We have the candidates. They have the power.

NO EXCUSE NOT TO VOTE.

Then the "blue wall" will hold up. We then need at least one swing state (Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Ohio) to win the presidency.

Pennsylvania
Wisconsin

We could still win three of four you list (if one is Iowa) and still lose without Penn and Wisconsin.

With Pennsylvania and Wisconsin we still need Florida or any two of the other three listed.

This assumes that Nevada and Colorado go Republican.

Remember the primary reason we won Ohio was the Romney's failure to back the auto deal.

The map looks better for the Democrats, but a lot of folks in the midwest really do not like Secretary Clinton. Castro will not help in those areas.

Florida is the key. With that we can give up


I like 270 to win
http://www.270towin.com/

against the herd of zombies, um, I mean the Republicans.

People are freaking crazy. Normal people (at least I thought) tell me they think they'll vote for Trump. They pay little attention to the news, don't bother with debates, but they figure "it's time to get somebody different in there, shake things up a little."

Pundits be damned. Anybody (yes, even Bernie) can win, anybody can lose.

by the US Constitution. It gives the smaller states the two extra senatorial electoral votes. The winner-take-all of the electoral college helps us by making California a massive vote bloc.

We can't assume the winner-take-all principle will hold. The Republicans control many state governments. If they retain winner-take-all in places like Texas, which they'll win, but break up the solid bloc in blue states like Michigan, we could be really screwed.

That eliminating the winner take all state by state was originally a Democratic party position when the rural out-state votes were overwhelming the big city votes.

While it would help the Republicans in the near term, a possible rational methodology would be that the winner of a congressional district would get the electoral vote from that district while the statewide winner would get the two senatorial electoral votes. Recounts would be simpler and more localized unless the recount challenge came down to the two senatorial votes. .

As far as eliminating the electoral college, can you imagine a nationwide recount?

First, the Electoral College favors the Republicans because of the overrepresentation of the small rural states, most of which are red. It's been argued by some that the winner-take-all feature works to counterbalance this. A big urbanized state offers candidates a large bloc of votes. As a result, the candidates pay more attention to that state, and a vote in that state is more likely to swing the election. If winner-take-all were eliminated, the pro-Republican bias that arises from giving each state two additional votes, regardless of population, would be unchecked.

Second, allocating votes by Congressional district exacerbates the gerrymandering problem. It would be quite conceivable that, in a highly gerrymandered state, the Democratic candidate could get more votes statewide but the Republican candidate could get more of that state's electoral votes.

I suppose people are sick of the outgoing guy and think cleaning house is a good idea, the new bunch won't be up on all the latest stealing techniques.

The wild cards are how utterly and obviously crazy the GOP has gotten and the populist campaign Sanders is running.

and the general fact of how they fuck up every time they elected, you still can't count out the ability of the Dems to blow it.

Nonetheless, it does feel different this year.

I think his candidacy generates more enthusiasm. While of course HRC generates her share of enthusiasm, there is also a segment that is more resigned than enthusiastic. Enthusiasm is what you saw in the post-debate online polls, which were terrible as actual indicators of "who won" but were, I think, someonewhat indicative of whose supporters are more enthusiastic. (Admittedly, also skewed by the fact that younger generations would participate in such polls much more than older folk would.)

I think BS could generate more GOTV mojo for Dems than HRC would. And on the flip side, I think HRC generates more GOTV mojo for the Republicans (against her) than BS would. (I actually think BS would get more crossover votes tn HRC would, for that matter.)

That said, I think HRC will win the nomination. I think that's the tougher battle for BS. If he can get past that, though, I think he's the best candidate for the GE. I actually think either of them would probably win the general, but I think BS would do better for the reasons above. Of course, there are also variables like exactly who they will be running against, and who the running mates are...

......after Watergate. It keeps rising up, thirsty for the blood of the 99%.

and the horrible things they have done, yet still they are taken seriously by the population. I know part of it is that the media insists on maintaining the two party system at all costs, and a lot of people are stupid... but still... gobsmacking.

shouldn't and couldn't.

It's far from conclusive, because Sanders polling has not been done in as many states, but based on 270towin.com, in every state where both combinations have been polled, Sanders does the same or better than Clinton.

http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/sanders-trump-electoral-map

Gerrymandering, electoral fraud, unlimited money to Republicans, and Democrats staying home on Election Day.

It has happened before, it can happen again.

Let's all hope the fuck NOT!!!!!!

Republicans will have no issue - at all - with that last part.

I don't think the "if it isn't Hillary/if it isn't Bernie" crowd makes up enough of the electorate to sway the election this time. No one wants a repeat of 2000 unless they never cared in the first place.

That's a major part of the General election, too. A gridlock-free Democratic presidency would be ever slightly more effective than one blocked at every legislative turn, and while gerrymandering doesn't affect the election of the president, it DOES affect the presidency, which is the word used in the OP.

Reuters built a computer model to predict which political party will win the presidency in next year’s election, and the results are in: a Republican will most likely be moving into the White House in 2017.

