What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[New Chalcedon]

Okay, I have noticed that some people have put forth Chris Christie as the best Republican presidential candidate for 2016, why? Is it because he is merely the best out of a weak field of available candidates within the GOP? I'm not altogether convinced that he would be able to win. Are they aware that he has publicly come out against gay marriage which is a losing issue?

While Candidates such as Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, and Jeb Bush might be able to win against certain democratic candidates, none of them are capable of beating the democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. Chris Christie is seen as the sole candidate who would be capable of beating said frontrunner for the following reasons:

1. His 2010 election and very likely 2013 reelection as governor of a blue state (New Jersey).
2. His ability to pursue a conservative agenda in said state.
3. His unusually high approval ratings among democrats, independents, and new jersey residents.

If Chris Christie can pull off an electoral win in New Jersey, which is actually likely, that would likely translate to wins in Florida and Virginia, and that plus a win in Ohio would get him over 270 and into the white house. His strength in New Jersey could also help republicans make inroads into and maybe even win in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Maine's second congressional district.

Yes, he has some repair work to do with the base, and he would be hardpressed to defeat Clinton in Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan, but if he concentrates his resources on the east and in New England, where he has more strength, him beating Clinton in the electoral college doesn't look far-fetched at all. In fact, I think he'd pull it off.

You think that any Republican - up to & including Republican Jesus - is going to win in Virginia?

.....I can't believe I'm saying this, given that 2008 was the first time VA voted Democratic since 1964. But it's now a blue-tilting swing state, at least at the Presidential level.

New Jersey - to Christie - is special, in that it's his home. People there know him aside from the hype of a political campaign, and have decided (mostly as a result of the show of bipartisan co-operation he and Obama undertook after Sandy) that they like him. Would this translate into a Presidential victory for candidate Christie in 2016?

Unlikely. The Democrats enjoy a significant structural edge in New Jersey, especially if they run a candidate who already has a reputation there (i.e., one who Christie can't define to his own benefit). For instance, three separate hypothetical polls have already been run there since the 2012 election, and each of them finds Hillary Clinton at or above 50% of the vote (Marist has a 52-41 HRC/Christie spread, Quinipiac a 49-45 spread and PPP 52-40).

Then, of course, there's the fact that he's not exactly being challenged by a united Democratic Party this fall. The Democratic establishment seems to have decided to hang Buono out to dry (not unreasonably, given the poll numbers Christie is sporting), and so he's getting to skate on a number of gubernatorial decisions that in a contested election would be a significant drag. This won't be the case in 2016 if he runs - the Democratic Party will, as is tradition for both major parties by now, throw everything but the kitchen sink at him.

Frankly, Christie would give the Democratic candidate- whomever they are - the best run for their money. But he'd be hampered by one very, very significant problem: in order to get his name on the ballot, in order to win the nomination, he has to very publicly take a year-long vacation in Crazyland - and even that mightn't work, given how many bridges he's burned with the Tea Partiers. But even if it does win him the nomination, it'll leave the Democrats heaps and heaps of ammunition to use against him in the general. And that's the same kind of problem Romney ran into - he was forced to redefine himself as a red-meat ultraconservative in order to win the nomination, and people remembered that he'd done so in the general election.

[Khadgar]

While Candidates such as Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, and Jeb Bush might be able to win against certain democratic candidates, none of them are capable of beating the democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. Chris Christie is seen as the sole candidate who would be capable of beating said frontrunner for the following reasons:

1. His 2010 election and very likely 2013 reelection as governor of a blue state (New Jersey).
2. His ability to pursue a conservative agenda in said state.
3. His unusually high approval ratings among democrats, independents, and new jersey residents.

If Chris Christie can pull off an electoral win in New Jersey, which is actually likely, that would likely translate to wins in Florida and Virginia, and that plus a win in Ohio would get him over 270 and into the white house. His strength in New Jersey could also help republicans make inroads into and maybe even win in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Maine's second congressional district.

Yes, he has some repair work to do with the base, and he would be hardpressed to defeat Clinton in Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan, but if he concentrates his resources on the east and in New England, where he has more strength, him beating Clinton in the electoral college doesn't look far-fetched at all. In fact, I think he'd pull it off.

You think that any Republican - up to & including Republican Jesus - is going to win in Virginia?

.....I can't believe I'm saying this, given that 2008 was the first time VA voted Democratic since 1964. But it's now a blue-tilting swing state, at least at the Presidential level.

New Jersey - to Christie - is special, in that it's his home. People there know him aside from the hype of a political campaign, and have decided (mostly as a result of the show of bipartisan co-operation he and Obama undertook after Sandy) that they like him. Would this translate into a Presidential victory for candidate Christie in 2016?

Unlikely. The Democrats enjoy a significant structural edge in New Jersey, especially if they run a candidate who already has a reputation there (i.e., one who Christie can't define to his own benefit). For instance, three separate hypothetical polls have already been run there since the 2012 election, and each of them finds Hillary Clinton at or above 50% of the vote (Marist has a 52-41 HRC/Christie spread, Quinipiac a 49-45 spread and PPP 52-40).

