2016 Electoral map

[Bacchus]

http://www.examiner.com/article/an-e...al-college-map



If this holds true it is not good news for the Republicans. All the same swing states except for Arizona, Georgia went from red to a swing state giving the Dems more chances to pick up electorals and putting the Repubs on the defensive. I like this.

The Repubs keep treating Spanish people like they do and it will get very very hard for them.

[Bacchus]

If you look at the map right there as it is whoever the Dems nominate will already have 223 Electoral votes. That means he/she will only need 47 votes out of all those swing state. PA/Wis&IA and the election is over agian.

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

If you look at the map right there as it is whoever the Dems nominate will already have 223 Electoral votes. That means he/she will only need 47 votes out of all those swing state. PA/Wis&IA and the election is over agian.

If it's Hillary and no drawn out primary, then it is basically over and Hillary will be the next POTUS. Unless R's nominate a moderate, but we have seen how that turned out for them, just ask former blue state MA governor Romney.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by El Minion

If it's Hillary and no drawn out primary, then it is basically over and Hillary will be the next POTUS. Unless R's nominate a moderate, but we have seen how that turned out for them, just ask former blue state MA governor Romney.

I would love to see a Hillary/Warren ticket personally.

[mhgaffney]

It would be good news if the Democraps actually cared about the people.

Unfortunately, they don't. They sold out for big bucks -- under Clinton --

There is no true opposition party, today, just a uni-party with two wings.

MHG

[houghtam]

259.

I laugh every time someone puts "swing state" status on WI, IA and PA, who have collectively voted Republican twice in the past 25 years.

[Rohirrim]

North Carolina was very close.

[razorwire77]

Imagine 2020 when Texas becomes a purple state.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

It would be good news if the Democraps actually cared about the people.

Unfortunately, they don't. They sold out for big bucks -- under Clinton --

There is no true opposition party, today, just a uni-party with two wings.

MHG

I agree with you. The Dems are the lesser of the two evils but the Dems are corrupted. The Repubs talk about Obama being the Liberal President of all time when in fact Reagan was more liberal than Obama.

I hope Citizen's United is repealed in the next 4 years and we can get some sort of sanity back into politics.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by houghtam

259.

I laugh every time someone puts "swing state" status on WI, IA and PA, who have collectively voted Republican twice in the past 25 years.

Well, I agree, they start out as swing but 80% chance they turn blue. They are very weak swing states.

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

I would love to see a Hillary/Warren ticket personally.

I forget who I was watching but this pollster (Silver of 538?) said that due to changing demographics and that R's are more rural thus favoring more House seat opportunities to win since D's tend to be urban, that this split government is the new normal. Senate races will tend to favor D's slightly however consistently due to state wide turnout and that D's get an extra boost every 4th year for the POTUS election hence what we have today: split congress with D as POTUS.





Fun Fact: Romney received fewer popular votes than McCain and Kerry.

[Drek]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

I would love to see a Hillary/Warren ticket personally.

Never happen.

Warren on a dem ticket is the equivalent of Paul Ryan on a GOP ticket. Its pandering to the extreme base.

Hillary + Schweitzer if she wants it, or Schweitzer + Gillibrand is the best dem options.

[Rohirrim]

Interesting to consider who will be the Dem candidate in four years. I don't really see any obvious front-runners. Hillary? It would be fun to see her renegotiate NAFTA.

[Taco John]

That map means nothing right now. In 2016, Gary Johnson will be running again as the libertarian candidate. The next election is going to be a three party race, you can count on it.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Taco John

That map means nothing right now. In 2016, Gary Johnson will be running again as the libertarian candidate. The next election is going to be a three party race, you can count on it.

