Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy

[Hindsight was 2020]

Think about 2009.  Would Republicans be where they are going to be in 2017 if they had given Obamacare 3/4ths bipartisan majorities in exchange for adding a few pro-market provisions and more conscience protections on birth control/abortion?  No, of course not.  Trump is already seen as the most moderate president in a generation.  Do you really think it's a winning strategy to give him overwhelming bipartisan majorities for tariffs, walls, and giant rural infrastructure projects just because those bills require union labor and send $1B to Colin Peterson's and Tim Walz's districts or to West Virginia and North Dakota?  So you rubber stamp his economic agenda so that he looks like the next Ike and then attack him for not going far enough in 2020?  Good luck winning more than 10 states!

No, I think it's time for congressional Republicans to find out that resentment is a 2 way street.  You make them pass the tariffs, trade deal repeals, infrastructure projects, etc. on a strict party line vote and then turn them into the Republican version of Obamacare.  Then it's 3-7 years of "President Trump just made all of your groceries cost twice as much so that he could deport your neighbors and build bridges to nowhere for a bunch of hicks who don't even think you should be allowed to vote.  Let's show him who's boss in 2018/20/22!"  Half of the CA/TX/FL Republican delegations would be quaking in their boots at the sight of it.  It wouldn't exactly make me feel good inside, but we've clearly seen that it works.

Well, I think Senate Democrats (especially those in red/swing/Trump states up for reelection in two years) are not as stupid as that. Or else 2018 will make 2002 look like a Democratic landslide.

Umm...no. Democrats should not cooperate with Trump at all. They should oppose him at every turn, and when the eventual recession happens, blame it all on him and the Republicans. Demographically speaking, the Democrats are in a very nice place to take advantage of this. A nice swing back among working class whites in the north, same amount of support among college educated whites and stronger turnout among minorities= 400+ EV victory (depending on if Texas flips).

Pretty much this.  They should be operating on the assumption that the 4 Romney state senators are gone and try to keep net loses at 3 or lower.  IMO, it's time to encourage Manchin and Heitkamp to take Trump admin positions so that you don't have to spend a dime on their seats.  Focus on flipping NV and AZ and making something else competitive (probably MS or TX, both of which also have seats up in 2020).  Beyond that, the senate is best conceded until 2020 and the fight taken to the House.  Turn out enough of Cleveland and Philly and use the tariffs and trade restrictions as a wedge issue with retirees in FL/AZ/PA, the energy industry, and free market types in general.

Edit: Or maybe even Manchin and Heitkamp can be saved in 2018.  After all, Mark Kirk won Obama's home state (and the 8th most Democratic state in the country) in 2010 with a national Republican platform  that Obamacare was the root of all evil. 

Yeah the country is in better shape now than 2008 which saw the closest thing to the recession so why the hell should Democrats feel obligated to be nicer than the reps were to him.

[MT Treasurer]

Pretty much this.  They should be operating on the assumption that the 4 Romney state senators are gone and try to keep net loses at 3 or lower.  IMO, it's time to encourage Manchin and Heitkamp to take Trump admin positions so that you don't have to spend a dime on their seats.  Focus on flipping NV and AZ and making something else competitive (probably MS or TX, both of which also have seats up in 2020).  Beyond that, the senate is best conceded until 2020 and the fight taken to the House.  Turn out enough of Cleveland and Philly and use the tariffs and trade restrictions as a wedge issue with retirees in FL/AZ/PA, the energy industry, and free market types in general.

Edit: Or maybe even Manchin and Heitkamp can be saved in 2018.  After all, Mark Kirk won Obama's home state (and the 8th most Democratic state in the country) in 2010 with a national Republican platform  that Obamacare was the root of all evil.  

Lol, make no mistake: Republicans are going to unleash hell on Democrats in 2018 and Manchin and Heitkamp will be gone if what you described in your previous post happens. Ask President Kerry and President Romney how easy it is to defeat an incumbent President who is vigorously opposed by the other party. IMO, Republicans and Trump need to waste no time when it comes to dealing with nonsense like that - even if it means getting rid of the filibuster, issuing executive orders like there's no tomorrow, demonizing Senate and House Democrats 24/7, etc. It's not as if Obama hasn't done similar things before.

