Easiest Democratic Map for 2020
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:55:31 AM
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)
  Easiest Democratic Map for 2020
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Easiest Democratic Map for 2020  (Read 4499 times)
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 16, 2017, 12:37:13 AM »



I would say it's this, demographics may push Florida to the left of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin this time. Just getting some turnout in Detroit would flip Michigan back. GOP can still grow in the Milwaukee suburbs too in 2020.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2017, 12:49:08 AM »

Will I be lucky or unlucky to live in MI in 2020? The ads will be gruesome.
Logged
Confused Democrat
reidmill
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,055
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2017, 01:22:12 AM »
« Edited: February 16, 2017, 11:51:54 AM by Confused Democrat »

Swap Florida with Wisconsin & Pennsylvania, and that is probably the most viable path for Dems in 2020.

I think PA and WI will be easer to win back compared to FL.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2017, 06:43:38 AM »

Democrats win Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin if they elect Governors in those states in 2018 -- someting possible in the wake of a Trump disaster. 
Logged
LLR
LongLiveRock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,956


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2017, 07:29:44 AM »

Depends on the nominee and the general economic outlook as always.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2017, 07:55:56 AM »

Democrats win Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin if they elect Governors in those states in 2018 -- someting possible in the wake of a Trump disaster. 

If there is a bad economy next year, 2018 will go well for Democrats but if there is a quick recovery thereafter, Trump could do very well. OTOH, if the economy is OK until after the midterms (thus creating an expansion period that has never happened), there could be problems in 2020 for Trump while he does OK in 2018.
Logged
Confused Democrat
reidmill
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,055
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2017, 11:51:09 AM »

Swap Florida and Wisconsin, and that is probably the most viable path for Dems in 2020.

I think PA and WI will be easer to win back compared to FL.

If you swap Florida and Wisconsin then Dems would be at only 258 electoral votes. Maybe I'm just misreading what you wrote though.

No, you're right. I meant PA and WI.
Logged
Confused Democrat
reidmill
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,055
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2017, 12:01:18 PM »

Clinton 2016 + AZ + FL. MI and PA should be targeted as well, but not as much as FL and AZ. Someone like Harris likely isn't going to win WI IMO.

I understand the thinking behind targeting FL and AZ, but why exactly will they be easier to win when PA, WI, and MI have been much more reliable for Democrats over the years.

Do you really believe this election was a re-alignment, because I'm not entirely convinced yet.

Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2017, 12:08:56 PM »

Clinton 2016 + AZ + FL. MI and PA should be targeted as well, but not as much as FL and AZ. Someone like Harris likely isn't going to win WI IMO.

I understand the thinking behind targeting FL and AZ, but why exactly will they be easier to win when PA, WI, and MI have been much more reliable for Democrats over the years.

Do you really believe this election was a re-alignment, because I'm not entirely convinced yet.

The Sunbelt is where the Democrats' future lies. I don't see Trump doing much better with minority voters and "Clinton Republicans" in 2020 than in 2016, but he has a lot of room to grow in the Rust Belt, especially if the Democratic candidate doesn't connect with voters there (and also the Philly suburbs, WOW counties, etc.). But yeah, MI and PA should obviously be targeted. OH and IA would be a waste of time and money IMO.
Logged
RaphaelDLG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,688
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2017, 12:43:51 PM »

In the last few months of 2020, I think the Democratic candidate at that final sprint point will probably have to/should probably prioritize these ten states, in order:

1) Florida
2) Pennsylvania
3) Michigan
4) Minnesota
5) Wisconsin
6) Virginia
7) Nevada
Cool Colorado
9) New Hampshire
10) Maine

These calculations are based on how close the states are to 50-50 and how EV-rich they are.

Before and after the critical months, though, I think the Democrats should focus on expanding parts of the map like AZ, GA, NC, TX, OH that I believe still won't quite be ready for Democrats yet.
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2017, 12:49:12 PM »

I think Pennsylvania is significantly more viable than Florida.
Logged
Confused Democrat
reidmill
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,055
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2017, 12:58:24 PM »

Clinton 2016 + AZ + FL. MI and PA should be targeted as well, but not as much as FL and AZ. Someone like Harris likely isn't going to win WI IMO.

I understand the thinking behind targeting FL and AZ, but why exactly will they be easier to win when PA, WI, and MI have been much more reliable for Democrats over the years.

Do you really believe this election was a re-alignment, because I'm not entirely convinced yet.

The Sunbelt is where the Democrats' future lies. I don't see Trump doing much better with minority voters and "Clinton Republicans" in 2020 than in 2016, but he has a lot of room to grow in the Rust Belt, especially if the Democratic candidate doesn't connect with voters there (and also the Philly suburbs, WOW counties, etc.). But yeah, MI and PA should obviously be targeted. OH and IA would be a waste of time and money IMO.

I agree that our future lies in the Sunbelt, but I think 2020 might be a little too early for Democrats to start seriously making plays for states like GA, but I do believe we should start laying out the groundwork now. If we just take a look at the margins of victory in 2016:



Democrats should be targeting WI, MI, and PA over GA. AZ should still be targeted, but not as hard as those Rust Belt states. However, this could change since I don't know what the polling will look like in 2020. FL is deep purple and should always be targeted.

What I found most interesting about the election was how Texas swung to the Democrats by 3.4%. I agree with you overall though. Democrats should start building up the party in AZ, TX, GA, and NC. Their future map should look something like this:

Logged
Tricks33
Rookie
**
Posts: 64
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2017, 01:33:08 PM »

[map that I can't quote]

I would say it's this, demographics may push Florida to the left of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin this time. Just getting some turnout in Detroit would flip Michigan back. GOP can still grow in the Milwaukee suburbs too in 2020.
I would say that most of this is right. Well thought out and origial. Wisconsin could probubly fip but then it wouldn't be the easiest I guess. Anyways, good wok
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2017, 11:39:18 AM »

tbh it's just flipping back MI, PA, and WI, even with all the factors favoring trump he only won by less than 1%
Logged
DPKdebator
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,076
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.81, S: 3.65

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2017, 11:41:45 AM »

Democrats win Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin if they elect Governors in those states in 2018 -- someting possible in the wake of a Trump disaster. 
Not necessarily. NH (barely) voted for Clinton but it voted for Chris Sununu, a Republican, for governor.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2017, 11:48:08 AM »

Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2017, 11:52:39 AM »

I'll assume Sanders vs. Pence for shlts and gigs, LOL:



269-269, Sanders got tired.
Logged
UWS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2017, 12:27:41 PM »

I'll assume Sanders vs. Pence for shlts and gigs, LOL:



I think I would flip Wisconsin to Sanders.

269-269, Sanders got tired.
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 #18 on: February 18, 2017, 01:21:10 PM »

Obviously Michigan is the most likely state to flip, and from there, PA and WI FL are the Democrats' best bets. Clearly, Trump's landslide 0.8% win in Wisconsin New West Virginia is the new Republican floor there, and the state is now a dark red state that will never go Democratic again.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2017, 01:22:46 PM »

The thing that scares me with the Midwest is that they seem to have no problem voting for unpopular Republican governors no matter how bad the economy is. Could apply to President?
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,976


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2017, 01:47:26 PM »

The thing that scares me with the Midwest is that they seem to have no problem voting for unpopular Republican governors no matter how bad the economy is. Could apply to President?

Arguably the economy was not bad in WI & MI in 2014, certainly a lot better than 2010.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2017, 01:59:58 PM »

Obviously Michigan is the most likely state to flip, and from there, PA and WI FL are the Democrats' best bets. Clearly, Trump's landslide 0.8% win in Wisconsin New West Virginia is the new Republican floor there, and the state is now a dark red state that will never go Democratic again.

Live under the thumb of the local Republican party here for years, and you will actually believe this. Even when they lose the popular vote, they keep the chambers. This time around though, they gained more seats even though it was thought that they had hit their ceiling already. If the Democratic party continues mismanaging the state the way it has, your sarcastic rant might have more truth to it than you might care to admit.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2017, 02:02:52 PM »
« Edited: February 18, 2017, 02:05:12 PM by MT Treasurer »

Trump was the worst possible Republican for WI and he still won the state. The Midwest is an area where Trump has a lot of room to grow - unlike FL or NH, for example. Granted, no one knows for sure whether he will do better in the WOW counties, Philly suburbs, rural MN, etc. in 2020, but at least it's possible.

And no, I don't think every state that was within 10 points should be considered competitive. No one would consider states like Virginia and Colorado to be in play, for example.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2017, 02:12:17 PM »

Trump was the worst possible Republican for WI and he still won the state. The Midwest is an area where Trump has a lot of room to grow - unlike FL or NH, for example. Granted, no one knows for sure whether he will do better in the WOW counties, Philly suburbs, rural MN, etc. in 2020, but at least it's possible.

And no, I don't think every state that was within 10 points should be considered competitive. No one would consider states like Virginia and Colorado to be in play, for example.

Yep, Trump contested these states and gave up on them towards the end. They just weren't receptive to him as a candidate.

The PA burbs are a microcosm of what happened in VA and CO. A winning D candidate must run their numbers up more there, while making marginal recoveries in counties like Erie. If they can replicate this in MI, that's also an easy flip.

The Twin Cities and the upper NE counties of MN seem to be enough to keep it D. The next steps would be to work better on flipping FL, holding NH, and flipping one other state that would be easier reached, along the lines of AZ, GA, or NC.
Logged
(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31
Eharding
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2017, 02:17:31 PM »

Trump was the worst possible Republican for WI and he still won the state. The Midwest is an area where Trump has a lot of room to grow - unlike FL or NH, for example. Granted, no one knows for sure whether he will do better in the WOW counties, Philly suburbs, rural MN, etc. in 2020, but at least it's possible.

And no, I don't think every state that was within 10 points should be considered competitive. No one would consider states like Virginia and Colorado to be in play, for example.

-Trump was definitely not the worst possible Republican for WI: in fact, he was probably the best. Cruz (like Romney; see the primaries both in 2016 and 2012) had little appeal outside the eastern part of the state, while the people Trump won in western Wisconsin in the primary did not tend to be party-hack types at all, and many voted for Barry O in 2012. The people who Cruz won in the 2016 primary were definitely party-hack types, and were generally the same people Romney won in the 2012 primary. That didn't help Romney in November, and it wouldn't have helped Cruz, either. Trump alienating a tiny number of Cruz-supporting party hack types (less than 2%) while gaining very many Obama voters in western Wisconsin definitely made him a very strong candidate for the state, certainly stronger than Cruz, who would have kept all the party hack types, but would have been unable to appeal to Obama voters.

Rubio would likely have won VA and CO in November if Trump was the Democratic nominee and Rubio was the Republican. They're still winnable, but only by a certain type of Republican, and only in a situation of low minority turnout. Trump was never likely to win them; he was a very bad candidate for both states.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« 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 0.049 seconds with 13 queries.