The Potential For A Massive Hillary Clinton Landslide Of Historic Proportions In 2016!

The Republican Party is managing, by its rhetoric, including most recently, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, to insult women about their libidos, and that only helps the Democratic Party and its likely Presidential nominee in 2016, Hillary Clinton.

Between the issue of women, and also alienation of African Americans, Hispanics and Latinos, gays and lesbians, labor, environmentalists, the struggling middle class, the poor, those who believe in science’s validity over religious dogma, and those who have an open mind on social issues, the GOP is continuing to promote its own suicide, and the potential is there for a massive Hillary Clinton landslide of historic proportions, particularly for a Democrat!

The assumption is that Hillary Clinton can count on the 26 states and the District of Columbia which voted for Barack Obama in 2012.

Additionally, the potential for Indiana and North Carolina, which voted for Obama in 2008 but then turned “Red””, to go back to the Democrats, is seen as highly likely.

Then, the states of South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas in the South, along with Arizona and Montana in the West, and Missouri in the Midwest, (usually a bellwether state but not so in 2008 and 2012) to go Democratic in 2016, particularly with the growing Hispanic and Latino population, is seen as possible, or if not in 2020 for sure.

That would make 34 states, and then there is the issue of five other states which went for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but then turned “Red”, so the question is could the wife of Bill Clinton, because of the Clinton brand 20-25 years ago, by 2016, be able to convince those five states (West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana) to switch over to the Democrats, with those states also having growing numbers of Hispanics and Latinos? After all, Arkansas is the Clintons’ “home” state, and Tennessee was Vice President Al Gore”s “home” state, while the other three states, all extremely poor and deprived, were Democratic in the 1990s!

So the maximum number of states could be 39, plus the District of Columbia, leaving only eleven states which were solidly Republican in the 1990s, and have remained “Red” ever since—Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska.

So were those eleven states to vote predictably, which is extremely likely, the GOP nominee for President would have ONLY 55 electoral votes, meaning Hillary Clinton would have won a grand total of 483 electoral votes! Imagine an election of 483-55 for the Democratic Party, which would certainly make for a Democratic dominance in the Senate and a majority in the House of Representatives, as well, as such an electoral vote landslide would insure a “coattail” effect!

7 comments on “The Potential For A Massive Hillary Clinton Landslide Of Historic Proportions In 2016!

  1. D January 27, 2014 7:43 am

    I’ve written a lot about the Electoral College and I will refrain from doing that here because, well, another topic springs to mind: The Demographic Vote.

    On “ABC News’” 2012 election-night coverage, it was mentioned that the national size of the white vote, from the exit polls, declined from 87 percent (in 1992) to 72 percent (in 2012). It was, as Donna Brazile mentioned, moved from 87 percent (1992) to 81 percent (2000) to 74 percent (2008) to 72 percent (2012). That 20-year period averages a 1.20-percent decline with each year having passed.

    In 1988, George Bush carried about 60 percent of the white vote and won 40 states and 426 electoral votes. In 2012, Mitt Romney carried about 60 percent (CNN.com says 59 percent yet with a 20-point margin) of the white vote and won 24 states and 206 electoral votes.

    If this trajectory continues, directly with the size of the white vote, in 2016 the share of the white vote will likely be 68 or 69 percent. (I’m not using remainders, so I’m estimating 68 percent.)

    Let’s have some fun with numbers.

    Here were the 2012 national exit polls (according to CNN.com) of the racial demographic votes of support for U.S. president:

    • Whites (72): Romney 59% | Obama 39% (R+20)
    • African-Americans (13): Romney 06% | Obama 93% (D+87)
    • Hispanics (10): Romney 27% | Obama 71% (D+44)
    • Asians (03): Romney 26% | Obama 73% (D+47)
    • Others (02): Romney 38% | Obama 58% (D+20)

    According to Dave Leip’s “Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections” website, the U.S. Popular Vote for 2012 was as follows:
    • Mitt Romney (R-Massachusetts), 47.16%
    • Barack Obama (D-Illinois; incumbent), 51.01% (D+3.85; shift from 2008: R+3.41)

    Now let’s give the parties the same levels of support for 2016. But we’ll adjust the numbers of the demographics’ size of the vote. In 2004, Hispanics were 7 percent of the national vote. They were 9 percent in 2008. And they were 10 percent in 2012. In an eight-year period, they grew nearly 50 percent with representing the national size of the vote. We’ll move this demographic up to 12 percent for the national size of the vote for Election 2016. We’ll give Asians and Others an additional point each. (I have subtracted four from Whites. No slight intended with African-Americans.)

