Economist: GOP may win 47 states in general election

The Hill ^ | 10 January 2016 | Bradford Richardson

[Rockitz]

Supply-side economist Arthur Laffer is predicting Republicans will win the White House in a landslide this year, regardless of the nominee.

“I would be surprised if the Republicans don’t take 45, 46, 47 states out of the 50,” Laffer told host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on New York’s AM-970 on Sunday.

“I mean, I think we’re going to landslide this election.”

Laffer, who served in various positions in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, said he is bullish on the entire Republican primary field.

“When I look at these candidates, I don’t see one of them who wouldn’t do a great job as president,” he said.

“I think Donald Trump is phenomenal, I think Rand Paul has done a great job, I even like Jeb Bush — I think Jeb Bush is great, he did a wonderful job in Florida,” he added. “Chris Christie – phenomenal.”

He said Democratic primary front-runner Hillary Clinton’s “day is over.”

[Don Corleone]

There was no way the GOP could ever win another national election again. So what happened ? What did I miss ?

TRUMP!!!

[dfwgator]

Is there a reason that “France” is shaped like Germany?

[raybbr]

In his zeal to islamicize the west his brain got confused with 57 Islamic States of Obama

Apparently there is an islamic coalition that is comprised of "57 states".

[Carriage Hill]

Good catch; not my graphic.

[Brilliant]

Yes. Or lose 47 states. Don’t count your chickens.

[NathanR]

7. Guantnamo?

[BobL]

“I am not sure I would use the words “strong Democrat like
Elizabeth Warren” in the same sentence.”

I will. She will FIRE UP their base at least as much as Obama. DO NOT underestimate how much she’s loved by those dingbats.

[HoosierDammit]

W won a close race in 2004 with just under 51% and 284 EV’s. I think, barring a catastrophic candidate, a “comfortable” republican win of, say, 52-53% of the vote is possible, considering how big a wreck Hillary is. This uptick in popular vote brings will buoy the electoral vote for our side by a couple of states - I’m guessing Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. That’s about 30 additional EV’s on top of W’s 284.

Either Cruz and Rubio are likely the nominee, both of whom would be viable candidates. As much as the establishment doesn’t like Cruz, and as much as a small portion of the grassroots doesn’t like Rubio, both sides would grin and bear it. If Trump or Jeb are the nominees, however, then it’s a different story.

[loveliberty2]

According to Laffer, ". . . it's about issues, not people."

One slight revision of Laffer's analysis: ". . . it's about principles, not people."

For instance, the founding principles of "limited government" power, strict "division and separation of powers, with checks and balances," and "fidelity to the Constitution and its limits and bounds on the exercise of power" in all circumstances--these should be the measures by which citizens should choose the next President.

Following the attempts at eroding the Constitution's limits on power by this President, Republicans should choose a candidate who will vow that he/she will not choose to attempt to enact conservative values, using the same un-Constitutional tactics as this President. The Constitution's limits must be respected, no matter how frustrating is the process.

[SunkenCiv]

Supply-side economist Arthur Laffer is predicting Republicans will win the White House in a landslide this year, regardless of the nominee. "I would be surprised if the Republicans don't take 45, 46, 47 states out of the 50,"

Not having the Obama Veto Roadblock and having both houses of Congress, plus a few more guvna mansions and state legislatures won't hurt, either. Thanks Rockitz.

[Democratic-Republican]

Economist: GOP may win 47 states in general election

Not so fast. (D)ummies might say this to depress our turnout. Math challenged people that never have looked at the electoral demographics might say this out of ignorance.

The only way that such an event can happen is with wholesale defections from (D) voters to (R). Hence, if that headline story at drudge ...

DEMS DEFECT: 20% WOULD VOTE TRUMP!

... has any substance, THEN there is a chance to get a foot in the door in NY, CA, IL, MA, VT, but that door is not open in almost any scenario because of the padding of the "blue" state demographics with replacement voters from the welfare roles despite the exodus to "red" states.

Crossover voters are not only key, but they are the single most valuable thing there is. 5% of definite voters who crossover is a net 10 percent movement, absent them it would take an increase of 10% of new or stay at home voters to match 5% of definite crossovers. The (D)ummies are ripe for picking because Dumbo maxed out the (D)ummycrat turnout with his "historic" arrival.

Unfortunately I calculate a necessary 15% crossover being the minimum necessary to put NY into play. That is huge. 2% or 3% ( net 4% or 6% ) is all it takes to get most of the dozen swing states into play ( IA, NC, IN, MI, WI, NM, NV, FL, OH, PA, VA, CO ) and that is eminently do-able with the right candidate ( Dole and McCain and Romney could not ).

With the right candidate against a severely damaged (D)ummy with economic malaise and Second Amendment threats and terrorism and promise of jobs and tax cuts a perfect storm can certainly arise. However their actions with creating an alien invasion and citizenship and voting was and is their firewall and it must be overcome now or never.

It is a tall order. Up here in NY, President A-Hole actually improved in 2012 over 2008, which he did not manage in most other places, and this should highlight the problem in the enemy strongholds like NY State.

At least Trump is demonstrating what I had hoped to see, a genuine 50-state strategy, something the (R)INOcrat establishment never had cross their minds. If it is for real, he can definitely win this thing, but we should leave landslide out of our vocabulary for now.

Reality Check: At this moment it is quite possible that Trump could actually win the popular vote but still easily lose the electoral college in a perfect reversal of 2000. We can not take anything for granted this year.

[JayGalt]

Pocahontas is a regional insanity, I’m not sure she translates to the rest of the country.

[truth_seeker]

There is not a single poll, or trend in public opinion tracking to suggest this.

The fact is there are too many dependent types, for medical, unemployment, disability, welfare, food stamps, student loans, and government employment.

It will be made clear to them by the democrats, that their money would be cut off by Republicans, even if untrue.

Ie. the 47% mentioned by Romney, which has not diminished.

I have NOT heard Republicans talking about cutting those funds off.

[vette6387]

I thought Obama was adding territories to sates to get the 57 number but I can only come up with six. Am I missing one or was he really just that wrong?

You’ve Got it all Wrong!
1.Iraq
2.Syria
3.Sudan
4.Gaza
5.North Korea
6.Somalia
7. Kenya

In Obola’s mind they are not refugees coming here they are “citizens.” Think if it as an American version of “The Commonwealth.”

[GOPJ]

We need more conservative governors ... AND more State Legislatures... This is the path.

[JayGalt]

IDK. I will sit out the election for the first time in 40 years if Trump or Cruz aren’t on the ticket.

[GilGil]

This is very similar to the record ratings of the first debate on Fox news.

Fox thinks this happened because of them when it was in fact because of Trump.

Fox may try exactly the same thing later this month and trash Trump because they are taking credit for the ratings when in fact they had nothing to do with it.

[BobL]

I’m not so sure...hopefully the Wildebeest stays put. I don’t want to be right.

[Defiant]

Very excellent analysis. I agree. Any GOPe candidate loses, with or without a 3rd party challenge. People like us will be so disgusted, they won't vote for the candidate. People attracted to the anti-DC movement, like Reagan Democrats, won't vote for a weak-kneed milquetoast like we have run since 1988.

Cruz will do a little better than an establishment candidate, but he doesn't have the magnetism to win over the voters in places like NY and PA. He might get over the hump, but barely, the margin of error is slim. He basically gets the same states that Romney wanted to win, but couldn't quite get because people didn't show up. We'd show up.

Trump wins in a landslide. Maybe he doesn't get California, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and all of the liberal states. But he gets back the purple states (Ohio, Virginia, NH), all the red ones, and a significant number of the formerly solid blue ones (Wisconsin, NY, PA, IL). Maybe he wins them all, who knows? But it's a landslide.

[Fresh Wind]

That “57 states” thing is erroneous.

Actually, what Obama said was that he had visited 57 states with one left to go, and said his staff couldn’t justify him going to Alaska and Hawaii.

So, that makes 60.

But in all fairness, he wasn’t sure about the numbers. Too much pot will do that to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws