May 25, 2011
— CAC So here is how this thread works. Elections are won in the Electoral College. The goal is 270 electoral votes, regardless of the national popular vote. Most of the candidates who have announced (besides fringe ones like Paul and Johnson) have at least some route I can see to 270. Just to beat up on Huntsman, I would like to illustrate that his “run” for the White House is absolutely dead before he even opens his mouth:
Harvesting snail pee and collecting dead rats would be more fruitful exercises for that goofball.
Of the candidates announced so far, I have illustrated the hypotheticals for Pawlenty, Romney, Cain and Bachmann which show their possible routes to 270. I have also thrown Palin in the mix as well, and you may be shocked that I even give her a route, albeit a narrow one. Nothing would make lefties heads explode more than if Obama beat her in the national popular vote by five million yet she still squeaked by with a win in the electoral vote. Blue states can be considered off limits for them, red states very likely for them, and white, well you can figure it out.
Instead of saying “OMGZ!!! YOURR A HACK (what's new?) SO AND SO TOTALLY WOULD WIN THIS STATE TOO!!!”, this experimental thread gives you the chance to defend your candidate on a state-by-state basis. Claiming “anyone can beat Obama” can be mathematically silly when you see the generic republican ceding 190 electoral votes to Obama out of the gate. Where does YOUR candidate shine, and where can he/she improve? Are there certain states I am being too generous to the GOP on, or too generous to the Dem on? If you think, "WTF NO WAY PALIN LOSES MICHIGAN!" or "NO WAY ROMNEY WINS NEW HAMPSHIRE!", explain why you disagree. Since we are all in different states, you may have a better insight as to the current momentum or hatred the locals have for one of our party's choices.
Also, for kicks there is one candidate I can think of who has not declared, and will not win the primary, but who could very seriously put even the NE Blue Bloc in jeopardy (based off in-state polling and his personal popularity in that region). Hint- it isn't the Fat Guy.
The election is far, far away and a billion things can happen to alter these, but this is the lay of the land right now. All projection maps and polling are for kicks only, but there still some basic limits to the election in 18 months if you are willing to accept reality. We aren't going to win 40 states. We aren't going to lose 40 states. Boundaries keep the trolls and crazies classified as such.
First up, polling favorite Generic Republican:
BACHMANN:
CAIN:
PAWLENTY:
ROMNEY:
HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHETICALS
PALIN:
CANDIDATE X:
Enjoy. I'll be out painting, swimming, and drinking heavily before I stagger back in.
Posted by: CAC at
02:14 PM
| Comments (149)
Post contains 512 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Methos at May 25, 2011 02:18 PM (uqJo6)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 02:18 PM (QUtrB)
Posted by: Protocol Office staff at May 25, 2011 02:19 PM (GKQDR)
Okay, no. But seriously, U R nuts. He's more likely to lose it by 15 than win it.
Posted by: oblig. at May 25, 2011 02:19 PM (xvZW9)
Posted by: Ron Paul, who is so fucking awesome he doesn't even need a gay map to show he'll win eleventy electo at May 25, 2011 02:20 PM (7YKsD)
But Hunstman has zero chance of getting the nod.
Posted by: Vic at May 25, 2011 02:20 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: mAc Chaos at May 25, 2011 02:21 PM (6s7n2)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 02:22 PM (QUtrB)
A vague is always more popular than a specific.
Posted by: nickless at May 25, 2011 02:23 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: ChristyBlinky aka Scarlett O'Hara at May 25, 2011 02:23 PM (FnRYN)
Posted by: JournOlistic Meme Coordination at May 25, 2011 02:23 PM (JmVLJ)
I am hereby declaring my candidacy for President of the United States.
Posted by: A Ham Sandwich at May 25, 2011 02:23 PM (uqJo6)
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at May 25, 2011 02:25 PM (pdRb1)
not even with mac on the stump for her for months on end? She did endorse him IMS.
Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at May 25, 2011 02:26 PM (UrPTC)
The perks look fuckin excellent on that job. No real workload.
I'll appoint Adam Baldwin and R. Lee Ermey to run most things.
Posted by: sifty at May 25, 2011 02:26 PM (2dbd9)
252 190
Bachmann
220 238
Cain
236 249
TPaw
249 197
Mittens
240 200
Palin
191-266
Well the results are clear.
I've said it before. Apparently it's time to say it again.
Inanimate Carbon Rod/Side Of Beef 2012!!!
