-
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 2016 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour
- Thread starter Retromelon
- Start date
- Status
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
It is. A Florida Hillary win almost seals the deal.
I would be shocked if Trump could take PA at this point. It doesn't make any sense. Would not be shocked if he took Michigan but I doubt it.
Macho Madness
Member
He's more likely to take PA than he is Michigan.
High turnout in Philly alone (Pittsburgh too, but that's a done deal) could give Hillary PA.
But turnout is my concern. Lots of black folks pissed at the Clintons here right now, and Bill certainly didn't help things last time he was here.
Hopefully the Obama's come through here a few times.
But turnout is my concern. Lots of black folks pissed at the Clintons here right now, and Bill certainly didn't help things last time he was here.
Hopefully the Obama's come through here a few times.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Did I miss something in the last month where PA is in play?
Or are we in a Diablos'in session?
Or are we in a Diablos'in session?
Link
The Autumn Wind
Republicans think PA is in play every election. It's not referred to as "fool's gold" for nothing.
It's not that Pennsylvania is necessarily in play, it's just that Trump will find it hard to win without it, so he's going to make the attempt.
There are so few paths to a Trump victory that people have to worry about the biggest fools gold ever. Hillary will overperform Obama in Philly suburbs with educated white people, overperform with women and a huge anti Trump vote in Philly, but she's going to lose because the racist central with no population is going to go 117% for Trump
He's technically still fundraising, isn't he?
That's what I was thinking.
I find it hard to believe that Bernie would pass up the chance for a rally, unless he couldn't afford one.
VendettaRed07
Member
We need a second constitutional convention
The only way anything gets done about this gun shit
The only way anything gets done about this gun shit
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I've been saying this for a month now
Dude is out of money, and has been for a while. Nobody is going to give money to him after New York and the week after it when Clinton wiped the floor. That was the end of any hopes of raising money.
Sanders went into May with only ~6.0 mil in the bank. He's been running on empty for over a month
Having lived in PA, in perhaps the biggest swing county in the country in the Lehigh Valley, I can definitely see why Trump could win there. No one is saying they have a good chance to win, but he needs it and he has a better chance at capturing PA than he does other states like VA/CO/NV. Just saying, its fools gold and all that is ignoring the changes happening in the state, especially out west. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pennsylvania-could-be-an-electoral-tipping-point/
And this idea that white voters in the Philly suburbs will turn out against Trump isn't settled. He could win those people over.
http://www.metro.us/philadelphia/will-philly-s-red-suburbs-really-vote-trump/zsJpfp---LgRkeLBTZb2Q/
As 538 wrote, they wouldn't be holding their convention in Philly if they weren't concerned about trying to keep it blue.
And this idea that white voters in the Philly suburbs will turn out against Trump isn't settled. He could win those people over.
http://www.metro.us/philadelphia/will-philly-s-red-suburbs-really-vote-trump/zsJpfp---LgRkeLBTZb2Q/
As 538 wrote, they wouldn't be holding their convention in Philly if they weren't concerned about trying to keep it blue.
Box of Kittens
Banned
The problem with the whole "make Clinton spend time and resources in California" idea is that all she has to do is call his bluff and it's a wasted effort. The end result would be Trump having spent his time and resources in a losing cause.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Those flotus pics, doe.
Macho Madness
Member
Discounting the possibility of a Trump PA win is a bad idea.
But PA isn't the key to the presidency.
But PA isn't the key to the presidency.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Yet another reason the "Trump will do surprisingly well among black voters" fantasy I've seen bandied about is just that, a fantasy.
The Berniacs are planning another rally in front of the Hollywood CNN building like the one back in April:
So far, 2,000 people have clicked a button on Facebook to say they're going.
A CALL TO ACTION!!! #OurRevolution has only just begun! Come join #OurRevoltion on the streets of Hollywood, CA to gather in solidarity and express to the entire world LOUDLY AND AFFIRMATIVELY, that enough is enough!!!
#StillSandersMarch and Rally is one of the first steps in taking hold of our democratic rights, as we grow the fire that Bernie ignited!
It’s up to WE THE PEOPLE to rise up, and to tell the DNC and establishment politicians, the mainstream media and the corporate special interests, that they will NO LONGER abuse and take advantage of our democracy!
WE ARE THE 99%, WE ARE THE SOVEREIGN VOICE OF THIS BEAUTIFUL NATION!!!
SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE - #StillSandersMarch & #OurRevolution
So far, 2,000 people have clicked a button on Facebook to say they're going.
Jill ain't breaking 5% but the Libertarians have a pretty decent shot at cracking the magic number.
Unfortunately this is a terrible idea because there's no way to ensure the crazy reactionaries don't come to propose their changes to the constitution and there aren't any formal rules to describe how a constitutional convention would work.
It would be a disaster in the making.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Not sure if libertarians would steal votes from just republicans, I can picture some dems crossing over as well.
But you also were 100% sure Cruz would be the Republican nominee...
My understanding is that everything is on the table, or rather that there is no table since you start from 0. That would be an absolute disaster.
Being in DC for a while is enough to convince you of the majesty of our country and our government and also impress upon you the lightning in a bottle we had with our founders...even with all of their obvious flaws and horrible mistakes made...
I have no faith we could even approximate the existing constitution today.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I'm just looking at the voting history of PA, I don't see a six point swing in this election cycle with a candidate like Trump on the ballot with the insane amount of issues he's having and going to have in fundraising and ground game alone.
What a joy being with our new grandson, Aidan. So grateful. -H
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/744629982757064705
Box of Kittens
Banned
The thing about talking about states like Ohio and Pennsylvania is that Trump has to put them in play in order to win, so it absolutely makes sense for Clinton to focus on them. If Georgia and Arizona (or Utah and Mississippi) are the battlegrounds then it kind of doesn't matter. She'll have the election locked up anyway.
Making the case to moderate Republicans, particularly women, in the Philadelphia suburbs is probably a good play. It's difficult for Republicans to win in Pennsylvania without them.
Making the case to moderate Republicans, particularly women, in the Philadelphia suburbs is probably a good play. It's difficult for Republicans to win in Pennsylvania without them.
The Republicans aren't going to win Pennsylvania. I don't know why this has to be a thing every election year. They haven't won Pennsylvania in nearly 30 years, why would Trump of all people be the one to win Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is solidly Democratic with a big D in the presidential election years.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Don't get me wrong. PA is still fool's gold for the Republicans. It has just enough of a Republican base to appear winnable but it's inelastic enough to be difficult to swing into the Republican column. And Trump's lack of a ground game will be going up against the famed Democratic Philadelphia turnout machine.
That all having been said, if Trump wins the election, he has to win somewhere and when you start to look at his potential paths to victory, well, they're all pretty narrow and depend on him pulling off some upsets. When allocating resources, you do have to consider the scenarios in which Trump closes the gap and figure out where you need to shore up because, in a sense, those are the only scenarios that matter.
Basically, it's very hard for Trump to win the election without at least making Pennsylvania competitive. Therefore it makes sense for Clinton to devote resources to Pennsylvania.
Well the problem is assuming that any of that will happen.
googleplex
Member
Reminder: The Young Turks thought it was in good taste to make fun of this child on one of there more salty broadcast.
But people are still going to talk about it and assess probabilities because it's the only possible scenario. The news media can't credibly sell him winning New York or California and god knows they'd try. It just doesn't pass the smell test. PA is reasonable. When I thinks of PA I think of miners and shit. Should be prime republican voters!
They're right on.
This map is revealing when talking about Trump! Even if he wins Pennsylvania, and every 2012 swing state except Florida, guess what? He still loses!
As people maybe forgot, even if this were a generic GOP candidate it would be reasonably difficult for them to win. They have to capture every single swing state from 2012, including VA/FL, or give up VA/FL and pick up a bunch of normally Democratic states. Note that most of these swing or Democratic states have growing minority populations. That's why they are swing or Democratic states to begin with! So even if Trump were a relatively conventional candidate who was just terribly racist he'd probably do poorly in them.
The lamest thing is when they pretend that Bernie is attending to trick people into coming.
I don't think it's reasonable to say it's possible. I think people saying it's possible are basing it on an understanding of the PA voting demographic that isn't the real PA voting demographic.
In that case it's possible in a fictional universe where PA is something different than it actually is.
As you so eloquently pointed out.
Box of Kittens
Banned
My point is that it makes sense for the Clinton campaign to make some decisions based on the implicit assumption that it will happen, regardless of it being unlikely. Putting all of her resources into flipping Georgia and Arizona would be a bad decision. It's perhaps counterintuitive, but if you're Hillary Clinton and your goal is to maximize your chances of getting to 270 electoral votes, then you need to put a lot of weight into some unlikely scenarios, because in the most likely scenarios based on current polling, it hardly matters what you do.
Basically I agree that statements that Pennsylvania is likely to be close based on "Pennsyltucky" or whatever are off-base. But the question of where the campaigns should allocate resources is a different question. You have to look at which states Trump would put into play if he gets close to 270, because all of these decisions are most important in a close election. If Hillary wins the popular vote by 12 points then you don't really care that you campaigned in Pennsylvania and won by 15. If the popular vote is close to a tie you'd hate not to have campaigned in Pennsylvania.
It's also really early and polls haven't necessarily firmed up yet. Polls with like 20% undecided are just not trustworthy, because those people will eventually get decided.
Hillary has plenty of money to spend in Georgia and Arizona later in the year. Assuming she doesn't blow it all flipping Texas.
Hillary has plenty of money to spend in Georgia and Arizona later in the year. Assuming she doesn't blow it all flipping Texas.
Yeah we have about a 2% popular vote cushion because of the electoral college makeup
Even if there were a "charismatic guy you can have a beer with" GoP candidate like W jr, we'd probably win this election.
RustyNails
Member
PA for Republicans is GA for Democrats.
