Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2018, 01:25:02 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 101
76  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which state Republican party is the most extreme? on: January 27, 2018, 08:51:53 pm
Probably Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, North Carolina, and Maine.
77  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: How would you have voted? Indiana on: January 27, 2018, 06:32:09 pm
Gubernatorial:
1968: Edgar Whitcomb
1972: Matthew Walsh
1976: Otis Bowen
1980: John A. Hillenbrand II
1984: Robert Orr
1988: Evan Bayh
1992: Evan Bayh
1996: Frank O'Bannon
2000: Frank O'Bannon
2004: Mitch Daniels
2008: Mitch Daniels
2012: John Gregg
2016: John Gregg

Senate Class I
1970: Vance Hartke
1976: Vance Hartke
1982: Richard Lugar
1988: Richard Lugar
1994: Richard Lugar
2000: Richard Lugar
2006: Richard Lugar

2012: Joe Donnelly
2018: Joe Donnelly


Senate Class III
1968: Birch Bayh
1974: Birch Bayh
1980: Birch Bayh
1986: Jill Long Thompson
1990 (special): Baron Hill
1992: Dan Coats
1998: Evan Bayh
2004: Evan Bayh
2010: Brad Ellsworth
2016: Evan Bayh
78  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Rank the Russian Governments in the past 300 years on: January 27, 2018, 06:16:08 pm
1. Russian Federation (1991-1999)
2. USSR (1985-1991)
3. Russian Federation (1999-Present)
3. Russian Empire
4. USSR (1917-1922)
5. USSR (1953-1985)
6. USSR (1922-1953)

Much like kelestian, I did not include the Russian Republic due to its short-lived nature.
79  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Estes Kefauver on: January 26, 2018, 07:52:14 pm
Massive FF and one of my favorite Senators of the Post-War era. Estes Kefauver was one of the few Southern Senators who was generally a supporter of civil rights. Kefauver supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Act, supported repealing the poll tax as early as 1942, and condemned the "Southern Manifesto," a 1956 Congressional document signed by a majority of Southern politicians of both political parties in opposition to racial integration of public places. Had he lived another two years or so, Kefauver would have possibly voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act. Additionally, Kefauver was a strong opponent of McCarthyism, and a passionate advocate for consumer protection laws, antitrust legislation, labor unions, and other progressive legislation.
80  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Post Random Maps Here 2. on: January 19, 2018, 05:07:26 pm
Here are three outcomes of the 2020 presidential election with three different Democratic Nominees, the first one is with Bernie Sanders.
2020 Presidential Election

2020 Presidential Election Results:
Bernie Sanders: 278 Electoral Votes (50% of PV)
Donald Trump: 260 Electoral Votes (49% of PV)

As you can see I believe Sanders can narrowly beat Trump by flipping the three Rust belt states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin with higher Nonwhite and youth turnout, along with increased support in Rural WWC areas. Trump will make gains in Wealthy, White, suburbs, throughout the sun belt and will thus improve his margins in Florida, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, and Arizona, along with coming closer in Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada, and losing California by 20 points instead of 30. This will have the effect of making him improve in the popular vote (losing it by one instead of two points), while losing the electoral college. The next map is with Cory Booker.
2020 Presidential Election

2020 Presidential Election Results:
Donald Trump: 290 Electoral Votes (48% of PV)
Cory Booker: 248 Electoral Votes (51% of PV)

As you can see, Booker would flip Michigan and hold all the Hillary States due to high turnout from Nonwhites and young voters, However due to his Race he'd fail to make up any ground in Rural WWC areas would doom him in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, while Trump would still narrowly win Florida due to his unwavering support from the high-turnout elderly White population their. Finally, Booker would lose the electoral college with an even bigger popular vote victory then Hillary (three points instead of two) due to him maintaining the support of many Educated White suburbanites along with higher Nonwhite and youth turnout (due to these factors he'd carry California by around a 30 point margin). The last map I'd for Warren.
2020 Presidential Election

2020 Presidential Election Results:
Donald Trump: 328 Electoral Votes (50% of PV)
Elizabeth Warren: 210 Electoral Votes (48% of PV)

As much as I hate to say this, it's pretty obvious Elizabeth Warren is the weakest of these three potential Nominees, because though she would excite the Democratic base of Nonwhites and Young people, her Gender would turn of even more WWCs, which would cause her to lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by even larger margins and cause her to lose Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, and Nevada. Meanwhile, her Left-wing economic views would turn of Wealth White Suburbanites, which would cause her to barely win Virginia and Colorado (Nonwhites and Young people would save her in those two states), win California by 20 points instead of 30, and lose Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Florida by larger margins then Hillary. Overall these National shifts would cause Trump to win the popular vote by two points, along with winning 328 Electoral votes from 34 states.



I agree with you regarding Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (though I feel that they would have an edge in Arizona), ni also feel that Cory Booker would have a good chance to pick up Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Still, my gut feeling is that a Kamala Harris/John Bel Edwards ticket would be the best choice for the Democrats in 2020. I think that such a ticket would hold all of he Clinton 2016 states and also pick up Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and maybe even Louisiana and win the popular vote by about 5%.
81  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: King Lear's concern trolling megathread on: January 18, 2018, 04:26:01 pm
Worst case scenario for Republicans:

Senate: D+3 (Republicans pick up Missouri and West Virginia, but lose Nevada, Arizona, Mississippi, Texas, and Tennessee)
House: D+112 (Democrats pick up every seat with a PVI of less than R+10 with the exception of AR-2, KY-6, ME-2, and MO-2 and also pick up CA-1, CA-4, CA-23, CA-50, CO-4, IN-2, MT-AL, NY-27, TN-4, and UT-4)
Gubernatorial Races: D+13 (Democrats pick up Illinois, New Mexico, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, Georgia, Tennessee, Nevada, and Arizona)

Best case scenario for Republicans

Senate: R+9 (Republicans lose Arizona and Nevada, but pick up Missouri, West Virginia, Indiana, Minnseota (S), Montana, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Dakota)
House: D+8 (Democrats pick up CA-10, CA-21, CA-24, CA-25, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, CA-49, CA-50, CO-6, FL-27, IA-1, NV-3, VA-10, and WA-8, whereas the Republicans pick up FL-13, MN-1, MN-7, MN-8, NH-1, NY-18, and WI-3)
Gubernatorial Races: R+1 (Democrats pick up Illinois and New Mexico, but the Republicans pick up Minnesota, Connecticut, and Rhode Island
82  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: How will each party view Russia post-Trump? on: January 14, 2018, 09:10:06 pm
I can easily see the Democrats taking a hardline stance against Russia (similar to the Republican Party during the Cold War era) and the Republicans adopting a pro-Russia policy (due to the fact that Putin has framed himself as a defender of Christianity and traditional values). I can easily see the Democratic Party leadership supporting policies such as breaking off diplomatic ties with Russia, implementing an arms embargo against Russia, subjecting Russia to a sustained naval blockade, supporting the expansion of NATO to include countries such as Ukraine and Georgia, and expanding US efforts to remove the Putin regime from power.
83  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who was/is the worst President in U.S. History? on: January 08, 2018, 08:28:57 am
Out of the Presidents listed:

1. James Buchanan
2. Franklin Pierce
3. Millard Fillmore
4. Warren Harding
5. Herbert Hoover (in addition to being an ineffective President, Hoover was a bigot and pushed the Republican Party to adopt an early version of the “Southern Strategy”)
6. Richard Nixon
7. George W. Bush (Bush was at least an honorable person despite being an ineffective President)

It’s too early to judge Donald Trump, but I feel that hisorians will rank him in the bottom 5 or 10 on their lists of US Presidents.
84  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Kim Kardashian as Attorney General? on: January 08, 2018, 08:20:09 am
How about no.

I wouldn't even vote to confirm her if literally every other human being who is even remotely qualified for the job died, leaving her as the last possible option.
85  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Top ten reasons that you are not a Republican. on: January 06, 2018, 12:28:48 pm
1. I don't like the parties themselves.
2. I disagree with them on more issues than I agree with them on.
86  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Protests in Iran on: January 01, 2018, 08:04:17 am
Whenever there is any kind of mass protest in Iran (especially the "Green" movement protests from 2009-2011), I wonder if the end is near for the current regime in power. The Iranian people never asked for a theocratic regime after the overthrow of the Shah...it just so happened that the followers of Khomenei were the most visible and organized compared to the pro-democracy advocates and communists. I am of the opinion that the people will eventually rise up and overthrow their current government, it's only a matter of time. But, it is hard to say when protests like these end up creating a domino effect that takes down the entire government (like 1979).

