• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's how badly Democrats have to screw up to lose the election[W:558]

shrubnose

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
19,463
Reaction score
8,732
Location
Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Earlier this spring Sen. Marco Rubio's (R-Florida) pollster publicly laid out a potentially harsh truth: By his calculations the eventual Republican nominee would need to capture 40 % of the Latino vote in order to win in 2016.

Read the article here: Here?s how badly Democrats have to screw up to lose the election - Yahoo News

I predict that not only will the GOP lose this election it will be a long time before they win another one.

Wait and see.

:lol:
 

That's fine shrub, but in the end, there's little difference in the way these republocrats govern. In the current line up, there may be a difference in a Sanders administration, but that's it.
 
Montecresto said:
That's fine shrub, but in the end, there's little difference in the way these republocrats govern. In the current line up, there may be a difference in a Sanders administration, but that's it.
Click to expand...

For the most part, I agree with you. However, a Democrat in the White House will at least keep the Cons in check. A Republican president in with this congress would probably take stupid to a new level. We are still digging our way out from the Cheney Administration.
 

Pretty stupid assumption. Latino voters only matter in 2 states Nevada and Florida. Rubio obviously has a great advantage in Florida and can win the election without Nevada.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/u...cans-but-not-indispensable.html?referer=&_r=0
 
Last edited:

...and the good thing is that most of the rank and file Cons do not realize just how far they are from the White House.
 

Sorry, Sanders. I'm tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. As so many GOPers seem to be as well.
 



And with a good rocket ship he can go to the Moon, eh?

:lol:
 

Do you know what the biggest way democrats could screw up the election? Getting over confident. According to 538, basically, it is about a 50/50 election at this point. All the talk about democratic advantages in the electoral vote, and the weak republican field don't change the basic fact that republicans could, very easily, win. This is something democrats have to keep in mind, and then act accordingly. Play to win kinda thing. Don't worry about what republicans have to do, what democrats have to do is appeal to independents and swing voters, and get democratic voters out to the polls.
 

Rubio would not be a shoe in to win Florida, though he would have a better than average chance. It is important to also note that democrats can win without Florida, but it is virtually impossible for republicans(based on historical trends which have held true since the last time they didn't). However, it is far more accurate to say Republicans need Florida voters, latino, white, black, striped, whatever. If it has 2 legs, a heartbeat and a voter registration, republicans need them(Dems too). I am going to go out on a limb(LoLz) that there will be an insanely stupid amount of money spent in Florida next year on campaign ads, events, and staff.
 
upsideguy said:
...and the good thing is that most of the rank and file Cons do not realize just how far they are from the White House.
Click to expand...

That's why they will scream bloody murder when they lose again. It should be a hoot, They never learn.
 

I predict you're right. It someone in the Republican Party doesn't look up the word, 'constituency' there might be a Libertarian president before the next Republican.
 

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.......But you assume there will be a GOP after this election.....................smart money says .......good chance there will be no national party called the GOP
 

If Rubio is the nominee, I would expect Hillary to concede Florida and concentrate on Ohio and Virginia as you pointed out the GOP has to have those to win.
 
Crovax said:
If Rubio is the nominee, I would expect Hillary to concede Florida and concentrate on Ohio and Virginia as you pointed out the GOP has to have those to win.
Click to expand...

She will battle for Florida too. No reason not to. She will have the money, and no reason not to try and make Rubio fight for the state(which creates its own narrative, Rubio having to fight for his home state).

Of course, we are getting ahead of ourselves. Rubio is a long way from having won the nomination. While he probably has the best shot(though that might be Cruz who has it), with the number of candidates, it is still less than even odds.
 

The last poll in Florida had Rubio up 7 points on Clinton. Also Rubio's latest approval rating is 57%. There is no amount of money Clinton could make Rubio fight for his home state anymore than she could make Cruz fight for his.
 
Crovax said:
The last poll in Florida had Rubio up 7 points on Clinton. Also Rubio's latest approval rating is 57%. There is no amount of money Clinton could make Rubio fight for his home state anymore than she could make Cruz fight for his.
Click to expand...

You are giving credence to polls way too far out.
 

The whole strategy of changing the demographics in order to seize power will backfire catastrophically on the Democrats. All these blowbags like Pelosi and Hillary live in elistist white wealthy neighborhoods with armed guards, so they aren't worried about it.
 
imyoda said:
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.......But you assume there will be a GOP after this election.....................smart money says .......good chance there will be no national party called the GOP
Click to expand...

Oh, stop it. Let's get serious. Even if the GOP gets Reagan-in-84'd, the chance the party will cease to exist on a national level after this election cycle is zero point zero.
 

The Democrats aren't "changing the demographics." The demographics are changing regardless.
 

I believe you have mentioned that before?
 
 
Kobie said:
The Democrats aren't "changing the demographics." The demographics are changing regardless.
Click to expand...

All this sound and fury I see generated from across the pond is quite laughable frankly

There is hardly a hairsbreadth between your only two parties and whoever gets in nothing is going to change ..... ever

Your broken and inert political system only serves itself now and presevation of the status quo is all that matters
 
Last edited:
joG said:
I believe you have mentioned that before?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



It didn't stop me from mentioning it again.

Get back with me in 30-years and we'll chat about the GOP which used to be a national party.

:lol:

Abraham Lincoln was a Whig before he became a WINO (Whig In Name Only).

:lamo

Time marches on.
 
Last edited:

:lamo

That is some funny **** dude. Democrats are changing the demographics, despite the fact the demographics have been changing for the entire ****ing history of the country, and no one could stop it if they tried, but dammit, it is democrats fault that it is happening...

No, seriously, buy a history book. Learn the history of this country so you do not sound so silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…