Trump Likely to Win Re-Election, According to a Dem Strategist

[Rookie Yinzer]

Also lol the GOP is not getting a super majority in 2018. It would have gotten one if Hillary was in the white house though.

I am mad at Ayotte and Heck for their stupidity in 2016, but it's still within reach:

Manchin switches to Independent or parties outright - or loses to a Republican, then there's Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And possibly Florida.

If Ayotte and Heck didn't go full stupid then it'd be much easier. But oh well can't cry over spilled milk.

Sherrod Brown, Debbie Stabenow, Bob Casey, and Bill Nelson are not losing.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

The difference between Vietnam and MLK protests is those people were protesting real injustices. The Tea Party also protested real things, while the "Resistance" protested nothing of substance. If they would have waited for the travel ban (just 1 week) they would have made more sense.

you do realize people hated the mlk protests too right lol? many people thought that mlk was being too radical and needed to find a more peaceful way of protesting. you really think people liked that people were marching down streets and blocking people from going to work? idk what is up w/ this revisionist history where the civil rights protest was all goody two shoes.

Yeah they hated those protests because of Jim Crow believers. MLK was protesting for rights guaranteed to them via the Constitution. The NFL kneelers are protesting the right for cops to defend themselves.

Vietnam protesters were protesting an extremely stupid and failed war that had a draft. With Iraq, at least we had an all volunteer military.

[Rjjr77]

Lets look at 2014, Deal beat the best candidate the Dems had by 8% points, 2% higher than his 2010 margin.

in 2002 Perdue won by 5% over Barnes. That doesn't show a trend to democrats to me, and neither does the presidential vote

In the senate Race Nunn (the second best candidate the Dems had in an open seat lost by 7, the last time that seat was up incumbent Saxby Chambliss won with less than 50% of the vote by 3 points. the Time before that Chambliss won by 7, and before that Cleland won by 3%.

People keep talking about demographics, and exit polling numbers, but Georgia hasn't show any ACTUAL shift towards democrats when it comes to actual votes being cast.

I cannot think of a state that has flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential that doesn't have at least one statewide win for the party.

If Georgia democrats actually get a statewide victory, then we can start talking about exit polls and demographics

I literally just gave you an example of a state that flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential without one statewide win for the party -- Georgia itself! Newt Gingrich was one of the first republicans to win even a house seat in that state! They didn't elect a republican governor until 2000.

Remember the southern republican vote didn't actually max out until late 2000's. There were still a lot of ancestral dems in a lot of these southern states (look at Tennessee in 2000 - there was a MASSIVE age gap where the younger voters voted way way more republican than the older voters. Aka ancestral dems!). Also Remember Gore tied w/ younger voters vs Bush whereas he won fairly big among 65+. That's because there were a lot of dems from the New Deal era still around! Most of those dems have been dead since the late 2000's. So we have lost the dems from the New Deal, but the republicans from the Reagan era are for the most part still alive and healthy! (Remember -- the age you grew up in matters a lot in your voting habits!).


EDIT: Oops, I meant they didn't elect a republican governor until 2000 (after 1873 or so)

Georgia Elected Republicans state wide in 1994

What's more likely to happen?
A. A more popular Democrat than Hillary Clinton (say, Biden) was ekes out a plurality win over a damaged Trump in 2020 with like 49% of the vote (largely on the back of blacks)
or
B. A white female or black single female from Atlanta wins the governorship in 2018 with at least 50.001% of the vote with blacks less likely to turnout

The answer seems real obvious to me.

Neither Id say is likely to happen, but Democrats winning anything statewide in 2018 would show that 2020 scenario could actually happen.