Then, of course, there's the fact that he's not exactly being challenged by a united Democratic Party this fall. The Democratic establishment seems to have decided to hang Buono out to dry (not unreasonably, given the poll numbers Christie is sporting), and so he's getting to skate on a number of gubernatorial decisions that in a contested election would be a significant drag. This won't be the case in 2016 if he runs - the Democratic Party will, as is tradition for both major parties by now, throw everything but the kitchen sink at him.

Frankly, Christie would give the Democratic candidate- whomever they are - the best run for their money. But he'd be hampered by one very, very significant problem: in order to get his name on the ballot, in order to win the nomination, he has to very publicly take a year-long vacation in Crazyland - and even that mightn't work, given how many bridges he's burned with the Tea Partiers. But even if it does win him the nomination, it'll leave the Democrats heaps and heaps of ammunition to use against him in the general. And that's the same kind of problem Romney ran into - he was forced to redefine himself as a red-meat ultraconservative in order to win the nomination, and people remembered that he'd done so in the general election.

Let's face it, until the Republicans dump the Tea Party beating a Republican candidate should be piss easy. Just replay every idiot thing they said in the primary as your attack ads. Let them sink themselves. Hell I'm deeply disappointed Obama didn't do just that, though the 47% ad was fucking brilliant simply because Obama let Romney hang himself with his own words.

[Nigerian Kenya]

You think that any Republican - up to & including Republican Jesus - is going to win in Virginia?

.....I can't believe I'm saying this, given that 2008 was the first time VA voted Democratic since 1964. But it's now a blue-tilting swing state, at least at the Presidential level.

New Jersey - to Christie - is special, in that it's his home. People there know him aside from the hype of a political campaign, and have decided (mostly as a result of the show of bipartisan co-operation he and Obama undertook after Sandy) that they like him. Would this translate into a Presidential victory for candidate Christie in 2016?

Unlikely. The Democrats enjoy a significant structural edge in New Jersey, especially if they run a candidate who already has a reputation there (i.e., one who Christie can't define to his own benefit). For instance, three separate hypothetical polls have already been run there since the 2012 election, and each of them finds Hillary Clinton at or above 50% of the vote (Marist has a 52-41 HRC/Christie spread, Quinipiac a 49-45 spread and PPP 52-40).

Then, of course, there's the fact that he's not exactly being challenged by a united Democratic Party this fall. The Democratic establishment seems to have decided to hang Buono out to dry (not unreasonably, given the poll numbers Christie is sporting), and so he's getting to skate on a number of gubernatorial decisions that in a contested election would be a significant drag. This won't be the case in 2016 if he runs - the Democratic Party will, as is tradition for both major parties by now, throw everything but the kitchen sink at him.

Frankly, Christie would give the Democratic candidate- whomever they are - the best run for their money. But he'd be hampered by one very, very significant problem: in order to get his name on the ballot, in order to win the nomination, he has to very publicly take a year-long vacation in Crazyland - and even that mightn't work, given how many bridges he's burned with the Tea Partiers. But even if it does win him the nomination, it'll leave the Democrats heaps and heaps of ammunition to use against him in the general. And that's the same kind of problem Romney ran into - he was forced to redefine himself as a red-meat ultraconservative in order to win the nomination, and people remembered that he'd done so in the general election.

Let's face it, until the Republicans dump the Tea Party beating a Republican candidate should be piss easy. Just replay every idiot thing they said in the primary as your attack ads. Let them sink themselves. Hell I'm deeply disappointed Obama didn't do just that, though the 47% ad was fucking brilliant simply because Obama let Romney hang himself with his own words.

Yeah - that 47% statement really hit Romney in the general election. If Romney hadn't said that, he would have won Florida at the very least, and likely some other swing states as well (NC doesn't count as a swing state, at least one site declared it leaning Romney after debate #3.) . Would Romney have won the election if he hadn't said the 47% statement - Maybe, maybe not. But he would have definitely gotten more than 206 electoral votes come election night.

And that "trip to crazyland" comment is the one thing where I'm just not sure about Christie. If Christie doesn't appeal to the base enough, some of which have already said they will never vote for him, there's a chance that Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush could beat him in the primaries. If Christie appeals to the base too much, he'll win the primary, but if the democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, she just might be able to squeak out a narrow victory. Narrow meaning 270-285 electoral votes, 290 at the very most. But if Christie can find the happy medium between appealing to the tea party and showing his moderate side, and can compound that with a good running mate selection (ryan and palin were not good selections, btw.), then Christie will defeat Clinton.

And regarding New Jersey, Christie's approval ratings have always been high there, in the 60's and 70's. Even before Hurricane Sandy, he was leading Buono by over 15 points in early polling. (By comparison, Mitt Romney's Massachusetts approval rating at the end of his term there as governor was about 35%.) That's why I believe that Christie can win there, and if he can win there, then Virginia definitely isn't "out of reach".

Let's remind ourselves of the circumstances of the 2008 election: People were SICK of republicans. The Republicans literally needed a true, real, and amazing divine power directly assisting them to even THINK about winning that election. Republican Strategists predicted that their nominee would lose! 46% of republicans approved of Obama on inauguration day! News Networks didn't shy away about predicting the election, they were actively predicting Obama as the winner throughout October and November! That's why Obama was able to sweep in and take 2004 republican strongholds known as Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, North Carolina, and Nebraska's second congressional district, and nearly took Missouri as well. In 2012, most of those states decided to stay with the devil they already knew - Obama, rather than the devil they didn't know - Romney, which is a typical human decision.

But now, in the 2016 election, the republicans have taken their punishment for causing a recession. They have a whole new gallery of viable candidates, something they largely lacked in 2012 (Santorum? Gingrich? Ron Paul? Herman Cain? Bachmann? None of them could have won the general election in their wildest dreams.) , both parties have a primary campaign to suffer through (the democrats didn't in 2012, Obama was basically unopposed and won every primary by at least 14 percentage points.), there will be no "incumbency advantage", and Obama's approval ratings are mediocre anyways. If Republicans put their best foot forward and nominate Chris Christie, I can definitely see them winning, more than I ever saw with Romney. And if the democrats nominate Joe Biden, not Hillary Clinton, Christie will easily exceed 300 electoral votes, and give new life to the party.

[Blasveck]

Let's face it, until the Republicans dump the Tea Party beating a Republican candidate should be piss easy. Just replay every idiot thing they said in the primary as your attack ads. Let them sink themselves. Hell I'm deeply disappointed Obama didn't do just that, though the 47% ad was fucking brilliant simply because Obama let Romney hang himself with his own words.

Yeah - that 47% statement really hit Romney in the general election. If Romney hadn't said that, he would have won Florida at the very least, and likely some other swing states as well (NC doesn't count as a swing state, at least one site declared it leaning Romney after debate #3.) . Would Romney have won the election if he hadn't said the 47% statement - Maybe, maybe not. But he would have definitely gotten more than 206 electoral votes come election night.

And that "trip to crazyland" comment is the one thing where I'm just not sure about Christie. If Christie doesn't appeal to the base enough, some of which have already said they will never vote for him, there's a chance that Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush could beat him in the primaries. If Christie appeals to the base too much, he'll win the primary, but if the democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, she just might be able to squeak out a narrow victory. Narrow meaning 270-285 electoral votes, 290 at the very most. But if Christie can find the happy medium between appealing to the tea party and showing his moderate side, and can compound that with a good running mate selection (ryan and palin were not good selections, btw.), then Christie will defeat Clinton.

And regarding New Jersey, Christie's approval ratings have always been high there, in the 60's and 70's. Even before Hurricane Sandy, he was leading Buono by over 15 points in early polling. (By comparison, Mitt Romney's Massachusetts approval rating at the end of his term there as governor was about 35%.) That's why I believe that Christie can win there, and if he can win there, then Virginia definitely isn't "out of reach".

Let's remind ourselves of the circumstances of the 2008 election: People were SICK of republicans. The Republicans literally needed a true, real, and amazing divine power directly assisting them to even THINK about winning that election. Republican Strategists predicted that their nominee would lose! 46% of republicans approved of Obama on inauguration day! News Networks didn't shy away about predicting the election, they were actively predicting Obama as the winner throughout October and November! That's why Obama was able to sweep in and take 2004 republican strongholds known as Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, North Carolina, and Nebraska's second congressional district, and nearly took Missouri as well. In 2012, most of those states decided to stay with the devil they already knew - Obama, rather than the devil they didn't know - Romney, which is a typical human decision.

But now, in the 2016 election, the republicans have taken their punishment for causing a recession. They have a whole new gallery of viable candidates, something they largely lacked in 2012 (Santorum? Gingrich? Ron Paul? Herman Cain? Bachmann? None of them could have won the general election in their wildest dreams.) , both parties have a primary campaign to suffer through (the democrats didn't in 2012, Obama was basically unopposed and won every primary by at least 14 percentage points.), there will be no "incumbency advantage", and Obama's approval ratings are mediocre anyways. If Republicans put their best foot forward and nominate Chris Christie, I can definitely see them winning, more than I ever saw with Romney. And if the democrats nominate Joe Biden, not Hillary Clinton, Christie will easily exceed 300 electoral votes, and give new life to the party.

Isn't that what Romney tried to do? He tried to appeal both to the radicals and the moderates, and he ended becoming a bit too radical.

[Nigerian Kenya]

Yeah - that 47% statement really hit Romney in the general election. If Romney hadn't said that, he would have won Florida at the very least, and likely some other swing states as well (NC doesn't count as a swing state, at least one site declared it leaning Romney after debate #3.) . Would Romney have won the election if he hadn't said the 47% statement - Maybe, maybe not. But he would have definitely gotten more than 206 electoral votes come election night.

And that "trip to crazyland" comment is the one thing where I'm just not sure about Christie. If Christie doesn't appeal to the base enough, some of which have already said they will never vote for him, there's a chance that Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush could beat him in the primaries. If Christie appeals to the base too much, he'll win the primary, but if the democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, she just might be able to squeak out a narrow victory. Narrow meaning 270-285 electoral votes, 290 at the very most. But if Christie can find the happy medium between appealing to the tea party and showing his moderate side, and can compound that with a good running mate selection (ryan and palin were not good selections, btw.), then Christie will defeat Clinton.

And regarding New Jersey, Christie's approval ratings have always been high there, in the 60's and 70's. Even before Hurricane Sandy, he was leading Buono by over 15 points in early polling. (By comparison, Mitt Romney's Massachusetts approval rating at the end of his term there as governor was about 35%.) That's why I believe that Christie can win there, and if he can win there, then Virginia definitely isn't "out of reach".

