Hillary vs __________(insert name here) 2016: Hillary Loses badly (1 Viewer)

[danielmclark]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

Now that's a good point.

Of course Bill brings his own mixed bag with the ladies also.

From 20 years ago. There hasn't been anything since then.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

Now that's a good point.

Of course Bill brings his own mixed bag with the ladies also.

From 20 years ago. There hasn't been anything since then.

Yeah that's true, granted.

And I don't know if it was you who said it but if the GOP tries to bring Ms. Beret back into the picture, I think they will get a lot of rolling eyes and negativity themselves.

 

[Thunderlips]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

I would expect the black vote to fall back to where it's always been. Hillary simply isn't that exciting and she's not Barack Obama. And she's old - as unfair as that sounds I think it will harm her more than it would a man.

Does Hillary attract more Independents than Obama did in 12?....Would that be enough to overcome any black falloff?....What about 1st time women voters wanting to be in on the First Woman POTUS?...... Plus, how many of those black votes would be redundant or unneccessary (California, New York, Jersey, Illinois?)

Hillary DOES need to walk a bit of a tightrope....she needs to placate Obama and his people while convincing any Indys or Fence Democrats that she's not Obama.

 

[danielmclark]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

Now that's a good point.

Of course Bill brings his own mixed bag with the ladies also.

From 20 years ago. There hasn't been anything since then.

Yeah that's true, granted.

And I don't know if it was you who said it but if the GOP tries to bring Ms. Beret back into the picture, I think they will get a lot of rolling eyes and negativity themselves.

I might've said that, but if I haven't yet, I probably would eventually. It's quite true... trying to bring her up is already backfiring in a spectacular way - if it goes beyond Rand Paul... well, it'll be hilarious if nothing else.

 

[roadkill1292]

Another demographic challenge the Republicans face is the urban-rural divide. Metropolitan areas are getting larger and cities vote Democrat. Cities are secular, have a lot of cultural diversity and expect a functional government (even if they don't get it in a lot of places). A platform of smaller government and strong traditional family structures doesn't have nearly the pull in those precincts.

 

[cstu]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

I would expect the black vote to fall back to where it's always been. Hillary simply isn't that exciting and she's not Barack Obama. And she's old - as unfair as that sounds I think it will harm her more than it would a man.

I love people who didn't vote for Obama pretend to know how people who voted for Obama feel about Hillary. Funny stuff.

 

[cstu]

Does Hillary attract more Independents than Obama did in 12?....Would that be enough to overcome any black falloff?....What about 1st time women voters wanting to be in on the First Woman POTUS?...... Plus, how many of those black votes would be redundant or unneccessary (California, New York, Jersey, Illinois?)

Hillary DOES need to walk a bit of a tightrope....she needs to placate Obama and his people while convincing any Indys or Fence Democrats that she's not Obama.

All she needs to do is say how she wants to improve on what Obama started. Not much of a tightrope.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Funny, forgot about Biden - he's gonna run & it's gonna be gold.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Does Hillary attract more Independents than Obama did in 12?....Would that be enough to overcome any black falloff?....What about 1st time women voters wanting to be in on the First Woman POTUS?...... Plus, how many of those black votes would be redundant or unneccessary (California, New York, Jersey, Illinois?)

Hillary DOES need to walk a bit of a tightrope....she needs to placate Obama and his people while convincing any Indys or Fence Democrats that she's not Obama.

All she needs to do is say how she wants to improve on what Obama started. Not much of a tightrope.

"You think Obama Failed? Well...I can fail better!"

 

[MaxThreshold]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

I would expect the black vote to fall back to where it's always been. Hillary simply isn't that exciting and she's not Barack Obama. And she's old - as unfair as that sounds I think it will harm her more than it would a man.

I love people who didn't vote for Obama pretend to know how people who voted for Obama feel about Hillary. Funny stuff.

What's even funnier is progressives who think they know conservatives and the GOP. How about that? We can play this all day.

 

[jwp]

Obama hasn't failed.

 

[Ballstein]

I really hope cruz runs

 

[roadkill1292]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

I would expect the black vote to fall back to where it's always been. Hillary simply isn't that exciting and she's not Barack Obama. And she's old - as unfair as that sounds I think it will harm her more than it would a man.