126 million people voted in this election. Gary Johnson took in slightly over one million. What's going to happen in the next four years to change that math? Hell, my candidate, Rocky Anderson, took in 35,000 votes. I don't kid myself that a true, progressive party has a real chance. Historically, third parties can be agents for change in the small scale, one issue at a time. But affecting the overall? Pretty rare.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

126 million people voted in this election. Gary Johnson took in slightly over one million. What's going to happen in the next four years to change that math? Hell, my candidate, Rocky Anderson, took in 35,000 votes. I don't kid myself that a true, progressive party has a real chance. Historically, third parties can be agents for change in the small scale, one issue at a time. But affecting the overall? Pretty rare.

That's my question as well. I like Gary Johnson. His son is a buddy of mine. But even he isn't that optimistic.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Interesting to consider who will be the Dem candidate in four years. I don't really see any obvious front-runners. Hillary? It would be fun to see her renegotiate NAFTA.

Cory Booker and Julian Castro have to be in the consideration, if not for 2016, definitely 2020.

I also think Warren is more likely to benefit from a cabinet appointment in 2016 or 2020 than running for anything.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by Drek

Never happen.

Warren on a dem ticket is the equivalent of Paul Ryan on a GOP ticket. Its pandering to the extreme base.

Hillary + Schweitzer if she wants it, or Schweitzer + Gillibrand is the best dem options.

Why is it pandering to the base? How is Warren so far left?

That being said I do not know any more left than me. I would love to see Warren involved.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by Taco John

That map means nothing right now. In 2016, Gary Johnson will be running again as the libertarian candidate. The next election is going to be a three party race, you can count on it.

Unless Libertarians start running a candidate in national Senate and House races, and put ALL of their resources behind those candidates so they may make names for themselves and the party, the Libertarians will never be more than a protest vote.

Count on that.

[Bacchus]

IS there any chance the Tea Part splits? That would include Libertarians I would imagine.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Cory Booker and Julian Castro have to be in the consideration, if not for 2016, definitely 2020.

I also think Warren is more likely to benefit from a cabinet appointment in 2016 or 2020 than running for anything.

The flying monkey right went apoplectic with the "Muslim from Kenya" hysteria when Obama was elected.

Just imagine the reaction to a president whose last name is "Castro."

I would pay to see entertainment like that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ohio’s GOP Secretary of State Already Has A Plan To Rig The 2016 Election For Republicans

By Ian Millhiser and Josh Israel on Nov 9, 2012 at 9:53 am


Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R)

Last year, Pennsylvania’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett proposed rigging the Electoral College vote in his state through a plan that would have given the majority of the state’s electors to Romney even after President Obama carried the state. Under Corbett’s plan, the winner of each congressional district within Pennsylvania would receive a single electoral vote, and the overall winner of the state would receive an additional two electoral votes. Had this plan been in place last Tuesday, Mitt Romney would likely have won 13 of the state’s 20 electoral votes, despite losing the state overall by more than five points.

Corbett’s election-rigging plan died, largely because Republican members of Congress in Pennsylvania feared that it would cause the Obama campaign to shift resources into their districts and endanger their own chances of being reelected. Now, however, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R)– who spent much of 2012 inventing ways to prevent pro-Obama votes from being cast or counted — wants to revive this election rigging scheme. According to the Ohio political blog Plunderbund,

Husted’s solution to this perceived problem of Democrats and the national media picking on him? He says we should make Ohio less important in the election by dividing up our electoral votes by Congressional district.

This is huge and should raise giant red flags. Under the current winner-take-all system, Obama won all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes. Under Husted’s plan, 12 of those 18 electoral votes would be handed to Mitt Romney, the popular vote loser.

As in Pennsylvania, Republicans gerrymandered Ohio within an inch of its life. Even though Obama won Ohio, Republicans carried 12 of 16 seats in Ohio’s House delegation. This gerrymander would have all but ensured that Romney carried the overwhelming majority of Ohio’s electoral votes, regardless of how he performed in the state overall.

