It looks like I'm not the only one pointing out electoral vote reality regarding the election next year. Byers points out a few key points that folks seem to be missing.
Here's the problem with Silver's piece: It's 1,500 words long, and not one of those words is "economy."
Silver's article also didn't include the words "Ross Perot." While Perot took votes from both Bush and Clinton, he likely delivered additional anti-Bush voters to Clinton after he dropped out of the race. No, Perot didn't cost Bush the election, but he did shake up the popular vote.
It's odd that Silver is going against his own models. Look for him to instantly put that 247 on the board right when the general starts next year.
Neither Byers or Silver note that all of the states in the 247 base have gone Democrat in the last six elections. The only exception was New Hampshire in 2000 went for Bush but New Mexico went for Gore so it was more or less a wash. Add in that the Republicans are bound and determined to nominate a "real" conservative this time around and even Bernie Sanders might have a shot at getting to 270. Now if they decided to nominate a moderate like Jon Huntsman, things would obviously change.
So, the next time you are engaging someone who think Republicans have a chance at winning in 2016, have them explain to you how a Marco Rubio or a Scott Walker wins California, Illinois and New York.
Because that's 104 electoral votes right there.
1 comment:
"It looks like I'm not the only one pointing out electoral vote reality regarding the election next year. Byers points out a few key points that folks seem to be missing."
Sorry, but "reality" is not a word that applies to the results of surveys and polling, especially when the election in question is still a year and a half away. These are not laws of physics, these are voters whose emotions are easily swayed, who have busy lives and can't be reliably counted on to show up on election day.
The UK just went through an election in which the polls were completely wrong. Everyone thought it was going to be a hung parliament, but the Tories won an outright majority.
As this article by Byers notes, polling has been unreliable in many elections in recent years.
What you're ignoring is that many of the states you count in the Democratic column are run by Republican governors (Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Maine, New Jersey, Maryland) and one or more houses of the legislature controlled by Republicans (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, Washington*). A few years ago Minnesota had a Republican governor and legislature. New York's Senate has been Republican in recent years. That means that in many of these states more than half the voters still vote Republican. Which means a Republican presidential candidate can win there too.
From this it is clear that a Democratic win in these states is not guaranteed; indeed, in Wisconsin Republicans could cause all kinds of mischief to suppress Democratic turnout. Bush won the 2000 and 2004 elections with those tactics.
If Democrats go into the election thinking that they have these states in the bag, they run the risk of people in those states not bothering to turn out because they feel there's no need to, and the candidate never bothers to visit their state, so why should I bother?
Young people, in particular, need to be energized to vote. They need to feel that they're doing something exciting and important, that they will make a difference. Unlike their elders, they don't vote out of habit or duty or sheer spiteful hatred.
A major problem Obama has had during his presidency is his people not feeling that he's done enough for them (it's really biting him now with the trade bill). People expect you to have their back, to pay attention to them, to give them something that shows you're listening to them. Republicans are constantly throwing red meat to their guys; Democrats, not so much. (That happens to be why Democrats make better legislators, but it doesn't inspire fiercely blind loyalty.)
If Democrats make voters -- especially young ones -- feel taken for granted, those voters will stay home. Democrats could easily lose several of the "for-sure" states to Koch brothers machinations, local issues, and apathy or disappointment that cause low Democratic turnout.
Republicans will have several billion dollars of secret money to spend on dirty tricks and rat-fucking the opposition, and we know they have absolutely no moral qualms about breaking laws to win. Many jurisdictions are using computerized voting machines, which are extremely vulnerable to hacking.
One completely legal dirty trick Wisconsin could play: change the law to proportionally assign a state's electoral votes instead of using the winner take all method. Because of gerrymandering, that would give Republicans the edge. If done nation-wide, Romney would have won in 2012.
Karl Rove and the Republicans thought they had a permanent Republican majority in 2004. They thought they could never lose again.
Democrats would do well not to make the same mistake.
Post a Comment