Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump

[AN63093]

Basically the Clinton map, but the possibility of increased minority turnout to flip MI, FL, and a shot at NC.  It'd be tight, but that route is arguably more viable for the Dems than flipping back states like IA, WI, PA, OH.

OVERATED!!! I think she does worse in middle america than even hillary, but she would skyrocket black turnout enough to the point where she would narrowly win back PA, WI, and MI. In other words, Trump would narrowly lose.

Why does this myth persist... that black turnout was down in PA?  MI yes.  Clinton was off some 75k votes in Detroit from Obama.

But PA?  No.  Clinton beat Obama in turnout in every county in the Philly metro except Philly itself, where she was only off by 4k votes.

She did poorly in areas like Lackawanna and Luzerne.  Those counties are over 90% white.  They are only about 3% Black.  There are even more Hispanics there than Blacks.

[AN63093]

Why on earth would Kamala Harris out perform Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Florida? I understand Michigan because that was a bit flukish and I understand why GA / AZ could be had if she all ins on them but I'm having a hard time seeing why Harris had any appeal to the Midwest in any of these scenarios. Sure she could campaign more in them than Hillary did but she will be less popular there (and they will have drifted right for four more years) - I just don't see how she (or Warren, or Booker) is going to claw back ground in Scranton PA or Eau Claire WI

This, except I would exclude FL from that list.  Harris certainly has the potential in FL.  I could see her (assuming she's actually a good candidate, which obviously is a big "if" at this point), bringing the margin in Palm Beach Cty back to Obama levels, increasing turnout to Obama levels in places like Volusia Cty, flipping back Pinellas, etc.

PA, I'd agree with you though.  I am completely befuddled as to why people keep making maps with PA in it.  Harris has a route to the White House, but it doesn't go through PA.  To win PA, the Dems have to win back places like Wilkes-Barre and Erie.  I don't see Harris as a great fit for these counties, unless she surprises us all and it turns out she's basically the female Obama.  And there isn't some secret magical hidden cache of blacks in PA that Harris can tap into either.  I went into this above- Clinton actually exceeded Obama's turnout in Philly and still managed to lose the state.  Of course, the myth will continue that somehow the Dems lost PA due to black turnout, no matter what the numbers say.  :shrug:

[AN63093]

I just don't see how she (or Warren, or Booker) is going to claw back ground in Scranton PA or Eau Claire WI

She doesn't have to. She has to claw back ground in Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

Philadelphia 2016:
Hillary 584,025 votes

Philadelphia 2012:
Obama 588,806 votes

She lost Pennsylvania by 45k votes, and only underperformed Obama by about 5k. So your statement is objectively mathematically false.

Milwaukee County 2016:
Hillary 288,822 votes

Milwaukee County 2012:
Obama 332,438 votes

Bigger difference, 44k votes...and Hillary lost it by 23k votes...but that's also the whole county. Also if your strategy to win a state at best results in a victory of 21k votes which is less than Trump's strategy and has zero margin of error in a state Obama won by almost 7 points in 2012...it's pretty flawed to put it mildly.

This is simply not a working strategy. There's only so many votes you can get out of inner city urban centers. With the margins Democrats get from them they don't necessarily have to win the rest of the state, but a Hillary margin of loss is clearly not acceptable.

This.  For some reason, this whole "Clinton lost PA because of black turnout in Philly" myth just drives me nuts.  No idea why this has become a pet peeve of mine, but it has.

Now a place like MI?  Different story.  Clinton was off some 75k votes in Detroit from Obama.  And that was the 2012 numbers.  She was off over 140k votes from '08.  Now some of that will be population loss, but it won't account for it all.

If there's one state where this myth is true, it's MI.  Dems should be able to flip it back merely by increasing black turnout in Detroit.

But PA?  Nope.

[AN63093]

So is your contention then, that Clinton did about as good as a Dem could in FL.. at least in the Dem areas, and that to do better, a Dem has to have an in-road to R-leaning areas?

It's possible.  FL is a tough nut to crack.  Unlike PA, which has a stable population (or is shrinking in some areas), it's difficult to make projections for FL.  It's the 5th fastest growing state in the US, with major MSAs growing, including two of the fastest growing MSAs in the US (Fort Myers and Orlando).  And unlike a place like.. say, VA, which is also growing but has a narrow set of people moving in.. FL has a blend of demographics moving in, both liberal and conservative.  So it's tough every year to know exactly what the electorate will look like.

Now for PA, you're absolutely right.  Dems got the people they needed to show up in places like Philly.  The problem is, there was a massive D->R flip in places like Wilkes-Barre, Erie, and Scranton.

In a place like MI, on the other hand, there was a very clear turnout problem (specifically in Detroit), and Clinton would've held it had they shown up.

In FL though, I'm not sure.  You are right that Clinton is actually beating Obama's totals in some key areas, like Orange, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade.. so she didn't have the same problem that she had in Detroit.  But I wonder... are there still votes nonetheless being left on the table in these places?  Was there room for improvement or do the Dems have to flip votes in the R-leaning counties?

On these forums, I have basically been arguing that Dems have two possible routes back to the White House- either win back Obama>Trump voters and flip places like WI/PA; or increase minority turnout.  If you're right about FL, then the second option is going to be a lot harder to pull off.  The Dems then can't rely on FL and have to flip at least 2 out of 3 of AZ, NC, or GA.. which I think look good long-term for winning with a strategy of just boosting minority turnout, but won't be "ready" yet in '20 (in the case of AZ/GA), or would be very difficult to flip, albeit possible (NC).  

I have been arguing that the second option (i.e. boost minority turnout) is better than the first for the Dems, since they have more candidates that seem to fit that option, it also means they can keep the same messaging (and in fact, double down), and finally, the candidates suited to that strategy seem to be the type that excite the base (whereas candidates that can successfully execute the first option seem to be the type that the base has grown tired of or represents a Dem party of the past that they aren't interested in returning to).  If the first option is the better/more viable strategy though, then yes, the Dems are gonna have a lot of difficulty winning with candidates like Harris.