Let's remind ourselves of the circumstances of the 2008 election: People were SICK of republicans. The Republicans literally needed a true, real, and amazing divine power directly assisting them to even THINK about winning that election. Republican Strategists predicted that their nominee would lose! 46% of republicans approved of Obama on inauguration day! News Networks didn't shy away about predicting the election, they were actively predicting Obama as the winner throughout October and November! That's why Obama was able to sweep in and take 2004 republican strongholds known as Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, North Carolina, and Nebraska's second congressional district, and nearly took Missouri as well. In 2012, most of those states decided to stay with the devil they already knew - Obama, rather than the devil they didn't know - Romney, which is a typical human decision.

But now, in the 2016 election, the republicans have taken their punishment for causing a recession. They have a whole new gallery of viable candidates, something they largely lacked in 2012 (Santorum? Gingrich? Ron Paul? Herman Cain? Bachmann? None of them could have won the general election in their wildest dreams.) , both parties have a primary campaign to suffer through (the democrats didn't in 2012, Obama was basically unopposed and won every primary by at least 14 percentage points.), there will be no "incumbency advantage", and Obama's approval ratings are mediocre anyways. If Republicans put their best foot forward and nominate Chris Christie, I can definitely see them winning, more than I ever saw with Romney. And if the democrats nominate Joe Biden, not Hillary Clinton, Christie will easily exceed 300 electoral votes, and give new life to the party.

Isn't that what Romney tried to do? He tried to appeal both to the radicals and the moderates, and he ended becoming a bit too radical.

Romney appealed to the base too much, but he also suffered from a bad running mate selection, the 47% statement, no convention bounce at all, foreign policy struggles, his bad record as Massachusetts Governor, and a loss of momentum during Hurricane Sandy. With any luck, that won't describe Christie.

[Neutraligon]

By not claiming that Congress should be judged by how many laws it repeals.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/ ... t-creates/

[Agymnum]

By not claiming that Congress should be judged by how many laws it repeals.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/ ... t-creates/

Ah, Boehner. You make me laugh.

[Blakk Metal]

By not claiming that Congress should be judged by how many laws it repeals.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/ ... t-creates/

I hope the republicans legalize child porn.

[Alien Space Bats]

And that "trip to crazyland" comment is the one thing where I'm just not sure about Christie. If Christie doesn't appeal to the base enough, some of which have already said they will never vote for him, there's a chance that Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush could beat him in the primaries. If Christie appeals to the base too much, he'll win the primary, but if the democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, she just might be able to squeak out a narrow victory. Narrow meaning 270-285 electoral votes, 290 at the very most. But if Christie can find the happy medium between appealing to the tea party and showing his moderate side, and can compound that with a good running mate selection (ryan and palin were not good selections, btw.), then Christie will defeat Clinton.

And regarding New Jersey, Christie's approval ratings have always been high there, in the 60's and 70's. Even before Hurricane Sandy, he was leading Buono by over 15 points in early polling. (By comparison, Mitt Romney's Massachusetts approval rating at the end of his term there as governor was about 35%.) That's why I believe that Christie can win there, and if he can win there, then Virginia definitely isn't "out of reach".

Let's remind ourselves of the circumstances of the 2008 election: People were SICK of republicans. The Republicans literally needed a true, real, and amazing divine power directly assisting them to even THINK about winning that election. Republican Strategists predicted that their nominee would lose! 46% of republicans approved of Obama on inauguration day! News Networks didn't shy away about predicting the election, they were actively predicting Obama as the winner throughout October and November! That's why Obama was able to sweep in and take 2004 republican strongholds known as Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, North Carolina, and Nebraska's second congressional district, and nearly took Missouri as well. In 2012, most of those states decided to stay with the devil they already knew - Obama, rather than the devil they didn't know - Romney, which is a typical human decision.

But now, in the 2016 election, the republicans have taken their punishment for causing a recession. They have a whole new gallery of viable candidates, something they largely lacked in 2012 (Santorum? Gingrich? Ron Paul? Herman Cain? Bachmann? None of them could have won the general election in their wildest dreams.) , both parties have a primary campaign to suffer through (the democrats didn't in 2012, Obama was basically unopposed and won every primary by at least 14 percentage points.), there will be no "incumbency advantage", and Obama's approval ratings are mediocre anyways. If Republicans put their best foot forward and nominate Chris Christie, I can definitely see them winning, more than I ever saw with Romney. And if the democrats nominate Joe Biden, not Hillary Clinton, Christie will easily exceed 300 electoral votes, and give new life to the party.

I'm not buying it.

First, I'm going to go on record right now telling you (and everybody else here) that neither Marco Rubio nor Chris Christie are going to be the GOP nominee.

As far as the Tea Party wing of the Party is concerned, both are damaged goods. Add the in fact that Cuban-Americans are not especially popular among other Latinos and that Rubio's reputation as the man who can bring Latinos into the GOP fold is therefore overblown, and the fact that Chris Christie faces serious problems when it comes to raising funds from Wall Street as long as he remains a sitting governor (if firms that trade in municipal bonds give money to any public official who can influence bond sales, the SEC can and will ban them from trading that State's bonds for two years, which can cost such a firm hundreds of millions of dollars in profits [or at least it can have that effect in the case of a large State like New Jersey or Texas — and now you know why Rick Perry isn't running for re-election...]), and it's pretty easy to rule out either one of these guys as the likely nominee.