I love people who didn't vote for Obama pretend to know how people who voted for Obama feel about Hillary. Funny stuff.

What's even funnier is progressives who think they know conservatives and the GOP. How about that? We can play this all day.

Oh, don't be silly. There's millions of words written on this subject (and millions spent on mining the data), many of them even by Republican election observers. There's no secret information that conservatives know and progressives don't. Your hand waving remark is akin to saying "You're not the boss of me." If you've got a valid point to make, then make it.

 

[Apple Jack]

Black vote dropping of for Hillary? What, from 99% to 98%?

 

[Clifford]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

I think the Republicans, in their maniacal chasing of abortion legislation that will never happen along with their ridiculous gender politics have created yet another gap for themselves. Most thinking women I know consider voting for Republicans a vote against themselves at this point.

The only demo their policies and agenda support is the white christian male earning in excess of $150k/year.

ETA: Don't forget about the PUMAs. Not a huge block but one that did not support Obama and will enthusiastically run to the polls for Hillary.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Black vote dropping of for Hillary? What, from 99% to 98%?

Voting? How about just not showing up? She'll get 98% of the traditional black turnout, not the "Barack Obama" inspired turnout.

 

[timschochet]

Black vote dropping of for Hillary? What, from 99% to 98%?

Voting? How about just not showing up? She'll get 98% of the traditional black turnout, not the "Barack Obama" inspired turnout.

And how much difference with that make in electoral numbers? Which states will switch from blue to red as a result?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Black vote dropping of for Hillary? What, from 99% to 98%?

Voting? How about just not showing up? She'll get 98% of the traditional black turnout, not the "Barack Obama" inspired turnout.

And how much difference with that make in electoral numbers? Which states will switch from blue to red as a result?

As stated, the count pre-Obama in 2004 was 11% black, with him it was 13%. Obama actually lost black votes (95% 2008 down to 93% 2012), and in 2004 Bush (incredible but yes) brought in 11% of the black vote.

 

[Insomniac]

Black vote dropping of for Hillary? What, from 99% to 98%?

Voting? How about just not showing up? She'll get 98% of the traditional black turnout, not the "Barack Obama" inspired turnout.

Assuming Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee in 2016, if the turnout of black voters drops it's very likely that higher turnout for single women (another demo that's very strong for Democrats) will increase enough to more than make up for it. I'd also guess that Clinton would get a higher % of married women voters than Obama did.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

I think the Republicans, in their maniacal chasing of abortion legislation that will never happen along with their ridiculous gender politics have created yet another gap for themselves. Most thinking women I know consider voting for Republicans a vote against themselves at this point.

The only demo their policies and agenda support is the white christian male earning in excess of $150k/year.

ETA: Don't forget about the PUMAs. Not a huge block but one that did not support Obama and will enthusiastically run to the polls for Hillary.

Some of this gender politics is way overstated. Romney got 56% of white women, McCain got 53% of white women, Bush 2004 got 55% of white women. I think the ethnic turnout is more important.

 

[timschochet]

Black vote dropping of for Hillary? What, from 99% to 98%?

Voting? How about just not showing up? She'll get 98% of the traditional black turnout, not the "Barack Obama" inspired turnout.

And how much difference with that make in electoral numbers? Which states will switch from blue to red as a result?

As stated, the count pre-Obama in 2004 was 11% black, with him it was 13%. Obama actually lost black votes (95% 2008 down to 93% 2012), and in 2004 Bush (incredible but yes) brought in 11% of the black vote.

OK, but it still doesn't answer the question of how it affected the electoral numbers. The biggest impact of the black vote for Obama came in the spring of 2008 when he won caucus after caucus in the South and wrapped up the nomination. That proved that if one guy has a lock on 95% of the black vote in the primaries, he's probably going to be the Democratic nominee.

But in terms of the national election, I'm really not sure the difference between 80 and 90% of the black vote is that significant. Unlike Latinos, (or even Jews), they don't live in the right states.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Black vote dropping of for Hillary? What, from 99% to 98%?

Voting? How about just not showing up? She'll get 98% of the traditional black turnout, not the "Barack Obama" inspired turnout.

And how much difference with that make in electoral numbers? Which states will switch from blue to red as a result?

As stated, the count pre-Obama in 2004 was 11% black, with him it was 13%. Obama actually lost black votes (95% 2008 down to 93% 2012), and in 2004 Bush (incredible but yes) brought in 11% of the black vote.

OK, but it still doesn't answer the question of how it affected the electoral numbers.The biggest impact of the black vote for Obama came in the spring of 2008 when he won caucus after caucus in the South and wrapped up the nomination. That proved that if one guy has a lock on 95% of the black vote in the primaries, he's probably going to be the Democratic nominee.

But in terms of the national election, I'm really not sure the difference between 80 and 90% of the black vote is that significant. Unlike Latinos, (or even Jews), they don't live in the right states.

That's a good point, but you did say "caucus" there, which I agree with. The caucuses are not necessarily a reflection of the actual "primaries" (ie actual primary elections). Obama made his hay by jumping the Clintons in the caucuses by out-organizing them. The Clintons actually got more primary votes in the end, they may have even won more primary elections per se.

I think a -2% turnout difference and even a +1.5-3% bump is relevant in elections that are running so close to 50/50.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Black vote dropping of for Hillary? What, from 99% to 98%?

Voting? How about just not showing up? She'll get 98% of the traditional black turnout, not the "Barack Obama" inspired turnout.

Assuming Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee in 2016, if the turnout of black voters drops it's very likely that higher turnout for single women (another demo that's very strong for Democrats) will increase enough to more than make up for it. I'd also guess that Clinton would get a higher % of married women voters than Obama did.

I just don't think women will be "inspired" enough by Hillary Clinton to turnout in large droves to vote. Women will show up in the numbers they always have. It won't be any greater than it normally is. In fact, you could say that it may even be less since she:

1. I think women still think she's suspect since she played dumb back when her husband was in office and messing around. How is she going to run a country if she doesn't even know what's going on in her own house right underneath her nose? That won't be a campaign slogan but people will be thinking it.
2. And if she did know what was going on, then it's obvious she was married to Bill for political convenience. No one likes that. She loses either way.
3. Represents the "boomer" generation - who wants to go back to that?
4. People will mostly be voting for Bill, not Hillary.

 

[timschochet]

Black vote dropping of for Hillary? What, from 99% to 98%?

Voting? How about just not showing up? She'll get 98% of the traditional black turnout, not the "Barack Obama" inspired turnout.

Assuming Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee in 2016, if the turnout of black voters drops it's very likely that higher turnout for single women (another demo that's very strong for Democrats) will increase enough to more than make up for it. I'd also guess that Clinton would get a higher % of married women voters than Obama did.

I just don't think women will be "inspired" enough by Hillary Clinton to turnout in large droves to vote. Women will show up in the numbers they always have. It won't be any greater than it normally is. In fact, you could say that it may even be less since she:

• I think women still think she's suspect since she played dumb back when her husband was in office and messing around. How is she going to run a country if she doesn't even know what's going on in her own house right underneath her nose? That won't be a campaign slogan but people will be thinking it.
• And if she did know what was going on, then it's obvious she was married to Bill for political convenience. No one likes that. She loses either way.
• Represents the "boomer" generation - who wants to go back to that?
• People will mostly be voting for Bill, not Hillary.

This is almost 100% wrong. Poll after poll has demonstrated that Hillary's approval ratings among women rose after Bill's cheating was revealed and has gotten even stronger since. The "boomer" generation will have no negative effect on Hillary. And thanks to her time as Senator and as Secretary of State, the public will be voting for her- they like her and respect her. Really you couldn't be more off if you tried.

 

[Clifford]

Black vote dropping of for Hillary? What, from 99% to 98%?

Voting? How about just not showing up? She'll get 98% of the traditional black turnout, not the "Barack Obama" inspired turnout.

And how much difference with that make in electoral numbers? Which states will switch from blue to red as a result?

As stated, the count pre-Obama in 2004 was 11% black, with him it was 13%. Obama actually lost black votes (95% 2008 down to 93% 2012), and in 2004 Bush (incredible but yes) brought in 11% of the black vote.