[American2020]

Think about 2009.  Would Republicans be where they are going to be in 2017 if they had given Obamacare 3/4ths bipartisan majorities in exchange for adding a few pro-market provisions and more conscience protections on birth control/abortion?  No, of course not.  Trump is already seen as the most moderate president in a generation.  Do you really think it's a winning strategy to give him overwhelming bipartisan majorities for tariffs, walls, and giant rural infrastructure projects just because those bills require union labor and send $1B to Colin Peterson's and Tim Walz's districts or to West Virginia and North Dakota?  So you rubber stamp his economic agenda so that he looks like the next Ike and then attack him for not going far enough in 2020?  Good luck winning more than 10 states!

No, I think it's time for congressional Republicans to find out that resentment is a 2 way street.  You make them pass the tariffs, trade deal repeals, infrastructure projects, etc. on a strict party line vote and then turn them into the Republican version of Obamacare.  Then it's 3-7 years of "President Trump just made all of your groceries cost twice as much so that he could deport your neighbors and build bridges to nowhere for a bunch of hicks who don't even think you should be allowed to vote.  Let's show him who's boss in 2018/20/22!"  Half of the CA/TX/FL Republican delegations would be quaking in their boots at the sight of it.  It wouldn't exactly make me feel good inside, but we've clearly seen that it works.

Well, I think Senate Democrats (especially those in red/swing/Trump states up for reelection in two years) are not as stupid as that. Or else 2018 will make 2002 look like a Democratic landslide.

Umm...no. Democrats should not cooperate with Trump at all. They should oppose him at every turn, and when the eventual recession happens, blame it all on him and the Republicans. Demographically speaking, the Democrats are in a very nice place to take advantage of this. A nice swing back among working class whites in the north, same amount of support among college educated whites and stronger turnout among minorities= 400+ EV victory (depending on if Texas flips).

Pretty much this.  They should be operating on the assumption that the 4 Romney state senators are gone and try to keep net loses at 3 or lower.  IMO, it's time to encourage Manchin and Heitkamp to take Trump admin positions so that you don't have to spend a dime on their seats.  Focus on flipping NV and AZ and making something else competitive (probably MS or TX, both of which also have seats up in 2020).  Beyond that, the senate is best conceded until 2020 and the fight taken to the House.  Turn out enough of Cleveland and Philly and use the tariffs and trade restrictions as a wedge issue with retirees in FL/AZ/PA, the energy industry, and free market types in general.

Yeah, Trump policies could cause stagflation....sound familiar?

Comment from Robert Reich

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Anyone who thinks Michigan, Wisconsin, and/or Pennsylvania are "gone" for Dems because Hillary lost them by narrow margins in one election is seriously overreacting. It's one election, the first time any of those three went red in nearly thirty years. It'd be like saying Indiana, NE-02, and North Carolina were forever gone for Republicans because Obama carried them in 2008. You're all overreacting.

Sure, if Dems start going full SJW, those states really will be gone, but there's no indication of that happening just yet, so let's not go too crazy here. Don't forget that all the other Republicans who tried to run on Trump's image (Carlos Beruff, Paul Nehlen) failed miserably.

Let's wait to see what direction Dems go and who they nominate for 2020 before we discuss whether three states that one Republican won one time are "gone forever". Give me a break.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Anyone who thinks Michigan, Wisconsin, and/or Pennsylvania are "gone" for Dems because Hillary lost them by narrow margins in one election is seriously overreacting. It's one election, the first time any of those three went red in nearly thirty years. It'd be like saying Indiana, NE-02, and North Carolina were forever gone for Republicans because Obama carried them in 2008. You're all overreacting.

Sure, if Dems start going full SJW, those states really will be gone, but there's no indication of that happening just yet, so let's not go too crazy here. Don't forget that all the other Republicans who tried to run on Trump's image (Carlos Beruff, Paul Nehlen) failed miserably.

