Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) vs. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

[Simfan34]

What does the map look like? I'd say of all possible matchups, this is the most likely as of now.

[Simfan34]

I'd be voting for Cuomo.

[GLPman]

Cuomo landslide.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd have a tough time supporting Santorum. I would've supported him this cycle against the president, but I don't believe the Dems will nominate someone as bad as Obama in 2016.

[TNF]

Pretty much agree with Simfan's analysis. I'd expect a strong showing for Gary Johnson in that scenario, as well.

[Cryptic]

I'd be voting for Cuomo.

This

[Inmate Trump]

I think we'd be looking at a Democratic landslide, not just with the White House, but one that would carry over to the Congress, Senate and Governorships as well.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I'd vote for Cuomo in a heartbeat.

[Keystone Phil]

I'd be voting for Cuomo.

Disgusting (your vote) and delusional (your map).

Missouri? Georgia? Indiana? No. Just...no. After eight years of Obama, you think those states are likely to go for a Northeast Democrat? Sure, he has crossover appeal with New York Republicans. Not the same in those other three states.

Not saying Santorum would win [insert standard "We're a long way away" line here] but a Cuomo landslide? No.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'd be voting for Cuomo.

Disgusting (your vote) and delusional (your map).

Missouri? Georgia? Indiana? No. Just...no. After eight years of Obama, you think those states are likely to go for a Northeast Democrat? Sure, he has crossover appeal with New York Republicans. Not the same in those other three states.

Not saying Santorum would win [insert standard "We're a long way away" line here] but a Cuomo landslide? No.

I don't think you realize this, but Santorum repulses quite a lot of people.

Not everyone is you, Phil.

[Cobbler]

Definitely Cuomo.

[Keystone Phil]

I'd be voting for Cuomo.

Disgusting (your vote) and delusional (your map).

Missouri? Georgia? Indiana? No. Just...no. After eight years of Obama, you think those states are likely to go for a Northeast Democrat? Sure, he has crossover appeal with New York Republicans. Not the same in those other three states.

Not saying Santorum would win [insert standard "We're a long way away" line here] but a Cuomo landslide? No.

I don't think you realize this, but Santorum repulses quite a lot of people.

Not everyone is you, Phil.

Yeah, thanks. Excellent analysis. Still doesn't justify putting MO, IN and GA in the Cuomo column but glad you got your dose of trolling in.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'd be voting for Cuomo.

Disgusting (your vote) and delusional (your map).

Missouri? Georgia? Indiana? No. Just...no. After eight years of Obama, you think those states are likely to go for a Northeast Democrat? Sure, he has crossover appeal with New York Republicans. Not the same in those other three states.

Not saying Santorum would win [insert standard "We're a long way away" line here] but a Cuomo landslide? No.

I don't think you realize this, but Santorum repulses quite a lot of people.

Not everyone is you, Phil.

Actually, it's unwise to dismiss any possibility so early, even Santorum Presidency.

According to the conventional wisdom, the Republicans are going to be favored in 2016. Since Eisenhower, no party was able to keep the White House for more than two consecutive terms, except of GHWB winning in 1988 and 1988 was more a fluke, with a poor candidate (Dukakis) blowing away a winnable race. There is a fatigue factor and we don't know how Obama's second term goes.

Naturally, the field is going to be widely open in 2016 and I'm pretty sure stronger candidates than Santorum will run, but you can't rule him out just yet.

Also, it's unlikely we'll see third consecutive Democratic landslide in electoral college.

[Speed of Sound]

The polls show that people continue to move forward on social issues that Santorum is still pretty radical on; I can't imagine he would win unless the economy was really in trouble. I certainly don't think he could carry PA.

[Scabr]

He's not my favorite, but I actually like the guy, and would definitely give him a vote if it came down to it. I was happy to get the chance to see him in Charleston during the primary, even though I didn't vote for him.

The polls show that people continue to move forward on social issues that Santorum is still pretty radical on; I can't imagine he would win unless the economy was really in trouble. I certainly don't think he could carry PA.

Santorum does not have radically different social views than other Republicans, he just likes to talk about them more.

[Speed of Sound]

He's not my favorite, but I actually like the guy, and would definitely give him a vote if it came down to it. I was happy to get the chance to see him in Charleston during the primary, even though I didn't vote for him.

The polls show that people continue to move forward on social issues that Santorum is still pretty radical on; I can't imagine he would win unless the economy was really in trouble. I certainly don't think he could carry PA.

Santorum does not have radically different social views than other Republicans, he just likes to talk about them more.

And that won't fly in national election in 2016. His little missteps like his "dog" comments on homosexuals will be huge fodder on the national stage, especially in 4 more years. We all saw this year what far social conservatives talking too much does to a man's chance of winning. He would have to keep his trap shut for sure, as he would already be battling the old comments.