No, my money is on Ted Cruz. Mark this day on your calendar and remember that you heard it here first.

---

In the meantime, though, let's get to what really matters: The numbers. Combining a State-by-State PVI analysis with a Demographic PVI analysis, Democrats have a slight native edge in the popular vote and in the Electoral College before any candidate-vs-candidate considerations come into play. Based on the last 20 years of electoral data (and projecting forward for demographic trends), we should expect the Democratic share of the popular vote to rise by 0.1% (producing an effective 49.1%-48.9% in a perfectly "balanced" match-up), and for the final Electoral College tally to be a 303-235 Democratic victory, with Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia being the three most crucial swing States. As in 2012, Republicans will probably need to take all three States to win — and will likely not take any of them.

This brings us to what's fundamentally wrong with your analysis: You're ignoring the fact that America is undergoing demographic changes in just the last 10 years. In the face of the rapid growth in our non-white electorate, even George W. Bush's 2004 performance — the best of any Republican in nearly 25 years — would not be enough to win, were it duplicated today. A rerun of the 2004 election, with each demographic group dividing itself as it did in 2004 (whites voting 59-41 for Bush, blacks voting 89-11 for Kerry, Latinos voting 55-45 for Kerry, Asians voting 56-44 for Kerry, and "others" voting 57-43 for Kerry) would have resulted in a Republican defeat in 2012 by a 292-246 count in the Electoral College, with Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia all flipping "blue". The same is still true in 2016; Republicans must actually exceed George W. Bush's 2004 performance three years from now if they want to win back the White House, and that's going to be very hard to do.

You call Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada Republican "strongholds"; yet in fact they are not. Florida has been a swing State for most of the last 20 years; it has voted Democratic in four of the last six National elections. Iowa is also a swing State, but one where Democrats have an even greater historical advantage, having won there in five the last six National elections. Colorado and Nevada, OTOH, are States that have actually flipped, as has Virginia: All three have experienced important demographic changes that have rendered them more Democratic with each passing year, and with each passing year it is going to be harder to flip them back. And down the road, Arizona, Montana, and Georgia are all on track to follow them.

Worse (for the GOP), all of the foregoing assumes a dead-even race. If the Democratic candidate runs stronger than average and the Republican candidate weaker, then the prospects for an electoral blowout loom even greater. In 2016 it will take no more than a 2-point swing in the popular vote towards the Democrats — in essence, a 51-47 victory — to recreate this last year's 332-206 thrashing. Personally, I think the odds of such an outcome happening are immeasurably greater than the opposite outcome (which, just to show the skew in the present Electoral College, would only give the GOP a 315-223 victory).

You cannot successful predict what's coming in the near future in the realm of Presidential politics without taking the Nation's shifting demographic balance into account.

[Neutraligon]

And that "trip to crazyland" comment is the one thing where I'm just not sure about Christie. If Christie doesn't appeal to the base enough, some of which have already said they will never vote for him, there's a chance that Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush could beat him in the primaries. If Christie appeals to the base too much, he'll win the primary, but if the democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, she just might be able to squeak out a narrow victory. Narrow meaning 270-285 electoral votes, 290 at the very most. But if Christie can find the happy medium between appealing to the tea party and showing his moderate side, and can compound that with a good running mate selection (ryan and palin were not good selections, btw.), then Christie will defeat Clinton.

And regarding New Jersey, Christie's approval ratings have always been high there, in the 60's and 70's. Even before Hurricane Sandy, he was leading Buono by over 15 points in early polling. (By comparison, Mitt Romney's Massachusetts approval rating at the end of his term there as governor was about 35%.) That's why I believe that Christie can win there, and if he can win there, then Virginia definitely isn't "out of reach".

Let's remind ourselves of the circumstances of the 2008 election: People were SICK of republicans. The Republicans literally needed a true, real, and amazing divine power directly assisting them to even THINK about winning that election. Republican Strategists predicted that their nominee would lose! 46% of republicans approved of Obama on inauguration day! News Networks didn't shy away about predicting the election, they were actively predicting Obama as the winner throughout October and November! That's why Obama was able to sweep in and take 2004 republican strongholds known as Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, North Carolina, and Nebraska's second congressional district, and nearly took Missouri as well. In 2012, most of those states decided to stay with the devil they already knew - Obama, rather than the devil they didn't know - Romney, which is a typical human decision.

But now, in the 2016 election, the republicans have taken their punishment for causing a recession. They have a whole new gallery of viable candidates, something they largely lacked in 2012 (Santorum? Gingrich? Ron Paul? Herman Cain? Bachmann? None of them could have won the general election in their wildest dreams.) , both parties have a primary campaign to suffer through (the democrats didn't in 2012, Obama was basically unopposed and won every primary by at least 14 percentage points.), there will be no "incumbency advantage", and Obama's approval ratings are mediocre anyways. If Republicans put their best foot forward and nominate Chris Christie, I can definitely see them winning, more than I ever saw with Romney. And if the democrats nominate Joe Biden, not Hillary Clinton, Christie will easily exceed 300 electoral votes, and give new life to the party.

I'm not buying it.

First, I'm going to go on record right now telling you (and everybody else here) that neither Marco Rubio nor Chris Christie are going to be the GOP nominee.

As far as the Tea Party wing of the Party is concerned, both are damaged goods. Add the in fact that Cuban-Americans are not especially popular among other Latinos and that Rubio's reputation as the man who can bring Latinos into the GOP fold is therefore overblown, and the fact that Chris Christie faces serious problems when it comes to raising funds from Wall Street as long as he remains a sitting governor (if firms that trade in municipal bonds give money to any public official who can influence bond sales, the SEC can and will ban them from trading that State's bonds for two years, which can cost such a firm hundreds of millions of dollars in profits [or at least it can have that effect in the case of a large State like New Jersey or Texas — and now you know why Rick Perry isn't running for re-election...]), and it's pretty easy to rule out either one of these guys as the likely nominee.

No, my money is on Ted Cruz. Mark this day on your calendar and remember that you heard it here first.

---

In the meantime, though, let's get to what really matters: The numbers. Combining a State-by-State PVI analysis with a Demographic PVI analysis, Democrats have a slight native edge in the popular vote and in the Electoral College before any candidate-vs-candidate considerations come into play. Based on the last 20 years of electoral data (and projecting forward for demographic trends), we should expect the Democratic share of the popular vote to rise by 0.1% (producing an effective 49.1%-48.9% in a perfectly "balanced" match-up), and for the final Electoral College tally to be a 303-235 Democratic victory, with Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia being the three most crucial swing States. As in 2012, Republicans will probably need to take all three States to win — and will likely not take any of them.

This brings us to what's fundamentally wrong with your analysis: You're ignoring the fact that America is undergoing demographic changes in just the last 10 years. In the face of the rapid growth in our non-white electorate, even George W. Bush's 2004 performance — the best of any Republican in nearly 25 years — would not be enough to win, were it duplicated today. A rerun of the 2004 election, with each demographic group dividing itself as it did in 2004 (whites voting 59-41 for Bush, blacks voting 89-11 for Kerry, Latinos voting 55-45 for Kerry, Asians voting 56-44 for Kerry, and "others" voting 57-43 for Kerry) would have resulted in a Republican defeat in 2012 by a 292-246 count in the Electoral College, with Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia all flipping "blue". The same is still true in 2016; Republicans must actually exceed George W. Bush's 2004 performance three years from now if they want to win back the White House, and that's going to be very hard to do.

You call Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada Republican "strongholds"; yet in fact they are not. Florida has been a swing State for most of the last 20 years; it has voted Democratic in four of the last six National elections. Iowa is also a swing State, but one where Democrats have an even greater historical advantage, having won there in five the last six National elections. Colorado and Nevada, OTOH, are States that have actually flipped, as has Virginia: All three have experienced important demographic changes that have rendered them more Democratic with each passing year, and with each passing year it is going to be harder to flip them back. And down the road, Arizona, Montana, and Georgia are all on track to follow them.

Worse (for the GOP), all of the foregoing assumes a dead-even race. If the Democratic candidate runs stronger than average and the Republican candidate weaker, then the prospects for an electoral blowout loom even greater. In 2016 it will take no more than a 2-point swing in the popular vote towards the Democrats — in essence, a 51-47 victory — to recreate this last year's 332-206 thrashing. Personally, I think the odds of such an outcome happening are immeasurably greater than the opposite outcome (which, just to show the skew in the present Electoral College, would only give the GOP a 315-223 victory).

You cannot successful predict what's coming in the near future in the realm of Presidential politics without taking the Nation's shifting demographic balance into account.

Hey ASB can you talk over the senate options and what is likely to happen there?

[AiliailiA]

New Jersey was one of the last states to have its Republican Presidential primaries in 2012, in June well after super tuesday.

So while NJ would be a good state for Christie to carry in the presidential election, it doesn't help him much in the Republican primaries.

[Alien Space Bats]

Hey ASB can you talk over the senate options and what is likely to happen there?

Well, if I had to guess...

• Some Tea Party idiot will defeat Susan Collins in a primary and hand a safe Republican seat to the Democrats in Maine.
  
  
• The "Three Stooges" (Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey, Karen Handel, and Jack Kingston) will push each other into ever-more-absurd levels of political extremism and outright denial of reality until the craziest of them wins the nomination; then someone like Michelle Nunn will show up on the Democratic side to turn another safe Republican seat into a barn-burner.
  
  
• Mary Landrieu will turn out be 2014's version of Claire McCaskill: The Red State Democrat everybody thinks they can beat, but nobody can.
  
  
• Montana's Senate race will go down to the wire instead of being a cake-walk for the GOP.
  
  
• Mark Warner will cruise to an easy win in Virginia.
  
  
• Even if the GOP then sweeps the remaining likely Democratic turnover/tossup seats (in South Dakota, Arkansas, and North Carolina), that will result in at best a +2 or +3 gain for them overall. It might even be worse if, say, they do a bad job of candidate selection in someplace like Iowa or Nebraska.

This has been the pattern for the last two cycles: On paper, the GOP should take the Senate; but in practice, then nominate idiots who can't help but say and do stupid things in the final stretch, costing them seats and helping the Democrats retain control of the chamber.