There appears to be a built in floor for republicans in Georgia, and it is higher than democrats in georgias proven ceiling. Hillary Clinton had the most votes for a democrat in the history of Georgia and didnt come close, and trumps totals are in spitting distance of what Romney, McCain and Bush all put up. Hillary put up what Obama put up in 2008, and Democrats increased their share of the vote from 2012 by 0.41 thats not a trend

It is when the rest of the country swung 2 points to the right, is it not, or does Georgia not count for some reason? And again, I'm still confused as to why Democrats should win a gubernatorial or downballot race first before they can prove they can win on the presidential level. Like, extremely confused--blacks are much more likely to turnout in Presidential years than in midterms which benefits Republicans a lot more in midterms, and Presidential races in Georgia don't require the winner to obtain a majority unlike in other races. It seems pretty clear to me that Georgia Democrats' first statewide win in over a decade is going to be in a Presidential race because they have two major factors benefiting Presidem that a gubernatorial candidate would have to overcome. Also, no Republican won statewide office before Nixon and Reagan won Georgia, did they? Why should it be any different here? Usually states trend towards a party from the Presidential toplines and it takes a few years to filter downballot. I don't know why Georgia would be any different.

Well actually Republicans won the vote for Governor in 1966, Prior to Nixon
and a Republican Senator in 1980, prior to Reagan.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Also lol the GOP is not getting a super majority in 2018. It would have gotten one if Hillary was in the white house though.

I am mad at Ayotte and Heck for their stupidity in 2016, but it's still within reach:

Manchin switches to Independent or parties outright - or loses to a Republican, then there's Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And possibly Florida.

If Ayotte and Heck didn't go full stupid then it'd be much easier. But oh well can't cry over spilled milk.

97% of people from the party opposing the presidential party in the senate win reelection. 97%.

I don't see any way GOP wins PA, Wisconsin, or Ohio. PA and Wisconsin are purple states, whereas Ohio is a rematch of a failed candidate from 2012. 2018 will be a more favorable environment for dems than 2012.

Michigan is a purple state but I won't rule it out because of the Kid Rock factor. I doubt he wins but I'm not going to rule it out. Florida is also somewhat unlikely because it's a purple state but Rick Scott is a strong competitor so I won't rule it out.

MO, IN, ND, WV, MT are all arguably tossups / only tilt D, but even if republicans win all of these, they'd still be 3 seats short. This is also ignoring NV / AZ.

My personal guess is dems lose Missouri and one of IN / ND / MT, and republicans hold both NV / AZ.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Sherrod Brown, Debbie Stabenow, Bob Casey, and Bill Nelson are not losing.

Stabenow will lose if Kid Rock runs. If he doesn't, it's harder but possible.

Nelson is tough for sure.

Ohio and Pennsylvania are well within play. Ohio especially. Casey will be tough but with Toomey and Trump winning it's on the list.

From easiest to win to toughest tiers:

- Montana/North Dakota/Missouri
- Indiana/Ohio/Wisconsin/West Virginia (if Manchin doesn't switch parties/go indy)
- New York (just kidding lol) Pennsylvania/Michigan
- Florida/Minnesota/Maine
- Rest are safe Democrat

It's one of the reasons I am so mad about Ayotte and Heck losing. With them winning then we could afford to lose PA or MI, but now they're crucial.

ETA: I forgot about Virginia. I won't comment on this one until I see this year's gubernatorial race.

[Fuzzy Bear]

For these following reasons:

1. It is unnecessary to win a majority of the popular vote, as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush demonstrated. 

2. The two major established political parties continue to bleed support, increasing the likelihood of a third party candidate winning a significant share of the vote in 2020, working to Trump's advantage as it splits the opposition. 

3. Trump has a better job approval rating than most polls suggest, especially among registered/likely voters (polls survey all eligible voters, and many may be reluctant to admit they support him), particularly in the key states he needs to win re-election in the Electoral College. 

4. His core group of supporters are with him to the bitter end, and with another less unequivocal group that still sticks with him out of a desire for change, which explains why he has largely bottomed out in polls with around 33 to 35% support. 

So his solution is that we as Democrats must quickly (as in avoid a long, drawn-out primary) unite behind a candidate who can appeal to voters in the upper Midwest, particularly in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 

Thoughts?

I believe #3 is true, and is the key to Trump's political survival and success.

[Pericles]

I thought Hillary was a weak candidate before the election and was justifiably worried that her favorability ratings were so poor.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

97% of people from the party opposing the presidential party in the senate win reelection. 97%.

I don't see any way GOP wins PA, Wisconsin, or Ohio. PA and Wisconsin are purple states, whereas Ohio is a rematch of a failed candidate from 2012. 2018 will be a more favorable environment for dems than 2012.

Michigan is a purple state but I won't rule it out because of the Kid Rock factor. I doubt he wins but I'm not going to rule it out. Florida is also somewhat unlikely because it's a purple state but Rick Scott is a strong competitor so I won't rule it out.

MO, IN, ND, WV, MT are all arguably tossups / only tilt D, but even if republicans win all of these, they'd still be 3 seats short. This is also ignoring NV / AZ.

My personal guess is dems lose Missouri and one of IN / ND / MT, and republicans hold both NV / AZ.

Trump doesn't follow typical political science rules. We should know that by now.

Everytime he has been underestimated he rises up and wins anyway.

Wisconsin I think is one of the easier wins because of the GOP infrastructure in WI and Baldwin if I remember correctly not being too popular among liberals. She's pretty vulnerable, I was hoping Walker would run for the seat.

Yeah, with Michigan it depends who wins. If it's a boring generic Republican Stabenow wins. If it's like Kid Rock then it's much easier. I really hope Kid Rock runs. Even if he loses it's worth trying.

And yes, Dems are definitely losing Missouri. Should've lost in 2012 but Claire was given the gift from the gods that year lol.

I see Republicans winning 58 seats minimum, HOWEVER, that is not enough. So I say they should go for the nuclear option if that happens.

[Xing]

Trump is likely to win if Democrats can't get their act together and run on a message that voters in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin can buy into. Right now, they seem to want to double down on their 2016 strategy, which is not going to help.

If they run on identity politics and believe that Georgia is more winnable than Wisconsin, they're going to lose.

If things continue in their current direction, Georgia very well might be more winnable for the Democrats than Wisconsin in 2020.

I highly doubt that. Even if Wisconsin is starting to go the way of Missouri, which I doubt for reasons I've outlined on other threads, I don't think Georgia flips in 2020 barring a Democratic wave. Trump's performance in the state in 2016 was already quite bad, and I don't see him doing significantly worse unless he's having a bad night nationally. I'd say Wisconsin is a Toss-Up, while Georgia is Lean if not Likely R.

[Rjjr77]

Lets look at 2014, Deal beat the best candidate the Dems had by 8% points, 2% higher than his 2010 margin.

in 2002 Perdue won by 5% over Barnes. That doesn't show a trend to democrats to me, and neither does the presidential vote

In the senate Race Nunn (the second best candidate the Dems had in an open seat lost by 7, the last time that seat was up incumbent Saxby Chambliss won with less than 50% of the vote by 3 points. the Time before that Chambliss won by 7, and before that Cleland won by 3%.

People keep talking about demographics, and exit polling numbers, but Georgia hasn't show any ACTUAL shift towards democrats when it comes to actual votes being cast.

I cannot think of a state that has flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential that doesn't have at least one statewide win for the party.

If Georgia democrats actually get a statewide victory, then we can start talking about exit polls and demographics

I literally just gave you an example of a state that flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential without one statewide win for the party -- Georgia itself! Newt Gingrich was one of the first republicans to win even a house seat in that state! They didn't elect a republican governor until 2000.

Remember the southern republican vote didn't actually max out until late 2000's. There were still a lot of ancestral dems in a lot of these southern states (look at Tennessee in 2000 - there was a MASSIVE age gap where the younger voters voted way way more republican than the older voters. Aka ancestral dems!). Also Remember Gore tied w/ younger voters vs Bush whereas he won fairly big among 65+. That's because there were a lot of dems from the New Deal era still around! Most of those dems have been dead since the late 2000's. So we have lost the dems from the New Deal, but the republicans from the Reagan era are for the most part still alive and healthy! (Remember -- the age you grew up in matters a lot in your voting habits!).


EDIT: Oops, I meant they didn't elect a republican governor until 2000 (after 1873 or so)

Georgia Elected Republicans state wide in 1994

What's more likely to happen?
A. A more popular Democrat than Hillary Clinton (say, Biden) was ekes out a plurality win over a damaged Trump in 2020 with like 49% of the vote (largely on the back of blacks)
or
B. A white female or black single female from Atlanta wins the governorship in 2018 with at least 50.001% of the vote with blacks less likely to turnout

The answer seems real obvious to me.

Neither Id say is likely to happen, but Democrats winning anything statewide in 2018 would show that 2020 scenario could actually happen.

There appears to be a built in floor for republicans in Georgia, and it is higher than democrats in georgias proven ceiling. Hillary Clinton had the most votes for a democrat in the history of Georgia and didnt come close, and trumps totals are in spitting distance of what Romney, McCain and Bush all put up. Hillary put up what Obama put up in 2008, and Democrats increased their share of the vote from 2012 by 0.41 thats not a trend

It is when the rest of the country swung 2 points to the right, is it not, or does Georgia not count for some reason? And again, I'm still confused as to why Democrats should win a gubernatorial or downballot race first before they can prove they can win on the presidential level. Like, extremely confused--blacks are much more likely to turnout in Presidential years than in midterms which benefits Republicans a lot more in midterms, and Presidential races in Georgia don't require the winner to obtain a majority unlike in other races. It seems pretty clear to me that Georgia Democrats' first statewide win in over a decade is going to be in a Presidential race because they have two major factors benefiting Presidem that a gubernatorial candidate would have to overcome. Also, no Republican won statewide office before Nixon and Reagan won Georgia, did they? Why should it be any different here? Usually states trend towards a party from the Presidential toplines and it takes a few years to filter downballot. I don't know why Georgia would be any different.

Well actually Republicans won the vote for Governor in 1966, Prior to Nixon
and a Republican Senator in 1980, prior to Reagan.

If that's your rebuttal, I'm not convinced at all. A Joe Biden (or even a Kamala Harris type) would win Georgia in 2020 before anyone like Evans or Abrams wins a gubernatorial race, and it's pretty obvious why. Though I'm not saying that Biden or Harris is even likely to win. Just much more likely to win GA than the gubernatorial candidate.

My rebuttal is legitimate. Show me a dem statewide win and I'll be convinced theres actually movement there, all the talks about demographic switches didnt help in 2012 and 2016 and they wont help in 2020. not with over a decade since a democrat has actually beaten a republican statewide in that state

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I thought Hillary was a weak candidate before the election and was justifiably worried that her favorability ratings were so poor.

Trump's were far worse though.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

IT'S A LOT EASIER FOR A DEMOCRAT IN GEORGIA TO WIN IN A PRESIDENTIAL YEAR THAN A MIDTERM YEAR, AND THEY DON'T NEED TO CROSS 50% TO WIN

Yeah because they've won Georgia in the past 6 elections. Just kidding lol.

Obama maxed out the black vote and didn't get within 5 points of McCain. Romney won it by 8. Clinton won Gwinnet and Cobb counties and lost around the same percentage points Obama lost.

Georgia is not becoming a swing state til 2028 and a Dem. won't win it til the 30s at the earliest.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I thought Hillary was a weak candidate before the election and was justifiably worried that her favorability ratings were so poor.

Trump's were far worse though.

Trump won the voters who hated both him and Clinton.

Clinton had depressed turnout in Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin. Black turnout in Milwaukee went from 75% in 2012 to 49% in 2016.

High third party support.

Her LOSS is not THAT shocking after looking at the election day data. There was just intense hubris from the Clinton camp because Trump did things that Presidential candidates just DON'T do.  

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I thought Hillary was a weak candidate before the election and was justifiably worried that her favorability ratings were so poor.

Trump's were far worse though.

Trump won the voters who hated both him and Clinton.

Clinton had depressed turnout in Michigan, Florida, and Wisconsin. Black turnout in Milwaukee went from 75% in 2012 to 49% in 2016.