The data model takes into account a number of factors, most importantly the historic trend that “successor” candidates—those from the same party as the current president—are three times less likely to win, Reuters said. Given President Obama’s middling ratings, this means the Democrats are facing stiff odds in the upcoming White House battle.

http://fortune.com/2015/10/15/computer-white-house-winner/

Z

perhaps the only real enemy that can defeat Dems in the Pres election. If Dems turn out, Dems will win that one. And given the number and party of the contested Senate seats this cycle, there's a good chance to win that one too.

The gerrymandered House seats are another story. Dems outvoted Repubs in the last couple of cycles, but Repubs still won, largely due to gerrymandering. Overcoming that will be a major challenge. Given the historical 90+% recidivism rate in the House, it well may be impossible.

with threats not to vote if 'their' candidate loses the primary.

I haven't seen it this bad ever, and I've voted in 12 presidential elections.

DU is in dire need of weeding right now.

AL Gore was Never Considered a Shoo-in.

Never.

Over and over, and they get away with it.

Florida, 2000.

Texas, 2002. Three R's win by exactly 18,181 votes.

Ohio, 2004.

Ohio was attempted in 2012, but they couldn't pull it off. Thus, Rove's apoplexy.

These are the tip of the iceberg.

They, Being Corporate and politicians, Have and will do any and every thing to gerrymander and bribe for their preferred outcome, THE ONLY WAY To a progressive and equitable country is for each and every person to VOTE

have a lot more dirty tricks up their sleeves. The only way to beat them is to get out the vote.

I seriously doubt we will hold the WH. I'm not saying we have no chance but tRump could be the next president.

He spoke about being a compassionate conservative and portrayed himself as a center-right moderate. His tax cut math didn't add up, but the media was too "nice" to point that out to the voters. Other than that, he didn't come across nearly as terrible as he turned out to be.

But it's also over a year from the GE.

There is still time for them to get organized around a competitive candidate who may not even be running at this juncture

that makes shitty decisions and wants to skip school .

Not surprised.. all of this cheerleading for our candidates while i love it .. obscures the fact that Both of our frontrunners are Losing almost all of the swing states to Trump and the rest of the clowncar.. it migght already be a forgone conclusion that we are gonna lose next year to a clown!!!! Talk me down. but i have suspected for awhile that Trump or any of the others will crush us next year cause people won't vote because of lack of enthusiasm (no Pres O on the ticket) and people already made up their minds to vote R (3rd term curse) and combined with the fact many or most have made up their minds they arent voting for Hillary even if they don't vote R and that bernie probably won't be strong enough if he is already losing PA etc.. ugh....I think we are f ucked...

. . . the Supreme Court with its Reagan appointees denied the Presidency to the man who had won by more than 500,000 votes by refusing to count ALL the votes.

bummer

You cheat, and you have others help you cheat.

He never won a presidential election.

However, the MSM declared him the winner of two of them.

those people will never hold the #1 spot again.

. . . but 80% of whom are too lazy or misguided to vote.

. . . how corrupt the Supreme Court of the United States with its Reagan appointees really is.

Has gone too far in our favor. Look at virginia in 2014. Warner was basically comatose in a republican wave year and he still won.

2000: "America can't be that stupid." - Confidence based on assumptions about how other people should think. In fact, we DID win this election, but.. .well, I'm sure you were there.

2016: "We outnumber them and are busting ass to get everyone registered." - confidence based on what we have, and what we are doing.

They haven't won legitimately since '88 with Poppa Bush. They cheated in 2000 and 2004.

They know the demographics of the country are browning rapidly and their base is rapidly aging out. That is why they cheat.

We stymied them in '08 and '12 though because we're on to their cheating.

Remember Rove's melt down on FOX on election night in 2012? He thought he had pulled off another vote rigging operation in Ohio but he was outfoxed.

We outnumber them and they know it. And we turn out in the presidential election years.

First, it's rare for one party to hold the White House for three terms.

Second, the last time the American people were given the chance, they gave the House and Senate to the GOP.

Third, well, George W. Bush was elected at least once.

Nothing is sure, or even probable. We're going to have to work our tails off for the nominee.

They just always find a way to make the race uncomfortably close.

but I do think we have a good chance, especially if Bernie's the nominee. He's generating a lot of energy among people who are not traditional voters. He's getting people to register to vote who never voted before, and he says he's met them at the rallies. the biggest factor is the young people. They are showing up in droves to Bernie rallies. If that enthusiasm turns into votes, there will be no problem taking the White House if Bernie's the nominee. If Hillary is the nominee, I do think a lot of people will be disenchanted and will be frustrated at the continued status quo and may not end up voting at all. Or some of us may vote for a different candidate for president out of conscience. But the biggest factor in Hillary losing will be that the young people just won't come out to vote, and all the people who got excited about Bernie and register just so they could vote for him may not be able to bring themselves to vote for more of the same. Bottom line, if Bernie's the nom-we've got a good shot if Hillary is the nom say hello to President Trump.

he is against heavy odds against a status quo candidate, and we all know that the ones in power what somebody in that they can control. But I'm not giving up yet.

but that is all I would give up which is really nothing.

it will be clear that the Democratic Party is beyond saving. Maybe it's time for a true third-party after all.

A Corporate Mediatocracy that is raking in thousands of millions of dollars by enabling Vanity Plate candidates like Trump and our country is fucked.