Posted on 05/06/2015 6:06:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Just something I’ve been thinking about, sitting here playing with the RSLC’s new 2016 electoral map widget and drinking heavily. “Create Your Own Path to 270 Map,” the widget beckons. Yeah, go ahead. You go find yourself a path to 270.
Here’s what I’ve got.
Each blue state you see there has been blue in every presidential election since 1992, with the sole exception of New Mexico — which has been blue in every election since 1992 except for 2004. Obama won the state by 10 points three years ago against Romney and by 15 points seven years ago against McCain; if Hillary can’t protect an advantage like that and ends up losing the state next year, it would mean some sort of catastrophic national failure of her campaign that would make NM’s electoral votes irrelevant anyway. So let’s assume that she’s not a total disaster and manages to hold all of the states that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama have held (plus New Mexico). That’s … 247 EVs versus 206 “safe” EVs for the GOP, meaning that the election will boil down to just the seven gray states above. And if you can add at a second-grade level, you’ll realize that Florida’s 29 electoral votes would, in and of themselves, be enough to push Hillary over the top at 276 EVs. Myra Adams calls this the “1992 + 1988 + Florida” path to 270 for Democrats since it includes all of the states that have been blue in White House races since 1988 and 1992 plus the Sunshine State. (You don’t even need New Mexico’s five EVs to clinch the White House in this scenario.) In theory, Hillary Clinton could campaign exclusively in Florida for the next 18 months and still be the odds-on favorite to win the presidency.
An obvious lesson from that: The GOP’s almost certainly going to need a candidate from Florida on the ticket next year to maximize its chances of winning the state. Nominating Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would achieve that. If neither one ends up as nominee, it’s almost a cinch given the math that Rubio will be the VP nominee. He and Susana Martinez are the obvious frontrunners since Republicans would love to have a Latino candidate on the ballot to blunt HIllary’s edge with that group, but Martinez comes from small, deep blue, probably unwinnable New Mexico whereas Rubio comes from large, purple, entire-election-hinges-on-this Florida. It’s a no-brainer. The other obvious lesson you draw is that it’d be awfully nice to have a midwestern candidate on the ticket, to give Ohio and Iowa an extra reason to tilt red. That means Scott Walker, a guy who could, in theory, expand the map by putting Wisconsin in play too. Even losing Wisconsin and winning Iowa would be a moral victory of sorts since Iowa, like New Mexico, has been reliably blue in every presidential contest since the late 80s except for 2004. I’m not lumping it in with NM as a safe blue state, though, partly because the Democrats’ margins of victory there have been smaller (Obama won it by just five points in 2012) and partly because the GOP has so many strong midwestern candidates potentially in the mix this year — Walker, of course, but maybe Kasich and Rick Snyder too — that it might be in play. Long story short, a Walker/Rubio or Rubio/Walker ticket would check lots of regional boxes, theoretically delivering Florida, Iowa, and Ohio and pushing the Republican EV totals on the map above to a healthy 259.
But that still leaves us 11 electoral votes short with just four states left on the table. Virginia alone, with 13 EVs, would do it. So would Colorado plus either Nevada or New Hampshire. And if you think having a hometown boy on the ticket would finally tilt Wisconsin back into the GOP’s column, then all bets are off: Adding Walker’s home state would put the GOP at 269, clinching no worse than a presidential tie and forcing Hillary to run the table in the remaining states just to get the election to the House of Representatives, which would of course decide it for the Republicans. There’s reason to think Wisconsin is winnable, too. Obama won it by 14 points in 2008 but Romney cut his margin in half in 2012. Putting Walker on the national ballot might be enough to win a close race there, a devastating blow to Hillary’s chances. Again, though, this assumes that the GOP is also winning Florida, Ohio, and Iowa, something that’s happened exactly once since Reagan stomped Mondale in 1984. (And the one time it happened, in 2004, was defined by the fallout to the biggest terror attack in American history.) You can safely say two things from all this. One: Walker and Rubio are probably your best play, in whatever order. And two: Hillary Clinton is still a strong favorite to win because that’s just the way the map is.
The site does not allow linking.
Not fair.
Over 50% voted for the bummer knowing he was bad. Over 50% are on the dole. It will take a miracle to pull this out.
Ted Cruz would win at least 40 states, maybe even 42 or 43.
All the other Republican candidates will lose and lose bign
I agree; but I am not going to violate my principles and vote for someone I believe ineligible because it seems that the Constitution doesn't matter anymore.
That it the surest way to make the Constitution useless: treat it like it doesn't matter. Now, I can't control anyone else, but I can control me, and I choose to behave like the Constitution actually does matter.
The old white guys in wigs knew a thing or two and the biggest thing they knew is that direct democracy and direct elections of executives is a disaster.
He is a natural born citizen. He never needed to be naturalized.
This is epic nonsense. Why do you think high end, high paid, serious Republican lawyers never brought it up about Obama. He was eligible because he never had to be naturalized, whether he was born in Hawaii or the dark side of the Moon. He was a citizen by virtue of his mothers’ citizenship.
