NS: Romney would have had to win the popular vote by 3 percent to win the EC

[DaFace]

I know he's a biased liberal and all, but this should be very troubling to the R's over the next decade.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-disadvantage/

As Nation and Parties Change, Republicans Are at an Electoral College Disadvantage
By NATE SILVER

Two more presidential elections, 2016 and 2020, will be contested under the current Electoral College configuration, which gave Barack Obama a second term on Tuesday. This year’s results suggest that this could put Republicans at a structural disadvantage.

Based on a preliminary analysis of the returns, Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College. The last Republican to accomplish that was George H.W. Bush, in 1988.

(more at the link)

[whoman69]

If he's biased and liberal and all...how come every election he calls wrong he does it in erroneously calling it for a Republican?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by whoman69

If he's biased and liberal and all...how come every election he calls wrong he does it in erroneously calling it for a Republican?

That was tongue in cheek.

[listopencil]

If they put up a candidate that wasn't crap, they'd have a better chance at winning. Create a platform that appeals to most people instead of pandering to various groups.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by listopencil

If they put up a candidate that wasn't crap, they'd have a better chance at winning. Create a platform that appeals to most people instead of pandering to various groups.

Why is this not necessary for the Dems?

When you say appeals to most people, do you mean getting various groups united as one, as Obama did?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by listopencil

If they put up a candidate that wasn't crap, they'd have a better chance at winning. Create a platform that appeals to most people instead of pandering to various groups.

I definitely agree. But even then, it's interesting how the Dems have managed to actually carve out an almost unfair advantage by growing their base in a handful of key states. How much of that is luck and how much was intentional, though, I have no idea.

[alnorth]

I knew the dems now had a structural advantage in the electoral college, but I didn't realize it was that massive. He's right though, Romney completely obliterated Obama in the south.

This is gerry-mandering on a national scale. The republicans in several states clumped black and hispanic voters together in districts to guarantee a democrat would win that seat 80-20, but that allowed them to spread their white votes out more to take everything else by 5-10 points for example.

Same here. Dems have big vote sinks in NY, CA, and the other New England states, but the entire massive south is one great big Republican vote sink. The dems are more spread out. When people on the right go "screw this, I'm moving to Texas", thats fine for them, but if everyone does that, then its hard for the Republicans to win the white house.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Same here. Dems have big vote sinks in NY, CA, and the other New England states, but the entire massive south is one great big Republican vote sink. The dems are more spread out. When people on the right go "screw this, I'm moving to Texas", thats fine for them, but if everyone does that, then its hard for the Republicans to win the white house.

There's always secession at that point.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Why is this not necessary for the Dems?

When you say appeals to most people, do you mean getting various groups united as one, as Obama did?

The election was decided by a very slim margin. Democrats voted mostly for Obama and Republicans voted mostly for Romney. I think the difference was that the Democratic party message was coherent enough that they didn't have as many constituents (or even people who aren't D but would likely to vote D) wander to other candidates or fail to vote.

[jiveturkey]

This kind of ties into this WSJ breakdown I saw today.

The "Redder" and "Bluer" tabs are the ones I found most interesting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...bs=interactive

The most interesting on the "Redder" side was IL and the fact that most of the south didn't get "Redder".

On the blue side MS, AL, GA and SC standout IMO. In these states the margin of victory was still very large for Romney but I wonder how this results compare with past results.

Texas is split with parts getting more red and others getting more blue.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by listopencil

If they put up a candidate that wasn't crap, they'd have a better chance at winning. Create a platform that appeals to most people instead of pandering to various groups.

The proper way of saying this I believe, is get rid of the stupid tea party, if you get rid of the extremists in the party you lose a few votes but you gain thousands.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by jiveturkey

This kind of ties into this WSJ breakdown I saw today.

The "Redder" and "Bluer" tabs are the ones I found most interesting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...bs=interactive

The most interesting on the "Redder" side was IL and the fact that most of the south didn't get "Redder".

On the blue side MS, AL, GA and SC standout IMO. In these states the margin of victory was still very large for Romney but I wonder how this results compare with past results.

Texas is split with parts getting more red and others getting more blue.

Boy if you look what's changed to redder since 2004 it's basically what I call the retard line which is southern Oklahoma through Arkansas into Tennessee and Kentucky but if you look at where it's turned bluer since 2004 it's almost the entire country except the areas I mentioned. I found that very fascinating.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

There's always secession at that point.

That worked out pretty well last time. Only a few million dead.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by listopencil

The election was decided by a very slim margin. Democrats voted mostly for Obama and Republicans voted mostly for Romney. I think the difference was that the Democratic party message was coherent enough that they didn't have as many constituents (or even people who aren't D but would likely to vote D) wander to other candidates or fail to vote.

You really missed my question, or I don't understand how your answer relates to it.

Or are you answering the strategy one?

Clearly the Obama "ground force" strategy of working the minorities into a majority is what won the election for him, once he convinced them that Romney was the devil.

Of course, if you watched any of the Chicago politics, Jesse Jackson Jr. was also re-elected to congress after not even being on the job for months with the Blago black could hanging over him.

They also re-elected a 10 district rep that has been indicted but those of us that voted for Romney are angry racist old white men.

You made the statement that the GOP needs to get a candidate "that isn't crap" and I asked you why this didn't apply to the Dems? As far as I am concerned, their candidate was crap.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

That worked out pretty well last time. Only a few million dead.

Secession worked fine and no one died. That happened when the North invaded the south—not secession which was a peaceful withdrawal. Besides, as you lefties say, that's 19th century and is old and out of date thinking.