2016 Election Prediction Thread

[Statistikhengst]

So who will the gop run? romney again?

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

Eddie Munster did Romney no favors.

Yeah but I doubt another candidate would have delivered their home state that mattered...ergo a purple state

Wisconsin is a quirky state in electoral politics.

Most don't remember, but Wisconsin is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential level since 1992 (The Clinton Revolution), it is a 7-for-7 DEM state. It is one of the 11 "states" that Dukakis (D) won in 1988. And Obama's landslides in both Michigan and Wisconsin in 2008 (around +16.5% in both states) are two of the unsung landslides of that year.

Minnesota is also quirky in prez politics.

Most don't remember, but Minnesota is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential, level, it is a 10-for-10 DEM state. And back to 1960, it is a 13-for-14 DEM state. It is the only state that Ronald Reagan failed to carry either time. Minnesota is to Republicans as Arizona is to Democrats: like the girl who invites you to the party and then drops you once you get there. LOL.

In 2012, Obama won Wisconsin with a solid +7 and Minnesota with a solid +8. Romney's margin in Georgia lies between those two (+7.7), and no one thought that GA was a battleground in 2012. So, we see how perception and reality can often be very two different things. +7 is way outside of the battleground statistics.

There are plenty of places where a GOP candidate could pick a VP nominee from a purple state, but Wisconsin and Minnesota are two states that I would not necessarily recommend.

Were I a GOP nominee (lol), I would pick a VP nominee from either Ohio or Iowa.

Romney also picked Paul Ryan way too early. It gave the public way too much time to see what a doofus he really was.

 

[The Rabbi]

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

McCain thought he could trump the Dem advantage with women by nominating one as VP. It backfired big time. But honestly, there was no way that he could dig himself out of the hole that GW Bush has dug for him. The famous quote "Its the economy Stupid!' never rang so true. Now, as we approach 2016, the recovery is picking up steam....much to the chagrin of the GOP leaders.

Thats why the Dems cleaned up in the last election, right?

Another idiotic post by you. Somehow, according to you, the Dems won in 2012 due to voter fraud:

Palin wasnt running for president. And if not for voter fraud Mitt would probably be president.

How in the world did they lose in 2014 when they were so good at supposed cheating just two years earlier? Did they forget how?

Shut the fuck up...you obviously have zero knowledge of politics.

More bullshit from Tiny, The Asian Fairy.
Dems won by voter fraud in key states among key inner city areas. With Obama off the ballot that was much harder. Plus people are on to them.
The rest of your post is the usual crap spewing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

Eddie Munster did Romney no favors.

Yeah but I doubt another candidate would have delivered their home state that mattered...ergo a purple state

Wisconsin is a quirky state in electoral politics.

Most don't remember, but Wisconsin is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential level since 1992 (The Clinton Revolution), it is a 7-for-7 DEM state. It is one of the 11 "states" that Dukakis (D) won in 1988. And Obama's landslides in both Michigan and Wisconsin in 2008 (around +16.5% in both states) are two of the unsung landslides of that year.

Minnesota is also quirky in prez politics.

Most don't remember, but Minnesota is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential, level, it is a 10-for-10 DEM state. And back to 1960, it is a 13-for-14 DEM state. It is the only state that Ronald Reagan failed to carry either time. Minnesota is to Republicans as Arizona is to Democrats: like the girl who invites you to the party and then drops you once you get there. LOL.

In 2012, Obama won Wisconsin with a solid +7 and Minnesota with a solid +8. Romney's margin in Georgia lies between those two (+7.7), and no one thought that GA was a battleground in 2012. So, we see how perception and reality can often be very two different things. +7 is way outside of the battleground statistics.

There are plenty of places where a GOP candidate could pick a VP nominee from a purple state, but Wisconsin and Minnesota are two states that I would not necessarily recommend.

Were I a GOP nominee (lol), I would pick a VP nominee from either Ohio or Iowa.

Romney also picked Paul Ryan way too early. It gave the public way too much time to see what a doofus he really was.

People in Wisconsin have seen first hand what a failure socialism is, and how successful the free market is. Perhaps that will make them more receptive to a GOP candidate.

 

[JWBooth]

All predictions for the 2016 election go here.

I'll start.

John kasich WI'll be the next president in 2016.

