Chris Ladd's Blue Wall

What emerges from the numbers is the continuation of a trend that has been in place for almost two decades. Once again, Republicans are disappearing from the competitive landscape at the national level across the most heavily populated sections of the country while intensifying their hold on a declining electoral bloc of aging, white, rural voters. The 2014 election not only continued that doomed pattern, it doubled down on it. As a result, it became apparent from the numbers last week that no Republican candidate has a credible shot at the White House in 2016, and the chance of the GOP holding the Senate for longer than two years is precisely zero.

For Republicans looking for ways that the party can once again take the lead in building a nationally relevant governing agenda, the 2014 election is a prelude to a disaster. Understanding this trend begins with a stark graphic.


he goes on...
http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2014/11/t...ion/#28114101=0
*****************************

And then from the other side The Daily Kos by johnnygunn

Chris Ladd Is Delusional if He Thinks the GOP Has No Chance in 2016

And you are too, if you buy that Brooklyn Bridge. Sad thing is, so many people around here want so desperately to believe it. At least based on the poll and comments, lots of people are delighted to hear that the Democratic candidate is a shoo-in in 2015. Think again.

Blue Wall, Schmoo Wall. A close look at recent presidential races, statewide races, and congressional delegations suggests that 2016 will be VERY competitive. Not to mention that no country has had a more regular switch in party control of leadership since World War II than the United States. With the single exception of 1980, Democrats and Republicans have alternated in the White House every 8 years. Like clockwork.

Take a look at a different map - -


I have created a rubric using the past four presidential elections for each state - weighing 2012 at 4 points, 2008 at 3 points, 2004 at 2 points, and 2000 at 1 point. Past voting is the best predictor of future voting - with the recent past more important than more distant elections.


If you notice, the two pink states - Indiana and North Carolina - are the states that Obama carried in 2008 but lost in 2012. We'll talk about a Democrat's chances in both later - but they are slim to none. The maximum electoral votes that a Democrat is likely to receive in 2016 is 332 - the same states and total that Obama won in 2012. That's the maximum.

No Democrat is going to win Georgia, Missouri, Arizona, or West Virginia. The four most critical states for Democrats to hold are Florida, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio. The Democratic margins in the 2012 election for each were 1%, 6%, 7%, and 3%.

Although past presidential elections represent more than half of the rubric, there should also be consideration given to statewide races, congressional delegations, and the legislative control from each state. Governor's races show not only the willingness of the state electorate to vote for one party or the other, but a state's governor has a significant influence on the overall political climate of his or her state.

Whether Nikki Haley is governor of South Carolina or Jerry Brown is governor of California will make little difference in the outcome of the 2016 election, but Republican governors in swing states may make a difference. The four most critical states , FL, IA, NV, and OH, all have Republican governors. Democratic governors in Colorado and Virginia may help keeps those states in the Dem column.

and there's more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/21...Chance-in-2016#