Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 18:25:14 GMT
A poll taken recently in Utah, the state which was the most Republican of all in the 2012 election, showed Trump registering below both Clinton and Sanders.
Do you think there is any possibility of any candidate carrying every single state this November? As we know, this was something Reagan very nearly achieved in 1984, despite receiving fewer than 60% of the popular vote. What's the absolute worst that can happen to either the Democrats or the GOP?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 18:31:31 GMT
No way, D.C will never go republican and I can't see the bible belt states going democrat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 18:49:28 GMT
No way, D.C will never go republican and I can't see the bible belt states going democrat. Reagan was never going to win by more than 535-3. But it should be pointed out that the District of Columbia is not a state, it's a unique federal district. |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961 
|
Post by mondialito on Mar 24, 2016 18:52:22 GMT
No, but Clinton ought to be getting at least 400 Electoral Votes against Trump/Cruz.
|
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Mar 24, 2016 18:54:49 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) |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Mar 24, 2016 18:56:40 GMT
Even if he wins the general, Trump isn't winning New York.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 19:01:23 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) Yes. When someone asked what Reagan wanted for Christmas in 1984 he replied "Well, Minnesota would have been nice." Mondale of course went on to lose Minnesota in the 2002 senatorial election. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 24, 2016 19:02:52 GMT
Even if he wins the general, Trump isn't winning New York. And Clinton isn't winning Mississippi or Alabama. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 24, 2016 19:21:21 GMT
Nate Silver has produced a map for a Trump/Clinton contest which is very similar to 2008 (save that Indiana goes Republican, while Georgia and Arizona go Democrat). One of the consequences of the increasing partisanship is that sweeping electoral victories are less likely.
|
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826
|
Post by hedgehog on Mar 24, 2016 22:12:04 GMT
I cant see a Democrat win in Idaho.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by john07 on Mar 25, 2016 0:11:09 GMT
Could Trump be another Goldwater? Barry took Arizona plus a few deep South States - South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
We must accept the fact that Trump is no Goldwater. Barry was a true intellectual conservative with a coherent political philosophy, unlike Trump. LBJ took the rest of the USA including Utah (by a near 10% margin) and every Western State bar Arizona (by a !% margin),
The polling seems to suggest that Bernie if not Hillary might carry the West against Trump. Neither Hillary or Bernie are likely to carry the South against anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by independentukip on Mar 25, 2016 0:17:07 GMT
Could Trump be another Goldwater? Barry took Arizona plus a few deep South States - South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. We must accept the fact that Trump is no Goldwater. Barry was a true intellectual conservative with a coherent political philosophy, unlike Trump. LBJ took the rest of the USA including Utah (by a near 10% margin) and every Western State bar Arizona (by a !% margin), The polling seems to suggest that Bernie if not Hillary might carry the West against Trump. Neither Hillary or Bernie are likely to carry the South against anyone. Mr Goldwater was an active supporter of the use of Nuclear Weapons against the military opponents of the US. I don't think Mr Trump has gone that far yet. |
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826
|
Post by hedgehog on Mar 25, 2016 8:33:29 GMT
Could Trump be another Goldwater? Barry took Arizona plus a few deep South States - South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. We must accept the fact that Trump is no Goldwater. Barry was a true intellectual conservative with a coherent political philosophy, unlike Trump. LBJ took the rest of the USA including Utah (by a near 10% margin) and every Western State bar Arizona (by a !% margin), The polling seems to suggest that Bernie if not Hillary might carry the West against Trump. Neither Hillary or Bernie are likely to carry the South against anyone. Mr Goldwater was an active supporter of the use of Nuclear Weapons against the military opponents of the US. I don't think Mr Trump has gone that far yet. |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054
|
Post by jamie on Mar 25, 2016 10:26:44 GMT
I think you would need Clinton winning 65% or 70% to even begin looking at a 50 state sweep. States like Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama etc, are just too polarised and bad fits for the Democrats that I can't see even Trump losing them all. I suspect that the story will more be on the margin of victory in swing states and the states that permentantly become Democratic/swing states like Arizona.
|
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944
|
Post by johnr on Mar 25, 2016 10:58:31 GMT
I think you would need Clinton winning 65% or 70% to even begin looking at a 50 state sweep. States like Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama etc, are just too polarised and bad fits for the Democrats that I can't see even Trump losing them all. I suspect that the story will more be on the margin of victory in swing states and the states that permentantly become Democratic/swing states like Arizona. 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. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 25, 2016 11:16:11 GMT
And Clinton isn't winning Mississippi or Alabama. I vaguely remember seeing a poll that showed Trump would carry West Virginia by a margin of about 40 points against either Democratic candidate. This could well be the year that West Virginia goes deep red at state level as well as federal. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,916
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 25, 2016 11:29:54 GMT
It would be interesting to see if a 10 point lead for HRC - as Bush Snr got over Dukakis in 1988 - leads to as big an electoral college win. I suspect it might not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 11:48:41 GMT
I think you would need Clinton winning 65% or 70% to even begin looking at a 50 state sweep. States like Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama etc, are just too polarised and bad fits for the Democrats that I can't see even Trump losing them all. I suspect that the story will more be on the margin of victory in swing states and the states that permentantly become Democratic/swing states like Arizona. 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. They might just start thinking about voting for the Libertarian candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Mar 25, 2016 11:50:15 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. They might just start thinking about voting for the Libertarian candidate. or not voting at all... |
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,054
|
Post by jamie on Mar 25, 2016 11:57:06 GMT
I think you would need Clinton winning 65% or 70% to even begin looking at a 50 state sweep. States like Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama etc, are just too polarised and bad fits for the Democrats that I can't see even Trump losing them all. I suspect that the story will more be on the margin of victory in swing states and the states that permentantly become Democratic/swing states like Arizona. 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. |
|