Hopefully sooner rather than later. If a liberal, pro-democracy regime takes over, then we can start talking about restoring good relations with Iran.

It's amazing to think that Iran and Israel had fairly good relations until 1979 considering how poor relations are right now. If I am not mistaken, Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel (after Turkey). I took a Persian history class in college and I remember a discussion on how Israel and Iran were actually natural allies at one point because of their mutual distrust of Arabs...

Well, Iran was certainly not a pro-democracy regime before 1979. They had even fewer freedoms then.
I agree 100%. The Shah of Iran was one of the most infamous and brutal dictators of the 20th Century. Some of the more notable crimes committed by the Shah include his killing of 160,000 innocent Iranians between 1963 and 1978, ordering agencies such as SAVAK to bayonet any woman caught wearing the Hijab or other religious attire, suppressing freedom of speech, torturing thousands of political prisoners using the most heinous methods imaginable, and forming alliances with enemy nations such as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. As such, the Shahs overthrow was logical, justified, and came 100% from the Iranian people without any outside intervention.

There are no countries that are objectively enemies of another country. If you form an alliance with a country its no longer your enemy. It may in some cases be an untrustworthy ally, but its not an enemy.
The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK have always been against the interests of Iran and have sought to subjugate the Iranian people for decades, so I consider them to be the true enemies of Iran.

Utter nonsense. The true enemy of any country are people within their borders who don't respect them. The Shah was preferable to this Islamic cesspool, but was hardly angelic himself.

Iran has proven that it can be secular and democratic via its people and it needs to be returned to the international community. One of the world's oldest and well-respected communities does not need people like you shilling for the Islamic regime.
Whenever there is any kind of mass protest in Iran (especially the "Green" movement protests from 2009-2011), I wonder if the end is near for the current regime in power. The Iranian people never asked for a theocratic regime after the overthrow of the Shah...it just so happened that the followers of Khomenei were the most visible and organized compared to the pro-democracy advocates and communists. I am of the opinion that the people will eventually rise up and overthrow their current government, it's only a matter of time. But, it is hard to say when protests like these end up creating a domino effect that takes down the entire government (like 1979).

Hopefully sooner rather than later. If a liberal, pro-democracy regime takes over, then we can start talking about restoring good relations with Iran.

It's amazing to think that Iran and Israel had fairly good relations until 1979 considering how poor relations are right now. If I am not mistaken, Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel (after Turkey). I took a Persian history class in college and I remember a discussion on how Israel and Iran were actually natural allies at one point because of their mutual distrust of Arabs...

Well, Iran was certainly not a pro-democracy regime before 1979. They had even fewer freedoms then.
I agree 100%. The Shah of Iran was one of the most infamous and brutal dictators of the 20th Century. Some of the more notable crimes committed by the Shah include his killing of 160,000 innocent Iranians between 1963 and 1978, ordering agencies such as SAVAK to bayonet any woman caught wearing the Hijab or other religious attire, suppressing freedom of speech, torturing thousands of political prisoners using the most heinous methods imaginable, and forming alliances with enemy nations such as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. As such, the Shahs overthrow was logical, justified, and came 100% from the Iranian people without any outside intervention.

There are no countries that are objectively enemies of another country. If you form an alliance with a country its no longer your enemy. It may in some cases be an untrustworthy ally, but its not an enemy.
The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK have always been against the interests of Iran and have sought to subjugate the Iranian people for decades, so I consider them to be the true enemies of Iran.
Finally someone is telling the truth, Yes Iran has its problems, but compared to most other Muslim countries it’s relatively Free and Democratic (women can vote their for example), and America and Israel have no right to undermine and destroy their country by supporting violent protests and making up a fake Nuclear threat in order to have an excuse to bomb them. Finally, it’s mighty hypocritical for America to condemn countries for cracking down on protesters, because if the Republican government in the United States ever faced the types of mass demonstrations Iran’s government has faced, I could assure you they would have Tanks and Soldiers gunning people down in the street without a second thought.
I agree 100%. I am not saying that the Iranian government is perfect, but it is arguably the most stable country in the region, is a democracy on paper (albeit an “illiberal” democracy in practice) and has a FAR better human rights record when compared to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States that are constantly praised for their “progressive” nature by the US and Israel.

