Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-18-2019, 09:41 AM
D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But who did they endorse in 2016? A newspaper changing its endorsement is significant. A newspaper endorsing the same party it did last cycle doesn't mean anything.
They endorsed Hillary Clinton.
  #102  
Old 06-18-2019, 09:46 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,763
That's what I expected. Going from not endorsing Trump to not endorsing Trump is dog-bites-man. Trump was obviously able to win Florida before without this paper's endorsement, so there's no reason he couldn't do it again.
  #103  
Old 06-18-2019, 09:47 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But who did they endorse in 2016? A newspaper changing its endorsement is significant. A newspaper endorsing the same party it did last cycle doesn't mean anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
They endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Now the question that makes the little duck swing down from the rafters with a Ben Franklin in its beak:

Who'd they endorse in the cycle before that?
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #104  
Old 06-18-2019, 09:55 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
Before that GOPs.
__________________
Oy.
  #105  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:04 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Aha. So they are Never Trumpers. Good for them.
  #106  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:36 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm guessing it's not states like Wyoming, but states that may usually be fairly safe 'red' like Arizona, which is why they're alarmed.
During the 2016 campaign the Democrats in Arizona were all atwitter with the thought that Clinton might -- just might -- carry the state. Made me laugh my ass off but her campaign bought it to the point of her showing up here two (maybe three) times in the late stages of the campaign.* With 20/20 hindsight, the time would have been better spent in Wisconsin or Michigan.

*Both national and local Dems might have been hoping for a coat tail effect.
  #107  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:37 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,931
That's exactly who I'm voting for!
  #108  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:40 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
During the 2016 campaign the Democrats in Arizona were all atwitter with the thought that Clinton might -- just might -- carry the state. Made me laugh my ass off but her campaign bought it to the point of her showing up here two (maybe three) times in the late stages of the campaign.* With 20/20 hindsight, the time would have been better spent in Wisconsin or Michigan.

*Both national and local Dems might have been hoping for a coat tail effect.
So many states are so close that it's difficult to predict with certainty where the Dems' efforts should be focused. But I'm thinking that Arizona could well be on its way to emulating Colorado and Nevada.
  #109  
Old 06-18-2019, 11:14 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Before that GOPs.


Since Lyndon Johnson. So they are supporters of actual conservatives and not this new idiotic Republican Party.
  #110  
Old 06-18-2019, 11:23 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,763
My point is, Trump won in 2016. If things remain the same in 2020 as they were in 2016, then Trump will win again. Yes, Trump is highly unpopular. Yes, this newspaper is endorsing Not-Trump. But both of those things are the same as they were in 2016. If you want to show signs of Trump's weakness, then you have to show things that are different from 2016.
  #111  
Old 06-18-2019, 11:30 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
My point is, Trump won in 2016. If things remain the same in 2020 as they were in 2016, then Trump will win again. Yes, Trump is highly unpopular. Yes, this newspaper is endorsing Not-Trump. But both of those things are the same as they were in 2016. If you want to show signs of Trump's weakness, then you have to show things that are different from 2016.


And my point is that a conservative publication with decades of endorsing conservatives is literally endorsing anyone except the “Republican” party leader. Not the Democrat like last time. They are endorsing anyone else.

The party is not conservative. Or sane.
  #112  
Old 06-18-2019, 11:32 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But who did they endorse in 2016?
Clinton. Romney in 2012.

Trump is holding this rally in the same city where Nixon declared "I am not a crook". Just for comparison.

Also, btw, the city owns the arena, but the DeVos family (you've heard of them) owns the naming rights contract and the basketball team.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 06-18-2019 at 11:33 AM.
  #113  
Old 06-18-2019, 12:48 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
My point is, Trump won in 2016. If things remain the same in 2020 as they were in 2016, then Trump will win again. Yes, Trump is highly unpopular. Yes, this newspaper is endorsing Not-Trump. But both of those things are the same as they were in 2016. If you want to show signs of Trump's weakness, then you have to show things that are different from 2016.

