“What Republican can win 270 electoral votes in 2016?”

[Toro]

[Reagan] followed the Constitution, something you wouldn't understand.

Iran-Contra Affair

Reagan administration scandals

Conservatives are engaging in mythology and confirmation bias.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Smart thread, it's all about EV's. Someone in the party had better be thinking about a couple of things:

First, it would be foolish for people in the party to think that they're going to win in a walk because of what they perceive to be the Democrats' failures and/or weaknesses. The GOP's reputation right now is not exactly sterling, either. The stench of Palin and friends isn't gone from the noses of moderates and independents. And let's not pretend the electorate doesn't see all the party sniping and in-fighting.

Second, while I agree that moderates/independents are important, how is the party going to get its whole base out when it's essentially two parties right now? Would the libertarians get out and vote for Christie? Would the mainstream Republicans get out and vote for Paul? That's a reasonable couple of questions, and they'd better think that through before they start measuring the Oval Office for drapes.

The party had better decide what the hell it is before it starts assuming anything.

.

 

[Toro]

I don't think any Republican is interested in advice from mindless, welfare-loving liberals like the ones on this forum.

The OP is a Republican.

 

[Toro]

Here's what the Republican OP writes. It's called "math."

For instance, let’s look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it’s coveted “battleground” status as polls begin to show its “blue” reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.

Or take Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, and New York, with 29—both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and blue they will remain.

Then there’s the mega-rich electoral state of California with its 55 votes that turned red for the last time in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won that “California guy” Reagan’s “third term.”

After totaling the electoral votes in all the terminally blue states, an inconvenient math emerges, providing even a below average Democrat presidential candidate a potential starting advantage of 246. Here are the states and their votes:

CA (55), NY (29), PA (20), IL (20), MI (16), NJ (14), WA (12), MA (11), MN (10), WI (10), MD (10), CT (7), OR (7), HI (4), ME (4), NH (4), RT (4), VT (3), DE (3), DC (3).

Let me repeat, if only for the shock value: 246 votes out of 270 is 91 percent. That means the Democrat candidate needs to win only 24 more votes out of the remaining 292. (There are a total of 538 electoral votes.)

 

[Mac1958]

Here's what the Republican OP writes. It's called "math."

For instance, let’s look at Wisconsin, with its 10 electoral votes. Every four years the Republican mindset says Wisconsin will be a swing state. Then, a few months into the campaign the state loses it’s coveted “battleground” status as polls begin to show its “blue” reality. The truth is that not since 1984, when Reagan won in a landslide against Walter Mondale, has Wisconsin seen red.

Or take Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes, and New York, with 29—both have been blue since Bill Clinton won them in 1992, and blue they will remain.

Then there’s the mega-rich electoral state of California with its 55 votes that turned red for the last time in 1988 when George H.W. Bush won that “California guy” Reagan’s “third term.”

After totaling the electoral votes in all the terminally blue states, an inconvenient math emerges, providing even a below average Democrat presidential candidate a potential starting advantage of 246. Here are the states and their votes:

CA (55), NY (29), PA (20), IL (20), MI (16), NJ (14), WA (12), MA (11), MN (10), WI (10), MD (10), CT (7), OR (7), HI (4), ME (4), NH (4), RT (4), VT (3), DE (3), DC (3).

Let me repeat, if only for the shock value: 246 votes out of 270 is 91 percent. That means the Democrat candidate needs to win only 24 more votes out of the remaining 292. (There are a total of 538 electoral votes.)

Yeah, as someone who loves a good spreadsheet, it's tough to argue much with this data. Not quite sold on PA though.

I'm lousy at predicting political stuff, but it seems to me that the GOP needs the person who has the best chance of breaking into the "terminally blue" states, and Christie's the only guy right how who could possibly do that. Could a red-meat Republican? I don't see how.

.

 

[S.J.]

[Reagan] followed the Constitution, something you wouldn't understand.

Iran-Contra Affair

Reagan administration scandals

Conservatives are engaging in mythology and confirmation bias.

No laws were violated in Iran/Contra. The Boland Amendment prohibited the CIA from funding the Contras, not the NSA. The Democrats couldn't beat Reagan at the ballot box so they engaged in many witch hunts, this being one of them.

 

[JoeB131]

[
He appointed S.C. justices based on qualifications, not litmus tests like Democrats do. He followed the Constitution, something you wouldn't understand..

Constitution doesn't say anything about "qualifications", and frankly, Sandra Day O'Conner was purely an "Affirmative Action" appointment. She also had a vagina, which is why you guys didn't get Roe v. Wade overturned. Kennedy was appointed because the knuckle-dragging idiot that Reagan tried to appoint- Robert Batshit Crazy Bork - was rejected by even Republicans as being too nuts.

