Jump to content
270soft Forum

2024 Scenario attributes proposal


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

Murkowski is the only sitting Senator to have a negative approval rating within her own party and a positive approval with the opposing party. After her recent actions, it wouldn't surprise me to see an active effort within the Republican Party to replace her with a more conservative/Republican option.

boom 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This goes both ways though. A lot of the Obama-Trump voters (90%+) stuck with Trump in part because of his less multilateral foreign policy, lack of personal conservatism, and support for deficit spen

I'll post since it all seems quiet and harmonious.  This is my proposal for the candidate attributes for a 2024 scenario. I may make this scenario myself, but it will have to be after the current

Trump platform + dial back the rhetoric a bit + stop getting in incessant fights with everyone = higher ceiling, IMHO.

1 hour ago, TheLiberalKitten said:

Doesn't Alaska have ranked choice voting in its general election? I do recall that their primary is the top four moving on to the general election. 

Yeah, it's something weird, which means a Trump campaign against Murkowski might just land a Democrat Senator. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, it's something weird, which means a Trump campaign against Murkowski might just land a Democrat Senator. 

Alaska is 24% registered Republican, 13.5% Democratic, this makes no sense other than wishful thinking. 

 

"Democrats can win Texas this year!!11!" 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, it's something weird, which means a Trump campaign against Murkowski might just land a Democrat Senator. 

I don't necessarily think a Democrat will win the seat if that happens but if Murkowski gets into the top four and then in the General Election she might win because of the run off :)
But that is just my opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Alaska is 24% registered Republican, 13.5% Democratic, this makes no sense other than wishful thinking. 

 

"Democrats can win Texas this year!!11!" 

That leaves a lot of Independents. Especially in a hypothetical general election with basically two GOP candidates splitting a vote and one Democrat. I'll admit a Republican would easily win if they were unified behind one candidate.

The new rule make it possible for GOP to lose the vote: "All candidates will run in an all-party, open primary, from which the top four candidates will advance to the general election. Voters will then utilize ranked-choice voting during the general election."  

It isn't impossible to see Murkowski and the Trump candidate going at it so fiercely that neither candidate's majority of supporters put the other as their 2nd choice, especially if the Democrats put a moderate Democrat that is likable and somewhat independent. 

Here's a scenario: 

Primary: 

Trump supporter - 38%

Murkowski - 20%

Democrat - 18%

Independent - 8%

All the rest combine for about 16% but don't get to the general. 

General: 

Most Trump supporters put the Independent or Democrat as their 2nd choice over Murkowski who is Trump's target villain. 

Murkowski supporters pick the Democrat and Independent over the Trump supporter because the bulk of Murkowski supporters will likely be put off by Trump's targeting of her. 

Democrat would probably put Independent or Murkowski 2nd

Independent -- depends what kind, but for this exercise, let's say they aren't populist and they are anti-establishment. Some go for Democrat and some go for Trump's candidate because they don't want Murkowski. 

Of the 16% that didn't get a candidate in the general--who knows where they'd go in a state with so many independents. 

Basically, based off the above, unless Trump supporter candidate wins on the first ballot, which is unlikely in this scenario, then the Democrat is in a strong position to rise up the charts, since most of the 2nd choice votes are going to the Democrat. 

So it's a little more in the realm of possibility than "wishful thinking," even if it is less likely than not. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Murkowski is the only sitting Senator to have a negative approval rating within her own party and a positive approval with the opposing party. After her recent actions, it wouldn't surprise me to see an active effort within the Republican Party to replace her with a more conservative/Republican option.

Election laws in Alaska mean the top 4 advance on one ballot. That means she can survive on moderate Republican votes and Democratic ones. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Election laws in Alaska mean the top 4 advance on one ballot. That means she can survive on moderate Republican votes and Democratic ones. 

Yes :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, @Anthony_270, Hestia is allowed to post  🤣 emoticons on my posts and I can't put any laughing emoticons to anyone? 

 

 

Or bc we both respond to each other, anything is fair game? 

