Talk Elections

Massachusetts has a reputation as a bastion Democrats. It voted for George McGovern in 1972 when no other state did.

On the other hand Mitt Romney did govern Massachusetts very effectively, and he's precisely the sort of Rockefeller Republican that appeals to them. Scott Brown narrowly won the state's senate seat in 2010. And I think it's notable that Massachusetts was the only state outside of the South to vote more Republican in 2008 then it did in 2004.

If the economy collapses thanks to European and Chinese problems, I reckon Mitt Romney could pull it off.

Romney 1.0 could have made it close. Romney 72.3 won't.

Maybe NH, but not Massachusetts.

Nope. He'll get 30-40%.

No.

Haha, no.

He'll do quite well for a Republican in Massachusetts, but almost certainly not enough to outright win the state.

Haha we'll see. I reckon I'll be vindicated come November. Noone though Scott Brown would win Massachusetts either.

Remember Massachusetts lacks a large nonwhite population to prop up the Democrats, and all recent polls show all white subgroups(including liberals) becoming less supportive of Obama.

I actually agree that MA is trending Republican... just not that fast.

I think he will, but in a small margin.

But if he loses, he might as well throw in the towel considering, hardly any candidate loses their home state and wins the entire election. 

That is because, in most recent elections, the candidate is from a state that isn't solidly pro-opposition party.
Losing Massachusetts, a solid D state since like forever, isn't going to mean he's dead come election day.

Polling doesn't even show him close, so there's your answer.

Is this a joke?

Isn't putting up threads like this a bit of a self indulgence?  If one must do it, content should be added, such as I think Mass will trend heavily GOP because blacks are thin on the ground there, the secular center has lost faith in Obama, white Catholics are fleeing in droves, and I base that on this and that, and so forth. JMO.

If we do this state by excruciating state, thread by thread by thread, it will begin to feel like this Board is being well - water boarded. But hey, maybe being water boarded doesn't make one feel as bad as they all say.  Maybe for those into kink, it would be a turn on. Anything is possible I guess.

And no, Mittens will not be winning Mass under any circumstances, unless the election is a blow out, which it won't be. Thank you.

Mitt Romney was a grand-guignol-terrible governor.

If a gigantic, devastating economic collapse hit this nation, anybody could win Massachusetts.

Didn't he have approval ratings comparable to John Kasich/Rick Scott after leaving office?

http://www.suffolk.edu/images/content/Research_Centers/Nov_6_2006_marginals.pdf

36-55 disapproval according to this poll.  He's recovered since then and I think he's now slightly positive.

Actually most recent polls show Obama with a lead margin of between 11% and 15% over Romney, but with ~10% undecided. The majority of undecideds typically end up against the incumbent. Assuming that holds true in Mass, all Romney might be looking at 45% of the vote against Obama's 55% if the election were held today.

Is it so unreasonable to think he might be able to bridge that gap if the economy returns to a downward spiral/Romney runs an effective campaign/a foreign policy crisis undermines Obama Carter style? I'd say if all three occur then the odds outright favour Romney.

It depends who they are. In Texas, the undecideds are almost all Republicans. In Massachusetts, they are Dems or lean-Dems. By November, each group will have been reminded who they really support at heart and those gaps will grow.

Mitt Romney will do decent in Massachusetts, helping Republicans downballot, but he won't come with in single-digits, barring a landslide.

I love how the initial question is totally loaded. Who says Mitt governed effectively? If he had, his approval rating wouldn't have been in the 30's by 2006.

As for your answer, lol nope. Stranger things have happened in politics...actually, no...Massachusetts voting for Romney would be the strangest thing that I can think of

This.  Romney 1.0 would win 40+ states against Obama.  Romney 1.0 also would never win the GOP nomination.

Undecideds in all places tend to be 50-50.

I don't think he governed effectively, but his low approval rating was mostly because, rather than loudly distancing himself from national Republicans, as most successful statewide MAGOP politicos do, he loudly did just the opposite.  The national Republican brand is toxic in MA even in a year like 2010, in a year like 2006 it's fatal.

It will be hilariously awkward to see the campaign try to decide exactly what to do in terms of campaigning in Massachusetts. Given who he is, they can't just say, "We're obviously not going there."

Seriously? Even the Romney that ran for Senate would lose in a general election. Best case scenario I see him approaching 45%. But barring some Obama baby-eating controversy, I can't imagine even that.

Not a chance in hell.

He'll probably try to make a stop in Massachusetts every time he goes to NH (which is what he's been doing), and they'll make ads purchased in the Boston media market more generic rather than tailored to NH.  If he's leading by several points on election eve the campaign might make a final push in MA like Bush 2000 did in CA and NY edit: NJ (of course in that case the polls were wrong).

I'm going to enjoy bumping this thread when he does win it. :)

Just remember that your wet dreams won't transmit into reality.

Keep in mind only 3 Presidents in US history lost their home state but yet won the Presidency, I guess if you want to have a good chance to win, win your home state!

Not a wet dream. I just find it funny how confident everyone is that theirs 0% chance.

To get 45% of the vote in Massachusetts, would be Romney would have to get 56% of the national vote (if you assume uniform swing) and the national polling isn't showing that sort of swing. In fact, at most, only a 1-2% shift is likely. Of course, a crisis could change the map, but my point is that Romney won't get close to winning the state under normal circumstances.

Stop feeding the troll, folks.

They can always have him campaign in one of his other home states.  Indeed, Romney has so many home states that it knocks more than a few potential VP choices out of the mix.

Why on earth would you think Romney has a chance of winning Massachussets? ???

Are you expecting some kind of random economic apocalypse between now and election day?

Your assuming the swing would have to be identical between states. Whereas recent polling shows Romney doing a lot better then McCain in Massachussets(40% Romney to 51% Obama), and that's leaving a substantial undecided vote. Assuming it splits slightly favourably to Romney, that's 45/55%. Which means he only needs an additional 5% swing over the course of this campaign.

Simple math folks.

Suggesting the possibility of an additional 5% swing makes me a troll? In the context of an incredibly unstable global economy and volatile(even more so then usual) Middle East? Give me a break.

His campaign is headquartered in Boston.

I know that. Gore's campaign was in DC. How much campaigning did he do there?

Either this year or in 2013, courtesy of instability in Europe, China and the Middle East+ climate change.

I think the prospect of Obama winning Kansas (his mother's home state) is comparable to Romney's chance in Massachusetts. Seriously, folks, this is the most ridiculous thread ever.

Yeah, I don't know why I'm bother to engage the troll. Romney's got about as much chance of winning California as Massachusetts.

What is this BS about me being a troll?

I'll repeat myself: recent polling shows Romney doing a lot better then McCain in Massachussets(40% Romney to 51% Obama), and that's leaving a substantial undecided vote. Assuming it splits slightly favourably to Romney, that's 45/55%. Which means he only needs an additional 5% swing over the course of this campaign.

Suggesting the possibility of an additional 5% swing does not make me a troll! In the context of an incredibly unstable global economy and volatile(even more so then usual) Middle East, such a swing is more likely then not.

I've provided maths, statistics and links. You and your ilk have provided contemptuous smirks.

Start providing a half valid statistical argument against my previous post, or admit to being a hack.

I wonder how many people in 1992 thought Clinton was going to lose Arkansas?

What would you say are the odds of Romney winning Massachusetts?

I'll put them at 1%. My context is that Romney has a 25% chance of winning the election as of now. 1% is the chance of a global catastrophe tied with an Obama scandal that makes him unelectable in a 1984-type GOP sweep that includes my state of Massachusetts. That's it. It's not happening.

Stastically flat out false. The most recent poll in California shows Obama with a 21% lead margin, whereas the most recent Massachusetts poll shows Obama with an 11% lead.

It's really quite disengenous for you to bring up "chance" without having looked up the statistics from which "chance" is determined.

The bolded part is where we disagree. Given the instability of China, Europe and the Middle East+climate change, I would posit it to be near certain that a global depression starts either this year or in 2013. Obviously if it doesn't then Obama will win Massachusetts cleanly, but I'd put the chance of depression having started by election day at somewhere between 50% and 25%. If it has started by then I'd say Mass is a tossup.

So I'd pin the odds of a Romney victory in Massachusetts at somewhere between 25%(based on the high estimate of a depression having started by then) and 12.5%(based on the low estimate of it having started by then).

I also disagree that winning Massachusetts entails a nationwide sweep for Mittens. Their were number of states bluer then Massachussets in 2008.

Don't be silly. Obama could get about 45% in Texas, but he's not going to get 51%, and everyone knows it, so it hardly matters that it's just a ten point gap between him and Romney.

Absurd troll threads aren't entitled to respect - if someone made a thread about Obama winning Kansas we'd smirk, too, and rightfully so.

