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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Al Gore certainly would take that in a heartbeat. There have been a number of other really close races in the state as well, which always seem to go the GOP’s way.
The nominee will have to go to New York and California, because that’s where the money is. One of the many mistakes Hillary’s campaign made was spending too much time there.