 

I don't mind it, just want to understand where the rules currently stand since I've been biting my emoticon tongue to some posts 😀

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

That leaves a lot of Independents. Especially in a hypothetical general election with basically two GOP candidates splitting a vote and one Democrat. I'll admit a Republican would easily win if they were unified behind one candidate.

The new rule make it possible for GOP to lose the vote: "All candidates will run in an all-party, open primary, from which the top four candidates will advance to the general election. Voters will then utilize ranked-choice voting during the general election."  

It isn't impossible to see Murkowski and the Trump candidate going at it so fiercely that neither candidate's majority of supporters put the other as their 2nd choice, especially if the Democrats put a moderate Democrat that is likable and somewhat independent. 

Here's a scenario: 

Primary: 

Trump supporter - 38%

Murkowski - 20%

Democrat - 18%

Independent - 8%

All the rest combine for about 16% but don't get to the general. 

General: 

Most Trump supporters put the Independent or Democrat as their 2nd choice over Murkowski who is Trump's target villain. 

Murkowski supporters pick the Democrat and Independent over the Trump supporter because the bulk of Murkowski supporters will likely be put off by Trump's targeting of her. 

Democrat would probably put Independent or Murkowski 2nd

Independent -- depends what kind, but for this exercise, let's say they aren't populist and they are anti-establishment. Some go for Democrat and some go for Trump's candidate because they don't want Murkowski. 

Of the 16% that didn't get a candidate in the general--who knows where they'd go in a state with so many independents. 

Basically, based off the above, unless Trump supporter candidate wins on the first ballot, which is unlikely in this scenario, then the Democrat is in a strong position to rise up the charts, since most of the 2nd choice votes are going to the Democrat. 

So it's a little more in the realm of possibility than "wishful thinking," even if it is less likely than not. 

 

No it's wishful thinking.

 

You're really generalizing the difference between people putting an Independent vs. a Democrat as their 2nd choice. There's a massive difference. I don't understand how Murkowski supporters according to you will always pick the Trump supporters last, but then for whatever reason Trump supporters would not? Huh??

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

No it's wishful thinking.

 

You're really generalizing the difference between people putting an Independent vs. a Democrat as their 2nd choice. There's a massive difference. I don't understand how Murkowski supporters according to you will always pick the Trump supporters last, but then for whatever reason Trump supporters would not? Huh??

 

This misrepresent what I am saying. I did not say, "will always pick." That's an absolute. I'm saying the bulk of Murkowski supporters, in my hypothetical scenario, will select a Democrat or an Independent as their second choice, because of the bad blood between Trump and Murkowski supporters. This allows that some will vote for Trump, but most will not, in this hypothetical scenario. Additionally, if you reread what I said about Trump supporters and their second choice, the majority would not pick Murkowski. Basically, I'm saying the bad blood in an intense primary and general between Murkowski and the Trump candidate could see neither party picking the other GOP candidate as their 2nd choice--therefore, potentially handing the election to a Democrat. Naturally, if Murkowski or Trump spend more time attacking the Democrat and being relatively tame towards one another, they might not have to worry. This all seems like a feasible and reasonable scenario, even if it is more likely it won't happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This misrepresent what I am saying. I did not say, "will always pick." That's an absolute. I'm saying the bulk of Murkowski supporters, in my hypothetical scenario, will select a Democrat or an Independent as their second choice, because of the bad blood between Trump and Murkowski supporters. This allows that some will vote for Trump, but most will not, in this hypothetical scenario. Additionally, if you reread what I said about Trump supporters and their second choice, the majority would not pick Murkowski. Basically, I'm saying the bad blood in an intense primary and general between Murkowski and the Trump candidate could see neither party picking the other GOP candidate as their 2nd choice--therefore, potentially handing the election to a Democrat. Naturally, if Murkowski or Trump spend more time attacking the Democrat and being relatively tame towards one another, they might not have to worry. This all seems like a feasible and reasonable scenario, even if it is more likely it won't happen. 

I think you're severely underestimating the ratio of Republicans in Alaska who aren't all in on Trump. The idea that the media/mainstream conservatives are just going to pretend if they do your scenario they aren't HANDING THE ELECTION to Democrats is an interesting choice on your part. That's going to be the main talking point just like we saw w progressives being forced to vote for Biden by their main people. 

 

This idea that all these republicans/never trumper's still exist I thought has been extinguished looking at the 2020 election?  

And the bolded sounds like a whole lot of hedging to me, but ok. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when I was looking at voter registration in Alaska last year while doing research for a scenario I am still making for president infinity, I saw that there are far more independent/no party preference voters in Alaska then Democrats or Republicans. 

But that was a while back and I'd have to check again to see if it is still accurate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PoliticalPundit said:

BTW, @Anthony_270, Hestia is allowed to post  🤣 emoticons on my posts and I can't put any laughing emoticons to anyone? 

 

 

Or bc we both respond to each other, anything is fair game? 

 

I don't mind it, just want to understand where the rules currently stand since I've been biting my emoticon tongue to some posts 😀

Not clear Hestia was laughing at you or with you. No, please do not post laugh icons unless it's meant to be laughing with the poster. That goes for everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

Not clear Hestia was laughing at you or with you. No, please do not post laugh icons unless it's meant to be laughing with the poster. That goes for everyone.

Given our past history I think we both know the answer to do that Anthony 🧐

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PoliticalPundit said:

Given our past history I think we both know the answer to do that Anthony 🧐

 

It sounded to me like he was laughing because of the idea about Dems winning Texas this year!!111, but of course he might not have been.

@Hestia11 Please avoid posting laugh emoji's on PoliticalPundit's comments, and @PoliticalPundit, please do likewise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Anthony_270 said:

It sounded to me like he was laughing because of the idea about Dems winning Texas this year!!111, but of course he might not have been.

@Hestia11 Please avoid posting laugh emoji's on PoliticalPundit's comments, and @PoliticalPundit, please do likewise.

It was 2 posts and once again, our history and some of their personal attacks gives me pause to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't mind it, but if those are the rules good to see them enforced both ways  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

I think you're severely underestimating the ratio of Republicans in Alaska who aren't all in on Trump. The idea that the media/mainstream conservatives are just going to pretend if they do your scenario they aren't HANDING THE ELECTION to Democrats is an interesting choice on your part. That's going to be the main talking point just like we saw w progressives being forced to vote for Biden by their main people. 

 

This idea that all these republicans/never trumper's still exist I thought has been extinguished looking at the 2020 election?  

And the bolded sounds like a whole lot of hedging to me, but ok. 

It might be akin to hedging. I never once stated that I thought a Democratic senator outcome was more likely to happen. I was saying it was more likely to happen in a 4-candidate, ranked choice vote, than if the election was handled the traditional way. Basically, the new systems gives more allowance for any non-Republican to get elected, Democrat or Independent. 

In regards to ratio of Republicans. You personally posted the ratio of registered Democrats and Republicans in the state--both numbers are very low. Independents dwarf both parties. If they are truly independent, it definitely makes an election with 4 candidates and ranked choice voting more volatile. It allows for a greater chance of Democratic victory, than would normally be the case, especially if Murkowski and the Trump candidate tear each other to shreds and alienate the other's voters. In this scenario, a Democrat increases their odds of victory, especially if they are likable, closer to Joe Manchin politically, and are not in any way like AOC or Ilhan Omar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vcczar said:

It might be akin to hedging. I never once stated that I thought a Democratic senator outcome was more likely to happen. I was saying it was more likely to happen in a 4-candidate, ranked choice vote, than if the election was handled the traditional way. Basically, the new systems gives more allowance for any non-Republican to get elected, Democrat or Independent. 

In regards to ratio of Republicans. You personally posted the ratio of registered Democrats and Republicans in the state--both numbers are very low. Independents dwarf both parties. If they are truly independent, it definitely makes an election with 4 candidates and ranked choice voting more volatile. It allows for a greater chance of Democratic victory, than would normally be the case, especially if Murkowski and the Trump candidate tear each other to shreds and alienate the other's voters. In this scenario, a Democrat increases their odds of victory, especially if they are likable, closer to Joe Manchin politically, and are not in any way like AOC or Ilhan Omar. 

I could not be more certain and confident that Trump wins a second term in a landslide to Kamala Harris. It's an absolute certainty. At the same time it's obviously highly likely it doesn't happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Herschel Walker stats -- Integrity 6. Charisma 6 (or 7), Stamina (7 or 8). Probably 4 or lower in about everything else though. He speaks well, so maybe no lower than a 4 on issue knowledge. We haven't seen him debate, and I doubt he has any sort of practice with that. He wasn't even that much of a leader on the football field, despite being a superstar for about 3 years. As far as I know, he was never one of the captains. Therefore, I don't think his leadership should be 5 or higher until shown otherwise. 

On another note, I remember, as a kid, being somewhat bummed out when the Dallas Cowboys (I was born in Dallas) traded Herschel Walker for like 5 or more middling Minnesota Vikings and a few draft picks. It turns out the Cowboys got the better end of the deal as those draft picks were crucial players for the three Super Bowl wins in the 1990s. Walker was never the same after the trade. He had one above average year with the Vikings and one with the Eagles. His best years were in college, with the short-lived USFL, and his first year or two with the Cowboys. I remember at the end of his career, Dallas got him back, but he was primarily a kick returner. 

Oh, I should add that Walker's primary residence is still in Texas. He may have a 2nd home in Georgia, I suppose. I just don't know how the residency rules work if he wanted to run for GA Senate. 

Anyway, the stats I put here are if we included him as a what-if 2024 candidate. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

Herschel Walker stats -- Integrity 6. Charisma 6 (or 7), Stamina (7 or 8). Probably 4 or lower in about everything else though. He speaks well, so maybe no lower than a 4 on issue knowledge. We haven't seen him debate, and I doubt he has any sort of practice with that. He wasn't even that much of a leader on the football field, despite being a superstar for about 3 years. As far as I know, he was never one of the captains. Therefore, I don't think his leadership should be 5 or higher until shown otherwise. 

On another note, I remember, as a kid, being somewhat bummed out when the Dallas Cowboys (I was born in Dallas) traded Herschel Walker for like 5 or more middling Minnesota Vikings and a few draft picks. It turns out the Cowboys got the better end of the deal as those draft picks were crucial players for the three Super Bowl wins in the 1990s. Walker was never the same after the trade. He had one above average year with the Vikings and one with the Eagles. His best years were in college, with the short-lived USFL, and his first year or two with the Cowboys. I remember at the end of his career, Dallas got him back, but he was primarily a kick returner. 

Oh, I should add that Walker's primary residence is still in Texas. He may have a 2nd home in Georgia, I suppose. I just don't know how the residency rules work if he wanted to run for GA Senate. 

Anyway, the stats I put here are if we included him as a what-if 2024 candidate. 

Hershel's integrity is at minimum an 8. He sticks true to his beliefs despite pushback from other minorities AND even before getting political has always been one of the most real genuine people out there. There's a tendency I've noticed from the anti Trump people on this site to give anyone who is a Republican super low "integrity" ratings.. for no reason other than they disagree w their beliefs. 

 

Charisma is a 7 possibly 8. His stamina is a 6 or so, as someone who watched him on Celebrity Apprentice, he gets tired easily lol.

 

I actually think he is not the best speaker, so closer to a 6 or 5. He is too nice to "debate" so I'd give him a 4 or even possibly 3 (again, from Celebrity Apprentice). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Hershel's integrity is at minimum an 8. He sticks true to his beliefs despite pushback from other minorities AND even before getting political has always been one of the most real genuine people out there. There's a tendency I've noticed from the anti Trump people on this site to give anyone who is a Republican super low "integrity" ratings.. for no reason other than they disagree w their beliefs. 

 

Charisma is a 7 possibly 8. His stamina is a 6 or so, as someone who watched him on Celebrity Apprentice, he gets tired easily lol.

 

I actually think he is not the best speaker, so closer to a 6 or 5. He is too nice to "debate" so I'd give him a 4 or even possibly 3 (again, from Celebrity Apprentice). 

 

So I guess this means you're back on the board then? 🤣 well that was sooner than I expected  

@Anthony_270 is this a misuse of the emoji you were talking about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...