this ONE statistic reveals 2018 won't be as rosy as you want it to be (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 03:38:03 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  this ONE statistic reveals 2018 won't be as rosy as you want it to be (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: this ONE statistic reveals 2018 won't be as rosy as you want it to be  (Read 1441 times)
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,520


« on: January 25, 2017, 08:49:54 AM »

I really do not think it is in any Democrats best interest to automatically concede every single state Trump won next year. Unless they wont to go below 40 seats.
Logged
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,520


« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2017, 01:48:09 PM »

I agree with Zombie Spenstar's post above. You can also said that in 2016 every Presidential and Senate race went the same way. But that does not mean that will happen every single year. In 2012 five Democrats won strong Romney states despite control of Senate being up for grabs.

But of course people on this site will have McCaskill, Donnelly, Stabenow, Baldwin, Brown, Heitkamp and even Heller as dead on arrival until proven otherwise. Some of them rightfully so.
Logged
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,520


« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2017, 02:13:04 PM »

Oh I would like to mention a few other things.

I may have mentioned this once or twice before but not everything will be like 2016 forever.

It is highly doubtful that every single midterm will go heavily against the party in the White House like 2006 and 2010. Am I the only one who worries about political stability with those wild swings? Especially in the Midwest. Yes it is fun that the Midwest is elastic but it does show that their economy has fundamental flaws that no party will really solve. I know its controversial but I think its best when a state leans fundamentally to a specific party but also is willing to elect candidates of the opposite to certain officers consistently.

Also I do not see 2014 as a particularly impressive Republican midterm. The house gain of 14 (iirc) seats was not that impressive. The Senate gains were quite impressive I admit. But it just seemed to be a typical second midterm for an incumbent president.

Most of all Democrats need a message other than "trump sux". The message was "bush sux" in the 2006 midterm elections. It seemed great because of narrow margins in Missouri, Montana and Virginia that gave the Democrats the Senate Majority and the 31 seat pick up seemed impressive at the time but it was not exactly a record. All things considered, Democrats should have picked up 40+ seats in the House and won the Senate races in Virginia and Missouri by larger margins than they did.

Democrats need a unified vision to win and have a leader that can connect to large demographics of the American population. If we don't we may win 2020 Presidential election but lose everything again in 2022.

A message like "trump sux" will only limit our gains. What can we do differently from Trump to improve the lives of American people?

Oh by the way depending on demographics to save the party is a fools errand.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.02 seconds with 12 queries.