-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Yes, Republicans. Pennsylvania. You can do it this time! For real!!
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is poltico isn't it?
The funny thing is the states he lists still doesn't get bush to 270
"If this state goes our way, along with this one, and then this really improbable one flips.. he can do it! He can get close!"
Link
The Autumn Wind
They also didn't help Romney.
Yellowtail
Member
What a joke article. If anything the opposite is true: Hillary has the clear electoral college advantage while it's Jeb who the beltway media is obsessed must be inevitable due to his $$$ advantage, and hispanic wife.
Jeb's strength in Florida is massively overstated. He wasn't strong enough to stop Rubio getting in the race despite the establishment there trying to strong-arm him out of it (cf. Cuomo who couldn't even consider running against Hillary even though he wants nothing more than to be POTUS). And the latest Quinnipiac Florida poll has him down to 24% in the Florida primary, which is horrible for what should be his bulwark state. And this is crucial:
Add to that Hillary being an even better fit for Florida than Obama was, and Bush polling particularly badly in the Midwest and it's not looking good for him (not that things can't change of course).
Jeb's strength in Florida is massively overstated. He wasn't strong enough to stop Rubio getting in the race despite the establishment there trying to strong-arm him out of it (cf. Cuomo who couldn't even consider running against Hillary even though he wants nothing more than to be POTUS). And the latest Quinnipiac Florida poll has him down to 24% in the Florida primary, which is horrible for what should be his bulwark state. And this is crucial:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/adam-c-smith-florida-not-a-given-for-jeb-bush-or-marco-rubio/2224060
Add to that Hillary being an even better fit for Florida than Obama was, and Bush polling particularly badly in the Midwest and it's not looking good for him (not that things can't change of course).
Aaron Strife
Banned
Whoever wrote this must have missed the memo that Ohio and Florida don't determine the president anymore.
Even then Hillary has trounced Jeb in every Ohio poll.
Yellowtail
Member
Well Kasich just vetoed language in the latest transportation budget bill that would have made it harder for out-of-state students to vote.
Hillary doesn't need Ohio and Florida but the GOP can't get to 270 without them. If Bush is the nominee he might have to put Kasich on his ticket, but then Hillary could just put Kaine on hers and essentially secure Virginia.
The funny thing is the entire GOP establishment rushing to Jeb so early is stopping Kasich get a look in, even though he's probably their strongest candidate. He could win Florida easier than Jeb could win Ohio, and actually has blue-collar appeal, unlike Jeb who is even more blue-blooded than Romney.
(Ultimately 2016 will be won or lost based on Hillary's campaign and the fundamentals come next fall. But I think the media continually overplay Jeb's strengths as a candidate).
Hillary doesn't need Ohio and Florida but the GOP can't get to 270 without them. If Bush is the nominee he might have to put Kasich on his ticket, but then Hillary could just put Kaine on hers and essentially secure Virginia.
The funny thing is the entire GOP establishment rushing to Jeb so early is stopping Kasich get a look in, even though he's probably their strongest candidate. He could win Florida easier than Jeb could win Ohio, and actually has blue-collar appeal, unlike Jeb who is even more blue-blooded than Romney.
(Ultimately 2016 will be won or lost based on Hillary's campaign and the fundamentals come next fall. But I think the media continually overplay Jeb's strengths as a candidate).
It still does. WI, IA, VA, NC, OH, CO & FL are the states that will be closest to the end no matter who the candidate will be barring the 2 campaigns seeing the state as a lost cause like NV 2012 and NM 2008.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Really don't think VA will be close. Warner won the minute the more diverse districts started delivering votes. In a general election their turnout will be greatly increased and thus Hillary should be fine there.
Ohio might be a red state now thanks to Kaisch being a relatively good governor, we'll see. I'll cede to Cooper on that. Florida...I think Bush could win there but wouldn't bet against Hillary.
Nor do I believe Hillary will have trouble winning Wisconsin or Colorado.
Ohio might be a red state now thanks to Kaisch being a relatively good governor, we'll see. I'll cede to Cooper on that. Florida...I think Bush could win there but wouldn't bet against Hillary.
Nor do I believe Hillary will have trouble winning Wisconsin or Colorado.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Obama could have lost FL/OH both times and still won. That's the point. Maybe that won't be the case next year but I imagine Virginia, Colorado and Pennsylvania will be much more crucial to the Democrats than FL/OH.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Wisconsin voted against their own rep as the VP in 2012, if they go red in 2016 something weird is up
Yeah but, Hillary could lose FL and OH (and NC and VA) as long as she wins WI, IA, NH, and CO. I just don't think any of those last 4 will be anywhere close to tossups on election day, but strong blue. The GOP candidate just has way too much ground to cover. It would take, well, a Republican Barack Obama to make the sort of seismic polling shift to even give them a chance. They have no such candidate.
Colorado just gave us Gardner and Wisconsin re-elected Walker. Dont underestimate the American electorate. Are we all assuming turnout will be higher next year and that it will automatically favor democrats?
I mean, this is the problem the Republicans face here. There were only four states within 5% in 2012.
Is Hillary going to lose Democratic coalition votes? People of color, GLBT, women, technocrats? Probably not. Why would she? I don't think running a Spanish-speaking candidate is going to make a difference -- it's the kind of ID card politics that displays the GOP weakness on racial issues.
Is Hillary going to pick up new voters? Sure. She'll probably do even better among women than Obama.
So what states are going to be in play with Hillary as the candidate that weren't in play under Obama?
Well, not assuming. We're supposing it based on years and years of evidence about midterms and presidential elections. Why would you not expect it to be the case?
1. The Republicans keep trying to win PA, MI, NV and WI so I guess they will be "in play" until they say its not in play. The media still considers NV a swing state.
2. Because unlike you and I the American electorate is tired of politics. They think that "all politicians are the same". Turnout is down across the bored. Political fatigue is setting in. The prospect of a Clinton Vs Bush race is looming. A $2 billion campaign flooded with negative ads in OH, FL, VA etc poisoning the well. Just look at the threads on GAF off topic about not voting at all or for the "dynasty candidates"
Yellowtail
Member
Hillary can potentially put Arizona, Missouri and Georgia in play. She probably will just to put the GOP on the defensive. Republicans are just desperate to scrape to 270, she's going to try and get as strong coattails as possible.
Really at this point they're banking on the economy crashing, a terrorist attack or a huge Hillary scandal to win. That's not a great place to be.
This was an interesting analysis on Hillary's numbers, that should also scare everyone else:
Really at this point they're banking on the economy crashing, a terrorist attack or a huge Hillary scandal to win. That's not a great place to be.
This was an interesting analysis on Hillary's numbers, that should also scare everyone else:
https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/04/02/hillary-clinton-looks-better-when-compared-other-p/
That's a peculiar definition of in play -- that a national party be willing to invest money in it. By that definition, Georgia and Texas are in play.
Are you really asking which states the Democrats/GOP will claim to be in play, or are you wondering which states actually have the potential to go either way?
The American electorate has been tired of politics and arguing that all politicians are the same for the last two hundred and fifty years*. The same GAF posters were making the same threads in 2012, and probably in 2008. What makes you think this is qualitatively different?
* That's probably unfair. It's probably more like the last hundred and fifty years. When slavery was still legal, I suspect people found it easier to detect differences in party platforms.
I'm betting that she'll do better among white voters than Obama did. And I'm also betting that she does better among women; the gender gap should be pretty robust. Then - make the white voting population 3 or 4% less of the electorate.
Even if she does just a point or two better in these measures, this is a fight of margins, and these factors each make an already-steep hill even steeper for the GOP. They need a Reagan, an Obama, a Bill Clinton. Either that, or they need to find hidden cam footage of Hillary eating a live baby.
Even if she does just a point or two better in these measures, this is a fight of margins, and these factors each make an already-steep hill even steeper for the GOP. They need a Reagan, an Obama, a Bill Clinton. Either that, or they need to find hidden cam footage of Hillary eating a live baby.
So then PA, NV, WI, MI aren't in play. Pennsylvania's always gone about three points more Democratic than the nation -- it'll never be the swing state. Nevada's jumped way to the left since 2008. Wisconsin has been Democratic since Reagan, and Minnesota longer.
The real swing states in 2016 will probably look a lot like FL, OH, VA, NC, GA (that last one is me being optimistic).
Jack Remington
Banned
Queen is a top 5 band of all time.
Also, Meta is not a good debater, certainly no master. BM wrecked him so many times it's ridiculous. More than that, Meta is morally bankrupt. I don't know why anyone with a conscience in this thread is getting chummy with someone who would gladly sign the death warrant on a few thousand people.
Also, Meta is not a good debater, certainly no master. BM wrecked him so many times it's ridiculous. More than that, Meta is morally bankrupt. I don't know why anyone with a conscience in this thread is getting chummy with someone who would gladly sign the death warrant on a few thousand people.
PhoenixDark
Banned
In off year elections (or not during a general election). Not to mention Gardner won in part due to democrats running an idiotic campaign based entirely on abortion.
I'm not saying it's impossible for Hillary to lose those states, I'm just saying both have clear dem advantages in a general election.
I would argue turnout will be high in part due to the historical nature of Hilary's candidacy.
Aaron Strife
Banned
2014. Remember two years prior in WI when Obama won easily with a Wisconsinite on the GOP ticket and a Madison liberal lesbian beat a popular former gov for the Senate race?
Also Gardner wasn't even the top vote getter in Colorado. Hickenlooper was.
Do you think IL, MA, MD or ME will go to the Republicans because they won governorships there?
Poodlestrike
Banned
absolutely not. So why do they keep trying to win PA, MI, WI & MN every 4 years?? because under the right circumstances, they can come into play just like those four you mentioned.
What do I think will happen next year honestly? barring some economic catastrophe or obama approvals in the 30's, Hillary even under the strongest nominee should be 55% odds on favored. Electing a woman president is hillary biggest asset. The country will not elect another bush & they will pass on the first latino in Rubio.
Will Hillary stumble? absolutely. Will the polls tighten? Yes. Will Hillary vs "insert nominee" be Registered Voters 50-44, Likely 48-45? Probably. Will Diablos go diablosing if hillary is down 45-48 in October 2016? Sure. Will Hillary stumble in the 1st debate? would bet on it happening.
But despite all that she had immense advantages that the media and her critics know and fear.
Queen and soul should never be mentioned in the same sentence.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Pennsylvania is fool's gold for Republicans. Every presidential election, they're positive they can flip it red, and every time, it ends up not even close.
Yeah, that's not going to happen, the moment they do that, they stop being important battleground states, a whole lot of less campaign money will go to them and the local party officials stop being important.
BertramCooper
Banned
Oh come the fuck on...
Ohio is definitely not a red state. Red states don't reelect Sherrod Brown to the Senate by a 6% margin. And Portman could get unseated by Strickland next year. It's not going to be easy, but with Clinton on the ballot, it's not impossible. We're slightly redder than the country as a whole, but we're not a red state.
Speaking of Clinton, she'll win Ohio by a bigger margin than Obama won Ohio in 2012. I feel very confident making that prediction.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The GOP has no reason to rig the EV allocation in Ohio or Florida if they believe they can still win the states at large. They'd be conceding enough electoral votes they'd need to win a Michigan or Pennsylvania to make up for it
I really want to see another Karl Rove meltdown on election night.
Hobbestetrician
Member
Minnesota was the only state to vote for Walter fucking Mondale, what circumstances would flip it?