 

[candycorn]

Whomever gets the most votes in the primaries obviously. The calendar (it's proposed at this point) is not conducive to an insurgency from the TEA party. They have a lot of winner-take-all primaries which are designed to nominate a standard-bearer quickly.

That is a smart move by the national party. The danger is that you run a lightly vetted candidate. Not that they will be "unknown" but they wouldn't have been put through an electoral gauntlet of criss-crossing the country, having to 12-15 elections (the number of toss up states) at once, and of course no matter how much fellow republicans attack whomever gets the nominee, they will feel like flesh wounds compared to what the Democrats will throw at him.

I think the GOP nominee is Christie, Bush or someone in that mold. Anyone banking on Cruz or Rand Paul is probably someone who is thinking with their heart. Rubio is attempting to straddle the divide between the camps. Triangulation is something that Democrats reward more quickly than the GOP has in the past. In either case the danger with triangulation is that it is best done by someone whom the voters know is for real. If there is one question about Rubio that everyone asks is whether he is for real or not.

To recap what is going to happen:

Hillary wins the White House.
The Dems re-take the Senate
The House remains in GOP hands.

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

Eddie Munster did Romney no favors.

Yeah but I doubt another candidate would have delivered their home state that mattered...ergo a purple state

Wisconsin is a quirky state in electoral politics.

Most don't remember, but Wisconsin is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential level since 1992 (The Clinton Revolution), it is a 7-for-7 DEM state. It is one of the 11 "states" that Dukakis (D) won in 1988. And Obama's landslides in both Michigan and Wisconsin in 2008 (around +16.5% in both states) are two of the unsung landslides of that year.

Minnesota is also quirky in prez politics.

Most don't remember, but Minnesota is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential, level, it is a 10-for-10 DEM state. And back to 1960, it is a 13-for-14 DEM state. It is the only state that Ronald Reagan failed to carry either time. Minnesota is to Republicans as Arizona is to Democrats: like the girl who invites you to the party and then drops you once you get there. LOL.

In 2012, Obama won Wisconsin with a solid +7 and Minnesota with a solid +8. Romney's margin in Georgia lies between those two (+7.7), and no one thought that GA was a battleground in 2012. So, we see how perception and reality can often be very two different things. +7 is way outside of the battleground statistics.

There are plenty of places where a GOP candidate could pick a VP nominee from a purple state, but Wisconsin and Minnesota are two states that I would not necessarily recommend.

Were I a GOP nominee (lol), I would pick a VP nominee from either Ohio or Iowa.

Romney also picked Paul Ryan way too early. It gave the public way too much time to see what a doofus he really was.

On this, I agree. But if the narrative of making the other choice includes that if you pick X from Ohio or Y from Florida, you'll get the electoral votes from Ohio or Florida, that still leaves Romney (at best) 30+ electoral votes short. So it's a moot point. Still better to be closer than lose by more I suppose.

I really do not feel that a VP choice helps you as much as it can hurt you. As it went on, McCain was injured more and more by Palin who was totally off script and contradicting him at some points (and agreed with Obama in fact)

(PHILADELPHIA) Sarah Palin told a customer at a Philadelphia restaurant on Saturday that the United States should "absolutely" launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan in the event that it becomes necessary to "stop the terrorists from coming any further in," a comment similar to the one John McCain condemned Barack Obama for making during last night's presidential debate.

During Friday's debate, Obama criticized the Bush administration for sending billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan without ridding the border region of terrorists.

"If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out," Obama added.

McCain fired back hard, arguing that newly elected Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has had his "hands full" and suggesting that Obama's tough talk was naïve.

Palin Contradicts McCain On Pakistan Seems To Back Obama s Position - CBS News

So she wasn't helpful toward the end and the "energized" republicans were offset by the independents and moderates who had already saw what a moron she was from the Katy Couric interview where she couldn't name a magazine she read or a policy position of McCain's.

The only way you're really going to move the needle is to have the ego to pick someone of greater stature than yourself--imagine a Jimmy Carter (at the time when he was running) picking Tip O'Neil or Sam Ervin. Not going to happen. Or, if you come across the occasional "rock star" such as Colin Powell who probably would have been a great pick for Bush Sr. if he could have orchestrated a Quayle "step aside to spend more time with my family" caper. The map of the '92 election reveals a lot of light blue (and light red) districts:

Clinton won a lot of what we now call red states (GA, LA, WVa, KY, and MT). These are not enough to swing 102 votes but, then again, if Powell could have delivered the EVs from those states, it would be much more than what other VP candidates did.