[Saiwania]

You call Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada Republican "strongholds"; yet in fact they are not. Florida has been a swing State for most of the last 20 years; it has voted Democratic in four of the last six National elections. Iowa is also a swing State, but one where Democrats have an even greater historical advantage, having won there in five the last six National elections. Colorado and Nevada, OTOH, are States that have actually flipped, as has Virginia: All three have experienced important demographic changes that have rendered them more Democratic with each passing year, and with each passing year it is going to be harder to flip them back. And down the road, Arizona, Montana, and Georgia are all on track to follow them.

This is partially why I feel the need to eventually leave the US, I think it is doomed politically going forward and it just won't be the country I am used to anymore. I'm essentially giving up on it and don't want to stay around to see the demographic change take place. I will need to leave while I still can but I don't know to where. I wonder how many other White Republicans might feel the same way?

I think conservatives must consider the possibility that there will be no future for them at all in the US and perhaps their only recourse will be to build a new life in a different country. Many former Nazis for example, escaped to Argentina and adjusted quite well to their new home. I think the GOP could have an expatriate community survive at least somewhere on this Earth.

[Alien Space Bats]

This is partially why I feel the need to eventually leave the US, I think it is doomed politically going forward and it just won't be the country I am used to anymore. I'm essentially giving up on it and don't want to stay around to see the demographic change take place. I will need to leave while I still can but I don't know to where. I wonder how many other White Republicans might feel the same way?

I think conservatives must consider the possibility that there will be no future for them at all in the US and perhaps their only recourse will be to build a new life in a different country. Many former Nazis for example, escaped to Argentina and adjusted quite well to their new home. I think the GOP could have an expatriate community survive at least somewhere on this Earth.

What country is going to want to accept such a group, knowing the problems it will cause?

[Ashmoria]

I'm not buying it.

First, I'm going to go on record right now telling you (and everybody else here) that neither Marco Rubio nor Chris Christie are going to be the GOP nominee.

As far as the Tea Party wing of the Party is concerned, both are damaged goods. Add the in fact that Cuban-Americans are not especially popular among other Latinos and that Rubio's reputation as the man who can bring Latinos into the GOP fold is therefore overblown, and the fact that Chris Christie faces serious problems when it comes to raising funds from Wall Street as long as he remains a sitting governor (if firms that trade in municipal bonds give money to any public official who can influence bond sales, the SEC can and will ban them from trading that State's bonds for two years, which can cost such a firm hundreds of millions of dollars in profits [or at least it can have that effect in the case of a large State like New Jersey or Texas — and now you know why Rick Perry isn't running for re-election...]), and it's pretty easy to rule out either one of these guys as the likely nominee.

No, my money is on Ted Cruz. Mark this day on your calendar and remember that you heard it here first.

ohgod i hope you are wrong.

the only thing worse than having to listen to that oily man lie to the public through november '16 would be having to tolerate him as president for 4 years. *shudder* it took me YEARS to get past how much W looked like his dad. by the time it stopped creeping me out (uncanny valley in real life) i hated him for real reasons.

[Ashmoria]

You call Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada Republican "strongholds"; yet in fact they are not. Florida has been a swing State for most of the last 20 years; it has voted Democratic in four of the last six National elections. Iowa is also a swing State, but one where Democrats have an even greater historical advantage, having won there in five the last six National elections. Colorado and Nevada, OTOH, are States that have actually flipped, as has Virginia: All three have experienced important demographic changes that have rendered them more Democratic with each passing year, and with each passing year it is going to be harder to flip them back. And down the road, Arizona, Montana, and Georgia are all on track to follow them.

This is partially why I feel the need to eventually leave the US, I think it is doomed politically going forward and it just won't be the country I am used to anymore. I'm essentially giving up on it and don't want to stay around to see the demographic change take place. I will need to leave while I still can but I don't know to where. I wonder how many other White Republicans might feel the same way?

I think conservatives must consider the possibility that there will be no future for them at all in the US and perhaps their only recourse will be to build a new life in a different country. Many former Nazis for example, escaped to Argentina and adjusted quite well to their new home. I think the GOP could have an expatriate community survive at least somewhere on this Earth.

oh isnt someone making a huge gated community in one of the central american countries? work hard and maybe you too can afford to live in gault's gulch.

[Bottle]

This is partially why I feel the need to eventually leave the US, I think it is doomed politically going forward and it just won't be the country I am used to anymore. I'm essentially giving up on it and don't want to stay around to see the demographic change take place. I will need to leave while I still can but I don't know to where. I wonder how many other White Republicans might feel the same way?

I think conservatives must consider the possibility that there will be no future for them at all in the US and perhaps their only recourse will be to build a new life in a different country. Many former Nazis for example, escaped to Argentina and adjusted quite well to their new home. I think the GOP could have an expatriate community survive at least somewhere on this Earth.

What country is going to want to accept such a group, knowing the problems it will cause?

I'm pretty sure this is the real reason why all the White Nationalists in the USA refuse to set up the White Homeland they're all so deeply committed to. I mean, sure, many of them say that they're just not willing to give up AMURKA as the home of the white man, on principle, but I honestly think the real reason is they know they have nowhere to go.

What they would have to do in order to actually have their "own country" is something along the lines of what the People's Temple tried to do. They'd have to obtain a stretch of unused land in a developing nation, and build everything from the ground up. And despite the He-man Cowboy image, I've found that very few White Nationalists are prepared to do their own laundry, let alone build a working community.

[Saiwania]

What country is going to want to accept such a group, knowing the problems it will cause?

If Jim Jones can found his own village in Guyana and convince many of the people there to commit mass suicide, I'm sure former Republicans can find some place to go, at least until they all die off and splinter into conservative and liberal again and get absorbed into the prevailing politics of their new countries. I don't deny that eventually the old GOP platform will run its course and die.

[Ashmoria]

What country is going to want to accept such a group, knowing the problems it will cause?

If Jim Jones can found his own village in Guyana and convince many of the people there to commit mass suicide, I'm sure former Republicans can find somewhere to go.

i dont see bunches of old white men becoming homesteaders in the jungle.

[Bottle]

If Jim Jones can found his own village in Guyana and convince many of the people there to commit mass suicide, I'm sure former Republicans can find somewhere to go.

i dont see bunches of old white men becoming homesteaders in the jungle.

Wow, I'm kinda creeped out that I called it exactly...

And yeah, that's the thing. Jim Jones got a lot of people who were ACTUALLY disadvantaged in their home country, and motivated them to go somewhere better by promising them that they could build a better place. Deep down, most American White Nationalists know how good they have it here, so they're not going to be as easily motivated to go start over somewhere else.

But hey, prove me wrong, Aryans!

[Bottle]

This is partially why I feel the need to eventually leave the US, I think it is doomed politically going forward and it just won't be the country I am used to anymore. I'm essentially giving up on it and don't want to stay around to see the demographic change take place. I will need to leave while I still can but I don't know to where. I wonder how many other White Republicans might feel the same way?

I think conservatives must consider the possibility that there will be no future for them at all in the US and perhaps their only recourse will be to build a new life in a different country. Many former Nazis for example, escaped to Argentina and adjusted quite well to their new home. I think the GOP could have an expatriate community survive at least somewhere on this Earth.

oh isnt someone making a huge gated community in one of the central american countries? work hard and maybe you too can afford to live in gault's gulch.

Glenn Beck is building one right here in the states!

You, too, can be a year-round resident of Randian Adventuretown, USA!

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/17/gle ... nce-u-s-a/

[Ashmoria]

oh isnt someone making a huge gated community in one of the central american countries? work hard and maybe you too can afford to live in gault's gulch.

Glenn Beck is building one right here in the states!

You, too, can be a year-round resident of Randian Adventuretown, USA!

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/17/gle ... nce-u-s-a/

oh yeah i forgot that one.

but ...i know its not advertised as such but surely it will be rather...mormon.. if it ever gets built

[Ashmoria]

i dont see bunches of old white men becoming homesteaders in the jungle.

Wow, I'm kinda creeped out that I called it exactly...

And yeah, that's the thing. Jim Jones got a lot of people who were ACTUALLY disadvantaged in their home country, and motivated them to go somewhere better by promising them that they could build a better place. Deep down, most American White Nationalists know how good they have it here, so they're not going to be as easily motivated to go start over somewhere else.

But hey, prove me wrong, Aryans!

some of the disaffected young aryans do move to idaho to join up with like-minded people.

which is a shame because idaho is otherwise a great state.

[Bottle]

Wow, I'm kinda creeped out that I called it exactly...

And yeah, that's the thing. Jim Jones got a lot of people who were ACTUALLY disadvantaged in their home country, and motivated them to go somewhere better by promising them that they could build a better place. Deep down, most American White Nationalists know how good they have it here, so they're not going to be as easily motivated to go start over somewhere else.

But hey, prove me wrong, Aryans!

some of the disaffected young aryans do move to idaho to join up with like-minded people.

which is a shame because idaho is otherwise a great state.

Oh, to be sure, there's always a few genuine survivalist types sprinkled in to any radical community. I don't deny that they exist, I just don't think there's enough of them to make a modern, functioning nation. They can go camping together and play guns in the woods and such, but none of that has value when it comes to the grown-up day-to-day requirements for running a country.

[AiliailiA]

You call Virginia, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada Republican "strongholds"; yet in fact they are not. Florida has been a swing State for most of the last 20 years; it has voted Democratic in four of the last six National elections. Iowa is also a swing State, but one where Democrats have an even greater historical advantage, having won there in five the last six National elections. Colorado and Nevada, OTOH, are States that have actually flipped, as has Virginia: All three have experienced important demographic changes that have rendered them more Democratic with each passing year, and with each passing year it is going to be harder to flip them back. And down the road, Arizona, Montana, and Georgia are all on track to follow them.

This is partially why I feel the need to eventually leave the US, I think it is doomed politically going forward and it just won't be the country I am used to anymore. I'm essentially giving up on it and don't want to stay around to see the demographic change take place. I will need to leave while I still can but I don't know to where. I wonder how many other White Republicans might feel the same way?

I think conservatives must consider the possibility that there will be no future for them at all in the US and perhaps their only recourse will be to build a new life in a different country. Many former Nazis for example, escaped to Argentina and adjusted quite well to their new home. I think the GOP could have an expatriate community survive at least somewhere on this Earth.

If you can't bear to live in a country because it "just won't be the country I am used to" then where could you possibly hope to live?

Is your country leaving you ... or are you just not keeping up.