[Skill and Chance]

Moderate D vs. Extreme R would be a D win in any remotely neutral economy.  Santorum would do better than Romney in the Midwest but he would have a huge libertarian problem vs. Cuomo.  Basically a 2012 size win with a very different looking map:

[Keystone Phil]

Santorum criticized Romney the other day for not making the election enough about the economy and Rick actually has a clue on foreign policy. You guys really underestimate the guy but whatever.

[Simfan34]

Santorum criticized Romney the other day for not making the election enough about the economy and Rick actually has a clue on foreign policy. You guys really underestimate the guy but whatever.

Looking into the future, I'm not sure what we'll see, whether we shall reevaluate this tack the party's been taking of late. But to me it seems more likely the defeat will be chalked down to "Moderate Mitt's" lack of consistency and conservative backbone, prompting an even more rightward turn. Combine that with the tradition of the "runner up" being the next Republican candidate, and a Santorum nomination looks frighteningly likely. Against a pragmatic Democrat like Andrew Cuomo or Brian Schweitzer, and I could imagine a 1964-scale defeat.

Now you wonder why I think this may happen. Cuomo's a fairly moderate person, willing to take on teachers' unions, work with the state GOP, and cut spending and taxes, all the while being a solid liberal on social issues. He would be able to put together Hillary's coalition and draw in many more on the left who in 2008 would have gone for Obama. So that gives us Cuomo as the Democratic candidate, perhaps with Hickenlooper or Schweitzer as a running mate.

As I said, the Republican Party has had a tendency to nominate "runners-up", which would primarily be a draw in two ways. First, it would encourage Santorum to run based off of that precedent. Second, it would help shape the media narrative around him as a "natural frontrunner" for that reason, giving him early momentum. Now, I think while there are many other compelling candidates for 2016, I think that Santorum's consistency and steadfastness would make him a very appealing candidate after the failure of "flip-flop Mitt". Bush, Rubio, Christie, Martinez, Daniels- they all come with their baggage that may ruin them, and don't underestimate lurking racism and sexism. So it's very much plausible that Santorum could run and win in 2016. Let's assume he picks Martinez to appeal to women and Hispanics- demographics that he is aware he and his party are struggling with.

So how do we get this map? Well, we have to consider the economic trajectory, which will likely be positive- "slow and steady growth" will be the central theme. While not booming, it's unlikely the GOP will be able to paint a negative picture, at least successfully.

China will continue to be a major issue, and depending on things turn out here and there their GDP may be larger than the United States' by then, by the adjusted PPP metric at least. Lots of soul-searching and outlash may occur, but I don't think politicians will be able to do much about it, so they'll probably trumpet the nominal figure as still being larger and the public will forget about it rapidly.

What we will see with Cuomo is a successful two-term governor who in all probability led his state to both growth and social reform, cutting taxes and spending while balancing budgets. Fiscally, he should have appeal with swing voters that would otherwise go Republican based on those factors. Santorum has no record, being a legislature, but Cuomo may be able to paint Santorum as being fiscally reckless based off of his Senate tenure, and smear him additionally with "evidence" from the fiscal hole that was the Bush years. It's unlikely Santorum will be able to make a case where he appears to be better suited to economic management than Cuomo. This would hurt him greatly in today's swing states, especially in the Midwest.

Socially, Santorum has his liabilities, and Cuomo being the Nixonian figure he is will stop at nothing to paint him as a comically reactionary radical. From abortion, to gay marriage, to women's rights, the consistent narrative will of a man who will take America back to the Middle Ages- and beyond. The nail in the coffin, I imagine, will be in the debates, when both men are questioned on their Catholicism and Santorum repeats his repudiation of JFK's speech on the separation of church and state. That could easily Serve to frighten southern whites into thinking that Santorum intends to inject the Catholic Church into American society, as well.

I don't know what form social media may take in the next four years, but I can confidently assume it will be even more omnipresent and immersive than it is now. With the development of "memes" on Santorum's idiosyncratic beliefs, and the general pressures it places on non-voters we could see youth turnout reach high levels equal to that of 2008 or higher. Of course, with a Santorum-led America being presented as something out of A Handmaiden's Tale, that demographic would come out particularly strong against him. We'd never hear the end of "weird Santorum", with stories like his being a Knight of Malta or sleeping his the corpse of his stillborn child, fair or not.

Cuomo will likely win by a margin greater than either of Obama's victories. This makes the map I made more than possible. I also think migration will mean GA and SC resemble NC more.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I won't go as far to suggest Santorum is a likely 2016 nominee or even a frontrunner, but he was already underestimated this year.

Four years is a long time in politics. Predicting now is rather unsafe.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Andrew Cuomo is a right-winger whose nomination would fully destroy the Democratic Party of Roosevelt. I would reluctantly vote for Rick Santorum to prevent the destruction of the party.

[Simfan34]

I won't go as far to suggest Santorum is a likely 2016 nominee or even a frontrunner, but he was already underestimated this year.

Four years is a long time in politics. Predicting now is rather unsafe.

Of course, I'm dealing solely in hypotheticals. Nothing is certain.

