Right. If it's hard to win, that makes it a battleground state, no? Maybe we have a different idea of what a battleground state is.

Florida is up for grabs. A quick internet check (Florida Div of Elections) shows that FL has approx 300k more Ds than Rs. However, and a huge however it is, there are now over 2million no-party-affiliated voters in FL, representing 24% of the voters. NPA is the 3rd largest voter group in Florida.

---

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. - Theodore Roosevelt

No, No, No. Massachusetts in 1984 wasn't a "battleground" state because Reagan barely won it! Florida is trending redder every election cycle, and is less likely to go Dem than Virginia/Pennsylvania/Colorado/New Hampshire (which are all that are necessary to get past 270 electoral votes). If you do not believe that, then you have not paid any attention to the last 4-5 election cycles. Party affiliation is far less importatnt than previous presidential voting patterns. Do you live in Florida?

I actually trust oldabdslow on this one because he actually has a pretty good track record when it comes to election strategy and predictions.

If I remember correctly, this is sort of what he's saying. Lets hypothetically say that the Dems are close to winning, but slightly behind. This is what it might look like in terms of % points needed in each state.

Virginia - 1%
Pennsylvania - 1%
Colorado - 2%
New Hampshire - 3%
Florida - 5%

So instead of trying to get 5% out of Florida, you go after the 1-3% out of the other states.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Actually, I checked the results from 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012. The winners were Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama. Your post is the first time that I read Florida was not a battleground state, that's why I'm asking. Also, the last 4 elections did not all go R, so that seems not to support your assertion that it is trending redder. Maybe it will go red this go around.

Ok, so I just checked 1996 - that went to Clinton. So the last 5 elections were D, R, R, D, D. I don't mean to be argumentative; I am looking for your rationale. I prefer to let facts sway me; I have no emotional attachment to my opinion on this.

---

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. - Theodore Roosevelt

You need to examine the percentage results for the past elections. Battleground states are the handful of states that are needed to bring a total over 269 electoral votes. The comparative "reddish" or "bluish" nature of battleground states are based on where the order of states in by voting percentage.

Looking at 1996 (https://en.wikipedia.org/...996#Results_by_state) you can notice that a whole slew of states were more conservative than Florida. Colorado/Nevada/Virginia were so "red" that they weren't even battleground states. 2000 saw Florida as the quintisential battleground state (winner of Florida won the election). Since that time Florida has become comparatively more conservative, while Virginia/Colorado/Nevada have consistently trended bluer. The past two election cycles, winning Florida has no longer been important in victory, and it has been the most conservative state carried by Obama.

Florida may still be officially a "battleground" state, but it is no longer that competitive, and from the Democrat perspective, trying to win Florida is MUCH harder than holding Virginia/Colorado/Iowa/etc. (and that is all that is needed to win the election). It has nearly become non-competitive (offopsite of Colorado which moved from solid red to "battleground"). Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of state-by-state results for all elections.

What if Hillary was able to convince Kaisch to be her running mate? Would that tip the balance even more in her favor? He polled as the only Rep to beat Hillary when he was still in the race.

---

Suffer Well.

Looks like Kaine and Vilsack are the front-runners. jkca1 predicted those two back in November.

I've said someone boring and nondescript since she started. Do I win something?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Tim Kaine, former governor of VA and current Senator. He covers all of the bases.


My bet also.


I don't think a VP pick from either side is going to change the outcome at all but he is a safe choice as is Pence for Trump, so the picks are a wash. It's still coming down to how many want anyone but Clinton vs anyone but Trump.

I think Pence is a terrible choice for Trump. Any chance he had of securing Sanders voters has been tossed out the window. Pence does solidify the base and may generate money but the rabid right were not going to vote for Hillary anyway. At best they will sit it out. But, Pence was probably the first big boy thing Trump has done the entire election cycle.

I stand by my pick of Kaine from 4 months ago. He brings it all to the table, he is clean as a whistle and has national security experience. He can be president on day 1.

I'm going with Kaine at this point. He is safe. I've met him. His campaign for governor was one of the last I got assigned to. I was on somebody else's for lt governor. when that person l sort of got shuffled to his and played a minimal roll. Not a bad guy. Not exciting.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Kaine is also a senator in the state with a Terry McAuliffe in office. McAuliffe is a Clinton loyalist in a state where the governor picks the senator. That could be very interesting and here is why.

McAuliffe will do WHATEVER the Clintons say. I observe this personally back in 1996 and the Warner governor campaign in 2000 where he was meddling. But what do the Clintons want? A democrat, or a loyal democrat? Virginia is a single term governorship. Most Virginia governors wait for a senate chair to open to no avail. Webb and Warner lucked out on timing. Kaine benefitted on Webb not running for reelection after one term. A Kaine VP would open that slot, McAuliffe fills the spot not with a well liked Virginia Democrat (trust me, he isn't), but himself. Nothing to lose and his only shot at the senate seat. Thus not only securing a democrat senate seat, but also putting an unapologetic Clinton loyalist into the seat and giving him only shot for the seat and subsequent reelections.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden