# What's the most plausible map for the Republican nominee to get to at least 269? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 11, 2016, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640 "2016-03-11T12:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/1 "2016-03-11T12:15:52Z")
269 being, most likely, all they need since a tie would be settled in the House–and if they are losing the House, they are not coming within sniffing distance of 269 anyway. I am comforted by looking at various scenarios, because they strike me as pretty tough sledding even if they had a good nominee (which looks unlikely). But if they did manage to eke out a win, it seems to me it would be by getting all the Romney states plus Florida, Virginia, Ohio, and Iowa. They might substitute Colorado or Nevada for Iowa, but Iowa seems to me like it would tip before the other two. Anyone disagree? (Apologies if this thread has been done before, as I figured it might have been; but I searched and couldn’t find anything.) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/2 "2016-03-11T12:49:09Z")
My approach was playing with the 538 app again. Modest increase in non-college educated White turnout with modest increase R share, slightly decreased R lean of college educated White, slightly less exuberant Black turnout and more historical norms of R share, slightly increased Hispanic turnout and D share. Gives a popular vote win to the Democrats by 0.1 to 0.2% but an EV loss of 272 to 266. That’s GOP getting FL, VA, OH, and IA, as you posit. PA, MI, NH, and WI all stay on the D side but not by huge margins and any given Tuesday, who knows? Any of them could rotate into the R side and one of the others rotate out depending on turnout and share variations state by state. NV and NM a bit less likely to be flipping. Not too comforting to me. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/3 "2016-03-11T14:43:56Z")
[This page has a list of states](http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner) sorted by the chance they will vote for the Democrat in November. In order to get to 269, the Republican needs not only **North Carolina** (the state Romney barely won) and **Florida** and **Ohio** (the states Romney barely lost) but 16 more electoral votes chosen from this list (now sorted by Republican chance): 6 Nevada 13 Virginia 20 Pennsylvania 6 Iowa 10 Wisconsin 9 Colorado 4 New Hampshire The GOP’s best chance is to win **Pennsylvania** ; then they need no other swing state (except of course North Carolina, Florida and Ohio as mentioned). The GOP’s 2nd-best chance is to win **Virginia** , along with any other swing state, e.g. **Nevada**. If the GOP fails to take either Pennsylvania or Virginia, they still have a longshot chance: Win **Wisconsin** and any other swing state (except N.H.), e.g. Nevada or **Iowa**. (This gives them 269 e.v. exactly. Note that they fail if Colorado is substituted for Wisconsin, even though Colorado has only one fewer e.v.) Finally, they can win with **Colorado** and _two_ other swing states. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/4 "2016-03-11T14:52:48Z")
I’ll just say that this year could be very surprising with the way the Republican Party is split internally and picking up a lot of new voters at the same time. With Cruz as the most likely candidates we could see a landslide for the Democratic nominee with just a few states going for Cruz, though probably including Texas. With Trump it could turn into a patchwork we haven’t seen before. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/5 "2016-03-11T15:05:28Z")
Pennsylvania before Iowa? That doesn’t seem right to me. Iowa went Republican as recently as 2004; Pennsylvania hasn’t gone red since the 1980s, even though the GOP talks about targeting it year after year. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/6 "2016-03-11T15:11:22Z")
That list is derived from the betting-game sites, right? So it’s partly turning, not necessarily on the most accurate or most likely predictions of the whole picture of what will happen, but on fragments of the possible picture that people like to play games with. The idea that PA might go for a Republican Presidential candidate will be a perennially overstated feature in such games, precisely because of its high leverage. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/7 "2016-03-11T15:13:26Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Pennsylvania before Iowa? That doesn’t seem right to me. Iowa went Republican as recently as 2004; Pennsylvania hasn’t gone red since the 1980s, even though the GOP talks about targeting it year after year. PA stays Blue as a result of it’s population heavily concentrated in two cities. Outside of those cities it’s heavily Republican, though not as thoroughly as in the past. But anything that lowers turnout in the cities could still swing it Red. It appears the that possibility is diminishing over time though, many of the Republican strongholds are fading such as in the Scranton area where the age of GOP voters was rather old and the size of that group is shrinking as they die off. So this could be the last chance for PA to go Republican short of a disastrous Democratic candidate that loses most everywhere else as well. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/8 "2016-03-11T15:16:09Z")
Right, I’m not foreclosing the possibility altogether, just finding it doubtful that it would go in that order, before Iowa. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/9 "2016-03-11T16:02:02Z")
_ **Is Kasich popular in Pennsylvania?** _ That same webpage shows the Republicans’ chances as follows, where the final column is chance to win the nomination and middle column is chance to actually become POTUS. ```auto Donald Trump 25 % 74 % John Kasich 4 % 6 % Ted Cruz 2 % 14 % Marco Rubio 1 % 3 % ``` Note that Trump has (according to those oddsmakers) only 1/3 chance to win the election if he’s the nominee (and Cruz much lower chance still) but Kasich is \*favored \*to win in November if he’s the nominee. I’m worried that Kasich plus Pennsylvania is one of the biggest threats to a Democratic White House. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/10 "2016-03-11T16:27:04Z")
I wouldn’t worry: he is considered unacceptable to a huge portion of the GOP electorate. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/11 "2016-03-11T17:28:52Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I wouldn’t worry: [Kasich] is considered unacceptable to a huge portion of the GOP electorate. Really?? He’s very competent, very right-wing. Obviously he’s not the darling of the nutcases, evangelicals and racists, but I’d never heard he was “unacceptable.” With Rubio’s star fading, and a brokered-convention in the cards, I think a Kasich nomination is likelier than the 6% Predictwise quote. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/12 "2016-03-11T17:52:40Z")