What The US and it’s allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK have done to Iran since the early 1950s has been shameful and has directly created nearly all of the problems currently facing Iran. The destructive policies pursued by all four of the countries (ranging from their strong support of the Shah and directly encouraging his crimes against the Iranian people, encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in 1980, and placing crippling sanctions on Iran that prevent even he most basic of medicines from entering into the country) resulted in the deaths of at least 1-2 million innocent Iranian people.  As such US  made a terrible mistake by supporting the Shah and planning out Operation AJAX in 1953. We Americans should NEVER support a brutal monarch again. What a terrible mistake to train and supply SAVAK, which was basically an Iranian Gestapo. We should have embraced Mossadegh as a democratic ruler, and helped the Iranian people become members of a real democratic republic.
87  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Protests in Iran on: December 31, 2017, 12:44:34 pm
Whenever there is any kind of mass protest in Iran (especially the "Green" movement protests from 2009-2011), I wonder if the end is near for the current regime in power. The Iranian people never asked for a theocratic regime after the overthrow of the Shah...it just so happened that the followers of Khomenei were the most visible and organized compared to the pro-democracy advocates and communists. I am of the opinion that the people will eventually rise up and overthrow their current government, it's only a matter of time. But, it is hard to say when protests like these end up creating a domino effect that takes down the entire government (like 1979).

Hopefully sooner rather than later. If a liberal, pro-democracy regime takes over, then we can start talking about restoring good relations with Iran.

It's amazing to think that Iran and Israel had fairly good relations until 1979 considering how poor relations are right now. If I am not mistaken, Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel (after Turkey). I took a Persian history class in college and I remember a discussion on how Israel and Iran were actually natural allies at one point because of their mutual distrust of Arabs...

Well, Iran was certainly not a pro-democracy regime before 1979. They had even fewer freedoms then.
I agree 100%. The Shah of Iran was one of the most infamous and brutal dictators of the 20th Century. Some of the more notable crimes committed by the Shah include his killing of 160,000 innocent Iranians between 1963 and 1978, ordering agencies such as SAVAK to bayonet any woman caught wearing the Hijab or other religious attire, suppressing freedom of speech, torturing thousands of political prisoners using the most heinous methods imaginable, and forming alliances with enemy nations such as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. As such, the Shahs overthrow was logical, justified, and came 100% from the Iranian people without any outside intervention.

There are no countries that are objectively enemies of another country. If you form an alliance with a country its no longer your enemy. It may in some cases be an untrustworthy ally, but its not an enemy.
The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK have always been against the interests of Iran and have sought to subjugate the Iranian people for decades, so I consider them to be the true enemies of Iran.
88  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Protests in Iran on: December 30, 2017, 11:29:00 pm
Whenever there is any kind of mass protest in Iran (especially the "Green" movement protests from 2009-2011), I wonder if the end is near for the current regime in power. The Iranian people never asked for a theocratic regime after the overthrow of the Shah...it just so happened that the followers of Khomenei were the most visible and organized compared to the pro-democracy advocates and communists. I am of the opinion that the people will eventually rise up and overthrow their current government, it's only a matter of time. But, it is hard to say when protests like these end up creating a domino effect that takes down the entire government (like 1979).

Hopefully sooner rather than later. If a liberal, pro-democracy regime takes over, then we can start talking about restoring good relations with Iran.

It's amazing to think that Iran and Israel had fairly good relations until 1979 considering how poor relations are right now. If I am not mistaken, Iran was the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel (after Turkey). I took a Persian history class in college and I remember a discussion on how Israel and Iran were actually natural allies at one point because of their mutual distrust of Arabs...

Well, Iran was certainly not a pro-democracy regime before 1979. They had even fewer freedoms then.
I agree 100%. The Shah of Iran was one of the most infamous and brutal dictators of the 20th Century. Some of the more notable crimes committed by the Shah include his killing of 160,000 innocent Iranians between 1963 and 1978, ordering agencies such as SAVAK to bayonet any woman caught wearing the Hijab or other religious attire, suppressing freedom of speech, torturing thousands of political prisoners using the most heinous methods imaginable, and forming alliances with enemy nations such as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. As such, the Shahs overthrow was logical, justified, and came 100% from the Iranian people without any outside intervention.

Here are several links going into detail regarding the Shahs crimes:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/watching-torture-94887%3famp=1
http://www.ghandchi.com/14-Savak.htm
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/12/6/life-under-the-shah-pit-was/
89  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: South in the 2020 US Presidential Election on: December 30, 2017, 02:04:13 pm
Virginia is the only southern state (I don't consider MD, DE, and DC southern) Democrats will win in 2020,
Florida has a decisive Republican lean (its filled with Old White people and Nonvoting minority's), and North Carolina is just as competitive for Democrats as New Mexico is for Republicans (they both have only voted for the party the state doesn't lean toward once in the 21st century, and they both voted about 6 points more Republican or Democratic compared to the country in 2016), while Georgia and especially Texas are Democratic pipe dreams.
Please stop it with this titanium R Florida meme. it's absurd.
I agree. President Trump is not popular at all in Florida and only win it by 1.5% in 2016. Florida is definitely competitive in 2020 and will likely be won by the Democratic nominee by around 1-2% if I had to guess. North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas are also in play as well and should be targeted heavily by the Democratic nominee.
90  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: South in the 2020 US Presidential Election on: December 30, 2017, 07:39:58 am
Here’s what I think the South will look like if the Democrats nominate a very strong ticket such as Kamala Harris/John Bel Edwards and if President Trumps approval rating continues to decline to historically low levels):

Alabama: Safe Republican
Arkansas: Safe Republican        
Delaware: Safe Democrat
DC: Safe Democrat
Florida: Tossup/Lean Democrat
Georgia: Tossup    
Kentucky: Safe Republican        
Louisiana: Tossup (John Bel Edwards seems to be a very popular governor, which may lead to a coattail effect that could help the Democrats in Louisiana)
Maryland: Safe Democrat
Mississippi: Likley Republican (I expect Trump’s margin in Mississippi to fall a point or two when compared to 2016)
North Carolina: Tossup/Lean Democrat    
Oklahoma: Safe Republican
South Carolina Likley Republican    
Tennessee: Safe Republican
Texas: Tossup
Virginia: Safe Democrat
West Virginia: Safe Republican
91  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2020 Senate Elections on: December 17, 2017, 12:41:42 pm
2018: Republicans easily gain Missouri and West Virginia, but lose Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee. The Democrats may also pick up Utah if a “Never Trump” Republican such as Evan McMullin runs as a third-party candidate. As a result, the Democrats end up with around 51 or 52 seats.

2020: Democrats narrowly hold onto Alabama and pick up Montana, Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Colorado, and North Carolina, giving them around 58 or 59 seats.

If Dems are gaining Tennessee and Texas, they are almost certainly not "easily" losing WV and MO to Republicans.
In my opinion, Claire McCaskill faces an uphill battle for re-election in a state that President Trump is still popular in and is already between 3-16 points behind in the polls. I also think that Joe Manchin might switch over to the Republican Party, considering that he voted in favor of most of President Trump’s Congressional agenda. Joe Manchin is also a bit of an odd man out in the Democratic Party, as he is strongly pro-life and pro-gun rights, is opposed to gay marriage, and is conservative on energy policy.

McCaskill has never been more than 6 points behind a named opponent in Josh Hawley, and that was 6 months ago.
Both Josh Hawley and Blaine Luetkemeyer already hit 50% in polls against Claire McCaskill. I know it is a bit early, but Claire McCaskill is definitely the underdog in the 2018 Missouri Senate race.
92  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2020 Senate Elections on: December 17, 2017, 08:34:35 am
2018: Republicans easily gain Missouri and West Virginia, but lose Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee. The Democrats may also pick up Utah if a “Never Trump” Republican such as Evan McMullin runs as a third-party candidate. As a result, the Democrats end up with around 51 or 52 seats.

2020: Democrats narrowly hold onto Alabama and pick up Montana, Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Colorado, and North Carolina, giving them around 58 or 59 seats.

If Dems are gaining Tennessee and Texas, they are almost certainly not "easily" losing WV and MO to Republicans.
In my opinion, Claire McCaskill faces an uphill battle for re-election in a state that President Trump is still popular in and is already between 3-16 points behind in the polls. I also think that Joe Manchin might switch over to the Republican Party, considering that he voted in favor of most of President Trump’s Congressional agenda. Joe Manchin is also a bit of an odd man out in the Democratic Party, as he is strongly pro-life and pro-gun rights, is opposed to gay marriage, and is conservative on energy policy.
93  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Democrat wave election? on: December 16, 2017, 06:55:14 pm
I would say that the Democrats will gain anywhere between 25 and 75 House seats in the 2018 midterm elections.
94  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2020 Senate Elections on: December 16, 2017, 06:52:12 pm
2018: Republicans easily gain Missouri and West Virginia, but lose Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee. The Democrats may also pick up Utah if a “Never Trump” Republican such as Evan McMullin runs as a third-party candidate. As a result, the Democrats end up with around 51 or 52 seats.

2020: Democrats narrowly hold onto Alabama and pick up Montana, Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Colorado, and North Carolina, giving them around 58 or 59 seats.
95  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Ten years from today, who will be...? on: December 10, 2017, 01:38:55 pm
United States: Kamala Harris (defeats Donald Trump in 2020 and Tom Cotton in 2024 by landslide margins)
United Kingdom: Jeremy Corbyn
Canada: Justin Trudeau
Australia: Tanya Plibersek
Germany: Sigmar Gabriel
France: Édouard Philippe
India: Narendra Modi
Israel: Nir Barkat
China: Li Yuanchao
Russia: Dmitry Medvedev
Iran: Mohammed Javad Zarif
96  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1964: Nelson Rockefeller instead of Barry Goldwater on: November 25, 2017, 07:11:15 pm


President Lyndon Johnson (D-TX)/Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN): 448 EV (56%)
Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY)/Former Governor Cecil Underwood (R-WV): 73 EV (36%)
John Kasper (National States Rights-NY)/J.B. Stoner (National States Rights-GA): 17 EV (7%)
Others: 0 EV (1%)

Nelso Rockefeller does a bit better than Barry Goldwater by holding onto Vermont, Indiana, Virginia, Florida, Oklahoma, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and Nebraska, but performs incredibly poorly in the Deep South. The presence of Cecil Underwood on the Republican ticket also makes West Virginia quite a bit closer, but President Johnson ends up carrying it by a 55-43 margin.
97  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Control of the Senate if Trump resigns on: November 16, 2017, 04:05:38 pm
It's definitely worth mentioning that in this scenario, the Speaker of the House is second-in-line. So if Democrats control the House, Pelosi or whoever is in line to take over if something happens to Pence, and the media (both mainstream and right-wing) would go crazy any time there's a minor health scare.

My question is, why would the Democrats vote for a VP nominee that would upset the partisan balance of the Senate?

I don't think Congressional Democrats would want to be blamed for denying confirmation of any VP; it could look bad for 2020. Also, red state Dems like Manchin and Donnelly would probably feel a lot of heat. On the other hand, I could see Democrats demanding another candidate if Pence nominated someone pretty far to the right.

Also, any guesses on who Pence would nominate in this situation?
Either Nikki Haley or Mitt Romney if I had to guess.
98  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would Cory Booker beat Donald Trump on: October 15, 2017, 07:13:33 am


Booker: 358
Trump: 180
Seems about right, though I would switch out Iowa, Ohio, and ME-2 with Texas and Georgia and give Trump 70% of the vote in West Virginia and Oklahoma and 60% of the vote in Tennessee, Indiana, Montana, and Missouri.
99  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 2012 Election: Ron Paul (R) vs. Barack Obama (D) on: August 20, 2017, 11:28:39 am


President Barack Obama(D-IL)/Vice President Joe Biden(D-DE):  348 EVs
Representative Ron Paul(R-TX)/Fmr. House Speaker Newt Gingrich(R-GA):  190 EVs

Ron is too far out there for the electorate to have had a shot at all, sadly.
Seems about right, though I would probably flip New Hampshire and Maine to Ron Paul and Arizona and Georgia to Obama.
100  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1972: Richard Nixon vs. Robert F. Kennedy on: August 12, 2017, 08:58:39 pm
He would have done way better than McGovern, but I doubt that anyone could have beaten Nixon in 1972 under the real life conditions. RFK might have picked Carter for VP, though that doesn't make him competative in the south. I gave him GA in the scenario, but I'm even doubtful about that.



✓ President Richard Nixon (R-CA)/Vice President Spiro Agnew (R-MD): 405 EVs.; 55.4%
Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY)/Governor Jimmy Carter (D-GA): 133 EVs.; 43.6%

Seems about right, though I would also flip Wisconsin, Oregon, and Connecticut to Kennedy.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 101


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines