Personally, I don't see any real chance of the R's losing to Bernie or Joe, IF, and let me stress that again, IF...they nominate a mainstream candidate like Bush or Kasich. I also think Rubio would beat those two as well. I don't give Bernie any real chance at all, against virtually any R.  

And yes, with an African American no longer on the D side, I do see more AA possibly voting for R, pending who that is. Kasich took 26% of the AA vote in Ohio, 33% of the AA male vote. Those are staggeringly high numbers for any R. I think Romney took 6%. Could Kasich get those numbers nationally? Don't know but if he got 15%, that would be a big stepping stone to the WH.

Now ask yourself this. Will the same number of AA voters turn out for Hills, or any Dem, with Obama off the ticket? Of course the answer would be no. So remember, in electoral politics, it's not just who gets what percentage, it's also very important how many people in raw numbers make it to the polls.

Also, the writer assumes the same percentage of white voters for the R in 2016 as there was in2012. Ok, but what if way more whites turn out? That would help the R candidate in all likelihood. And the pollsters told us that 4 million R voters stayed home because of Mitt being a Mormon. Once again, pending who the R nominee is, those 4 million, and more could vote for Bush, Kasich or even Rubio.

Yes, demographics are important, no doubt, but they are not ALL important. The candidates and their personality, charisma, ideas, looks, interpersonal skills, VP choice, money and how wisely it is spent, getting key endorsements (or not), economic conditions at the time, if we are at war or not, which base is more fired up, which candidates are pitted against whom, etc are all really important factors as well.  

Not any one of those is predictive for the ultimate winner.