Two reasons:
First, because the Republican party [like all of our political elite] is dominated by open-borders/new-world-order types (if it wasn't, they would have addressed border security) and the Natural Born Citizen clause is, in fact, a poignant reminder of nationalism. It is therefore in their interest to subvert the NBC requirement — this is why McCain, whose eligibility was also questionable, was pushed opposite Obama. (That way regardless of who won, precedent would be set for eroding the NBC requirement.)
Second, and perhaps most importantly, the confirmation indicates what is either a widespread conspiracy to knowingly install the ineligible, or the widespread apathy and malfeasance/misfeasance that would allow them to unknowingly install the ineligible. — Remember that those in power do not like to be humiliated, to be ridiculed, shown as utterly weak and ineffectual, would likely be worse to them on a personal level than an actual Treason charge. — So, once the deed was done [certification that he was eligible] they had painted themselves into a corner
and, the courts realizing that any scrutiny in the matter would necessitate huge portions of our governmental elite being removed/prosecuted were essentially forced to play along, denying everyone standing to bring a case (those that weren't already perfectly aligned with the NWO/open-borders crowd).
And, dang-it, now I have to ping Nully about a nut-job conspiracy!
Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!
To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...
I stand with Ted.
I think he can do this
Hillary was hiding behind Bill as a centrist until her shamnesty proposal this week let her red slip show. She will have to tack left to clinch the Dem nomination, so the 2004 rules should apply: even more so if Faucahontas runs. The key is to run a real conservative and show how hard left the Dems really are.
Since the Congress, 50 states'AGs, and every court in the land from Muncie Municipal Traffic up to the SCOTUS has been unwilling to even consider the issue, constitutional eligibility has been decided by consensus. 53% of the voters say Barry Soetoro Dunham Obama Jr. (or II) is eligible .... all in favor say "Aye."
OK. So I don't agree. In fact, I have no clue right now as to what an American citizen even may or may not be. Wealthy Chinese moms combine baby delivery with San Francisco shopping and little Wank Ho becomes a US citizen? Illegal aliens Juan and María's little Pepe is born in San Diego, and he is a citizen? Just WTF is this about?
Now people on this very site are telling me that little Pepe and Wank Ho are "Natural Born Citizens?" They tell me "Native Born" = "Natural Born." Our POTUS had the choice upon reaching his majority of choosing Kenyan, UK, Indonesian, or American citizenship. Rubio could have a Cuban Passport if he really wanted one. Jindal could claim Indian citizenship. Ted could claim Canadian, Cuban, or American papers. These strike you as the attributes of "Natural Born Citizens?"
Tell you what. I'll go with what the SCOTUS says on the issue. They have gone well out of their way to dodge the issue every time the appeals reach them. They are the Court of the Constitution. What does the Constitution say about it? Tell us, you black-robèd bumkissers .... that's why we pay you.
So tell me when was Mr. Cruz or Mr. Obama naturalized? When and where did the ceremonies occur and where is the paperwork? Without naturalization ceremonies or paperwork a person who is not a natural born citizen can not become a citizen
Now knock off the nonsense knucklehead!
Absolutely not.
If nothing else, the EC firewalls election fraud to the state in which it is committed - it needs to generate only the fraudulent votes necessary to win the “local” election.
Without the EC, every fraudulent ballot manufactured everywhere contributes to the overall national outcome.
For mathematical proof of the merits of the Electoral College see this article:
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny
I do not.
So tell me when was Mr. Cruz or Mr. Obama naturalized?
Mr. Cruz was naturalized by the circumstances of his birth: see 8 U.S. Code Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization.
You see, the power given to Congress in Art I, Sec 8 over naturalization is unqualified — the Congress could make the rule that anyone who swims the English Channel is a citizen, ow anyone having red hair, or the circumstances of one's birth. The confusion about citizen at birth [via naturalization]
(with Natural Born Citizen) has deliberately been seeded because it undermines the latter — our political elite are open-borders/NWO-types and despise the NBC requirement because it is flagrantly nationalistic.
Also, consider the anchor baby
which has his naturalization via birth and arguably the 14th Amendment — that is the sort of person they want to place in power: because they can call him an American but he has a very low chance of being culturally American and instead likely to be culturally Mexican or South American which have very corrupt political systems and little concept of liberty. In short, they want the US to be culturally accepting of statism and corruption because they have more power and have it more securely in that case — there's a lot of uncomfortable truth in my brochure on The American Caste System.
I get what you’re saying but there’s a lot wrong with it.
For example, that 53% of the people voted does nothing to change the facts in the case — Obama’s Constitutional eligibility is entirely discrete from public opinion.
Also, the idea that “the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it does” is one of the single most destructive attitudes to take regarding liberty. (Consider that Roe was predicated on a Constitutional right to privacy, but the ACA mandates medical records must be accessible to the government... but by Roe there’s a Constitutional right to privacy — is anyone going to force this issue? Or are we all going to ignore this paradox, trusting that the USSC will do the right thing and strike either Row or ACA down?)
You should put your crazy to better use.
Exactly and why I keep contending that either Marco or Jeb will wind up on the ticket.GOP has to win FLa.If we don't want Jeb we need to back Marco warts and all.An outside pick is Pam Bondi(Fla.Att.gen.) but she lacks name recog. and she's on a path to be our next Governor.She would be a wonderful choice however she's brilliant.
Oh, like what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.