Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump

[UncleSam]

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:

Hillary did tremendously in Florida though (actually not being sarcastic here). She turned out 400k more voters than Obama got only four years earlier, and ran up huge margins all the places she had to. The fact that maybe she could've done a bit better in Volusia or Pinellas probably wouldn't even have swing the state though, due to Trump's crazy margins and absurd gain of voters over Romney. I very much doubt Kamala Harris would have the ground operation Clinton did in a state where the early vote is so essential, and I doubt she would drive up turnout in Broward, Palm Beach, or Miami. She could win. Florida if Trump is unpopular and loses a portion of his own voters, but so could any other Democrat.

My questions stands: what does Harris have that other Democrats do not that would give her a better chance at Florida than Hillary Clinton? Hillary ran strong with Hispanic voters and minority voters in general, but even if you boost her minority turnout to Obama levels she doesn't beat Trump last year. Meanwhile, I doubt Harris would have the infrastructure and money to try to bury Trump there (if Clinton hadn't been up 250k going in to Election Day courtesy of her massive spending lead, the state would have been a blowout).

Anyway I think people are underrating Clinton's campaign and assuming any Democrat would do better than she did almost universally. While that may end up being the case, if it is then Trump will lose no matter who the nominee is so who cares. The question is, if he performs decently and gets the same voters with a 36% approval rating as he got with a 36% approval rating in 2016, then who can beat him? That's is the operative question to answer, and while there are good answers (cough Bernie cough Sherrod Brown) I don't think Harris is one of them.

[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.

[politics_king]

Right now, Kamala Harris is the Democrats best option at this point. But she still has to run for the nomination. She's completely the opposite of what Trump represents. She just has to continue to be a champion for the opposition and she's trying to do that right now. We'll see, and she has plenty of opponents with the dirt that can hurt her in the General Election. The Democrats just need to solidly support 4 candidates they can get behind no matter the victor and see how it plays out from there.

[Shadows]

Was Clinton even serious about winning MI & WI? She visited MI like 3-4 days before the GE when polls showed she was in trouble & didn't even go to WI. This despite WI having a Senate race where she should have campaigned.  She was there getting questions for the Flint Debate. That person (the mother who asked that lead contaminated water questions) was a lifelong Dem voter who got so annoyed at her that she went to Fox & said she just wouldn't vote for Clinton (or Trump). Flint & many areas in Michigan (including Detroit) were failed by the establishment - Poor Infra, Bad trade deals. People don't have jobs or clean water like they used to & are not enthused to turnout only because Trump is bad.

And she ran an uber negative campaign focusing on personal attacks which doesn't help these people in trouble. I don't see Kamala's rust belt appeal ( I think she will do poorly there as well) but she can run a better campaign for MI & WI voters than what Hillary did.

[Mr. Smith]

Probably something like this, assuming the campaign is generic, Trump's approvals stay as they as they are and no recession.

Harris
Trump

[Mr. Morden]

Probably something like this, assuming the campaign is generic, Trump's approvals stay as they as they are and no recession.

Harris
Trump

Harris wins the Deep South and Utah, while a third party candidate wins most of the North and Trump gets zero electoral votes?

[Alabama_Indy10]

I was one of those who helped mobilize Clinton voters in Philly. There were a ton of volunteers there from out of state knocking on doors. Who knows if it might have been Milwaukee'd without our efforts. But the situation was just so frustrating, because the Clinton campaign was mobilized in Florida and Pennsylvania, and we got great turnout in Florida and good turnout in Pennsylvania... only to be swamped by Trump's massive turnout surge in these two states. On the other hand, states where we saw a turnout collapse, Trump's turnout was also unimpressive. It's almost as if Trump voters knew just where they'd be needed and turned out in those places.

Great work

[Mr. Smith]

Probably something like this, assuming the campaign is generic, Trump's approvals stay as they as they are and no recession.

Harris
Trump

Harris wins the Deep South and Utah, while a third party candidate wins most of the North and Trump gets zero electoral votes?

Whoops, my primary map for a different thread loaded again.

EDIT: Fixed

[CookieDamage]

-snip-

This is why 14 year olds don't vote