Democrats should campaign in the rust belt instead of the sun belt in 2020

[King Lear]

Hillary Clinton’s campaign placed way to much emphasis on Florida and North Carolina instead of the three rust belt states that flipped the election. For democrats to be competitive in 2020 they should prioritize campaigning in only four trump states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida in that order of significance. They also should put some time and money into defending New Hampshire, Minnesota, Nevada, and Maine because as I have stated in other posts trump could easily snatch those away if democrats take them for granted. You’ll probably notice I did not include North Carolina on the list of states they should target, let alone Arizona and Georgia, that’s because the only reason these states were Evan close last time was because of never trumpers voting third party, I believe all these will go for trump by high single digits next time. I’ll probably be criticized for putting Florida last on the list of trump states they should target, that’s because due to the massive amount of affluent old white retirees there along with trumps home state advantage, I find it extremely unlikely any Democrat can beat Trump in Florida. As a final note when I say democrats should target the rust belt im talking about getting higher Nonwhite and youth turnout in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Milwaukee, and Madison not screwing around in rural white areas that will never vote for you. For this reason I don’t include Ohio and Iowa on the list of rust belt states to be targeted. Unfortunately I believe these states are too white and rural to vote democratic anymore.

[Rookie Yinzer]

As a final note when I say democrats should target the rust belt im talking about getting higher Nonwhite and youth turnout in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Milwaukee, and Madison not screwing around in rural white areas that will never vote for you.

I was coming in here to say this. Pandering to the "white working class" will only alienate reliable Democratic votes. Target Millennials, African-Americans, and single women. 

I don't agree about NC. Obama won it once, Democrats have won Senate seats and statewide elections multiple times over the past 10 years, and 2020 will have a hotly contested Senate Race.

[Former Kentuckian]

As a final note when I say democrats should target the rust belt im talking about getting higher Nonwhite and youth turnout in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Milwaukee, and Madison not screwing around in rural white areas that will never vote for you.

I was coming in here to say this. Pandering to the "white working class" will only alienate reliable Democratic votes. Target Millennials, African-Americans, and single women. 

I don't agree about NC. Obama won it once, Democrats have won Senate seats and statewide elections multiple times over the past 10 years, and 2020 will have a hotly contested Senate Race.

Also, it's not like Clinon in 2016 or Obama in 2012 lost NC by wide margins. They both lost it by low single digits and Clinton was able to keep Trump below 50%. It's so swingy. There's clearly potential there.

[RINO Tom]

As a final note when I say democrats should target the rust belt im talking about getting higher Nonwhite and youth turnout in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Milwaukee, and Madison not screwing around in rural white areas that will never vote for you.

I was coming in here to say this. Pandering to the "white working class" will only alienate reliable Democratic votes. Target Millennials, African-Americans, and single women. 

I don't agree about NC. Obama won it once, Democrats have won Senate seats and statewide elections multiple times over the past 10 years, and 2020 will have a hotly contested Senate Race.

Not openly offending such demographics does not equal "pandering."  Who said anything about winning *racist* WWC voters?  Or *xenophobic* WWC voters?  Or *sexist* WWC voters?  All WWC means is "White without a college degree" (which is immensely dumb, as there are plenty of rich, White Baby Boomers without a degree and tons of lower-middle class, White Millennials with a college degree, but that's another conversation).  There are a LOT of those voters who were perfectly willing to vote Democratic before Hillary Clinton, and they're not the ones that you see in video clips at Trump rallies or commenting on Breitbart articles about Roy Moore ... that should be obvious.  To write off the entire "WWC" demographic is so immensely stupid that I could actually see the DNC doing it.

Anyway, yes, Democrats should focus on diverse areas of the Sun Belt and areas that have recently voted Democratic in the Rust Belt.  Win back both of those areas (which isn't hard with an unpopular Trump, IMO), and they're set.  Period.  Write off one or the other, and ... well, you deserve your historically low levels of power in Washington.

[King Lear]

The reason I right off North Carolina is not because democrats can't get close their it's because for democrats to actually win the state they need the same record black turnout Obama got in 2008 when he was the first black man with a shot at the presidency, democrats simply can't get that level of turnout again Evan if they nominate another black man (I.e. Cory Booker) because he won't be the first black president.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Not openly offending such demographics does not equal "pandering."  Who said anything about winning *racist* WWC voters?  Or *xenophobic* WWC voters?  Or *sexist* WWC voters? 

But offending these voters apparently equals addressing issues that affect black and brown communities. You can run on an economic message while also acknowledging and openly courting the demographic that has been the most Democratic voting group for forty years.

Obama won with an economic message, and let his race speak for itself. Hillary ran on a social message, while ignoring economic concerns. The next Democratic nominee, especially if they are white are going to have to find a way to do both, because Democrats need hyper turnout from African-Americans going forward, and silencing their issues because triggered white people don't want to hear it will only lead to low AA  turnout in key areas where white people have abandoned the Democratic Party.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Well Democrats love grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Personally I think it'd be silly to not focus on both regions. There's going to be competitive Senate races in the Sun Belt, and if the gains in voter registrations since 2016 alone os any indication, neglecting Georgia would be retarded. After all, there's only about a dozen true battleground states if you combine both regions, so i don't know why you'd fight on a restricted field of only half a dozen instead.

Agreed, and even if they lose the Sun Belt, it is still worth the investment as these states will be key part of the Democratic coalition in a generation.

Obviously the main states will be MI, WI, PA, FL, NH, OH, IA, NV with the second tier states being NC, MN, AZ, GA, and ME

ETA: I forgot to add VA, but there's no way in hell Trump is winning this state so nevermind.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

There are fewer swing states in the sun belt than in the rust belt.

The rust belt has PA, OH, MI, WI, IN, IA, and MO.

The sun belt has NC, FL, and VA.

[Sestak]

There are fewer swing states in the sun belt than in the rust belt.

The rust belt has PA, OH, MI, WI, IN, IA, and MO.

The sun belt has NC, FL, and VA.

And VA's trending our way anyway.

And I've been saying this for a while: Don't build a strategy that's dependent on AZ/GA. It won't work.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

There are fewer swing states in the sun belt than in the rust belt.

The rust belt has PA, OH, MI, WI, IN, IA, and MO.

The sun belt has NC, FL, and VA.

If you're including OH, IA, and MO in the rustbelt, then you ought to include AZ, GA, and TX in the Sunbelt. Also, if you're including VA as competitive, so is CO, NV, NH, MN, ME

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Democrats should come up with a strong message without considering what demographic groups it'll most appeal to.

Come up with a strong and powerful message and party platform, and see what groups like it the most. Once you've identified that, then you can figure out which states and groups are the most reasonable to target.

I think Michigan, Florida, and NC (in that order)will be the easiest to swing back in 2020. WI, AZ, PA, and GA would be the next four.

[Devils30]

Democrats won in NC in the Gov race with a weak rural showing. Johnson and Stein voters hurt them there. They should campaign both in the sun belt and the rust belt. Go for the 400 electoral vote landslide.

[beaver2.0]

Yes.

[Illini Moderate]

We have a strong economy at the moment, and the fact that President Trump's approval isn't even 40% is pathetic. The incumbent advantage isn't as strong with such low approvals. People believe Trump is in a much stronger position than he actually is due to his shocking upset in 2016. Hillary Clinton was attacked by the GOP machine for DECADES. I have never seen such an effective political  hit job performed before. (some deserving, some not).

If the Dems nominate a candidate with half the baggage that she had then Trump will once again be the underdog. Except this time, I don't believe he will emerge victorious.

The tax plan (if passed) will be a major liability among working class voters. People don't realize how hard it will be for Trump to actually run on a (nearly nonexistent) record. Many independents had the "wait and see" attitude about his candidacy. Obviously this will no longer be the case.

[American2020]

We have a strong economy at the moment, and the fact that President Trump's approval isn't even 40% is pathetic. The incumbent advantage isn't as strong with such low approvals. People believe Trump is in a much stronger position than he actually is due to his shocking upset in 2016. Hillary Clinton was attacked by the GOP machine for DECADES. I have never seen such an effective political  hit job performed before. (some deserving, some not).