[Take a look:](http://www.scribd.com/doc/295502565/NBC-WSJ-January-Poll) as of January per NBC/WSJ, only Rand Paul and Rick Santorum were further underwater than Kasich in the “yes, could see self supporting” vs. “no, could not see self supporting” spread. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/13 "2016-03-11T18:11:02Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > 269 being, most likely, all they need since a tie would be settled in the House–and if they are losing the House, they are not coming within sniffing distance of 269 anyway. > > Anyone disagree? Only in that controlling the House and being able to elect a President from that body are two different things. The House vote would be state-by-state. (The Senate vote for VP, on the other hand, is by individual Senator, and I am assuming that the sitting VP would break the tie.) In theory, it’s possible - if the three states that are evenly split and the three that have a Republican majority of 1 (not counting the ones with only one Representative; I don’t expect any of those to change) have one seat each change, and the four with a 3-seat Republican majority (again, not counting West Virginia, which only has three) have two change, the Republicans only have 26 states to the Democrats’ 24. It’s probably more likely that the Democrats get control of the House but the Republicans keep their “state count” advantage. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/14 "2016-03-11T18:13:44Z")
That same chart [from **SlackerInc**] shows Kasich leading, by a very wide margin, the “Don’t Know Name” category. I’ll guess some of that spills over into “Won’t support.” If we trust the oddsmakers he’s the GOP’s best chance at this point. Lack of support, or lack of charisma, won’t matter except in key swing states like Ohio or Pennyslvania. Kasich won reelection in Ohio by a landslide 64-33 margin. _ **And he was born in Pennsylvania.** _ But I agree that Kasich nomination may be a long-shot. I think we can thank Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Rubio for keeping attention on the kooks and leaving Kasich to dangle unnoticed. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/15 "2016-03-11T18:49:09Z")
Ref \*\*septimus \*\*post #3 it sounds like the election could be decided in the eastern time zone. If we assume all the safe states stay safe on both sides, there’s enough swing states in the East to deliver it to the Rs. Which would make for some interesting formal media coverage and also big impacts on down-ticket races further west. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/16 "2016-03-11T19:21:05Z")
Kasich has charisma, and an impressive record. But he signed up for the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, and he says things like: > [@](#): > > Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer. This earns him enmity from the “establishment” [National Review](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431051/john-kasich-liberals-favorite-christian-theocrat), and also from [Tea Party groups.](http://ohioconservativereview.com/2015/02/11/tea-party-to-fox-news-11-reasons-to-stop-calling-kasich-conservative/) Eminence grise George Will even [complained](http://www.deseretnews.com/article/544507/KASICH-IS-ENERGY-PERSONIFIED.html?pg=all), way back in 1997, that Kasich > [@](#): > > seems tempted by the compassion competition that some conservatives want to have with Democrats. > > Unfortunately for Republicans - pain is a hard sell - one function of their party is to insist that risk, failure and responsibility are essential to the culture of freedom. Besides, once you assert, as Democrats do, that government has a roving commission to prevent or palliate pain, something follows - government rampant wherever it thinks it can be ameliorative. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/17 "2016-03-11T19:23:00Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > Only in that controlling the House and being able to elect a President from that body are two different things. The House vote would be state-by-state. (The Senate vote for VP, on the other hand, is by individual Senator, and I am assuming that the sitting VP would break the tie.) > > In theory, it’s possible - if the three states that are evenly split and the three that have a Republican majority of 1 (not counting the ones with only one Representative; I don’t expect any of those to change) have one seat each change, and the four with a 3-seat Republican majority (again, not counting West Virginia, which only has three) have two change, the Republicans only have 26 states to the Democrats’ 24. It’s probably more likely that the Democrats get control of the House but the Republicans keep their “state count” advantage. If the Presidential election is thrown to the House, they “shall choose immediately,” i.e., before the current Congress ends. No seat changes would come into play. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/18 "2016-03-11T19:42:17Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > If the Presidential election is thrown to the House, they “shall choose immediately,” i.e., before the current Congress ends. No seat changes would come into play. This is incorrect. Electoral votes are officially counted by the new session of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/19 "2016-03-11T20:09:09Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > This is incorrect. Electoral votes are officially counted by the new session of Congress. Huh. OK, I was wrong about that. I thought it would be the meeting of electors that counted, but I see the January date now. Ignorance fought. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2016, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640/20 "2016-03-13T02:39:55Z")
Worrying about the electoral map is only really useful after Labor Day. Let’s say that Kasich is the nominee. He leads Clinton by 7.4 in the RCP average: [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general\_election\_kasich\_vs\_clinton-5162.html](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html) Now leaving aside the value of such polls this early, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Kasich has that 7.4 point lead in September. With that kind of lead, the electoral map is pretty meaningless. There is no plausible outcome where Kasich wins by 7 points and loses in the electoral college. Now Cruz on the other hand, he leads by 0.8: [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general\_election\_cruz\_vs\_clinton-4034.html](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html) That’s where the GOP’s weaknesses on the map can be a problem. Cruz would have to identify the states he needs and invest a lot of resources there. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-most-plausible-map-for-the-republican-nominee-to-get-to-at-least-269/748640.md?page=2)