Here is the remarkable reporting by Lawrence O'Donnell on the 2016 election

[Samantha]

Last edited Wed Nov 19, 2014, 12:49 AM - Edit history (1)

He quotes a conservative commentator from Texas who laments there is no chance for a Republican Presidential candidate to win in 2016. O'Donnell also said the Republicans will not be able to hold the Senate for longer than two years. In 2016, Democrats will be defending one (count 'em again -- one) Senate seat, and Republicans must hold on to 22. O'Donnell said the odds of the latter happening are zero.

Here are four paragraphs from the column he references, but I hope you will find the time to read the entire piece. At one point, O'Donnell said no matter who the Republicans run , they lose. Better still, it doesn't matter who the Democrats run, they win. Thinking about all of the discussions we have had here about our alternative choices, this might be the one Presidential race we can run who we want. Think about that. And the reason is because of the Blue Wall, described in the article. Remember that phrase when you get depressed over the events of these days.

https://www.facebook.com/ingrahamangle/posts/718848661545486
CONSERVATIVE MIND THOUGHTS CHRIS LADD
GOPlifer

Which way is right? With Chris Ladd
The missing story of the 2014 election

Few things are as dangerous to a long term strategy as a short-term victory. Republicans this week scored the kind of win that sets one up for spectacular, catastrophic failure and no one is talking about it.

What emerges from the numbers is the continuation of a trend that has been in place for almost two decades. Once again, Republicans are disappearing from the competitive landscape at the national level across the most heavily populated sections of the country while intensifying their hold on a declining electoral bloc of aging, white, rural voters. The 2014 election not only continued that doomed pattern, it doubled down on it. As a result, it became apparent from the numbers last week that no Republican candidate has a credible shot at the White House in 2016, and the chance of the GOP holding the Senate for longer than two years is precisely zero.

For Republicans looking for ways that the party can once again take the lead in building a nationally relevant governing agenda, the 2014 election is a prelude to a disaster. Understanding this trend begins with a stark graphic.

Behold the Blue Wall:
The Blue Wall is block of states that no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win. Tuesday that block finally extended to New Hampshire, meaning that at the outset of any Presidential campaign, a minimally effective Democratic candidate can expect to win 257 electoral votes without even trying. That’s 257 out of the 270 needed to win.

(emphasis added.)

We have great hope for our political future. Between now and 2016, we need to focus on minimizing the damage the Republicans will do, and we must brainstorm about who we would like to run. If you believe the logic of this article, and I do, we should focus on choosing the candidate who will best serve the public interests and not that of the wealthy -- the one percenters, and the corporations.

Sam

[djean111]

1. The GOP will use the next two years trying to get rid of the the electoral college, or

to remake the way electoral votes are awarded. They don't dare depend on the popular vote, of course.
They will try to make the Blue Wall irrelevant.

[Samantha]

4. I do think they will try but I do not think they will succeed

Lawrence O'Donnell pointed to the map on the wall in which all of the blue states were prominently shown. He said the Republicans did not win one race behind the blue wall. I have not double checked that statement, but that seems remarkable. I think they will focus more on manipulating votes in those states -- in all the ways they have demonstrated in the recent past.

But every opinion is important here; thank you for posting yours.

Sam

[LondonReign2]

11. They are actively trying to do it in Wisconsin and Michigan

[Samantha]

37. Yes, I know

I wonder if they will try this in Florida.

Sam

[Tommy2Tone]

79. Hard to do their dirty tricks in states they don't control.

and we have seen in 2012 that our base will fight through their plans to vote.

[CANDO]

89. In Pennsylvania....

Where there is an entrenched GOP majority legislature and an outgoing Gov, they will have 2 weeks to wreak havoc before our new Dem Gov seats.

[Historic NY]

12. More voter supression....

Democrats need to counter it with education campaigns on what people need to know, now to vote then. So you need an id, local party members should be making sure their members can vote.

[NewJeffCT]

18. ACORN used to do things like that

register & educate voters.

[Samantha]

41. I think the Post Office should be allowed to register people to vote

In rural areas, this would really help a lot. Plus it gives the post office locations another function to perform. Somehow, we need to get a standard national identification for people to show if they do not have a driver's license. But with this Senate and House, it probably would be impossible to get that passed.

Sam

[CK_John]

46. Registration is a state function,city,village,school district,water district, not a federal function

It's about knowing the process.

[Historic NY]

62. This is the ground game....

get it done and its a win....there is 2 freaking years to do it. Its time to shame the neighbors that block voters. Where I live I walk in and they know exactly who I am.

[LiberalArkie]

97. In rural areas the post office is usually real close to the court house anyway.

[Sheepshank]

42. There is no question in my mind that the Electoral College is the only thing saving Republicans

Bush would have lost cleanly with one man=one vote.

