in a row, and they didn't put forth a candidate that was electable in the eyes of the people.

I think a lot of Republicans know they ought to be moving more center-right, but their peers and emotions are telling them to radicalize and go further right-wing.

Yes! And by that I mean ANY !!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Anyone who thinks that the Republicans have been compromising with the Democrats over the last 8 years needs a serious wakeup call on what the definition of "compromise" is. That worries me particularly, your friends think they've been extending compromises to Obama and co and now think the time for compromise is over. If they think what the Republicans have been doing is compromising, I hate to see what they think Republicans NOT compromising looks like.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

We really need to discuss "compromise".

When people state that the GOP hasn't compromised, just look at TPP.

When it comes to Obamacare and compromise, I don't know what to say. It's like someone wants to shove a fork 3 inches into your eye.
Their compromise? Using a smaller fork!

I'm really beginning to think it's all theatre. I used to think that democrats, liberal, and progressives were out to ruin the country.

Now I'd have to add GOP into the group because I don't see any solutions that don't include bigger government or higher taxes!

a reply to: ketsuko

Perfectly explained.

The EC is very necessary.