|
Cliff Racer posted:Thats not what swingstate means you stupid fucker. Its states that can realistically cast their votes for either party. That's not Pennslyvania. Please try to calm yourself. CaptainCarrot posted:"Swing" does not mean "always votes for the winner". Pennsylvania has consistently been very close, with the exception of 2008, and both parties have devoted significant amounts of manpower and energy to winning it for the last several cycles. I know, I'm saying Pennslyvania is the farthest thing from a swing state.  Very Close yet consistently Democrat, and when it votes Republican in recent history (past 40 years) it's only been in sweeping waves.
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I know, I'm saying Pennsylvania is the farthest thing from a swing state. That statement is so laughably false that I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone completely ignorant of electoral politics and terminology.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:That statement is so laughably false that I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone completely ignorant of electoral politics and terminology. You can plug your ears and shout all you want, it hasn't been a swing state since the 60s. Republicans keep trying to pull it in nonsweep elections since then but it simply does not budge. You might as well call Minnesota swing. Fun fact: New Jersey's voting has changed more since the 60s than PA. Pennslyvania is simply not a swing state. The sort of half rear end journalists who rely on a horse race narrative try to insist it is but it's simply not one by any definition that doesn't make every state except Minnesota a swing state. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 06:54 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No we haven't you no name nerd. Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Pennsylvania's about as much of a swing state at the presidential level as Wisconsin, which is to say there are are a significant number of people posting in this thread who weren't yet born the last time either state was carried by a Republican.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Pennsylvania's about as much of a swing state at the presidential level as Wisconsin, which is to say there are are a significant number of people posting in this thread who weren't yet born the last time either state was carried by a Republican. And both regularly elect Republicans on a state level.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Pennsylvania's about as much of a swing state at the presidential level as Wisconsin, which is to say there are are a significant number of people posting in this thread who weren't yet born the last time either state was carried by a Republican. Really, because Roth/Gonzalez says otherwise.  Cook agrees, sort of. Except he places both as being more competitive than several states that have voted against their typical party. They're more competitive than New Mexico (R in 2004,) Indiana (D in 2008), and that one Nebraska district. Not to mention a goddamn boatload of red Clinton states. To be quite frank I think he's offbase on PA, its still a swing state but it definitely has more in common with the "likely" states than with Wisconsin or the toss ups.  To be quite frank you'd be a fool to have said that same stuff about Virginia and NC in 2008 and I think you are a fool for saying it here about Wisconsin.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
It's not about margins of victory (particularly when they're as consistent as pennsylvania's), it's about whether there is a plausible path to victory that does not involve a realignment. The configuration of voters in Pennsylvania makes it relatively safe-D, it's just that the configuration of voters also keeps the margin of victory for Ds from being particularly large. There is not enough room for change, on a year-by-year basis, to call it a swing state at the Presidential level. The next Republican presidential candidate to win the state will be somebody who is not recognizeable as a Republican, under the current coalition norms.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And both regularly elect Republicans on a state level. Well good thing we're not talking about state level elections.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Calling a State a swing state because it "swung" Republican in an election with an earthshattering margin like Reagan/Mondale is pretty laughable. That's a useless metric.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And both regularly elect Republicans on a state level. Kentucky regularly elects Democrats at the state level, but it ain't a loving swing state.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:Kentucky regularly elects Democrats at the state level, but it ain't a loving swing state. Noted conservative bastion New York City.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Just found out about Bernie and my body is ready - does he have an actual chance at winning?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Just found out about Bernie and my body is ready - does he have an actual chance at winning? He's Bizzaro Ron Paul except he has the good character to not fleece people too regularly.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Just found out about Bernie and my body is ready - does he have an actual chance at winning? No. At best he'll stay in long enough for you to feel good about your primary vote. He's not winning poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Gyges posted:No. At best he'll stay in long enough for you to feel good about your primary vote. He's not winning poo poo. Well, not with an attitude like that!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Just found out about Bernie and my body is ready - does he have an actual chance at winning? If Hillary and the top five or so Republicans are destroyed by a freak meteor impact, too late in primary season for somebody like Cuomo to jump in, sure.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Just found out about Bernie and my body is ready - does he have an actual chance at winning? Well he has created a much larger buzz than I was anticipating, so he has a better chance than I expected before he officially announced his candidacy. If he goes after the demographic he needs to go after (people too disillusioned by politicians to bother voting) and can continue his surprising momentum from the past couple of days, he has a shot, especially when it comes to debates. And don't forget that Hillary's 08 campaign unraveled in spectacular, unprecedented fashion, which resulted in us electing someone who most people thought couldn't win prior to that. He is a long shot, but still a non-zero possibility and I will be voting for him in the primary, as should everyone else who actually wants to see some sort of progress made towards fixing our political process.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:If Hillary and the top five or so Republicans are destroyed by a freak meteor impact, too late in primary season for somebody like Cuomo to jump in, sure. Even then, Clinton's delegates would end up voting for someone acceptable like Gillibrand or Gore at the convention.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Kasich is on Fox News this morning. He is taking a very moderate tone on Baltimore and talking about improving education systems in impoverished areas (the worst thing he said was that he supports vouchers and charter schools). Does he realize that this will not get him through the primary or is he just jockeying for the VP position as a balance?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Cubey posted:Well he has created a much larger buzz than I was anticipating, so he has a better chance than I expected before he officially announced his candidacy. If he goes after the demographic he needs to go after (people too disillusioned by politicians to bother voting) and can continue his surprising momentum from the past couple of days, he has a shot, especially when it comes to debates. And don't forget that Hillary's 08 campaign unraveled in spectacular, unprecedented fashion, which resulted in us electing someone who most people thought couldn't win prior to that. I agree that the formation of a Progressive Party would be loving fantastic. But even if he gets in - how the hell does he get his policies passed with a Republican congress?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I agree that the formation of a Progressive Party would be loving fantastic. Executive orders