High third party support.

Her LOSS is not THAT shocking after looking at the election day data. There was just intense hubris from the Clinton camp because Trump did things that Presidential candidates just DON'T do.  

Trump also got low GOP turnout in Milwaukee suburbs and Milwaukee itself. Trump did terrible in many suburbs that Romney did well in.

As I said, Trump had far worse approval ratings than Clinton.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

"MUH Trump can't win MI, WI, or PA cuz they've gone D for six cycles!"

have u not paid attention to this thread with wht Rjj77 and i have been saying?

Republicans won Obama-era statewide races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Scott Walker (and Ron Johnson), Pat Toomey (and the governor in 2010 I forget his name), and Rick Snyder.

pay attention plz. school is in session

[Rjjr77]

Lets look at 2014, Deal beat the best candidate the Dems had by 8% points, 2% higher than his 2010 margin.

in 2002 Perdue won by 5% over Barnes. That doesn't show a trend to democrats to me, and neither does the presidential vote

In the senate Race Nunn (the second best candidate the Dems had in an open seat lost by 7, the last time that seat was up incumbent Saxby Chambliss won with less than 50% of the vote by 3 points. the Time before that Chambliss won by 7, and before that Cleland won by 3%.

People keep talking about demographics, and exit polling numbers, but Georgia hasn't show any ACTUAL shift towards democrats when it comes to actual votes being cast.

I cannot think of a state that has flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential that doesn't have at least one statewide win for the party.

If Georgia democrats actually get a statewide victory, then we can start talking about exit polls and demographics

I literally just gave you an example of a state that flipped from a consistent voting record in a presidential without one statewide win for the party -- Georgia itself! Newt Gingrich was one of the first republicans to win even a house seat in that state! They didn't elect a republican governor until 2000.

Remember the southern republican vote didn't actually max out until late 2000's. There were still a lot of ancestral dems in a lot of these southern states (look at Tennessee in 2000 - there was a MASSIVE age gap where the younger voters voted way way more republican than the older voters. Aka ancestral dems!). Also Remember Gore tied w/ younger voters vs Bush whereas he won fairly big among 65+. That's because there were a lot of dems from the New Deal era still around! Most of those dems have been dead since the late 2000's. So we have lost the dems from the New Deal, but the republicans from the Reagan era are for the most part still alive and healthy! (Remember -- the age you grew up in matters a lot in your voting habits!).


EDIT: Oops, I meant they didn't elect a republican governor until 2000 (after 1873 or so)

Georgia Elected Republicans state wide in 1994

What's more likely to happen?
A. A more popular Democrat than Hillary Clinton (say, Biden) was ekes out a plurality win over a damaged Trump in 2020 with like 49% of the vote (largely on the back of blacks)
or
B. A white female or black single female from Atlanta wins the governorship in 2018 with at least 50.001% of the vote with blacks less likely to turnout

The answer seems real obvious to me.

Neither Id say is likely to happen, but Democrats winning anything statewide in 2018 would show that 2020 scenario could actually happen.

There appears to be a built in floor for republicans in Georgia, and it is higher than democrats in georgias proven ceiling. Hillary Clinton had the most votes for a democrat in the history of Georgia and didnt come close, and trumps totals are in spitting distance of what Romney, McCain and Bush all put up. Hillary put up what Obama put up in 2008, and Democrats increased their share of the vote from 2012 by 0.41 thats not a trend

It is when the rest of the country swung 2 points to the right, is it not, or does Georgia not count for some reason? And again, I'm still confused as to why Democrats should win a gubernatorial or downballot race first before they can prove they can win on the presidential level. Like, extremely confused--blacks are much more likely to turnout in Presidential years than in midterms which benefits Republicans a lot more in midterms, and Presidential races in Georgia don't require the winner to obtain a majority unlike in other races. It seems pretty clear to me that Georgia Democrats' first statewide win in over a decade is going to be in a Presidential race because they have two major factors benefiting Presidem that a gubernatorial candidate would have to overcome. Also, no Republican won statewide office before Nixon and Reagan won Georgia, did they? Why should it be any different here? Usually states trend towards a party from the Presidential toplines and it takes a few years to filter downballot. I don't know why Georgia would be any different.

Well actually Republicans won the vote for Governor in 1966, Prior to Nixon
and a Republican Senator in 1980, prior to Reagan.

If that's your rebuttal, I'm not convinced at all. A Joe Biden (or even a Kamala Harris type) would win Georgia in 2020 before anyone like Evans or Abrams wins a gubernatorial race, and it's pretty obvious why. Though I'm not saying that Biden or Harris is even likely to win. Just much more likely to win GA than the gubernatorial candidate.

My rebuttal is legitimate. Show me a dem statewide win and I'll be convinced theres actually movement there, all the talks about demographic switches didnt help in 2012 and 2016 and they wont help in 2020. not with over a decade since a democrat has actually beaten a republican statewide in that state

IT'S A LOT EASIER FOR A DEMOCRAT IN GEORGIA TO WIN IN A PRESIDENTIAL YEAR THAN A MIDTERM YEAR, AND THEY DON'T NEED TO CROSS 50% TO WIN

See this is based entirely off of theory no actual practical proof, also it assumes that republicans would ever get below the 50% threshold in Georgia, which hasnt happened since 1996.
Almost every other time a state shifts to president in the past 30 years we've seen a statewide win somewhere else along the way, why does Georgia in 2020 get to be so different? Why do they get to be the exception other than your belief that its going to happen based on demographics.

[Rjjr77]

"MUH Trump can't win MI, WI, or PA cuz they've gone D for six cycles!"

have u not paid attention to this thread with wht Rjj77 and i have been saying?

Republicans won statewide races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Scott Walker, Pat Toomey (and the governor in 2010 I forget his name), and Rick Snyder.

pay attention plz

I don't know why Democrats need to win Georgia in unfavorable conditions in midterms when it'd be a lot easier to do it in a Presidential year. Stop being stoopid and acknowledge this plz

because thats been the trend for 30 years in almost every state that has switched, why is THAT so hard for you to accept? All the talks of demographic changes dont matter if there isnt any changes in votes, and there havent been any changes in votes

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I don't know why Democrats need to win Georgia in unfavorable conditions in midterms when it'd be a lot easier to do it in a Presidential year. Stop being stoopid and acknowledge this plz

What indications do you get that Georgia will be easy in a Presidential year in 2020/2024?

I can see Georgia being a true swing state by 2028, with a Dem winning it by 2032, but by 2024? Nah.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Okay fine, here's proof:
-every Goldwater state in 1964 save Arizona.
-WV 1984. It was over a decade since Arch Moore last won there
-Alabama 1980
-South Carolina 1980
-NH 1992
-Most the South in 1980
-a ton more I'm probably missing

Again for like the millionth time: I'm not saying a D win in GA is even likely in 2020. Just that it's more likely than a 2018 win.

Oh and I forgot to mention, Bush was less than 0.5 points from winning Wisconsin in 2000 and 2004, about 3 points from winning Pennsylvania, and 4 points from winning Michigan.

Democrats got unreal Democrat turnout in 2008 and 2016 in Georgia and didn't even get within 5.

Trump winning Georgia with 52%+ of the vote is 100% guaranteed.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

Okay fine, here's proof:
-every Goldwater state in 1964 save Arizona.
-WV 1984. It was over a decade since Arch Moore last won there
-Alabama 1980
-South Carolina 1980
-NH 1992
-Most the South in 1980
-a ton more I'm probably missing

Again for like the millionth time: I'm not saying a D win in GA is even likely in 2020. Just that it's more likely than a 2018 win.

Oh and I forgot to mention, Bush was less than 0.5 points from winning Wisconsin in 2000 and 2004, about 3 points from winning Pennsylvania, and 4 points from winning Michigan.

Democrats got unreal Democrat turnout in 2008 and 2016 in Georgia and didn't even get within 5.

