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

[Rjjr77]

Possible.

But then, GOP strategists were up-and-down terrified of Hillary at this point 4 years ago, and wisdom was that Colorado and Virginia would need to be flipped [the 2012 tipping point and the median respectively]...whoops.

I think that last point is very true. However, knowing the Democratic Party, they will target affluent suburbs in Florida and Arizona again. And again, it won't work.

The Midwest wasn't supposed to work for the GOP either. Then it did.

I was a strategist 4 years ago, no one on the GOP side was scared of Hillary. Biden worried us much more

[Rjjr77]

Georgia will be winnable for democrats very soon. Look at the age gap in the CNN exit polls -- it's MASSIVE. The younger generation is so much more democrat than the older generation (largely because of the huge miniority population, but the youth white vote is also becoming less polarized).

Compare this to states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, PA, etc. where the youth vote is only a slight democrat win or even a slight loss. I expect Minnesota to start trending republican fast because it's a pretty wealthy and white state -- the older generation just has a dear attachment to the democrat party compared to other states.

That said, Wisconsin is a super elastic state so I wouldn't discount it for democrats yet (George Bush only lost this state twice by less than 0.5% FFS - how could anyone call this a "blue wall"?). Georgia won't be to the left of it until at least 2024 - but probably until 2028.

When Georgia actually elects a democrat statewide, then we can talk about it being possibly in play, until then its not.

[Rjjr77]

There was a lot of evidence to suggest that Hillary Clinton would beat her polling numbers too.

A lot of people had privately communicated to the media in some cases that they planned to vote for Clinton, but were afraid that if they let their family know, they would be targeted by domestic violence.

When you consider this, it changes from possible to obvious that Russian hackers must have tampered with the vote totals.

some weird anecdotal evidence makes it obvious that Russian hackers tampered with vote totals? thats asinine.

[Rjjr77]

Georgia will be winnable for democrats very soon. Look at the age gap in the CNN exit polls -- it's MASSIVE. The younger generation is so much more democrat than the older generation (largely because of the huge miniority population, but the youth white vote is also becoming less polarized).

Compare this to states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, PA, etc. where the youth vote is only a slight democrat win or even a slight loss. I expect Minnesota to start trending republican fast because it's a pretty wealthy and white state -- the older generation just has a dear attachment to the democrat party compared to other states.

That said, Wisconsin is a super elastic state so I wouldn't discount it for democrats yet (George Bush only lost this state twice by less than 0.5% FFS - how could anyone call this a "blue wall"?). Georgia won't be to the left of it until at least 2024 - but probably until 2028.

When Georgia actually elects a democrat statewide, then we can talk about it being possibly in play, until then its not.

Look at how close Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter were in 2014 (a terrible year for democrats overall). They both lost by less than 7%. Granted they were both pretty good candidates, but that's still a fairly small gap!

Now imagine what happens 6 years from then.

And let me inform you of the flaw in this logic -- Georgia elected a democratic governor for 130 years. 130 years between 1873-2003. However, republicans won Georgia quite a few times between this time period.

I know my state fairly well!

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

[Rjjr77]

Dude we aren't in disagreement here. News is so reactionary. Remember when Bill O Reily said the republican party had no leaders and was dying in 2009? Republicans had absolutely NOTHING in 2009 - democratic dominance everywhere (many thought Sarah Palin would be the new leader of the repub party, lol)! And then 2010 happened.

Yeah but hindsight is 20/20. Before the election, virtually no one (even Trump supporters) really thought he could win. Now after the election all I have heard was "I knew Trump would win" or "I knew Clinton would lose/was a bad candidate."

How could 99% of people know that Trump was going to win PA, WI, and MI by less than 1 point? Makes no sense.

Sadly I wasnt a member here, but I am on record at an event during the RNC convention pointing out that I thought Trump would win Pennsylvania and Michigan and win the election in a close one (I also at that same event said no republican will win Wisconsin in a presidential for the next 20 years, so theres that)

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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)