Most Likely 269-269 Tie?

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'll give everyone a lot of wiggle room: you pick the candidates and the map that produces the most likely 269-269 tie in 2016!  I'll give it a shot first:

Christie/Walker (R) vs. Clinton/McCaskill (D)

[NHLiberal]

I can guarantee you that there is a likelier outcome than one that involves Clinton picking CLAIRE MCCASKILL, who said that she wouldn't allow her daughter near Bill Clinton. Hopefully I can figure one out.

[Never]

Scott Walker/John Kasich (R) vs. Mark Warner/Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

I couldn't think of a tie scenario involving Clinton, but if she doesn't run, Walker vs. Warner could be a very plausible 269-269 election.

[NHLiberal]

Scott Walker/John Kasich (R) vs. Mark Warner/Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

I couldn't think of a tie scenario involving Clinton, but if she doesn't run, Walker vs. Warner could be a very plausible 269-269 election.

Yes this is perfect

[IceSpear]

Scott Walker/John Kasich (R) vs. Mark Warner/Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

I couldn't think of a tie scenario involving Clinton, but if she doesn't run, Walker vs. Warner could be a very plausible 269-269 election.

Yes this is perfect

Agreed.

[NHLiberal]

Scott Walker/John Kasich (R) vs. Mark Warner/Kirsten Gillibrand (D)

I couldn't think of a tie scenario involving Clinton, but if she doesn't run, Walker vs. Warner could be a very plausible 269-269 election.

Yes this is perfect

Agreed.

Realistically though, I do think Warner would have the edge in Florida and Iowa. I don't really think Walker would play well nationally.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If there was a tie, I think the House would pick the Republican for President no matter what.
I think the Senate would choose the popular vote winner for Vice President.

[NHLiberal]

If there was a tie, I think the House would pick the Republican for President no matter what.
I think the Senate would choose the popular vote winner for Vice President.

I would REALLY hope that if the House picks the Republican for President no matter what and the Senate was still Democratic, they'd pick the Democrat no matter what, but you're probably right, Democrats have to go on having integrity and principles and such.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Gillibrand/Nixon vs. Rubio/Martinez

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If there was a tie, I think the House would pick the Republican for President no matter what.
I think the Senate would choose the popular vote winner for Vice President.

I would REALLY hope that if the House picks the Republican for President no matter what and the Senate was still Democratic, they'd pick the Democrat no matter what, but you're probably right, Democrats have to go on having integrity and principles and such.

These are Senate Democrats we're talking about. Exactly 0 of them challenged the stolen 2000 election, so don't expect a whole lot from them.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

If there was a tie, I think the House would pick the Republican for President no matter what.
I think the Senate would choose the popular vote winner for Vice President.

I would REALLY hope that if the House picks the Republican for President no matter what and the Senate was still Democratic, they'd pick the Democrat no matter what, but you're probably right, Democrats have to go on having integrity and principles and such.

"cricket chirping"

These are Senate Democrats we're talking about. Exactly 0 of them challenged the stolen 2000 election, so don't expect a whole lot from them.

[NHLiberal]

Gillibrand/Nixon vs. Rubio/Martinez

It's hard to see this Democratic ticket losing Iowa (or Nevada or New Mexico but that's a separate debate)

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Gillibrand/Nixon vs. Rubio/Martinez

It's hard to see this Democratic ticket losing Iowa (or Nevada or New Mexico but that's a separate debate)

I was just trying to be creative. None of these scenarios are that realistic.

Here's another one:

Bush/Sandoval vs. Warren/Brown

[Vosem]

Missouri would not go Democratic in a 50/50 election. Maybe if a favorite son was the nominee, but even then I tend to doubt it. The map in the previous post and Never's are both OK, though they require some sort of boost for Republicans in Wisconsin and Nevada respectively, so I guess they rely on Scott Walker/Paul Ryan and Brian Sandoval being the nominee. A Wisconsin candidate is likelier, making that map the most likely.

The easy answer is that a 269-269 map in 2016 is very doubtful. Last decade was the perfect chance for it, what with all the close elections and the presence of this simple, plausible scenario:

This is a narrow Republican victory map in the present, though. It's achievable in both 2008 and 2012 by universal swing to McCain or Romney. (For Romney, this was the minimal victory map; to win outright, McCain would've needed one more Obama state, the next closest one in 2008 being Iowa).

[NHLiberal]

Missouri would not go Democratic in a 50/50 election. Maybe if a favorite son was the nominee, but even then I tend to doubt it. The map in the previous post and Never's are both OK, though they require some sort of boost for Republicans in Wisconsin and Nevada respectively, so I guess they rely on Scott Walker/Paul Ryan and Brian Sandoval being the nominee. A Wisconsin candidate is likelier, making that map the most likely.

The easy answer is that a 269-269 map in 2016 is very doubtful. Last decade was the perfect chance for it, what with all the close elections and the presence of this simple, plausible scenario:

This is a narrow Republican victory map in the present, though. It's achievable in both 2008 and 2012 by universal swing to McCain or Romney. (For Romney, this was the minimal victory map; to win outright, McCain would've needed one more Obama state, the next closest one in 2008 being Iowa).

Did you see Jay Nixon, Claire McCaskill, Scott Walker, and Brian Sandoval's names literally all mentioned beside those various maps?

[Rockefeller GOP]

I can guarantee you that there is a likelier outcome than one that involves Clinton picking CLAIRE MCCASKILL, who said that she wouldn't allow her daughter near Bill Clinton. Hopefully I can figure one out.