Box of Kittens
Banned
And I'm certainly not opposed to campaigning in those states if her lead holds up because then you force Trump to make some difficult decisions, and the case of Indiana in 2008 shows what can happen when one side has a huge organizational advantage in a state. It can also help downballot.
It's not even. The Dems have won Georgia more recently than the Repubs have won PA.
Mrs. Manky
Banned
I was going to compare him with the actor who played the special needs gent from L.A. Law, but I think you have a better comparison.
Basileus777
Member
PA has a Senate race and some flippable house seats so it's not like money spent there by the Democrats is wasted. And it's still too early for Hillary to say, "we've won this, now let's spend money on states for mostly down ticket purposes," so it actually makes sense to close off whatever narrow paths to victory Trump has.
User 463088
Banned
It actually makes perfect sense for her to want to defend rather than expand at the moment. There's no reason to be crazy right now. Focus on the areas where she's going to be weakest. I've always assumed that would be Pennsylvania and Ohio.
If her team feels the Bernie hold outs are the biggest problem, then, for the love of god, pick Warren. Please. Her economic populism will play well in Ohio. (I can't speak for Pennsylvania.) The only person I can see putting Ohio more firmly in her column is Sherrod, but that cannot happen. We cannot lose the seat for two years, and put someone in with the incumbency advantage.
Also, this is not me throwing shade at all. My family is from West Virginia. I loved spending summers there as a kid.
But someone on s4p thinks s/he should move from NoVA to WV because WV Is way more liberal.
: sigh : These children.
If her team feels the Bernie hold outs are the biggest problem, then, for the love of god, pick Warren. Please. Her economic populism will play well in Ohio. (I can't speak for Pennsylvania.) The only person I can see putting Ohio more firmly in her column is Sherrod, but that cannot happen. We cannot lose the seat for two years, and put someone in with the incumbency advantage.
Also, this is not me throwing shade at all. My family is from West Virginia. I loved spending summers there as a kid.
But someone on s4p thinks s/he should move from NoVA to WV because WV Is way more liberal.
: sigh : These children.
Republicans would win Pennsylvania if they had a good year. By good year I mean an electoral college victory of around 330. Problem is the best election they've had in ages was a one-state victory in 2004.
So I can understand why Republicans have to make a feint for Pennsylvania, because to not do so would be tantamount to admitting their best-case scenario is a narrow one-state victory like 2004.
If there's one unfortunate thing about Trumps's candidacy, it's that we may never know whose party was favored this year by fundamentals alone. Generic D versus Generic R. Someone like Rubio, Ryan, or Kasich could have won Pennsylvania against Hillary, but Hillary is proving to be a considerably weaker candidate than a generic Democrat would have been.
So I can understand why Republicans have to make a feint for Pennsylvania, because to not do so would be tantamount to admitting their best-case scenario is a narrow one-state victory like 2004.
If there's one unfortunate thing about Trumps's candidacy, it's that we may never know whose party was favored this year by fundamentals alone. Generic D versus Generic R. Someone like Rubio, Ryan, or Kasich could have won Pennsylvania against Hillary, but Hillary is proving to be a considerably weaker candidate than a generic Democrat would have been.
Basileus777
Member
But this time Pennsylvania is part of Trump's path to that narrow one-state victory. Virginia and Michigan are even further out of reach for him than PA.
theprodigy
Member
You're not getting it, let's put it this way:
You are working for the Trump campaign, and are trying to figure out the most likely path to victory. What states do you focus on? And don't answer "lol I'd just quit/give up."
Box of Kittens
Banned
There's a danger in assessing Republican prospects in a state based on recent election results. Democrats have done very well in presidential elections in that time frame, winning four of six, none of which were particularly close. The worst performance for the Democrats during that time frame was John Kerry in 2004, and he still managed over 48% of the popular vote. A state would only have to be slightly Democratic leaning for us to expect it to go Democratic in every election since 1992.
An example I like to use to illustrate this is Wisconsin, because people were hyping Scott Walker's ability to win in a "deep blue" state back when he was being treated as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. As evidence people point to Wisconsin having voted Democratic in every presidential election starting in 1988. But its Partisan Voting Index is only D+2! Indeed the only elections in which Wisconsin even came close to mattering during that time were 2000 and 2004, and both Gore and Kerry won the state by razor thin margins. Gore won by less than 6000 votes, while Kerry won by just over 11000 votes. Really the most impressive Democratic performance during that time was 1988 itself when Dukakis beat Bush by a decent margin, but that was a long time ago. Long enough ago that West Virginia was one of ten states that went blue.
Another way of looking at it is that back in the late 1980s, states like Illinois, California, and New Jersey were seen as integral to the supposed Republican Electoral College "lock" because they had gone Republican in six straight presidential elections starting in 1968. Then Clinton won them in 1992 and they haven't gone Republican since.
To make a long story short, don't assume states can't go Republican just because they haven't recently. Although I certainly wouldn't expect Trump to be the candidate to flip any of them, it doesn't mean that all those states are safe.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked