Obama is hemorraging support from democrats. The next election map will have more red. The map is somewhat deceptive. If you look at the county level, "blue" states such as New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, Oregon, and Washington are almost entirely red; the exception being their big cities which typically go blue.
What amazed me about this map was that when I from California voted in 76 for the first time that Ford accually won in California over Carter. More amazing, though yes he was a natvie Californian, was that Nixon accually won the vote in California over Kennedy. How times have changed.
@Claronium780 Why do you say that? Only 29% say he will, he hasn't grown his margin (which was 53%, all modern two termers had grown their margins) and he's bleeding voters. It doesn't look too good for him, but you never know...
@bmf1706 that is bullshit - have you even WATCHED The news ONCE since the midterms - particularly the last week or two???? What makes you think Sarah Palin or even Mit Romney even COULD beat Obama?
@Claronium780 Because it is two years out, which historically means nothing--McCain was leading Obama 55-45 in September of 08. Also, no President since FDR has been reelected with unemployment growing during his Presidency--it was 6.5% when he took office and the CBO says that theuir best estimate for November of 2012 will be 8.5% He is bleeding in the major demographics, losing everyone except Blacks and hispanics. Use your brain, not MSNBC's...
@bmf1706 Well put, very well said. Modern media has turned into a whore, willing to tell everyone what the highest bidder wants them to say. Unfortunately that means to get the truth, you cant watch mass media. However, these national polls, and research studies have more truth behind them. You my good fellow, are informed. And that, is a sad rarity. Keep up the fire.
@cptnsnowbe Thank you very much. Looking back at that comment, things look bleaker now b/c I'm not sure if anyone thinks that unemployment will be 8.5% in Nov. 2012. Perhaps Obama will win, who really knows? But I will do my part to make sure that that does not happen.
It's all demographics and some of the so called landslides came in years where turnout was low. The elections of 1980 and 1988 come to mind. Clinton's 1992 win wasn't so much the country electing him as much as rejecting bush. The 1960, 2000, and 2004 elections showed gridlock and that the people wanted very little to change because in all cases it was a 1 state win. 2008 wasn't so much a landslide but it was a big win especially when you look at the turnout numbers.
The only reason Clinton won the election in 96 is because the republican party lost their best candidate. And that candidate would go on to divide the republican party. Just like the "Wilson-Roosevelt-Taft" election
If you look at the 2000 election to the one that had just occurred, you can clearly tell where the Republicans are strong and where the Democrats are strong. By the looks of it, Obama had expanded the map, and has taken states that have gone Repub. for years i.e Indiana, N. Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada. You can see the rise of the Democratic Party once again, especially after Obama's win. You can clearly tell that by looking at the '04 map and '08, the Democrats have more power.
I wonder how the hell I got a 'thumbs down'. Probably from some loser Repub who's just mad that the Dems are currently in power. But anyways, what do you mean people hate Obama now? Are you serious. Yes, there is a massive debate about healthcare and some people don't agree, but that doesn't mean somehow most people that him. Look at the poll numbers, why has his approval rating consistently been over 50%?
It sucks that alot of the typically red states are getting more electoral votes in 2012, and the typically blue states are losing them.
I just hope by 2012, things will have started to turn around like they did in 96 with Clinton, so that dumbass Palin wont fool enough people to get elected...
@RavenMichaels i wish that they would divide up some of the electoral votes because california would have lost just under half (48% republican) same with most other states. Either way all i can say is this: democrats in 2010 and in 2012 will lose big...thank god
@Mr40acresandamule We could but then we are moving torwards a democracy when the founding fathers did everything they could to prevent us from being one. However I really think they shouldnt allow the unemployed to vote.
@Mr40acresandamule Not so much people that have been recently laid off, but more the people who have been on welfare and unemployment programs for over a certain ammount of time. I look at it this way, democrats enjoy inner city slum voters because they give them "free" they want to stay on "free" where is the motivation to go find work? They live off the system sucking the life out of this country, so i would propose dont let the majority vote so politicians cant keep these programs goin.
