Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:03:45 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy  (Read 5850 times)
American2020
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,493
Côte d'Ivoire


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 01, 2016, 03:51:21 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

From Politico

With this strategy, if democrats win Clinton States+AZ+GA+NC+FL+ME-2=304 EV
Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2016, 04:01:50 PM »

Which still overlooks the democratic disadvantage in the senate that would cause.
Logged
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2016, 04:08:29 PM »

Which still overlooks the democratic disadvantage in the senate that would cause.

And the House too. The Democrats trying to regain rural voters isn't just about the EC.
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,139
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2016, 04:14:33 PM »

The demographics to win AZ and GA, or even NC, aren't there yet and won't be for at least another 8-12 years. Meanwhile, the Midwest votes mainly on economics rather than on identity and cultural issues is therefore vulnerable to large swings. It's there that we'll have to rebuild.
Logged
crazy jimmie
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,513


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2016, 04:14:53 PM »

Whites in the south are uber-Republican and it would be very difficult to change that. Whites in the mountain west are mostly uber Republican. This election showed that Hispanics likely will not go the way of blacks in their voting habits.

Which means, lets think, where do whites swing the most? Which region has suburbs that has some liberal whites? Which region is most prone to economic swings? It is the midwest.

On the Presidential level, I absolutely think the midwest may trend a bit more gop and the Southwest a bit more Democratic, but conceding the entire Midwest is political suicide as far as Senate purposes. Even the House would become more difficult.

And on top of that, we can not over think last months results, but I will say it was silly to assume the upper Midwest was solid Clinton when you consider the following.

1) They were not exactly landslides for Kerry in 2004.

2) The Midwest was very receptive to Obama's message in 2008. Almost won Missouri, and he even won Indiana. It mostly stayed solid to him in 2012.

3) Republicans have done well in downballot races since 2008.

So I never got why so many thought MI, WI, PA, OH, etc would be so solid for Clinton in 2016.
Logged
The Arizonan
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,543
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2016, 04:31:49 PM »

Whites in the south are uber-Republican and it would be very difficult to change that. Whites in the mountain west are mostly uber Republican. This election showed that Hispanics likely will not go the way of blacks in their voting habits.

Which means, lets think, where do whites swing the most? Which region has suburbs that has some liberal whites? Which region is most prone to economic swings? It is the midwest.

On the Presidential level, I absolutely think the midwest may trend a bit more gop and the Southwest a bit more Democratic, but conceding the entire Midwest is political suicide as far as Senate purposes. Even the House would become more difficult.

And on top of that, we can not over think last months results, but I will say it was silly to assume the upper Midwest was solid Clinton when you consider the following.

1) They were not exactly landslides for Kerry in 2004.

2) The Midwest was very receptive to Obama's message in 2008. Almost won Missouri, and he even won Indiana. It mostly stayed solid to him in 2012.

3) Republicans have done well in downballot races since 2008.

So I never got why so many thought MI, WI, PA, OH, etc would be so solid for Clinton in 2016.

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania have been reliably blue states in presidential elections in the past and people assumed that they would go for Hillary Clinton, at least narrowly.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2016, 04:43:41 PM »

Whites in the south are uber-Republican and it would be very difficult to change that. Whites in the mountain west are mostly uber Republican. This election showed that Hispanics likely will not go the way of blacks in their voting habits.

Which means, lets think, where do whites swing the most? Which region has suburbs that has some liberal whites? Which region is most prone to economic swings? It is the midwest.

On the Presidential level, I absolutely think the midwest may trend a bit more gop and the Southwest a bit more Democratic, but conceding the entire Midwest is political suicide as far as Senate purposes. Even the House would become more difficult.

And on top of that, we can not over think last months results, but I will say it was silly to assume the upper Midwest was solid Clinton when you consider the following.

1) They were not exactly landslides for Kerry in 2004.

2) The Midwest was very receptive to Obama's message in 2008. Almost won Missouri, and he even won Indiana. It mostly stayed solid to him in 2012.

3) Republicans have done well in downballot races since 2008.

So I never got why so many thought MI, WI, PA, OH, etc would be so solid for Clinton in 2016.

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania have been reliably blue states in presidential elections in the past and people assumed that they would go for Hillary Clinton, at least narrowly.

The margins there have always been underwhelming though, with the exception of 2008.
Logged
AGA
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,267
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -5.39

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2016, 04:50:08 PM »
« Edited: December 01, 2016, 05:58:52 PM by Chrome »

Whites in the south are uber-Republican and it would be very difficult to change that. Whites in the mountain west are mostly uber Republican. This election showed that Hispanics likely will not go the way of blacks in their voting habits.

