FL-Mason Dixon: Rubio & Bush with leads against Hillary

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This doesn't really conflict with Hillary's odds. As I said, there are GOP candidates with the potential to flip one swing state but there's no reasonable path to 270 for any of them individually. Bush and Rubio are strong in FL but weak everywhere else.

No reasonable (i.e. realistic) path for any of them? Are you serious? All a republican needs is Romney '12 (206) + FL (235) (run rubio/bush) + OH (253) (put Kasich on the ticket) + CO (262) + IA (268) (Polling shows that Clinton is significantly weaker from the start in CO than Obama and slightly weaker from the start in IA, and IA electing Ernst COMFORTABLY last year showed that it has no problems with republicans in the post-Obama Era), and then making the uphill climb in ONE of NH/NV/VA/WI/PA/MI/MN/NM.

The answer is nothing, especially since democrats will likely be spending huge sums on states that they probably can't win (GA, AZ, MO) in some stupid belief that they're competitive when they're not (After 2008/2014, I am not believing the whole "we can win GA!" thing, provided Cruz isn't on the ticket, until I see some close results. Everyone (including myself at times) screamed about Deal/Perdue/McCain being in danger of losing GA, and all won (somewhat) comfortably. So, I'm done believing GA is competitive, and if that's not winnable, then neither is AZ or MO), significantly reducing the amount of money spent in swing states by democrats from the 2012 total. Republicans won't fall for the farce and will rightfully ignore GA, AZ, MO, saving that money for the actual swing states.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No reasonable (i.e. realistic) path for any of them? Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. The fact that you could lay out how right I am so clearly and then ask if I'm serious just shows you're delusional and thinking on emotion.

The scenario you laid out is one of slight chance to get 268 provided they nominate Bush (and he can defend his homestate), select Kasich as VP (and that matters in OH), and Iowa's turnout is midterm level low (Iowa elected Branstad solidly in 2010, but voted solidly D in 2012 anyway; Ernst is irrelevant) and then the "uphill battle begins."  Why don't they just abandon all that and try to win California? It would require them having to convince just as many swing voters. Equally possible scenario you're mapping out.

Having a chance of having a chance of having a chance is not having a chance. It's wishful thinking.

I listed many possibilities for the final state, and all of them are far less Atlas Red than CA. Ernst is not irrelevant. Plus you ignored half my post and acted like I said the scenario would only work for bush when I mentioned Rubio as well.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No reasonable (i.e. realistic) path for any of them? Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. The fact that you could lay out how right I am so clearly and then ask if I'm serious just shows you're delusional and thinking on emotion.

The scenario you laid out is one of slight chance to get 268 provided they nominate Bush (and he can defend his homestate), select Kasich as VP (and that matters in OH), and Iowa's turnout is midterm level low (Iowa elected Branstad solidly in 2010, but voted solidly D in 2012 anyway; Ernst is irrelevant) and then the "uphill battle begins."  Why don't they just abandon all that and try to win California? It would require them having to convince just as many swing voters. Equally possible scenario you're mapping out.

Having a chance of having a chance of having a chance is not having a chance. It's wishful thinking.

I listed many possibilities for the final state, and all of them are far less Atlas Red than CA. Ernst is not irrelevant. Plus you ignored half my post and acted like I said the scenario would only work for bush when I mentioned Rubio as well.

Your Irrelevant rambling about Georgia was Irrelevant with a capital I, which is why I ignored it. Ernst is absolutely irrelevant. Branstad won by just as much of a landslide in 2010 and Iowa was just as solid D in 2012 as it was in 2008.

And again, even if FL, OH, and IA all happen, it's just 268. You laid out a minor possibility that Rubio/Kasich or Bush/Kasich would get to 268 provided everything broke their way. Congratulations! You lost the election!

Every state you listed NH/NV/VA/WI/PA/MI/MN/NM is completely out of reach of a Rubio/Kasich or Bush/Kasich ticket. I say that with 100% confidence. That is the objective position. Anyone who thinks Jeb Bush can win a state George W. Bush could not win in 2004 is a hack. Bush 2004 was the peak of GOP minority outreach and Evangelical base turnout model--the peak. It's not getting better than that.

This shrinks it down to just NV/VA/NM for the 270 combo.  NV, NM, and VA are trending Democrat solidly. NV and NM were uncontested in 2012. National Republican rhetoric speaks nothing to the changing population here. The only hope would a Sandoval/Martinez VP spot, but that again ruins your idea of using Kasich to snab Ohio, putting the GOP in an even greater hole.  Virginia? It elected Democrats in a midterm electorate that was solidly Republican. You cannot describe a more perfect Clinton state.

The more I talk about this, the more I am embarrassed I am given Hillary only a 99% chance of beating Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. I really should just go all in at 100%. There's no objective path to victory here. None.

- If 2014 showed anything, it's that Democrats are really bad at realizing when a state is lost. They threw HUGE sums of money at AR, LA, and KY in the FINAL WEEKS, only to watch republicans win in a landslide. Sure, there were a few misleading polls, but it was still easy to see in the final weeks that those three were not winnable, yet democrats didn't cut their spending there at all. Had they diverted that money to NC and AK, Begich/Hagan likely would have won, making the senate easier to take back in 2016. Given that the official 2014 democratic autopsy was literally just "low turnout made us lose" and nothing else, we'll see this trend continue in 2016. Democrats will spend LESS in swing states then they did in 2012 because they will spend huge sums in unwinnable GA/AZ/MO, which will be a net plus to republicans.

- I not only think this path can be pulled off by a Bush/Kasich or Rubio/Kasich ticket, that merely makes it as easy as possible. Bush/Rubio/Kasich/Paul/maybe Walker are all perfectly capable of it with a sane, non-toxic running mate, and the odds that the nominee will be one of those five are (in my viewpoint) about 60%.

- GWB won NH in 2000, and in 2004 he only lost it because Kerry was a northeastern candidate. He would have won it in 2004 against a generic democrat. All of the states I listed are states that Bush either won or got within 5 points in in 2004. Bush 2004 may represent an absolute peak in terms of minority support, but it's worth noting that Romney actually outperformed Bush by about two points (nationally) in the white vote. This makes WI, at least, look pretty flippable - In WI, Bush lost by only about 11,000, so you need a switch of roughly 5,500 votes to win. You take his numbers and add in a little more of the white vote, and you get that needed 5,500.

- PA, if anything, is getting more white, not less, meaning it probably isn't permanent fools' gold for republicans. Although I do admit I would be surprised if this was the state that got them over 270. ( I expect it to be WI, NH or VA (assuming Republicans win in 2016, and even I have them more likely than not to lose at this point (against Hillary), I just think the chances of them winning are a lot higher than 1-2%).

- Branstad's race was a governor's race. Voters are a lot less partisan when voting for governors (just look at all the blue/lean-blue state governorships republicans currently hold) then they are when voting for Senators and Presidents, so I don't use governors races for presidential analysis. Ernst's was a senate race. Ernst (unlike Branstad) is the defintion of a far-right conservative, and was expected to only win narrowly. She ended up winning comfortably. (It's worth noting that her margin was actually bigger than Obama's 2012 margin) Her race showed that IA is perfectly winnable by both sides, and doesn't have a blue tint at the start. Keep in mind that IA bordered Obama's home state, an asset that Hillary won't have.

- On VA, even IceSpear admits that Warner's tiny win is a bad sign. Warner was expected to easily dispatch Gillespie by about 10 points. NO ONE expected Gillespie to get within a point of winning. NO ONE DID. NOT EVEN CRAZY REPUBLICAN OPERATIVES. Warner was actually popular in terms of approval ratings around last year's election, and he still almost lost. The fact that almost any other democrat would have lost, and the fact that Gillespie got so close, and the fact that Warner would have lost had republicans just thrown a few more dollars into the state (or nominated Bill Bolling/Scott Rigell/Barbara Comstock), just shows how competitive VA is. It will be a hotly contested swing state in 2016.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

''An exclusive Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9 poll of likely voters along the Interstate 4 corridor finds Romney leading Obama 51 percent to 45 percent, with 4 percent undecided.

“Romney has pretty much nailed down Florida,” said Brad Coker of Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, which conducted the poll for the Times and its media partners. “Unless something dramatically changes — an October surprise, a major gaffe — Romney’s going to win Florida.''

LOL

Wasn't also Suffolk who stopped polling Florida and Virginia a month before the election because they were gimmes for Romney?

Yes.

@Bedstuy: Monarch said that VA was a perfect Clinton state, which is saying it won't be a (presidential) swing state in 2016. Point taken on PA.

@Monarch: I'm not saying (again) that republicans are, at this time, favored to win in 2016. I do not currently expect them to win in 2016. I'm just illustrating why I believe that the chances of them winning are higher than 1 or 2%. Since neither of us are committing to an approximate democratic margin of victory at this point, Democrats winning in 2016 doesn't prove either of us wrong. Also, a rebuttal to my fifth and sixth paragraphs were completely unaddressed by you in previous posting. I fully explained why Branstad's race can't be used for presidential predicting and Ernst's can, to which your rebuttal seems to be "I'm right because I'm right". Great debating. My sixth paragraph explained why 2014 showed that VA is a swing state, and 2014 was what you cited as why you believe VA is a "perfect Clinton state". Again, you seem to have no rebuttal except "I'm right because I'm right".

Anyways, I think we've taken over this thread enough. If you (still) want to have an honest debate on this, PM me and I'll be happy to oblige on that medium. If you're just going to post short, pointless "I'm right because I'm right" sort of things or are tired of this, then let's just agree to disagree.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hillary running a bad campaign likely won't happen because Obama's people are now behind her for 2016.

Even if she did, it likely wouldn't matter because nothing the GOP is showing suggests they are going to run a good campaign.

Hillary having early support from Obama surrogates doesn't affect whether she runs a good campaign. At the end of the day, it's the candidate choosing what they want to say in an ad or in a rally, and no one can stop Hillary from saying something toxic should she decide to do so.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hillary running a bad campaign likely won't happen because Obama's people are now behind her for 2016.

Even if she did, it likely wouldn't matter because nothing the GOP is showing suggests they are going to run a good campaign.

Hillary having early support from Obama surrogates doesn't affect whether she runs a good campaign. At the end of the day, it's the candidate choosing what they want to say in an ad or in a rally, and no one can stop Hillary from saying something toxic should she decide to do so.

Nothing Hillary said last time would have lost her the nomination or the general if Obama had never been born.

The fact that she ran a fairly good campaign in 2008 does not necessarily mean she will run a good one in 2016, especially considering that Hillary has been off the trail for 7 years. The democrats are hoping that a couple debates with O'Malley are all she needs to prepare to run a good GE campaign, but there's no way of knowing if that's true.