I can't imagine that they are pushing for the one thing that will guarantee their losses. Their election strategies are geared towards the sure 3 pronged process:
1. Suppressing Dem voters (voter id laws, purging rolls etc),
2. Flooding the media with mis information regarding opponents and their platform issue (death panels, who did you vote for, Dems getting rid of Social Security, Obama responsible for massive spread of ebola etc)
3. And gerry mandering disctricts to ensure GOP winners.

[toddwv]

96. The key is

they are only pushing it in states that they tend to lose. That way, they know they are going to lose, but will at least garner a share of the electoral votes.

[Calista241]

90. Please, I feel like it's 2007 again and people are saying Bush will declare himself

President for a 3rd term. Or that Cheney will just up and create a new position that will make him an Imperial President. We're DOOMED!

[bluestateguy]

2. I would say the blue wall is more like 242 EVs

New Hampshire voted for Bush in 2000 (thank you Ralph Nader), as it is more of a sky blue than a navy blue state. Very close for Kerry in 2004.

New Mexico voted for Bush in 2004 largely owing to Bush winning like 40% of the Hispanic vote, and it was a very close Gore win in 2000.

Same with Iowa. Very close in 2000 for Gore and very close in 2004 for Bush.

It would be a mistake to just count those states as easy Blue states.

But 242 is still a really good number to start a presidential campaign with.

[Samantha]

5. He said he thinks we can count Virginia now as behind the Blue Wall

I looked at the map when he showed it last night, but I do not remember if New Mexico, New Hampshire and Iowa were included. I was too busy trying to find Maryland. I am going to have to take another look, but I am not sure that map is shown in the article....

Perhaps when the video comes up, we will find out.

Sam

[liberal from boston]

10. RE GOP 2014 Victories

Great segment--Lawrence pointed out that every word he spoke was written by Texas Republican Ladd: Below is the link to video:

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/dear-republican-uncle--re--2014-gop-victories-360070723849

[LordGlenconner]

27. The GOP has lost New Mexico for good

Too many Hispanics and an ever-growing set of out of state moderates and liberals who are now calling it home.

It's done. For good.

[Samantha]

38. I believe I read in that article he moved New Hampshire behind the blue wall

as of Tuesday.

Sam

[Mass]

3. I found Ladd very clear and trying to change things by warning people. As for O'Donnell, I found him

ridiculously optimistic. May be the Republicans have a problem with hispanics (assuming they do not change), but the situation is not good for Democrats who have gone through this election cycle in a catastrophic manner, this type of prediction is just ridiculous, particularly when it comes to counting VA, where Dems have won the three last election cycles by a very short margin, or NH as part of the blue belt seems a little bit ridiculous. So, there may be reasons to be more optimistic than this last election would warrant, but counting on things like the Blue Wall is silly.

[Samantha]

7. Just remember it is not O'Donnell's analysis

but Ladd's.

I do not think this last election was the catastrophe the media paints it as. Not that we didn't make some mistakes, but overall, we were trying to capture races in something like 8 red states (going in, those chances were not good) and a couple of purple states. With all of the vote suppression that went on, the Democrats failure to properly deal with that was the true catastrophe. I hope you are not going to ask me how they were supposed to do that since most roads for doing so are "closed." We need to win races with more than a 7 percent margin in order to persevere.

Thank you for adding your thoughts on this thread.

Sam

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

30. I agree. Two things made this past election hurt more than it normally would...

1. More RED states up for reelection where Democrats won by riding on Obama's coattails in 2008. They were probably expected to lose precisely because it was a midterm election and in a RED state.

2. Voter turnout lower than it has been in a very long time. I've heard that turnout was lower than it had been in over 70 years! That may have been due to a combination of apathy, anger, and voter suppression.

---

However, I DID know that 22 Republican Senate seats are up for reelection in 2016 in traditionally BLUE states, and even if those BLUE states are really an off-BLUE, trending BLUE or deep PURPLE-BLUE, Republicans will still face a competitive race due to the changing demographics AND in a presidential year where turnout is typically much higher.

As much as I don't care for Hillary, if she is on the ticket, she will excite women and Latinos--maybe a good number of African Americans so long as she/her husband/their surrogates don't resort to race rhetoric and/or Obama bashing.

[Samantha]

39. I would love to see a Sanders/Warren ticket

If O'Donnell is correct and the Dems will win regardless of who they run, this might be the race to go out on a limb for. As the time grows nearer, we will see, I guess.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[davidpdx]

86. Voter turnout over all was

But also look at states like Oregon where there was almost 70% turnout. There is a reason for that. Vote-by-mail.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

98. Yep. Agreed! :)

[FBaggins]

84. While we're remembering things...

Let's also remember that Ladd's analysis from a couple months ago was that republicans couldn't win the Senate and would lose Kansas' gubernatorial and senatorial races.

