All That and a Bag of Mail

Okay, the election is Tuesday and as all of you know, I’m a political junkie. 

We got a ton of political questions this week and instead of answering them all, I’ve got an interesting scenario for you. 

So I was playing around with the electoral college map today — yes, I’m a dork — and I think an electoral college tie is, while unlikely, way more likely than most people are considering. Granted, the polls can swing quite a bit between now and Tuesday and many of these state races in the swing states are so close it’s hard to predict exactly how things will go. But let’s assume that Donald Trump wins Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, three big swing states that are presently pretty even, but that he has a very good shot to win, and Hillary hangs on to Virginia and Pennsylvania.

And then every candidate wins every other state that they’re currently favored to win.

If Donald Trump wins New Hampshire — where he has suddenly opened up a tiny advantage — that would leave us tied at 269-269 and throw the race into the House of Representatives, where every state votes as a state delegation and the winner must obtain a simple majority of the states.

In the above scenario Trump would have won 29 states and Hillary Clinton would have won 21 states.  

@ClayTravis pic.twitter.com/1a469EOu71

— Erik Goodwin (@egoodwin81) November 4, 2016

So assuming no state delegations flip, Trump would win the election in the House of Representatives. (In fact, this is even more in favor of Trump since the Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado and Wisconsin delegations, five states that Hillary would win, are all Republican majorities. Hillary would have to fight to keep those delegations in her column since the Republicans in the state would probably ally behind Trump. That means it could be as lopsided as 34 to 16 for Trump.) 

Anyway, it’s early, but I haven’t heard many people at all talking about the potential for a 269-269 tie and it’s actually a very real possibility when you look at the map.  

Okay, on to the mailbag. 

Patrick writes:

“With election day just around the corner, both Presidential candidates are out in full force holding rallies and trying to make their last push to lock in votes come November 8th.

I’m not sure if you’ve heard, but recently Madonna claimed “If you vote for Hillary Clinton, I will give you a blowjob.” While I’m pretty sure it is illegal to sell or trade your vote for anything of value (though I’m not sure of the value on a blowjob from Madonna, I imagine higher 30 years and 5,000 penicillin shots ago), this got me thinking.

Lets say trading your vote for sexual favors is completely legal. How much does it take for the average man to give up his vote? Full on sex? Blowjob? OTPHJ (Over the pants handjob)?. The situation obviously has many variables, such as are you trading your vote with a stranger, or your wife? Do you let your wife control your vote for 1 time wild sex/bj, or do you need a guaranteed bj once a week for the year, maybe the entire 4 year term. Would the average man trade his vote to a random hot girl for a handjob, or would it take more?

What state you’re voting in could also play a role in how you value your vote. Living in Tennessee, a guaranteed red state, it probably wouldn’t take much for an attractive female to sway my vote, I mean what’s the difference? That said, what if democratic women were just out here giving sexual favors to republican voters left and right, and they flipped a red state blue?! Do the women of the republican party have what it takes to flip enough democratic voters?

I think this could be a very interesting scenario and I would love to hear my favorite gay Muslims take on it. Also, I’m 100% convinced that women could control the outcome of every single election for the foreseeable future if this is how the voting process worked.”

This is basically the Lysistrata, set in 411 BC, brought to bear in modern politics. In “The Lysistrata” women refused to sleep with with their husbands until the Peloponnesian War is over. Comedy ensues.

Which would happen in the modern day too.  

Would I change my vote to Hillary Clinton — I’m presently voting for Gary Johnson — if my wife promised me a blow job once a week for the next year?

100% I would. 

Hell, I’d probably do it for a blow job a month. Maybe even less than that. Let’s be honest, a blow job is a more tangible benefit than I’m likely to get from anyone elected president.  

There have to be a ton of guys like me out there too. Now I’m in a red state so it would take a ton of blow jobs to flip Tennessee to Hillary, but there are a bunch of states that are really close where if, I don’t know, 10,000 women got their husbands to change their votes by offering sexual favors that Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide.

I’d love to see these men and women charged with crimes too. Is there any guy on a jury who would convict a married man for changing his vote for blow jobs? No way, right?

This would be incredible to see happen if it were well organized. 

Evan writes:

“Clay,

A buddy of mine has been dating a girl for a few months. They are both 25 with similar incomes and bills to pay. I recently asked him if he wanted to buy tickets to a concert and he said he was spending too much money lately, so he couldn’t. I pressed for more information and he said he’s been paying for all the dates they’ve been on. I asked why and he said “She hasn’t offered to pay, and I feel awkward asking her to do it.”

I’m wondering what your take is on this because I think that’s a big red flag. I’m totally fine with a guy paying a majority of the time, but the girl needs to at least offer to pay a portion of the time. I think it’s pretty selfish of her, since they are both in similar financial situations. What should my friend do in this situation? I’ve never been in that situation because the few girls I’ve dated long term were pretty progressive about paying for stuff. I think he needs to say something to her about it or just dump her (she’s not that great anyways).”

He needs to stop being a pussy and have this conversation with her. She’s bleeding him so dry that he can’t even afford tickets to a concert and she’s never offering to pay for anything? That’s a bad sign for this relationship.

This is also a great example of female privilege that no one talks about. Can you imagine how much more money men spend on dates a year than women? There has to be billions of dollars in date trade deficit every year passing from men to women. Men are just out here getting murdered on these dating streets. 

Meanwhile many of these same women are demanding equality of the sexes despite offering no equality in their own dating life. Such a cruel hypocrisy.

Just wait until this guy has a family and kids to pay for too. 

Every now and then I eat dinner by myself — very rarely, by the way — and when the bill comes I’m always astounded by how cheap it is. I always think, “Holy shit! I don’t cost very much and I still had a steak and alcohol.”

That’s because I’m used to paying for three kids and my wife now. Toss in our nanny and I’ve got an entire army out to dinner sometimes. It’s expensive as hell to go anywhere. 

Blair writes:

“When is supporting your spouse’s college football team considered over the top?

After graduating from the University of Oregon in 2009, I moved to Texas. My “I’ll be there two years tops” scenario went out the window after I met my husband, a native Texan and die-hard Aggie. Now my football Saturdays are filled with tailgates, season tickets and wearing a lot of maroon. To be honest, I’m totally good with this since it’s fun and a great way to spend my time. However, I still watch my Ducks every week (even this horrific season), wear green & yellow & black & white, and yell “Aloha Bitches” on Sundays. To me this is pretty standard in a mixed-college household. Right?

Nevertheless, after the college football rankings came out on Tuesday, a co-worker basically called me out saying I was a complete bandwagon fan, that I “didn’t even go to the school” and had no business being an A&M fan. #noChill #MadUTfan

PS the only thing I said in regards to rankings was “hahaha sucks to be Washington” as any good Duck fan would do. It wasn’t like I painted A&M on my face and was running around the office yelling “Whoooooop!”

Anyway, I’m pretty sure this guy just has a Charlie Strong sized stick up his ass but this got me thinking, what is the proper protocol for fan association when it’s through another person? When should the transfer of team affiliation take place? (Dating? Long term relationship? Marriage?) Ultimately, where is the line between ok and too much?

In my opinion this is just part of the married life, and I know if we lived in Oregon my husband would support the Ducks just the same. Am I wrong to end this with a Go Ducks & Gig’ Em?”

I think once you get married you’re obligated to root for your spouse’s team as long as they aren’t playing your team. That’s especially the case in a scenario like yours, where you’ve got two teams that rarely, if ever, play and they’re from two different conferences in two different parts of the country.

I mean, how much of a bitch would you be if you showed up at Aggie games, tailgated with your husband’s friends all the time, went to the games, and then refused to root for A&M because you didn’t go there? That would be a total asshole move.

Now, to be fair, I don’t think you can root for a team like this until you’re married. Merely dating doesn’t count because most people break up with the people they date. In my own life, I don’t really “root” for Michigan, but since my wife went to Michigan I’d rather Michigan win than any other Big Ten school. I think that’s pretty normal for spouses.   

The same would hold true, I think, if you pay for your kid to go to school at a school you didn’t grow up rooting for. Once you’re paying tuition, you’re allowed to root for that school as well.

Now all of this presupposes that you maintain rooting allegiance for the team that you rooted for your entire life. That is, you can’t switch and root against your original team. 

The only time I can imagine abandoning the team you rooted for your entire life is: a. if your child goes to the new school and plays on an athletic team there against your old school or b. if you married into a family and your father-in-law is coaching the team there.

The second debate came up because while I was at Vanderbilt, Ron Zook’s daughter was an undergrad there. And I remember we got into a huge debate about whether or not you’d have to become a Florida fan if you married into her family and Zook was the coach. (We were presuming he wouldn’t get fried really fast.) My argument was yes would be impossible to root against your father-in-law’s team, assuming you liked your father-in-law, when you saw how hard he worked, interacted with the team and the university, and knew how much his winning impacted your own family’s happiness.

Plus, are you really raising your grandkids to root against grandpa’s team? 

That’s downright diabolical. 

But my opinion was controversial. Some people said they would never switch teams no matter who their father-in-law was. 

I think they’re lying. 

Jim writes:

“Give me the absolute most chaotic end of the season scenario you can imagine that makes the playoff committee’s job impossible?”

Okay, right now things are pretty simple, right? If Alabama, Clemson, Michigan and Washington all win out, they’d all be undefeated at 13-0 and the committee’s job would be incredibly easy.

So how does that turn into total chaos.

Here we go:

Washington loses to Washington State and USC, failing to win either the Pac 12 North or the Pac 12 title. Three loss USC wins the Pac 12 title game over Washington State, meaning every team but Washington has three losses in the Pac 12. 

Clemson loses to one of its final three ACC opponents and South Carolina and then gets blown out by a three loss North Carolina or Virginia Tech team that wins the ACC. Meanwhile, Louisville loses on the road to Houston.    

Alabama loses to Auburn and LSU. LSU beats Texas A&M, but loses to Arkansas. Auburn beats Alabama, but loses to Georgia. In that scenario we have a four way 6-2 tie in the SEC West with Texas A&M, Alabama, LSU, and Auburn. Whoever wins that four way tiebreak, and I have no idea who it would be, advances to Atlanta to play 5-3 Tennessee because Florida loses to Arkansas and LSU. The Vols subsequently upsets the 10-2 SEC West team to win the SEC title at 10-3.

Michigan loses to Iowa on the road and then loses to Ohio State in Columbus too. But Ohio State has also lost to Nebraska, which then also loses to Iowa. 10-2 Penn State wins the Big Ten East and beats 10-2 Nebraska, which wins the Big Ten West over 9-3 Wisconsin, which has lost at Northwestern. 11-2 Penn State is your Big Ten champ.

The Big 12 champ has three losses too.     

All of this is making my head swim. 

But I think your playoff would end up being: USC, Penn State, Tennessee, and the three loss ACC title team, either Virginia Tech or North Carolina.

There you have it, total chaos.  

Brad writes:

“Assuming Alabama makes it through the rest of the SEC West (they will), they are going to dominate whichever East team stumbles their way to Atlanta. So instead of wasting everyone’s time with a shitty game, I have an idea. Why not make it Alabama vs. an all-SEC East team? The best 85 players the east has to offer, chosen by media, coaches, fan poll, whatever. There is no bullshit rule about every team having a representative, and give them two weeks practice to gel as a team. Who do you think wins that game? The bigger question is who do you choose to coach? Assuming you have to take a SEC east coach, I think you have to take McElwain. Maybe Butch, but as a Vol fan, I am a little biased against him at the moment. I know how you feel about a coach’s effect on the college game, so is this the deciding factor?”

You have to go with McElwain as the coach. Maybe let Muschamp come over and take the defensive coordinator job. 

You know what sucks, who the hell is your quarterback? You still don’t have a good one even if the entire SEC East is available.

Which means I still think Bama would still win this game even if all the best SEC East players were going up against them.

…

Thanks for reading Outkick, have great weekends.