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 25, 2011 02:27 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: someotherguy at May 25, 2011 02:27 PM (FYCiJ)
Posted by: nickless at May 25, 2011 02:27 PM (MMC8r)
What are these projections based on? How far does the distance have to be to be considered 'Solid' for one party or the other?
Posted by: Paper at May 25, 2011 02:27 PM (VoSja)
Posted by: ace at May 25, 2011 02:27 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: chemjeff at May 25, 2011 02:28 PM (7mSYS)
I think you're off a bit and I will tell you why. You assume that the Democrat-Communist Axis will use their normal amount of voter fraud.
I contend that they will cheat 100% in all precincts wherein they are able to place their union thugs and/or have communist thugs ready, like they had when they attempted to murder the Republican delegates to the National Convention back in 2008.
Remember that? I do.
They will quadruple their normal stuffing of ballots and will probably just fucking lie if they have the Sec of State in their pocket - and every fucking Democrat politician is corrupt so count all blue states as lost at the get-go, no matter what the vote count actually would be. It'll all be made up numbers anyway.
Godking Emperor Obama will be re-elected several more times before he re-institutes the old "venereal transmission of power" like the good ol' days of the 1500's.
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at May 25, 2011 02:29 PM (b8wlG)
Posted by: chemjeff at May 25, 2011 02:29 PM (7mSYS)
Posted by: Paper at May 25, 2011 02:29 PM (VoSja)
Hands OFF! He clearly is an ICR man!
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 25, 2011 02:30 PM (0q2P7)
I'm guessing the fact that he's the only one competitive in NY is a hint.
Posted by: Methos at May 25, 2011 02:30 PM (uqJo6)
Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at May 25, 2011 02:31 PM (UrPTC)
Posted by: GuyfromNH at May 25, 2011 02:31 PM (kbOju)
Posted by: Bob Dole! at May 25, 2011 02:31 PM (7mSYS)
This is beyond ridiculous.
Florida, North Carolina, and Missouri wouldn't be swing states if Bachmann or Cain were nominated?
Posted by: Paper at May 25, 2011 02:32 PM (VoSja)
Posted by: nickless at May 25, 2011 02:32 PM (MMC8r)
I think he's X, unless there's someone else who's magically popular in NY.
Posted by: Methos at May 25, 2011 02:33 PM (uqJo6)
Posted by: Beldar at May 25, 2011 02:34 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 02:34 PM (QUtrB)
I just see a bunch of crappy maps and no numbers.
First, we have state level pollintg data for this. Many of the states shown as solid GOP are not. We also have demographic data that can be very useful. For example, if you think Obama is going to have a much more difficult time with voters 60+, give the presumptive candidate an advantage based on the percent of the electorate that age and calculate that.
Posted by: Paper at May 25, 2011 02:36 PM (VoSja)
Posted by: Generic Republican is a RINO at May 25, 2011 02:37 PM (hF6Nm)
Your method also makes Palin into an easy win. Why would I ever consider Huntsman if I could have Palin no prob?
(No I am not a Palin supporter. But come one! What are we selling here?)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 25, 2011 02:37 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: swamp_yankee at May 25, 2011 02:38 PM (hInJ6)
Posted by: KG at May 25, 2011 02:38 PM (4L0zr)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 02:39 PM (QUtrB)
Posted by: IE Con at May 25, 2011 02:39 PM (/COcn)
Wow!
With the exception of Huntsman you're equally reliable data shows pretty much the exact opposite of what I figured the most "electable" candidate order would be.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 25, 2011 02:40 PM (0q2P7)
What a minute?
You have Pawlenty as a front runner, that's a major problem! If the Pawlenty gets the Nod...we lose....and bascially your saying that Pawlenty looks the strongest right now?
If that's the case...it already over!
Posted by: Jimi at May 25, 2011 02:40 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: Events at May 25, 2011 02:40 PM (DAEhL)
Yeah, I'm going to play the Wasserman-Schultz card here as say, BE QUIET THEY MIGHT HEAR YOU. AGAIN.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 25, 2011 02:40 PM (7utQ2)
Posted by: Generic Republican is a RINO at May 25, 2011 02:40 PM (hF6Nm)
Posted by: Grover Fucking Cleveland at May 25, 2011 02:41 PM (FYCiJ)
that statement right there just ruined all your credibility with me.
(Even CAC said his projections were SWAGS, and just discussion starters)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 25, 2011 02:42 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 02:43 PM (QUtrB)
Posted by: Soona at May 25, 2011 02:45 PM (/orNl)
We are basically in the same position as we were when we found out that McCain was getting the Nod!
