I was wrong about the GOP POTUS chances.

[Op2]

Well, not completely wrong, but wrong enough. My notion before the 2016 election was this. The GOP has topped 48% only once in the last six elections. And the GOP does poorly with non-whites. And the country is becoming more and more non-white over time. Thus it was going to get harder and harder for the GOP to win national elections.

That all makes sense as far as it goes. But here is a component I think I missed. The increasing diversity isn't happening equally in every state. So a state that is already likely to vote Democrat can get more and more diverse and vote more and more Democrat but it doesn't help the Democrats get more electoral votes.

So although the Democrats have been getting more and more of the popular vote that won't necessarily translate into more Democrat wins. This is evidenced in the fact that the GOP has now topped 48% only once in the (now) last seven elections and yet they're won three of them, including two when they lost the popular vote.

I still think the dynamic is happening to some degree though because the diverse places are growing in population more than the non-diverse ones so they'll get more electoral votes over time. So the GOP is going to have to diversify its appeal eventually. But I thought that spelled doom for them in national elections until they broadened their appeal by a significant amount and that proved to be wrong.

Then again the GOP did somehow broaden their appeal a bit in this election because Trump somehow got a larger percent of the Latino and Asian vote than did Romney. That mystifies me. (Trump also got a larger percent of the black vote but that is understandable since Obama isn't running this time.)

Two big ones going in the wrong direction for the GOP though, and who will get even more electoral votes come the 2020 census, are VA and NC. The GOP better lock up some of those blue states that turned red in 2016 in the Rust Belt because they're going to have a harder and harder time winning VA and NC.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Well, not completely wrong, but wrong enough. My notion before the 2016 election was this. The GOP has topped 48% only once in the last six elections. And the GOP does poorly with non-whites. And the country is becoming more and more non-white over time. Thus it was going to get harder and harder for the GOP to win national elections.

That all makes sense as far as it goes. But here is a component I think I missed. The increasing diversity isn't happening equally in every state. So a state that is already likely to vote Democrat can get more and more diverse and vote more and more Democrat but it doesn't help the Democrats get more electoral votes.

So although the Democrats have been getting more and more of the popular vote that won't necessarily translate into more Democrat wins. This is evidenced in the fact that the GOP has now topped 48% only once in the (now) last seven elections and yet they're won three of them, including two when they lost the popular vote.

I still think the dynamic is happening to some degree though because the diverse places are growing in population more than the non-diverse ones so they'll get more electoral votes over time. So the GOP is going to have to diversify its appeal eventually. But I thought that spelled doom for them in national elections until they broadened their appeal by a significant amount and that proved to be wrong.

Then again the GOP did somehow broaden their appeal a bit in this election because Trump somehow got a larger percent of the Latino and Asian vote than did Romney. That mystifies me. (Trump also got a larger percent of the black vote but that is understandable since Obama isn't running this time.)

Two big ones going in the wrong direction for the GOP though, and who will get even more electoral votes come the 2020 census, are VA and NC. The GOP better lock up some of those blue states that turned red in 2016 in the Rust Belt because they're going to have a harder and harder time winning VA and NC.

All well and good, how does that translate to the absolute evisceration of the Dem House/Senate/Gubernatorial infrastructure over the last 6 years? Likely to get even worse in 2018?

 

[PriddyBoy]

Well, not completely wrong, but wrong enough. My notion before the 2016 election was this. The GOP has topped 48% only once in the last six elections. And the GOP does poorly with non-whites. And the country is becoming more and more non-white over time. Thus it was going to get harder and harder for the GOP to win national elections.

That all makes sense as far as it goes. But here is a component I think I missed. The increasing diversity isn't happening equally in every state. So a state that is already likely to vote Democrat can get more and more diverse and vote more and more Democrat but it doesn't help the Democrats get more electoral votes.

So although the Democrats have been getting more and more of the popular vote that won't necessarily translate into more Democrat wins. This is evidenced in the fact that the GOP has now topped 48% only once in the (now) last seven elections and yet they're won three of them, including two when they lost the popular vote.

I still think the dynamic is happening to some degree though because the diverse places are growing in population more than the non-diverse ones so they'll get more electoral votes over time. So the GOP is going to have to diversify its appeal eventually. But I thought that spelled doom for them in national elections until they broadened their appeal by a significant amount and that proved to be wrong.

Then again the GOP did somehow broaden their appeal a bit in this election because Trump somehow got a larger percent of the Latino and Asian vote than did Romney. That mystifies me. (Trump also got a larger percent of the black vote but that is understandable since Obama isn't running this time.)

Two big ones going in the wrong direction for the GOP though, and who will get even more electoral votes come the 2020 census, are VA and NC. The GOP better lock up some of those blue states that turned red in 2016 in the Rust Belt because they're going to have a harder and harder time winning VA and NC.

OpiLeaks Part 1
The Democrats could break out Al Capone or Al Bundy or Al Yankovic or Ow My Balls and it wouldn't matter. It's over and it has been for a long time. The GOP nominated a historically bad candidate and thus they're going to lose badly even though the Democrats nominated a weak candidate.
6
Op2

 

[CAJUNEER]

Well, not completely wrong, but wrong enough. My notion before the 2016 election was this. The GOP has topped 48% only once in the last six elections. And the GOP does poorly with non-whites. And the country is becoming more and more non-white over time. Thus it was going to get harder and harder for the GOP to win national elections.

That all makes sense as far as it goes. But here is a component I think I missed. The increasing diversity isn't happening equally in every state. So a state that is already likely to vote Democrat can get more and more diverse and vote more and more Democrat but it doesn't help the Democrats get more electoral votes.

So although the Democrats have been getting more and more of the popular vote that won't necessarily translate into more Democrat wins. This is evidenced in the fact that the GOP has now topped 48% only once in the (now) last seven elections and yet they're won three of them, including two when they lost the popular vote.

I still think the dynamic is happening to some degree though because the diverse places are growing in population more than the non-diverse ones so they'll get more electoral votes over time. So the GOP is going to have to diversify its appeal eventually. But I thought that spelled doom for them in national elections until they broadened their appeal by a significant amount and that proved to be wrong.

Then again the GOP did somehow broaden their appeal a bit in this election because Trump somehow got a larger percent of the Latino and Asian vote than did Romney. That mystifies me. (Trump also got a larger percent of the black vote but that is understandable since Obama isn't running this time.)

Two big ones going in the wrong direction for the GOP though, and who will get even more electoral votes come the 2020 census, are VA and NC. The GOP better lock up some of those blue states that turned red in 2016 in the Rust Belt because they're going to have a harder and harder time winning VA and NC.

I like this post. You start by saying you were not completely wrong, then make statements to ensure you are completely wrong going forward.

 

[Op2]

OpiLeaks Part 1
The Democrats could break out Al Capone or Al Bundy or Al Yankovic or Ow My Balls and it wouldn't matter. It's over and it has been for a long time. The GOP nominated a historically bad candidate and thus they're going to lose badly even though the Democrats nominated a weak candidate.
6
Op2

Touche.

 

[Op2]

All well and good, how does that translate to the absolute evisceration of the Dem House/Senate/Gubernatorial infrastructure over the last 6 years? Likely to get even worse in 2018?

The top of the ticket trickles down to some degree but I don't think the Democrats got beaten that badly in the House and Senate anyway. The Democrats gained seats in the Senate. I think off year elections usually benefit the party not in the White House.

 

[roadtrasheer]

Imo...the democrats are now loosing the working class ,Asians are not looking for a free ride , legal Hispanics are not as well , even illegal if they come for work & not crime . Union membershipis dropping all plays a part in what happen add the fact hillary is a criminal that the corrupt DNC forced down dems face

 

[TarHeelEer]

Imo...the democrats are now loosing the working class ,Asians are not looking for a free ride , legal Hispanics are not as well , even illegal if they come for work & not crime . Union membershipis dropping all plays a part in what happen add the fact hillary is a criminal that the corrupt DNC forced down dems face

Dems losing all of the down-ballot elections is going to hurt in the future. They don't have much of pool of governors that can move up to become presidential candidates. Watch for Republicans to make inroads to winning over blacks this 4 year cycle.

Click me

 

[bornaneer]

The biggest challenge the GOP has is overcoming the indoctrination of our young that is taking place in our educational system. That why as people grow older they learn from their life experiences.

 

[WVUBRU]

Dems losing all of the down-ballot elections is going to hurt in the future. They don't have much of pool of governors that can move up to become presidential candidates. Watch for Republicans to make inroads to winning over blacks this 4 year cycle.

Click me

See Coolman. Here is a very good an honest opinion on a subject that I may or may not agree with. But my opinion doesn't matter. What does matter is it should be respected as a valid opinion and it is interesting. That is what you can expect from me.

My apologies THE for using your post as an example on a point that was ludicrous on another thread .

 

[countryroads89]

Watch for Republicans to make inroads to winning over blacks this 4 year cycle.

 

[lenny4wvu]

Well, not completely wrong, but wrong enough. My notion before the 2016 election was this. The GOP has topped 48% only once in the last six elections. And the GOP does poorly with non-whites. And the country is becoming more and more non-white over time. Thus it was going to get harder and harder for the GOP to win national elections.

That all makes sense as far as it goes. But here is a component I think I missed. The increasing diversity isn't happening equally in every state. So a state that is already likely to vote Democrat can get more and more diverse and vote more and more Democrat but it doesn't help the Democrats get more electoral votes.

So although the Democrats have been getting more and more of the popular vote that won't necessarily translate into more Democrat wins. This is evidenced in the fact that the GOP has now topped 48% only once in the (now) last seven elections and yet they're won three of them, including two when they lost the popular vote.

I still think the dynamic is happening to some degree though because the diverse places are growing in population more than the non-diverse ones so they'll get more electoral votes over time. So the GOP is going to have to diversify its appeal eventually. But I thought that spelled doom for them in national elections until they broadened their appeal by a significant amount and that proved to be wrong.

Then again the GOP did somehow broaden their appeal a bit in this election because Trump somehow got a larger percent of the Latino and Asian vote than did Romney. That mystifies me. (Trump also got a larger percent of the black vote but that is understandable since Obama isn't running this time.)

Two big ones going in the wrong direction for the GOP though, and who will get even more electoral votes come the 2020 census, are VA and NC. The GOP better lock up some of those blue states that turned red in 2016 in the Rust Belt because they're going to have a harder and harder time winning VA and NC.

Eliminate the sanctuary cities and America will be great again...get CORRECT interpretation of the 14th ammendment,appoint conservative judges to the SCOTUS,and we'll be golden.. get "the brown out"..

 

[WVPATX]

The top of the ticket trickles down to some degree but I don't think the Democrats got beaten that badly in the House and Senate anyway. The Democrats gained seats in the Senate. I think off year elections usually benefit the party not in the White House.

2108 is looking very bad for Dem Senators. They have many very red state senate seats to defend. I would not look for a Dem wave, in fact Dem losses are highly probable. The expectations for Trump are so low that almost anything halfway positive that he does will be met with approval. As I posted last night, under Obama. Dems have seen historic losses at the state and federal level. Absolute obliteration at the State level which great hurts their farm teams. The Dems have moved very, very far left. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie are now the souls of the Dem party and arguably two of their party leaders. They will want the party to move even further left.

As you noted, Trump actually did slightly better with blacks, hispanics and Asians. He has a chance to improve even more on those numbers. Blacks have done terribly under Dem rule in major cities. Blacks under Obama policies fared no better. I would suggest that Trump could begin a massive rebuilding program aimed in part at inner cities. He could initiate, over the objections of liberal mayors, a major build up of charter schools in inner cities and open up school choice. With lower corporate taxes, repatriation of overseas corporate funds (in the trillions), lowering of individual taxes and tax simplification, unleashing of energy (coal, oil and gas, renewables) Trump could create strong economic growth and jobs, including for minorities. Even if he got to just 25% of the black vote, he'd be very hard to beat.

As for Hispanics, I think you will see Trump move rapidly to deport felony criminals from the U.S (everyone favors that). He will eliminate sanctuary cities that house these criminal aliens. I think he will enact a guest worker program for the rest. He will secure the border with a wall and virtual wall thus protecting wages for all workers, including Hispanic workers. This will attract lots of Hispanic voters who favor those policies and would now have legal status in the U.S.

