FL-Mason Dixon: Rubio & Bush with leads against Hillary (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2024, 03:55:49 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  FL-Mason Dixon: Rubio & Bush with leads against Hillary (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: FL-Mason Dixon: Rubio & Bush with leads against Hillary  (Read 6386 times)
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« on: April 20, 2015, 01:02:15 PM »

This doesn't really conflict with Hillary's odds. As I said, there are GOP candidates with the potential to flip one swing state but there's no reasonable path to 270 for any of them individually. Bush and Rubio are strong in FL but weak everywhere else.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2015, 02:43:27 PM »

No reasonable (i.e. realistic) path for any of them? Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. The fact that you could lay out how right I am so clearly and then ask if I'm serious just shows you're delusional and thinking on emotion.

The scenario you laid out is one of slight chance to get 268 provided they nominate Bush (and he can defend his homestate), select Kasich as VP (and that matters in OH), and Iowa's turnout is midterm level low (Iowa elected Branstad solidly in 2010, but voted solidly D in 2012 anyway; Ernst is irrelevant) and then the "uphill battle begins."  Why don't they just abandon all that and try to win California? It would require them having to convince just as many swing voters. Equally possible scenario you're mapping out.

Having a chance of having a chance of having a chance is not having a chance. It's wishful thinking.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2015, 03:20:47 PM »
« Edited: April 20, 2015, 03:27:56 PM by Monarch »

No reasonable (i.e. realistic) path for any of them? Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. The fact that you could lay out how right I am so clearly and then ask if I'm serious just shows you're delusional and thinking on emotion.

The scenario you laid out is one of slight chance to get 268 provided they nominate Bush (and he can defend his homestate), select Kasich as VP (and that matters in OH), and Iowa's turnout is midterm level low (Iowa elected Branstad solidly in 2010, but voted solidly D in 2012 anyway; Ernst is irrelevant) and then the "uphill battle begins."  Why don't they just abandon all that and try to win California? It would require them having to convince just as many swing voters. Equally possible scenario you're mapping out.

Having a chance of having a chance of having a chance is not having a chance. It's wishful thinking.

I listed many possibilities for the final state, and all of them are far less Atlas Red than CA. Ernst is not irrelevant. Plus you ignored half my post and acted like I said the scenario would only work for bush when I mentioned Rubio as well.

Your Irrelevant rambling about Georgia was Irrelevant with a capital I, which is why I ignored it. Ernst is absolutely irrelevant. Branstad won by just as much of a landslide in 2010 and Iowa was just as solid D in 2012 as it was in 2008.

And again, even if FL, OH, and IA all happen, it's just 268. You laid out a minor possibility that Rubio/Kasich or Bush/Kasich would get to 268 provided everything broke their way. Congratulations! You lost the election!

Every state you listed NH/NV/VA/WI/PA/MI/MN/NM is completely out of reach of a Rubio/Kasich or Bush/Kasich ticket. I say that with 100% confidence. That is the objective position. Anyone who thinks Jeb Bush can win a state George W. Bush could not win in 2004 is a hack. Bush 2004 was the peak of GOP minority outreach and Evangelical base turnout model--the peak. It's not getting better than that.

This shrinks it down to just NV/VA/NM for the 270 combo.  NV, NM, and VA are trending Democrat solidly. NV and NM were uncontested in 2012. National Republican rhetoric speaks nothing to the changing population here. The only hope would a Sandoval/Martinez VP spot, but that again ruins your idea of using Kasich to snab Ohio, putting the GOP in an even greater hole.  Virginia? It elected Democrats in a midterm electorate that was solidly Republican. You cannot describe a more perfect Clinton state.

The more I talk about this, the more I am embarrassed I am given Hillary only a 99% chance of beating Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. I really should just go all in at 100%. There's no objective path to victory here. None.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2015, 06:38:19 PM »

Everything you wrote is wrong. I've already stated why.

You're just going to have to find out the hard way I guess.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2015, 10:02:41 AM »

I'm talking more about Terry McAuliffe than Warner, but Warner still won.

I'm not saying Virginia is not swing state. I'm saying you could not describe a more perfect Clinton state. If I told you to build a swing state that would break for Clinton at the end, the state you would build is Virginia.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2015, 10:09:06 AM »

Also, cool nitpick on the exit polls. Virginia in 2014 was 36-36 D-R, compared to 39-32 D-R, 36% identified as conservative compared to just 31% in 2012. Only 12% under 30 versus 19% in 2012. Calling 2014 and 2012 electorates the same is simply lying to yourself.

There's no reason to be disingenuous. All your bold underlined screaming shows is that you are a distraught emotional wreck over the prospect of Hillary winning this election and aren't thinking objectively.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2015, 11:08:20 AM »

I never said it was not a swing state, what I'm saying is that if you had to design a perfect swing state that would break for Clinton in the end, you would design Virginia in 2016.

If you count on Virginia being the state to break against Clinton to put you over 270, you're going to be disappointed. Demographics have changed so rapidly there that it's really more of a swing state that would vote Republican as part of a 300 EV win. Obama did better there than in Ohio.

It's the same as North Carolina. A swing state, but honestly we all know it will break for the GOP in the end.

--

And I don't get why you insist there's some trend to be gained from midterms. There wasn't in 2010 and there isn't in 2014. Almost 2 million less people voted in 2014 in Virginia. 2 million people. How could you not make an assumption that white Democrats did not show up?

Illinois elected a Republican Governor, Maryland elected a Republican Governor. Are you going to call these potential swing states too? No, it'd be ridiculous.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2015, 11:31:52 AM »

1. You agree Virginia is going Democrat if the Republicans don't win the popular vote.

2. GOP has no clear shot at a popular vote win with the white vote continuing to fall in Pres elections for about 40 years now and no minority outreach even planned.

3. GOP stance is leading in the polls on no issues right now from minimum wage to gay marriage to Iran.

4. The economy is not on the decline and Gallup is reporting the most Americans optimistic about their financial future since 2004.

The question arises again how you think this election isn't completely done other than wishful thinking.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2015, 11:59:33 AM »

Hillary running a bad campaign likely won't happen because Obama's people are now behind her for 2016.

Even if she did, it likely wouldn't matter because nothing the GOP is showing suggests they are going to run a good campaign.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2015, 02:55:18 PM »

Hillary running a bad campaign likely won't happen because Obama's people are now behind her for 2016.

Even if she did, it likely wouldn't matter because nothing the GOP is showing suggests they are going to run a good campaign.
Hillary having early support from Obama surrogates doesn't affect whether she runs a good campaign. At the end of the day, it's the candidate choosing what they want to say in an ad or in a rally, and no one can stop Hillary from saying something toxic should she decide to do so.

Nothing Hillary said last time would have lost her the nomination or the general if Obama had never been born.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,356
United States


« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2015, 03:14:24 PM »

Hillary running a bad campaign likely won't happen because Obama's people are now behind her for 2016.

Even if she did, it likely wouldn't matter because nothing the GOP is showing suggests they are going to run a good campaign.
Hillary having early support from Obama surrogates doesn't affect whether she runs a good campaign. At the end of the day, it's the candidate choosing what they want to say in an ad or in a rally, and no one can stop Hillary from saying something toxic should she decide to do so.

Nothing Hillary said last time would have lost her the nomination or the general if Obama had never been born.

The fact that she ran a fairly good campaign in 2008 does not necessarily mean she will run a good one in 2016, especially considering that Hillary has been off the trail for 7 years. The democrats are hoping that a couple debates with O'Malley are all she needs to prepare to run a good GE campaign, but there's no way of knowing if that's true.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 13 queries.