- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Electoral Battleground--2016 and Beyond
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:01 pm to Navytiger74
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:01 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
I was joking, dude
Hell, I never know around here when someone is joking or being sarcastic. My radar doesn't work on this board.
1
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:03 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
Hell, I never know around here when someone is joking or being sarcastic. My radar doesn't work on this board.
No worries. I used to be pretty cantankerous on here, but I've turned over a new leaf. You don't have to worry about me flying off the top rope at you.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:04 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
(aside from throwing up our hands and saying frick this country I'm leaving)
i think this is what you should do
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:05 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
You missed the point. With those additional votes, Romney would still have easily lost the popular vote, but he would have won the electoral vote and the election.
yes, but those states mirrored the results nationally. He probably would have had to do better across the board to have won. The only state that was within 3 pts was FL.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:08 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
Obviously VA, FL, OH, CO, + NC, PA, or IA?
FL - 73,189 - 29 EV
OH - 103,481 - 18 EV
CO - 113,199 - 9 EV
NV - 66,379 - 6 EV
NH - 40,659 - 4 EV
+66 EV's = 272 and a horse !!
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:14 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
i think this is what you should do
I've spent more time abroad than >90% of Americans. I'm done. You're stuck with me.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:15 pm to Navytiger74
quote:Correct IMO. McCain was flawed 6-ways to Sunday.
I'm not convinced that Romney or McCain's losses had anything with them not being authentically conservative enough.
Romney ran the worst campaign since Dewey.
Speaks, unfortunately, to what kind of POTUS he'd likely have been. Surprised me. I expected Romney to be meticulously organized in his approach. He wasn't.
Romney's inability to fire Stuart Stevens was simply inexplicable.
It cost him the Presidency.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:16 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
FL - 73,189 - 29 EV
50%-49%
quote:
OH - 103,481 - 18 EV
51%-48%
quote:
CO - 113,199 - 9 EV
51%-46%
quote:
NV - 66,379 - 6 EV
52%-46%
quote:
NH - 40,659 - 4 EV
52%-46%
Nationwide vote totals: 51%-47%
So YES, if he could have manufactured those 372k votes in those states, he would have won. But other than FL, they look like the race nationally. he would have probably found a lot more votes than 372k to win the election.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:41 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
+66 EV's = 272 and a horse !!
"The horse" has been mentioned here ironically at least 100X more than the number of all liberals combined ever mentioned it. But if that makes you feel better, keep on keepin' on. The DNC sincerely thanks you.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:44 pm to a want
quote:We use it as a metaphor referring to Romney's wealth.
"The horse" has been mentioned here ironically at least 100X more than the number of all liberals combined ever mentioned it. But if that makes you feel better, keep on keepin' on. The DNC sincerely thanks you.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 6:56 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
So YES, if he could have manufactured those 372k votes in those states, he would have won. But other than FL, they look like the race nationally. he would have probably found a lot more votes than 372k to win the election.
My initial point addressed the premise of many board discussions of the 2016 election, which was touched upon by the OP, that premise being the GOP has little hope due to the new demographics existent in the country, and that trend is expected to continue for years to come.
Yet 10,087,536 eligible voters in just those 5 states did not vote in the 2012 Presidential election.
Romney needed just a positive margin of 396,807 of any of those additional citizens who could have voted but didn't.
I understand perfectly your argument that the national final percentage came close to mirroring the results in those 5 states. The states were chosen because they represent the 5 closest Romney losses in terms of popular votes.
My original intent in posting the information was to illustrate that the demographics disadvantage the Republicans are now faced with can be overcome by either putting forth a candidate that makes non-voters decide to come out to vote, hope that the opposition nominates a candidate that will discourage both non-voters and 2012 voters from voting, or who will simply get them to switch their votes.
Obama received about 3.6M fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, while Romney received about 1.0M more votes than McCain received in 2008. That's a net gain 4.6M votes for the GOP candidate in a year with demographics that will not be changed all that much by 2016. A similar 4.6M vote net gain by the Republican candidate in 2016 will mean a very close result in both the popular vote and the electoral vote.
Considering the rapid downhill slide (at least as of right now) by this Democratic administration, achieving the same Republican gain in 2016 as in 2012 is a very realistic possibility - depending heavily on who the nominees are.