Outlawing gay marriage. Blacks don't support the gays. Religious thing. It's how they got the fundie votes as well.

 

[Clifford]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

I think the Republicans, in their maniacal chasing of abortion legislation that will never happen along with their ridiculous gender politics have created yet another gap for themselves. Most thinking women I know consider voting for Republicans a vote against themselves at this point.

The only demo their policies and agenda support is the white christian male earning in excess of $150k/year.

ETA: Don't forget about the PUMAs. Not a huge block but one that did not support Obama and will enthusiastically run to the polls for Hillary.

Some of this gender politics is way overstated. Romney got 56% of white women, McCain got 53% of white women, Bush 2004 got 55% of white women. I think the ethnic turnout is more important.

I think a lot of tge hardcore female Dems stayed away because it was Hilary's "turn."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Overall black vote in 04 was 11% (which amazingly Bush got 11% of), white vote was 77%, hispanic was 8%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

2008 the numbers were 13% black, 74% white, hispanic 9%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

2012 the number was 13% black, 72% white, 10% hispanic. Surprisingly the black GOP vote actually went up from 5% to 7%.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

Now let's just say the GOP doesn't repeat Bush's 11% vote among the black electorate, obviously they can increase the vote among whites, increase the vote among hispanics, or hope (or encourage) blacks to stay home. That last one with no Obama on the ballot is a definite possibility.

I'm also not so sure the Clintons tap that full extent of the 95-93% of the black vote that Obama was getting, much less the 13% turnout level the last two elections.

I'm not saying the GOP wins (oh no), I'm just saying this country is divided 50/50 still and if you think the Clintons will be exciting people or driving black or hispanic turnout all on their lonesome, well, I wouldn't be so sure of that.

As long as Clinton doesn't throw Obama completely under the bus, I don't see black enthusiasm falling off a great deal.....and maybe any fall off will be picked up by the "First Woman POTUS" agenda.....

I think the Republicans, in their maniacal chasing of abortion legislation that will never happen along with their ridiculous gender politics have created yet another gap for themselves. Most thinking women I know consider voting for Republicans a vote against themselves at this point.

The only demo their policies and agenda support is the white christian male earning in excess of $150k/year.

ETA: Don't forget about the PUMAs. Not a huge block but one that did not support Obama and will enthusiastically run to the polls for Hillary.

Some of this gender politics is way overstated. Romney got 56% of white women, McCain got 53% of white women, Bush 2004 got 55% of white women. I think the ethnic turnout is more important.

I think a lot of tge hardcore female Dems stayed away because it was Hilary's "turn."

Again, good point; I agree the female vote could turn out heavy for Hillary.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding gay marriage, polls show that black opinion has changed dramatically on this issue since 2004. If it once could be used as a wedge issue, no longer.

 

[Rove!]

on the plus side, she's occupied some important positions

on the minus side, her the list of her actual accomplishments is small.

I also think age will work against her

 

[timschochet]

But in any case, nobody has yet mentioned the main reason the Democrats, whoever they put up, are a lock to win in 2016: immigration reform. The GOP leadership knew this. They've been warning for years that they had to do something about it. But once again the Tea Party and the House Republicans have managed to kill it. They simply will not accept any sort of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

As a result, Latino voters are more pissed off and energized than ever before. And their vote, unlike those of blacks, is crucial in almost all of the swing states. Given this, a Republican victory seems extremely unlikely IMO.

 

[Rove!]

But in any case, nobody has yet mentioned the main reason the Democrats, whoever they put up, are a lock to win in 2016: immigration reform. The GOP leadership knew this. They've been warning for years that they had to do something about it. But once again the Tea Party and the House Republicans have managed to kill it. They simply will not accept any sort of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

As a result, Latino voters are more pissed off and energized than ever before. And their vote, unlike those of blacks, is crucial in almost all of the swing states. Given this, a Republican victory seems extremely unlikely IMO.

If the R's helped pass immigration reform, do you think it would way Latino voters?

The opportunity to pass it was back in 2005 under President Bush....Now it will just look like pandering

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But in any case, nobody has yet mentioned the main reason the Democrats, whoever they put up, are a lock to win in 2016: immigration reform. The GOP leadership knew this. They've been warning for years that they had to do something about it. But once again the Tea Party and the House Republicans have managed to kill it. They simply will not accept any sort of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

As a result, Latino voters are more pissed off and energized than ever before. And their vote, unlike those of blacks, is crucial in almost all of the swing states. Given this, a Republican victory seems extremely unlikely IMO.

I have no idea if he has the chops, but I do think if he's legit that Rubio provides some serious potential for the GOP on that score and the hispanic vote.

 

[Rove!]

The question for the R's is how do you win over women voters without pandering?

I think you need to frame the debate on the economy and other issues in way that resonates in the way that it impacts women

I think you need to de-macho your foreign policy talking points w/o changing your positions...just sell it differently

 

[MaxThreshold]

Black vote dropping of for Hillary? What, from 99% to 98%?

Voting? How about just not showing up? She'll get 98% of the traditional black turnout, not the "Barack Obama" inspired turnout.

Assuming Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee in 2016, if the turnout of black voters drops it's very likely that higher turnout for single women (another demo that's very strong for Democrats) will increase enough to more than make up for it. I'd also guess that Clinton would get a higher % of married women voters than Obama did.

I just don't think women will be "inspired" enough by Hillary Clinton to turnout in large droves to vote. Women will show up in the numbers they always have. It won't be any greater than it normally is. In fact, you could say that it may even be less since she:

• I think women still think she's suspect since she played dumb back when her husband was in office and messing around. How is she going to run a country if she doesn't even know what's going on in her own house right underneath her nose? That won't be a campaign slogan but people will be thinking it.
• And if she did know what was going on, then it's obvious she was married to Bill for political convenience. No one likes that. She loses either way.
• Represents the "boomer" generation - who wants to go back to that?
• People will mostly be voting for Bill, not Hillary.

This is almost 100% wrong. Poll after poll has demonstrated that Hillary's approval ratings among women rose after Bill's cheating was revealed and has gotten even stronger since. The "boomer" generation will have no negative effect on Hillary. And thanks to her time as Senator and as Secretary of State, the public will be voting for her- they like her and respect her.Really you couldn't be more off if you tried.

Sorry, but that's how it's laid out. I simply don't see the "Hillary" hype with all the baggage she has.

 

[RCon]

But in any case, nobody has yet mentioned the main reason the Democrats, whoever they put up, are a lock to win in 2016: immigration reform. The GOP leadership knew this. They've been warning for years that they had to do something about it. But once again the Tea Party and the House Republicans have managed to kill it. They simply will not accept any sort of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

As a result, Latino voters are more pissed off and energized than ever before. And their vote, unlike those of blacks, is crucial in almost all of the swing states. Given this, a Republican victory seems extremely unlikely IMO.

If the R's helped pass immigration reform, do you think it would way Latino voters?

The opportunity to pass it was back in 2005 under President Bush....Now it will just look like pandering

Speaking purely in terms of what might work politically, the House needs to pass an immigration reform bill that includes a path to citizenship but also includes a (preferably subtle) poison pill for Democrats, then dare the Senate to ignore/vote against it.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The question for the R's is how do you win over women voters without pandering?

I think you need to frame the debate on the economy and other issues in way that resonates in the way that it impacts women

I think you need to de-macho your foreign policy talking points w/o changing your positions...just sell it differently

Maybe we can just put up a woman with the slogan, "look - it's a woman president! Another first!" since that's pretty much what the Democrats will do. Never mind that she's actually any good (well..."good" in politician terms since politicians suck anyways).

 

[cstu]

The question for the R's is how do you win over women voters without pandering?

I think you need to frame the debate on the economy and other issues in way that resonates in the way that it impacts women

I think you need to de-macho your foreign policy talking points w/o changing your positions...just sell it differently

Maybe we can just put up a woman with the slogan, "look - it's a woman president! Another first!" since that's pretty much what the Democrats will do. Never mind that she's actually any good (well..."good" in politician terms since politicians suck anyways).

Hillary has more balls than Barack.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The question for the R's is how do you win over women voters without pandering?

