It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But that map will be upended in 2016, when 23 of the 33 seats at stake will be held by Republicans. Six of them will be in states that Obama won in 2008 and 2012 (Illinois, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Wisconsin). Two will be in states Obama won in 2008 (Indiana, North Carolina). Two are held by senators who may be retiring (John McCain in Arizona, Chuck Grassley in Iowa). And two are held by senators who may be running for president, which means they can’t run for re-election (Marco Rubio in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky).
In other words, for every Senate seat that Republicans flipped in 2014, there’s one — or more — that’s likely to flip back to the Democrats in 2016. The chances that the GOP will still control the upper chamber of Congress after 2016 are slim.
This means that Clinton, assuming she’s the nominee, will start out with 242 electoral votes in 2016; she’ll need only 28 of the remaining 183 tossups to win the election. To defeat her, the Republican candidate will basically have to run the table in the purple states — “not a game plan with a high probability of success,” according to Republican pollsters Glen Bolger and Neil Newhouse. Making matters worse is the fact that Republican senators will already be playing defense in several of these states, attracting additional Democratic attention and resources that will ultimately bolster the candidate at the top of the ticket as well.
The math is just as bad for Republicans — and just as good for Clinton. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of white voters, a higher share than Ronald Reagan's in 1980 and George W. Bush's in 2004. But Romney still lost to Obama. Why? Because America’s minority electorate is growing every year. To hit 50.1 percent in 2016, the Republican nominee will have to win a whopping 64 percent of the white vote on Election Day — or significantly improve the party’s standing among nonwhite voters, especially Hispanics. Otherwise, he or she will lose just like Romney.
"In the long-term, Hillary wins...." What does ATS think?
This means that Clinton, assuming she’s the nominee, will start out with 242 electoral votes in 2016;
originally posted by: Aazadan
It's not so much that Hillary won but rather that the Democrats are set up for a massive win in 2016. Remember 2010? It's going to be a repeat of that. This has to do with the 6 year cycle of the Senate and how the seats are currently positioned. Remember the backlash in 2010? Those same people are up in 2016... 1 Senate term later. Remember the landslide in 2004? 1 Senate term earlier. Throw in a huge House win this time around and the Republicans stand to lose big time come 2016. 27 of the 33 seats in 2016 up for grabs are Republican seats, so they're automatically on the defensive.
The Republicans going into office are aware of this too, I promise you that. Congress for the next two years, if they hope to not lose is going to have to be moderate and not create any controversial issues, and they can get away with that because quite frankly their base doesn't matter again until 2018. This next election will be about the platforms of presidential candidates rather than already passed legislation. No one wants to go into that with additional baggage.