|
So I'm bored at work and loving around with 270towin. This is a map of everything that, in 2012, was won by 10%+. Dems lead it by 37 EVs. This is a map of what was won by 7%+. Notable since it assigns 5 10+ EV states. Dems still lead, now by 26 EVs. This is that same map again, this time for wins 5%+. Anything from this point less, the Dems win. Meaning the GOP can take Florida, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina (ie every 'swing' state) and they still lose. This is a slightly different map - it looks at historical voting records. It gives to each party any state that's gone for them in at least five of the last six elections (six picked mostly because Reagan/Mondale throws a lot of things off if you go further back). I think it's more accurate as (for example) despite North Carolina being a close vote in 2012, it's only gone D twice in the last forty years and seeing it switch sides isn't that likely. Dems lead this map by a whopping 99 EVs. So we tweak the two together to reflect the 2012 results and the historical trends and we get this. All the states assigned that were either won by 7%+ in the last election or have distinctly favored one party over the other in recent history. Dems advantage, 51 EVs, five states still up in the air. This map is probably fairly accurate to our 2016 end results and shows that the GOP's got a pretty big hole to dig out of - they need to win Ohio, Virginia, Florida AND either Colorado or Nevada. A 7% swing is probably more than the current Republican field can honestly get - complain about Clinton all you want, but Hillary's strong enough to eat most of the GOP field for breakfast. Even Bernie in the least favorable light is probably capable of keeping it to no worse than a 10% swing against most of the potential opponents. Folks think this is a fairly accurate perspective this early in the campaign?
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
CuteJen96 posted:At any rate, do you think that the FBI investigation into Hillary's email server will damage her in any way (oh please oh please oh please). Extremely doubtful. There will, however, be continuous investigations and calls for action about it for the next 14 months or so, constantly inferring that Something Is Wrong without actually releasing any findings. Actually finding some evidence this early in the cycle would be blowing the load too early, even if there IS something it isn't going to get released until next summer at the earliest.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If they can spend the entire general election getting BenEmailFosterMonica-ghazigate topics brought up in the media it'll just be another avenue of attack for them against Clinton to try and win the election. Yes, that was kind of my point? I mean, there's a reason that Gowdy's committee has already declared they're releasing their report until 2016 and I don't think there's a sane person who thinks it's because they're still working. They're going to continue to Just Ask Questions for another year and change and then unleash some reports that say the results are 'inconclusive' or that matters are 'as yet unresolved' and table them to restart investigation in around 2020 to release reports in the summer of 2022. quote:It lets the GOP contender be free to go after her policy positions once her focus groups get back to her and tell her what she should say. Oh, right, her policy positions that haven't been announced and widely broadcast already that they oppose such as:
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
After reading the transcript (I can't watch it without wanting to hit something), I'm just baffled by Cruz's closing statement and the bit about religious liberty. Was that a slip of the tongue in phrasing or is he so into red meat that he'd go on record as trying to destroy the 1st Amendment? The base might be okay with the implied 'except for Christians' in there, but I'm shocked it's not being made a bigger deal out of by people who aren't crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
A thought occured to me today - Trump vs Hillary might actually be an amazing thing for the American political process. Not because of the entertainment value (which would be great), but because they're both teflon candidates. Both of them can get hit with drat near every scandal under the sun and shrug it off like no one else can. That's pretty unheard of and would require both sides to radically alter how they campaign. It might even require an actual focus on issues and positions and that sort of insanity. vv Hey, I said 'might'. Stranger things - like Trump submitting the FEC paperwork - have happened. Tempest_56 fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:If Trump runs third party, what pull from the D column will he get? To act like it would be zero is ridiculous. Going by Perot's split (our only real example), it'd be around half as many D votes as R - so as Nessus said, 5 points off the D ticket versus 10 off the R. And that may be slightly optimistic given the large minority base of the Dems and Trump's rhetoric. Even if it was 1:1 or 2:1 though, it would be an absolute disaster for the GOP given their current demographic disadvantages.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Dogstoyevsky posted:What guns can O'Malley bring to bear that haven't already been turned on Trump? This would be a terrific waste of money. I think it's more likely that O'Malley's trying to start poo poo in the hopes of coattailing some media attention. Eh, there's legs to it. If you're the Kochs, which would you prefer? Trump raking GOP candidates over the coals or spending his time blasting a Democrat? And it's not like giving O'Malley more press time as a result would be a downside for them, either.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 15:06
|
|