Should democrats give up on NC and focus elsewhere?

[super6646]

The whole notion that Trump improved upon Romneys performance among latino voters is fake news

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-probably-did-better-with-latino-voters-than-romney-did/

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

The whole notion that Trump improved upon Romneys performance among latino voters is fake news

- Talks about a fake news
- Then links to LatinoDecisions

[Pericles]

In 2020 they should focus on getting to 270. Focus on landslides later.

In 2016 Clinton didn't want to just win - she wanted to win in an epic landslide. She spent more money in Omaha, NE than Michigan and Wisconsin combined. This is the same mistake she made in 2008.

So if North Carolina is crucial to their path in 2020 then they should focus on it.

You are actually correct on this one. No trying to expand the  map for a 'mandate', winning 270 is mandate enough.

[Pericles]

I would warn against relying on exit polls as they are very inaccurate, even less than normal polls. The exit polls in 2016 predicted a Clinton landslide (Trump 48-47 for instance) for example

[60+ GOP Seats After 2018 GUARANTEED]

I would warn against relying on exit polls as they are very inaccurate, even less than normal polls. The exit polls in 2016 predicted a Clinton landslide (Trump 48-47 for instance) for example

Early exit polls are trash (for obvious reasons) but the ones later are OK. I did the math and most of them check out.

Por ejemplo, in Arizona, the exit polls showed a 75% white electoral with Trump getting 54% of whites, with 32% of non-whites (25%). This adds up to 48.5 and Trump got 48.1 in the state.

Not 100% accurate, but that's not what polls should be used for - just an idea. It's one of the biggest problems people have with polls. They think polls should be 100% accurate when that's not possible (not saying this about you, but for others).

[Blackacre]

I would warn against relying on exit polls as they are very inaccurate, even less than normal polls. The exit polls in 2016 predicted a Clinton landslide (Trump 48-47 for instance) for example

Early exit polls are trash (for obvious reasons) but the ones later are OK. I did the math and most of them check out.

Por ejemplo, in Arizona, the exit polls showed a 75% white electoral with Trump getting 54% of whites, with 32% of non-whites (25%). This adds up to 48.5 and Trump got 48.1 in the state.

Not 100% accurate, but that's not what polls should be used for - just an idea. It's one of the biggest problems people have with polls. They think polls should be 100% accurate when that's not possible (not saying this about you, but for others).

Also, exit polls are for showing why people voted, not who they voted for. Topline numbers in exit polling are crap but the crosstabs are valuable

[AN63093]

Give up on?  No.

However, at some point, your money is going to be more efficiently spent elsewhere.  And if the Dems somehow find themselves in a position where it's basically NC or bust, then something has gone horribly awry.

That being said, NC is a state that is winnable for the Dems.  Unlike, for example, VA, which absent a landslide, is not voting R.  Every dollar the GOP spends there is about as useful as throwing it in a fire.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Give up on?  No.

However, at some point, your money is going to be more efficiently spent elsewhere.  And if the Dems somehow find themselves in a position where it's basically NC or bust, then something has gone horribly awry.

That being said, NC is a state that is winnable for the Dems.  Unlike, for example, VA, which absent a landslide, is not voting R.  Every dollar the GOP spends there is about as useful as throwing it in a fire.

Except Trump would have won VA if he had won the popular vote? I dunno, maybe the GOP will continue to do so badly in populated urban areas that winning more than 50% of the PV would be considered a landslide victory, but that seems exaggerated to me. The better point is that the Republican path to 270 probably doesn't involve winning VA, which is true, but you still want to put resources in into the state to keep Democrats on the defensive. In 2012 the Romney campaign made the mistake of putting their resources into the swing states that were must-wins and not contesting the longer shots until it was too late.

[AN63093]

I don't think that even had Trump won the PV, he would've won VA.  The fact that the country as a whole swung R 1.76%, and yet VA still swung D anyway (for a trend of D+3%) is good evidence of this.  If Trump had managed to pull off a PV victory, those votes weren't going to be coming from VA.

