johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944 
|
Post by johnr on Mar 25, 2016 13:15:32 GMT
They might just start thinking about voting for the Libertarian candidate. or not voting at all... Which could also be enough to hand a solid republican state to the blue team. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 13:37:38 GMT
I think the question is, will moderate Republicans vote for Trump, or rather, would they prefer someone like Hilary? I'm guessing that they wouldnt vote for Bernie in any circumstances. In that case, I think either Democrat contender would beat Trump, but only HIllary could come close to getting a 50-state sweep. I think moderate Republicans could vote Hillary, anti-establishment but not completely right wing could vote Bernie, while a large minority will probably just not vote. If states like Utah go Democrat, it's due to non-voting rather than people voting Democrat. I agree that only Hillary could get a 50 state sweep. I simply don't see Bernie winning states like Kentucky or West Virginia with how anti coal he is. At least Hillary is a bit more moderate and people can convince themselves they are voting for Bill Clinton 2. She should also be able to win over just about every southern white voter sympathetic to the Democrats left who along with Hispanics and Blacks could hand her virtually every southern state if the margin nationally was that big. However, I still think it's extremely unlikely she could ever win all 50 as there are simply some voters who would vote Republican no matter what and they are disproportionately in states like Alabama, Oklahoma and Mississippi. I think you got the WV and Kentucky situation reversed. Sanders did well in parts of Eastern Appalachia and he has polled strong in WV - populism targeting rural/small town whites is what Sanders does best. None of them would win those states, but Sanders would do better - its also states were a portion of the electorate simply wouldn't vote for a woman. The coal industry at this point is mostly symbolic. Most mines are closed, but many people still have emotional ties to the industry - used to work in it, had relatives who did, knows someone who does etc. Its an issue that can be mobilized, but its not bread and butter to most people and not an issue that will inevitably decide those states in every election. Obama was an usually bad fit for those states, so it worked against him. The narrative would be different for Sanders. A 50 state sweep require an independent Conservative acting as spoiler. Even then WV, Kentucky and Alabama are too favorable territory for Trump, so 47 states for Hillary should be the absolute maximum- Mississippi has a sufficiently high share of African-Americans to flip with a Conservative spoiler, Oklahoma has enough Democrats to do so as well (should be winnable on a fairly low number in this scenario), but there is the issue of very strict ballot access laws, even if they managed to hijack the Libertarian ticket I am not sure they have ballot access. Utah could easily flip, the Mormons really hate Trump. Both his xenophobia and his lifestyle and personality. Wyoming and Idaho are winnable with a Conservative spoiler (though Wyoming will be hard). Even if we do not get a Conservative spoiler a recent poll form a credible pollster had Libertarian Gary Johnson at 11% in a Trump/Clinton race, but cutting into both candidates lead, so Clinton won by roughly the same margin. So you need the right kind of spoiler, who doesn't appeal to potential Democratic voters. Without a spoiler a 41 state win would be the maximum even with depressed Republican turnout - apart from the AL/MS problem, the Upper South is still fairly white and Trump plays well in this region. Clinton would lose Alabama, Mississippi, WV, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas (no Clinton magic left anymore..), Oklahoma, Idaho, Wyoming). South Carolina has a sufficient amount of establishment Conservatives, who may stay home, to be feasible, but would be hard (very inelastic state). Louisiana should have just enough Blacks, but it would be close, even in a D landslide. The Cajuns love Trump, and its very hard for a Democrat to win LA without them. Anyway, Trump is not a traditional Republican (or even a Republican at all) and his strong and weak areas would not be exactly the same as in a normal R vs. D race, so you shouldn't be too stuck in previous voting patterns when looking at this. He will mobilize some non-voters and get support from segments a far right Conservative like Cruz can't get. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,525
|
Post by john07 on Mar 25, 2016 14:33:34 GMT
Good point, so someone could still sweep all 50 states in that case  However surely the loser would still win their home state. Even Mondale won Minnesota (I think it was) He did but McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972 when Nixon swept all bar Massachusetts and DC. Stevenson lost Illinois twice in 1952 and 1956. Gore lost Tennessee in 2000 and with it the Presidency. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,839
|
Post by jamie on Mar 25, 2016 15:40:58 GMT
I think Sanders is doing well in Kentucky and WV (polls are mixed in the latter) because the party is so dead in those areas that only young/ultra liberal are left to vote. There is still a majority of voters who will vote Democrat in some election, usually at a local level for moderates, that I think Hillary could win them over in the event of a national landslide. Sanders is pretty much unknown in large parts of the country and the Republicans barely mention him. If he were the nominee, I think they could use the socialist, anti coal etc label to make sure they hold onto states like Kentucky, WV, as well as Mississippi, Alabama and others. There are quite a few states like Mississippi and Alabama with large black populations yet strongly Republican, I think this suggests that there is a staunchly Republican white vote that simply won't go away, and would probably be a good fit for Trump (relative to a national landslide loss). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 17:19:28 GMT
I think Sanders is doing well in Kentucky and WV (polls are mixed in the latter) because the party is so dead in those areas that only young/ultra liberal are left to vote. There is still a majority of voters who will vote Democrat in some election, usually at a local level for moderates, that I think Hillary could win them over in the event of a national landslide. Sanders is pretty much unknown in large parts of the country and the Republicans barely mention him. If he were the nominee, I think they could use the socialist, anti coal etc label to make sure they hold onto states like Kentucky, WV, as well as Mississippi, Alabama and others. There are quite a few states like Mississippi and Alabama with large black populations yet strongly Republican, I think this suggests that there is a staunchly Republican white vote that simply won't go away, and would probably be a good fit for Trump (relative to a national landslide loss). There is no "ultraliberal" vote in KY and WV (to speak of), but a populist vote that can be mobilized and there are remnants of trade union organization. Sanders support in these parts is overwhelmingly blue collar. A simple liberal/moderate/conservative breakdown is fairly useless in Appalachia where traditions of Social Conservatism, trade unionism, patriotism and populism blend into each other. AL/MS are highly racially segregated, but MS has the highest black population of any state and a Conservative spoiler candidate taking a slice of the white vote can make it competitive (it would then be a turnout game). Republicans would of course target Sanders if he was the nominee, but they will do so as well to Hillary and the Socialism label is less efficient in regions with a strong trade union traditions, where radical populism isn't what scares people, but cultural liberalism, race and elitism (= Obama) and gender plays into it. Some people won't vote for a woman, and this segment is larger in Appalachia and the South. ... States that have a higher shares of Blacks than Alabama: MS, LA, GA, Maryland and SC. MS is 37.4% black, Alabama is 26.6%. That is a very significant difference, so you can not lump them together. Mississippi is 41% non-white, add the few white Liberals (they do exist..) and add a "true Conservative" spoiler and it might just flip. You can not set up such a scenario in AL. www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/all-states/black-population-percentage#mapAnother way of phrasing it is that Alabama is the whitest state in the Deep South and Mississippi the blackest. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,839
|
Post by jamie on Mar 25, 2016 19:40:53 GMT
I think Sanders is doing well in Kentucky and WV (polls are mixed in the latter) because the party is so dead in those areas that only young/ultra liberal are left to vote. There is still a majority of voters who will vote Democrat in some election, usually at a local level for moderates, that I think Hillary could win them over in the event of a national landslide. Sanders is pretty much unknown in large parts of the country and the Republicans barely mention him. If he were the nominee, I think they could use the socialist, anti coal etc label to make sure they hold onto states like Kentucky, WV, as well as Mississippi, Alabama and others. There are quite a few states like Mississippi and Alabama with large black populations yet strongly Republican, I think this suggests that there is a staunchly Republican white vote that simply won't go away, and would probably be a good fit for Trump (relative to a national landslide loss). There is no "ultraliberal" vote in KY and WV (to speak of), but a populist vote that can be mobilized and there are remnants of trade union organization. Sanders support in these parts is overwhelmingly blue collar. A simple liberal/moderate/conservative breakdown is fairly useless in Appalachia where traditions of Social Conservatism, trade unionism, patriotism and populism blend into each other. AL/MS are highly racially segregated, but MS has the highest black population of any state and a Conservative spoiler candidate taking a slice of the white vote can make it competitive (it would then be a turnout game). Republicans would of course target Sanders if he was the nominee, but they will do so as well to Hillary and the Socialism label is less efficient in regions with a strong trade union traditions, where radical populism isn't what scares people, but cultural liberalism, race and elitism (= Obama) and gender plays into it. Some people won't vote for a woman, and this segment is larger in Appalachia and the South. ... States that have a higher shares of Blacks than Alabama: MS, LA, GA, Maryland and SC. MS is 37.4% black, Alabama is 26.6%. That is a very significant difference, so you can not lump them together. Mississippi is 41% non-white, add the few white Liberals (they do exist..) and add a "true Conservative" spoiler and it might just flip. You can not set up such a scenario in AL. www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/all-states/black-population-percentage#mapAnother way of phrasing it is that Alabama is the whitest state in the Deep South and Mississippi the blackest. I do agree that Sanders appeal can be populist in places like WV, however I don't think this is such a large group. When I say ultra liberal I mean largely young white liberals, who are otherwise out of place in red states like Kentucky and elsewhere. I think Hillary has taken such a beating in the past that she can't fall much further, the same can not be said of Sanders. While Sanders can appeal to populism and trade unionism, said trade unionism is/was hevIly linked with coal mining, which he wants to tax and heavily regulate. Sanders certainly isn't a social conservative and isn't overtly patriotic. I also suspect that his support in primaries from conservatives is Republicans and Republican leaning independents who don't want Hillary as the nominee. Certainly in states like Oklahoma he won conservatives hands down despite being much more liberal than Hillary. Overall, i think we do agree that Sanders has some appeal in deep red states like Kentucky through populism and that he could win Deep South states through weak turnout for whites/conservative spoiler. However, I don't think he could do better than Hillary due to my view that his 'socialism' would turn off many voters and motivate others against him. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 25, 2016 19:44:02 GMT
I would say that Alabama is the safest GOP state in the Union. It doesn't give them as big a margin as they can get in the like of Idaho and Wyoming, because the black vote gives the Democrats are reasonable floor, but I consider it less likely to be lost than any other state.
|
|
|
|
Post by froome on Mar 25, 2016 21:58:40 GMT
IMO there appears to be one realistic scenario where a 50 state sweep is a possibility. If Trump fails to become the Republican candidate and a brokered convention picks someone from outside the original candidates, I am sure he will stand as an Independent and go all out to win. In that situation he will split the Republican votes right down the middle. He would also take some Democratic votes, but probably not enough to stop the Democrats taking every state.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 22:40:16 GMT
IMO there appears to be one realistic scenario where a 50 state sweep is a possibility. If Trump fails to become the Republican candidate and a brokered convention picks someone from outside the original candidates, I am sure he will stand as an Independent and go all out to win. In that situation he will split the Republican votes right down the middle. He would also take some Democratic votes, but probably not enough to stop the Democrats taking every state. Too late too get ballot access in every state as an Indie. He might take over the Constitution Party, but their ballot access is still limited. Utah at least would vote R in this scenario anyway, and Wyoming as well. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Mar 26, 2016 3:48:19 GMT
Good point, so someone could still sweep all 50 states in that case However surely the loser would still win their home state. Even Mondale won Minnesota (I think it was) He did but McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972 when Nixon swept all bar Massachusetts and DC. Stevenson lost Illinois twice in 1952 and 1956. Gore lost Tennessee in 2000 and with it the Presidency. Was it Dubya who said 'he did win his home state, he won DC.' |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Mar 26, 2016 3:48:40 GMT
Also Trump has stated more than once (when forced to answer) that he would support the Republican candidate in the GE even if - by some miracle - it wasnt him. Now surely he wouldnt lie!  |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,507
|
Post by Khunanup on Mar 26, 2016 9:02:08 GMT
He did but McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972 when Nixon swept all bar Massachusetts and DC. Stevenson lost Illinois twice in 1952 and 1956. Gore lost Tennessee in 2000 and with it the Presidency. Was it Dubya who said 'he did win his home state, he won DC.' 2000 being a presidential election where Gore won where he was born and Bush lost his. Bush lost Connecticut. I've just looked back and no Republican has won their true home state (ie where they were born or in John McCain's case the state he lived and grew up/went to school in) since Reagan won Illinois twice. Democratic candidates on the other hand have won their true home state (or DC in Gore's case) at every election since 1976 with the sole exception of John Kerry failing to carry Colorado. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 26, 2016 9:53:09 GMT
IMO there appears to be one realistic scenario where a 50 state sweep is a possibility. If Trump fails to become the Republican candidate and a brokered convention picks someone from outside the original candidates, I am sure he will stand as an Independent and go all out to win. In that situation he will split the Republican votes right down the middle. He would also take some Democratic votes, but probably not enough to stop the Democrats taking every state. Too late too get ballot access in every state as an Indie. He might take over the Constitution Party, but their ballot access is still limited. Utah at least would vote R in this scenario anyway, and Wyoming as well. Utah was one of only two states to vote for William Taft in the vaguely similar scenario of 1912 (the other being Vermont which is somewhat less likely!) |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 26, 2016 10:13:13 GMT
Was it Dubya who said 'he did win his home state, he won DC.' 2000 being a presidential election where Gore won where he was born and Bush lost his. Bush lost Connecticut. I've just looked back and no Republican has won their true home state (ie where they were born or in John McCain's case the state he lived and grew up/went to school in) since Reagan won Illinois twice. Democratic candidates on the other hand have won their true home state (or DC in Gore's case) at every election since 1976 with the sole exception of John Kerry failing to carry Colorado. I wonder how many British Prime Ministers have won an election but the constituency of their birth has gone to another party. Might be worth a thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 26, 2016 10:30:57 GMT
The constituency of Harold Wilson's birth was Colne Valley which he managed to lose in his 1966 landslide and then again on returning to power in 1974
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Mar 26, 2016 10:36:07 GMT
Definitely Attlee (born in Putney) and Eden (born in Durham).
Possibly Cameron if he was born in Westminster North rather than Cities of London and Westminster?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 26, 2016 11:23:10 GMT
Too late too get ballot access in every state as an Indie. He might take over the Constitution Party, but their ballot access is still limited. Utah at least would vote R in this scenario anyway, and Wyoming as well. Utah was one of only two states to vote for William Taft in the vaguely similar scenario of 1912 (the other being Vermont which is somewhat less likely!) And of course in 1936 Landon carried just Vermont and Maine - rather a distant prospect now |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 26, 2016 12:00:19 GMT
Good point, so someone could still sweep all 50 states in that case However surely the loser would still win their home state. Even Mondale won Minnesota (I think it was) Romney, Gore, McGovern, Stevenson x2, Dewey the first time (against a fellow New Yorker), Wilkie (again against a fellow New Yorker), Landon, Hoover, Smith, Davis, Cox (against a fellow Ohian), Roosevelt & Taft, Parker, Bryan (once) and some 19th cases lost theirs. Only three victors failed to carry their state of residence - Polk, Wilson once and Nixon once (by his next election he changed state). |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,525
|
Post by john07 on Mar 26, 2016 12:34:58 GMT
Any 50-state sweep will entail the Republicans cracking both the West and the South. It is not implausible for the Democrats to take the whole of Midwest, the South West, the North East especially with a conservative spoiler.
We might assume that the South will be the region most likely to stay Republican in a landslide. Trump has not go down so well in the West, probably because his style is an ill fit there, particularly in the areas with high Mormon populations. The South appeared solid Democrat but it was always flaky going back to the days of Harry Truman. It has been reliably Republican over the past twenty years having been solidly Democratic until 70 years ago. In between it was remarkably enigmatic.
Much of the South voted Dixiecrat in 1948 and 1960 although it went Democrat through the 1950s. The deep South voted for Goldwater in 1964 and for Wallace in 1968. Nixon's Southern Strategy took the rest of the South in 1968 and set the tone for the current situation.
Jimmy Carter bucked the trend and took the whole of the South bar Virginia in 1976. Bill Clinton won much of the South in 1992 and 1996 including Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and also won Georgia in 1992.
However the Democrats retained control at State level for much of the above period but now it is now almost exclusively Republican.
It would take a political earthquake for the Democrats to sweep the South (and West Virginia) even with Trump as candidate.
I am not sure that the near clean sweeps that were witnessed in 1964, 1972, 1984 and 1988 are ever likely to be repeated because of the increased polorization.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,483
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 26, 2016 12:37:22 GMT
1980 is a better example than 1988 there.
|
|