What I think should happen sometime in the next 2-4 cycles of Presidential politics is you'll have a gal/guy (probably a gal) who announces and during the announcement (or soon thereafter), her VP is revealed. It just makes sense. The voters are more sophisticated than ever (what you see here not withstanding) and realize that the President is one person and she/he leads a team. So why not reveal the team? Also, it's more honest if you reveal your pick up front. Finally, there is mad upside to having a surrogate with heavyweight clout campaigning/fundraising in another part of the nation while you're trying to get the nomination. Could you imagine a head coach without any assistants trying to get her team to win? I'm not sure why it is taboo to suggest a candidate for President may need help with the undertaking of the toughest job in the world.

 

[JoeB131]

More bullshit from Tiny, The Asian Fairy.
Dems won by voter fraud in key states among key inner city areas. With Obama off the ballot that was much harder. Plus people are on to them.
The rest of your post is the usual crap spewing.

NO, what happened was that you had elections in places where Obama didn't win to start with, and those candidates got less votes than Romney did.

Here's that chart again.

State Candiate Total 2012 Romney
NC Tillis 1,413,269 2,275,853
CO Garner 965,496 1,125,391
LA Cassidy 602,439 1,152,460
IA Ernst 586,921 727,928
AR Cotton 476,309 644,784
WV Capito 280,123 412,406
MT Daines 210,863 264,974
SD Rounds 140,721 210,541
AK Sulivan 110,203 136,848

So the only thing you can say is your midterm voters were slightly less apathetic about candidates they really didn't know than Democrats were.

 

[JoeB131]

People in Wisconsin have seen first hand what a failure socialism is, and how successful the free market is. Perhaps that will make them more receptive to a GOP candidate.

Meh, not that Wisconsin ever had "Socialism", but old Walker isn't touching any of the popular programs.

 

[candycorn]

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

McCain thought he could trump the Dem advantage with women by nominating one as VP. It backfired big time. But honestly, there was no way that he could dig himself out of the hole that GW Bush has dug for him. The famous quote "Its the economy Stupid!' never rang so true. Now, as we approach 2016, the recovery is picking up steam....much to the chagrin of the GOP leaders.

Thats why the Dems cleaned up in the last election, right?

Another idiotic post by you. Somehow, according to you, the Dems won in 2012 due to voter fraud:

Palin wasnt running for president. And if not for voter fraud Mitt would probably be president.

How in the world did they lose in 2014 when they were so good at supposed cheating just two years earlier? Did they forget how?

Shut the fuck up...you obviously have zero knowledge of politics.

More bullshit from Tiny, The Asian Fairy.
Dems won by voter fraud in key states among key inner city areas. With Obama off the ballot that was much harder. Plus people are on to them.
The rest of your post is the usual crap spewing.

Why would it be harder? The voters are still there, the inner cities are still there. As always your post makes no sense.

As for "People are on to them", when Hillary wins in 2016, I hope you were not planning on using that excuse since it would be impossible for those same "people" to be magically "off", wouldn't it?



No response?...no surprise.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

McCain thought he could trump the Dem advantage with women by nominating one as VP. It backfired big time. But honestly, there was no way that he could dig himself out of the hole that GW Bush has dug for him. The famous quote "Its the economy Stupid!' never rang so true. Now, as we approach 2016, the recovery is picking up steam....much to the chagrin of the GOP leaders.

Thats why the Dems cleaned up in the last election, right?

Another idiotic post by you. Somehow, according to you, the Dems won in 2012 due to voter fraud:

Palin wasnt running for president. And if not for voter fraud Mitt would probably be president.

How in the world did they lose in 2014 when they were so good at supposed cheating just two years earlier? Did they forget how?

Shut the fuck up...you obviously have zero knowledge of politics.

More bullshit from Tiny, The Asian Fairy.
Dems won by voter fraud in key states among key inner city areas. With Obama off the ballot that was much harder. Plus people are on to them.
The rest of your post is the usual crap spewing.

