...you brought a data set of two, then you called one other blatantly contradictory data point an outlier... like words cannot describe how awful that reasoning is. so I just won't. If that's the data you bring, I don't expect actual data to sink in, so I'll space things out several times. This is a repost but hey, I get that you need to be spoonfed. Oh yeah, they can expect to prevail with a predictive model based on a sample of one with an arbitrary metric. Excuse me, I'm about to predict the next Powerball lottery winner by measuring the number of slushies sold at Kwik-E-Mart. Last note: The Republicans won that legislative majority in low-turnout midterm elections. Do you think this is going to be another one of those? Go Trump go! I'm not even sure of the down-ticket impact of bringing loads of millennial Latinos to the polls, but hey, a Dem executive and judiciary will do just fine
People have a right to peacefully protest. It's part of the constitution. The only one who has condoned violence is Trump himself. I think you should read the constitution before you post. Thank you.
I don't. Trump is a threat to our nature of democracy. He's the worst part of this country. Everything the right accuses Obama of being is what Trump embodies in actuality. We are much better off as a country with Cruz. The only positive of Trump winning the nomination is that it might knock the tea party back in a big way. But a Trump nominee will hurt our country. It will cause America to be the laughing stock of the world. It would be such an ugly campaign.
Ronald Reagan won 50.8% of the vote in 1980. I suggest you explore all data before drawing your conclusions. How will Republicans prevail if they continue the momentum of record voter turnout? Again, you think they will lose by winning?
Do people still really remember Barry Goldwater? honestly, the damage is done at this point. It's about time the GOP dumped out elements of its nativist base, and it's about time the Democrats had control of the Executive and Judicial wing for a stretch of decades.
...Ronald Reagan won 489 electoral votes and carried 44 states...do you even understand how American democracy works? Again, going back to my point of the electoral map, but hey, way to sidestep majority-minority dynamics along the way. Still think it's a "sideshow"? How will Republicans prevail by your arbitrary metric that has a 50% chance of predictive failure? I don't know. I guess we'll have to ask Dukakis.
the worst part of the country is entitled to democracy too. we are much better off as a country if we murder all the radicals. but we can't. deal with it.
50.8% is a landslide now is it? Don't compare electoral vote margins to popular vote margins - they aren't the same (see 2000 Presidential Election). Question you should be asking is, how would Democrats fair if this momentum in the Republican primaries continues into the November election? The Democratic party is the one that should be (and needs to be) split.
50.8% to 40% is a landslide. but what the f**k---the point was, Reagan is old hat. Reagan brought out "Democrats", well, Romney brought out more of the white share of the vote and lost flat out. Comparing Trump to Reagan makes no sense given a number of factors--and yeah, majority-minority dynamics are a part of that, but oh wait, third-party candidate is another. Here, let's cut through your s**t... Do you accept that the electorate has totally changed from 1980 to now, and it along with the electoral map are inherently more difficult for Republicans, especially Republicans that alienate minorities? Do you accept that you cannot or refuse to name the states that would need to flip for Trump to get a victory on the electoral map? Do you accept that your predictive model of "turnout" has a 50% failure rate based on a sample of two (who the f**k taught you statistics dude, ask for a refund) Do you accept that in head-to-head polls (which have weak predictive accuracy at this point of the election, as any critic with a sound mind would have pointed out, instead you rabbitholed to god knows where) now, Trump significantly outperforms all other Republican candidates in losing to Hillary?
The electorate has not changed since 1980. If all you can't cite is a change in skin tone, then I got news for you boss: non-whites can own businesses == concern about taxation non-whites can own guns == concern about 2nd Amendment rights non-whites can have their own definition of "family values" == concern about restrictions on abortion etc
Dude, let it go. You obviously don't get it. I don't even understand why you don't get it. It seems particularly obvious that if you continue to get a majority of a group size in decline and lose the majority of a group size on the rise that you're going to have a lot of trouble winning elections. How Groups Voted in 2012 4 maps that show how demographic change will touch every corner of the country None of these issues you've posted really matter to non-whites when your candidate for President dances with the KKK, calls Mexicans rapists and drug runners, and wants to bar Muslims from entering the country.
do you think that Latino turnout will trend up or down in this next election? lol Thanks for conceding on all other points.
You libruls and yer book learnin'!! I see all yer fancy numbers and raise you family values!!1! "The electorate hasn't changed since 1980." LOL
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/ ...it was 62% Gore, 35% Bush... ...you would've had a better case if you pointed to 2004. ...are you going to explain how Donald Trump is going to bring the Latino vote to Bush v. Gore levels? ...:/
