Flash/Mike...what we're up against this fall....

[bigbadjohn45]

Even Without Trump, Republicans Still Have A Hard Electoral Map This Year

Matt Vespa

Posted: Apr 10, 2016 12:10 PM

Trump supporters and anti-Trump supporters can go back to their corners because the Cook Political Report just threw a wet blanket on Republicans as we prepare for battle against the Clinton political machine. Yes, voter turnouts are high in the GOP primaries, but the map simply favors the Democrats by over 100 electoral votes. Chris Cillizza of theWashington Post penned a piece about the doom and gloom facing Republicans:

There are 19 states that have gone for Democrats in each of the last six elections. Those 19 states account for a total of 242 electoral votes. By contrast, there are 13 states that have voted for the Republican nominee for president in every election since 1992. Those 13 account for just 102 electoral votes.

The Democratic nominee this fall will, if past is prologue, start with a 140-electoral vote lead over the Republican nominee.

The Democratic nominee needs to win only 28 additional electoral votes to get to 270 and be elected president.

Now for some more math. If Hillary Clinton wins the 19 states that every Democratic presidential nominee has won since 1992 and Florida, she is president. Simple as that. Or if she wins the 19 states and takes Ohio, New Mexico and Nevada, she's president. Or if she wins the 19 plus Iowa, New Hampshire and Ohio. You get the idea. There are LOTS of plausible paths to 270 electoral votes for the Democratic nominee.

Now, let's do the same for Republicans. Give Donald Trump the 13 states that every GOP nominee since 1992 has won (not a total sure thing for Trump, by the way). And, give him the five states the Republican nominee has claimed in five of the last six elections. And the seven states that have voted for the Republican nominee four times since 1992. Add them all up and you get 219 electoral votes. That means Trump or Ted Cruz or whoever needs 51 more electoral votes to win. Give Trump Colorado, Florida and Nevada — three of the four swingiest states over the past six presidential races — and he still only gets to 263 electoral votes.

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

This is what I have been saying for months...all that matters is about 5-6 states and the problem is we have to win all of them.

This brings up a bigger challenge for any candidate like a Ted Cruz. They simply cannot win in New England, CA, NY or most of upper Midwest. So they must win in OH, VA, NC, FL, IA.

I have lived in New England, I see the culture and how people think, they will never accept Ted Cruz (or any other Southern conservative), or at least not in this election cycle. They are post-conservative, post-Christian, think differently.

Think about the odds, Clinton is not even liked and yet she will most likely win.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

This is what I have been saying for months...all that matters is about 5-6 states and the problem is we have to win all of them.

This brings up a bigger challenge for any candidate like a Ted Cruz. They simply cannot win in New England, CA, NY or most of upper Midwest. So they must win in OH, VA, NC, FL, IA.

I have lived in New England, I see the culture and how people think, they will never accept Ted Cruz (or any other Southern conservative), or at least not in this election cycle. They are post-conservative, post-Christian, think differently.

Think about the odds, Clinton is not even liked and yet she will most likely win.

Mike, yes, you've definitely had first-hand knowledge of the culture and the lay of the land in the liberal northeast. That's a different world up there, no doubt.

Which brings us to your point regarding those critical, must-win, "battleground" states you mentioned. Here's a key passage from the article I posted:

"The Democratic nominee this fall will, if past is prologue, start with a 140-electoral vote lead over the Republican nominee.

The Democratic nominee needs to win only 28 additional electoral votes to get to 270 and be elected president."

So, given this scenario, how can any GOP nominee win the Presidency? We've tried the moderate, RINO-type candidates (Dole, McCain, Romney)--and that didn't work.

I say let's nominate a true, full-bore conservative such as Ted Cruz and let the chips fall where they may. I say let's give the voters a clear contrast; let's give them a clear choice. No more pale pastels. Let's paint in bold colors! And if we lose, we lose. At least we'll go down fighting.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Well said.

 

[bigbadjohn45]

Well said.

Thanks, Flash, and God bless you, brother.

--BBJ

 

[Blueraider_Mike]

Cruz is not well liked for whatever reason.

 

[nashvillegoldenflash]

Mike, Cruz is not well liked by liberals and RINOs because he drew a line in the sand and did not compromise, make deals, or surrender.