Is there a GOP path without Florida?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:14:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Is there a GOP path without Florida?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Is there a GOP path without Florida?  (Read 2182 times)
Heisenberg
SecureAmerica
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2017, 09:54:33 PM »

The states are all independent of each other. There is no uniform swing, and so the "If X goes GOP (or Dem), then Y must as well" is total BS.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2017, 10:07:15 PM »

The states are all independent of each other. There is no uniform swing, and so the "If X goes GOP (or Dem), then Y must as well" is total BS.

And also it should be noted that each election brings new changes to the map. Trump was the First Republican to win without VA since Calvin Coolidge and without Colorado since William Howard Taft in 1908. Obama was the first Democrat to win without winning any Deep South States (Though Truman did lose many of them to Thurmond), ever. George W. Bush was the first Republican to win without Illinois if memory serves me.

Also as a note to those who made the connection between former Midwest voters swinging Florida, one needs to keep in mind that these voters could still vote Republican and Trump could lose Florida through increasing population in other areas, especially with the Puerto Rico situation.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2017, 10:21:48 PM »

As Mikado pointed out, Trump would have won without Florida in 2016. Narrow as it is, the same map repeating with only Florida flipped is more likely than any other alternative of a GOP win without Florida. The reason for this is, is that while it is true that maps change from election to election based on the candidates, there usually aren't huge changes when an incumbent is running for reelection. The 2012 map was similar to the 2008 map; the 2004 map was similar to the 2000 map. The 1996 map was similar to the 1992 map; the 1984 map was similar to the 1980 map; The 1956 map was similar to the 1952 map; The 1944 map was similar to the 1940 map; and so on and so on. The big changes rather tend to happen when two candidates who have never run before are matched up, or in non-incumbent elections. Hence 2016 was a fairly big change, as was 2008, as was 2000, as was 1992, and so on. Sure there are exceptions (1980, 1972) but they are rare.

While MN and NH are among the two biggest candidates to switch, NH does not seem to be trending GOP if special elections are to be any guide, and MN's high education rates will be a barrier to Trumpism there. Hence, with the map likely to be relatively static, the most likely GOP path without Florida is indeed if the other states vote as they did before, but only Florida switches.
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2017, 11:57:52 PM »

With a candidate like Trump, I could see MN, NH, and ME being potential GOP pickups. That said, if Florida is swinging left enough for Trump to lose it in 2020, the odds of him flipping Clinton states would be low. He'd have to hold all his other states, which seems easy enough except for MI and WI.
Logged
Coolface Sock #42069
whitesox130
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,695
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2017, 11:06:47 AM »

Maybe this? With or without Maine at large.



273 - 265

If we are talking about republicans in general, there is never a path with Maine. Trump is the only Republican who can win the state.
TIL Paul LePage, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe do not exist
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 19, 2017, 02:25:10 PM »

The states are all independent of each other. There is no uniform swing, and so the "If X goes GOP (or Dem), then Y must as well" is total BS.

I disagree, at least in part. I knew PA was going to vote for Trump in 2016. Based on that, I figured he would win Ohio and Iowa handily, as he did and probably win Wisconsin too, which he did. I figured Michigan and Minnesota would also be close, though even I didn't expect MI to flip.
There's no guarantee that an improvement in Texas or California would improve your performance in Ohio, as we saw, but for certain states with similar electorates, you can make these generalizations.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 19, 2017, 03:51:14 PM »

As Mikado pointed out, Trump would have won without Florida in 2016. Narrow as it is, the same map repeating with only Florida flipped is more likely than any other alternative of a GOP win without Florida. The reason for this is, is that while it is true that maps change from election to election based on the candidates, there usually aren't huge changes when an incumbent is running for reelection. The 2012 map was similar to the 2008 map; the 2004 map was similar to the 2000 map. The 1996 map was similar to the 1992 map; the 1984 map was similar to the 1980 map; The 1956 map was similar to the 1952 map; The 1944 map was similar to the 1940 map; and so on and so on. The big changes rather tend to happen when two candidates who have never run before are matched up, or in non-incumbent elections. Hence 2016 was a fairly big change, as was 2008, as was 2000, as was 1992, and so on. Sure there are exceptions (1980, 1972) but they are rare.

While MN and NH are among the two biggest candidates to switch, NH does not seem to be trending GOP if special elections are to be any guide, and MN's high education rates will be a barrier to Trumpism there. Hence, with the map likely to be relatively static, the most likely GOP path without Florida is indeed if the other states vote as they did before, but only Florida switches.

1988-1992 was drastic, as was 1976-1980. If 2020 is a losing election for Trump, it's likely to happen like that again.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 19, 2017, 04:03:24 PM »

Yes, I could even see something as drastic as this happening:



281/257 Trump

Although I'm not at all sure Trump could hold onto NC in this world, and if he did, it would be in recount territory.
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 19, 2017, 04:27:58 PM »

Yes, I could even see something as drastic as this happening:



281/257 Trump

Although I'm not at all sure Trump could hold onto NC in this world, and if he did, it would be in recount territory.
Why would NM be closer than CO and NV? I also don't see NE-2 flipping unless democrats win a landslide like 2008 again. GA would probably go before that or even before NC.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 19, 2017, 05:18:01 PM »

Yes, I could even see something as drastic as this happening:



281/257 Trump

Although I'm not at all sure Trump could hold onto NC in this world, and if he did, it would be in recount territory.
Why would NM be closer than CO and NV? I also don't see NE-2 flipping unless democrats win a landslide like 2008 again. GA would probably go before that or even before NC.

Trump only won NE-02 by about 3% and he was under 50% total.  It's on par with NC and AZ now in competitiveness, and definitely ahead of GA.

I forgot to add the 50% shading to NM, but it does have some very "Trumpy" rural Dem areas that swung hard to him.  In the medium-long run, the more urban CO and NV might end up left of it.
Logged
Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,481


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2017, 10:15:09 PM »

But angry new hampshire women make it solid D. Sure, it went D by less than a half a point in the senate and for Clinton, has a republican trifecta, and a republican advantage in party registration, but I'm sure it's still solid D.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 20, 2017, 11:48:15 AM »

Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 20, 2017, 12:00:09 PM »
« Edited: November 23, 2017, 05:24:53 PM by L.D. Smith, Aggie! It's Real Expenses Again »



So yes, and without Michigan too.
Logged
twenty42
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 861
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 23, 2017, 02:11:30 AM »


The states are all independent of each other. There is no uniform swing, and so the "If X goes GOP (or Dem), then Y must as well" is total BS.

I’m actually thinking of making this my signature, because truer words have never been spoken. Uniform swing from one election to the next has never happened once in American history...that is the reason trend maps exist!!
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2017, 02:20:31 AM »

The states are all independent of each other. There is no uniform swing, and so the "If X goes GOP (or Dem), then Y must as well" is total BS.

Your comment is BS swings are correlated between states. They aren't uniform but swings if different demographics show in multiple states.
Logged
DabbingSanta
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,679
United States
P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 23, 2017, 12:23:29 PM »

Yes - IA/OH/MI/WI/PA holds for Trump, hispanic support for Dem candidate takes FL and AZ.
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2017, 12:34:34 PM »

Yes - IA/OH/MI/WI/PA holds for Trump, hispanic support for Dem candidate takes FL and AZ.
Logged
libertpaulian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 25, 2017, 10:39:16 AM »

The states are all independent of each other. There is no uniform swing, and so the "If X goes GOP (or Dem), then Y must as well" is total BS.
Um, MN has voted to the left of NH for as long as I can remember.  Plus, given that NH is a moderate libertarian state at heart, it would naturally follow that if a state to its political left is going for the right-wing party, so would the state that's more right-wing.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 25, 2017, 02:25:05 PM »

Um, MN has voted to the left of NH for as long as I can remember.  Plus, given that NH is a moderate libertarian state at heart, it would naturally follow that if a state to its political left is going for the right-wing party, so would the state that's more right-wing.

"Um, VA has voted to the right of WV for as long as I can remember." - Atlas #analysis in 2003. And there is nothing moderate or libertarian about the state's politicians or voting patterns.
Logged
libertpaulian
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 25, 2017, 02:36:05 PM »
« Edited: November 25, 2017, 02:45:45 PM by libertpaulian »

Um, MN has voted to the left of NH for as long as I can remember.  Plus, given that NH is a moderate libertarian state at heart, it would naturally follow that if a state to its political left is going for the right-wing party, so would the state that's more right-wing.

"Um, VA has voted to the right of WV for as long as I can remember." - Atlas #analysis in 2003. And there is nothing moderate or libertarian about the state's politicians or voting patterns.
I was using "moderate" as the adjective for libertarian.  In other words, NH has libertarian tendencies, but it's more of a moderate sort of libertarianism.  It's a sort that's not as right-wing libertarian as Ron Paul, Reason Magazine, Cato, etc., but libertarian enough.

Plus, if you look at NH's voting patterns, especially over the past 25 years, it's a state that's prone to the most insane types of swings, on a federal, state, AND local level.  After one election, you'll think it's going the way of the Bay Area, but by the next you'll think it's going in the direction of rural Alabama.  Yet, you can't pinpoint an exact label on it, because it's THAT much of a swing state.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
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 0.057 seconds with 14 queries.