@mikethebassguy Oh, I see the reason. You would have to change the
constitution to disenfranchise the people. Poor people don't make up a large voting block in the electorate. The problem is that no political party has developed that solves the problem of too much government dependence. There are too many structural barriers that allow people to remain dependant on the government. Applying for unemployment benefits are too easy. People forget that poor people do work.
Yeah, poor Walter Mondale. Second biggest electoral defeat *ever* for a major party candidate. George McGovern did slightly better but at least it's known his opponent cheated.
look at the 64' to 68' swing :0
BlakeInternational 1 month ago
Obama is hemorraging support from democrats. The next election map will have more red. The map is somewhat deceptive. If you look at the county level, "blue" states such as New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California, Oregon, and Washington are almost entirely red; the exception being their big cities which typically go blue.
jadedmastermind 5 months ago
What amazed me about this map was that when I from California voted in 76 for the first time that Ford accually won in California over Carter. More amazing, though yes he was a natvie Californian, was that Nixon accually won the vote in California over Kennedy. How times have changed.
elnick1000 5 months ago
wow. 1960 texas was blue and california was red. WTF
mcmcerson 7 months ago
Why is Missouri gray in 2008 it should be red.
dvferyance 7 months ago
@dvferyance because it was too close to call and didn't matter anyway.
mcmcerson 7 months ago
You got to be a sorry son of b*tch to make Nixon look that good in 72'!
jerseydevilxx 8 months ago
Obama will be re-elected - eve if Mit Romney is the Republican nominee and ESPECIALLY is Sarah Palin is !
Claronium780 1 year ago
@Claronium780 Why do you say that? Only 29% say he will, he hasn't grown his margin (which was 53%, all modern two termers had grown their margins) and he's bleeding voters. It doesn't look too good for him, but you never know...
bmf1706 1 year ago
@bmf1706 that is bullshit - have you even WATCHED The news ONCE since the midterms - particularly the last week or two???? What makes you think Sarah Palin or even Mit Romney even COULD beat Obama?
Claronium780 1 year ago
@Claronium780 Because it is two years out, which historically means nothing--McCain was leading Obama 55-45 in September of 08. Also, no President since FDR has been reelected with unemployment growing during his Presidency--it was 6.5% when he took office and the CBO says that theuir best estimate for November of 2012 will be 8.5% He is bleeding in the major demographics, losing everyone except Blacks and hispanics. Use your brain, not MSNBC's...
bmf1706 1 year ago 7
@bmf1706 Well put, very well said. Modern media has turned into a whore, willing to tell everyone what the highest bidder wants them to say. Unfortunately that means to get the truth, you cant watch mass media. However, these national polls, and research studies have more truth behind them. You my good fellow, are informed. And that, is a sad rarity. Keep up the fire.
cptnsnowbe 7 months ago
@cptnsnowbe Thank you very much. Looking back at that comment, things look bleaker now b/c I'm not sure if anyone thinks that unemployment will be 8.5% in Nov. 2012. Perhaps Obama will win, who really knows? But I will do my part to make sure that that does not happen.
bmf1706 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's all demographics and some of the so called landslides came in years where turnout was low. The elections of 1980 and 1988 come to mind. Clinton's 1992 win wasn't so much the country electing him as much as rejecting bush. The 1960, 2000, and 2004 elections showed gridlock and that the people wanted very little to change because in all cases it was a 1 state win. 2008 wasn't so much a landslide but it was a big win especially when you look at the turnout numbers.
crackmonster99 1 year ago
Comment removed
crackmonster99 1 year ago
Wow so Reagan has the Record for electoral wins in the 20th century!!!!
countrylifterdw 1 year ago 4
@countrylifterdw: Yes, how moronic is that
strattfordcrass 9 months ago
Dole got WAY more votes in 96 then he should have. Stubborn Republicans...
