It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Any Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I came across a very interesting article written by a staunch conservative, Republican voter about the chances of the GOP reclaiming the White House in 2016, and the challenges the party faces in that fight. It was really interesting to read the author's views on what their party is doing wrong, and I thought it was worth sharing for discussion with the rest of ATS. I had no idea of the headstart the Democratic party had on the GOP in terms of electoral votes.

The author states that many of their Republican peers are dead-set on nominating the most conservative person they can find:



For example, while I was enjoying myself at Governor Jindal’s Friday night reception, a woman who saw my name tag realized she had read a piece I had written and posted on RedState warning Republicans about Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the title, “Madame President” in 2016. Then, in a rather stern tone, she declared, “Rand Paul is my candidate and I am fed up with nominating moderates who only lose. So this time we must nominate a true conservative who can win.”

This sentiment was one I heard often at the RedState Gathering and hear even more frequently whenever two or more conservatives are gathered together in HIS name (Ronald Reagan that is).

Let me state emphatically, that the concept of nominating someone more conservative than ever in 2016 is a foregone conclusion among the Republican base.


Well, that isn't that shocking to me. I've seen the GOP continue to withdraw into themselves and swing further right at every turn since Obama's election nearly 8 years ago. The author sees three obstacles that will hinder the Republican party's chances at the WH in 2016:



1. Awareness of the problem

My RedState lunch partner who had not even thought about the 270 question is typical of most conservative activists and primary voters. Therefore, raising the 270 question early and often should be an integral part of the 2016 GOP presidential primary dynamic. How can a problem find a solution when only a few Republicans are even willing to acknowledge that there is a problem?

2. No compromising on core principles

Conservative Republicans uphold their conservative principals as a shiny badge of honor never to be tarnished. I too am a conservative Republican, however I think the same way as Ronald Reagan who, when trying to get legislation passed in 1983, said the following:

I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want.

However, because conservatives are an ever shrinking minority within the electorate, it is imperative that we nominate a presidential candidate (and other leaders) who can attract moderate voters by stating that he or she, like Reagan, are willing to accept a “half loaf instead of a whole” in order to solve the difficult issues facing our nation.

3. GOP’s biggest problem is Democrats start with 246 electoral votes

As Republicans gear up to “take back the White House” we all need to be aware that in 2012 if Romney had won the three swing states of Ohio, Florida and Virginia, he still would have lost the election to President Obama.

For instance, let’s look at Wisconsin with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mind-set says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, within a few months into the campaign the state loses it’s coveted “battleground” status as polls begin to show “blue” reality. And the truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.

Or take Pennsylvania with 20 electoral votes and New York with 29 — both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992 and blue they will remain.

Then we have the mega-rich electoral state of California with its 55 votes that turned red for the last time in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won that “California guy,” Reagan’s “third term.”

Let me repeat, if only for the shock value – 246 votes out of 270 is 91 percent. That means the Democrat candidate needs to win only 24 more votes out of the remaining 292. (There are a total of 538 electoral votes.)


I think that third and last part is important. The Democrats out of the gate start with 246 electoral votes. The Democrats only need to "earn" another 24 to secure their place in the WH for another four years. Given the dramatic shift to the extreme right we've been seeing among the GOP candidates and their their die-hard supporters, does anyone really believe that without attracting the female, Latino and minority voters the GOP stands a chance?

The rest of the article can be found here, at www.redstate.com

So what do you think ATS? Is the GOP doomed? Are the Republicans in denial about the slow death of their own party? It'll be interesting to see how this next election goes at any rate!




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

My suggestion would be to dump the entire Electoral College system and elect the president through direct “popular” vote. That, by the way, is the method favored by 63 percent of Americans.


I agree with dumping the EC or at the very least giving EVERY state EQUAL representation. As the system is set up with some states having more 'say' than others.

No the Republicans can not win 2016 acting like Democrat Lite.


edit on 17-7-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Both sides have toyed around with the idea of ditching the electoral collage. It seems whenever a side looses the presidential election, their voting base starts to look into the issue. I remember Democrats crying about the popular vote after the hanging chad incident in the Bush/Gore presidential run.

I haven't looked into the issue enough to speak with any authority. I'm sure at one point and time there were reasons to have it setup the way it's done now -- but perhaps we ought to revisit those reasons. Even if it helps the GOP and hurts the Democrats, I'm above all that to ensure the overall health of the US political system.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom



Let me state emphatically, that the concept of nominating someone more conservative than ever in 2016 is a foregone conclusion among the Republican base.


If that is true then I think it will also be a forgone conclusion that republicans will not have a chance at winning. By going even further to the right they will appeal to an even smaller base.

I would like to see the opposite so there will at least be some competition.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom


Can Any Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016?


Sure.

How much does it cost?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Well its rigged so a carrot would win 270 votes if TPTB want it.

We just need to look at the next bilderberg list to see who the next leader will be.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




So what do you think ATS? Is the GOP doomed? Are the Republicans in denial about the slow death of their own party? It'll be interesting to see how this next election goes at any rate!


I'm not sure it really matters. I have lost all faith in the American political system. It seems more like a media event with tacky, garish, foolish campaigns and totally corrupt and staged elections. Hanging chads anyone?

It's a circus so let's make it entertaining at least; bring in the clowns....


edit on 17-7-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom



I'm sure at one point and time there were reasons to have it setup the way it's done now -- but perhaps we ought to revisit those reasons.




In short, political party loyalties had, by 1800, begun to cut across State loyalties thereby creating new and different problems in the selection of a president. By making seemingly slight changes, the 12th Amendment fundamentally altered the design of the Electoral College and, in one stroke, accommodated political parties as a fact of life in American presidential elections.


uselectionatlas.org...

Think we should.

Since:



Let me repeat, if only for the shock value – 246 votes out of 270 is 91 percent. That means the Democrat candidate needs to win only 24 more votes out of the remaining 292. (There are a total of 538 electoral votes.)


If EC votes are already 'locked' the point of campaigning, and elections are superfluous.

Red states versus Blue states and the candidates are just an after thought. Every cycle.

Yeah I'd like to see things revisited.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer




How much does it cost?


$1 Billion dollars is what it costs, and it 'pays' to have the IRS in their back pocket leaking information, and drying up opponents money donations.
edit on 17-7-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Electoral College locks go back and forth. The previous "lock" was for the Republicans from about 1968 to 1988. Then it went into flux and emerged as a Democrat lock for the last two elections. Many people in the know expect it to last until the 2020 election, but that's just star gazing.

Here is another look at the issue.

OTB

It pays to remember that while the Dems have a "lock" on 240 or so votes the Reps also have a "lock" on about 210. So yes there is a divide, but it aint the Grand Canyon. There are about 100 "unlocked" electoral votes and those are what this coming election will be for. There are enough in play for the election to go either way.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Montana

No EC vote should be locked.

They should both be ZERO.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I agree, Neo, but it's pretty silly to not expect locations with a high preponderance of either Reps or Dems to not vote that way in an election. That's what a "lock" is, as I understand it. Electoral votes from locations that are so one-sided there is no likelihood that the vote will go a different way.

Correct me if I am wrong about that.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

What if you had to prove on your taxes that you voted for IRS to accept them...?

That might make people sit up and pay more attention and get involved.

Just an idea, I don't think mandatory voting is something we'll ever see -- as having the "gubmint tellin me what to do!" is something Americans are pretty adverse to.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I would try to attract voters from the middle undecideds by putting forth a candidate that would be able to convince those voters he or she would at least be willing to flex on their core issues.

But if I was important enough to matter I wouldn't be shuffling railroad cars for a living.

It appears at this point (remember it's still early days and the next president may not even be in the ring yet) that the Republican Party believes there are enough dis-enfranchised voters on the right that have simply not voted in the last couple of elections to turn the tide and they are going after those votes.

The people deciding that make a lot more money than I do.
edit on 7/17/2015 by Montana because: n't



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Montana

Good points -- I hadn't considered the disenfranchised GOP voting base that may have not turned out last presidential election.

BTW, I lived in Missoula for a couple of years



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

"It's a circus so let's make it entertaining at least; bring in the clowns.... "


They already did - CNN has been reporting that Trump is in the lead.
He even has the $$ billions ...



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

BTW, I lived in Missoula for a couple of years


It's better further north! Honest.




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join