Let's wait to see what direction Dems go and who they nominate for 2020 before we discuss whether three states that one Republican won one time are "gone forever". Give me a break.

Agreed I just did a thread on WI and the #'s show that Hillary under performed more than Trump won so a more popular candidate in 2020 might have a good shot at flipping these states back

[blacknwhiterose]

Depends how the Democratic Party platform evolves from here.  If they go in the activist/leftist/socialist direction of many Bernie supporters, I think the Industrial Belt will continue to trend Republican, actually quite hard Republican if Trump does an even half-way decent job with the economy.  If they double down on the Clinton/Obama/Reid neoliberalism while pandering to various leftist/activist/diversity causes, I also think Republicans will continue to make gains here.  Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are full of middle/working class people who vote on the "kitchen table" issues.  Common-sense people who, while not particularly religious/moralist, are a long ways from being as pozzed as many voters on the coasts.  Bernie's plans to renegotiate trade policies may have stolen some of Trump's thunder in this region, however the highly confrontational identity politics and various diversity/SJW nonsense of many of his followers repels this demographic.  Bernie Sanders actually did make economic fairness the central message of his campaign, but reigning in some of his most vile young supporters is another thing.  A reformed Democratic platform that focuses on common-sense center-left economic policies as a common denominator while taking some of the confrontation identity political stuff off the table could certainly keep this region well in play for Democrats.

As for the Sunbelt, I'm not as familiar with the region, but I doubt there's enough suburban soccer moms to turn these states Blue.  The hispanic vote projections are over-baked, best-case-scenario, assuming immigration rates stay (or go back to?) where they were a decade ago, and new hispanic voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic.  Neither of these have proven to be true.  Legal and Illegal immigration from Latin America is in decline, and studies show that as hispanics assimilate into America (e.g. English becomes first language in family household), they become much more open to voting Republican. 

[Hindsight was 2020]

Depends how the Democratic Party platform evolves from here.  If they go in the activist/leftist/socialist direction of many Bernie supporters, I think the Industrial Belt will continue to trend Republican, actually quite hard Republican if Trump does an even half-way decent job with the economy.  If they double down on the Clinton/Obama/Reid neoliberalism while pandering to various leftist/activist/diversity causes, I also think Republicans will continue to make gains here.  Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are full of middle/working class people who vote on the "kitchen table" issues.  Common-sense people who, while not particularly religious/moralist, are a long ways from being as pozzed as many voters on the coasts.  Bernie's plans to renegotiate trade policies may have stolen some of Trump's thunder in this region, however the highly confrontational identity politics and various diversity/SJW nonsense of many of his followers repels this demographic.  Bernie Sanders actually did make economic fairness the central message of his campaign, but reigning in some of his most vile young supporters is another thing.  A reformed Democratic platform that focuses on common-sense center-left economic policies as a common denominator while taking some of the confrontation identity political stuff off the table could certainly keep this region well in play for Democrats.

As for the Sunbelt, I'm not as familiar with the region, but I doubt there's enough suburban soccer moms to turn these states Blue.  The hispanic vote projections are over-baked, best-case-scenario, assuming immigration rates stay (or go back to?) where they were a decade ago, and new hispanic voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic.  Neither of these have proven to be true.  Legal and Illegal immigration from Latin America is in decline, and studies show that as hispanics assimilate into America (e.g. English becomes first language in family household), they become much more open to voting Republican.  

Yeah Bernie and the dems are the ones with a vile "race politics" issue /s

[blacknwhiterose]

I don't have link privileges at the moment, but there was a Pew Research article back in July that broke down voters who identify as Hispanic.  One excerpt:

Clinton holds an 80%-11% lead among Hispanic voters who are bilingual or Spanish-dominant (those who are more proficient in Spanish than English); these voters make up about 57% of all Latino registered voters. However, among the smaller group of Hispanic voters (43%) who are English-dominant – those who are more proficient in English than Spanish – just 48% back Clinton (41% would vote for Trump).