RavenMichaels 1 year ago
@RavenMichaels
The only reason Clinton won the election in 96 is because the republican party lost their best candidate. And that candidate would go on to divide the republican party. Just like the "Wilson-Roosevelt-Taft" election
MuskratandRatman 1 year ago
Wow, NY sure lost a lot of electoral value over the decades. Damn! lol
kebiwan 2 years ago
1964 was outstanding! 1936 was even better, but that was before the video
RochesterFICS 2 years ago
If you look at the 2000 election to the one that had just occurred, you can clearly tell where the Republicans are strong and where the Democrats are strong. By the looks of it, Obama had expanded the map, and has taken states that have gone Repub. for years i.e Indiana, N. Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada. You can see the rise of the Democratic Party once again, especially after Obama's win. You can clearly tell that by looking at the '04 map and '08, the Democrats have more power.
JasonBonitati 3 years ago
not at this rate. people hate obama now. if he keeps this up, the democrats "fun under the sun" will be worn out.
MuskratandRatman 2 years ago
I wonder how the hell I got a 'thumbs down'. Probably from some loser Repub who's just mad that the Dems are currently in power. But anyways, what do you mean people hate Obama now? Are you serious. Yes, there is a massive debate about healthcare and some people don't agree, but that doesn't mean somehow most people that him. Look at the poll numbers, why has his approval rating consistently been over 50%?
JasonBonitati 2 years ago
It sucks that alot of the typically red states are getting more electoral votes in 2012, and the typically blue states are losing them.
I just hope by 2012, things will have started to turn around like they did in 96 with Clinton, so that dumbass Palin wont fool enough people to get elected...
RavenMichaels 1 year ago
What blue states are going down in the electoral numbers? I know that my state (NY) will lose one...
JasonBonitati 1 year ago
@RavenMichaels i wish that they would divide up some of the electoral votes because california would have lost just under half (48% republican) same with most other states. Either way all i can say is this: democrats in 2010 and in 2012 will lose big...thank god
mikethebassguy 1 year ago
@mikethebassguy No lets abolish the electoral college
Mr40acresandamule 1 year ago
@Mr40acresandamule We could but then we are moving torwards a democracy when the founding fathers did everything they could to prevent us from being one. However I really think they shouldnt allow the unemployed to vote.
mikethebassguy 1 year ago
@mikethebassguy That is interesting. Why should the unemployed be barred from voting? Explain.
Mr40acresandamule 1 year ago
@Mr40acresandamule Not so much people that have been recently laid off, but more the people who have been on welfare and unemployment programs for over a certain ammount of time. I look at it this way, democrats enjoy inner city slum voters because they give them "free" they want to stay on "free" where is the motivation to go find work? They live off the system sucking the life out of this country, so i would propose dont let the majority vote so politicians cant keep these programs goin.
mikethebassguy 1 year ago
@mikethebassguy Oh, I see the reason. You would have to change the
constitution to disenfranchise the people. Poor people don't make up a large voting block in the electorate. The problem is that no political party has developed that solves the problem of too much government dependence. There are too many structural barriers that allow people to remain dependant on the government. Applying for unemployment benefits are too easy. People forget that poor people do work.
Mr40acresandamule 1 year ago
1984 IS A WOWZA!!!
Hannahluvr321 3 years ago
1984= Almost perfect map.
MuskratandRatman 3 years ago
Yeah, poor Walter Mondale. Second biggest electoral defeat *ever* for a major party candidate. George McGovern did slightly better but at least it's known his opponent cheated.
Daybreaq 3 years ago
nixon was ownage
Bamsecat 3 years ago 5
@Bamsecat No, that would be Reagan sir.
jschwind435 7 months ago
Hurray first comment! But seriously...ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
If I didn't look at this I would have never believed that a scenario such as the one in 1972 would ever be possible! Thats just embarrassing!
xo8jumbalaya8ox 3 years ago