A Possibility?, Cruz/Rubio Or Rubio/Cruz Ticket.

[Rexx Taylor]

Now this is what they should be taking polls with. Would be interesting to see how Hillary performs against this ticket in Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, New Hamphshire and Iowa just for starters. Either combination would likely have Hillary in full panic mode being hispanics are in many purple states. You think they will vote for a Hillary/O'Malley ticket when they see an Hispanic ticket as the alternative? Remember when blacks voted for Obama only because he was black?

 

[Agit8r]

A Rubio ticket can't win in Colorado, Alaska or probably even Montana. Nevada is basically a Blue state anymore regardless.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A Rubio ticket can't win in Colorado, Alaska or probably even Montana.

Of course it can. Don't be absurd. Alaska? Are you drunk?

Nevada is basically a Blue state anymore regardless.

Republicans just swept all state wide races here, took control of the General Assembly, and picked up a Congressional district this past election. It's hardly a blue state. It's a swing state and very much in play, but what do I know. I only live here. That's hardly as credible as your bias.

 

[Ernie S.]

Any GOP ticket will take Alaska and no one in Nevada is betting on hillary winning there.
I'm thinking hillary, if she even gets the nomination will crash and burn by late summer and we will see a blow out that would make Ronald Reagan proud.

I can see her now in the first debate in a shrill voice shouting "What difference does it make?" in response to a direct question about her foundations donors.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You think they will vote for a Hillary/O'Malley ticket when they see an Hispanic ticket as the alternative?

Yes

Remember when blacks voted for Obama only because he was black?

The difference is blacks have historically voted around 90% for the Democratic candidate no matter who they were. You think if Obama had been a Republican he'd have won the same percentage of black voters? Not even close.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Any GOP ticket will take Alaska and no one in Nevada is betting on hillary winning there.

Hillary can absolutely win Nevada. The state will very much be in play next year.

 

[Ernie S.]

Any GOP ticket will take Alaska and no one in Nevada is betting on hillary winning there.

Hillary can absolutely win Nevada. The state will very much be in play next year.

Not a fucking chance.

Here are Nevada 2014 election results. Dingy Harry would have lost had he run.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Any GOP ticket will take Alaska and no one in Nevada is betting on hillary winning there.

Hillary can absolutely win Nevada. The state will very much be in play next year.

Not a fucking chance.

Here are Nevada 2014 election results. Dingy Harry would have lost had he run.

The turn out in that election was much lower than in a presidential year.

 

[Agit8r]

A Rubio ticket can't win in Colorado, Alaska or probably even Montana.

Of course it can. Don't be absurd. Alaska? Are you drunk?

Nevada is basically a Blue state anymore regardless.

Republicans just swept all state wide races here, took control of the General Assembly, and picked up a Congressional district this past election. It's hardly a blue state. It's a swing state and very much in play, but what do I know. I only live here. That's hardly as credible as your bias.

These western states don't like the feds fucking with their direct democracy. It isn't just about a few pot-smokers--it is about how these states have chosen to obtain their revenue. And Rubio has pledged to interfere with that.

Montana is a little different in that regard, but they don't like the feds being up in their business at all.

Nevada went Blue by a 6.5 point margin in the last presidential election, despite having a 11% Mormon population. In 2008 the spread was 12.5 points. In Presidential elections, it's a Blue state.

 

[Judicial review]

Any ticket that doesn't include John Kasich as President is pointless.

 

[Politico]

A Possibility?, Cruz/Rubio Or Rubio/Cruz Ticket.

No not a possibility.

 

[Statistikhengst]

A Rubio ticket can't win in Colorado, Alaska or probably even Montana.

Of course it can. Don't be absurd. Alaska? Are you drunk?

Nevada is basically a Blue state anymore regardless.

Republicans just swept all state wide races here, took control of the General Assembly, and picked up a Congressional district this past election. It's hardly a blue state. It's a swing state and very much in play, but what do I know. I only live here. That's hardly as credible as your bias.

Dont Taz Me Bro

Re: Alaska


Oh, I think the chances of Hillary winning in Alaska are kind of slim. I concur with you on that point.

But a funny thing happened in 2012.

In an almost exact statistical mirror image of 2008, where 46 of 50 states +DC logged a better statistic for Obama than the 2004 race, and only 5 states logged a better statistic for McCain than the 2004 race, in 2012, 45 of 50 states +DC logged a better statistic for Romney than the 2008 race, and only 6 states logged a better statistic for Obama than the 2008 race.

By "logged a better statistic", I mean that a candidate whose party won that state in the previous cycle won it with a larger margin in the current cycle, or a candidate whose party lost that state in the previous cycle won it in the current cycle, or a candidate whose party lost that state in both cycles lost it by a lesser margin in the current cycle.

For instance, in 2008, McCain lost Minnesota to Obama by -10.24 points, but in 2012, Romney lost Minnesota to Obama by -7.69 points, so, in spite of the fact that the Republicans lost this state both times (actually, the GOP has now lost this state 10 times in a row, every cycle since 1976, and 13 of the 14 cycles since 1960), the GOP actually improved it's statistic in 2012 over 2008 and so the "swing" was +2.55 points to the Right. And these swings are a data-point that partisan statisticians watch very closely, for it helps them in giving input as to where it is really worth it or not to make a play for a state in the next cycle.

So far, so good.

So, let's take a look at these three cycles (2004 to 2008 to 2012). I think you both will find this quite informative.

Here is a map that shows the 5 states where McCain actually did better in 2008 than Bush 43 did in 2004:

Please note that the colors are REVERSED. Red (dark and light) = DEM, Blue (dark and light) = GOP

The GOP 2008 statistic improved in: West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. In two states, the swing was miniscule (Oklahoma +0.15%, West Virginia +0.23%), but in Arkansas, McCain improved upon Bush 43's statistic by almost ten points. All five of those states are states that McCain won quite easily in 2008, they were never competitive to begin with. They are also geographically linked to each other by an intersection between Applachia and the Bible Belt. The exact stats are at the link above the screenshot.


Fast forward to 2012.

Here is a map of the six states where Obama's 2012 electoral performance was better than in 2008:

Again, you are looking at a reverse color scheme, just as in the first screenshot.

In a stark difference to McCain, who improved the GOP statistic in 5 states that he won, Obama improved the Democratic Party's statistic in 3 states that he won and in 3 states that he lost: New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Missisippi, Lousiana and Alaska. Those 6 states are not all geographically connected to each other, but in the 3 states that Pres. Obama won, they are in the Northeast-Acela region, and of the states he lost, two are in the Deep South, and then there's Alaska... way out there...

In one state, the swing was pretty insignificant (Maryland, +0.63), but in Alaska, the statistic swung a full 7.55 points to the Democratic Party and for the first time in fourty years, the GOP won Alaska by LESS than 20 points in a true two-man race. In fact, 2012 was the third cycle in a row where the GOP's statistic suffered some:

From 2000 to 2004, the state swung 5.40 points to the Democratic Party. From 2004 to 2008, the state swung 4.01 points to the Democratic Party (in spite of Bush improving his national statistic by a swing of almost 3 points over 2000) and in 2008 to 2012, the state swung again to the Democratic Party, to the tune of 7.55 points (in spite of a GOP national swing of 3.40). All said and told, over 12 years time and 4 cycles of electoral statistics, the GOP has lost 16.96 points (17 points) on margin in Alaska, well more than half of it's 2000 margin. And people cannot use Sarah Palin as an excuse. Before she came on the GOP ticket in 2008, Obama was polling exceedingly, surprisingly well in Alaska:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond FINAL POLL CONVERGENCE No. 12

Check out Alaska.

Up through a Hayes poll that was released on 08 August 2008, 9 of the 10 polls to date showed the race in single digits, in ALASKA. In fact, that Hayes poll had Obama up by +5. I however, assumed that that poll was a major outlier, because Hayes is a very partisan Democratic pollster and is to the Left what Rasmussen is to the Right, so I counted it in the statistics in that year, but assumed it was bunk. And indeed, it was.

When Palin came onto the ticket, the margins shifted radically into double digits, approaching +20.

So, the sudden shift from 2008 to 2012 did not lie with Palin's absence from the 2012 GOP ticket. The GOP statistic in this state had already been steadily sliding since 2000. And you would think in a year where the GOP was so galvanized to get Obama out of office and try Romney, that Alaska would have returned to being a +30 state, for many of Romney's margins in the Breadbasket and Blue Sky States sprang back in the direction Bush 43 lofty margins from 2004. But not in Alaska. And that data-point alone is kind of inexplicable.

So, Agit8r 's claim that Alaska could be in play in 2016 is not that far-fetched. Hillary is just single digits behind in states like Kansas, Louisiana, Arkansas, so it is very possible that she is also just single digits behind the GOP in Alaska as well. Not only that, polling to-date proves it:

2016 Presidential polling data - Clinton vs GOP field 2014 - Google Sheets

Of the six polls thus far, with 30 matchups, the GOP has won 27, Hillary was won 7. Out of fairness, 6 of those 7 were against Palin, who is never ever again going to be on a GOP presidential ticket, of this I am quite sure, so for all intents and purposes, the GOP is of course winning this state. However, the margins are lean. Now, the last poll was in September 2014 and they are all from PPP (D), a good firm, but the polling DNA could really use fresh-"blood" from other pollsters as well.

One more point. Go look at the electoral stats for Alaska again and see how incedibly well Perot did here in 1992. This was his second best state in that election, after Maine. Most don't know this, but Perot almost took second place in Maine from George H.W. Bush. A split in the GOP in 2016, resulting in a third-party candidate running, could throw this state to Hillary. But then again, a split in the Democratic Party, resulting in a Sanders independent win, would surely result in this state staying true to the GOP.

My gut tells me that Hillary is not going to win Alaska, but she sure as hell can make it competitive if she wants to, which means time, money and energy expenditures for the GOP. I mean, who ever thought in 2007 that Obama was going to win Indiana in 2008?

On the other hand, it took a +24 win on the part of LBJ to pull Alaska barely over the line in 1964, and since then, the sides have hardened. To me, Alaska is to the GOP as Rhode Island is to the Democratic Party - almost impenetrable. But the polling margins, according to the ageless principle that "a rising tide lifts all boats", will probably tell us without a doubt who the national winner is going to be.

I took so much time for this posting to show that the numbers don't lie, that the numbers, in conjuction with history and context, tell a story completely irrespective of party. All you have to do is to discern them.


AceRothstein nat4900 -S- Derideo_Te Mertex BluePhantom JoeB131 Nyvin Luddly Neddite CrusaderFrank Zander LoneLaugher

I tagged you all, from the Left, the middle and the Right - to see the numbers for yourselves.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

A Rubio ticket can't win in Colorado, Alaska or probably even Montana.

Of course it can. Don't be absurd. Alaska? Are you drunk?

Nevada is basically a Blue state anymore regardless.

Republicans just swept all state wide races here, took control of the General Assembly, and picked up a Congressional district this past election. It's hardly a blue state. It's a swing state and very much in play, but what do I know. I only live here. That's hardly as credible as your bias.

These western states don't like the feds fucking with their direct democracy. It isn't just about a few pot-smokers--it is about how these states have chosen to obtain their revenue. And Rubio has pledged to interfere with that.

Montana is a little different in that regard, but they don't like the feds being up in their business at all.

Nevada went Blue by a 6.5 point margin in the last presidential election, despite having a 11% Mormon population. In 2008 the spread was 12.5 points. In Presidential elections, it's a Blue state.

or how about plan B? Cruz/Martinez or Rubio/Martinez?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Rexx here thinks that Hispanics will vote for people who want to deport their relatives and repeal the ACA. Rexx fails to understand that normal people vote for their own best interests.

 

[Moonglow]

A Possibility?, Cruz/Rubio Or Rubio/Cruz Ticket.


only if it's a speeding ticket..

 

[Moonglow]

We still have a year before anything serious happens......

 

[Rexx Taylor]

We still have a year before anything serious happens......

I am still predicting Cruz, we just have to wait and see which VP will help him take out the Hillary/Bozo the clown ticket.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Cruz is too divisive to get elected

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"A Possibility?, Cruz/Rubio Or Rubio/Cruz Ticket."

Democrats certainly hope it's a possibility.

 

[Ernie S.]

Any GOP ticket will take Alaska and no one in Nevada is betting on hillary winning there.

Hillary can absolutely win Nevada. The state will very much be in play next year.

Not a fucking chance.

Here are Nevada 2014 election results. Dingy Harry would have lost had he run.

The turn out in that election was much lower than in a presidential year.

And? Or are you saying that democrats are only motivated to vote once every 4 years?