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I agree that the formation of a Progressive Party would be loving fantastic. Military coup 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:The most socialist president we ever had was one of the wealthiest presidents we ever had. Late, but. This is probably an important component of getting us back to a somewhat equal footing. You need someone in that same social class telling these people to cut it out. I honestly think that until "one of them" tells them to cut it out, the wealthiest billionaires are just going to keep trying to rack up the score.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
The fire rises!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Cubey posted:And don't forget that Hillary's 08 campaign unraveled in spectacular, unprecedented fashion, which resulted in us electing someone who most people thought couldn't win prior to that. Yeah but Hilary's campaign imploded because A. Mark Penn and B. Obama had a fantastic ground game going. Penns not around this time and it's impossible to know what the ground games is gonna look like yet.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
In the event that Hillary drops out of the primary, her delegates become unpledged and, joining with the superdelegates to the convention will select a non-Bernie Democrat as the nominee. In the event that Bernie secures a marginal pledged delegate lead over Hillary (which is not going to happen) the superdelegates to the convention will select her over Bernie. He is not going to be the nominee for President, Vice President, or serve any role in a Hillary Clinton administration.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:Joe, how do people survive in New Hampshire? by working here in massachusetts
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Great piece at FHQ today on the uncertainty of the delegate allocation method Iowa Republicans will use in 2016 now that the RNC requires they bind delegates based on precinct caucus results.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Kind of late to PA chat, but if 9/11 happening in the backyards of rural Pennsylvanians wasn't enough to get them to vote Republican in 2004, then it sure as poo poo isn't a swing state.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:Kind of late to PA chat, but if 9/11 happening in the backyards of rural Pennsylvanians wasn't enough to get them to vote Republican in 2004, then it sure as poo poo isn't a swing state. But we've elected Republican senators and governors, just like well-known swing states Massachusetts and California.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Great piece at FHQ today on the uncertainty of the delegate allocation method Iowa Republicans will use in 2016 now that the RNC requires they bind delegates based on precinct caucus results. Wow, I didn't know the proportionality rule only went from March 1-14, I thought it was everything before March 15. That's lovely.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:Kind of late to PA chat, but if 9/11 happening in the backyards of rural Pennsylvanians wasn't enough to get them to vote Republican in 2004, then it sure as poo poo isn't a swing state. Rural Pennsylvanians were already Republican.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
"Vote" was the key phrase here. Plenty of rural Pennsylvanians identify as Republican, but that doesn't mean they always make it to the polling station (especially the moderates). "OMG TERRORISTS" was a pretty good motivator for the GOP across the country in 2004, wouldn't you say?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Joementum posted:In the event that Hillary drops out of the primary, her delegates become unpledged and, joining with the superdelegates to the convention will select a non-Bernie Democrat as the nominee. In the event that Bernie secures a marginal pledged delegate lead over Hillary (which is not going to happen) the superdelegates to the convention will select her over Bernie. He is not going to be the nominee for President, Vice President, or serve any role in a Hillary Clinton administration.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:"Vote" was the key phrase here. Plenty of rural Pennsylvanians identify as Republican, but that doesn't mean they always make it to the polling station (especially the moderates). "OMG TERRORISTS" was a pretty good motivator for the GOP across the country in 2004, wouldn't you say? PA goes blue at Presidential elections because of high turnout in Philly and Pittsburgh the rest of the state doesn't really matter then. During State elections turnout is much lower in Philly and Pittsburgh allowing Pennsyltucky to have more influence.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Kasich is on Fox News this morning. He is taking a very moderate tone on Baltimore and talking about improving education systems in impoverished areas (the worst thing he said was that he supports vouchers and charter schools). Does he realize that this will not get him through the primary or is he just jockeying for the VP position as a balance? Why would he even want a VP position? Wouldn't cabinet position be a better option in terms a future presidential run? I mean there's the "Well you never know..." option but I've never really understood why any ambitious politician would want VP.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Lowtechs posted:PA goes blue at Presidential elections because of high turnout in Philly and Pittsburgh the rest of the state doesn't really matter then. During State elections turnout is much lower in Philly and Pittsburgh allowing Pennsyltucky to have more influence. Are you saying that Philadelphians and Pittsburghers just left their 2004 senate and 2008 AG votes blank, allowing Specter and Corbett to win? As a matter of fact, prior to Kane in 2012, Republicans had actually never lost an AG election (note: it only became an elected position in 1980) despite those elections occurring on the same ballot as presidential races. Bizarro Kanyon posted:Kasich is on Fox News this morning. He is taking a very moderate tone on Baltimore and talking about improving education systems in impoverished areas (the worst thing he said was that he supports vouchers and charter schools). Does he realize that this will not get him through the primary or is he just jockeying for the VP position as a balance? Sucking off charter schools is a great way to raise money from mega-donors without pissing the general public off. That strikes me as him pitching himself as a Jeb alternative to that group of people. PupsOfWar posted:It's not about margins of victory (particularly when they're as consistent as pennsylvania's), it's about whether there is a plausible path to victory that does not involve a realignment. You know I read that exact same argument about a year and a half ago; it was discussing why Florida's 2nd district (Southerland vs Graham) wasn't considered a toss up despite being Southerland having only narrow wins the previous two cycles. A year later the article was proven wrong when that district bucked the national trend and threw out its Republican incumbent in favor of the challenger.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
kissekatt posted:So you're telling me there is a chance. A Sanders/Vermin unity ticket would be unstoppable.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 20:10
|
|