Will Mitt Romney win Massachusetts?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Massachusetts has a reputation as a bastion Democrats. It voted for George McGovern in 1972 when no other state did.

On the other hand Mitt Romney did govern Massachusetts very effectively, and he's precisely the sort of Rockefeller Republican that appeals to them. Scott Brown narrowly won the state's senate seat in 2010. And I think it's notable that Massachusetts was the only state outside of the South to vote more Republican in 2008 then it did in 2004.

If the economy collapses thanks to European and Chinese problems, I reckon Mitt Romney could pull it off.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Haha we'll see. I reckon I'll be vindicated come November. Noone though Scott Brown would win Massachusetts either.

Remember Massachusetts lacks a large nonwhite population to prop up the Democrats, and all recent polls show all white subgroups(including liberals) becoming less supportive of Obama.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Polling doesn't even show him close, so there's your answer.

Actually most recent polls show Obama with a lead margin of between 11% and 15% over Romney, but with ~10% undecided. The majority of undecideds typically end up against the incumbent. Assuming that holds true in Mass, all Romney might be looking at 45% of the vote against Obama's 55% if the election were held today.

Is it so unreasonable to think he might be able to bridge that gap if the economy returns to a downward spiral/Romney runs an effective campaign/a foreign policy crisis undermines Obama Carter style? I'd say if all three occur then the odds outright favour Romney.

I think he will, but in a small margin.

But if he loses, he might as well throw in the towel considering, hardly any candidate loses their home state and wins the entire election. 

That is because, in most recent elections, the candidate is from a state that isn't solidly pro-opposition party.
Losing Massachusetts, a solid D state since like forever, isn't going to mean he's dead come election day.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I'm going to enjoy bumping this thread when he does win it.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I'm going to enjoy bumping this thread when he does win it.

Just remember that your wet dreams won't transmit into reality.

Not a wet dream. I just find it funny how confident everyone is that theirs 0% chance.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Polling doesn't even show him close, so there's your answer.

Actually most recent polls show Obama with a lead margin of between 11% and 15% over Romney, but with ~10% undecided. The majority of undecideds typically end up against the incumbent. Assuming that holds true in Mass, all Romney might be looking at 45% of the vote against Obama's 55% if the election were held today.

Is it so unreasonable to think he might be able to bridge that gap if the economy returns to a downward spiral/Romney runs an effective campaign/a foreign policy crisis undermines Obama Carter style? I'd say if all three occur then the odds outright favour Romney.

To get 45% of the vote in Massachusetts, would be Romney would have to get 56% of the national vote (if you assume uniform swing) and the national polling isn't showing that sort of swing. In fact, at most, only a 1-2% shift is likely. Of course, a crisis could change the map, but my point is that Romney won't get close to winning the state under normal circumstances.

Your assuming the swing would have to be identical between states. Whereas recent polling shows Romney doing a lot better then McCain in Massachussets(40% Romney to 51% Obama), and that's leaving a substantial undecided vote. Assuming it splits slightly favourably to Romney, that's 45/55%. Which means he only needs an additional 5% swing over the course of this campaign.

Simple math folks.

Stop feeding the troll, folks.

Suggesting the possibility of an additional 5% swing makes me a troll? In the context of an incredibly unstable global economy and volatile(even more so then usual) Middle East? Give me a break.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I'm going to enjoy bumping this thread when he does win it.

Just remember that your wet dreams won't transmit into reality.

Not a wet dream. I just find it funny how confident everyone is that theirs 0% chance.

Why on earth would you think Romney has a chance of winning Massachussets?

Are you expecting some kind of random economic apocalypse between now and election day?

Either this year or in 2013, courtesy of instability in Europe, China and the Middle East+ climate change.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

What is this BS about me being a troll?

I'll repeat myself: recent polling shows Romney doing a lot better then McCain in Massachussets(40% Romney to 51% Obama), and that's leaving a substantial undecided vote. Assuming it splits slightly favourably to Romney, that's 45/55%. Which means he only needs an additional 5% swing over the course of this campaign.

Suggesting the possibility of an additional 5% swing does not make me a troll! In the context of an incredibly unstable global economy and volatile(even more so then usual) Middle East, such a swing is more likely then not.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I think the prospect of Obama winning Kansas (his mother's home state) is comparable to Romney's chance in Massachusetts. Seriously, folks, this is the most ridiculous thread ever.

I've provided maths, statistics and links. You and your ilk have provided contemptuous smirks.

Start providing a half valid statistical argument against my previous post, or admit to being a hack.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I think the prospect of Obama winning Kansas (his mother's home state) is comparable to Romney's chance in Massachusetts. Seriously, folks, this is the most ridiculous thread ever.

Yeah, I don't know why I'm bother to engage the troll. Romney's got about as much chance of winning California as Massachusetts.

Stastically flat out false. The most recent poll in California shows Obama with a 21% lead margin, whereas the most recent Massachusetts poll shows Obama with an 11% lead.

It's really quite disengenous for you to bring up "chance" without having looked up the statistics from which "chance" is determined.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

What would you say are the odds of Romney winning Massachusetts?

I'll put them at 1%. My context is that Romney has a 25% chance of winning the election as of now. 1% is the chance of a global catastrophe tied with an Obama scandal that makes him unelectable in a 1984-type GOP sweep that includes my state of Massachusetts. That's it. It's not happening.

The bolded part is where we disagree. Given the instability of China, Europe and the Middle East+climate change, I would posit it to be near certain that a global depression starts either this year or in 2013. Obviously if it doesn't then Obama will win Massachusetts cleanly, but I'd put the chance of depression having started by election day at somewhere between 50% and 25%. If it has started by then I'd say Mass is a tossup.

So I'd pin the odds of a Romney victory in Massachusetts at somewhere between 25%(based on the high estimate of a depression having started by then) and 12.5%(based on the low estimate of it having started by then).

I also disagree that winning Massachusetts entails a nationwide sweep for Mittens. Their were number of states bluer then Massachussets in 2008.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I think the prospect of Obama winning Kansas (his mother's home state) is comparable to Romney's chance in Massachusetts. Seriously, folks, this is the most ridiculous thread ever.

Yeah, I don't know why I'm bother to engage the troll. Romney's got about as much chance of winning California as Massachusetts.

Stastically flat out false. The most recent poll in California shows Obama with a 21% lead margin, whereas the most recent Massachusetts poll shows Obama with an 11% lead.

It's really quite disengenous for you to bring up "chance" without having looked up the statistics from which "chance" is determined.

Don't be silly. Obama could get about 45% in Texas, but he's not going to get 51%, and everyone knows it, so it hardly matters that it's just a ten point gap between him and Romney.

Absurd troll threads aren't entitled to respect - if someone made a thread about Obama winning Kansas we'd smirk, too, and rightfully so.

Romney would lose Massachusetts in a general election even if he was still Governor.

I'm calling you a troll because this is a ridiculous premise, and I think you're well aware of that. Not least because it rests on the most outrageous goldbug prophecies coming to pass before Election Day - are you a disciple of Peter Schiff?

Your first assertion is downright wrong. Obama could conceivably have won Texas if the GFC had occurred in 2007 rather then 2008... the Democratic national shift would instead have been a tidal wave.

Peter Schiff? ROFLMAO. Goldbugs are nuts, gold is a bubble that will soon pop just like everything else. I don't see how suspecting an economic collapse is Austrian... to the contrary the people who are most bearish on Europe are folks like Krugman that reject austerity.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I will enjoy bumping this thread when he loses it.  In fact, I'm bookmarking this page for that very occasion.

You promise to bump it if he wins it?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

The reference to climate change causing a depression in fall 2012 or 2013 is trollish.

No it isn't. The climate is complex, a crisis situation could develop at any time. The Arctic and Antartic polar caps in particular are ticking time bombs.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

The bolded part is where we disagree. Given the instability of China, Europe and the Middle East+climate change, I would posit it to be near certain that a global depression starts either this year or in 2013. Obviously if it doesn't then Obama will win Massachusetts cleanly, but I'd put the chance of depression having started by election day at somewhere between 50% and 25%. If it has started by then I'd say Mass is a tossup.

You're obviously forgetting that Israel's impending attack on Iran is going to trigger World War III this year. As wartime president Obama will of course win 40+ states in a FDR-esque landslide, among them Massachusetts.

Theirs some evidence that Israel is just saber rattling. But if does spiral into a general conflict, it could indeed be a windfall for Obama. OTOH it could turn out a humiliating failure that discredits him politically. If the latter is the case, then Romney winning Massachusetts becomes especially plausible.

And yes I know you are being sarcastic with the intent of mocking me.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I would also like to remind everyone that the 2008 statewide polling initially showed McCain with a strong lead in Indiana and North Carolina before the GFC.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008#North_Carolina

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Another concerned troll

Please explain what you mean.

