Clinton vs Cruz (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 05, 2024, 06:36:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Clinton vs Cruz (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Clinton vs Cruz  (Read 3926 times)
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« on: November 16, 2015, 12:59:01 PM »



I think states like NH would be completely out of the picture for Cruz. He would get destroyed in northern suburbs and even possibly lose states like Montana without a huge evangelical population. Georgia would be close but it is inelastic and helps GOP for now.


Wrong. Cruz carries MT, AZ MO and IN and probably NC. I dont see him doing worse than Romney
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2015, 01:02:38 PM »

Cruz would not lose Montana, and I think even Arizona and Missouri are a stretch.

A lot of conventional wisdom is that moderates win more votes than candidates on the extremes. But there is no evidence for that. 1964 and 1972 are the elections that pundits like to point to but they were 52 and 44 years ago when over 20% of the electorate was up for grabs. Today it is 5-10% at best.

A 1964 or 1972 rout woudnt happen today. Karl Rove said even George McGovern in 2008 would have had a good chance of winning.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2015, 01:05:26 PM »

Same as 2012, slightly bigger Democratic margin of victory in the popular vote.

Nope...wont happen. There is no example of a party going for its third straight electoral victory where they get MORE popular votes. Even FDR in 1940 got fewer votes than in 1936.

2016 will be closer than 2012 REGARDLESS of the candidates. I think based on unemployment that 2016 is a close DEM win. About 1-2 points less than 2012.


Most people dont know who Ted Cruz is. The problem with Atlas is you think people pay attention to candidates like you do, they dont.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2015, 09:45:42 PM »

I think the Rs here are discounting the idea of Cruz becoming toxic like Akin, Mourdock at the national level. When Clinton points out his strategy to get his away is to whine and shut down the government, he will have little response that resonates. GOP can still lose ground with educated whites, hence why NC would flip.

Cruz wouldnt say anything as stupid as Akin and Mourdock. Lawrence Tribe at Harvard said Cruz was his best and brightest student.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2015, 09:47:18 PM »

Same as 2012, slightly bigger Democratic margin of victory in the popular vote.

Nope...wont happen. There is no example of a party going for its third straight electoral victory where they get MORE popular votes. Even FDR in 1940 got fewer votes than in 1936.

Remember before the 2012 election, how people were saying it'd been a century since the last time a president had been re-elected with fewer EVs than their first election?

Yeah, claiming that a 3rd+ consecutive win with more votes is some kind of mathematical impossibility is baloney.  Hoover already accomplished this in 1928 (in percentage of the PV, but not in margin).  Teddy in 1904 did better than either of McKinley's wins in both PV percentage and margin.  Taft (4th GOP term) also did better than either of McKinley's wins in margin.  Finally, Grant's 1876 reelection was for a 4th GOP term and the strongest of 6 consecutive GOP wins.

Sorry not in 1929 when you look at the two party vote only. The GOP in 1928 got a smaller % of the two party vote in 1928 than in 1924.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2015, 09:48:33 PM »


Id love to know who in GA voted for Romney will vote for Clinton?Huh Based on the map it would be hundreds of thousands
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2015, 10:00:41 PM »

So Clinton would probably be favored, but can anyone come up with a scenario where Cruz wins, without a strong third-party presence or Clinton imploding or being indicted?

With 4.5% unemployment does any GOP candidate win? In the end, the PV difference between the worst and best GOP candidate is probably 2% at most.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2015, 10:08:39 PM »

Cruz is criminally underrated as a GE candidate. He's the most articulate person currently running, probably the smartest, and arguably the best debater. As for his views, he's not the radical that some have made him out to be. He's a generic movement conservative. I'm not suggesting that he's the right candidate to beat Clinton, but the idea that he would get 1964'd by her is a joke.

Most people who talk about 1964 dont realize what brought about 1964. They are just drooling liberals who dont bother to do any real analysis.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2015, 10:13:50 PM »


No way Cruz loses GA. Tell me who voted Romney who votes Clinton in 2016? Youre talking over 125k votes have to switch and that ignores the fact both McCain and Romney supressed the conservative vote in GA versus Bush in 2004.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2015, 03:46:14 PM »

Clinton would win with Obama 2008 numbers and slightly bigger if Cruz went really extreme.

Clinton 54%
Cruz 46%

and when Cruz destroys Hillary in the debates?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 13 queries.