Trump winning Georgia with 52%+ of the vote is 100% guaranteed.

k

Well everything anti-Trumpers say the opposite happens. I on the other hand have been right about Trump the entire time.

[kyc0705]

I don't understand this Rust Belt over Sun Belt strategy. Doesn't it make more sense to campaign for a region of the country that's most likely going to have a dynamic economy and substantial diverse population growth, instead of one that literally has the word "rust" in the title?

To use a great comparison somebody once had about something else, it seems like the Democrats would be shutting down Netflix in order to save Blockbuster.

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

k.

Setting aside that you yourself said you got VA, MN, NH, and NV wrong in 2016.

But VA, MN, NV, and NH are swing states. Georgia is not (yet).

When Trump wins Georgia with something like 53.5-43.5 (give or take 0.5) are you going to be blown away?

[kyc0705]

I don't understand this Rust Belt over Sun Belt strategy. Doesn't it make more sense to campaign for a region of the country that's most likely going to have a dynamic economy and substantial diverse population growth, instead of one that literally has the word "rust" in the title?

To use a great comparison somebody once had about something else, it seems like the Democrats would be shutting down Netflix in order to save Blockbuster.

Cuz any path to a Senate majority still goes through the Rust Belt even if NC, GA, and AZ were to get you to 270.

Obviously, but I've read countless arguments that make it sound like the only way for the Democrats to get out of the wilderness is to campaign exclusively on making Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania et al Safe D again. Why not focus more on Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and even strategize longterm goals for (gasp) Texas?

[Rjjr77]

"MUH Trump can't win MI, WI, or PA cuz they've gone D for six cycles!"

have u not paid attention to this thread with wht Rjj77 and i have been saying?

Republicans won statewide races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Scott Walker, Pat Toomey (and the governor in 2010 I forget his name), and Rick Snyder.

pay attention plz

I don't know why Democrats need to win Georgia in unfavorable conditions in midterms when it'd be a lot easier to do it in a Presidential year. Stop being stoopid and acknowledge this plz

because thats been the trend for 30 years in almost every state that has switched, why is THAT so hard for you to accept? All the talks of demographic changes dont matter if there isnt any changes in votes, and there havent been any changes in votes

Okay fine, here's proof:
-every Goldwater state in 1964 save Arizona.
-WV 1984. It was over a decade since Arch Moore last won there
-Alabama 1980
-South Carolina 1980
-NH 1992
-Most the South in 1980

Again many of these are over the last 30 years but sure we can talk about many of these
1984 WV, Arch Moore had been over a decade, James McCartney wasnt.

"Most of the south in 1980"
Not Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, and North Carolina,

Alabama in 1980 elected a GOP Senator at the same time, so that and 1992 NH are the only ones (and they have only like 3 statewide offices)

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

"MUH Trump can't win MI, WI, or PA cuz they've gone D for six cycles!"

have u not paid attention to this thread with wht Rjj77 and i have been saying?

Republicans won statewide races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Scott Walker, Pat Toomey (and the governor in 2010 I forget his name), and Rick Snyder.

pay attention plz

I don't know why Democrats need to win Georgia in unfavorable conditions in midterms when it'd be a lot easier to do it in a Presidential year. Stop being stoopid and acknowledge this plz

because thats been the trend for 30 years in almost every state that has switched, why is THAT so hard for you to accept? All the talks of demographic changes dont matter if there isnt any changes in votes, and there havent been any changes in votes

Okay fine, here's proof:
-every Goldwater state in 1964 save Arizona.
-WV 1984. It was over a decade since Arch Moore last won there
-Alabama 1980
-South Carolina 1980
-NH 1992
-Most the South in 1980

Again many of these are over the last 30 years but sure we can talk about many of these
1984 WV, Arch Moore had been over a decade, James McCartney wasnt.

"Most of the south in 1980"
Not Mississippi, Georgia, Arkansas, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, and North Carolina,

Alabama in 1980 elected a GOP Senator at the same time, so that and 1992 NH are the only ones (and they have only like 3 statewide offices)

And Baker was what?