Romney would lose Massachusetts in a general election even if he was still Governor.

I'm calling you a troll because this is a ridiculous premise, and I think you're well aware of that. Not least because it rests on the most outrageous goldbug prophecies coming to pass before Election Day - are you a disciple of Peter Schiff?

The reference to climate change causing a depression in fall 2012 or 2013 is trollish.

I will enjoy bumping this thread when he loses it.  In fact, I'm bookmarking this page for that very occasion.

Arkansas (along with the rest of the South) actually wasn't as hostile to Democrats statewide as it is today.

Your first assertion is downright wrong. Obama could conceivably have won Texas if the GFC had occurred in 2007 rather then 2008... the Democratic national shift would instead have been a tidal wave.

Peter Schiff? ROFLMAO. Goldbugs are nuts, gold is a bubble that will soon pop just like everything else. I don't see how suspecting an economic collapse is Austrian... to the contrary the people who are most bearish on Europe are folks like Krugman that reject austerity.

You promise to bump it if he wins it?

Well, they are both states Mitt has homes in.

No it isn't. The climate is complex, a crisis situation could develop at any time. The Arctic and Antartic polar caps in particular are ticking time bombs.

You're obviously forgetting that Israel's impending attack on Iran is going to trigger World War III this year. As wartime president Obama will of course win 40+ states in a FDR-esque landslide, among them Massachusetts.

Theirs some evidence that Israel is just saber rattling. But if does spiral into a general conflict, it could indeed be a windfall for Obama. OTOH it could turn out a humiliating failure that discredits him politically. If the latter is the case, then Romney winning Massachusetts becomes especially plausible.

And yes I know you are being sarcastic with the intent of mocking me.

I would also like to remind everyone that the 2008 statewide polling initially showed McCain with a strong lead in Indiana and North Carolina before the GFC.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008#North_Carolina

Why is this still going?

Another concerned troll ::)

Please explain what you mean.

Your disapproval of a thread is not sufficient basis for its closure. Wink.

lolno

I doubt that it will, but it's possible because he was a good Governor there.

Five pages? I'm going to go start a thread on how Georgia's going to go 60% for Barack Obama. Maybe Romney (or any Republican) should try to win a county in Massachusetts first.

()

Rockingham seems to think that Romney is somehow going to achieve a 25-point swing despite the fact that he was elected once, quite underwhelmingly, as Governor and left office fairly unpopular. This thread should be stickied as a somber reminder of the useless trolling this board will consist of until the conventions.

For all the folks complaining about this thread's existence/how long it is, half the replies in this thread are folks complaining about this thread's existence/how long it is.

I don't mind the spam, I find it funny and intend to gloat over it if Mittens wins Massachusetts, but  remember you're being hoisted by your own petard! If not for your posts, this thread would already have disappeared, and be only half as long.

I repeat, look at the recent statewide polling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Massachusetts

The most recent poll shows Obama with 51%, Mittens 40%, 9% undecided. Assuming undecideds split fairly evenly that's 55 to 45 for Obama.

Mittens needs only a 5% swing in his favour in Massachusetts. I see that as a fairly plausible event if the economy starts collapsing again before November and/or Obama suffers a serious foreign policy humiliation in the Middle East.

That 25-point swing isn't as intimidating when you break it up into a series of highly reasonable 5-point swings.

I know this is all trolling, but did you see that it's a Rasmussen Poll and no other poll shows anything like that narrow a margin?

I am afraid, others will find bumping this thread a lot more enjoyable :))

If Romney wins MA, he wins, at least, 40 other states as well.  He should, of course, do better than most recent Republicans - I am almost certain he'd get into the 40s, may be even come close to 45%.  He will, probably, win in Plymouth county and might win Worcester. He'd struggle in Norfolk and Barnstable and almost certainly loose the rest of it, mostly by big margins.

To do much better than that, he'd have to run against the national Republican party, on a VERY liberal platform. He could do this when running for governor - he'd never be able to pull it off running for President. Even then it would be a strong lean D, though.

But there is no reason for him even to try to win MA - it would be a ridiculous use of limited campaing resources.

False. YouGov and Suffolk Uni have show similar results. PPP has been all over the place.

Justify your assertion that I am trolling, or admit to using to avoid having an open mind.