And that position is attempting to hold up a 3,000 lb. Donkey dressed in an Elephant suit while standing on one leg. It works for a couple of seconds...all the way up to when the Donkey decides to take a dump in your mouth.
Posted by: Jimi at May 25, 2011 02:45 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: Soona at May 25, 2011 06:45 PM (/orNl)
It worked!
Posted by: KG at May 25, 2011 02:45 PM (4L0zr)
Posted by: swamp_yankee at May 25, 2011 02:49 PM (hInJ6)
I'm supposed to get 72 Virginians!
Posted by: Candidate X at May 25, 2011 02:51 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: ace at May 25, 2011 06:29 PM (nj1bB)
At least we know that nobody will have standing to keep him off the ballot.
Posted by: wooga at May 25, 2011 02:54 PM (2p0e3)
I don't know how much poll crunching CAC did to give us the maps he did, but given his normal posting stuff I would say quite a bit. The purpose of the post was to at least start to get us to discuss the 50 state strategy that will actually win the election, as I gather from CAC's post. And maybe you don't know or haven't been here long, but our discussion is a serious draw to the site, for some notable folks at times, at least Ace says so.
So if CAC gave your fav the rawhide, and not in a nice "their you go pooch" sort of way, you could challenge individual states and make your case and add to the discussion and be an asset. Rather than just dismissing it, and rather disrespecting what was probably a decent effort.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 25, 2011 02:55 PM (0q2P7)
Try new "regardless" same strength as regular "irregardless" with 10% fewer characters.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 25, 2011 02:57 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at May 25, 2011 02:58 PM (CWLFZ)
Posted by: Psycotte at May 25, 2011 03:00 PM (WkyLL)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 25, 2011 06:55 PM (0q2P7)
If this were January of 2012, then I could buy into a serious discussion of these maps. But right now is just too early. I don't think we have the full list of repub. candidates yet.
But if I were to agree with any of the maps, considering the mood of the country as a whole right now, I would go with Generic.
Posted by: Soona at May 25, 2011 03:03 PM (/orNl)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 03:05 PM (QUtrB)
Posted by: Ken at May 25, 2011 03:05 PM (EawMs)
Posted by: CAC at May 25, 2011 03:06 PM (JEVge)
NC is listed as tied on all the maps, except for Generic Republican where the GOP takes it? Interesting.
For what it's worth, since Obama took NC by about 15,000 votes in 2008, the GOP has taken over both Houses of the Legislature for the first time in over 100 years, and tightened up on vote fraud. Now instead of 21 days of open-voting every year, there's only 14 days (yay!). I'd say we'd be safe making NC red for at least a few of the above candidates.
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 25, 2011 03:07 PM (Z05lF)
Posted by: Mr Fappy Pants at May 25, 2011 03:09 PM (7YKsD)
@78 and 81, "irregardless"
So right. How can we trust the musings of the sort of tool that uses that sort of rudundant double negative?
Posted by: steve walsh at May 25, 2011 03:11 PM (poI/4)
Posted by: Mr Fappy Pants at May 25, 2011 03:12 PM (7YKsD)
#80
Right now, I'm a fan a Pawlenty and I could only wish for a map that favorable.
The main problem with the map is that every single one of the candidates has too many safe states. When polling people use the word 'Solid' one party or another, that usually means a state that is likely to go 8-10% more for one candidate over another. Solid also refers to the stability of support for that candidate in a particular area.
There should be a lot more white on every map. The real difference between the candidates right now isn't who starts off with the most red, but who starts off with the most white.
Posted by: Paper at May 25, 2011 03:15 PM (VoSja)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 03:15 PM (QUtrB)
Posted by: Soona at May 25, 2011 03:16 PM (/orNl)
There should be a way to prevent people calling themselves Republicans if they do not fit certain guidlines laid out by Republican Voters.
That would eliminate people like Huntsman from the race.......It would have prevented Obama from winning the 2008 election too!
Posted by: Jimi at May 25, 2011 03:17 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 03:21 PM (QUtrB)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 03:22 PM (QUtrB)
I think the way it is intended it is some unknown candidate with an (R) after their name that simultaneously has no political baggage whatsoever, and supports all the (R) stuff you like to the extent you like it and none of the (R) stuff you don't like. It's like Obama, a screen to project an image of the perfect candidate upon.