VA is deceptive because it has a high GOP floor, is very polarized, and there are still lots of Republicans in the western areas of the state.  But getting those last few % are next to impossible in the current climate.  The GOP needs to find over 200k more votes, and I don't know where they find them.  Even in a place where there are potentially more GOP voters, like say, VA Beach, it's not enough.  VA Beach could go back to Bush level margins and it still wouldn't close the gap.  The simple fact is that NoVA has seen so much growth, and for the most part, these people moving in are all Dems, that the state is beyond reach for the GOP right now.  Maybe not in the future, but that's the situation currently.

I was being somewhat hyperbolic when I said they should spend $0, but I wasn't exaggerating much.  For every dollar the GOP spends here, there is almost certainly a more efficient and productive place to spend the money.

Romney is a completely different situation... you're comparing apples and oranges.  Romney was never in serious striking distance of Obama, no matter where he spent the money.  The only reason he seemed to superficially be competitive is because the media covered him in a more favorable and positive way, whereas Trump was despised by the media, the establishment, pretty much every political writer out there from all sides.  So it gives a distorted picture to the observer of what was really going on in terms of win probability.  In reality, Romney was never really in it, whereas Trump was (and is, for 2020).

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I was being somewhat hyperbolic when I said they should spend $0, but I wasn't exaggerating much.  For every dollar the GOP spends here, there is almost certainly a more efficient and productive place to spend the money.

Except diminishing returns is a thing. Putting a few million more into VA is going to get more of a return than bombing NH again if your main swing-states are getting over-saturated.

But yeah, we'll never know if Trump would have won VA with a 51% PV as it's a hypothetical which would have required him to win voters he couldn't in real life. So who knows. Point is it's quite imaginable as you only need a Bush 2004-level GOP win (incredibly close by historical standards) for uniform swing to put the state on a knife edge.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was being somewhat hyperbolic when I said they should spend $0, but I wasn't exaggerating much.  For every dollar the GOP spends here, there is almost certainly a more efficient and productive place to spend the money.

Except diminishing returns is a thing. Putting a few million into VA is going to get more of a return than bombing NH again if your main swing-states are getting over-saturated.

The Democratic party just blew $30 million on losing a House race, so I don't think they really care about diminishing returns.

[Lord Admirale]

We need to focus on winning back Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, then focus on the south later.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

We need to focus on winning back Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, and Michigan, and focus on bringing the score back up in Nevada, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine then focus on other states later.

I finished your incomplete post.

Although Donald Trump is probably going to lose by Jimmy Carter 1980 level margins in 2020, so this will only really be meaningful in 2024 and beyond.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

We need to focus on winning back Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, and Michigan, and focus on bringing the score back up in Nevada, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine then focus on other states later.

I finished your incomplete post.

Although Donald Trump is probably going to lose by Jimmy Carter 1980 level margins in 2020, so this will only really be meaningful in 2024 and beyond.

Iowa before AZ/GA/NC?

[Orser67]

For Democrats to actually get anything done, they need control of Congress as well as the presidency. So Dems should invest in NC, OH, IA, AZ, GA, and TX (and also NV and NH) even if they aren't likely to be the key swing state in the way that PA, WI, and FL are.

[Devils30]

Charlotte and Raleigh are growing while the rest of NC is declining, it wont be the tipping point by 2020 but it still gave Hillary a double digit vote in the under 50 category. The 3rd party vote for Johnson and Stein could also move back to the Dems. Cooper proved that he could win the state without the rural vote.

[Mr. Smith]

Nope, Hillary had the right idea of treating it like a periphery.

She was simply wrong to assume the main swingers were locked up enough to focus on the periphery.

But Trump could go the same way with the Sun Belt and take that for granted, and given how close a Sandernista ACLU lawyer got to becoming Senator, given how Cooper still won despite everything...

No, treat it like a periphery, and keep it like that until it's more promising.

Hillary should've given up in October and moved everything there to Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan.