Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy

[RINO Tom]

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.

[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.

[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.

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?

[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.

[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.