The effect of Donald Trump’s Presidential candidacy is the likelihood of a major Democratic wave in the upcoming Presidential and Congressional Elections of 2016.
Polls indicate that the Electoral College could be a landslide for the Democrats, with the chance to gain such states as North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona, major areas of Hispanic and Latino growth, and indications of many registering to vote because of Trump’s anti Hispanic and anti Latino rhetoric, including against the nation of Mexico, which shares a 2,000 mile boundary with the United States.
The Senate has 34 seats facing election, with 24 of those seats being Republican, and at least ten seats of Republicans in danger of being lost, which would create a large margin of Democrats in the upper chamber.
The House of Representatives is a tough nut to crack, due to gerrymandering and the largest Republican majority in the lower chamber since 1928. At the least, the large GOP majority will dwindle, with an outside chance of a slim Democratic majority, which probably would be lost in the midterm elections of 2018.
But even a two year “window” would allow a Democratic President with both houses of Congress in his favor to accomplish major changes!
And, of course, the transformation of the Supreme Court would occur, which would have a long range effect.
This is what Donald Trump has done to the moribund Republican Party, and it looks more likely by the day!
Because of the terrorist attacks in Belgium, Trump and Cruz are attacking Muslims again.
In relation to the attacks, this piece talks about Hillary and hawkishness: http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2016/03/hate-to-say-it-but-this-why-you-give.html
I, myself, tend to be a little hawkish at times like this.
Here’s another good piece about this: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/22/brussels-attacks-foreign-policy-focus-only-clinton-passes-test
I’m a little bit more hawkish as well.
Quite agree all. When I heard SOS Clinton speech at AIPAC yesterday I was like UH OH. But its days like this that the American people want to hear and see a person’s strength. They don’t want to hear any asinine statements like what was put out by Trump this morning or the non chosen one Cruz talking about this is a religious war and we will turn into Nazi Germany and monitor a group of people just because of religion.
I agree also. Hillary passed her own 3 in the morning test today everyone else hit the snooze button.
Election news got pushed to the back burner due to the attacks. Here are the latest voting results. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-clinton-will-win-arizona-nbc-news-projects
This is … very interesting.
This is an interesting topic.
What typically, historically happens after two terms of one party having the White House is that that party experiences a decline even if that party wins a third consecutive presidential election.
Since the Republicans first competed against the Democrats in 1856, this was true of an 1868 Ulysses Grant; the third term won in 1940 by Franklin Roosevelt; and the 1988 vice president-to-president election of George Bush. In fact, before the Republicans first competed in 1856, this was also applicable to that previous vice president-to-president winner, from 1836, Democrat Martin Van Buren.
Since the U.S. Popular Vote was first recorded in 1824, there have been only two candidates who broke this pattern: In 1904, Republican Teddy Roosevelt outperformed the 1900 re-election of William McKinley; and in 1928, with three separate Republican winners during that decade, Herbert Hoover outperformed a 1924 Calvin Coolidge. (One may also want to count among exceptions an 1816 James Monroe. He outperformed the 1812 re-election of James Madison with carried states.)
In January 2015, I [as “DS0816â€] mentioned here the states’ voting records for their reliably in backing presidential winners. I will re-post that list here. (There is a small adjustment. And it can be found at ““Swing†States Becoming Fewer Every Election: Locking In Electoral Votes!†here: https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=23659 .) But I will also list all presidential elections winners’ percentages of states carried.
I will say that we are overdue for an Electoral College landslide. The last six election cycles—two-term victories for Bill Cinton (1992, 1996), George W. Bush (2000, 2004), and Barack Obama (2008, 2012)—have averaged 29 states carried. That’s the lowest level of support since the six election cycles of 1876 to 1896, when no winner reached 60 percent carriage of participating states. We haven’t experienced an Electoral College landslide in nearly 30 years. By today’s standard, I’m referring to a winner having reached 400 electoral votes and/or carriage of 40 states (80 percent of participating states). It last happened in 1988 with George Bush having won 426 electoral votes and 40 states. So, can the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee—more likely Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders—pull this off? Obviously, from Ronald, there is indication that Donald Trump is the type of losing candidate—and the 2016 Republican Party is the type of “partyâ€â€”who/which can help make this happen.