It's always entertaining to read your fantasies. Carry on. I love it when a Rughtie makes a total ass out of himself. More than 2 years after the 2012 elections, fools like you are still screaming "fraud". Love it. Just love it.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[The Rabbi]

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

McCain thought he could trump the Dem advantage with women by nominating one as VP. It backfired big time. But honestly, there was no way that he could dig himself out of the hole that GW Bush has dug for him. The famous quote "Its the economy Stupid!' never rang so true. Now, as we approach 2016, the recovery is picking up steam....much to the chagrin of the GOP leaders.

Thats why the Dems cleaned up in the last election, right?

Another idiotic post by you. Somehow, according to you, the Dems won in 2012 due to voter fraud:

Palin wasnt running for president. And if not for voter fraud Mitt would probably be president.

How in the world did they lose in 2014 when they were so good at supposed cheating just two years earlier? Did they forget how?

Shut the fuck up...you obviously have zero knowledge of politics.

More bullshit from Tiny, The Asian Fairy.
Dems won by voter fraud in key states among key inner city areas. With Obama off the ballot that was much harder. Plus people are on to them.
The rest of your post is the usual crap spewing.

Why would it be harder? The voters are still there, the inner cities are still there. As always your post makes no sense.

As for "People are on to them", when Hillary wins in 2016, I hope you were not planning on using that excuse since it would be impossible for those same "people" to be magically "off", wouldn't it?



No response?...no surprise.

Since Hillary isnt running that will be difficult.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

McCain thought he could trump the Dem advantage with women by nominating one as VP. It backfired big time. But honestly, there was no way that he could dig himself out of the hole that GW Bush has dug for him. The famous quote "Its the economy Stupid!' never rang so true. Now, as we approach 2016, the recovery is picking up steam....much to the chagrin of the GOP leaders.

Thats why the Dems cleaned up in the last election, right?

Another idiotic post by you. Somehow, according to you, the Dems won in 2012 due to voter fraud:

Palin wasnt running for president. And if not for voter fraud Mitt would probably be president.

How in the world did they lose in 2014 when they were so good at supposed cheating just two years earlier? Did they forget how?

Shut the fuck up...you obviously have zero knowledge of politics.

More bullshit from Tiny, The Asian Fairy.
Dems won by voter fraud in key states among key inner city areas. With Obama off the ballot that was much harder. Plus people are on to them.
The rest of your post is the usual crap spewing.

It's always entertaining to read your fantasies. Carry on. I love it when a Rughtie makes a total ass out of himself. More than 2 years after the 2012 elections, fools like you are still screaming "fraud". Love it. Just love it.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Was there a cogent point there? No, I think not.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The greater danger is the bad vetting of a VP nominee.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

Eddie Munster did Romney no favors.

Yeah but I doubt another candidate would have delivered their home state that mattered...ergo a purple state

Wisconsin is a quirky state in electoral politics.

Most don't remember, but Wisconsin is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential level since 1992 (The Clinton Revolution), it is a 7-for-7 DEM state. It is one of the 11 "states" that Dukakis (D) won in 1988. And Obama's landslides in both Michigan and Wisconsin in 2008 (around +16.5% in both states) are two of the unsung landslides of that year.

Minnesota is also quirky in prez politics.

Most don't remember, but Minnesota is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential, level, it is a 10-for-10 DEM state. And back to 1960, it is a 13-for-14 DEM state. It is the only state that Ronald Reagan failed to carry either time. Minnesota is to Republicans as Arizona is to Democrats: like the girl who invites you to the party and then drops you once you get there. LOL.

In 2012, Obama won Wisconsin with a solid +7 and Minnesota with a solid +8. Romney's margin in Georgia lies between those two (+7.7), and no one thought that GA was a battleground in 2012. So, we see how perception and reality can often be very two different things. +7 is way outside of the battleground statistics.

There are plenty of places where a GOP candidate could pick a VP nominee from a purple state, but Wisconsin and Minnesota are two states that I would not necessarily recommend.

Were I a GOP nominee (lol), I would pick a VP nominee from either Ohio or Iowa.

Romney also picked Paul Ryan way too early. It gave the public way too much time to see what a doofus he really was.

On this, I agree. But if the narrative of making the other choice includes that if you pick X from Ohio or Y from Florida, you'll get the electoral votes from Ohio or Florida, that still leaves Romney (at best) 30+ electoral votes short. So it's a moot point. Still better to be closer than lose by more I suppose.