[MohRokTah]

6. The only chance the GOP has is electoral college gerrymandering.

They'd need to Gerrymander Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Florida to even come close to a chance. IF all of those states awarded electors via House districts, they'd have a damned good chance of winning. Pennsylvania would seal the deal, but they lost the governorship there.

[Samantha]

8. Can they redraw those districts before the next census? That is in 2020

I ask because I have heard it said a number of times Democrats cannot change the gerrymandering until that year. But one can hear anything these days, right?

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[MohRokTah]

9. Historically, redistricting only occurs after the census

Texas changed that, though.

Of course, the GOP will not want to change the districts before 2016, just change the electors from winner take all to overall winner takes two, winner in each house district takes one.

Do that in those four states, and their chances of winning increase dramatically. North Carolina would no longer be a possible pickup for Democrats and all the GOP would need to do is flip Nevada or New Hampshire.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. I thought the Supreme Court struck down the Texas gerrymandering law.

Too little to late.

I could be wrong, but I thought it did.

[Samantha]

44. I think they did redo it and the SC struck it down

I am not sure if they have come up with a second alternative yet or not.

Sam

[MohRokTah]

55. That was the Gerrymander they did in 2010.

They redistricted back in 2003 to alter their congressional maeup after the 2004 election. That withstood a SCOTUS appeal.

[Samantha]

43. How would their chances improve dramatically if none of the states they do this in are blue states

which would mean those states would be at the 270 Ladd predicted. They can only do this in states they control, so that would only take them so far, right. Also, Ladd moved New Hampshire behind the Blue Wall as of Tuesday. Just thinking out loud with you.... The number of electors is determined by the population, so moving their chessmen around the board to be counted differently still does not give them more electors, right? So they would have to peel off some of the blue states electors, which Ladd does not believe can happen.

Sam

[MohRokTah]

50. Moving it to one elector per House district, + two electors to the candidate with the most votes.

Doing that in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina would devastate Democratic chances of winning, putting a 55-45 race in the popular vote to a 50-50 race in the electoral college.

North Carolina would be a failsafe move. Obama picked it up in 2008 and a Hillary candidacy could probably pick it up in 2016.

The other three states are controlled through gerrymandering and would give a large majority of electors to the GOP candidate in such a scheme. Admittedly, the Democrat would pick up the two for the most votes statewide, but the Democrat wouls still only win a minority of electors in those states due to such a scheme.

[Samantha]

73. I went back and re-listened to the video

O'Donnell said the Republicans control a small fortress of 149 electoral college votes. If that number is correct, they can rearrange the deck chairs all they like but still not approach what Dems control.

Sam

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. They don't have to do anything with the districts

They just have to change the way states award their electoral votes.

[Samantha]

45. But they will still have the same number, right

so the blue states hold on to all of their electoral votes, it won't impact anything, right?

Sam

[MohRokTah]

51. Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Florida are definite 2016 blue states.

If they changed from winner take all to the winner of each House district takes one elector and the overall statewide winner takes two electors, the Republican Candidate would pick up the majority of electors in those states even though the Democrat would win the popular vote in those states.

All are controlled by the GOP.

[Samantha]

59. He did not have Florida behind the Blue Wall -- at least not on Lawrence's map

It was gray. I checked the article, and the map is not included. I tried the video, but my computer got hung up. I need a screenshot of that map. Some think NH would not be behind the wall, but Lawrence said Ladd moved it there Tuesday.

I don't think Ladd was including states that were of mixed governance. That is why I need to get that map.

Sam

[FBaggins]

85. How are they definitively blue states...

If they're currently republican-controlled?

[MohRokTah]

88. GOP Control came about from midterm elections

Ohio and Florida were solidly blue in 08 and 12.

The last time Michigan went red was 1988 and the last time Wisconsin went red was three decades ago.

[FBaggins]

93. Is this a new definition of "solidly blue"?

The President won Ohio in 2012 by 3% and Florida by less than 1% (which means that both leaned slightly red from the national average of 4%). In 2008 it was 3% in Florida and 4-5% in Ohio (again, to the right of the 7% national win).

the last time Wisconsin went red was three decades ago

And yet we won by just tenths of a percent in the two Bush elections. With a republican governor (who could conceivably by the candidate in 2016) and state legislature, it's ridiculous to claim that "no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win" there.

