Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 15, 2014, 11:36:32 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Bacon King)
| | |-+  Republican floor
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Republican floor  (Read 280 times)
politicus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3173
Denmark


View Profile
« on: April 14, 2012, 06:39:14 pm »
Ignore

What do you see as the Republican floor in presidential elections in the years ahead? It is often set at 170-200 by various analysts, but I only get 113 (or probably 114 now that they changed CD2 in Nebraska). AL, Alaska, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, OK, TE, TX, UT, WY. Maybe Arkansas too, but I could still see a populist Southern Dem win it in a very good year.

« Last Edit: April 14, 2012, 07:26:08 pm by politicus »Logged

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Winston Churchill

"While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment."

Barry Goldwater

The way 90% of Atlas threads end up:
SJoyce
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8289
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2012, 09:26:08 pm »
Ignore

Add Arkansas, West Virginia, and the Dakotas to that and you get (I think) 131, which is a pretty reasonable floor, compared to the Democratic 161 (CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT, and WA).
Logged

politicus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3173
Denmark


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2012, 06:09:46 am »
Ignore

Add Arkansas, West Virginia, and the Dakotas to that and you get (I think) 131, which is a pretty reasonable floor, compared to the Democratic 161 (CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT, and WA).
I think the Dakotas could be won by a populist Western Democrat like Schweitzer in a good year. Hard to see West Virginia as solid Republican in all cases. They just don't like Obama.
Some would say that Hillary Clinton could have won both WV and Arkansas. Not sure about that, but I think some Democrats could.

Interesting Dem floor. Here the commentators generally say 251 or close, so it seems they just use floor in a different way than I understand it.
My definition would be states the party could only loose in "life boy/dead girl" scenarios.
Logged

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Winston Churchill

"While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment."

Barry Goldwater

The way 90% of Atlas threads end up:
SJoyce
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8289
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2012, 07:25:27 am »
Ignore

Add Arkansas, West Virginia, and the Dakotas to that and you get (I think) 131, which is a pretty reasonable floor, compared to the Democratic 161 (CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT, and WA).
I think the Dakotas could be won by a populist Western Democrat like Schweitzer in a good year. Hard to see West Virginia as solid Republican in all cases. They just don't like Obama.
Some would say that Hillary Clinton could have won both WV and Arkansas. Not sure about that, but I think some Democrats could.

Interesting Dem floor. Here the commentators generally say 251 or close, so it seems they just use floor in a different way than I understand it.
My definition would be states the party could only loose in "life boy/dead girl" scenarios.

I add the Dakotas because, while Schweitzer is from the Mountain West 'Unchurched Belt', the Dakotas have some of the highest rates of religious observance in the nation (North is beaten by only MS and PR).
On WV, it seems like a state where Democrats will get lots of local success (both Senators are Democrats), but a Pres. candidate won't be the kind of Democrat who appeals to them. And Clinton could win Arkansas, because she's the former First Lady of Arkansas. And that's pretty much my definition as well, but to simplify things for their audience, commentators add states like Maine and Oregon to the Democratic side and states like Georgia and Indiana to the Republicans, to concentrate on the Floridas and Virginias.
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines