Talk Elections

In 2032 after 12 years of Republican domination, the Republicans nominate a incumbent Vice President, a Californian, heavy on Resume and experience, and a Alabama Congressman to be the party's Vice Presidential nominee. The Democrats nominate, a three term Senator from Ohio, who had been the Party's Vice Presidential nominee eight years previously. The Democrats go with a former Californian Congressman, Labor Secretary and Governor, to run for Vice President. The Election is a hard fought contest, the result is a close one.
Here's my map.
()
283
255

()

271
267

or
()
296
242

Four years later, shades of 2020 and 1980, there is much discontent over the Democrats stewardship on the twin pivotal issues of the economy and foreign policy, the Democrats stick with their ticket of 2032, the Republicans nominate as there standard bearer, the former Governor of Texas, who had once served in the House and Senate, before stints as Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State, the one downside, is that being 72 years old could be viewed as a handicap. nontheless, with the issues on his side, the Republican wins a decisive and lopsided victory.
()
401
137
or
()
446
92
or
()
441
97

Made some changes to the EVC...

()

Election What-Ifs, bud.

This thread hasn't moved,  so I'm not worried dude☺

California never becomes a red state.

it depends, most likely not. But a coalition of white and asians against the hispanic tyranny could move it to the GOP.

Well that won't happen instantly if it were too happen. Hispanics are still the key voting block in that state even though Asians are the fastest growing voter block in the state right now.

I don't know if the GOP could make progress in making inroads on the Asian Vote in CA since most Asians live on the coast and not inland. The coast is very left-leaning from my understanding.

This is interesting to think about. If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, I am predicting a Sanders/Chafee ticket. O'Malley may be closer to Sanders ideologically, but he has run negative attacks against the Senator, and is therefore not a likely candidate for the position. Jim Webb has neither the charisma, youth, nor perceived progressivism needed to energize the ticket. Chafee will fade into obscurity if he doesn't make it onto the general election ballot next year, however if he does, his career is not over, and he will be remembered even in 2032. If the Sanders/Chafee ticket wins in 2016, I predict a two-term presidency bringing the country through the next eight years to 2024, and Chafee, having come into office as VP at 63, will be 71 come 2024. If he decides to run for the Presidency, and wins and serves two terms, the 71-year old will leave office in January 2033, aged 79, and bringing us up to the time period you discuss. That is my prediction. It appears to me that, without a miracle, George W. Bush will remain the last Republican President and the Democrats will be the Party leading the country through the next 18 years.

Just a thought.

Chafee won't be anyone's running mate. He's not that good at debates or public speaking, unless it's something he's truly passionate about (like national service). Big crowds give him nerves. And he personally dislikes the ceremonial stuff, which is a lot of what the VP is.

Blue,
Your point is taken. You are from Rhode Island, and would know better than I. Is Chafee progressive enough for you? His party-switch doesn't bother me at all. I am from Florida and worked on the Charlie Crist gubernatorial campaign last year. Crist was also hammered for switching from Republican to Independent to Democratic, and that is one of the reasons he lost. For those of us who pay attention, however, it is clear that Crist (a moderate Republican) had no place in the GOP after the Tea Party took over, and the same appears true of Chafee.

Funny how Republicans so often want the south to swing away from them because its politicians routinely embarrass the party.

I'm sure that a lot of northern liberal Democrats in the new deal era felt the same way.

Everyone feels that way about Southern politicians in all eras.  I guess the parties shouldn't throw stones at each other, knowing they could be right back where they previously were in the past. ;)

I'm not too worried.

Neither were Northern Republicans in the '50s.  Twenty years is an eternity in politics.

It was obviously hyperbole, but the dominant party in the South tends to produce some real extremists who just embarrass the party.

It also seems like a constant in the deep south to have corrupt one party rule. Alabama and Mississippi have to some extent reverted to historical tradition in that respect it's just that it's now with the opposite party, granted there's a few more southern Democrats now then there were southern Republicans from post-reconstruction to the 1950s.

I'd definitely say Chafee is progressive. There's still a few issues that he's conservative on, but overall he's more liberal than most Democrats. I like him. I voted for him for Governor, and would again. I just can't see him as President or VP.