Professor Tiger wrote:I think the common liberal term of contempt is "flyover country."
The R's control both the House, the Senate, and most governorships and state houses. They're doing okay. Although I agree they have some significant demographic problems in the long run. They do tend to all look like Vern Lundquist.
And Hillary is no more guaranteed to win the presidency now than she was in 2008. Her resume is pathetic. But the R's never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity.
I'm talking Presidential Elections. The GOP's control of the House from 2010 is largely a product of gerrymandering and the white. male hegemony that exists in the lightly populated states.
What continues to be ignored/glossed over is the number of people who voted Republican simply because BHO is black. We call it "The Bradley Syndrome" in Cali because Tom Bradley, the hugely successful, hugely popular Mayor of Los Angeles ran for Governor of California in 1982 and was polling 7-8 points ahead of his opponent the month before the election. His opponent's campaign manager said (in the NEWSPAPER!) that they expected a number of White voters wouldn't be able to carry through with voting for a Black governor and was fired, but that was the strategy. The Deukmejian campaign urged whites who "wanted to keep their privacy" to vote via absentee ballot and an unprecedented late surge of absentee ballots allowed Deukmejian to edge out Bradley.
The Moderate Voice
http://themoderatevoice.com/131050/how- ... whole-lot/ cites studies that estimate that Obama lost up to 6% of the vote because of his race - that's potentially 8 million votes. Some studies estimate that just among die-hard Dems, his race cost him 4 million votes.
There are some who won't vote for Hilary because she's a woman, but that is assumed to be a much smaller number than the anti-race vote, so conservatively assume that Hilary recaptures 3 million of what Barry lost due to race.
The black vote was extremely loyal to Bill Clinton and will probably support Hilary in almost the same numbers that it supported BHO.
The hispanic voters who sat out the midterms now have motivation to come out in 2016 - you could see an unprecedented 80% Democratic vote from the fastest growing demo.
The Asian voter has a huge stake in the immigration debate (fastest growing group of immigrants) - and they were 75% Dem already.
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... 012-a-lot/ calculated that Mitt Romney would've needed to take 67% of the White vote to have beaten Obama in 2012. The only time that's ever been done was by Reagan in 1984.
So with that, if Hilary picks up 3 million of the 8 million "race votes" that BHO lost, you're looking at a situation where the GOP will have to get on the order of 70% of the White vote . . . while pushing an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-minimum wage, anti-student loan, anti-affordable health care, anti-women agenda.
There are too many white people who are pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-labor, pro-environment, etc., for the GOP to hit that number nationally.
During a press conference later, O'Mara was asked if he had any advice for Zimmerman, and he answered, "Pay me."
