|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Hypothetical best and worst cases for electoral college votes given today's political environment? SpiderHyphenMan fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Mar 25, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Three Olives posted:
What is it with *young* Republicans and constantly talking about obsessively working out? I'm going to go with Barney Frank's take quote:"but I admit I did say if he’s not gay he spends an awful lot of time in the gym."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Yeah, based on average margin of victory from 1992 to 2008, from Wikipedia's article on Red States and Blue States. Pretty revealing, actually. It makes me think about us all sitting here and rattling around all these hypotheticals, when just from a structural position, there's a 78 out of 270 structural advantage built into being a Democratic presidential candidate, just from having a (D) after your name. I think the thing I don't understand is exactly how "mushy" that middle is, and how large the margins are of people who genuinely haven't picked teams. I know none of that counts the large population of non-voters. I want to try to confirm or deny my impression that of the people who WOULD vote, even if they claim to be independent, only a few will really shift from consistently voting (R) or (D) during their life. I know that's the trillion-dollar question, but are there any good long-form articles about this kind of analysis? Just structurally, I look at that, and think that the Republicans would need some kind of Obama-level charismatic candidate to sell their platform in any way that could overcome a 78 vote handicap, but I don't see anyone like that on the field at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Begs the question, though: Is a Reaganesque landslide even possible in today's political environment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:What is it with *young* Republicans and constantly talking about obsessively working out? Lifting weights sporadically: a destined to fail effort meant only to work on glamour muscles, while being as loud and domineering as possible while being at least ineffective to substantive goals. Yeah, I don't know why either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Begs the question, though: Is a Reaganesque landslide even possible in today's political environment? If the democratic party accidentally puts up a ticket of Literal Resurrected Hitler with a running mate of the biblical Satan, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Begs the question, though: Is a Reaganesque landslide even possible in today's political environment? It would require the Democrats to run a candidate with Clinton-like appeal on steroids (read: white Southern Democrat) and for the Republicans to nominate someone like Ted Cruz. Even then, I think you're only approaching 1992 or 1996-levels of electoral landslide. Nothing like what Reagan or Nixon did. The country's too different from how it was then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:If the democratic party accidentally puts up a ticket of Literal Resurrected Hitler with a running mate of the biblical Satan, maybe. If the Republicans put up the Literal Resurrected Hitler, they would still win the entire deep south, Oklahoma, the Dakota's and Montana.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:It would require the Democrats to run a candidate with Clinton-like appeal on steroids (read: white Southern Democrat) and for the Republicans to nominate someone like Ted Cruz. Even then, I think you're only approaching 1992 or 1996-levels of electoral landslide. Nothing like what Reagan or Nixon did. The country's too different from how it was then. Obama 2008 had nearly as many EVs as Clinton did, and he didn't have Perot. There are multiple ways of getting up to 370.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Begs the question, though: Is a Reaganesque landslide even possible in today's political environment? Even a disaster Republican isn't getting less than 151 electoral votes, and a disaster Democrat is about the same. So the biggest landslide you'll get in this climate is 387-151. Realistically it's unlikely anyone can do better than Obama's EC numbers in 2012. Maybe a Democrat could flip NC and IN and get that 1 Nebraska EV back. That's 359-179. Not within spitting distance of Reagan 1984. Look Sir Droids fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:If the Republicans put up the Literal Resurrected Hitler, they would still win the entire deep south, Oklahoma, the Dakota's and Montana. Probably Idaho as well, but Washington's civilized/rural split has probably rendered the Eastern sticks region of the state irrelevant at long last.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:It would require the Democrats to run a candidate with Clinton-like appeal on steroids (read: white Southern Democrat) and for the Republicans to nominate someone like Ted Cruz. Even then, I think you're only approaching 1992 or 1996-levels of electoral landslide. Nothing like what Reagan or Nixon did. The country's too different from how it was then. That and two rounds of reapportionment since the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:So he should, what, refuse to buy health care and eat the penalty? Rand Paul should definitely engage in more activities that jeopardize his own safety, yes. Sir Tonk posted:What is it with *young* Republicans and constantly talking about obsessively working out? "I live in the American Gardens Building on W. 81st Street on the 11th floor. My name is Patrick Bateman. I'm 27 years old. I believe in taking care of myself, and a balanced diet, and rigorous exercise routine. In the morning, if my face is a little puffy, I'll put on an ice pack while doing stomach crunches. I can do 1000 now."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:Pretty revealing, actually. It makes me think about us all sitting here and rattling around all these hypotheticals, when just from a structural position, there's a 78 out of 270 structural advantage built into being a Democratic presidential candidate, just from having a (D) after your name. The only states that really matter are Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Sure, North Carolina is a swing state, but if the Dems win there they've assuredly already won the whole contest. Out of those seven, the GOP needs the first three plus one of the last four (plus the Romney states). Yes, it's a uphill battle. The GOP needs to win every state they even have a slight projected advantage in plus take some shots into "lean D" territory. But that's hardly an insurmountable disadvantage. I do think voters are less prone to shifting their votes from D to R moreso now than ever, but there are others ways to get a big swing. The GOP could win the great turnout wars benefiting from an increasingly apathetic and disillusioned electorate. Hillary could commit a major fumble. Something that nobody predicted could happen. It's far from done deal imo, the GOP has at least a 30% chance at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:That lying son a bitch has never done a leg day in his life. Look at those pipe cleaners. He's got shoulders like a trout.