Parties change. The GOP has been taken over by Trump. The GOP elite have been defeated. The new GOP party is more populist and it grew their base dramatically in rust belt states. Dems used to have a lock on those voters. The Dems have moved toward big money (Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood) and minority segments. It has turned off labor and rust belt Democrats. Dems want open borders as supported by both Wall Street for cheap labor and Silicon Valley for both cheap labor and skilled labor. Americans overwhelmingly reject that notion. We have no country without enforceable borders.

I think we will see great changes to both parties as they try and figure out how to navigate a changing U.S. populace.

 

[mneilmont]

Then again the GOP did somehow broaden their appeal a bit in this election because Trump somehow got a larger percent of the Latino and Asian vote than did Romney. That mystifies me. (Trump also got a larger percent of the black vote but that is understandable since Obama isn't running this time.)

Two big ones going in the wrong direction for the GOP though, and who will get even more electoral votes come the 2020 census, are VA and NC. The GOP better lock up some of those blue states that turned red in 2016 in the Rust Belt because they're going to have a harder and harder time winning VA and NC.

I have certainly looked forward to your post. I thought you were expounding the death of the Republican Party until they adopt the liberal philosophy of the Democrat Party? Minorities are increasing so it becomes absolutely necessary to become more attractive to those that you thought would adopt the liberal thinking simply because they are minority. That is flawed thinking on your part. There is nothing that absolutely states minorities are liberals. Actually, more and more minorities are conservative. It would be flawed thinking that they can be categorized in only one simple belief. To the contrary, more and more minorities are going to be entrepreneurs in their neighborhoods. That will largely translate into Conservative.

And you overlooked the voting public. There is a very large body of people who do not vote - youth, black, etc. To overcome the growth you anticipated, Conservatives had to be reactivated- larger percent of party and independents voting conservative. Trump made so many house calls(neighborhood speeches), he renewed interest of party and indys who have been skipping.

You see, you do not get two parties of liberals as you assumed. Left did move further left, but conservatives did not follow left but remained more center-right.

 

[WVPATX]

The biggest challenge the GOP has is overcoming the indoctrination of our young that is taking place in our educational system. That why as people grow older they learn from their life experiences.

This is exactly correct. My daughters have mostly graduated from universities very recently. It is a cesspool of political correctness and indoctrination.

I have thought that one approach can be taken with state schools. Legislatures in conservative states should begin to withhold money unless these universities right their ships. More ideological diversity in the classrooms. Elimination of safe rooms, trigger warnings, and the like. Elimination of politically correct programs. Focus on real education and get rid of programs that offer little to no benefit (e.g. gender studies). What kind of job will that lead to, lol. Elimination of political propaganda in the classroom. If a professor is found to be engaging in indoctrination in the classroom and outside of the coursework, those professors must be punished. Get rid of tenure. Administration costs must be lowered dramatically, thus lowering the cost of education. I don't believe Admin costs should be higher than 15% of the total budget. That is essentially how businesses are run.

These are but a few examples, but this indoctrination must end. We are not preparing these kids for life or jobs.

 

[countryroads89]

Legislatures in conservative states should begin to withhold money unless these universities right their ships. Elimination of political propaganda in the classroom.

You are a phucking fascist....and an idiot. You obviously never attended college. You are threatening state funded schools to withhold money unless they teach what you want them to teach.

I hope and pray we never have legislators like you.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

phucking fascist

Ahhhhh, the new buzz word of the next 4 years.

 

[WVPATX]

You are a phucking fascist....and an idiot. You obviously never attended college. You are threatening state funded schools to withhold money unless they teach what you want them to teach.

I hope and pray we never have legislators like you.

I really, really wish you had more reading comprehension. Schools strive for diversity in every aspect except ideology. Why not offer different opinions to students from professors with different backgrounds and different experiences? Surely you can't be opposed to that. And if the state is subsidizing education, why not provide oversight and get rid of programs that are ineffective and offer students no real career paths.

State schools should be in the business of preparing students for life and a career. If they offer programs with no career path, why provide financial support? If they want specific classes in gender studies as part of elective courses, fine. But it is wasted money if the kids can't get jobs.

BTW, the money we are talking about is tax dollars and it is perfectly legitimate for a state to overseas how that money is being spent. If money is being ill used, stop the spending. Feds do this all the time. But often in the opposite direction forcing schools to spend money very, very inefficiently.

 

[countryroads89]

Why not offer different opinions to students from professors with different backgrounds and different experiences?

State schools should be in the business of preparing students for life and a career. If they want specific classes in gender studies as part of elective courses, fine.

^^^ This is exactly what they currently do.

 

[WVPATX]

^^^ This is exactly what they currently do.

You need to talk to some WVU executives. They admit they have some programs that really don't provide career options for students. WVU is not as bad as some schools. Their economic department actually has a nice percentage of conservative professors. Not so much in the humanities. But many schools are almost entirely liberal. That is not education. That is indoctrination. Diversity is a good thing, right?

 

[CAJUNEER]

^^^ This is exactly what they currently do.

In many state institutions a conservative can get a teaching position if her or his political opinions are unknown. If one's conservatism becomes known the work environment becomes hostile and there is no chance of tenure.

 

[PriddyBoy]

You are a phucking fascist....and an idiot. You obviously never attended college. You are threatening state funded schools to withhold money unless they teach what you want them to teach.

I hope and pray we never have legislators like you.

You are a puss filled spunk bubble who calls people names.

 

[countryroads89]

You are a puss filled spunk bubble who calls people names.

You need to talk to some WVU executives. They admit they have some programs that really don't provide career options for students. WVU is not as bad as some schools. Their economic department actually has a nice percentage of conservative professors. Not so much in the humanities. But many schools are almost entirely liberal. That is not education. That is indoctrination. Diversity is a good thing, right?

Most highly educated people are liberals.

 

[WVPATX]

In many state institutions a conservative can get a teaching position if her or his political opinions are unknown. If one's conservatism becomes known the work environment becomes hostile and there is no chance of tenure.

Many lawsuits have been filed for just that reason. Conservative professors have a very hard time getting a job often because of their ideology. Just look at the staggering stats at the percentages of liberal professors in colleges and universities. There is nothing diverse about that.

 

[WVPATX]

Most highly educated people are liberals.

And the highest grades and test scores for university applicants is overwhelmingly Asian. It doesn't stop universities from giving spots to non Asians who don't test as well nor have the same GPA.

 

[bornaneer]

Most highly educated people are liberals.

And we all know that most liberals are idiots.

 

[CAJUNEER]

Most highly educated people are liberals.

That's only marginally true. When polls are taken of educators they find a large majority are liberal. It's much less true of those working outside education.

 

[EEResistable]

Well, not completely wrong, but wrong enough. My notion before the 2016 election was this. The GOP has topped 48% only once in the last six elections. And the GOP does poorly with non-whites. And the country is becoming more and more non-white over time. Thus it was going to get harder and harder for the GOP to win national elections.

That all makes sense as far as it goes. But here is a component I think I missed. The increasing diversity isn't happening equally in every state. So a state that is already likely to vote Democrat can get more and more diverse and vote more and more Democrat but it doesn't help the Democrats get more electoral votes.

So although the Democrats have been getting more and more of the popular vote that won't necessarily translate into more Democrat wins. This is evidenced in the fact that the GOP has now topped 48% only once in the (now) last seven elections and yet they're won three of them, including two when they lost the popular vote.

I still think the dynamic is happening to some degree though because the diverse places are growing in population more than the non-diverse ones so they'll get more electoral votes over time. So the GOP is going to have to diversify its appeal eventually. But I thought that spelled doom for them in national elections until they broadened their appeal by a significant amount and that proved to be wrong.

Then again the GOP did somehow broaden their appeal a bit in this election because Trump somehow got a larger percent of the Latino and Asian vote than did Romney. That mystifies me. (Trump also got a larger percent of the black vote but that is understandable since Obama isn't running this time.)

Two big ones going in the wrong direction for the GOP though, and who will get even more electoral votes come the 2020 census, are VA and NC. The GOP better lock up some of those blue states that turned red in 2016 in the Rust Belt because they're going to have a harder and harder time winning VA and NC.