Here is the list of the previous 57 presidential elections—from 1789 to 2012—and the average percentages of states carried:
01. 1789 George Washington (10 of 10 states): 100.00%
02. 1792 George Washington (15 of 15): 100.00%
03. 1796 John Adams (09 of 16): 56.25%
04. 1800 Thomas Jefferson (09 of 16): 56.25%
05. 1804 Thomas Jefferson (15 of 17): 88.23529%
06. 1808 James Madison (12 of 17): 70.58823%
07. 1812 James Madison (11 of 18): 61.11111%
08. 1816 James Monroe (16 of 19): 84.21052%
09. 1820 James Monroe (24 of 24): 100.00%
10. 1824 John Quincy Adams (07 of 24): 29.16666%
11. 1828 Andrew Jackson (15 of 24): 62.50%
12. 1832 Andrew Jackson (16 of 24): 66.66666%
13. 1836 Martin Van Buren (15 of 26): 57.6923%
14. 1840 William Henry Harrison (19 of 26): 73.07692%
15. 1844 James Polk (15 of 26): 57.6923%
16. 1848 Zachary Taylor (15 of 30): 50.00%
17. 1852 Franklin Pierce (27 of 31): 87.09677%
18. 1856 James Buchanan (19 of 31): 61.29032%
19. 1860 Abraham Lincoln (17 of 32): 53.125%
20. 1864 Abraham Lincoln (22 of 25): 88.00%
21. 1868 Ulysses Grant (26 of 34): 76.47058%
22. 1872 Ulysses Grant (31 of 37): 83.78378%
23. 1876 Rutherford Hayes (21 of 38): 55.26315%
24. 1880 James Garfield (19 of 38): 50.00%
25. 1884 Grover Cleveland (20 of 38): 52.63157%
26. 1888 Benjamin Harrison (20 of 38): 52.63157%
27. 1892 Grover Cleveland (24 of 44): 54.54545%
28. 1896 William McKinley (23 of 45): 51.11111%
29. 1900 William McKinley (28 of 45): 62.22222%
30. 1904 Teddy Roosevelt (32 of 45): 71.11111%
31. 1908 William Howard Taft (29 of 46): 63.04347%
32. 1912 Woodrow Wilson (40 of 48): 83.33333%
33. 1916 Woodrow Wilson (30 of 48): 62.50%
34. 1920 Warren Harding (37 of 48): 77.08333%
35. 1924 Calvin Coolidge (35 of 48): 72.91666%
36. 1928 Herbert Hoover (40 of 48): 83.33333%
37. 1932 Franklin Roosevelt (42 of 48): 87.50%
38. 1936 Franklin Roosevelt (46 of 48): 95.83333%
39. 1940 Franklin Roosevelt (38 of 48): 79.16666%
40. 1944 Franklin Roosevelt (36 of 48): 75.00%
41. 1948 Harry Truman (28 of 48): 58.33333%
42. 1952 Dwight Eisenhower (39 of 48): 81.25%
43. 1956 Dwight Eisenhower (41 of 48): 85.41666%
44. 1960 John Kennedy (22 of 50): 44.00%
45. 1964 Lyndon Johnson (44 of 50): 88.00%
46. 1968 Richard Nixon (32 of 50): 64.00%
47. 1972 Richard Nixon (49 of 50): 98.00%
48. 1976 Jimmy Carter (23 of 50): 46.00%
49. 1980 Ronald Reagan (44 of 50): 88.00%
50. 1984 Ronald Reagan (49 of 50): 98.00%
51. 1988 George Bush (40 of 50): 80.00%
52. 1992 Bill Clinton (32 of 50): 64.00%
53. 1996 Bill Clinton (31 of 50): 62.00%
54. 2000 George W. Bush (30 of 50): 60.00%
55. 2004 George W. Bush (31 of 50): 62.00%
56. 2008 Barack Obama (28 of 50): 56.00%
57. 2012 Barack Obama (26 of 50): 52.00%
• [i][b]Cumulative Totals:[/b][/i] 3,984.43272, divided by 57, is 69.9023284% [69.90%]
• [i][b]Today’s Standard:[/b][/i] Average of 34 carried states.