And Obama came closer to winning Georgia than Romney did to winning Michigan. Sure, people like PD will keep voting for Snyder but they also elected Gary Peters last year by a wide margin.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I used to think MN might eventually get to a point where it would start moving right, but after 2014 I'm not so sure. Dayton and Franken both won by significant margins by running as straightforwardly liberal, and the Twin Cities outvoted the rest of the state. The GOP is making up ground in the rural areas which is troublesome for local elections, but as far as statewide and presidential politics are concerned I think it will stay pretty solidly blue.
I'm just glad Emmer didn't win in 2010 - he would have had a trifecta and we'd be in the exact position as Wisconsin.
No. I literally just posted about this!
The GOP invests in those states every four years because they desperately want to believe that they're winnable (since they're full of white people).
There's no actual evidence that they ARE winnable. But what are the Republicans going to do? Just give up on every state? Obviously they need to have some strategy they're pursuing. It doesn't mean it's necessarily an effective strategy, just that it IS a strategy.
jamesinclair
Banned
Texas is always number 1 when it comes to jobs!
whoopsie
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/04/02/...but-firms-still-say-12800-jobs-will-get-axed/
whoopsie
Reagan won them all in 1984 except for MN. Bush came close in 2000 and 2004. Are you suggesting that Obama's election in 2008 pulled those states further left on a presidential level? If so, on a midterm level they certainly arent left leaning.
We saw this with the 5 Clinton states: AR, LA, WV, KY & TN swung sharply right in 2000.
If a Republican wins in 2016, would we treat it as an anomaly?
If Democrats won the House and Senate in 2018, would we treat it as an anomaly?
Link
The Autumn Wind
Demographics and the Republican Party are very different now than they were in 1984.
You can't use a midterm when talking about the presidential, the midterms have far lower turnout compared to the presidential. He's saying that the demographics of those states have moved them left, Obama just came along at the right time to reap the harvest. States like PA will look close due to how the population is spread out, but as the cities grow larger the states will move further to the left.
The electorate is far different now than when Reagan ran, it's not nearly as white or male. Also it's not nearly as religious, W Bush came close playing on that last one but still couldn't make it stick. If Bush couldn't flip those states by running against gay marriage before the massive upswing in support for the issue, there's no way to win them now.
This is the whole reason for the Tea Party and the GOP's desperation to defeat Obama last time around, they knew that this was their last chance before the demographic change ate them alive. If they want to win going forward they either need to change their platform and move towards the center and moderate their views or hope for multiple disasters and pray the Tea Party doesn't say something stupid and destroy their chance. Either way, the religious right is on the outs. You can already see it with the rise of the libertarians.
It depends entirely on the situations surrounding these events. It's not a question that should be asked or answered in a vacuum.
But the Republicans will still compete there. They will spend $50 million there and drop $100 million in Wisconsin. Johnson and Toomey will be supported till the bitter end.
If the Republicans are really doomed as some suggest in here, why dont they go all out and nominate a really far right candidate? If they are going to lose anyway, why not go all out? Why go for another moderate establishment like Bush that the base does not want?
Hillary is not Obama. The "Obama Coalition" did not turnout in 2010 and 2014 when Obama was not on the ballot. Will they turnout for Hillary? Would they turn out for Bernie Sanders if he was the nominee?
Coriolanus
Banned
A catastrophic failure entails a change of tactics, which also entails the ditching of the defenders of the previous status quo.
As nearly happened to the Turtle, and happened to Cantor.
Thus the higher ups have a vested interest in keeping their positions at least somewhat viable.
Another way to look at it is that politicians are opportunists, so they won't support completely suicidal tactics. It is the same for democrats. After gore and kerry lost, why not go for a bona fide socialist, instead of the bipartisan hopey changey black man?
Why would BamBros turn out for people that generally ran away from Bams?
For bernie iirc what polling was done indicated that nope.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked