Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

Some Journalist on Andrea Mitchell Reports said that its possible Trump could lose 40 states if he became the nominee.

What does a 40-state Trump map look like?

Obama+Clinton+Carter?

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5PknQ

 

[BlackClouds]

Trump is a single-issue candidate, and his issue is blatant racism.

If he wins the nomination, I'm going to really start asking Republican friends and family members why they're still Republicans.

You can't say your party isn't racist and then watch them nominate Donald Fucking Trump.

#notall republicans are racist!

 

[pigeon]

Some Journalist on Andrea Mitchell Reports said that its possible Trump could lose 40 states if he became the nominee.

What does a 40-state Trump map look like?

Obama+Clinton+Carter?

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5PknQ

Something like this:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/aNbZd

The obvious flips if Dems have a blowout are GA, LA, AK, AR, TX.

The states that almost certainly won't flip are like UT, ID, KS, MS, AL.

Then the rest are more or less of a tossup. In this map the Dems start winning New South states and get back Appalachia. You might have a different model where they win the plains states, I guess, but they're really really white.

 

[thcsquad]

Some Journalist on Andrea Mitchell Reports said that its possible Trump could lose 40 states if he became the nominee.

What does a 40-state Trump map look like?

Obama+Clinton+Carter?

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5PknQ

I assume. People tell me I'm crazy, but I think that if Trump ends up the nominee Texas could be flippable. If the problem is hispanic turnout, then there's no better way to jumpstart that then nominating Trump.

 

[Bowdz]

As pumped as I am for a Trump nomination, I have a really hard time believing that Clinton would sweep him to that extent. Even if Clinton got some 85% of the hispanic vote and pushed turn out, is that anywhere close what is needed to take Texas or Arizona if a significant portion of the white population ends up voting against Hillary instead of for Trump?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Some Journalist on Andrea Mitchell Reports said that its possible Trump could lose 40 states if he became the nominee.

What does a 40-state Trump map look like?

Obama+Clinton+Carter?

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5PknQ

Realistically, I don't think that "best case scenario" map Plouffe posted a few days ago is that far off from where Trump would land. The unfortunate reality is that Republicans in this country have completely lost their minds, Trump is no crazier than most of them.

States like Texas will be closer, for sure. But I don't see Clinton winning them.

 

[Plinko]

Every week I continue to be amazed about the sheer number of "Baghdad Bob"-esque articles being put out by conservative media/pollsters about Trump. He's been leading for months and his lead is growing and these people refuse to believe it.

 

[Makai]

Something like this:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/aNbZd

The obvious flips if Dems have a blowout are GA, LA, AK, AR, TX.

The states that almost certainly won't flip are like UT, ID, KS, MS, AL.

Then the rest are more or less of a tossup. In this map the Dems start winning New South states and get back Appalachia. You might have a different model where they win the plains states, I guess, but they're really really white.

That's quite the blowout. I can't even fathom this happening, even with Vitter on the ticket.

 

[Yellowtail]

I never want to quote Steve Deace again but I can't really disagree with much of this:

Was up really late last night doing some research for various entities/reasons. Some of it is proprietary, but I can bottom line it for you removing all biases, pretense, preferences, etc.

My new odds to win the GOP nomination:
Trump 40%
Cruz 40%
Rubio 19%
Field 1%

There is ample evidence that Carson is this month's Fiorina. He's losing support both in national and state polls, and I increasingly hear from folks in Iowa (a state where's strongest) they just don't see him as a commander-in-chief. And that is the toughest narrative for a presidential candidate to overcome.

Also, in the history of GOP presidential politics, there has never been a candidate who has polled as consistently and strongly both nationally and in the early states as Donald Trump.

Nobody.

Combined with his personal resources and demonstrated organization, I think it is quite possible if he wins the Iowa Caucuses he could be unstoppable going forward. He would then win New Hampshire. It's just a matter of the margin of victory. Trump and Cruz are the best organized in South Carolina from what I am told, and you have to think if Trump wins IA & NH the momentum would carry him to a win there, too.

And if he wins all three early states he will be the nominee -- period -- unless the party flat out cheats to stop him. Which would likely result in Trump running as a third party candidate to burn it down either way.

That means, as I said months ago, Trump will not implode and he cannot be stopped. He must be toppled. And he can only be toppled by a candidate who can build a 35% base. In my view, that candidate is Cruz because he's the only other candidate who matches the environment and can coalesce the conservative base.

I think Rubio is stuck as long as Jeb remains in, there's just a certain segment of the establishment that will not turn its backs on the Bush family. And even if Rubio were to take out Cruz, if Trump even got a third of Cruz's support and Rubio got the rest Trump would still have too big of a base to be beaten.

Conclusion: if the conservative movement doesn't want Trump to be its nominee, it has 65 days until the Iowa Caucuses to do something about it. And every day it waits to actively engage the process brings us another day closer to Trump being tougher to beat.

https://m.facebook.com/stevedeace/posts/513966248783419?ref=notif&notif_t=like

I think this may be what's playing into Trump's recent strategy to go full tilt racist. He probably thinks he's already secured NH (especially if he wins IA) so the path now is to optimize on Carson's collapse and win over the Iowan crazies.

 

[Basileus777]

Something like this:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/aNbZd

The obvious flips if Dems have a blowout are GA, LA, AK, AR, TX.

The states that almost certainly won't flip are like UT, ID, KS, MS, AL.

Then the rest are more or less of a tossup. In this map the Dems start winning New South states and get back Appalachia. You might have a different model where they win the plains states, I guess, but they're really really white.

Montana would go blue before a lot of those other states.

 

[B-Dubs]

I never want to quote Steve Deace again but I can't really disagree with much of this:

https://m.facebook.com/stevedeace/posts/513966248783419?ref=notif&notif_t=like

I think this may be what's playing into Trump's recent strategy to go full tilt racist. He probably thinks he's already secured NH (especially if he wins IA) so the path now is to optimize on Carson's collapse and win over the Iowan crazies.

Pretty much. He's been trying to finish Carson off and wrap the primary up before the year's done for a few weeks now. When he saw attacking Carson wasn't doing shit, he decided to see if doubling down on his racist shit would and sadly it has.

 

[User 406]

Is there even a plausible scenario where Hillary does worse with white voters than Obama did? At this point she'd have to be down at Mondale levels to end up losing the popular vote.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

Montana would go blue before a lot of those other states.

Yep, people forget Obama only lost Montana by a small 2-point margin in 2008.

 

[B-Dubs]

Is there even a plausible scenario where Hillary does worse with white voters than Obama did? At this point she'd have to be down at Mondale levels to end up losing the popular vote.

Only if PD's Hillary fan-fiction is true and she's having an affair with Obama, Huma or both at the same time. Even then it'd be close, especially if the GOP went with Trump.

 

[pigeon]

Let me be clear, I'm not arguing that Hillary would win 40 states if she ran against Trump. I think there's a good chance she'd do better than Obama, but 40 states would be, like, a surprise to me.

But if she won 40 states I think that is a reasonable idea for what it would look like. I buy the substitution of Montana for, say, KY.

 

[RustyNails]

Hate talking about polling in OT. Bubu party decides. Bubu establishment. Bubu endorsements. I dont think people appreciate (or fear) the bind Trump has the GOP in. He has shown that the traditional nomination game is over. No one wants someone tarnished by public service. That's really what you get for harping about the evil government for 30 years. If you think Trump is horrible, wait till 2020.

The nuts have taken over the nuthouse long ago and everyone should start freaking the fuck out about Trump. Iowa is 2 months away.

Only if PD's Hillary fan-fiction is true and she's having an affair with Obama, Huma or both at the same time. Even then it'd be close, especially if the GOP went with Trump.

When is PD unbanned? Any mods have a date?

 

[B-Dubs]

When is PD unbanned? Any mods have a date?

I don't think he's back until Iowa, or thereabouts. I kinda miss his trolling.

 

[HylianTom]

In terms of determining where the Dems' electoral ceiling is, 2008 was a remarkably telling election. When 45.7% of the country is willing to vote for that GOP ticket in those circumstances, in such an anti-GOP environment, I'm sadly skeptical that a Democrat can do better than Obama's performance that year.

Demographic trends will continue to exert upward force so that more states come aboard, but I don't know how many states that brings into the blue column.

 

[B-Dubs]

In terms of determining where the Dems' electoral ceiling is, 2008 was a remarkably telling election. When 45.7% of the country is willing to vote for that GOP ticket in those circumstances, in such an anti-GOP environment, I'm sadly skeptical that a Democrat can do better than Obama's performance that year.

Demographic trends will continue to exert upward force so that more states come aboard, but I don't know how many states that brings into the blue column.

If I could throw out some anecdotal evidence, knowing it's almost useless:

My deeply conservative father, who is a FOX News junkie like you've never seen, has said he would sooner vote for Hillary, who he immensely dislikes, than for Trump.

 

[BertramCooper]

Okay, now that I've put $30 on Trump on PredictIt, I'm curious to know who else on PoliGAF has put money on a candidate.

EDIT:

I bought 125 shares of Trump at 24 cents.

 

[Cerium]

Okay, now that I've put $30 on Trump on PredictIt, I'm curious to know who else on PoliGAF has put money on a candidate.

1521 shares long on Trump at 25 cents.
215 shares short on Rubio at 56 cents.

 

[Black Mamba]

In terms of determining where the Dems' electoral ceiling is, 2008 was a remarkably telling election. When 45.7% of the country is willing to vote for that GOP ticket in those circumstances, in such an anti-GOP environment, I'm sadly skeptical that a Democrat can do better than Obama's performance that year.

Demographic trends will continue to exert upward force so that more states come aboard, but I don't know how many states that brings into the blue column.

What can happen is turnout among GOP base drop big time if hillary's win is inevitable in their eyes. That's the one thing that could lead to a huge sweep.

 

[RustyNails]

1521 shares long on Trump at 25 cents.
215 shares short on Rubio at 56 cents.

When there's blood on the streets, buy property. As they say.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yeah, remember that the polling in 2008 had North Dakota and Montana tightening. After Missouri, Indiana, Georgia, and Arizona (and Nebraska's 2nd), those would probably be close to the next two to flip. Montana is very elastic to begin with.

 

[Cerium]

When there's blood on the streets, buy property. As they say.

I expect the Republican party to go the full Thelma & Louise and I intend to profit off of it.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Yeah, remember that the polling in 2008 had North Dakota and Montana tightening. After Missouri, Indiana, Georgia, and Arizona (and Nebraska's 2nd), those would probably be close to the next two to flip. Montana is very elastic to begin with.

I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton would have won those state by virtue of not having a "scary name" and being white. It's hard to judge what the ceiling in 2008 would be considering how unprecedented the candidate was. People were still worried about the Bradley Effect back then.

 

[HylianTom]

What can happen is turnout among GOP base drop big time if hillary's win is inevitable in their eyes. That's the one thing that could lead to a huge sweep.

Damn, I'd love that.. enough Senate margin to insulate us from losses in 2018..

 

[Aaron Strife]

In terms of determining where the Dems' electoral ceiling is, 2008 was a remarkably telling election. When 45.7% of the country is willing to vote for that GOP ticket in those circumstances, in such an anti-GOP environment, I'm sadly skeptical that a Democrat can do better than Obama's performance that year.

Demographic trends will continue to exert upward force so that more states come aboard, but I don't know how many states that brings into the blue column.

Well, I do think McCain was a fairly respectable nominee. Palin was a disaster but ultimately I have to wonder how many people base their voting decision on the VP. If it were Obama vs. Palin you would have seen a larger spread.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

I bought Rubio to be President. Not because I expect him to be President, but because I expect his stock to only go up as people start to drop out. Republican race is a clusterfuck right now, but I'm not really confident in Trump. I'm in the Nate Silver school of thinking (independent of his analysis, but still same predicted outcome). Just don't see Trump holding on. He's batshit crazy and you have to figure that eventually they'll get tired of him. Hell, they got tired of Palin eventually and she says the same garbage that he does.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

In terms of determining where the Dems' electoral ceiling is, 2008 was a remarkably telling election. When 45.7% of the country is willing to vote for that GOP ticket in those circumstances, in such an anti-GOP environment, I'm sadly skeptical that a Democrat can do better than Obama's performance that year.

Demographic trends will continue to exert upward force so that more states come aboard, but I don't know how many states that brings into the blue column.

I don't know, Obama probably lost a fair few votes simply through being black, and the demographic picture has improved for the Democrats since. I think a hypothetical 'perfect' Democrat candidate could do better than 2008. As it is, I'm not sure Clinton is that candidate. She's effectively campaigning as continuity Obama, so in that sense I'm not really sure that this will be so different from 2012. The swings required are just too large for there to be any radical changes. It just doesn't seem at all likely that she could achieve a 6% swing in the popular vote (e.g., a 55-44 win) against even the worst Republican candidate, and you need 6% to change any state outside of the Florida/North Carolina/Ohio/Virginia group. In fact, it's usually more difficult than that because there's diminishing returns to winning votes, so a 6% swing normally means e.g. a 8% swing in non-contestable states vs. a 4% swing in contestable states.