Once you start talking real candidates with real positions, then you lose people. Candidate X looks a lot closer to a real (R) candidate with solid (R) positions and no big ++ or --
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 25, 2011 03:23 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: trainer at May 25, 2011 03:23 PM (yCWYQ)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 25, 2011 03:25 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: observer at May 25, 2011 03:25 PM (hb3OR)
Brian,
"But from what I've seen from Huntsman, he doesn't seem nearly bad as his RINO reputation. "
I'm sorry you need to do some research:
Huntsman supports Cap & Trade
Huntsman believes Health Care is a Constitutional Right and I don't care if he has come out and said it or not, but he'll fight against us the keep and expand ObamaCare.
Posted by: Jimi at May 25, 2011 03:26 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 03:30 PM (QUtrB)
In December, Huntsman announced that he's recommending spending $4.2 million to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program, which will help about 14,000 more children in families that lack insurance."
Posted by: FUBAR at May 25, 2011 03:30 PM (1fanL)
@104,
Observer,
If the media complex is supporting Pawlenty.....which they clearly are....even the Leftiest are starting to come out and push Pawlenty....you should instictively know that "Houston....we have a problem!"
I don't believe Pawlenty can win at the top of the ticket, doesn't mean I'm right, but even if he does win....what really has been accomplished......he is soft like Bread Pudding!
Posted by: Jimi at May 25, 2011 03:31 PM (JMsOK)
Brian,
"but short of thinking he's lying"
You nailed it! People who don't live everyday with a philosphy that they beleive in are worth a Fart in a Skillet!
Posted by: Jimi at May 25, 2011 03:33 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 03:35 PM (QUtrB)
Brian,
"If I could be convinced that a different nominee was more electable than Huntsman, then I could definitely switch over."
We all could....but we are very weak against Obama right now....and if we go in with Pawlenty, Romney or especially Huntsman we will be lucky to not lose worse than we did in 2008.
You gotta understand that there is alot of games going on right now. Republicans learned alot from the 2008 election. The candidate that actually gets the Nod isn't even on the radar right now, and that is by design. Although I would say that Romney will probably be one that sticks around till a decision is made. The problem is you get people emotionally invested in these decoy's, and then they get pissed off when they are not the ones who get the Nod, and then won't come out and vote!
Posted by: Jimi at May 25, 2011 03:40 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: nickless at May 25, 2011 03:41 PM (MMC8r)
But if we nominate someone who is too far to the right to win a general election, then ObamaCare will kick in and we're talking trillions of $ in debt.
Refusing to nominate an otherwise electable Republican because as governor he spent 4.2 million on a health care plan for children is, in the words of Thomas Sowell, penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 07:35 PM (QUtrB)
$4.2 million is pocket change? It didn't used to be pocket change. That's how we got in this mess. And it's not the money, it's the expansion of gummint programs. Specifically, ones that lead to universal health care.
But fine, give him a pass on his lefty health care views. What about his global warming bullshit? That's just peachy keen too? Every politician does it?
Posted by: FUBAR at May 25, 2011 03:44 PM (1fanL)
Realistically, we probably won't know who's going to win until the night of the election as long as we don't nominate a kook (or a kook not named Ralph Nader runs third party). This is an election Obama should lose by biblical proportions, but we've become an equally divided nation of freedom-loving patriots, closet communists, and indecisive squishes.
We'd better hope for a short primary. Obama's going to have a lot of money trying to cover up that record, and we're going to need our undivided resources in order to beat him.
Posted by: Rich C at May 25, 2011 03:46 PM (9+wUC)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 03:47 PM (QUtrB)
Cap-and-trade ideas arenÂ’t working; it hasnÂ’t worked, and our economyÂ’s in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isnÂ’t the moment.
Oh yeah. Sign me up for the Huntsman Express. The ethanol-powered one.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 25, 2011 03:48 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: brian cobbs at May 25, 2011 03:49 PM (QUtrB)
IÂ’ve always been in favor of traditional marriage and thinking that you open PandoraÂ’s Box when you start to redefine it. But weÂ’ve had friends who are gay and weÂ’ve heard horror stories [about hospital visitation and legal rights], and I thought it was an appropriate time.
Yeah, Huntsman, stay the course buddy.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 25, 2011 03:50 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: LizLem at May 25, 2011 03:54 PM (lSuMX)
Taking the base for granted is one reason McCain lost so badly.
Posted by: chemjeff at May 25, 2011 03:55 PM (7mSYS)
Posted by: LizLem at May 25, 2011 03:58 PM (lSuMX)
Posted by: ThePoliticalHat at May 25, 2011 04:06 PM (XvHmy)
Especially with the wrong nominee. And bear in mind the potential for a fake tea party candidate, or even a real one.
Cain and Palin avoid that problem, I think, but they just don't have my confidence they can do the job once elected. I like them both, but I really wish a conservative with more experience was the nominee. We'll see who really runs.