Now we come to the main point:

GOP Control came about from midterm elections

This is true enough... and few here have made as big a deal about the difference between midterm electorates and presidential years as I have... but there's also a difference in the electorate in general elections that replace a two-term president. Bush dramatically underperformed Reagan, Gore dramatically underperformed Clinton, and McCain dramatically underperformed Bush (by roughly ten points in each case). Nixon dramatically underperformed Eisenhower's second election too.

None of those states is safely blue in a "third term" election if the President's approval numbers remain low.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

52. The number of electoral votes would be the same

but they would be distributed differently, i.e., instead of winner take all, they can give them out by who won the individual districts, or by percentage of the vote, etc.

So, a state like Michigan, instead of all 16 electoral votes going to the winner, they could be split.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. Gerrymandering only takes place every 10 years. They can't do anything until 2020.

And by then, demographics will start to disfavor them.

[MohRokTah]

53. You really don't get the electoral college.

Currently, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Florida give all electors to the candidate with the most votes.

If those GOP controlled states used the ALREADY Gerrymandered districts as the basis for choosing the electors, giving one elector to the winner in each Gerrymandered district, then gave the extra two electors to the candidate that wins statewide, the Republican would take the majority of electors in those states even with a Democratic 55-45 statewide win.

That's how they Gerrymander the Electoral College.

All four states are currently controlled by Republicans.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

54. They can change allocation of electoral votes at any time

They don't have to wait for redistricting years.

[allinthegame]

13. All Based on the Assumption

that Democrats will actually vote. Everyone was claiming we would pull it out of the bag this November because immigration/gay marriage/ACA/Keystone/Ebola/Gov Brownback…..none of that seemed important enough….let's hope we can come up with something "better" next time.

[ffr]

17. I agree. You can't win a damn thing if voters don't vote

And I hate all this wishful tortoise & hare dreaming. It's time to throttle these a-hole Republis out of elected offices once and for all.

[freebrew]

28. I would love to get rid of them(Rs)...

but the M$M will not let that happen. 2012 was a remarkable defeat for the Rs. After shutting the gov't down, they were/are highly unpopular. The M$M acted as if nothing bad happened.

Benghazi!
Ebola!
ISIS!
GUNS!

Whatever...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. Not to mention, the M$M NEVER bothered to correct the record on Benghazi or IRS

made up controversies. The Corporate Media did not call Republicans out on their bullshit on either of those; nor did it hold them accountable for the government shutdown. However when Obama administration botched the ACA website rollout, there was 24-7 non-stop coverage of that.

[Samantha]

47. They also do not mention while these Keystone votes are being taken

that approving a pipeline that crosses an international border is an Executive Branch function, not a Legislative Branch function. At the end of the day, the State Department has to make a recommendation to the President, who if he approves it, issues a Presidential Permit. If Republicans try to step around that, it is a pure, raw power grab.

Sam

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. That's because the cowards in the Democratic Party ran away from a successful record AND

because the Corporate Media favored the Republicans by a long shot and propagandized the American voter so much by beating it into our psyche that Republicans had already won. A lot of would-be Democratic voters probably resigned themselves to a Republican victory and gave up!

The Corporate Media had a HUGE part in the Republican victory!

[Samantha]

48. Yes, it did -- and with regard to MSNBC, it is the Comcast influence

That network will never be same.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[davidpdx]

87. Corporate (conservative) Democrats

That pissed me off as well. In a way I'm glad their gone though. Landrieu is next.

[hueymahl]

14. Damn I hope he is right!

[Samantha]

49. So do I

I feel like the mouthpieces of the Republican party combined with the media have beat us into a sense of "what's the use - we have no chance." We need to take every positive crumb we can get and run with it. We need our can-do attitude back.

Sam

[Hulk]

15. God, I so hope this comes to fruition!

I've come to believe so little in the realm of politics; but I would be eternally grateful if this would come to pass.

[Maineman]

25. BUT, there would have to be enough Democrats willing to do what needs to be done.

There would need to be enough Democrats who focus on real needs rather than trying to compromise with the radical right.

There would need to be enough Democrats with backbone to stand against the media war the Republicans, corporate profiteers, and big money greedy jerks would wage.

A Democratic president would need to be a real Democrat, not someone with debts to corporations, and friends and allegiances to big money.

It would need to be a president with great skill at leading and informing the uninformed masses.

There is a lot more to be done than just electing persons with a D beside their name. It is entirely possible that the right wing strategists have a multi-pronged approach including infiltrating the Democratic party.

Other right wing strategies obviously include running 3rd party candidates to split the vote, messing with the Electoral College, discouraging voting, psychological warfare to discourage voters, dirty tricks, lies, misinformation, on-and-on it goes.

[Hari Seldon]

19. Hillary Clinton will have a lot of company if she runs

The winner of the Democratic nomination will become the next president.

Any candidate with anything approaching a realistic chance at getting elected MUST take this opportunity.

