Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Leafsnail]

Somebody is REALLY bad at LCS.

[FearfulJesuit]

Somebody is REALLY bad at LCS.

Lunatic Cartographer Squad?

[werty892]

Somebody is REALLY bad at LCS.

Lunatic Cartographer Squad?

Liberal Crime Squad

The other game made by toady, in the curses forum I belive.

[FearfulJesuit]

Somebody is REALLY bad at LCS.

Lunatic Cartographer Squad?

Liberal Crime Squad

The other game made by toady, in the curses forum I belive.

Yeah, I know.

[Strife26]

Maybe. It'll take a massive un-Reganization for that to happen. There are elements in the GOP trying to do this, but their own rhetoric is tying them down now.

I think what the problem is is that nobody can actually offer any coherent package to move away from the Reagan coalition. On any given position, somebody is pushing to move away from it, but they've got a foot stuck in the status quo. So, you get someone like Bobby Jindal calling for a mild rethink of the party's position on corporate policy, but who is opposed to same-sex marriage. The only potential messiah figure I can see at the moment is Jon Huntsman, but there's just one problem: his own party hate his guts (precisely for this reason: he knows exactly why and where they're wrong). He also probably can't cultivate the cult of personality that Reagan could.

Well, I'm going to keep hoping for a Huntsman shift in the party, at least. I mean, from what I'd guess, he'd score super-well with all the independents and moderates who prefer to lean conservative. I mean, while I gotta say that his last bit on gun control was pretty annoying, if Colbert likes a guy, they must be good, right?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As long as the GOP party leaders are theocrats and corporate shrills, Huntsman's faction will never get off the ground.

[Strife26]

Sure, but I'd contend that as long as they're hardline theocrats and corporate shrills, they're going to keep getting less and less powerful, and I doubt that the evils shadowy corporate pay masters want to back a dying horse. I mean, gooder [sic] sense has to break out sometime, right?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There comes a point where the rhetoric overwhelms the pragmatism and it all goes down in flames. They may not have realized it, but I think this election proves that. The GOP's radicalism is going to keep them from changing.

Also, the only other people to pay off are Democrats, who have been invested as opposition to the Republicans for so long that suddenly becoming obviously corporate shrills hurts them.

[Techhead]

That map must be color-swapped. The thirteen reddest states in the 2012 presidential election were Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, Nebraska, Kansas, Tennessee, North Dakota, and South Dakota. All of the above are dark blue on the map. Mind you, this implies that Vermont, where 66.57% voted for Obama, goes Republican.

[penguinofhonor]

Kentucky was 57.37% for McCain and 60.49% for Romney, so I don't know how "current political trends continuing" could make it turn blue.

[misko27]

Actually, the repubs have been breaking with their corporate sponsers. And the Defense Hawks. The Defeicit faction is directly opposed to both of them right now, and the Corporatios have sided with Obama on a number of the bufjet fights recently, doing nothing.

[GreatJustice]

It's not possible. There are some choices that make no sense no matter how you slice it. Mississippi is a red party stronghold, but Alabama is basically the darkest blue state in the country? Where is that split coming from?

The map was so nonsensical that I decided to immortalize it forever in the OP...

Don't mind the shading, the "margin of victory" isn't in the map. Oh and the colours are reversed, so blue is Republican and red is Democratic.

Anyhow Mississippi has traditionally been a Republican state because the white majority is fairly safely in their column, but, as has been said already, that's changing rapidly. Alabama, meanwhile, is a state with heavy influences from defense contractors and so on, so they'll be staying Republican unless they suddenly do 180 on foreign policy.

The south and west are naturally trending Democratic as a result of similar things, and assuming no political realignments will be in their column in the distantish future. Meanwhile, the Rust Belt has been moving towards the GOP, and the northeast is similarly shuffling in that direction, at least when the Republican emphasizes the fiscal policy more (which, going by Romney, is what they do these days). Keep in mind, this is a map of something like 2032, again assuming no major ideological changes, no major recessions, etc.

[Jervill]

And yet you assume Illinois, Minnesota, and Iowa are moving towards Republicans?  I'm calling bullshit on that.  Both Illinois and Minnesota have major cities and suburbs that are trending Democratic enough to offset some of the rural areas trending R.  The only reason Minnesota looks as if it has moved right since the 1980s is because of the Walter Mondale home-state effect, since he was on the presidential ticket in 1976, 1980, and 1984.

Iowa has been trending D for quite awhile because of the large amount of educational institutions in the state, and began with the Republican mismanagement of the farming crisis in the late 1980s.

[misko27]

Well, It puts New York as Democrat, so My RAEG has abated. Parts of the map are debatable, but it no longer seems, quite as mad.

[RedKing]

lolmap


Sorry, that's the only useful comment I have. Which is 746% more useful than that map was.