Good point, totally forgot that.  I just needed someone who could definitively swing MO toward Clinton in an election where the GOP won NH.

[°Leprechaun]

[NHLiberal]

I can guarantee you that there is a likelier outcome than one that involves Clinton picking CLAIRE MCCASKILL, who said that she wouldn't allow her daughter near Bill Clinton. Hopefully I can figure one out.

Good point, totally forgot that.  I just needed someone who could definitively swing MO toward Clinton in an election where the GOP won NH.

Jay Nixon

[Vosem]

Missouri would not go Democratic in a 50/50 election. Maybe if a favorite son was the nominee, but even then I tend to doubt it. The map in the previous post and Never's are both OK, though they require some sort of boost for Republicans in Wisconsin and Nevada respectively, so I guess they rely on Scott Walker/Paul Ryan and Brian Sandoval being the nominee. A Wisconsin candidate is likelier, making that map the most likely.

The easy answer is that a 269-269 map in 2016 is very doubtful. Last decade was the perfect chance for it, what with all the close elections and the presence of this simple, plausible scenario:

This is a narrow Republican victory map in the present, though. It's achievable in both 2008 and 2012 by universal swing to McCain or Romney. (For Romney, this was the minimal victory map; to win outright, McCain would've needed one more Obama state, the next closest one in 2008 being Iowa).

Did you see Jay Nixon, Claire McCaskill, Scott Walker, and Brian Sandoval's names literally all mentioned beside those various maps?

I did, but they were mostly mentioned as vice-presidential candidates. I don't think the favorite son effect would be strong enough for a VP nominee to flip Missouri.

[NHLiberal]

Missouri would not go Democratic in a 50/50 election. Maybe if a favorite son was the nominee, but even then I tend to doubt it. The map in the previous post and Never's are both OK, though they require some sort of boost for Republicans in Wisconsin and Nevada respectively, so I guess they rely on Scott Walker/Paul Ryan and Brian Sandoval being the nominee. A Wisconsin candidate is likelier, making that map the most likely.

The easy answer is that a 269-269 map in 2016 is very doubtful. Last decade was the perfect chance for it, what with all the close elections and the presence of this simple, plausible scenario:

This is a narrow Republican victory map in the present, though. It's achievable in both 2008 and 2012 by universal swing to McCain or Romney. (For Romney, this was the minimal victory map; to win outright, McCain would've needed one more Obama state, the next closest one in 2008 being Iowa).

Did you see Jay Nixon, Claire McCaskill, Scott Walker, and Brian Sandoval's names literally all mentioned beside those various maps?

I did, but they were mostly mentioned as vice-presidential candidates. I don't think the favorite son effect would be strong enough for a VP nominee to flip Missouri.

I definitely think Hillary/Nixon could win Missouri if they are doing reasonably well nationally. That's not at all unrealistic or even hard to imagine

[Vosem]

Missouri would not go Democratic in a 50/50 election. Maybe if a favorite son was the nominee, but even then I tend to doubt it. The map in the previous post and Never's are both OK, though they require some sort of boost for Republicans in Wisconsin and Nevada respectively, so I guess they rely on Scott Walker/Paul Ryan and Brian Sandoval being the nominee. A Wisconsin candidate is likelier, making that map the most likely.

The easy answer is that a 269-269 map in 2016 is very doubtful. Last decade was the perfect chance for it, what with all the close elections and the presence of this simple, plausible scenario:

This is a narrow Republican victory map in the present, though. It's achievable in both 2008 and 2012 by universal swing to McCain or Romney. (For Romney, this was the minimal victory map; to win outright, McCain would've needed one more Obama state, the next closest one in 2008 being Iowa).

Did you see Jay Nixon, Claire McCaskill, Scott Walker, and Brian Sandoval's names literally all mentioned beside those various maps?

I did, but they were mostly mentioned as vice-presidential candidates. I don't think the favorite son effect would be strong enough for a VP nominee to flip Missouri.

I definitely think Hillary/Nixon could win Missouri if they are doing reasonably well nationally. That's not at all unrealistic or even hard to imagine

In a landslide, sure, but then it wouldn't be 269-269!

[°Leprechaun]

I agree that a 269-269 is unlikely given the results of the 2012 election, but how likely is this scenario? Nebraska's 3rd is unlikely to swing, but it would have to for this scenario to happen.

[Never]

I agree that a 269-269 is unlikely given the results of the 2012 election, but how likely is this scenario? Nebraska's 3rd is unlikely to swing, but it would have to for this scenario to happen.

Clinton/Hagel seems like a possibility here.

[NHLiberal]

I agree that a 269-269 is unlikely given the results of the 2012 election, but how likely is this scenario? Nebraska's 3rd is unlikely to swing, but it would have to for this scenario to happen.

Clinton/Hagel seems like a possibility here.

Clinton/Hagel vs. Portman/Ayotte? This map is pretty ridiculous though.

[Never]

I agree that a 269-269 is unlikely given the results of the 2012 election, but how likely is this scenario? Nebraska's 3rd is unlikely to swing, but it would have to for this scenario to happen.

Clinton/Hagel seems like a possibility here.

Clinton/Hagel vs. Portman/Ayotte? This map is pretty ridiculous though.

True, the map is far-fetched, especially since a Nebraska congressional district voting Democratic during a tie does seem like a cop-out. Still, if this scenario actually happened, it would probably have to involve someone from that state like Hagel.

This thread seems pretty useful in explaining how difficult it would be to have an electoral college tie in the near future.