If the Dems nominate a candidate with half the baggage that she had then Trump will once again be the underdog. Except this time, I don't believe he will emerge victorious.

The tax plan (if passed) will be a major liability among working class voters. People don't realize how hard it will be for Trump to actually run on a (nearly nonexistent) record. Many independents had the "wait and see" attitude about his candidacy. Obviously this will no longer be the case.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Agreed. This is why I think it would be smart for the Democrats to go for Klobuchar with their nomination. With her on the ticket, it wouldn't be hard to make a clean sweep in the rust belt, especially states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

[pppolitics]

The reason I right off North Carolina is not because democrats can't get close their it's because for democrats to actually win the state they need the same record black turnout Obama got in 2008 when he was the first black man with a shot at the presidency, democrats simply can't get that level of turnout again Evan if they nominate another black man (I.e. Cory Booker) because he won't be the first black president.

Talk to Doug Jones...

[AtorBoltox]

Well Democrats love grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Personally I think it'd be silly to not focus on both regions. There's going to be competitive Senate races in the Sun Belt, and if the gains in voter registrations since 2016 alone os any indication, neglecting Georgia would be retarded. After all, there's only about a dozen true battleground states if you combine both regions, so i don't know why you'd fight on a restricted field of only half a dozen instead.

Agreed, and even if they lose the Sun Belt, it is still worth the investment as these states will be key part of the Democratic coalition in a generation.

Obviously the main states will be MI, WI, PA, FL, NH, OH, IA, NV with the second tier states being NC, MN, AZ, GA, and ME

ETA: I forgot to add VA, but there's no way in hell Trump is winning this state so nevermind.

Why would Iowa be a first tier state when Trump won it by 10 points, yet Arizona is a second tier state when he only won it by 3?

[twenty42]

As a final note when I say democrats should target the rust belt im talking about getting higher Nonwhite and youth turnout in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Milwaukee, and Madison not screwing around in rural white areas that will never vote for you.

I was coming in here to say this. Pandering to the "white working class" will only alienate reliable Democratic votes. Target Millennials, African-Americans, and single women. 

I don't agree about NC. Obama won it once, Democrats have won Senate seats and statewide elections multiple times over the past 10 years, and 2020 will have a hotly contested Senate Race.

Also, it's not like Clinon in 2016 or Obama in 2012 lost NC by wide margins. They both lost it by low single digits and Clinton was able to keep Trump below 50%. It's so swingy. There's clearly potential there.

NC is not swingy. It pretty consistently votes ~6 points to the right of the nation. Obama won it by a third of a point in 2008 while winning nationally by 7, he lost it by 2 in 2012 while winning nationally by 4, and then Hillary lost it by 3.5 in 2016 while winning nationally by 2. NC may be a feasible part of a path to 370 for Dems, but it’s foolish to include it in a path to 270.

[History505]

Yes.

[here2view]

This is my line of thinking 100%. Democrats will be better off IMO focusing on the Rust Belt rather than having one foot there and one in the Sun Belt. I'm not saying don't campaign in states like Arizona or North Carolina (I think one of those will flip in 2020) but it's more difficult than Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

I also think states like New Hampshire or Maine as a whole could flip to Trump in 2020. I don't buy the idea that Minnesota will go red though. Regardless I think it'd be wise for Democrats to defend those states, which I suspect are the two most likely to flip to the GOP.

Lastly, Florida I believe is a lost cause for 2020. The raw number of votes that Trump ran up was absurd, especially in the panhandle. Florida typically votes a percent or two right of the nation's average. Like I said before I think Democrats could win Arizona or North Carolina, but I just don't have faith that they could win Florida.

[Chief Justice Keef]

Democrats need to rebuild the firewall in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania before they start targeting states like Arizona and Georgia. Any Democratic coalition without the Rust Belt won't hold.

[heatcharger]

Democrats need to rebuild the firewall in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania before they start targeting states like Arizona and Georgia. Any Democratic coalition without the Rust Belt won't hold.

Not necessarily? Post-2020 Census:

AZ+NC+GA = 45 EV
WI+MI+PA = 44 EV