Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 2000 and 2004 New Mexico was a solid swing state and a close election
In 2008 and 2012 it leaned right and went for Obama
I think the 2016 will be more competitive than the last two elections but less so than 2000 and 2004.
Do you guys think NM will go for Hillary Clinton or a Republican? Do you guys think New Mexicans want an Hispanic republican for president like Ted Cruz or MarcoRubio?
Bush was popular because of his stance on immigration.
I think you mean leaned left.
Depends who the GOP puts forth IMO.
As for Cruz or Rubio? No way, only Fox viewers (used here as a euphemism) are under the delusion that Mexicans and Cubans consider themselves in any way similar outside of a common language.
Republicans have a relatively reliable, inelastic supply of voters. If democrats stay home, they win. If democrats are in the lead, they're powerless to change that no matter how much money they throw at the problem.
The result is that it has a lot less to do with the quality of the R candidate than the D candidate (can they get the funding). So far, looks like the D candidate is getting the funding, meaning my projection is that NM goes D by about the fifth-slimmest margin of all the states in 2016. As time goes by, loyal R's die and lazy R's replace them, following the D's trend. This means the R's more-votes-per-registered-voter advantage is eroding (though still there).
Independent and third-party voters are also a bigger percentage of NM's voting public than they used to be. They're still too small a force to move the needle that far (as they cover all viewpoints). Turncoat voters (such as R's who vote in primaries but vote D in general) are also present within these numbers. I'd be willing to bet there are far more D's in R's clothing than the reverse in this state.
My view is that if she is the D candidate, Hillary may significantly change the historical polling dynamics of a number of states, including New Mexico.
Besides the normal R vs D squabbling, the Clintons come with their own set of dynamics. As recent news articles reflect, they have always played by their own set of rules. IMHO Bill has come across as a friendly rogue; you may not completely agree with how he does things, but you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Hillary, on the other hand, doesn't engender a friendly feeling at all. I think the voters are going to be much less willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I think Hillary will be a lightning rod for both those who are for her and those opposed to her. And since more voters usually seem to come to the polls to vote against something rather than when they are for something, this dynamic may favor the Rs. Of course, this will depend on a couple of other key factors:
- Whether the Rs get their act together and field a truly electable candidate, and
- How much baggage Hillary is still carrying at election time.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,820 posts, read 24,084,255 times
Reputation: 14765
I'm certainly not looking forward to political TV ad season. I was about ready to kill my TV last election season, and that was only for mid-terms elections. In the swing states, it all just depends on how many show up at the polls. Every election gets uglier, with the Super Pacs. I can't stand it.
I'm certainly not looking forward to political TV ad season. I was about ready to kill my TV last election season, and that was only for mid-terms elections.
I killed my TV 25 years ago. Never missed it for a second.
It's nice to not have your brain assaulted constantly by expertly crafted mental manipulating BS. Just do it.
Bush was popular because of his stance on immigration.
I think you mean leaned left.
Depends who the GOP puts forth IMO.
As for Cruz or Rubio? No way, only Fox viewers (used here as a euphemism) are under the delusion that Mexicans and Cubans consider themselves in any way similar outside of a common language.
Jeb Bush would be popular, too, and it's more than just his stand on immigration. His wife is Mexican American I believe, and I think all of the Bush sons speak Spanish.
Cruz and Rubio would probably cost the GOP Latino votes because none of the other Latino groups like the Cubans. I think there's a lot of resentment towards the Cubans because most Latino groups see the Cubans as getting special, favored treatment in regards to immigration.
My view is that if she is the D candidate, Hillary may significantly change the historical polling dynamics of a number of states, including New Mexico.
Besides the normal R vs D squabbling, the Clintons come with their own set of dynamics. As recent news articles reflect, they have always played by their own set of rules. IMHO Bill has come across as a friendly rogue; you may not completely agree with how he does things, but you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Hillary, on the other hand, doesn't engender a friendly feeling at all. I think the voters are going to be much less willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I think Hillary will be a lightning rod for both those who are for her and those opposed to her. And since more voters usually seem to come to the polls to vote against something rather than when they are for something, this dynamic may favor the Rs. Of course, this will depend on a couple of other key factors:
- Whether the Rs get their act together and field a truly electable candidate, and
- How much baggage Hillary is still carrying at election time.
The Clintons have historically been popular in New Mexico, Hillary included. Remember, she won the New Mexico primary in 2008 at the height of the Obama wave. As I recall, her popularity was especially pronounced among New Mexico Hispanics.
(For other visitors to this thread, it's worth pointing out yet again that New Mexico's Hispanic population is largely homegrown, deeply rooted in the state, and distinct in many ways from both the immigrant-derived Mexican-American population and any larger "Hispanic" cultural grouping. I agree that Cuban roots or connections are unlikely to play well here, but the same could probably be said of Mexican-American ones).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the swing states, it all just depends on how many show up at the polls. Every election gets uglier, with the Super Pacs. I can't stand it.