I'm surprised at the Huntsman defense. His record is pretty poor.
Posted by: Dustin at May 25, 2011 04:09 PM (Q3nWV)
Posted by: Ben - People's OOT Front at May 25, 2011 04:18 PM (DKV43)
"Is this actually based on anything concrete or were you just bored and playing with Microsoft paint?"
BINGO!
Posted by: Jimi at May 25, 2011 04:20 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: PaulRevere at May 25, 2011 04:35 PM (nvhqg)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at May 25, 2011 04:48 PM (dbYHP)
Posted by: CAC at May 25, 2011 05:01 PM (JEVge)
States get one electoral vote for each representative and one for each senator; hence, South Carolina will have nine electoral votes in 2012.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at May 25, 2011 05:07 PM (GEPoZ)
The generic map is really good news.
That is the only one that counts.
Our candidate only needs to get 18 out of 96 tied votes.
Those are good odds.
There is only one candidate who is permanetly polarizing, and gets more polarizing the more she talks. She is topped out now.
Posted by: wilma at May 25, 2011 05:16 PM (9OZkG)
Posted by: Hellrider at May 25, 2011 05:16 PM (5/Zyh)
Posted by: PaulRevere at May 25, 2011 05:23 PM (nvhqg)
Posted by: 57 States at May 25, 2011 05:40 PM (K5N29)
I've got a great idea. You know how up until Reagan nailed their underwear to the flag pole, WE were the blue states and the commie/pinko/socialists were the dead head reds?
Well
Seeing as how we(here abouts and I'm talking about you) all know who we are, why not paint our maps with the correct colors?
When the dhimmicraps see a map referenced, they'll see what they dream of(almost), but they won't know that we switched the colors, the same way they did.
Talk about messing with their heads. It's like operation chaos with a rapid reaction force blend. They only think they are seeing what we're up to. In reality they see exactly what we want them to see.
Right up until it's clobberin' time.
Posted by: Blacksmith8 at May 25, 2011 05:44 PM (Q1qy3)
Posted by: CAC at May 25, 2011 05:47 PM (JEVge)
The more likely scenario is we are looking at 9%+ U3 unemployment, 15%+ U6 unemployment, 25%+ unemployment in the youth and black populations, 10% inflation, double dip housing prices, double dip recession, $4/gallon+ gasoline, the Eurozone breaking up, the Chinese economy crashing, and the Muslim brotherhood and their ilk taking over 5 or more countries in the middle east.
Under those conditions, how exactly does Obama win? He will crack maybe 100 EVs and only because he holds California, New York, Mass, and Maryland. It a repeat of the 1980 election, and approaching 1984. I think he will even lose Illinois.
2012 is going to be a referendum on Obama. The GOP candidate is going to be pretty much irrelevant.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at May 25, 2011 06:30 PM (cSkZ5)
Posted by: Dave in Fla at May 25, 2011 06:38 PM (cSkZ5)
Posted by: Arms Merchant at May 25, 2011 08:43 PM (NZMKc)
Bingo.
You're one of the few that is pointing this out, and you are absolutely right.
I get a sick feeling whenever I think about it.
The Demothugs cheated bad enough in 2008 -- and they suffered absolutely no negative consequences for it. "NONE, zero, zip, nada," as Rush would say. And when you violate the law with impunity, it encourages you to act even more boldly in the future. If 2008 was bad, can we even imagine how outrageous 2012 will be?
Consider all the crap in the 2008 election that has been, essentially, rewarded, by NOT being punished in any way.
New Black Panther Party thugs illegally intimidating voters at the polls? Case dropped.
Obama's millions in donations from overseas and donations by people using fraudulent identities and untraceable credit cards in order to make multiple donations totaling amounts in exorbitant excess of legal limit? Never investigated, that I know of.
Pay-for-vote bribes? Not only no investigations or prosecutions, but Harry Reid took it to a whole new level in his own election last November.
And on and on and on.
Posted by: Better dead than burqa'ed at May 25, 2011 10:37 PM (2AfqM)
Posted by: nike max women at May 25, 2011 10:53 PM (xu/ZL)
Posted by: chillin the most at May 26, 2011 05:29 AM (6IV8T)
Posted by: pendejo grande at May 26, 2011 06:43 AM (KdJsn)
http://www.nfljerseysmalls.com
Posted by: hats for sale at July 02, 2011 11:43 PM (bMWfB)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2173 seconds, 277 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at May 25, 2011 02:17 PM (GEPoZ)