Should we consider IA and OH lean Republican states in the 2020 election?

[JerryArkansas]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

And just so you know, I did read your original post, yeah likely it played a role, but these swings across the region can't be boiled down to just saying farm prices fell.  Fear mongering on those falls, by doing exactly what I said would do that though.

[Sumner 1868]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans.  

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

Look, all I'm saying is that the Midwest tends to be swingy, oscillating between the two parties. We should give up on Iowa just because it voted for Trump, when it voted Democratic in all but one election between 1988 and 2012? Wisconsin and Michigan, which voted Dem in all but one election in that period? This somewhat ignorant of the political history of the region, and not good political strategy.

[JerryArkansas]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

Read the above 'post again, there is the argument.

[Sumner 1868]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

Read the above again, there is the argument.

Let me rephrase - there is no argument beyond claim. There is no reasoning.

[JerryArkansas]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

Read the above again, there is the argument.

Let me rephrase - there is no argument beyond claim. There is no reasoning.

When I say read the above, I mean read the first post on this page again.  I added an expanded argument to it just for you

[Sumner 1868]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

Read the above again, there is the argument.

Let me rephrase - there is no argument beyond claim. There is no reasoning.

When I say read the above, I mean read the first post on this page again.  I added an expanded argument to it just for you

Do you believe Romney would have won the 2012 election if he just dog whistled a bit more?

[JerryArkansas]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

Read the above again, there is the argument.

Let me rephrase - there is no argument beyond claim. There is no reasoning.

When I say read the above, I mean read the first post on this page again.  I added an expanded argument to it just for you

Do you believe Romney would have won the 2012 election if he just dog whistled a bit more?

It was a bit more complicated than that during that election, considering the Bain Capital arguments but yeah.  He could have made it much closer doing some more dog whistles.   Republicans use them because they work wonders. 
I'm saying that the dog whistles which were common in the South in the 1990's and 2000's are likely to work much better than they had in the past in the Industrial Midwest.  Whites in these areas are probably going to start to become polarised on race lines, and the only way in my mind to stop that is not focusing on those issues; which as I already said would destroy the turnout power of many POC, especially those who are younger and want a party to stand up against these issues.

This probably won't get caught by you but I personally think comparing 2012 to 2016 is not possible.  The fundamentals of each election are so diametrically opposed that it seems each election took place in a much different America. 

[Sumner 1868]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

Read the above again, there is the argument.

Let me rephrase - there is no argument beyond claim. There is no reasoning.

When I say read the above, I mean read the first post on this page again.  I added an expanded argument to it just for you

Do you believe Romney would have won the 2012 election if he just dog whistled a bit more?

It was a bit more complicated than that during that election, considering the Bain Capital arguments but yeah.  He could have made it much closer doing some more dog whistles.   Republicans use them because they work wonders. 
I'm saying that the dog whistles which were common in the South in the 1990's and 2000's are likely to work much better than they had in the past in the Industrial Midwest.  Whites in these areas are probably going to start to become polarised on race lines, and the only way in my mind to stop that is not focusing on those issues; which as I already said would destroy the turnout power of many POC, especially those who are younger and want a party to stand up against these issues.

This probably won't get caught by you but I personally think comparing 2012 to 2016 is not possible.  The fundamentals of each election are so diametrically opposed that it seems each election took place in a much different America. 

Well, POC issues (I assume your referring primarily to publicization of racial shootings by law enforcement in recent years, but correct me if I'm wrong) weren't really the focus of either Clinton or Sanders campaigns. That said, if you believe that racial polarization is only going to increase in the coming years, than we would  have to assume these issues aren't going to see any progress anytime soon. Which means everyone is running in circles.

[JerryArkansas]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

Read the above again, there is the argument.

Let me rephrase - there is no argument beyond claim. There is no reasoning.

When I say read the above, I mean read the first post on this page again.  I added an expanded argument to it just for you

Do you believe Romney would have won the 2012 election if he just dog whistled a bit more?