I think Clinton vs. Trump would see Clinton take Obama's 2012 states, plus have an outside shot at Nevada's second district. That's about it.

Either way, I think things are largely locked up at a presidential level. The absolute worst case scenario for the Democrats I think would be Obama 2012 minus Florida and Ohio. A Colorado or Virginia loss would be a pretty big upset and the Republicans don't really have a path to victory that doesn't go through those states. The importance is at the congressional level.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Trump is a single-issue candidate, and his issue is blatant racism.

If he wins the nomination, I'm going to really start asking Republican friends and family members why they're still Republicans.

You can't say your party isn't racist and then watch them nominate Donald Fucking Trump.

They'll find a way.

And then say, " well Hillary is Satan. I don't like trump but Hillary is worse than him! Black people are worse off with democrats anyways, all the slums have been controlled by democrats for 40 years, so who are the real racists?"

 

[teiresias]

Something like this:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/aNbZd

The obvious flips if Dems have a blowout are GA, LA, AK, AR, TX.

The states that almost certainly won't flip are like UT, ID, KS, MS, AL.

Then the rest are more or less of a tossup. In this map the Dems start winning New South states and get back Appalachia. You might have a different model where they win the plains states, I guess, but they're really really white.

Lord, the salt if that were the map!!

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Well, I do think McCain was a fairly respectable nominee. Palin was a disaster but ultimately I have to wonder how many people base their voting decision on the VP. If it were Obama vs. Palin you would have seen a larger spread.

People didn't vote against Palin per se, but it made McCain look like a poor and/or opportunistic leader to pick her. She certainly hurt him.

But what really, really did him in was the economic collapse. McCain has completely the wrong optics on every aspect of that, from saying "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" to having Lindsey Graham as his economic advisor

Being a warmonger after years of Iraq fatigue didn't help, either.

 

[HylianTom]

I think a hypothetical 'perfect' Democrat candidate could do better than 2008. As it is, I'm not sure Clinton is that candidate.

This is part of my resignation. Clinton's about as flawed/polarizing as a candidate can be while also being the general election favorite. Obama has his race as a drag on his performance, while Hillary has that trademark Clinton drama as a potential drawback on her ceiling.

 

[BertramCooper]

1521 shares long on Trump at 25 cents.
215 shares short on Rubio at 56 cents.

I might tack on like $10 on Rubio to lose.

I'm not spending more than $50 on any of this. Betting is one area in which I have pretty good self-control.

 

[Ecotic]

I bought Rubio to be President. Not because I expect him to be President, but because I expect his stock to only go up as people start to drop out. Republican race is a clusterfuck right now, but I'm not really confident in Trump. I'm in the Nate Silver school of thinking (independent of his analysis, but still same predicted outcome). Just don't see Trump holding on. He's batshit crazy and you have to figure that eventually they'll get tired of him. Hell, they got tired of Palin eventually and she says the same garbage that he does.

As an avid stock options trader, I'm telling you that's a mistake. Never buy into overbought strength. There's limited upside and a potential lot of downside. Look at the chances, from Paul on down no candidates have any percents to give. Rubio's chances rely upon time value, or the bet that eventually Republican voters will see the light and side with Rubio. Every day that doesn't happen he's going to bleed value, just like a stock option that isn't working out. One month from now if Rubio isn't #1 in the polls his time value is going to lose 1/3rd to one half.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This is part of my resignation. Clinton's about as flawed/polarizing as a candidate can be while also being the general election favorite. Obama has his race as a drag on his performance, while Hillary has that trademark Clinton drama as a potential drawback on her ceiling.

Honestly, partisanship in America is such that I think elections are largely won or lost on the basis of base enthusiasm, rather than converting swing voters like is the norm in most Western democracies. As such, I really don't think Clinton is a particularly good candidate - there's just no real evidence of enthusiasm for her. I don't say that as a lead-in to 'therefore you should vote Sanders', it's more an observation on the health of the Democratic party that such a candidate considered an obvious choice. I feel like there should have been a genuine challenge from a younger and more energetic prospect, but instead we got Biden, and Sanders, who aren't exactly spring chickens. People talk about guys like Castro as having future potential, but I think the guy is pretty big lightweight and expecting him to pull the Latino vote like Obama pulled the black vote seems wrong; Obama's race was important but so was his obvious stature and quality as a candidate. Gillibrand isn't much better than Clinton mk. II - in a political era where people are looking for authenticity, they're not going to find it in someone who has changed her views on almost everything ever.