Here is the list of all 50 states, with noting their number of participating election cycles, and their averages for having carried for presidential election winners:
01. New Mexico (24.5 of 26 cycles): 94.23%
02. Illinois (41.5 of 49 cycles): 84.69%
03. California (34.5 of 41 cycles): 84.14%
04. New York (47 of 56 cycles): 83.92%
05. Ohio (44 of 53 cycles): 83.01%
06. Pennsylvania (47 of 57 cycles): 82.45%
07. Nevada (31 of 38 cycles): 81.57%
08. Wisconsin (32.5 of 42 cycles): 77.38%
09. Arizona (20 of 26 cycles): 76.92%
10. West Virginia (29 of 38 cycles): 76.31%
11. Indiana (38 of 50 cycles): 76.00%
12. Minnesota (29.5 of 39 cycles): 75.64%
— Oregon (29.5 of 39 cycles): 75.64%
14. Missouri (37 of 49 cycles): 75.51%
15. New Hampshire (43 of 57 cycles): 75.43%
16. Iowa (31.5 of 42 cycles): 75.00%
17. Michigan (33.5 of 45 cycles): 74.44%
18. Florida (30.5 of 41 cycles): 74.39%
19. Montana (23 of 31 cycles): 74.19%
20. New Jersey (42 of 57 cycles): 73.68%
21. Utah (22 of 30 cycles): 73.33%
22. Washington (22.5 of 31 cycles): 72.58%
23. Rhode Island (40.5 of 56 cycles): 72.32%
24. Colorado (25 of 35 cycles): 71.42%
25. Tennessee (38.5 of 54 cycles): 71.29%
26. Connecticut (40.5 of 57 cycles): 71.05%
27. Idaho (22 of 31 cycles): 70.96%
— North Dakota (22 of 31 cycles): 70.96%
29. Oklahoma (19 of 27 cycles): 70.37%
30. North Carolina (38.5 of 55 cycles): 70.00%
— U.S. Presidential Elections (57 cycles from 3,984.43272 cumulative carried states):[/i] 69.90% —
31. Maryland (39.5 of 57 cycles): 69.29%
32. Virginia (38 of 55 cycles): 69.09%
33. Kansas (26 of 38 cycles): 68.42%
34. Maine (33.5 of 49 cycles): 68.36%
35. Hawaii (09.5 of 14 cycles): 67.85%
36. Wyoming (21 of 31 cycles): 67.74%
37. Massachusetts (38.5 of 57 cycles): 67.54%
38. Delaware (37.5 of 57 cycles): 65.78%
39. Vermont (36.5 of 56 cycles): 65.17%
40. Nebraska (24 of 37 cycles): 64.86%
41. Kentucky (36 of 56 cycles): 64.28%
— Louisiana (31.5 of 49 cycles): 64.28%
43. Arkansas (26 of 43 cycles): 60.46%
44. Texas (24 of 40 cycles): 60.00%
45. Georgia (33 of 56 cycles): 58.92%
— South Carolina (33 of 56 cycles): 58.92%
47. South Dakota (18 of 31 cycles): 58.06%
48. Alaska (08 of 14 cycles): 57.14%
49. Mississippi (25.5 of 47 cycles): 54.25%
50. Alabama (25.5 of 48 cycles): 53.12%
• Cumulative Totals: 3,984.43272, divided by 57, is 69.9023284% [69.90%]
• Today’s Standard: Average of 34 carried states.
I came across this funny report: “Poll: Utah would vote for a Democrat for president over Trump.”
@ http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865650513/Poll-Utah-would-vote-for-a-Democrat-for-president-over-Trump.html?pg=all
Utah is the last state a Republican should not be able to hold. In terms of percentage margins, Utah was the No. 1 state for Republicans—winners and losers alike—from a 1976 Gerald Ford to a 2004 George W. Bush. It was No. 3 for a 2008 John McCain. But, for a 2012 Mitt Romney, No. 1 again was Utah.
I don’t take this report too seriously. But, the context of it is something. In 2012, Utah carried for Mitt Romney 72.55 percent of the vote to the 24.67 for Barack Obama. That was a percentage margin of +47.88 for Romney. Given he lost nationally, in the U.S. Popular Vote, by 3.86…this means that Utah was +51.74 percentage points more Republican than how the nation voted.
There should be no such “report” like this regarding Utah.
(By the way: I’m not familiar with how do italics and bolds. I attempted to, with a previous response, and it did not work out.)
Some voters in Arizona had to wait hours to cast their ballots. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/weakened-voting-rights-act-some-arizona-voters-wait-hours
Thanks, again, D, for your great analysis! Much appreciated!
In my opinion, this election season has been anything but typical.
Princess Leia,
Thanks for that report on the primaries from Arizona!
“Reports suggest the problems Tuesday [March 22, 2016] were county-wide, and affected voters of all races. But Maricopa County’s population is 43 percent non-white or Hispanic, meaning it has a far higher share of minorities than the rest of the state.”
Maricopa County is the No. 1 most-populous county in Arizona. (According to Wikipedia.org, Maricopa County is the fourth most-populous county in the United States.) Its county seat is Phoenix. And it is about 60 percent of the state’s population.
There is no excuse to not provide sufficiently for the people in this county. So, yes, this was definitely voter suppression. In fact, given that half the states had already voted by this calendar date, with their primaries/caucuses, there was ample time for Arizona to have been well-prepared that its representatives cannot say that they did not anticipate the turnout.
For any of these issues to come up, here in 2016, leads to a discussion which is necessary but does not change my conclusion: This is corruption.