I think you need to frame the debate on the economy and other issues in way that resonates in the way that it impacts women

I think you need to de-macho your foreign policy talking points w/o changing your positions...just sell it differently

Maybe we can just put up a woman with the slogan, "look - it's a woman president! Another first!" since that's pretty much what the Democrats will do. Never mind that she's actually any good (well..."good" in politician terms since politicians suck anyways).

Hillary has more balls than Barack.

Maybe the Democrats should use that as a campaign slogan?

 

[CBusAlex]

The question for the R's is how do you win over women voters without pandering?

I think you need to frame the debate on the economy and other issues in way that resonates in the way that it impacts women

I think you need to de-macho your foreign policy talking points w/o changing your positions...just sell it differently

I was going to suggest changing some of your policy positions that have proven so unpopular among women, like restricting access to abortion and birth control. But I guess your plan to assume that women are so simpleminded that you can win them over just by using nicer words when you explain stuff to them could work, too.

 

[Thunderlips]

Does Hillary attract more Independents than Obama did in 12?....Would that be enough to overcome any black falloff?....What about 1st time women voters wanting to be in on the First Woman POTUS?...... Plus, how many of those black votes would be redundant or unneccessary (California, New York, Jersey, Illinois?)

Hillary DOES need to walk a bit of a tightrope....she needs to placate Obama and his people while convincing any Indys or Fence Democrats that she's not Obama.

All she needs to do is say how she wants to improve on what Obama started. Not much of a tightrope.

I don't know if that works for Independents though.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The question for the R's is how do you win over women voters without pandering?

I think you need to frame the debate on the economy and other issues in way that resonates in the way that it impacts women

I think you need to de-macho your foreign policy talking points w/o changing your positions...just sell it differently

I was going to suggest changing some of your policy positions that have proven so unpopular among women, like restricting access to abortion and birth control. But I guess your plan to assume that women are so simpleminded that you can win them over just by using nicer words when you explain stuff to them could work, too.

What should that slogan look like? "The GOP supports free abortions for all women"? "Hey - the GOP won't stop you if you want to commit murder"? Or maybe we should put stickers on all the dumpsters behind the abortion clinics that read "Toss Baby Here - sponsored by the GOP"?

 

[Clifford]

Regarding gay marriage, polls show that black opinion has changed dramatically on this issue since 2004. If it once could be used as a wedge issue, no longer.

link?

 

[humpback]

The question for the R's is how do you win over women voters without pandering?

I think you need to frame the debate on the economy and other issues in way that resonates in the way that it impacts women

I think you need to de-macho your foreign policy talking points w/o changing your positions...just sell it differently

It's pretty much all pandering, and even the small amount that isn't will be portrayed that way.

The R's have no chance at winning over women voters if they're running against a woman. They have little chance even if they aren't.

 

[squistion]

Regarding gay marriage, polls show that black opinion has changed dramatically on this issue since 2004. If it once could be used as a wedge issue, no longer.

link?

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17503314-surprising-shifts-in-attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage?lite

Surprising shifts in attitudes on same-sex marriage

It's not just Democrats and liberals who are the reason for the shift on gay marriage.

Beneath the broad support from liberal-leaning demographic groups, is the fact that some of the biggest shifts in favor of gay marriage since 2004 have been from some more unlikely, conservative-leaning blocs -- blue-collar workers, older voters, and Southerners, according to NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls over the last decade...

There has also been a big difference in support from the parties since Obama took office. Since 2009, Democratic support has gone up 27 points, independents 16, and Republicans just 12.

A major reason for the continued significant shift among Democrats is because of black voters. African Americans increased their support since Obama’s been president by 35 points.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Regarding gay marriage, polls show that black opinion has changed dramatically on this issue since 2004. If it once could be used as a wedge issue, no longer.

link?

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17503314-surprising-shifts-in-attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage?lite

Surprising shifts in attitudes on same-sex marriage

It's not just Democrats and liberals who are the reason for the shift on gay marriage.

Beneath the broad support from liberal-leaning demographic groups, is the fact that some of the biggest shifts in favor of gay marriage since 2004 have been from some more unlikely, conservative-leaning blocs -- blue-collar workers, older voters, and Southerners, according to NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls over the last decade...

There has also been a big difference in support from the parties since Obama took office. Since 2009, Democratic support has gone up 27 points, independents 16, and Republicans just 12.

A major reason for the continued significant shift among Democrats is because of black voters. African Americans increased their support since Obama’s been president by 35 points.

And when he's not President? I doubt that holds. My guess is it goes back to where it was.

 

[squistion]

Regarding gay marriage, polls show that black opinion has changed dramatically on this issue since 2004. If it once could be used as a wedge issue, no longer.

link?

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17503314-surprising-shifts-in-attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage?lite

Surprising shifts in attitudes on same-sex marriage

It's not just Democrats and liberals who are the reason for the shift on gay marriage.

Beneath the broad support from liberal-leaning demographic groups, is the fact that some of the biggest shifts in favor of gay marriage since 2004 have been from some more unlikely, conservative-leaning blocs -- blue-collar workers, older voters, and Southerners, according to NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls over the last decade...

There has also been a big difference in support from the parties since Obama took office. Since 2009, Democratic support has gone up 27 points, independents 16, and Republicans just 12.

A major reason for the continued significant shift among Democrats is because of black voters. African Americans increased their support since Obama’s been president by 35 points.

And when he's not President? I doubt that holds. My guess is it goes back to where it was.

So having an African American as President is the only reason for the shift in attitude towards gay marriage among blacks.

 

[Clifford]

Regarding gay marriage, polls show that black opinion has changed dramatically on this issue since 2004. If it once could be used as a wedge issue, no longer.

link?

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17503314-surprising-shifts-in-attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage?lite

Surprising shifts in attitudes on same-sex marriage

It's not just Democrats and liberals who are the reason for the shift on gay marriage.

Beneath the broad support from liberal-leaning demographic groups, is the fact that some of the biggest shifts in favor of gay marriage since 2004 have been from some more unlikely, conservative-leaning blocs -- blue-collar workers, older voters, and Southerners, according to NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls over the last decade...

There has also been a big difference in support from the parties since Obama took office. Since 2009, Democratic support has gone up 27 points, independents 16, and Republicans just 12.

A major reason for the continued significant shift among Democrats is because of black voters. African Americans increased their support since Obama’s been president by 35 points.

And when he's not President? I doubt that holds. My guess is it goes back to where it was.

Second that.

 

[timschochet]

But in any case, nobody has yet mentioned the main reason the Democrats, whoever they put up, are a lock to win in 2016: immigration reform. The GOP leadership knew this. They've been warning for years that they had to do something about it. But once again the Tea Party and the House Republicans have managed to kill it. They simply will not accept any sort of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

As a result, Latino voters are more pissed off and energized than ever before. And their vote, unlike those of blacks, is crucial in almost all of the swing states. Given this, a Republican victory seems extremely unlikely IMO.

If the R's helped pass immigration reform, do you think it would way Latino voters?

The opportunity to pass it was back in 2005 under President Bush....Now it will just look like pandering

The answer is no. But the Republicans need to get this issue off the table- that's the point. They need to de-energize the Latino vote.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding gay marriage, polls show that black opinion has changed dramatically on this issue since 2004. If it once could be used as a wedge issue, no longer.

link?

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17503314-surprising-shifts-in-attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage?lite

Surprising shifts in attitudes on same-sex marriage

It's not just Democrats and liberals who are the reason for the shift on gay marriage.

Beneath the broad support from liberal-leaning demographic groups, is the fact that some of the biggest shifts in favor of gay marriage since 2004 have been from some more unlikely, conservative-leaning blocs -- blue-collar workers, older voters, and Southerners, according to NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls over the last decade...

There has also been a big difference in support from the parties since Obama took office. Since 2009, Democratic support has gone up 27 points, independents 16, and Republicans just 12.

A major reason for the continued significant shift among Democrats is because of black voters. African Americans increased their support since Obama’s been president by 35 points.

And when he's not President? I doubt that holds. My guess is it goes back to where it was.

Second that.

I don't see why. Are you guys suggesting that they changed their minds simply out of loyalty to Obama? That seems really silly (also, rather insulting to black people.)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Remarkable that Obama is at the exact same approval figure, 43%, as GW Bush at this stage of their presidencies.

Per CNN live.