Andrew Cuomo is a right-winger whose nomination would fully destroy the Democratic Party of Roosevelt. I would reluctantly vote for Rick Santorum to prevent the destruction of the party.

That's a bold statement.

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

[Skill and Chance]

Santorum criticized Romney the other day for not making the election enough about the economy and Rick actually has a clue on foreign policy. You guys really underestimate the guy but whatever.

Looking into the future, I'm not sure what we'll see, whether we shall reevaluate this tack the party's been taking of late. But to me it seems more likely the defeat will be chalked down to "Moderate Mitt's" lack of consistency and conservative backbone, prompting an even more rightward turn. Combine that with the tradition of the "runner up" being the next Republican candidate, and a Santorum nomination looks frighteningly likely. Against a pragmatic Democrat like Andrew Cuomo or Brian Schweitzer, and I could imagine a 1964-scale defeat.

Now you wonder why I think this may happen. Cuomo's a fairly moderate person, willing to take on teachers' unions, work with the state GOP, and cut spending and taxes, all the while being a solid liberal on social issues. He would be able to put together Hillary's coalition and draw in many more on the left who in 2008 would have gone for Obama. So that gives us Cuomo as the Democratic candidate, perhaps with Hickenlooper or Schweitzer as a running mate.

As I said, the Republican Party has had a tendency to nominate "runners-up", which would primarily be a draw in two ways. First, it would encourage Santorum to run based off of that precedent. Second, it would help shape the media narrative around him as a "natural frontrunner" for that reason, giving him early momentum. Now, I think while there are many other compelling candidates for 2016, I think that Santorum's consistency and steadfastness would make him a very appealing candidate after the failure of "flip-flop Mitt". Bush, Rubio, Christie, Martinez, Daniels- they all come with their baggage that may ruin them, and don't underestimate lurking racism and sexism. So it's very much plausible that Santorum could run and win in 2016. Let's assume he picks Martinez to appeal to women and Hispanics- demographics that he is aware he and his party are struggling with.

So how do we get this map? Well, we have to consider the economic trajectory, which will likely be positive- "slow and steady growth" will be the central theme. While not booming, it's unlikely the GOP will be able to paint a negative picture, at least successfully.

China will continue to be a major issue, and depending on things turn out here and there their GDP may be larger than the United States' by then, by the adjusted PPP metric at least. Lots of soul-searching and outlash may occur, but I don't think politicians will be able to do much about it, so they'll probably trumpet the nominal figure as still being larger and the public will forget about it rapidly.

What we will see with Cuomo is a successful two-term governor who in all probability led his state to both growth and social reform, cutting taxes and spending while balancing budgets. Fiscally, he should have appeal with swing voters that would otherwise go Republican based on those factors. Santorum has no record, being a legislature, but Cuomo may be able to paint Santorum as being fiscally reckless based off of his Senate tenure, and smear him additionally with "evidence" from the fiscal hole that was the Bush years. It's unlikely Santorum will be able to make a case where he appears to be better suited to economic management than Cuomo. This would hurt him greatly in today's swing states, especially in the Midwest.

Socially, Santorum has his liabilities, and Cuomo being the Nixonian figure he is will stop at nothing to paint him as a comically reactionary radical. From abortion, to gay marriage, to women's rights, the consistent narrative will of a man who will take America back to the Middle Ages- and beyond. The nail in the coffin, I imagine, will be in the debates, when both men are questioned on their Catholicism and Santorum repeats his repudiation of JFK's speech on the separation of church and state. That could easily Serve to frighten southern whites into thinking that Santorum intends to inject the Catholic Church into American society, as well.

I don't know what form social media may take in the next four years, but I can confidently assume it will be even more omnipresent and immersive than it is now. With the development of "memes" on Santorum's idiosyncratic beliefs, and the general pressures it places on non-voters we could see youth turnout reach high levels equal to that of 2008 or higher. Of course, with a Santorum-led America being presented as something out of A Handmaiden's Tale, that demographic would come out particularly strong against him. We'd never hear the end of "weird Santorum", with stories like his being a Knight of Malta or sleeping his the corpse of his stillborn child, fair or not.

Cuomo will likely win by a margin greater than either of Obama's victories. This makes the map I made more than possible. I also think migration will mean GA and SC resemble NC more.

I think better than Obama 2008 is pushing it.  I could even see Cuomo falling behind Obama 2012 in parts of the Midwest.  VA and FL certainly wouldn't go for Santorum after rejecting the comparatively moderate Romney by more than expected, but the rest of the South probably would.  If it does end up being Cuomo vs. Santorum, the comparisons would be to Bush vs. Dukakis. 

[Maxwell]

Santorum criticized Romney the other day for not making the election enough about the economy and Rick actually has a clue on foreign policy. You guys really underestimate the guy but whatever.

And Rick Santorum would've fixed that issue... by focusing less on the economy?

His whole focus during the primaries was as a social conservative swordsman.