[Gave amnesty, yes, with an agreement to strengthen the borders, which Democrats have undermined ever since..

You can't strengthen the borders enough to keep people out as long as there is something they want on the other side. What Reagan did that was really stupid was making verifying citizenship the job of the businesses, which is like having the foxes watch the henhouse.

[Reluctantly agreed to let Congress raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco (sin taxes), not income as part of a deal to cut spending 2 to 1. The Democrats raised the taxes, then refused to honor their commitment to cut spending (like they always do). Reagan's biggest mistake as President was believing Democrats were honorable people and would keep their word about anything..

No, a lot of government programs were slashed under Reagan. What didn't happen was the "We are going to grow our way out of deficits" shit you Supply SIders always spew and never happens. Then the S&L's collapsed, and they had to raise taxes to save them.

[You're right about government expanding under Reagan (as it has with ALL presidents)..

But you have to ask is, WHY. Why do we never shrink government, even when the GOP controls all the levers? (doubt SJ will hit enlightenment on this one.)

[It was Reagan's policies that brought down the Soviet Empire, even Bush 41 acknowledges that. As I said, you don't know wtf you're talking about.

Reagan had nothing to do with bringing down the USSR. In fact, the CIA was still publishing factbooks calling the USSR a threat all the way to 1991, when those "Kremlin Power Games" started getting serious.

The USSR fell because 150 Million Russians could no longer control 300 million Not Russians. The same reason ALL empires fall, eventually. People no longer see a benefit in them, either the rulers or the ruled.

Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as Ringo Starr had to do with the success of the Beatles.

 

[S.J.]

[
He appointed S.C. justices based on qualifications, not litmus tests like Democrats do. He followed the Constitution, something you wouldn't understand..

Constitution doesn't say anything about "qualifications", and frankly, Sandra Day O'Conner was purely an "Affirmative Action" appointment. She also had a vagina, which is why you guys didn't get Roe v. Wade overturned. Kennedy was appointed because the knuckle-dragging idiot that Reagan tried to appoint- Robert Batshit Crazy Bork - was rejected by even Republicans as being too nuts.

[Gave amnesty, yes, with an agreement to strengthen the borders, which Democrats have undermined ever since..

You can't strengthen the borders enough to keep people out as long as there is something they want on the other side. What Reagan did that was really stupid was making verifying citizenship the job of the businesses, which is like having the foxes watch the henhouse.



No, a lot of government programs were slashed under Reagan. What didn't happen was the "We are going to grow our way out of deficits" shit you Supply SIders always spew and never happens. Then the S&L's collapsed, and they had to raise taxes to save them.

[You're right about government expanding under Reagan (as it has with ALL presidents)..

But you have to ask is, WHY. Why do we never shrink government, even when the GOP controls all the levers? (doubt SJ will hit enlightenment on this one.)

[It was Reagan's policies that brought down the Soviet Empire, even Bush 41 acknowledges that. As I said, you don't know wtf you're talking about.

Reagan had nothing to do with bringing down the USSR. In fact, the CIA was still publishing factbooks calling the USSR a threat all the way to 1991, when those "Kremlin Power Games" started getting serious.

The USSR fell because 150 Million Russians could no longer control 300 million Not Russians. The same reason ALL empires fall, eventually. People no longer see a benefit in them, either the rulers or the ruled.

Reagan had as much to do with the fall of the USSR as Ringo Starr had to do with the success of the Beatles.

How much time did you spend on that post, dude? I would go through it and address each one of your ridiculous claims but frankly, I see no point in spending that much time arguing with an idiot. I'll just let you bask in your blissful ignorance.

 

[whitehall]

Anybody could beat the democrat party choices so far. We have a clinically brain damaged V.P. who can't put a sentence together without putting his foot in his mouth or a very angry and abused woman who spent her entire pathetic adult life covering for her husband's affairs in exchange for a crumb of political power.

 

[rightwinger]

How can Republicans get to 270 electoral votes?

1 Change how electoral college votes are allocated in blue states and keep red states winner take all

2. Obstruct voting in blue districts. Strict voter ID, limit the number of polling places and polling hours

3 Defend Citizen United.

 

[Mac1958]

Anybody could beat the democrat party choices so far. We have a clinically brain damaged V.P. who can't put a sentence together without putting his foot in his mouth or a very angry and abused woman who spent her entire pathetic adult life covering for her husband's affairs in exchange for a crumb of political power.

This reminds me of all those posts predicting an easy Romney victory in 2012.

The problem is, the election doesn't go to the person you think should win based on your clear political biases. It goes to the person with the most electoral votes.

I kept saying that in 2012, too.

.

 

[Katzndogz]

The next presidential election will be all about the democrats. How much is obama despised? How much the publuc wants to punish the democrats for it?

There are three more years for obama to fuck up. Another one or two major ones like Syria and nothing will be able to save them. What are the odds that obama will get through the next three years smoothly?

 

[rightwinger]

The next presidential election will be all about the democrats. How much is obama despised? How much the publuc wants to punish the democrats for it?

There are three more years for obama to fuck up. Another one or two major ones like Syria and nothing will be able to save them. What are the odds that obama will get through the next three years smoothly?

That is what you ran on in 2012. Didn't work then won't work in 2016

 

[LoneLaugher]

Anybody could beat the democrat party choices so far. We have a clinically brain damaged V.P. who can't put a sentence together without putting his foot in his mouth or a very angry and abused woman who spent her entire pathetic adult life covering for her husband's affairs in exchange for a crumb of political power.

This reminds me of all those posts predicting an easy Romney victory in 2012.

The problem is, the election doesn't go to the person you think should win based on your clear political biases. It goes to the person with the most electoral votes.

I kept saying that in 2012, too.

.

Brilliant! 100% accurate.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Anybody could beat the democrat party choices so far. We have a clinically brain damaged V.P. who can't put a sentence together without putting his foot in his mouth or a very angry and abused woman who spent her entire pathetic adult life covering for her husband's affairs in exchange for a crumb of political power.

Anybody?

You should run that person. Might have a fighting chance. Or..if it does not matter, run Mitt....or McCain....or Cain.....or Perry...or Santorum....or Trump...or Bachmann....or Perry....or Palin.....or Jindal.....or Jeb.....or Gingrich....or ?..

Anybody! Yeah!

 

[Katzndogz]

The next presidential election will be all about the democrats. How much is obama despised? How much the publuc wants to punish the democrats for it?

There are three more years for obama to fuck up. Another one or two major ones like Syria and nothing will be able to save them. What are the odds that obama will get through the next three years smoothly?

That is what you ran on in 2012. Didn't work then won't work in 2016

In 2012 obama could still claim he was ending wars. The media was entirely in his lap. The media is starting to break ranks and no one knows what is going to happen in the middle east in three years.

In 2012 no one knew how bad obamacare would really be.

See how the mid terms go. See if obama gets pantsed.

 

[Toro]

[Reagan] followed the Constitution, something you wouldn't understand.

Iran-Contra Affair

Reagan administration scandals

Conservatives are engaging in mythology and confirmation bias.

No laws were violated in Iran/Contra. The Boland Amendment prohibited the CIA from funding the Contras, not the NSA. The Democrats couldn't beat Reagan at the ballot box so they engaged in many witch hunts, this being one of them.

fourteen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.

Fail.

You are engaging in confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

.

Smart thread, it's all about EV's. Someone in the party had better be thinking about a couple of things:

First, it would be foolish for people in the party to think that they're going to win in a walk because of what they perceive to be the Democrats' failures and/or weaknesses. The GOP's reputation right now is not exactly sterling, either. The stench of Palin and friends isn't gone from the noses of moderates and independents. And let's not pretend the electorate doesn't see all the party sniping and in-fighting.

Second, while I agree that moderates/independents are important, how is the party going to get its whole base out when it's essentially two parties right now? Would the libertarians get out and vote for Christie? Would the mainstream Republicans get out and vote for Paul? That's a reasonable couple of questions, and they'd better think that through before they start measuring the Oval Office for drapes.

The party had better decide what the hell it is before it starts assuming anything.
.

I don't know whether libertarians would vote for Christie, but there numbers are small so that is less important whether the mainstream Republicans would vote for Paul. I think so, unless he does some really dumb things.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[Reagan] followed the Constitution, something you wouldn't understand.

Iran-Contra Affair

Reagan administration scandals

Conservatives are engaging in mythology and confirmation bias.

No laws were violated in Iran/Contra. The Boland Amendment prohibited the CIA from funding the Contras, not the NSA. The Democrats couldn't beat Reagan at the ballot box so they engaged in many witch hunts, this being one of them.

Yup, laws were broken by fraudulent intent in the NSA to circumvent Boland.

Iran-Contra was an impeachable offense that Reagan dodged.

The hundreds of officers and thousands of NCOs that left the military soon after were motivated by RR's willingness to give munitions to folks who would shoot them back at our troops.

The results: Iran still hates our guts, and Daniel Ortega is Nicaragua's leader even today long after RR shuffled off this mortal coil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Listen up far right reactionaries!

Obama is not running again, OK? Check your hate at the door. He kicked your asses, OK?

Christie can beat Hillary, not one of the far right reactionaries or libertarian.