GOP target map

[MT Treasurer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/benchmarkpol/status/728963011579256834

Glad that they finally realized that NH is not a swing state! RIP Kelly Ayotte
LOL@Minnesota, though.

[Likely Voter]

What is Benchmark basing that on? just because Preibus talks about the rust belt doesn't mean they have admitted defeat in the southwest or NH, and especially not VA.

[Illiniwek]

There's an room at the looney bin reserved for Reince.

[Dr. Arch]

?

[Nyvin]

So looks like they're going all in on the midwest/rustbelt states.    

The polling in Wisconsin probably isn't too promising for Reince though.   Michigan and Minnesota aren't realistic targets either.

I think the real intention of this map is to show how the Republicans can win "without" Florida,  however crazy it might be.   Hence the 315 EV total (315 - 29 = 286...still a win).

[Comrade Funk]

The Republican Party establishment are becoming cult-like. Creating preposterous scenarios when everyone knows they are dead.

[Xing]

If Trump is losing CO and VA, he's not winning in the Upper Midwest.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yes, this map minus Florida is a big fear of mine.

[This account no longer in use.]

This is even more delusional than the maps showing Hillary winning Utah and Mississippi.

[Gass3268]

Yes, this map minus Florida is a big fear of mine.

Trump is an horrendous fit for Minnesota and Wisconsin.

[Blair]

but working class whites!

[ElectionsGuy]

Good luck pulling off Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Donald.

[Dr. Arch]

Good luck pulling off Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Donald.

[Gass3268]

Yes, this map minus Florida is a big fear of mine.

Trump is an horrendous fit for Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Minnesota is definitely the hardest lift for Trump of what they have given him there, but that's a Trump win even without MN or FL.  I'm not sure what to make of PA, because Trump should blow the ceiling off out west and in the Scranton area, but Clinton should also blow the ceiling off in the Gerlach/Meehan/Dent districts but underperform Obama a bit in Philadelphia proper.

He probably does well in west PA, but Scranton is just too Democratic. Obama won it by 27% in 2012. I imagine the map will look almost exactly like 2008 (minus Cambria and Elk to Trump).

[Ronnie]

Total pipe dream, obviously.  It would be a miracle for Trump if he could even hang on to all of Romney's states.

[Gass3268]

Yes, this map minus Florida is a big fear of mine.

Trump is an horrendous fit for Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Minnesota is definitely the hardest lift for Trump of what they have given him there, but that's a Trump win even without MN or FL.  I'm not sure what to make of PA, because Trump should blow the ceiling off out west and in the Scranton area, but Clinton should also blow the ceiling off in the Gerlach/Meehan/Dent districts but underperform Obama a bit in Philadelphia proper.

He probably does well in west PA, but Scranton is just too Democratic. Obama won it by 27% in 2012. I imagine the map will look almost exactly like 2008 (minus Cambria and Elk to Trump).

I just feel like the whole PA-17 area of NE PA is East Kentucky in 2000 waiting to happen.  Clinton winning Scranton by only 5-10% and losing all of the surrounding counties would count as Trump blowing the ceiling off IMO.  Also, don't underestimate the impact of Biden, who is both from there and has some of Trump's demeanor in him.

I'm going to have to see it to believe it, but if Trump does that well there I think we also need to be on the lookout in the Youngstown, Ohio are.

[Fargobison]

That map rejects reality. Just forget about MN and WI Reince, neither are happening with the orange one.

I do think WI could have been in reach with the right candidate but the party picked the worst.

[Dr. Arch]

Even if we're super extra sugar-coated generous and give him MI, PA, OH, NC, NB2, and IA, while realistically taking away WI, MN, FL, VA, NH, NV, and CO, he STILL loses (272-266 HRC).

[LLR]

315 - 29 (FL) = 286 - 10 (MN) = 276

315 - 20 (PA) = 295 - 10 (MN) = 285

This is what scares me

Just proves how we gotta lock up PA and MI (although I highly doubt the Trumpster has a chance there)

[Mehmentum]

And Sanders can get 80% in California!

[Camaro33]

I wish the GOP target map was realistic and legitimately serious.

However, just seeing this makes me cue the Billy Madison "at no point in your rambling incoherent response" quote in my head.

Only feasible GOP map is a 272 map, maybe 281 at the most.

[Gass3268]

Yes, this map minus Florida is a big fear of mine.

Trump is an horrendous fit for Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Minnesota is definitely the hardest lift for Trump of what they have given him there, but that's a Trump win even without MN or FL.  I'm not sure what to make of PA, because Trump should blow the ceiling off out west and in the Scranton area, but Clinton should also blow the ceiling off in the Gerlach/Meehan/Dent districts but underperform Obama a bit in Philadelphia proper.

He probably does well in west PA, but Scranton is just too Democratic. Obama won it by 27% in 2012. I imagine the map will look almost exactly like 2008 (minus Cambria and Elk to Trump).

I just feel like the whole PA-17 area of NE PA is East Kentucky in 2000 waiting to happen.  Clinton winning Scranton by only 5-10% and losing all of the surrounding counties would count as Trump blowing the ceiling off IMO.  Also, don't underestimate the impact of Biden, who is both from there and has some of Trump's demeanor in him.

I'm going to have to see it to believe it, but if Trump does that well there I think we also need to be on the lookout in the Youngstown, Ohio are.

We definitely should be. Of course, it could all happen under the radar where Clinton only gets Obama 2012 numbers in these areas while winning by 10 nationally, but I think the Trump trend will be very real.  Remember, Obama and Biden were actually able to tap into some of the proto-Trump jobs/infrastructure anger and swing some of these areas toward them in 2012.  

OH should be Trump's very best swing state, possibly better than even NC in a PVI sense.  Obama numbers aside, I'm actually more worried about MI and WI than PA or MN in a close race.  Getting better-than-Obama numbers in the Philadelphia and Minneapolis suburbs and in Pittsburgh proper (which is now more of a mini-Silicon Valley than it's former self) should be enough to counter whatever Trump can do in the rest of those states.  But there isn't obviously enough to counter it in MI or WI.  Walker and Snyder are much more traditional Republicans than Trump and both easily won. Better-than-Obama numbers the college towns just aren't enough if the rest of the state rebels because it just wants its jobs back.  

The last Marquette poll had Trump's favorablity rating in Wisconsin among all primary voters at like -48%. Clinton's was half of that at -23% and Obama was almost at +8%. That's going to be a tough hill to climb for Trump when you still have segments of local conservative talk radio still on the #NeverTrump bandwagon. Charles Sykes, the guy that blasted Trump to his face before the primary, is still very much anti-Trump. Also Wisconsin is too "nice" to really go for a guy like Trump.

[MT Treasurer]

They only got MN and ME-02 wrong. FYI, this was the Democratic target map back then:

NEW YORK — Democrats aligned with Hillary Clinton are laying the groundwork for a general election campaign focused primarily on the same battleground states that twice elected President Barack Obama, buying up ad time on local TV in an attempt to quietly shape the playing field before the Republicans choose a candidate.

The 2016 electoral map being drawn by pro-Clinton forces, according to ad reservations and interviews with high-level strategists and pollsters on both sides of the aisle, begins with a core group of familiar presidential swing states at the center of the fight — Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, and Colorado — with roughly a half-dozen other states on the periphery.

Those other states — which include Wisconsin, New Mexico, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, all perceived to be leaning toward the Democrats, and North Carolina, where the GOP is likely to begin with an edge — are thought to be competitive, though not yet at the point where they stand likely to flip their 2012 presidential vote in November.

And while operatives on both sides agree that Donald Trump, as the Republican nominee, could put more states in play on both sides, Clinton’s allies are for now putting their money on the traditional battlegrounds — not the rust-belt states where Trump insists he can steal Democratic votes, or traditionally red, but diverse, states like Arizona and Georgia where Clinton’s allies say she’d have a better shot with Trump as the GOP standard-bearer.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-allies-general-election-222052

So they consider this to be the battleground map:

Green: Top-tier swing states
>30%: Tier Two/Leaning towards one party, not competitive right now
>40%: Tier Three/Likely, would only be potentially competitive with Trump and/or in a wave

LOL@NH being a Top-tier swing state.

[Annatar]

The Trump campaign was pretty smart in knowing where it could gain relative to Romney.

[One Term Floridian]

Wow can’t believe I’m saying this but kudos to the Trump team for knowing exactly which states they needed to target. This map is almost spot-on, yet we were all laughing when they released it. Now the Democratic maps are the ones that are really comical.