With such a huge number of non-voters in 2012, I am simply saying that 2016 is not a lost cause for the Republicans in terms of winning the White House, despite the demographic trends. A 4-point turnaround can be achieved either by getting 2 voters out of every 100 that voted for Obama in 2012 to vote for their candidate this time around, or lighting a fire under non-voters.. Considering the large number of Independent voters, with no pre-conceived allegiances, capturing 2% of Obama voters in itself is possible, but a strong candidate can get by with only changing 1% and combining that with a 2% edge in 2012 non-voters.
All that to say the 2016 election is not a lost cause for the Republican nominee, despite the demographics in play. They simply need to nominate a candidate that makes people WANT to stop bitching and get out and vote.
They need someone with the charisma and personality and "connectivity" of a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, but combined with the pragmatism and managerial/business experience of a Mitt Romney or a Paul Ryan. Someone that can offer both form and substance in a media-driven age.
I'm using my binoculars and still can't see that guy - but that doesn't mean he's not out there.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:04 pm to a want
quote:
quote:
+66 EV's = 272 and a horse !!
"The horse" has been mentioned here ironically at least 100X more than the number of all liberals combined ever mentioned it. But if that makes you feel better, keep on keepin' on. The DNC sincerely thanks you.
I find it noteworthy that this is my very first time I have ever mentioned the horse in all of my Poli board postings, yet you chose my lengthy post of substance (most of them just either say "Anne Romney has a horse" or show a pic of her and the horse) to address it.
Interdasting ...
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:05 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
I'm using my binoculars and still can't see that guy - but that doesn't mean he's not out there.
No honest and responsible citizen/patriot is going to put up with this crap, NH. For all practical purposes...the rule of Law is dissed and the MSM/Prog electorate jump for joy.
You'll get your leader; but it will be AFTER QE/interest rates/inflation/civil unrest drives out the mind games and double standards. I.e., desperation....no slack. Might not be exactly what you imagine right now...but they will...git'r done. That Constitution will no longer be an millstone; thanks to Obama/Progs.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:06 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
GOP constutencies will support HRC over Paul. Neocons, hawks in general, law and order types and even some social conservatives.
No. There may be some things going on behind the scenes and under wraps sure, but there's not a shot in hell the GOP will do anything against Rand publicly. Team politics reigns supreme. Even with an unusual candidate.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:07 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
All that to say the 2016 election is not a lost cause for the Republican nominee, despite the demographics in play. They simply need to nominate a candidate that makes people WANT to stop bitching and get out and vote.
I would agree that is very doable for republicans to win 2016 but if I were to bet, I would bet on the dems right now. They just have a structural advantage. But 2 years is a long time in electoral politics.
quote:
That's a net gain 4.6M votes for the GOP candidate in a year with demographics that will not be changed all that much by 2016. A similar 4.6M vote net gain by the Republican candidate in 2016 will mean a very close result in both the popular vote and the electoral vote.
while 4.6M swing to republicans in 2016 is quite likely, I don't think its going to happen. It definitely could, especially if as many obama voters stay home in 2016 as did in 2012. But I think those voters will be older, and more likely to vote. Now will they flip to republicans, that is a legit question.
Obama is doing a really piss poor job and DGAF if you ask me. So its possible he does to the dems what bush did to the republicans. But from 2004 to 2008, the republicans only lost 3M votes. Its going to have to be more signficant from 2012 to 2016 for the dems for the republicans to win.
But if it gets where its a 1M vote difference, it very well may play into your scenario where they can pick up a few swing states.
This aspect of presidential politics is all I really care about, so I love these types of discussions. I don't really care what obama does or doesn't do. But who wins and how? LOVE IT.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:08 pm to a want
quote:No.
"The horse" has been mentioned here ironically at least 100X more than the number of all liberals combined ever mentioned it
It did receive prominent mention in the liberal press. It was right there with Romney's car elevator.
The problem was the way it was handled by his campaign.
When that stuff comes out in a campaign, you go at it full force, head on. You embarrass nitwits for even asking the question. Romney didn't. Instead he followed Stuart Stevens' idiotic advice to deflect conversation from his wealth.
Imagine Donald Trump's response to the same line of attack. Going "Donald" at questions regarding penis/wealth envy was Romney's winning tack.
The lack of message control was rampant. The economy sucks, but Ann has a horse. Ambassador Stevens was murdered due to the Administration's ineptitude, but Romney has a Car Elevator. Messaging even at its most controlled point, at the GOP Convention, was truly pathetic. Chris Christie's keynote speech may well be the worst in the history of keynotes. All about Christie, rendering Romney an afterthought.
Lack of an Ohio strategy, etc. Just horrible.
"Ann has a horse" is funny, but as a campaign issue it was little more than irrelevant.
In 2012, the EV was there for Romney's taking. He just did not do it.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:08 pm to Sentrius
quote:
No. There may be some things going on behind the scenes and under wraps sure, but there's not a shot in hell the GOP will do anything against Rand publicly. Team politics reigns supreme. Even with an unusual candidate.
except not give him money.
Paul is the only republican or democrat I could see voting for. heck I might change my registration so I can caucus for him in 2016. But its going to be a tough run.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:10 pm to NHTIGER
quote:
My initial point addressed the premise of many board discussions of the 2016 election, which was touched upon by the OP, that premise being the GOP has little hope due to the new demographics existent in the country, and that trend is expected to continue for years to come. Yet 10,087,536 eligible voters in just those 5 states did not vote in the 2012 Presidential election. Romney needed just a positive margin of 396,807 of any of those additional citizens who could have voted but didn't. I understand perfectly your argument that the national final percentage came close to mirroring the results in those 5 states. The states were chosen because they represent the 5 closest Romney losses in terms of popular votes. My original intent in posting the information was to illustrate that the demographics disadvantage the Republicans are now faced with can be overcome by either putting forth a candidate that makes non-voters decide to come out to vote, hope that the opposition nominates a candidate that will discourage both non-voters and 2012 voters from voting, or who will simply get them to switch their votes. Obama received about 3.6M fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, while Romney received about 1.0M more votes than McCain received in 2008. That's a net gain 4.6M votes for the GOP candidate in a year with demographics that will not be changed all that much by 2016. A similar 4.6M vote net gain by the Republican candidate in 2016 will mean a very close result in both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Considering the rapid downhill slide (at least as of right now) by this Democratic administration, achieving the same Republican gain in 2016 as in 2012 is a very realistic possibility - depending heavily on who the nominees are. With such a huge number of non-voters in 2012, I am simply saying that 2016 is not a lost cause for the Republicans in terms of winning the White House, despite the demographic trends. A 4-point turnaround can be achieved either by getting 2 voters out of every 100 that voted for Obama in 2012 to vote for their candidate this time around, or lighting a fire under non-voters.. Considering the large number of Independent voters, with no pre-conceived allegiances, capturing 2% of Obama voters in itself is possible, but a strong candidate can get by with only changing 1% and combining that with a 2% edge in 2012 non-voters. All that to say the 2016 election is not a lost cause for the Republican nominee, despite the demographics in play. They simply need to nominate a candidate that makes people WANT to stop bitching and get out and vote. They need someone with the charisma and personality and "connectivity" of a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, but combined with the pragmatism and managerial/business experience of a Mitt Romney or a Paul Ryan. Someone that can offer both form and substance in a media-driven age. I'm using my binoculars and still can't see that guy - but that doesn't mean he's not out there.
Excellent post, NH.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It did receive prominent mention in the liberal press. It was right there with Romney's car elevator. The problem was the way it was handled by his campaign. When that stuff comes out in a campaign, you go at it full force, head on. You embarrass nitwits for even asking the question. Romney didn't. Instead he followed Stuart Stevens' idiotic advice to deflect conversation from his wealth. Imagine Donald Trump's response to the same line of attack. Going "Donald" at questions regarding penis/wealth envy was Romney's winning tack. The lack of message control was rampant. The economy sucks, but Ann has a horse. Ambassador Stevens was murdered due to the Administration's ineptitude, but Romney has a Car Elevator. Messaging even at its most controlled point, at the GOP Convention, was truly pathetic. Chris Christie's keynote speech may well be the worst in the history of keynotes. All about Christie, rendering Romney an afterthought. Lack of an Ohio strategy, etc. Just horrible. "Ann has a horse" is funny, but as a campaign issue it was little more than irrelevant. In 2012, the EV was there for Romney's taking. He just did not do it.
Also good points. You've been keen to point out that you saw numerous shortfalls in Romney's campaign strategy, but I've never read you address it from that angle (doesn't mean you hadn't). I tend to believe that Romney was fighting more of an uphill battle throughout than the polls suggested, but he was within striking distance even as the Hurricane struck.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:16 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Chris Christie's keynote speech may well be the worst in the history of keynotes. All about Christie, rendering Romney an afterthought.
This, times 1000.
Christie ended up shafting Romney twice in 64 days, in both instances attempting to prop up his own profile.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News