I see this with my own eyes/ears, and it makes sense.  Low income Hispanics are also more Democratic than educated/higher income Hispanics.  The large inner city Hispanic neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, etc. vote just a shade less monolithically Democratic than their adjacent African American neighborhoods.  You want to find the 30% or so of Hispanic-identifying voters who vote Republican in elections?  Go to the suburbs, or South Florida.

[RINO Tom]

Depends how the Democratic Party platform evolves from here.  If they go in the activist/leftist/socialist direction of many Bernie supporters, I think the Industrial Belt will continue to trend Republican, actually quite hard Republican if Trump does an even half-way decent job with the economy.  If they double down on the Clinton/Obama/Reid neoliberalism while pandering to various leftist/activist/diversity causes, I also think Republicans will continue to make gains here.  Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are full of middle/working class people who vote on the "kitchen table" issues.  Common-sense people who, while not particularly religious/moralist, are a long ways from being as pozzed as many voters on the coasts.  Bernie's plans to renegotiate trade policies may have stolen some of Trump's thunder in this region, however the highly confrontational identity politics and various diversity/SJW nonsense of many of his followers repels this demographic.  Bernie Sanders actually did make economic fairness the central message of his campaign, but reigning in some of his most vile young supporters is another thing.  A reformed Democratic platform that focuses on common-sense center-left economic policies as a common denominator while taking some of the confrontation identity political stuff off the table could certainly keep this region well in play for Democrats.

As for the Sunbelt, I'm not as familiar with the region, but I doubt there's enough suburban soccer moms to turn these states Blue.  The hispanic vote projections are over-baked, best-case-scenario, assuming immigration rates stay (or go back to?) where they were a decade ago, and new hispanic voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic.  Neither of these have proven to be true.  Legal and Illegal immigration from Latin America is in decline, and studies show that as hispanics assimilate into America (e.g. English becomes first language in family household), they become much more open to voting Republican. 

There is little evidence for the claim that as hispanics assimilate they start voting Republican.  Why does New Mexico keep drifting further out of reach for Republicans?

Well, doesn't it keep getting less White with more UNassimilated Hispanics...?  Less assimilated groups have ALWAYS voted less Republican than more established, more "privileged" ones.  At one point, Irish and Italian immigrants weren't considered White and were some of the most loyal Democratic voters (1800s, early 1900s) ... that obviously didn't last.

[Nyvin]

I totally agree with this article.  Democrats need to look to the future not the past.  I suspect another factor going on in the midwest is the reverse migration of African Americans from industrial states back to the South.

The fact is, a lot more attention was paid to Ohio and Iowa than Georgia or Arizona, which ended up being closer.  Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin are all trending Republican.  Yes, Wisconsin and Michigan are still winnable, but the focus should be on where there are positive gains. 

I am not convinced that Pennsylvania is trending Republican long-term though...  There is a significant portion of that state that is very East Coast and will trend Democrat (Philly + Burbs). 

Anyways, Democrats should focus on Florida, Arizona and Georgia.  They should also focus on house races in Texas.  With that much Democratic growth in the state they have to make gains there unless there is truly outrageous gerrymandering.

I think it's so weird people seem to be ignoring the fact that gaining power only matters if you have representatives, Senators and governors who will help you enact your ORIGINAL policy goals ... you know, the reason you wanted that power in the first place?

Picking off some college-educated Whites is much different than openly courting economically conservative college-educated Whites, specifically in the South.  Why do you even want them?  You might have a random guy or gal with a D next to the name in DC, but they'll be beholden to their voters who DON'T want a minimum wage increase, DON'T want stronger unions, DON'T want a stronger safety net, DON'T want an expanded welfare state, etc.  There reaches a point where getting to 270 (or a majority in Congress) doesn't even matter if your caucus can't agree on anything.

Because I am a democrat that is economically conservative and this is where the parties are headed.  Republicans will be the party of the white working class (i.e., voters without a college degree or a college degree from a low-tiered school who still end up working blue collar jobs)... Democrats will be the party of educated whites + minorities.  I am a democrat, but I do not generally support unions or an expanded welfare state.  I vote democrat because I am not into a lot of dumb wars, I am not into homophobic candidates, and I support gun control.  I have nothing in common with poor working class unionized whites in Ohio... which is the exact direction the Republican party is headed.