I really do not feel that a VP choice helps you as much as it can hurt you. As it went on, McCain was injured more and more by Palin who was totally off script and contradicting him at some points (and agreed with Obama in fact)

(PHILADELPHIA) Sarah Palin told a customer at a Philadelphia restaurant on Saturday that the United States should "absolutely" launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan in the event that it becomes necessary to "stop the terrorists from coming any further in," a comment similar to the one John McCain condemned Barack Obama for making during last night's presidential debate.

During Friday's debate, Obama criticized the Bush administration for sending billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan without ridding the border region of terrorists.

"If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out," Obama added.

McCain fired back hard, arguing that newly elected Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has had his "hands full" and suggesting that Obama's tough talk was naïve.

Palin Contradicts McCain On Pakistan Seems To Back Obama s Position - CBS News

So she wasn't helpful toward the end and the "energized" republicans were offset by the independents and moderates who had already saw what a moron she was from the Katy Couric interview where she couldn't name a magazine she read or a policy position of McCain's.

The only way you're really going to move the needle is to have the ego to pick someone of greater stature than yourself--imagine a Jimmy Carter (at the time when he was running) picking Tip O'Neil or Sam Ervin. Not going to happen. Or, if you come across the occasional "rock star" such as Colin Powell who probably would have been a great pick for Bush Sr. if he could have orchestrated a Quayle "step aside to spend more time with my family" caper. The map of the '92 election reveals a lot of light blue (and light red) districts:

Clinton won a lot of what we now call red states (GA, LA, WVa, KY, and MT). These are not enough to swing 102 votes but, then again, if Powell could have delivered the EVs from those states, it would be much more than what other VP candidates did.

What I think should happen sometime in the next 2-4 cycles of Presidential politics is you'll have a gal/guy (probably a gal) who announces and during the announcement (or soon thereafter), her VP is revealed. It just makes sense. The voters are more sophisticated than ever (what you see here not withstanding) and realize that the President is one person and she/he leads a team. So why not reveal the team? Also, it's more honest if you reveal your pick up front. Finally, there is mad upside to having a surrogate with heavyweight clout campaigning/fundraising in another part of the nation while you're trying to get the nomination. Could you imagine a head coach without any assistants trying to get her team to win? I'm not sure why it is taboo to suggest a candidate for President may need help with the undertaking of the toughest job in the world.

This is exactly the point I was making when I said that Palin sunk McCains ship. A point that the fake Rabbit is simply to imbecilic to understand.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[The Rabbi]

I think you're overestimating the power of a VP nominee. Unless it is a total botch job like McCain did, there is little to move the needle either positively or negatively.

Eddie Munster did Romney no favors.

Yeah but I doubt another candidate would have delivered their home state that mattered...ergo a purple state

Wisconsin is a quirky state in electoral politics.

Most don't remember, but Wisconsin is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential level since 1992 (The Clinton Revolution), it is a 7-for-7 DEM state. It is one of the 11 "states" that Dukakis (D) won in 1988. And Obama's landslides in both Michigan and Wisconsin in 2008 (around +16.5% in both states) are two of the unsung landslides of that year.

Minnesota is also quirky in prez politics.

Most don't remember, but Minnesota is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential, level, it is a 10-for-10 DEM state. And back to 1960, it is a 13-for-14 DEM state. It is the only state that Ronald Reagan failed to carry either time. Minnesota is to Republicans as Arizona is to Democrats: like the girl who invites you to the party and then drops you once you get there. LOL.

In 2012, Obama won Wisconsin with a solid +7 and Minnesota with a solid +8. Romney's margin in Georgia lies between those two (+7.7), and no one thought that GA was a battleground in 2012. So, we see how perception and reality can often be very two different things. +7 is way outside of the battleground statistics.

There are plenty of places where a GOP candidate could pick a VP nominee from a purple state, but Wisconsin and Minnesota are two states that I would not necessarily recommend.

Were I a GOP nominee (lol), I would pick a VP nominee from either Ohio or Iowa.

Romney also picked Paul Ryan way too early. It gave the public way too much time to see what a doofus he really was.

On this, I agree. But if the narrative of making the other choice includes that if you pick X from Ohio or Y from Florida, you'll get the electoral votes from Ohio or Florida, that still leaves Romney (at best) 30+ electoral votes short. So it's a moot point. Still better to be closer than lose by more I suppose.

I really do not feel that a VP choice helps you as much as it can hurt you. As it went on, McCain was injured more and more by Palin who was totally off script and contradicting him at some points (and agreed with Obama in fact)

(PHILADELPHIA) Sarah Palin told a customer at a Philadelphia restaurant on Saturday that the United States should "absolutely" launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan in the event that it becomes necessary to "stop the terrorists from coming any further in," a comment similar to the one John McCain condemned Barack Obama for making during last night's presidential debate.

During Friday's debate, Obama criticized the Bush administration for sending billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan without ridding the border region of terrorists.

"If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out," Obama added.

McCain fired back hard, arguing that newly elected Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has had his "hands full" and suggesting that Obama's tough talk was naïve.

Palin Contradicts McCain On Pakistan Seems To Back Obama s Position - CBS News

So she wasn't helpful toward the end and the "energized" republicans were offset by the independents and moderates who had already saw what a moron she was from the Katy Couric interview where she couldn't name a magazine she read or a policy position of McCain's.

The only way you're really going to move the needle is to have the ego to pick someone of greater stature than yourself--imagine a Jimmy Carter (at the time when he was running) picking Tip O'Neil or Sam Ervin. Not going to happen. Or, if you come across the occasional "rock star" such as Colin Powell who probably would have been a great pick for Bush Sr. if he could have orchestrated a Quayle "step aside to spend more time with my family" caper. The map of the '92 election reveals a lot of light blue (and light red) districts:

Clinton won a lot of what we now call red states (GA, LA, WVa, KY, and MT). These are not enough to swing 102 votes but, then again, if Powell could have delivered the EVs from those states, it would be much more than what other VP candidates did.

What I think should happen sometime in the next 2-4 cycles of Presidential politics is you'll have a gal/guy (probably a gal) who announces and during the announcement (or soon thereafter), her VP is revealed. It just makes sense. The voters are more sophisticated than ever (what you see here not withstanding) and realize that the President is one person and she/he leads a team. So why not reveal the team? Also, it's more honest if you reveal your pick up front. Finally, there is mad upside to having a surrogate with heavyweight clout campaigning/fundraising in another part of the nation while you're trying to get the nomination. Could you imagine a head coach without any assistants trying to get her team to win? I'm not sure why it is taboo to suggest a candidate for President may need help with the undertaking of the toughest job in the world.

This is exactly the point I was making when I said that Palin sunk McCains ship. A point that the fake Rabbit is simply to imbecilic to understand.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Yawn.......
Your "point" was absurd and unproven. Hell you can't even define what "sunk McCains ship" means.

 

[Judicial review]

All predictions for the 2016 election go here.

I'll start.

John kasich WI'll be the next president in 2016.

He's a likable candidate. I mean just look at him and hear him speak and who wouldn't vote for him? Same thing happened with Obama.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Eddie Munster did Romney no favors.

Yeah but I doubt another candidate would have delivered their home state that mattered...ergo a purple state

Wisconsin is a quirky state in electoral politics.

Most don't remember, but Wisconsin is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential level since 1992 (The Clinton Revolution), it is a 7-for-7 DEM state. It is one of the 11 "states" that Dukakis (D) won in 1988. And Obama's landslides in both Michigan and Wisconsin in 2008 (around +16.5% in both states) are two of the unsung landslides of that year.

Minnesota is also quirky in prez politics.

Most don't remember, but Minnesota is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential, level, it is a 10-for-10 DEM state. And back to 1960, it is a 13-for-14 DEM state. It is the only state that Ronald Reagan failed to carry either time. Minnesota is to Republicans as Arizona is to Democrats: like the girl who invites you to the party and then drops you once you get there. LOL.

In 2012, Obama won Wisconsin with a solid +7 and Minnesota with a solid +8. Romney's margin in Georgia lies between those two (+7.7), and no one thought that GA was a battleground in 2012. So, we see how perception and reality can often be very two different things. +7 is way outside of the battleground statistics.

There are plenty of places where a GOP candidate could pick a VP nominee from a purple state, but Wisconsin and Minnesota are two states that I would not necessarily recommend.