[certainot]

20. how dems can get supermajorities in both houses, and president- cut samson's hair

left must go on the offensive to save the next 2 years and win big in 2016 and the biggest opportunity for that is with republican radio, which the left has almost completely ignored and is responsible for much of the insanity of the last 25 years.

why did dems lose these elections, against loons and global warming deniers? there is no guarantee dems will be able to win back in 2016. and we need supermajorities in both houses and the presidency.

messaging? that's a red herring- 1200 radio stations have been dominating messaging unhindered for 20 years. still are.

voter suppression? republican radio has been selling the voter fraud fraud, illegal brown people voting for dems, ACORN, etc unchallenged for years to sell that voter ID, both parties are the same, obama is a failure, etc.

here are some ways liberals can cut samson's hair:

1) Get our schools out of Republican radio.
They help a significant number of stations. More than 28% of stations carrying Rush Limbaugh (170+) depend on publicly funded schools (70+ major universities and colleges). The percentage might be similar for all Republican radio.
If a few schools started honoring their mission statements and committed to finding apolitical alternatives to broadcast their sports, others will follow. This may be the most effective action with the most effect. Stations would have to change their formats or offer balance to maintain those important relationships.
2) Expand the Limbaugh advertiser education actions/boycotts (StopRush) to all Republican radio stations and their advertisers.
3) Include radio stations in protests/picketing. Almost every progressive or Democratic Party issue worthy of protesting can appropriately be protested at an appropriately located Republican radio station. Those stations are Tea Party headquarters and the most important messaging assets the Republican think tanks have. Such protests would be unique and may be more media worthy than the same protests at state capitols, with fewer people. They could link the issue with the failures of corporate media at the same time.
4) Monitor Republican radio and make its propaganda readable and searchable. The secret of its success is that the people and issues it lies about and attacks are unaware of the damage until the lies have been established. It is practically invisible to those it harms the most.
A software combination that would automate recording and transcribing (with SNOWTAPE and DRAGON DICTATE) the main talkers in a state, like Wisconsin, and make it available for searching every few days or sooner near elections, could be valuable. this is something the democratic party could organize for every state or most county headquarters, but it also relates to all liberal activism attacked on radio. by knowing what is being sold it makes it much easier to convince democratic senators that those constituencies (eg pro KXL, anti immigration) in their states they worry about are not legitimate and they won't be as slavish to their pollsters, etc.
5) use 4 to reference talk radio and limbaugh and sons more often. its better since stoprush. MSNBC seems to reference them, but most is relative to sexism, racism, and other outrages. include their positions on the issues as if they were sitting there. "that's what limbaugh says but the fact is...." should be a regular retort to republicans in media. discrediting the talk radio gods will help undo some of the cumulative damage and alternate reality that republican radio has created the last 2 decades.
6) Include questions in polls, or directly poll talk radio listeners on issues to see how talk radio influences (as opposed to fox-related polling).
7) Expand on exposing their use of paid callers and their national and local coordination with Republican friendly think tanks

[Samantha]

69. I read your post 3 times and I think you have some good ideas

Now is the time for us all to brainstorm.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[Cosmocat]

21. ah bullshit

As others have noted, they WILL push strongly to redistribute electoral votes in states where they have control - Michigan obviously, and are likely to reopen this in PA where the new state senate leader was the guy who pushed it the last time.

They simply are hampered at the presidential level because it limits their ways of gaming the system.

But given the propensity for this country to gobble up republican bullshit it is FAR from a sure bet.

The senate SHOULD swing back, but the House is a near mortal lock given gerrymandering short of a major wave election.

People were all they were dead in 08, and I was HOPING it would slip away from them, but here we are today, for no reason, literally NO reason at all, the people of this country giving them power at every level ...

Supreme Court is likely theirs for at least the next few decades, the house, most states ...

[Samantha]

56. You have a huge dose of pessimism there

Simply speaking, if Dems really did work at this and could achieve wins in red states 7 percent or more, the gerrymandering would be offset. Yes, that is a really big hurdle, but better to go for it than roll over.

Unless they find a way to break through that blue wall and purloin some of those electoral votes, according to Ladd we will still have 270.

I hope people can regroup and get their drive back to win this instead of mopping around in despair.

Sam

[Cosmocat]

91. A couple of things

1) The presidential is the least gamed race. Now, all this heady, it is in the bag regardless of the candidate stuff is childish. As others noted, states like Virginia are still in play, and I can tell you that while PA has been good to the democratic candidate the last few times, you get the wrong race that gets framed the wrong way with the wrong candidates and and a republican CAN win this state. But, again, the presidential is the one race that they have the least control over gaming NOW. Michigan or another of these states, again, it can happen in PA, too, game the Electoral Votes and the Rs can control it, too.

2) The problem is the House, which it is going to take more than a even a solid presidential win to turn back to D. It is going to have to take a BIG wave to get it back from the Rs. Also, the SC, which IS the Rs for a the next few decades, most likely.

3) The states are still very much in their control, and this is key to even having a SHOT at redistricting.

4) The democratic party, at this point and time, is absolutely worthless. The party has no gut or salt for a fight, has no policy or advocacy issues it is rallying around, and has abandoned its leader, and by extension cut its own head off. And, while you have a never ending stream of aggressive and strong republicans at the national level pushing their agenda, you can literally count on one hand the number of Ds with ANY fire and fight.

This isn't about beating up the roots, you or anyone here. The party at the highest level is completely useless while the republicans are running wild.

People are in a absolutely fantasy land if they think this was some kind of false victory for the Rs or their demise is right around the corner.

[LawDeeDah]

22. ---Better still, it doesn't matter who the Democrats run, they win.---

Be still my heart!

Hillary, go away.
This is a chance of a lifetime to get someone like a Sanders or Warren.

I love O'Donnell, he is probably the only person that makes me miss tv - but I catch him online once in a while.
Smart guy and I especially like this awesome take.

yipie.

[Samantha]

76. O'Donnell said each Republican potential candidate has faded

and the party has NO ONE who can win. I don't see anyone who can win either, and I include Jeb Bush in that group.

Sam

[alfredo]

23. Warren or Sanders? It is time.

Hillary would make a great Veep. Her SoS experience helps with foreign policy, and her conservative leanings would help her play devil's advocate for the president. It's a touch of "team of rivals."

[SpankMe]

24. No...no..a thousand times, NO!!!!

Do not promote the "Dems-will-take-everything-back-in-2016" predictions too forcefully. That causes too many people to relax under the assumption that it's inevitable. They assume it's going to happen because that's what all the pundits say, then they'll just sit back and "let the others do the voting and donating".

We have to promote the narrative that it's not necessarily a "gimme" in 2016.

Hillary's losing her luster (not her fault; it's unanswered, early Republican attacks) and Rand Paul is looking better to a lot of progressives. Even Bill Mahr said on his show this week that he's "available" to Ron Paul (meaning his vote for a Democrat is not preordained owing to Rand Paul's positions on the wars in the middle east and on drugs and a few other issues where he's on the same page as liberals). A Rand Paul run could really put a chink in our armor if he wins the nomination.

The Republicans have started their new "voter manipulation on steroids" effort to apportion electoral votes in states based on the voting percentages rather than winner take all. With over 30 states that have both legislative houses plus their governorships in the hands of Republicans, there's nothing to stop this from happening nationwide. If solid R states change from winner take all to apportioning, then we may be looking at a permanent Republican executive in the Whitehouse for the rest of history.

No - a Democratic win in 2016 is NOT a sure thing. We have to keep people voting and engaged. That's the only way we will win.

The idea of a solid Republican federal elected leadership (they have the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress, now) scares the ungodly shit out of me.

[Samantha]

58. I am not trying to do that -- Ladd (a Republican) just stated the obvious

I thought it was important to post it here because our morale has been in the dumpster too long. These words are meant to give us hope and a nudge to start now to plan a strategy. We can do this!

Sam

[rickford66]

26. The Electoral College need this modification.

Change the votes from integer values to real values. Thus the votes could be representative of the actual populations. The outcome would be, I believe, closer to what was intended.

(TOTAL POSSIBLE ELECTORAL VOTES) / (TOTAL US POPULATION) = (VOTES PER PERSON)

Then the votes awarded to a candidate for a given state would be calculated this way in a state which is winner take all.

(ELECTORAL VOTES AWARDED FOR THE STATE) = (STATE POPULATION) * (VOTES PER PERSON)

If a state decides to award electoral votes fer legislative district, it would be calculated this way.

(ELECTORAL VOTES AWARDED FOR THE DISTRICT) = (DISTRICT POPULATION) * (VOTES PER PERSON)

[Samantha]

57. In theory I agree, but historically Republicans have shown a pattern of pinpointing where the

Democratic votes are predominant, and they find a way to plug up the count. Look at what just happened to Charlie Christ in Florida. The 3 democratic counties that he was counting on to put him over the top didn't wash in. And it wasn't because the turnout was low.

Sam

[rickford66]

78. The main reason for my idea is

it would even out under and over represented states. Some red states are over represented and some blue states are under represented. My other "bright" idea is that Gerrymandering in a state would be done by the minority party. This would have the effect of evening out power over time. Never happen though.

[glinda]

29. GOP will do a ton of irreparable damage in two years so they can secure the Country so

the only answer I see is to destroy the big money people. To remove their power. Lawsuits, fines, jail, withhold buying from them, shaming them publicly, etc....it will have to come from all over I think if even possible.Am sure it will have to go beyond the things I mentioned. but money is what is making this happen. Why we are loosing our environment, elections, etc.....they must have their money taken away from them.

[IronLionZion]

32. They're already trying to split up the electoral votes in some states

instead of the winner takes all tradition

And we know they gerrymandered themselves into a comfortable majority of districts, this is really bad if they divide the votes by district.

[Samantha]

60. But here is the point - they can't do that in the true blue states

which according to O'Donnell's map adds up to 270 (including New Hampshire, not including Florida). Not included behind the blue wall are states with a mixed governance.

I am having a lot of computer troubles tonight and cannot access that video with the map. Having a literal list would answer a lot of questions.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[UTUSN]

36. R#41 & K for, sounds GREAT!1 & this is via Horrible Human(?) Laura INGRAHAM?!1 n/t

[AverageJoe90]

40. That may be true....and it does make sense, but.....

The one major problem we'll have is not whether or not Democrats will turn out in 2016.....barring some truly unlikely circumstances, they will, but, rather, voter suppression and even outright election fraud.....remember what happened in 2004, folks.

The best we can hope for is a turnout similar to 2012.....one thing to keep in mind is that a LOT of issues supported by progressives did indeed pass, including marijuana legalization.....even as some of our candidates faltered.

[Samantha]

61. That is why we need a candidate voters salivate over (as we did with candidate Barack Obama)

Give them two years, and Republicans will be making moves that repel many citizens, even some undereducated ones. Wait until they start messing with privatizing Social Security and bring out that voucher idea for Medicare. Just wait....

That is why we need a true progress, not a dyed-in-the wool Trojan Horse.

Thanks for posting on my thread. I think we will have a huge turnout in 2016. Presidential races usually get people out.

Sam

[Generic Other]

63. One possible strategy is to scream bloody murder about popular vote

if Repugs try to change electoral college. High time to clean it up anyway.

[Samantha]

64. I hope we could stop them from doing this but I am not sure we can

All they have to do is amend their state constitution explaining how the electoral votes will be counted. The Constitution of the United States delegates the right to run Presidential elections to the states as long as the rules under which the elections will be conducted are reflected in the state constitution and they adhere to those laws.

Perhaps there is some legal technicality that would allow for a lawsuit or even a protest to the DOJ, but I am just grabbing for straws here.

I would love it if someone were to tell me I am wrong about about this!

Sam

[Orsino]

65. Misses the point of the Republican victories.

All that dark money and voter suppression bought the GOP's paymasters two more years to loot the country. Nearly anything they really want can be tied to must-pass legislation that the president will not veto, and two years from now they can return to getting only a lot of what their bosses want. Two more years of Citizens United will further hobble progressives, so read the labels carefully on your '16 Democratic candidates; they'll be exactly as progressive as we force them to be and no more.

The talk of permanent Republican majorities, or the impossibility thereof, is a huge distraction from all the theft going on. The GOP majorities will not exist to perpetuate themselves, but rather the agenda of Big Money, and will be working to neuter government, not just to take it over.

So the GOP won't win in election '16? Well, they'll be winning every day until then, and for the foreseeable future after that.

[Samantha]

70. I do not assume President Obama will sign legislation with poison pills embedded

The thefts are a tremendous huge problem; I don't understand why states having problems during the mid-terms did not file complaints with the DOJ. I know this would have to be the citizens experiencing the problem. But the matter in Georgia, was HUGE -- something like 40 to 50 thousand people registered in the get out of the vote effort whose names did not appear on the list of eligible voters. When the Secretary of State was asked to solve the problem, he said it was not his job. That is definitely a part of his job. How can that just be allowed to slide?

Sam

[Orsino]

94. I assume that the next farm bill will be highly toxic, for example.

The GOP will have to sweeten the pot with something. They can probably make the president sign off on cutting food stamps.

[Cosmocat]

92. YEP

nm

[freshwest]

66. Bush and Abbott did well in TX with hispanics. I think he is too optimistic about them voting Dem.

I really would like someone to dissuade me of this idea.

[Samantha]

67. Here it is: THE BLUE WALL MAP (screen shot from video)

Video address: https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIOQDWxUAAQAmi37w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTByZWc0dGJtBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMQ--?p=Lawrence+O%27Donnell+video+blue+wall+2016&vid=f9dc39e2915bd46732b5393c19a80b32&l=5%3A22&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVS.345930678829%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpTC06FmFNCY&tit=Why+2014+Election+Spells+GOP+DISASTER+in+%3Cb%3E2016+%3C%2Fb%3E-+%3Cb%3ELawrence+%3C%2Fb%3EO%E2%80%99Donnell&c=0&sigr=11bg18cqn&sigt=12i0cue93&age=0&&tt=b

&feature=player_embedded#t=108





Check out for yourself the states behind the blue wall.

Sam

[SickOfTheOnePct]

68. There are 10 Democratic Senate seats up in 2016, not one n/t

[Samantha]

72. I went back and re-listened to the video

He said the Dems will have to defend one seat that will be considered competitive.

Thanks for posting on my thread and making me clarify that!

Sam

[bornskeptic]

83. I see two that could be competetive:

Michael Bennet in Colorado and Harry Reid in Nevada.
The rest look pretty safe.

[Voice for Peace]

71. Is there anything Obama can do by executive order to ensure people have the right to vote?

[Samantha]

75. I think the only thing he can do is refer problems to the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ

I know some states have excluded felons from voting, other than that one has to be a citizen and be registered. If one's rights are abused, they should complain to the DOJ (if they are in a state where an honest investigation cannot be expected), the Civil Rights Division. Additionally, during the 2000 election controversy, one pastor in Tennessee being denied his right to vote demanded he be allowed to vote or he would be contacting his lawyer then and there! He was given a provisional ballot....

In theory, our Constitution is supposed to protect our rights, but sometimes it needs a little help from law enforcement!

Sam

[Savannahmann]

74. Possible. But not certain.

For the last year I've been watching Rand Paul with a wary eye. Rand has several populist platform positions that can sway portions of the voters, potentially enough to win the election. Especially if the Democratic candidate stands firmly on the unpopular side of the issue.

Legalize Maijuana. More than half the population in polling supports this move.

Restrain the NSA. A plurality of the population supports this one.

Demilitarize the police. After the images and videos from Boston and Ferguson nearly half the people support this as well.

He has another of those cut taxes on corporations plans that republicans love.

Foreign policy. It depends on how sick everyone is of the ongoing perpetual war. If they are sick of the constant reports of ongoing air attacks and beheadings, then he stands a chance with his 19th century more isolationist vision.

So what can Democrats do? We can get out in front on those populist issues. We can show the public that we hear them and want to serve them. We can show the people that we care enough to listen.

Or we can run another campaign using lessons from the 20th century and stand on the sidelines as Paul is sworn in. I'd really rather not have to see that, so with a little luck our party is waking up.

[Samantha]

77. What can I say -- Rand Paul has changed with the times

If you look at some of the things he said when he first entered politics and the things he champions today, they are inconsistent. He waded into politics, started observing what he had to do to move on up, and that is what he started doing. I don't think he has a sincere bone in his body, and I don't think he is qualified to sit in the Oval Office. He really has zero depth.

Sam

[Savannahmann]

80. I would agree.

I'd bet 99.9% of the users here would. If only the election was decided by the users of DU. Sadly it isn't. So the question is what will the people think? That answer is far less certain. By embracing a populist message, Rand has made himself a real contender IMO and we dismiss the threat at our peril.

[lonestarnot]

81. He also knows they will show their ignorant asses and we will hate them all the more.

Now dems should have surely learned the game of tx hold 'em by now.

[longship]

82. Michigan GOP is trying to game the 2016 election.

LANSING –A bill to split Michigan's 16 electoral votes based on the popular vote for president, ending the winner-take-all system the state has used for more than a century, was harshly criticized by most witnesses who testified at a legislative hearing at the Capitol Monday.

Several witnesses described House Bill 5974 as a blatant attempt to rig the next presidential election in Michigan to the advantage of Republicans, who haven't won Michigan's electoral votes since 1988.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, said the reaction was largely what he expected and that he has no plans to amend his legislation in light of the testimony he heard. Lund insists the main intent of his bill is to increase the importance of Michigan in presidential elections so candidates will campaign in the state more frequently and address Michigan concerns.

But academics and election experts who testified Monday said the opposite is true. By roughly dividing in half the number of electoral votes the presidential candidate who wins Michigan can count on, Lund's bill would make Michigan a less attractive prize, not a more significant one, they said.

<more at link>

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/17/bill-change-awarding-michigan-electoral-college-votes/19168765/

I predict that the GOP will trot these bills out only in states which voted for Obama.

Fuck them. And Snyder if he signs this into law.

[LynneSin]

95. Republicans have 2 years to Gerrymander the presidential election

Several states have considered awarding electoral votes based on congressional districts which would be a nightmare for the democrats. The country is gerrymandered in favor of the republicans. I know the idea was on the table for Pennsylvania but with the new democratic governor it will never happen. But if other states consider it then it would be very difficult for the Democrats to win the Presidency even if they have over 50% of the popular vote.