So, I do want our caucus to agree, just not with the issues you mention above.

Not that the rest of your post wasn't stupid as hell, but you are WAY out of line with your party - and especially with the wing of your party that is CLEARLY gaining power after the 2016 defeat - in the bolded sentence.  The Democrats are VERY CLEARLY going in a more economically progressive, populist direction.  I don't see how that's even debatable.  College educated Whites voted for Trump.  Trump's vote share went up DIRECTLY with a rise in income.  Your fantasy about what it means to be a Democrat exists only in your mind, bro.  It's the party of the poor, it's the party of inner-cities, it's the party of disadvantaged minorities, it's the party of unions, and its most "elite" faction is a bunch of PhD holders with no income who jerk each other off in Starbucks.  Embrace it!

Well, that's a very civilized post.

[RINO Tom]

I totally agree with this article.  Democrats need to look to the future not the past.  I suspect another factor going on in the midwest is the reverse migration of African Americans from industrial states back to the South.

The fact is, a lot more attention was paid to Ohio and Iowa than Georgia or Arizona, which ended up being closer.  Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin are all trending Republican.  Yes, Wisconsin and Michigan are still winnable, but the focus should be on where there are positive gains. 

I am not convinced that Pennsylvania is trending Republican long-term though...  There is a significant portion of that state that is very East Coast and will trend Democrat (Philly + Burbs). 

Anyways, Democrats should focus on Florida, Arizona and Georgia.  They should also focus on house races in Texas.  With that much Democratic growth in the state they have to make gains there unless there is truly outrageous gerrymandering.

I think it's so weird people seem to be ignoring the fact that gaining power only matters if you have representatives, Senators and governors who will help you enact your ORIGINAL policy goals ... you know, the reason you wanted that power in the first place?

Picking off some college-educated Whites is much different than openly courting economically conservative college-educated Whites, specifically in the South.  Why do you even want them?  You might have a random guy or gal with a D next to the name in DC, but they'll be beholden to their voters who DON'T want a minimum wage increase, DON'T want stronger unions, DON'T want a stronger safety net, DON'T want an expanded welfare state, etc.  There reaches a point where getting to 270 (or a majority in Congress) doesn't even matter if your caucus can't agree on anything.

Because I am a democrat that is economically conservative and this is where the parties are headed.  Republicans will be the party of the white working class (i.e., voters without a college degree or a college degree from a low-tiered school who still end up working blue collar jobs)... Democrats will be the party of educated whites + minorities.  I am a democrat, but I do not generally support unions or an expanded welfare state.  I vote democrat because I am not into a lot of dumb wars, I am not into homophobic candidates, and I support gun control.  I have nothing in common with poor working class unionized whites in Ohio... which is the exact direction the Republican party is headed.

So, I do want our caucus to agree, just not with the issues you mention above.

Not that the rest of your post wasn't stupid as hell, but you are WAY out of line with your party - and especially with the wing of your party that is CLEARLY gaining power after the 2016 defeat - in the bolded sentence.  The Democrats are VERY CLEARLY going in a more economically progressive, populist direction.  I don't see how that's even debatable.  College educated Whites voted for Trump.  Trump's vote share went up DIRECTLY with a rise in income.  Your fantasy about what it means to be a Democrat exists only in your mind, bro.  It's the party of the poor, it's the party of inner-cities, it's the party of disadvantaged minorities, it's the party of unions, and its most "elite" faction is a bunch of PhD holders with no income who jerk each other off in Starbucks.  Embrace it!

Well, that's a very civilized post.

Touche, and I am going to delete it, I suppose.  Posteres like Non-Swing Voter are very infuriating, but I'm not any better if I respond like that.

[henster]

Evangelicals are a big barrier in the South and they keep growing.

[Cashew]

Evangelicals are a big barrier in the South and they keep growing.

Do you have any evidence for this? Last time I checked the south was becoming less religious.

[American2020]

http://www.270towin.com/maps/JwZ1d
Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy Map

[libertpaulian]

Evangelicals are a big barrier in the South and they keep growing.

Evangelicalism is declining.  Not quite at the rate of Mainlines and Catholics, but they are declining.

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

Democrats should target the Great Lakes states minus OH/IA in 2020. They can certainly win back these states in the short term. By 2024, however,  their resources should be more focused on GA, AZ, FL, NC, and especially TX. These states are where the long term future of the Democratic Party resides.

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

http://www.270towin.com/maps/JwZ1d
Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy Map

Yeah.  That's pretty accurate.  Though I'd add Pennsylvania to the list of targets.

Solid map. Which is more likely to flip first in 2020 for Dems, OH or TX?

[Figueira]

http://www.270towin.com/maps/JwZ1d
Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy Map

Yeah.  That's pretty accurate.  Though I'd add Pennsylvania to the list of targets.

Solid map. Which is more likely to flip first in 2020 for Dems, OH or TX?

Ohio, definitely.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Well, like I said, I hope Democrats use this strategy and openly obstruct everything Trump does. It will make 2018 and 2020 even better years for Republicans.

pardon for being so late for this thread but may i ask politely why the democrats (besides  not being able to obstruct anything right now) would more get hurt much by this strategy than their republican forefathers? not that i would advice democrats to do the same...

[Make My Bank Account Great Again]

http://www.270towin.com/maps/JwZ1d
Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy Map

Yeah.  That's pretty accurate.  Though I'd add Pennsylvania to the list of targets.

Solid map. Which is more likely to flip first in 2020 for Dems, OH or TX?

Ohio, definitely.

Definitely? I think it's the opposite.

Trump won both states by very similar margins (+8 in OH and +9 in TX). From 2000-2016, Ohio trended 6 points Republican and Texas trended nearly 11 points Democratic.

This also depends on what strategy the democrats decide to go for in 2020.

[Roronoa D. Law]

http://www.270towin.com/maps/JwZ1d
Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy Map

Yeah.  That's pretty accurate.  Though I'd add Pennsylvania to the list of targets.

I would add Michigan too since it was Trump narrowest win. Also if the Mississippi Delta has taught us anything is that no matter how bad the economy tanks black people are the last to leave.

[BaldEagle1991]

Evangelicals are a big barrier in the South and they keep growing.

Evangelicalism is declining.  Not quite at the rate of Mainlines and Catholics, but they are declining.

Evangelicals are a big barrier in the South and they keep growing.

Do you have any evidence for this? Last time I checked the south was becoming less religious.

I live in the Bible Belt. I'd say it's NOT decreasing, at least in my area.

[SCNCmod]

Dems just need....... Clinton States + FL + AZ =272

Dems could make valuable gains registering voters in FL/AZ the next 4 years... and could be in pretty good shape in FL & AZ (since both have a large population of Dem leaning latinos... which have the lowest registration %)


.... Regarding looking 8+ years out... TX/GA/AZ/FL/NC/CO all look to be naturally trending Dem ... which more than off-sets states that are naturally trending Rep (IA,MI,WI,PA)

[henster]

Unless Ds make serious gains in AZ & GA in 2018 I don't see the benefit in adopting that strategy in 2020. Ds were winning in VA/CO downballot before they starting seriously targeting the states while they haven't won in AZ & GA since 2006.

[henster]

Unless Ds make serious gains in AZ & GA in 2018 I don't see the benefit in adopting that strategy in 2020. Ds were winning in VA/CO downballot before they starting seriously targeting the states while they haven't won in AZ & GA since 2006.

They literally only started winning major races in off-years in VA and CO (asode from Salazar who was a popular AG) in 2006 before they won there in 2008. GA and AZ can very much swing as much as those states did in 4 years

Yes, I'm saying we should watch how 2018 goes before going all in. There's a Senate race in AZ that should be a target and an open Gov race in GA and plenty of row offices as well. Our chances in MI, PA, WI in 2018 alone are a lot better in AZ/GA right now.