People born around the millennium became eligible to vote.

People born a few years earlier became much more interested in voting.

Consistent voters born before WWII died.

Educated center-right voters got to see the reality of a Trump presidency, contrasted with their 2016 hope that he would settle down and let GOP stalwarts handle things while he took on a more ceremonial role.
  #114  
Old 06-18-2019, 01:25 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
That's what I expected. Going from not endorsing Trump to not endorsing Trump is dog-bites-man. Trump was obviously able to win Florida before without this paper's endorsement, so there's no reason he couldn't do it again.
That wasn't the newspaper's point. Their point was, Donald Trump is in Orlando today. And today the newspaper welcomed Donald Trump by putting a big, fat headline on their front page that says, 'DON'T VOTE FOR THIS MAN! Vote for anyone else, but not him."

I'm not a big fan of front-page editorials on newspapers, but if you're going to do one, that's the way to do it.
  #115  
Old 06-18-2019, 02:17 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
People born around the millennium became eligible to vote.

People born a few years earlier became much more interested in voting.

Consistent voters born before WWII died.

Educated center-right voters got to see the reality of a Trump presidency, contrasted with their 2016 hope that he would settle down and let GOP stalwarts handle things while he took on a more ceremonial role.
Specifically, there will be about 10 million fewer older voters in '20, an age group with a turnout rate of around 70% and one which gave Trump some majority of their votes. On the other side of the equation are 16 million newly eligible young or immigrant voters whose turnout may be low (40%ish?) but who favor that Not Donald Trump guy by about 35 points.

Donald needs to squeeze out more votes from a numerically declining base or he needs converts from the middle and/or left. And even those won't be enough if Dem turnout increases at the rate it did in the midterms compared to 2014.
  #116  
Old 06-18-2019, 02:46 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
The Proud Boys and their white power signs have shown up at his rally, chanting “Pinochet was right,” and “Roger Stone did nothing wrong."

Also, unsurprisingly,
Quote:
Orlando police said they stopped an armed person at the rally who had a valid concealed carry license.

“He was advised that he would not be able to enter the ticketed event area,” an OPD spokesman said.

It’s unclear if that person is the same man who News 6-WKMG captured on video with what appeared to be an AR-15 in his backpack being questioned by Secret Service agents.

The man was wearing a belt with multiple magazines attached, News 6 reported.
Heavy rain is dampening the festivities.
  #117  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:14 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
No surprise, but
Quote:
Thirty-three year old Alex Fuentes wore a shirt that said "Make Democrats cry again."
  #118  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:18 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
So many states are so close that it's difficult to predict with certainty where the Dems' efforts should be focused. But I'm thinking that Arizona could well be on its way to emulating Colorado and Nevada.
Bolding above is mine.

No, it is not difficult to know where Dems' efforts should be focused.

The key to winning in 2020 is to keep all the states HRC won in 2016 and focus on bringing back Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and possibly Ohio.

The math is very simple. I don't understand why this is so tough for people to grasp.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 06-18-2019 at 03:18 PM.
  #119  
Old 06-18-2019, 03:25 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
Bolding above is mine.

No, it is not difficult to know where Dems' efforts should be focused.

The key to winning in 2020 is to keep all the states HRC won in 2016 and focus on bringing back Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and possibly Ohio.

The math is very simple. I don't understand why this is so tough for people to grasp.
I happen to agree with this but it's far from a slam dunk. The Rust Belt states and their net 70,000 vote deficit in '16 certainly appear to be no-brainers to pursue but those are also the states where demographics are moving slightly away from Democrats instead of versa-vicey.
  #120  
Old 06-18-2019, 04:06 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I happen to agree with this but it's far from a slam dunk. The Rust Belt states and their net 70,000 vote deficit in '16 certainly appear to be no-brainers to pursue but those are also the states where demographics are moving slightly away from Democrats instead of versa-vicey.
Of course it isn't a slam dunk, I never said it was. And the demographics may be moving slightly away from the Dems, but these states are crucial to the D nominee winning in 2020. Crucial, as in I will say unequivocally that if the Democratic nominee fails to carry all three of these states - Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania - Trump will be reelected. I am 100% certain of this.
  #121  
Old 06-18-2019, 07:28 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
Red Wiggler can you direct me to your sources for those state demographic trends and projections?

