Talk Elections

Really, I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned. See, McCain needs to win Ohio, so adding Taft is a great way to lock up the state. After all, adding a VP from a state always guarantees the state will vote for that ticket, period. Just how John Kerry won NC in 2004 as well.

But he might very well win Ohio anyway, so it's a bit of a waste.  Obviously, the best choice is Pete Wilson.  That's 55 free electoral votes that he wouldn't even have to work for.

How do you feel that this will affect Nevada and Oregon, two states which vote heavily on the "Vice Presidents who were willing to live in states that touch ours" issue?

Oh, I forgot about that effect.  In that case, maybe he'd be better off with George Pataki, as that could also get him PA, NJ, CT, MA, and VT along with NY.  RI is also kind of close to the tip of Long Island, so that could be affected as well.  Overall, that's like 90 free electoral votes.  And while neither Ontario nor Quebec have any electoral votes, since they border New York, McCain would inevitably become quite popular in the Great White North.

On the flip side, Obama should probably pick someone from Tennessee, as it gets him most of the South.....I'm thinking maybe Harold Ford Jr.

Don Seigleman! Absolutely perfect for Obama! Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee and Georgia all become in the bag for him.

Not only that, but anyone who lives near a jail will be all over his candidacy.

Is this a joke. Bob Taft? No way in hell would he be the VP

Ooh! Obama/Talent! Think of all the states he'd lock up!

()

He'll also get the loser vote, which could swing several other states.

No.  Clearly you don't understand.  Here is a graphic illustration of a McCain/Hutchinson vs. Obama/Schweitzer ticket:

()

As you can see, the Hutchinfront radiates gloriously out of Texas, even warming the frigid hearts of the Illinois voter.  Safe McCain.

WYOMING 4 OBAMA!!!!11111111111

Ah, you might have missed a few lines in the thread that I think give away whether or not this is a joke.  I think it's clear when you read these parts:







Of course, the other parts of the thread were a bit more serious, so I can understand the confusion.

McCain-Romney vs. Obama-Talent:  Romney and Talent would not run on opposite tickets, even in Bizarro World.
McCain-Huckabee vs. Obama-Talent:  I would give Obama another look.
McCain-Paul vs. Obama-Talent:  I would give Obama another vote.

Now, back to Earth.

Indeed. That would ensure breaking 70% everywhere in the world.

Sarcasm aside, a quick look at the Atlas shows a real swing in, for example, NC in 2004 and WY in 2000.  Picking someone popular in a state that's on the tipping point could be a good idea.  Picking someone unpopular or trying to get that effect in a large state is obviously not so bright.

Wait, did I just feed the troll?

0.39% is not what I'd consider a "real swing".

Look which way the national vote went.  In a state that was closer to begin with, it could have made the difference.

McCain only has one choice now, Eliot Spitzer.  The map would look something like this as Spitzer would secure NY and all bordering states, including some that he a direct route if you ignore Canada, feeling boxed in, ME and NH comply as well:

()

()
obama-freudenthal ftw

dont even get me started on obama-henry or obama-cazayoux

I think if both candidates were allowed to have about 5 or 6 running mates, you could spread them out geographically, such that the outcome of every state was determined by the geographical proximity of the state to the running mate's home state.  Too bad the constitution doesn't allow for that, as it would allow you to cancel the actual election, and simply infer the winner based on geography.

Ah, but you're forgetting:  McCain could always announce his intended appointments to various cabinet positions ahead of election day.  For example, by stating his intention to pick Rep. Peter King for the office of Secretary of Labor, that'd swing New York's electoral votes firmly into McCain's column.  Game over, Barack Obama.

Fun thread!  :)

This post however gets the prize. LOL!

Hmmm....I hadn't thought of that.  The Cabinet could make things rather interesting.  How about this?  Each candidate announces his running mate, and his entire Cabinet, along with all the undersecretaries, and so forth......in, fact, why not?  How about each candidate announces who they're going to hire for the entire federal workforce.

The election will be decided based on a mathematical equation, that weights every citizen's "vote" on the basis of their physical proximity to each of the potential federal workers (with of course greater weight being placed on higher offices, so living near a prospective VP counts for more than living near a prospective undersecretary for water planning in Nome, Alaska), integrated over the course of their entire lifetimes.

This would require a rather detailed census, to determine how close every "voter" has ever been to every prospective federal employee.  But it would be worth it, in order to have the "election" decided by a computer program rather than an actual vote.

Kentucky has the most neighboring electoral votes, after that Tennessee, Nevada, and Oklahoma according to my quick estimates.  Anyone good from Louisville?

The Constitution does allow that.

1836 plan, eh?

It would seem to result in the VP being of a different party from POTUS, unless the electors were unfaithful.

Safe Anne Northup.

Come on!  McCain-Palin 08!

One of the many VPs would be in the top two, no?

Announcing one's planned cabinet does sound good.  It's more transparent, allowing the American people to know who they're electing beforehand.

That would be fantastic.

I never knew you were English.

It also makes the selection of the cabinet even more political than it already is.

I'm a Werewolf in London, so I'm using a UK avatar.

It's already pretty damn political as it is.  Besides, I'm sure that there are a lot of positions (advisers and whatever wonks) outside of the cabinet that are just as important.

NSA

I had assumed all this time you were an American one.

I am, from Virginia, but since my username was from a song called "Werewolves of London", I decided to change it.

Yeah, uh, nevermind.

Exactly what I had in mind.  Though mind you, McCain may announce something like that preemptively to bolster his credentials.  Ditto for possible replacements for Petraeus and other military leaders if needed  Then again, that may be inviting a security risk.

You've got it all wrong BRTD, John McCain should consider D.C Ward 3 CouncilwomanCarol Schwartz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Schwartz) to be his running mate in 2008. An extra 3 Electoral Votes from the District of Columbia wouldn't hurt the Republican Party :P.

She did come relatively close to winning the 1994 Mayor's race.... imagine DC with a Republican Mayor :)

Don, that would be political incorrect for DC to have a Republican Mayor. Hehe.

I guess we should look at the base map, before counting in Vice Presidential Candidates:

McCain vs Obama

()

McCain 89 ECVs
Obama 85 ECVs

McCain vs Clinton:

()

McCain 89 ECVs
Clinton 89 ECVs

And thus we determine that Clinton really is more electable than Obama... even moreso if we factor in the whole "island cut off from everywhere else" syndrome of RI, NH, ME. She could probably also get whole "I lived in Arkansas while my husband was Governor" effect, but McCain has spent so long in the Senate, he could probably get the homeland effect in DC.

Hack, Obama-Freudenthal makes no claim to NE-2.

Yes, I think BRTD was being BRTD.

Although Taft could bankroll the campaign with rare coin investments.

It was mocking the idea that VP candidates always carry their home states that some people have proposed here in relation to Lieberman, etc.

LOL

Like Tim Pawlenty will deliver Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa?  Yeah, I know whatchamean. :-)

No. It would result (if it was the winning party as did that) in the VP being picked by the Senate, though.