Which means, lets think, where do whites swing the most? Which region has suburbs that has some liberal whites? Which region is most prone to economic swings? It is the midwest.

On the Presidential level, I absolutely think the midwest may trend a bit more gop and the Southwest a bit more Democratic, but conceding the entire Midwest is political suicide as far as Senate purposes. Even the House would become more difficult.

And on top of that, we can not over think last months results, but I will say it was silly to assume the upper Midwest was solid Clinton when you consider the following.

1) They were not exactly landslides for Kerry in 2004.

2) The Midwest was very receptive to Obama's message in 2008. Almost won Missouri, and he even won Indiana. It mostly stayed solid to him in 2012.

3) Republicans have done well in downballot races since 2008.

So I never got why so many thought MI, WI, PA, OH, etc would be so solid for Clinton in 2016.

One positive effect of Trump's victory is that the theory of the "blue wall" has finally been debunked. Democrats should not be complacent about the Upper Midwest just because they have Democratic streaks, especially since its states were usually won by quite narrow margins.
Logged
crazy jimmie
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,513


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2016, 05:14:32 PM »

Exactly.

I will say that if we have a recession in 2018, Democrats could well be on their way to blowing out the GOP in Senatorial contests in the region. It will not win us the Senate, but it will help keep us at the levels we are on now.

These whites in the Midwest, including MO and IN, will likely never go the way of deep south whites in voting 80 to 90% GOP. At least in some races there will be swings, and there is not as much racial polarization in those states.

Also, outside of MO and IN, whites in the Midwest tend not to be very socially conservative. Sure, they do not  have the views that Vermont whites have, but they are not religious zealots either.

But this blue wall, lmao! So funny in hindsight. Just look at the 04 and 12 results. Obama won OH, IA, MN, WI, and MI with a majority vote but they were still weak margins for a candidate very much in tuned with the region.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2016, 05:15:32 PM »

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.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2016, 12:11:27 PM »

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.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,999
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2016, 02:57:47 PM »

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.

Policy goals change.  Trump will try to pass the Republican New Deal next year, and if it works, Midwest ex-union types will be 70/30 R for a generation and parts of the South and West will feel betrayed.

If that happens, which it won't, Congressional Democrats will support it.

There's nothing appealing about finally getting elected if you can't finally implement your ORIGINAL policy goals.  How can you not see that?  If the Dems react to Trump by becoming people with the views of Republicans just to win votes, why would you and other Dems even support them anymore?  What would be the point?
Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2016, 03:53:30 PM »

The more democrats boast of how they will inevitably win as old whites die off and immigrants pour in, the more whites will embrace identity politics of their own, like every other race does. Trump won voters who listed immigration as their top concern 2:1. If this is the democrat strategy, more and more people will see immigration as the issue that decides all others, which would help nationalists like Trump, even as they don't focus on it as a racial issue.

In the long run, I think this realignment is inevitable, but I think the democrats will lose in 2020 for sure if they try to win with a strategy of simply mobilizing Latinos and taking red states like FL, AZ, GA, and TX. After all, they couldn't even win Florida and Arizona against Trump, which begs the question of whether Latinos are really single issue voters who only care about amnesty. I always thought that was a lazy assumption and it turned out to be incorrect. If Trump handles the economy well (and that is a big if) I can't see Latinos voting more against him in 2020 than 2016.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2016, 10:23:02 PM »

Democrats can definitely keep looking at states like AZ, GA, and NC, but that shouldn't be at the expense of states like MI, PA, and WI. Those states are not at all gone for Democrats, as Obama got more votes than Trump in all three (and even Romney got more votes than Trump in WI!) There are definitely voters in these states that Democrats can win back, as well as people who didn't turn out to vote this year who Democrats could win over.
Logged
BaldEagle1991
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,660
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2016, 10:38:31 PM »

Democrats can definitely keep looking at states like AZ, GA, and NC, but that shouldn't be at the expense of states like MI, PA, and WI. Those states are not at all gone for Democrats, as Obama got more votes than Trump in all three (and even Romney got more votes than Trump in WI!) There are definitely voters in these states that Democrats can win back, as well as people who didn't turn out to vote this year who Democrats could win over.


Those states can be won back by having Trump super unpopular.
Logged
Hindsight was 2020
Hindsight is 2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2016, 11:01:48 PM »

Democrats can definitely keep looking at states like AZ, GA, and NC, but that shouldn't be at the expense of states like MI, PA, and WI. Those states are not at all gone for Democrats, as Obama got more votes than Trump in all three (and even Romney got more votes than Trump in WI!) There are definitely voters in these states that Democrats can win back, as well as people who didn't turn out to vote this year who Democrats could win over.


Those states can be won back by having Trump super unpopular.