Indeed, if the Corbett/Husted plan to rig the Electoral College had been law in several key Republican-controlled states that President Obama won last Tuesday, America would now be looking at a very different future. Assuming that Mitt Romney won every congressional district that elected a Republican House candidate in these key states, the Corbett/Husted plan would have given Romney 17 electoral votes in Florida, 9 in Michigan, 12 in Ohio, 13 in Pennsylvania, 8 in Virginia, and 5 in Wisconsin — for a total of 64 additional electoral votes.

Add those 64 votes to the 206 votes Romney won legitimately, and it adds up to exactly 270 — the amount he needed to win the White House.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...r-republicans/

[Mr.Meanie]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Ohio’s GOP Secretary of State Already Has A Plan To Rig The 2016 Election For Republicans

By Ian Millhiser and Josh Israel on Nov 9, 2012 at 9:53 am


Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R)

Last year, Pennsylvania’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett proposed rigging the Electoral College vote in his state through a plan that would have given the majority of the state’s electors to Romney even after President Obama carried the state. Under Corbett’s plan, the winner of each congressional district within Pennsylvania would receive a single electoral vote, and the overall winner of the state would receive an additional two electoral votes. Had this plan been in place last Tuesday, Mitt Romney would likely have won 13 of the state’s 20 electoral votes, despite losing the state overall by more than five points.

Corbett’s election-rigging plan died, largely because Republican members of Congress in Pennsylvania feared that it would cause the Obama campaign to shift resources into their districts and endanger their own chances of being reelected. Now, however, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted (R)– who spent much of 2012 inventing ways to prevent pro-Obama votes from being cast or counted — wants to revive this election rigging scheme. According to the Ohio political blog Plunderbund,

Husted’s solution to this perceived problem of Democrats and the national media picking on him? He says we should make Ohio less important in the election by dividing up our electoral votes by Congressional district.

This is huge and should raise giant red flags. Under the current winner-take-all system, Obama won all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes. Under Husted’s plan, 12 of those 18 electoral votes would be handed to Mitt Romney, the popular vote loser.

As in Pennsylvania, Republicans gerrymandered Ohio within an inch of its life. Even though Obama won Ohio, Republicans carried 12 of 16 seats in Ohio’s House delegation. This gerrymander would have all but ensured that Romney carried the overwhelming majority of Ohio’s electoral votes, regardless of how he performed in the state overall.

Indeed, if the Corbett/Husted plan to rig the Electoral College had been law in several key Republican-controlled states that President Obama won last Tuesday, America would now be looking at a very different future. Assuming that Mitt Romney won every congressional district that elected a Republican House candidate in these key states, the Corbett/Husted plan would have given Romney 17 electoral votes in Florida, 9 in Michigan, 12 in Ohio, 13 in Pennsylvania, 8 in Virginia, and 5 in Wisconsin — for a total of 64 additional electoral votes.

Add those 64 votes to the 206 votes Romney won legitimately, and it adds up to exactly 270 — the amount he needed to win the White House.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...r-republicans/

All that would do is make Ohio irrelevant as the election decider. Then each side would view those districts that heavily favor them as already in hand, and then completely ignore them and shift their focus to other states. Not sure how that helps republicans all that much...

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

126 million people voted in this election. Gary Johnson took in slightly over one million. What's going to happen in the next four years to change that math?

Here me now and believe me later. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you of what anyone can clearly see is happening. The Republican party is on the ropes, and the libertarians have the strongest candidate in their history. You scoff at a million votes as though Obama won by 10 million.

The libertarian party has 4 years to mobilize with the strongest candidate they've ever had against the weakest Republican party in over 100 years. Just remember where you heard it first when it all goes down.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Here me now and believe me later. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince you of what anyone can clearly see is happening. The Republican party is on the ropes, and the libertarians have the strongest candidate in their history. You scoff at a million votes as though Obama won by 10 million.

The libertarian party has 4 years to mobilize with the strongest candidate they've ever had against the weakest Republican party in over 100 years. Just remember where you heard it first when it all goes down.

we don't have a conservative enough electorate to elect a republican,but in 2016 our electorate is going to swing further right and support a liberatarian?