He isn't a real troll. He's just very, very young, probably. You know, "on the internet knobody knows that you are a dog :))  "

I like that the troll is seriously citing YouGov (!) and a uni poll to support a... uh Rasmussen poll.

b33 has an open mind......he just dismisses jibberish :)

We're just talking past each other right now. Should an economic collapse/foreign policy humiliation occur between now and November, I may be vindicated.

Basing yourself on a particularly favorable poll months before the election, while ignoring everything else, is not very smart.

Well, may be, if Obama lets Netaniyahu rape one of his daughters and have it shown in a prime time news broadcast. I don't, know, may be...

I disagree with the idea that Romney could win Massachusetts but how does what this guy is saying constitute trolling? If anything the people calling him a troll are trolling the thread.

Because the premise is patently absurd, and I'm reasonably sure he knows that.

Also certain PPP polls(though others work against my argument).

The problem is that Rasmussen, PPP, YouGov and Suffolk are the only ones to have done polling.

Whats wrong with YouGov?

Le Sigh
Romney breach a 10% margin through a 5% increase courtesy of an economic collapse/FP bungle is not patently absurd.

In a scenario in which Romney wins 40+ states, MA could go. But it would be a huge landslide, and nobody would care of MA at that point. Anything short of that won't do the job.

A run-off-the-mill crisis - like the general economic near-meltdown in 2008 - would, probably, not be enough. May be, a tape of Obama acting in gay-necrophiliac porn movie could.

Agreed.

I'm not talking a near-meltdown, I'm talking a total meltdown, on account of the fact that implementing a second bailout ala the 2008 one would be politically impossible in the present congress.

You should keep in mind that back in 2008 serious people were talking about the coming meltdown many months, if not years, before it happened. By this time in 2008 sh**t was hitting the fan really strongly. Bear went down in March, if you are old enough to recall. There is NOTHING remotely like that in the offing this time. So, stop dreaming.

Oh, okay, so this ridiculous idea rest upon some random second Great Depression happening between now and Election Day?

;D

Guys, if Obama nuked California would Romney flip it??

EDIT: Rockingham, this board is so full of terrible, terrible threads like this that you can't blame people for venting their annoyance a little.

Actually their have been several years worth of concerned discussion about a possible slowdown in China, with outright assertions of a property bubble and unsustainable growth for more then a year past. Same holds true for concerns about the eurozone. If you've been following any of the commentary on the international economic situation you will have noticed countless respectable commentators(The Economist, for example) propounding on their potential to set of a recession/depression.

No dreams mate.

Have you been following the situation in China and Europe?.... stupid question, you're Irish. So you've no excuse for rejecting the possibility of the European situation triggering a depression before the year is up.


Yes, but highly unlikely to happen.

Better then most of threads on the first page, IMO.

Mondale84 has attempted to mock me by creating a thread suggesting that my assertion that Mitt Romney might win Massachusetts is comparable to suggesting Obama might win Utah: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=153078.0

Theirs are very obvious flaw to his argument.

The lead margin for Romney over Obama in Utah is 40%. Obama's lead margin in Massachusetts is only 10%.

His attempt to mock me falls flat if you look at those numbers. A 5% increase in Romney's vote is very plausible, whereas a 20% increase for Obama would be entirely unprecedented

I don't think Kyro is a New Yorker.

Rasmussen has been showing better results for Republicans a lot of places, Obama certainly will be well over 50% on election day. Second, uniform swing I referring to is based on the previous presidential vote. With a big national swing, Romney would have to over-perform in a big way in Massachusetts to get 45% and he just doesn't have that sort of appeal in the state. 1-2% points from what McCain got may be possible, but beyond that, it's not going to be much different.

Obama has a much more competent campagin than Coakley did.

But none of them suggesting actual financial meltdown between now and November. A recession could be more than enough to elect Romney president - but not to have him winning in MA.

In any case, even if that happens, and Romney wins MA (could happen, I've conceded that before, though, of course, extremely unlikely), he would be winning so many other traditional Dem states (at the very least, before Obama looses MA, he'd loose all of Midwest, w/ possible exception of IL, as well as mountain west, PA, NJ, CT, NH, ME and everything south of DC; probably either OR or WA or both as well) that MA would, at most, be an icing on the cake. But, short of a huge landslide, this is, certainly, not happening.

Agreed.  Also:


This thread has outlived any possibility of productive discussion.  Locking this one and the Obama wins Utah thread.  If anyone really wants me to unlock it after the election to gloat, feel free to PM me about it at that time.