This is what I can find. In their projection of changing demographics this are the result of the same turnouts and shares of each group as 2016 in 2020 as one simulation:
Quote:
Using this election as a baseline, the authors find that a Democratic candidate would
eke out a win of 279-259 in the Electoral College by flipping Michigan, Pennsylvania,
and Wisconsin—states President Trump narrowly won in 2016. Nationally,
Democrats would increase their popular vote margin by about 1 point compared with
2016—going from a 2.1-point win to 3.2-point win.
Going out further, Florida is added to the Democratic column by 2024; North Carolina
by 2028; and Georgia and Arizona by 2032. Although it doesn’t flip, a Republican candidate would win Texas by just 2.2 points in 2036 under 2016 conditions.
In that 2016 run in 2020 the next closest to flipping D would be, in order: FL; NV; AZ; and GA. OH is after that.

They run several alternative scenarios too.

Push White non-college educated white vote back to 2012 level and it is an electoral blow out of 347 to 191. Lots of others some that are good Trump outcomes.

For example
Quote:
What if the GOP successfully appealed to Hispanics, Asians, and those belonging
to other racial groups—gaining a 15-point margin swing—but at the same time lost
white noncollege-educated voter support, pushing the margins among that group
back to 2012 levels?

On net, this trade-off does not benefit the GOP in 2020, as they narrowly lose the
Electoral College 279-259. This is because they only pick up Nevada relative to
2016 while ceding back to the Democrats four Midwest and Rust Belt states—Iowa,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—by 4 points or more. Nationally, the 3.2-
point popular vote win for Democrats under this scenario is about the same as the one
predicted by the 2016 baseline scenario, which assumes stable electoral behavior.
Cool stuff to dive into.

But short version is that by demographics alone Trump is in trouble in the battleground states. And any swing of white noncollege-educated away from Trump 2016 results would have outsized EV impacts. Regain the Obama-Trump voters (2012 white noncollege-educated support) and the popular vote win becomes modestly larger but the EV win is huge, 347 to 191, even flipping OH back.
  #122  
Old 06-18-2019, 09:41 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,928
Two things:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
This is what I can find.
First, your link doesn't go anywhere...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
...short version is that by demographics alone Trump is in trouble in the battleground states....
...Trump is in trouble against a GENERIC Democrat. Once the field narrows I would expect to see Trump's numbers improve in some states, possibly dramatically depending on which one of the Democrats is put in the poll.
  #123  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:05 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
Two things:

First, your link doesn't go anywhere...



...Trump is in trouble against a GENERIC Democrat. Once the field narrows I would expect to see Trump's numbers improve in some states, possibly dramatically depending on which one of the Democrats is put in the poll.
No idea what I did wrong but wrong did I do it. Here.

Tested and works. "America’s Electoral Future Demographic Shifts and the Future of the Trump Coalition" by Center for American Progress, Brookings, Bipartisan Policy Center, and PRRI.

The point of that specific simulation is not against a GENERIC Democrat, it is against the turnout and share of 2016 that Clinton got applied to changing demographics.

It is NOT a prediction but it does run alternate simulations if he does better or worse with different demographics.

Sorry for the botched link.
  #124  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:29 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
I happen to agree with this but it's far from a slam dunk. The Rust Belt states and their net 70,000 vote deficit in '16 certainly appear to be no-brainers to pursue but those are also the states where demographics are moving slightly away from Democrats instead of versa-vicey.