    • Whites (68): Republican 59% | Democrat 39% (R+20)
    • African-Americans (13): Republican 06% | Democrat 93% (D+87)
    • Hispanics (12): Republican 27% | Democrat 71% (D+44)
    • Asians (04): Republican 26% | Democrat 73% (D+47)
    • Others (03): Republican 38% | Democrat 58% (D+20)

    With those numbers, we would see this result with Election 2016:
    • Republican, 46.32%
    • Democrat, 51.79% (D+5.47; shift from 2012: D+1.62)

    Here is the question should Hillary Clinton win the Democratic presidential nomination for 2016: If the party wins a third consecutive election cycle, will whites reduce Democratic support, remain the same, or actually increase?

    The answer depends on the conditions of the race, say, a year ahead of time. (How is the electorate feeling?) If there were to be an increase (keeping in mind that President Obama’s first election, in 2008, had him receive 43 percent of whites), that will affect the numbers. According to what I’ve presented, each additional percent (going from 39 to 40 and up) takes away 0.68 percent from the Republicans and gives to the Democrats an additional 0.68 percent. (Possibly a little more than this; a similarity perhaps to running numbers a la compunding interest.) With all other demographic numbers intact, 40 percent (instead of 39) would give the Democrats a shift an additional national margin of D+1.36. Matching 43 percent nationally of whites, from Election 2008 and for Election 2016, would take that D+5.47 up to around D+11/D+12 (a national shift, from 2012, of about D+7/D+8).

    In their hopes of winning back the presidency, this potential is deadly to the Republican Party. And it’s obvious that numerous from the GOP are flailing. In the case of ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, he may have said what he truly believes—or he communicated in a way that he hopes builds further support from whites on a national level. However, Mr. Huckabee is not politically delusional. He is a Republican who has spoken about his belief in courting the vote from African-Americans; which means, despite this demographics’ general carriage for Democrats, a shifting of the margins toward his party—by any amount—was helpful for Huckabee. (And that is true with any Republican succeeding in doing that.) I don’t think this latest “controversy” from Mike Huckabee was about what Mike Huckabee truly believes so much as it is Mike Huckabee having camera time should he choose to run for the presidency of the United States. That, from his perspective, Mike Huckabee knows he is never going be president of the United States; but there can be benefits—especially financial—to doing just as he did. After all, many of the Republicans’ outrage talk over the last five years came from other Republican pols—especially congressional members whose electability is confined to their specific district[s]—can give them some camera time and, perhaps, an opportunity to also see others benefits reaped from having expressed their supposed positions. (After all: Maybe you CAN win despite losing in the primaries.)

  2. Ronald January 27, 2014 8:57 am

    Again, D, a masterful analysis! Thanks! 🙂

  3. Rustbelt Democrat January 28, 2014 12:51 pm

    4 rebuttals to the State of the Union by the Repubs tonight. I say we Democrats need to have rebuttals to the rebuttals.

  4. Ronald January 28, 2014 12:54 pm

    Rustbelt Democrat, realize that having so many rebuttals undermines the Republicans, as it shows how disunited they are, and they KNOW they are hopeless for the White House in 2016! Continue to divide, Republicans, and we will have popcorn and soda and enjoy the division!

  5. Engineer Of Knowledge January 28, 2014 5:33 pm

    Popcorn & Soda while watching the dysfunctional circus……I like that…:-)

  6. Pragmatic Progressive January 29, 2014 12:38 pm

    Been watching coverage about Atlanta traffic jam on CNN. Some guy was just on explaining that the problem is due to government decentralization in that state.

  7. Ronald January 29, 2014 12:42 pm

    My reaction is “DUH”! LOL Nothing new, as despite the Tea Party Movement, government involvement in our lives IS essential, and anything else leads to anarchy and disarray!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.