Why is this still going?

Your disapproval of a thread is not sufficient basis for its closure. Wink.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

For all the folks complaining about this thread's existence/how long it is, half the replies in this thread are folks complaining about this thread's existence/how long it is.

I don't mind the spam, I find it funny and intend to gloat over it if Mittens wins Massachusetts, but  remember you're being hoisted by your own petard! If not for your posts, this thread would already have disappeared, and be only half as long.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

Rockingham seems to think that Romney is somehow going to achieve a 25-point swing despite the fact that he was elected once, quite underwhelmingly, as Governor and left office fairly unpopular. This thread should be stickied as a somber reminder of the useless trolling this board will consist of until the conventions.

I repeat, look at the recent statewide polling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Massachusetts

The most recent poll shows Obama with 51%, Mittens 40%, 9% undecided. Assuming undecideds split fairly evenly that's 55 to 45 for Obama.

Mittens needs only a 5% swing in his favour in Massachusetts. I see that as a fairly plausible event if the economy starts collapsing again before November and/or Obama suffers a serious foreign policy humiliation in the Middle East.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

The most recent poll shows Obama with 51%, Mittens 40%, 9% undecided. Assuming undecideds split fairly evenly that's 55 to 45 for Obama.

I know this is all trolling, but did you see that it's a Rasmussen Poll and no other poll shows anything like that narrow a margin?

False. YouGov and Suffolk Uni have show similar results. PPP has been all over the place.

Justify your assertion that I am trolling, or admit to using to avoid having an open mind.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I'm going to enjoy bumping this thread when he does win it.

I am afraid, others will find bumping this thread a lot more enjoyable )

If Romney wins MA, he wins, at least, 40 other states as well.  He should, of course, do better than most recent Republicans - I am almost certain he'd get into the 40s, may be even come close to 45%.  He will, probably, win in Plymouth county and might win Worcester. He'd struggle in Norfolk and Barnstable and almost certainly loose the rest of it, mostly by big margins.

To do much better than that, he'd have to run against the national Republican party, on a VERY liberal platform. He could do this when running for governor - he'd never be able to pull it off running for President. Even then it would be a strong lean D, though.

But there is no reason for him even to try to win MA - it would be a ridiculous use of limited campaing resources.

We're just talking past each other right now. Should an economic collapse/foreign policy humiliation occur between now and November, I may be vindicated.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I like that the troll is seriously citing YouGov (!) and a uni poll to support a... uh Rasmussen poll.

Also certain PPP polls(though others work against my argument).

The problem is that Rasmussen, PPP, YouGov and Suffolk are the only ones to have done polling.

Whats wrong with YouGov?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I disagree with the idea that Romney could win Massachusetts but how does what this guy is saying constitute trolling? If anything the people calling him a troll are trolling the thread.

Because the premise is patently absurd, and I'm reasonably sure he knows that.

Le Sigh
Romney breach a 10% margin through a 5% increase courtesy of an economic collapse/FP bungle is not patently absurd.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

We're just talking past each other right now. Should an economic collapse/foreign policy humiliation occur between now and November, I may be vindicated.

In a scenario in which Romney wins 40+ states, MA could go. But it would be a huge landslide, and nobody would care of MA at that point. Anything short of that won't do the job.

A run-off-the-mill crisis - like the general economic near-meltdown in 2008 - would, probably, not be enough. May be, a tape of Obama acting in gay-necrophiliac porn movie could.

I'm not talking a near-meltdown, I'm talking a total meltdown, on account of the fact that implementing a second bailout ala the 2008 one would be politically impossible in the present congress.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I'm not talking a near-meltdown, I'm talking a total meltdown, on account of the fact that implementing a second bailout ala the 2008 one would be politically impossible in the present congress.

You should keep in mind that back in 2008 serious people were talking about the coming meltdown many months, if not years, before it happened. By this time in 2008 sh**t was hitting the fan really strongly. Bear went down in March, if you are old enough to recall. There is NOTHING remotely like that in the offing this time. So, stop dreaming.

Actually their have been several years worth of concerned discussion about a possible slowdown in China, with outright assertions of a property bubble and unsustainable growth for more then a year past. Same holds true for concerns about the eurozone. If you've been following any of the commentary on the international economic situation you will have noticed countless respectable commentators(The Economist, for example) propounding on their potential to set of a recession/depression.

No dreams mate.