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Begs the question, though: Is a Reaganesque landslide even possible in today's political environment? Mondale got 13 EVs in 1984. In order for Romney to have received a similar number in 2012 (17 EVs), Obama would have needed to perform 32% better than he did, winning everything except Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Nebraska's 3rd CD. In order for Obama to have received a similar number in 2012 (10 EVs), Romney would have needed to perform 29% better than he did, winning everything except Vermont, Hawaii, and Washington, D.C.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Well thanks, that's terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Even if you want to argue that, it's still a fact that the state voted for Obama twice and Walker has governed in a way FAR to the right of the state's electoral spectrum while getting re-elected twice. It seems foolish to dismiss him especially with his support from all the different coalitions within the GOP. He seems to me to be the candidate most likely able of uniting that party. I don't disagree with the latter premise (I don't think Walker's peaked and I'm really terrified of him), I'm just saying that Wisconsin's reputation as a blue -- hell, even a purple -- state is overblown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Mondale got 13 EVs in 1984. When a state goes red, it goes all in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:I don't think republicans love the Bush days anywhere near as much as you think. Sure the far-far right crazies do, but even for a lot of middle of the road republicans (white guys who care about the "economy and strong defense," but are't losing sleep over gay people being allowed to marry), Bush was and is a debacle. It's anecdotal but I was talking to a friend yesterday who identifies as a registered republican with libertarian leanings (I know), voted for Bush twice, but now says that he'd probably vote for Hillary over another Bush. That's how bad Bush was for the republican brand, and a lot of them know it. The party on the far right is batshit insane, but there are plenty of white male Republicans who don't care about social issues so much as the economy and if you offer them Bush vs. Clinton, they're at least going to pause and consider. I'd clarify further that the far-far right crazies don't love Bush either. They're the first ones that split off from his brother once Iraq turned sour, and they only embraced him more than grudgingly after 9/11 in the first place. They prefer wackier, tougher-talking candidates. It's just that what defines them is how they'll go through two feet of snow to vote straight ticket R even if they somehow forget every name on the ballot. And those are pretty much the votes a Bush will get in the general unless something drastic happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Here's a thing that exists: Kelley Paul: the photo shoot. Why does it exist? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Here's a thing that exists: Kelley Paul: the photo shoot. Look, buddy, Ted Cruz ain't the only Presidential Candidate with a blonde wife. Rand Paul will not allow a blonde gap! Edit: Actually, do any of the Republican candidates have non-blonde wives? I think Jeb's wife didn't dye her hair blonde, but I really can't remember. Gyges fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
I've got a question for everybody who thinks it's going to be Walker in the gen. Has there ever been a general election candidate that looked that loving sleepy, at all times?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I've got a question for everybody who thinks it's going to be Walker in the gen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:John Kerry? Oh come on now he wasn't a serious candidate, that doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Look, buddy, Ted Cruz ain't the only Presidential Candidate with a blonde wife. Rand Paul will not allow a blonde gap! Jeb, Christie, and Carson all have non-blonde wives. edit: and Walker, too. My work search history is now pretty creepy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:If he runs again he will officially be the white Alan Keyes. I read this as Alicia Keyes and was very confuSed both by the context and whatever it was you were trying to imply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Pead posted:Jeb, Christie, and Carson all have non-blonde wives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Pead posted:Jeb, Christie, and Carson all have non-blonde wives. Jeb Bush wife Chris Christie wife Ben Carson wife Scott Walker wife Scott Walker wife yoga pants Scott Walker wife Iowa eating corn dog
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I've got a question for everybody who thinks it's going to be Walker in the gen. Dukakis wasn't what I would call "peppy"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Chris Christie kinda looks like Luca Brasi from The Godfather. Come on, don't tell me you haven't imagined the man as a mobster. Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I've got a question for everybody who thinks it's going to be Walker in the gen. I think Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Chris Christie kinda looks like Luca Brasi from The Godfather. Holy poo poo you're right, his jowling is identical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Come on, don't tell me you haven't imagined the man as a mobster. I haven't imagined him as a mobster because much like Scorcese and Gandolfini, I don't need to imagine because those motherfuckers are clearly in on la cosa nostra if you get what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Chris Christie kinda looks like Luca Brasi from The Godfather. Christie is Bobby Bacala.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I haven't imagined him as a mobster because much like Scorcese and Gandolfini, I don't need to imagine because those motherfuckers are clearly in on la cosa nostra if you get what I'm saying. So what you're saying is... he's a friend of ours. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:So what you're saying is... he's a friend of ours. Well one is dead to me these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:So what you're saying is... he's a friend of ours. Does he hire people to paint houses though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:Pretty revealing, actually. It makes me think about us all sitting here and rattling around all these hypotheticals, when just from a structural position, there's a 78 out of 270 structural advantage built into being a Democratic presidential candidate, just from having a (D) after your name. It's worse than that for the GOP, honestly. If you look at historical trends and give each party every state that they've won at least five out of the last six elections for and it ends up being 257-158 in favor of the Ds. Even restrict that to six for six and it's still 242-102. Maybe stretch it to include all those southern states that've voted R for the last four elections straight - then you're still at 257-191. The GOP is at a HUGE structural disadvantage to the point where they can win everything remotely possible west of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon (ie everything that's not the coast states and MN) and STILL be trailing. To have a shot they need to really set the world on fire with a candidate - not much in the current field has the kind of star power for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 03:54
|
|