I do not think MI or especially WI are coming back.  PA can be won back rather easily, though.
Between the fact Trump only won MI by like 10,000 votes and we have Flint still going on it's ludicrous to say MI is gone
Logged
Roronoa D. Law
Patrick97
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,490
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2016, 11:27:05 PM »

Democrats can definitely keep looking at states like AZ, GA, and NC, but that shouldn't be at the expense of states like MI, PA, and WI. Those states are not at all gone for Democrats, as Obama got more votes than Trump in all three (and even Romney got more votes than Trump in WI!) There are definitely voters in these states that Democrats can win back, as well as people who didn't turn out to vote this year who Democrats could win over.


Those states can be won back by having Trump super unpopular.

I do not think MI or especially WI are coming back.  PA can be won back rather easily, though.

Obama did better in NC, IN, and FL when he was elected than Trump did in MI, WI, and PA respectively. Did those states ever came back?
Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2016, 01:19:51 AM »


It really does though.  You can't win everyone.  The Republican party has become the party of poor, working class, no college degree whites. We have to just accept that. Democrats have courted minorities and college educated whites.  This has caused a backlash among whites without a college education.  If we started courting whites without a college education we'd have to severely change our party value system (e.g., drop support for gay marriage, support the confederate flag, etc. etc.)... most liberals don't want to do any of that.

Or maybe you just want it that way. The latter part of your post is basically admitting it is not set in stone.



Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2016, 01:31:04 AM »


It really does though.  You can't win everyone.  The Republican party has become the party of poor, working class, no college degree whites. We have to just accept that. Democrats have courted minorities and college educated whites.  This has caused a backlash among whites without a college education.  If we started courting whites without a college education we'd have to severely change our party value system (e.g., drop support for gay marriage, support the confederate flag, etc. etc.)... most liberals don't want to do any of that.

Or maybe you just want it that way. The latter part of your post is basically admitting it is not set in stone.





Yes I do.  However, it does have to be that way because the vast majority of the party also wants it that way, so it will end up being that way.  Do you think most Democrats will want the party to shift on gay marriage just to court rural voters in Wisconsin?  It's not going to happen. 

Public opinion on gay marriage is changing rapidly, so I do not see how that is an impediment. The confederate flag is not as popular as it used to be either.

It seems to me you assume rural whites to be these stagnant beings, incapable of being persuaded, but rather must be dragged along for the ride.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2016, 01:35:18 AM »


It really does though.  You can't win everyone.  The Republican party has become the party of poor, working class, no college degree whites. We have to just accept that. Democrats have courted minorities and college educated whites.  This has caused a backlash among whites without a college education.  If we started courting whites without a college education we'd have to severely change our party value system (e.g., drop support for gay marriage, support the confederate flag, etc. etc.)... most liberals don't want to do any of that.

Or maybe you just want it that way. The latter part of your post is basically admitting it is not set in stone.





Yes I do.  However, it does have to be that way because the vast majority of the party also wants it that way, so it will end up being that way.  Do you think most Democrats will want the party to shift on gay marriage just to court rural voters in Wisconsin?  It's not going to happen. 

They don't have to shift on gay marriage to win back Wisconsin. They just have to have an economically populist message, like Obama did. Democrats will always do better with that message. Even in places like Georgia, Florida, Texas and North Carolina, the Democratic base is the working class. I do agree that the white working class is moving away from the Democrats, and that will likely continue over time, but the Democrats will still do better with an economically populist message. That message will both help them grow long term in diversifying states, while mitigating their decimation in the midwest in the short term.
Logged
crazy jimmie
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,513


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2016, 01:46:13 AM »

I mean, the next Democratic Presidential victory that is a healthy win, I expect Democrats to win Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, and perhaps Arizona based on demographics.

But as far as Senate and House purposes, I would really not want to concede the entire Midwest. All those states, even the most Republican of them, Missouri, has a Democratic base. They should not be written off up and down the ballot.

Trump's campaign was exceptionally tailor made for the midwest! Please do not forget that!

Clinton barely lifted a finger in those states.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2016, 03:13:06 PM »

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!

I wouldn't be so confident, buddy. While Democrats have to push the populist message, college educated whites are trending Democrat and that will continue to happen. Especially with younger voters. This won't hit the GOP hard till another decade, but you guys better figure out how to appeal to college educated millenials who have >100k in student debt.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2016, 04:08:42 PM »

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).
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2016, 04:27:22 PM »

Do you think most Democrats will want the party to shift on gay marriage just to court rural voters in Wisconsin?  It's not going to happen.  

Huh? Wisconsin has a lesbian senator! And said lesbian senator very much outperformed Hillary Clinton with the rural voters you speak of.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2016, 04:29:16 PM »

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?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 14 queries.