It was a bit more complicated than that during that election, considering the Bain Capital arguments but yeah.  He could have made it much closer doing some more dog whistles.   Republicans use them because they work wonders. 
I'm saying that the dog whistles which were common in the South in the 1990's and 2000's are likely to work much better than they had in the past in the Industrial Midwest.  Whites in these areas are probably going to start to become polarised on race lines, and the only way in my mind to stop that is not focusing on those issues; which as I already said would destroy the turnout power of many POC, especially those who are younger and want a party to stand up against these issues.

This probably won't get caught by you but I personally think comparing 2012 to 2016 is not possible.  The fundamentals of each election are so diametrically opposed that it seems each election took place in a much different America. 

Well, POC issues (I assume your referring primarily to publicization of racial shootings by law enforcement in recent years, but correct me if I'm wrong) weren't really the focus of either Clinton or Sanders campaigns. That said, if you believe that racial polarization is only going to increase in the coming years, than we would  have to assume these issues aren't going to see any progress anytime soon. Which means everyone is running in circles.

I mean shooting are a piece of it, but I'm talking about the deep institutional racism that exists in America.  But to steer this conversation back to where it was, I don't see how this region of the country doesn't move even farther right considering the path the Republican party is going down.  And likely given a few more cycles they won't vote them out of office either.  Gerrymandering helps that along as well.

 The Democratic party is stuck in a bad position right now.  If they try and go after these voters, they are risking alienation of the next generation of voters, a majority of whom are POC.   I'm not sure if racial polarisation across the country as a whole will go up, but at least in this region, it likely has and will continue. 

[The Chill Moderate Republican]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

I never said SAFE republican states when i made this forum. Did you guys even read the title.

[Xing]

Those saying Iowa is definitively gone for Democrats (not what the OP was arguing) are making too many conclusions from one election alone. If Iowa goes Republican in 2020 by more than 5-6% again, then maybe we can conclude that it's probably a red state. It's certainly possible that it could tighten considerably, or go Democratic in 2020 if the right Democrat runs. We can't rule that out this early.

[Mister Mets]

Seems appropriate.

It's not a guarantee Republicans will keep the states but odds are on their side, especially if it's not a Democratic landslide.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Republican leaning swing states yes, but both states are swingy with a strong Democratic base that certainly could swing back in a Obama 12 size win.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Republican leaning swing states yes, but both states are swingy with a strong Democratic base that certainly could swing back in a Obama 12 size win.

I really think at this point, a 4-point Dem win probably does not carry Iowa and Ohio. Dems seem more likely to make further inroads in the suburbs than to move back toward Obama numbers in white working class areas.

[RINO Tom]

Republican leaning swing states yes, but both states are swingy with a strong Democratic base that certainly could swing back in a Obama 12 size win.

I really think at this point, a 4-point Dem win probably does not carry Iowa and Ohio. Dems seem more likely to make further inroads in the suburbs than to move back toward Obama numbers in white working class areas.

Why do you think that?  It's not the rhetoric of the party leadership at ALL right now, and they just saw it fail multiple times in a row.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"We lost these both once recently, so obviously they're fine for good!

[DeSantis4Prez]

I think Iowa should be. Ohio is sort of. If Trump can rally his base, yes. But, if a stronger mid-west candidate runs, Ohio should stay a tossup.

[Sherrod Brown Shill]

I don't think we'll know until we know who the nominee is. Sherrod Brown (my badass Senator) would probably make them both tossups, maybe Ohio even leaning Blue, but if the nominee is Cory Booker then they would probably lean red unless Trump does something truly ridiculous.

I think the the Solid-Lean-Tossup system is a bit pointless anyway. MSNBC had North Dakota as a tossup state on election night in 2008, which wasn't too crazy, McCain won by only a nine point margin, way smaller than Bush in 2004, but still...