Cosigned. It's not such a slam dunk as Kolak indicates to simply focus on the "Northern Path". In a way, singlemindedly doing so could potentially be the kind of mistake Hillary made in 2016 in not being imaginative enough about the potential for states to be in play beyond the conventional wisdom.
  #125  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:39 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
The question of course is which potential D candidate would lead to which most likely improvement or decline in which subgroups compared to Clinton v Trump.

But while demographic shift alone would have the 2016 results applied to 2020 flip PA, WI, and MI; it would not yet flip AZ or GA. A focus on those states does seem to be the obvious move. That focus means trying to do marginally better with white noncollege-educated voters and a bit closer to 2012 Black turnout and share. Do that and also more than those states become solid D wins too. Nationally they estimate older voters (those over 65) will have increased from 21 to 22% of eligible voters from 2016 to 2020.

One modification of the applying 2016 voting patterns to the 2020 population simulation they did was when they allocated third-party voters back to the two major parties (based on underlying partisan preferences): that resulted in an Electoral College tie. WI goes red, while MI and PA go Blue. WI is pretty key.
  #126  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:41 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
The question of course is which potential D candidate would lead to which most likely improvement or decline in which subgroups compared to Clinton v Trump.

But while demographic shift alone would have the 2016 results applied to 2020 flip PA, WI, and MI; it would not yet flip AZ or GA. A focus on those states does seem to be the obvious move. That focus means trying to do marginally better with white noncollege-educated voters and a bit closer to 2012 Black turnout and share. Do that and also more than those states become solid D wins too. Nationally they estimate older voters (those over 65) will have increased from 21 to 22% of eligible voters from 2016 to 2020.

One modification of the applying 2016 voting patterns to the 2020 population simulation they did was when they allocated third-party voters back to the two major parties (based on underlying partisan preferences): that resulted in an Electoral College tie. WI goes red, while MI and PA go Blue. WI is pretty key.
  #127  
Old 06-18-2019, 10:56 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
The question of course is which potential D candidate would lead to which most likely improvement or decline in which subgroups compared to Clinton v Trump.

But while demographic shift alone would have the 2016 results applied to 2020 flip PA, WI, and MI; it would not yet flip AZ or GA. A focus on those states does seem to be the obvious move. That focus means trying to do marginally better with white noncollege-educated voters and a bit closer to 2012 Black turnout and share. Do that and also more than those states become solid D wins too. Nationally they estimate older voters (those over 65) will have increased from 21 to 22% of eligible voters from 2016 to 2020.

One modification of the applying 2016 voting patterns to the 2020 population simulation they did was when they allocated third-party voters back to the two major parties (based on underlying partisan preferences): that resulted in an Electoral College tie. WI goes red, while MI and PA go Blue. WI is pretty key.
  #128  
Old 06-18-2019, 11:06 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
Multipost ... sorry

Last edited by DSeid; 06-18-2019 at 11:09 PM.
  #129  
Old 06-18-2019, 11:31 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
How dare you
  #130  
Old 06-18-2019, 11:50 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,928
nm