Were I a GOP nominee (lol), I would pick a VP nominee from either Ohio or Iowa.

Romney also picked Paul Ryan way too early. It gave the public way too much time to see what a doofus he really was.

On this, I agree. But if the narrative of making the other choice includes that if you pick X from Ohio or Y from Florida, you'll get the electoral votes from Ohio or Florida, that still leaves Romney (at best) 30+ electoral votes short. So it's a moot point. Still better to be closer than lose by more I suppose.

I really do not feel that a VP choice helps you as much as it can hurt you. As it went on, McCain was injured more and more by Palin who was totally off script and contradicting him at some points (and agreed with Obama in fact)

(PHILADELPHIA) Sarah Palin told a customer at a Philadelphia restaurant on Saturday that the United States should "absolutely" launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan in the event that it becomes necessary to "stop the terrorists from coming any further in," a comment similar to the one John McCain condemned Barack Obama for making during last night's presidential debate.

During Friday's debate, Obama criticized the Bush administration for sending billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan without ridding the border region of terrorists.

"If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out," Obama added.

McCain fired back hard, arguing that newly elected Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has had his "hands full" and suggesting that Obama's tough talk was naïve.

Palin Contradicts McCain On Pakistan Seems To Back Obama s Position - CBS News

So she wasn't helpful toward the end and the "energized" republicans were offset by the independents and moderates who had already saw what a moron she was from the Katy Couric interview where she couldn't name a magazine she read or a policy position of McCain's.

The only way you're really going to move the needle is to have the ego to pick someone of greater stature than yourself--imagine a Jimmy Carter (at the time when he was running) picking Tip O'Neil or Sam Ervin. Not going to happen. Or, if you come across the occasional "rock star" such as Colin Powell who probably would have been a great pick for Bush Sr. if he could have orchestrated a Quayle "step aside to spend more time with my family" caper. The map of the '92 election reveals a lot of light blue (and light red) districts:

Clinton won a lot of what we now call red states (GA, LA, WVa, KY, and MT). These are not enough to swing 102 votes but, then again, if Powell could have delivered the EVs from those states, it would be much more than what other VP candidates did.

What I think should happen sometime in the next 2-4 cycles of Presidential politics is you'll have a gal/guy (probably a gal) who announces and during the announcement (or soon thereafter), her VP is revealed. It just makes sense. The voters are more sophisticated than ever (what you see here not withstanding) and realize that the President is one person and she/he leads a team. So why not reveal the team? Also, it's more honest if you reveal your pick up front. Finally, there is mad upside to having a surrogate with heavyweight clout campaigning/fundraising in another part of the nation while you're trying to get the nomination. Could you imagine a head coach without any assistants trying to get her team to win? I'm not sure why it is taboo to suggest a candidate for President may need help with the undertaking of the toughest job in the world.

This is exactly the point I was making when I said that Palin sunk McCains ship. A point that the fake Rabbit is simply to imbecilic to understand.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Yawn.......
Your "point" was absurd and unproven. Hell you can't even define what "sunk McCains ship" means.

Sure I did. You were just too imbecilic to understand it. But that's ok, I expect this level of idiocy from you. Carry on, fake Rabbi.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah but I doubt another candidate would have delivered their home state that mattered...ergo a purple state

Wisconsin is a quirky state in electoral politics.

Most don't remember, but Wisconsin is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential level since 1992 (The Clinton Revolution), it is a 7-for-7 DEM state. It is one of the 11 "states" that Dukakis (D) won in 1988. And Obama's landslides in both Michigan and Wisconsin in 2008 (around +16.5% in both states) are two of the unsung landslides of that year.

Minnesota is also quirky in prez politics.

Most don't remember, but Minnesota is not only a 6-for-6 DEM state at the presidential, level, it is a 10-for-10 DEM state. And back to 1960, it is a 13-for-14 DEM state. It is the only state that Ronald Reagan failed to carry either time. Minnesota is to Republicans as Arizona is to Democrats: like the girl who invites you to the party and then drops you once you get there. LOL.

In 2012, Obama won Wisconsin with a solid +7 and Minnesota with a solid +8. Romney's margin in Georgia lies between those two (+7.7), and no one thought that GA was a battleground in 2012. So, we see how perception and reality can often be very two different things. +7 is way outside of the battleground statistics.

There are plenty of places where a GOP candidate could pick a VP nominee from a purple state, but Wisconsin and Minnesota are two states that I would not necessarily recommend.

Were I a GOP nominee (lol), I would pick a VP nominee from either Ohio or Iowa.

Romney also picked Paul Ryan way too early. It gave the public way too much time to see what a doofus he really was.

On this, I agree. But if the narrative of making the other choice includes that if you pick X from Ohio or Y from Florida, you'll get the electoral votes from Ohio or Florida, that still leaves Romney (at best) 30+ electoral votes short. So it's a moot point. Still better to be closer than lose by more I suppose.

I really do not feel that a VP choice helps you as much as it can hurt you. As it went on, McCain was injured more and more by Palin who was totally off script and contradicting him at some points (and agreed with Obama in fact)

(PHILADELPHIA) Sarah Palin told a customer at a Philadelphia restaurant on Saturday that the United States should "absolutely" launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan in the event that it becomes necessary to "stop the terrorists from coming any further in," a comment similar to the one John McCain condemned Barack Obama for making during last night's presidential debate.

During Friday's debate, Obama criticized the Bush administration for sending billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan without ridding the border region of terrorists.

"If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out," Obama added.

McCain fired back hard, arguing that newly elected Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has had his "hands full" and suggesting that Obama's tough talk was naïve.

Palin Contradicts McCain On Pakistan Seems To Back Obama s Position - CBS News

So she wasn't helpful toward the end and the "energized" republicans were offset by the independents and moderates who had already saw what a moron she was from the Katy Couric interview where she couldn't name a magazine she read or a policy position of McCain's.

The only way you're really going to move the needle is to have the ego to pick someone of greater stature than yourself--imagine a Jimmy Carter (at the time when he was running) picking Tip O'Neil or Sam Ervin. Not going to happen. Or, if you come across the occasional "rock star" such as Colin Powell who probably would have been a great pick for Bush Sr. if he could have orchestrated a Quayle "step aside to spend more time with my family" caper. The map of the '92 election reveals a lot of light blue (and light red) districts:

Clinton won a lot of what we now call red states (GA, LA, WVa, KY, and MT). These are not enough to swing 102 votes but, then again, if Powell could have delivered the EVs from those states, it would be much more than what other VP candidates did.

What I think should happen sometime in the next 2-4 cycles of Presidential politics is you'll have a gal/guy (probably a gal) who announces and during the announcement (or soon thereafter), her VP is revealed. It just makes sense. The voters are more sophisticated than ever (what you see here not withstanding) and realize that the President is one person and she/he leads a team. So why not reveal the team? Also, it's more honest if you reveal your pick up front. Finally, there is mad upside to having a surrogate with heavyweight clout campaigning/fundraising in another part of the nation while you're trying to get the nomination. Could you imagine a head coach without any assistants trying to get her team to win? I'm not sure why it is taboo to suggest a candidate for President may need help with the undertaking of the toughest job in the world.

This is exactly the point I was making when I said that Palin sunk McCains ship. A point that the fake Rabbit is simply to imbecilic to understand.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Yawn.......
Your "point" was absurd and unproven. Hell you can't even define what "sunk McCains ship" means.

Sure I did. You were just too imbecilic to understand it. But that's ok, I expect this level of idiocy from you. Carry on, fake Rabbi.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Yeah "Im so smart you dont get it" just doesnt work when I already pointed out your post was one giant post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yeah, right. , fake Rabbi.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, right. , fake Rabbi.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Your surrender here is noted.
Just dont make me beat your ass again, 'kay?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yeah, right. , fake Rabbi.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Your surrender here is noted.
Just dont make me beat your ass again, 'kay?

My lord are you a boring Conservative. Too stupid to even know when you long lost.
You would be a perfect VP candidate on the Clown-Car GOP tiket in 2016!

The fake Rabbi for VP!! Yeeeeehaw!

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, right. , fake Rabbi.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Your surrender here is noted.
Just dont make me beat your ass again, 'kay?

My lord are you a boring Conservative. Too stupid to even know when you long lost.
You would be a perfect VP candidate on the Clown-Car GOP tiket in 2016!

The fake Rabbi for VP!! Yeeeeehaw!

Zzzzz, herr luftmann.