You were completely wrong. You still have no idea why he won. Forget the GOP. People didn't vote for Trump because he was a Republican.

It's the economy. It's about jobs. It's about the cost of healthcare. It's because of Nafta and the TPP. Forget political parties. We voted for someone we believe will put Americans first, damn the globalists.

 

[CAJUNEER]

You were completely wrong. You still have no idea why he won. Forget the GOP. People didn't vote for Trump because he was a Republican.

It's the economy. It's about jobs. It's about the cost of healthcare. It's because of Nafta and the TPP. Forget political parties. We voted for someone we believe will put Americans first, damn the globalists.

Here's something else the media and the left still don't get: tens of millions didn't just vote against Hillary. They are every enthusiastic about Trump. The media keeps saying all these people were voting against the establishment. They don't get these people believe in Trump.

 

[WVPATX]

You were completely wrong. You still have no idea why he won. Forget the GOP. People didn't vote for Trump because he was a Republican.

It's the economy. It's about jobs. It's about the cost of healthcare. It's because of Nafta and the TPP. Forget political parties. We voted for someone we believe will put Americans first, damn the globalists.

I think Trump won in large part because he ran against the elite in both parties. The NEVERTRUMP movement in the GOP was huge. The National Review and Weekly Standard along with the Wall Street Journal lead the charge.

 

[countryroads89]

I don't disagree with you guys about why people voted for Trump but there is a big disconnect. People voted for him for the economy and jobs but he has all of his products made in other countries, buys Chinese steel and aluminum, doesn't pay people that have worked for him and has declared bankruptcy four times.

Sounds like solid logic. I'll bet he does wonders for our economy.

 

[EEResistable]

I don't disagree with you guys about why people voted for Trump but there is a big disconnect. People voted for him for the economy and jobs but he has all of his products made in other countries, buys Chinese steel and aluminum, doesn't pay people that have worked for him and has declared bankruptcy four times.

Sounds like solid logic. I'll bet he does wonders for our economy.

He's a business man. Good business means getting supplies for as little money as possible. And bankruptcy is a valid business tool.

Hopefully we will begin to make products in American again. Change Nafta first. Stop exporting our jobs.

 

[countryroads89]

He's a business man. Good business means getting supplies for as little money as possible. And bankruptcy is a valid business tool.

Hopefully we will begin to make products in American again. Change Nafta first. Stop exporting our jobs.[/QUOTE

 

[countryroads89]

He's a business man. Good business means getting supplies for as little money as possible. And bankruptcy is a valid business tool.

Hopefully we will begin to make products in American again. Change Nafta first. Stop exporting our jobs.

Case in point.

 

[WVPATX]

I don't disagree with you guys about why people voted for Trump but there is a big disconnect. People voted for him for the economy and jobs but he has all of his products made in other countries, buys Chinese steel and aluminum, doesn't pay people that have worked for him and has declared bankruptcy four times.

Sounds like solid logic. I'll bet he does wonders for our economy.

Abraham Lincoln declared bankruptcy as did Henry Ford. So did Walt Disney and Milton Hershey. Ever heard of HJ Heinz? Yes, bankruptcy. Steven Jobs was fired from Apple for goodness sake. In business, a failure or even multiple failure means nothing. Risks are involved in all endeavors.

I think his plan of much lower corporate taxes, lower individual taxes, infrastructure spending, repatriation of corporate overseas profits, tax code simplification, massive new energy exploration will all mean more economic growth and jobs.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I don't disagree with you guys about why people voted for Trump but there is a big disconnect. People voted for him for the economy and jobs but he has all of his products made in other countries, buys Chinese steel and aluminum, doesn't pay people that have worked for him and has declared bankruptcy four times.

Sounds like solid logic. I'll bet he does wonders for our economy.

Do you know the average of businesses that fail as compared to succeed? How about how many individual programs make money vs not? I've taken Programs on knowing that I'll lose money solely for broadening my base, gaining past performance, and employing people for the purpose of gaining synergies to aid profitable ventures?

Again, you show very little knowledge about business with your every hate filled uninformed post.