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 06-18-2019 at 11:51 PM.
  #131  
Old 06-19-2019, 12:05 AM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Cosigned. It's not such a slam dunk as Kolak indicates to simply focus on the "Northern Path". In a way, singlemindedly doing so could potentially be the kind of mistake Hillary made in 2016 in not being imaginative enough about the potential for states to be in play beyond the conventional wisdom.
I know you understand what the word "prioritize" means. That's what I am saying is crucial. Make those states a priority. Failure to do so will lead to the re-election of DRT. Why is that such an issue for certain posters? Florida, Texas and Arizona (!!??!!) are fantasies in 2020. Sure, spend some money there but, ignore the "Northern Path" as you call it and it will end in defeat for the Ds. It cost HRC the election in 2016 and doing so again in 2020 will lead to the same result for ::GENERIC DEMOCRAT::.
  #132  
Old 06-19-2019, 12:31 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Is anyone advocating ignoring those states?
  #133  
Old 06-19-2019, 06:41 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
I know you understand what the word "prioritize" means. That's what I am saying is crucial. Make those states a priority. Failure to do so will lead to the re-election of DRT. Why is that such an issue for certain posters? Florida, Texas and Arizona (!!??!!) are fantasies in 2020. Sure, spend some money there but, ignore the "Northern Path" as you call it and it will end in defeat for the Ds. It cost HRC the election in 2016 and doing so again in 2020 will lead to the same result for ::GENERIC DEMOCRAT::.
Florida is hardly "fantasy" - it's definitely in play and Democrats should compete for it. I don't disagree that WI, PA, MI, and OH are where we should start, but I hope we don't write off Iowa, Arizona, or Florida. They aren't fantasies if the Democrats can connect with voters. If I were Democrats, I would be spending a lot of quality time with senators in "purple" states and talking strategy with them, and plotting ways to effectively reach voters in these states whilst not alienating their base. Economics and environmental issues are probably good places to start.
  #134  
Old 06-19-2019, 06:51 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
No.

As just said above the discussion is about which states to prioritize, where to focus. Unless the report I cited is wrong in their projections, in terms of winning the presidency, the answer does seem to be a slam dunk.

Same 2016 demographic turnouts and shares applied to 2020 would have PA, MI, and WI, as the key states to win, the closest, and the tipping points of the election. They need to be the focus, the priority. Demographic shifts would give the advantage to a D who did exactly as HRC did, but of course results can shift. HRC lost partly because she did not adequately prioritize those states.

There are other reasons for fighting in other states, such as helping bring some impact to Senate races and further downticket, and having other paths possible. But don't risk those states in any way.
  #135  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:36 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Florida is hardly "fantasy" - it's definitely in play and Democrats should compete for it. I don't disagree that WI, PA, MI, and OH are where we should start, but I hope we don't write off Iowa, Arizona, or Florida. They aren't fantasies if the Democrats can connect with voters. ...
FL and AZ are not fantasies. OH is getting closer to one and IA even more so.

But any election that has the D presidential nominee winning those states had that nominee winning without them.

Put another way - any generic D should be able to win PA, MI, and WI with any reasonable effort there. Biden, who connects better than Clinton did with white noncollege-educated and Black voters both, would, for example, be highly likely to do better than she did there and with shifting demographics she's have won there in 2020. Even with shifting demographics winning AZ and FL instead (and without those three you need both) are heavy lifts, possible but unlikely without a sizable national margin that has also already won PA, MI, and WI.

100% that the D nominee cannot allow Trump to completely control the narrative. They have to get white noncollege-educated voters thinking about something other than immigration.
  #136  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:45 AM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,931
So many thoughts. And some of them self-contradicting. Which I hope is an indication that there are so many variables in next year's election and not just a symptom of my inherent indecisiveness.

Demographics matter. I think we covered elsewhere some time ago that as early as 2018, analysis showed that re-running the election with the major demographics voting the same way and in the same percentages would result in a Hilary win. So we can deduce from that that Donald needs some things to change to win re-election. He needs Dem turnout to be tepid again. Or he needs to win over new voters and/or increase his own turnout (in part to make up for a bunch of his voters dying in the interim). Do we see the latter happening? Also, there is nearly universal agreement that Hilary was the worst candidate the Dems could have selected. If this is actually true, why would blue turnout decrease with a different candidate? Do they have several candidates even worse than Clinton?

Wisconsin is crucial. But North Carolina just elected a Democratic governor, I see no reason to take that state off the campaigning table.

The nightmare scenario: Trump loses the popular vote by six million, holds Wisconsin and every other '16 red state, wins by a single electoral vote and we spend four more years listening to him crow about it.

He is the incumbent in a strong economy. His re-election should be a no-brainer. Only Donald Trump and his inherent assholery is making this close.

Last edited by Red Wiggler; 06-19-2019 at 07:46 AM.
  #137  
Old 06-19-2019, 07:55 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Good points, except that it is hardly universally believed that Bernie would have done better. I believe he would have lost the popular vote, but we cannot ever know. (Trial heat polls, conducted when the GOP’s Bernie oppo-research powder was still dry, are less than worthless.)

I do believe the Maryland governor would have beat Trump, but he got zero traction in the primaries.
  #138  
Old 06-19-2019, 09:32 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,763
Whereas I still think that Obama's 50-state strategy was the right move. Obviously he didn't spend equal time on all 50 states, but he made an effort to compete in all of them, giving him multiple possible paths to the Presidency, and keeping him from being dependent on any single "key state" (or even a small group of them). And it worked. Clinton did the opposite, relying on a single path (the "Blue Wall"), and then lost when the Blue Wall crumbled.

Plus, a 50-state strategy helps in the states you're trying to focus on, too. When Obama campaigned in Nebraska, it didn't just send a message to Nebraskans. It let the whole country know that he cared about farmers, and that influenced farmers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Iowa. And it sent a message of unity, that energized and mobilized his supporters everywhere.
  #139  
Old 06-19-2019, 04:37 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Whereas I still think that Obama's 50-state strategy was the right move. Obviously he didn't spend equal time on all 50 states, but he made an effort to compete in all of them, giving him multiple possible paths to the Presidency, and keeping him from being dependent on any single "key state" (or even a small group of them). And it worked. Clinton did the opposite, relying on a single path (the "Blue Wall"), and then lost when the Blue Wall crumbled.

Plus, a 50-state strategy helps in the states you're trying to focus on, too. When Obama campaigned in Nebraska, it didn't just send a message to Nebraskans. It let the whole country know that he cared about farmers, and that influenced farmers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Iowa. And it sent a message of unity, that energized and mobilized his supporters everywhere.
Really good post here, especially the last paragraph. I completely agree, and I'd add that Clinton's mistake in skipping red states was a pattern with consequences beyond just the republican-leaning states; that undoubtedly hurt her image in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, where she lost states because Trump dominated suburban and rural counties. You can sense it just by watching her on television: she didn't seem comfortable campaigning in these areas.
  #140  
Old 06-19-2019, 05:15 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
Differences included that Obama was very well funded so could afford to spread the field, and was a movement candidate who shuffled some alignments.

Trump will likely have more money to throw around than any D will and none of this field generates Obama 08 excitement. Obama 12 didn’t either and fell back from the 50 state approach.

Clinton did NOT pay enough attention to MI and WI. Or even PA. If only she had she’d be president today.
  #141  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:28 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Florida is hardly "fantasy" - it's definitely in play and Democrats should compete for it. I don't disagree that WI, PA, MI, and OH are where we should start, but I hope we don't write off Iowa, Arizona, or Florida. They aren't fantasies if the Democrats can connect with voters...
Fine, saying it is a fantasy that the Dems could win FL or AZ is overstating things.
(I actually think Iowa is more likely than either of those because of how much DJT's tariffs are hurting farmers.)

Nevertheless, WI, PA and MI are key to the Democrats winning. They have concerns about similar issues and are in many ways natural D constituencies. Also, as I mentioned in another thread, all three of those states have elected Democrats to statewide offices as recently as 2018. The same cannot be said about Florida and the 2018 election indicates to me at least movement away from the Democrats.

If Florida goes to the Democrat it will be because there is a bigger movement away from the GOP on a national scale. Assuming the Democrats can carry the states HRC carried, adding FL to that list still comes up short in the EC. It is a heavier lift in my opinion than getting WI, PA and MI back in the D column.
  #142  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:41 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Kolak, it's true that like Ohio, Florida has been a red-shifting "swing state" in recent cycles. But I think it's also a special case because of the reenfranchisement of over a million felons. I don't think national Democrats should talk too much about this, because it is awkward to expect felons to help us win, but it could potentially be a real game-changer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Whereas I still think that Obama's 50-state strategy was the right move. Obviously he didn't spend equal time on all 50 states, but he made an effort to compete in all of them

Cite for this? I support an expanded map, but definitely NOT a 50 state strategy. If the 2020 Democratic nominee campaigns in Wyoming or Oklahoma (or, for that matter, in New York or California), I will be livid.
  #143  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:45 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Kolak, it's true that like Ohio, Florida has been a red-shifting "swing state" in recent cycles. But I think it's also a special case because of the reenfranchisement of over a million felons. I don't think national Democrats should talk too much about this, because it is awkward to expect felons to help us win, but it could potentially be a real game-changer...
Good point. I had forgotten about that. But it does require a strong effort to get those people registered and making sure they get to the polls come Election Day. I also fully expect the GOP and their allies to throw up road blocks to this in every way possible. So, I'm not ready to be optimistic yet.

Last edited by Kolak of Twilo; 06-19-2019 at 11:46 PM.
  #144  
Old 06-20-2019, 02:10 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Right, but we should at least make a strong push there (particularly in terms of registration drives). If it falls flat because of those roadblocks, we can reevaluate next time.
  #145  
Old 06-20-2019, 07:41 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,763
Quote:
Quoth DSeid:

Trump will likely have more money to throw around than any D will...
How do you figure? Clinton raised 50% more than Trump. Do you think that none of the current candidates are even close to Clinton's fundraising ability?
  #146  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:40 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,382
They are, but Trump's resources will be vastly greater. Not only is he the only horse Putin, Adelson, the Saudis, etc. can bet on, but he has all of the government's money available to him too.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 06-20-2019 at 08:40 AM.
  #147  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:49 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Kolak, it's true that like Ohio, Florida has been a red-shifting "swing state" in recent cycles. But I think it's also a special case because of the reenfranchisement of over a million felons. I don't think national Democrats should talk too much about this, because it is awkward to expect felons to help us win, but it could potentially be a real game-changer..
There's no real reason to think felons will vote Democrat other than they are disproportionately black people. They'll probably vote along normal racial/education/wealth lines and a good portion are still uneducated white men. I also wouldn't be surprised if they end up having a very low turnout rate compared to the population at large.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-20-2019 at 09:51 AM.
  #148  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:49 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,548
As to FL ... I wouldn't rely on reenfranchised felons to be a high turnout demographic.

Funds available? Dems will be spending lots fighting each other for a while, meanwhile
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYT
President Trump’s campaign announced Wednesday that he had raised $24.8 million over 24 hours as he kicked off his re-election bid, an enormous haul that punctuates the financial advantage he is expected to enjoy over his Democratic challengers in 2020 ...

... Democratic strategists have fretted for months that Mr. Trump will spend 2019 building up a large war chest while the 23 Democrats running for president raise far smaller sums and then use that money to bludgeon one another in the primary campaign.

Mr. Trump had already raised nearly $100 million for his re-election effort by the end of March ... As an incumbent president, Mr. Trump also has the advantage of raising larger sums of money through his party. ...
  #149  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:59 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,763
Felons also know who wants them to vote and who doesn't. "The Republicans are afraid of your votes" is a pretty good motivation both to vote, and to vote against the Republicans.
  #150  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:04 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
As to FL ... I wouldn't rely on reenfranchised felons to be a high turnout demographic.

They don't need to be. They are 1.4 million, going from 0% turnout to whatever low turnout they end up being. Even if that's only like 25%, that's a lot of new voters added to the system.

As for fundraising, I do believe Trump will outraise his opponent. But even in a regular cycle, I don't think that's all that important. I agree with David Brooks's take: fundraising is crucial in downballot races, but the presidential race gets so much free attention, and even the outspent candidate will have more than enough funds to do what they need to do--any more is just "bouncing the rubble".

And of course, this is not a normal cycle. All the money in the world is just putting lipstick on a pig: it's not going to convince the people who see Trump for what he is that he is something else. Not after four years of being president.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017