The devastation of Democrats at a local level is having a big impact on their talent pool.

 

[BertramCooper]

So is Silver a big reason why Trump's share price is so low?

(Not that it can be conclusively determined or anything.)

 

[HylianTom]

Honestly, partisanship in America is such that I think elections are largely won or lost on the basis of base enthusiasm, rather than converting swing voters like is the norm in most Western democracies. As such, I really don't think Clinton is a particularly good candidate - there's just no real evidence of enthusiasm for her. I don't say that as a lead-in to 'therefore you should vote Sanders', it's more an observation on the health of the Democratic party that such a candidate considered an obvious choice. I feel like there should have been a genuine challenge from a younger and more energetic prospect, but instead we got Biden, and Sanders, who aren't exactly spring chickens. People talk about guys like Castro as having future potential, but I think the guy is pretty big lightweight and expecting him to pull the Latino vote like Obama pulled the black vote seems wrong; Obama's race was important but so was his obvious stature and quality as a candidate. Gillibrand isn't much better than Clinton mk. II - in a political era where people are looking for authenticity, they're not going to find it in someone who has changed her views on almost everything ever.

The devastation of Democrats at a local level is having a big impact on their talent pool.

I remember some polling showing that Dems and GOP are essentially tied in enthusiasm. Part of it will be attribute to the candidate, and part of it will be attributed to the whole "third consecutive term" dynamic where a party's voters just aren't as hungry as the voters of the party that's been out of power.

Another funny thing I've been thinking about: Hillary isn't going to set GAF/Reddit/etc on fire like Obama did back in 2008. Her hardcore supporters are likely going to be older, more female, etc - demos that aren't as well-represented online. If she's the nominee, it'll be fun to witness the difference in how these spaces treat her as a nominee.

...

Meanwhile, on Twitter..

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I remember some polling showing that Dems and GOP are essentially tied in enthusiasm. Part of it will be attribute to the candidate, and part of it will be attributed to the whole "third consecutive term" dynamic where a party's voters just aren't as hungry as the voters of the party that's been out of power.

There's a certain truth to the 'third consecutive term' thing, but I think that's why it is so important the successful Democratic candidate doesn't run as continuity Obama. They need their own separate message to get people heading to the polling booths, "do what you did the last time again" is just... pretty strongly lacklustre.

Another funny thing I've been thinking about: Hillary isn't going to set GAF/Reddit/etc on fire like Obama did back in 2008. Her hardcore supporters are likely going to be older, more female, etc - demos that aren't as well-represented online. If she's the nominee, it'll be fun to witness the difference in how these spaces treat her as a nominee.

This is true, but I'm basing that looking at the enthusiasm break-downs given in the YouGOV polls. Even amongst women and the elderly, Clinton doesn't have particularly strongly enthusiastic acceptance, I think those groups are just even less enthusiastic about Sanders (or have no opinion on him).

 

[B-Dubs]

Meanwhile, on Twitter..

Remember how I said this wasn't funny anymore? It just got funny again.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

So is Silver a big reason why Trump's share price is so low?

(Not that it can be conclusively determined or anything.)

Does he really have that much clout?

I figure Trump is low for the same reason Nate doesn't think he has good chances-- that he's a wildcard and the GOP establishment doesn't want him.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Fuck you too, doctor:

.@RealBenCarson tells me he "saw the film" of American Muslims cheering as the towers fell in New Jersey on 9/11.

 

[Owzers]

Fuck you too, doctor:

Between him, Trump , and Christie, i think Christie's comments were worse.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There's a film?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

There's a film?

In Egypt's grain silos.

 

[Yellowtail]

In Egypt's grain silos.

I've heard you can find the Whitey Tape there too.

 

[Cerium]

I've heard you can find the Whitey Tape there too.

lol I remember reading in Game Change about that time the Obama campaign had to go ask Michelle if such a tape could possibly exist.

 

[RustyNails]

In Egypt's grain silos.

Is that also where the body of the guy he stabbed in school is?

 

[Teggy]

Fuck you too, doctor:

Amazing. If this footage exists it's been protected better than The Day The Clown Cried.