Dems Should Prioritize Winning in CO, ME, AZ, & NC

[Heebie Jeebie]

There are plenty of potential swing states in 2020, but the Democratic presidential campaign should invest most heavily in Colorado, Maine, Arizona, and North Carolina.  These four states should all be priority number one.  Why?  Because each features a must-win Senate race if Democrats want to retake the Senate.  Hold all the states Hillary won, add those four plus Michigan (where Gary Peters is running for re-election), and you've got both the presidency and majorities in Congress.  That has to be Democrats' goal.

Which nominee makes that most likely?

[elcorazon]

Beto

[hurricanehink]

So no love for Iowa, Montana, or Alaska? CO and ME were already won by Hillary (except for ME-2). Agreed about AZ and NC though.

[Heebie Jeebie]

So no love for Iowa, Montana, or Alaska? CO and ME were already won by Hillary (except for ME-2). Agreed about AZ and NC though.

The Democratic presidential nominee has zero chance of winning Montana or Alaska, and nationalizing the politics of those states would actually be colossally counterproductive.  Iowa is at least conceivable, but Arizona and North Carolina are much more promising.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Dems don't need to invest heavily in CO, neither Trump or Gardner has any real chance there. I'm a bit unsure of NC, Trump's margin of victory really shocked me there. I think AZ/GA/TX are where to heavily invest.

[Zaybay]

In the end, the presidency comes first, then the senate. It would be foolish for Dems to go after AZ and NC instead of the easy states of MI, WI, and PA.

If Dems want to win both the presidency and senate, the best path for investment would be MI, WI, PA, AZ, ME, IA, and FL as top tier investments, and NC, GA, OH, and TX as second tier investments.

[Heebie Jeebie]

In the end, the presidency comes first, then the senate. It would be foolish for Dems to go after AZ and NC instead of the easy states of MI, WI, and PA.

If Dems want to win both the presidency and senate, the best path for investment would be MI, WI, PA, AZ, ME, IA, and FL as top tier investments, and NC, GA, OH, and TX as second tier investments.

Nonsense.  Without a Senate majority, Democrats will not only be unable to pass any meaningful legislation, they won't be able to appoint judges to the judiciary.  The status quo would be preferable to winning such a neutered presidency.  2020 presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make lasting progress, but only with working Congressional majorities.

[Zaybay]

In the end, the presidency comes first, then the senate. It would be foolish for Dems to go after AZ and NC instead of the easy states of MI, WI, and PA.

If Dems want to win both the presidency and senate, the best path for investment would be MI, WI, PA, AZ, ME, IA, and FL as top tier investments, and NC, GA, OH, and TX as second tier investments.

Nonsense.  Without a Senate majority, Democrats will not only be unable to pass any meaningful legislation, they won't be able to appoint judges to the judiciary.  The status quo would be preferable to winning such a neutered presidency.  2020 presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make lasting progress, but only with working Congressional majorities.

In the end, the presidency will always take precedent over the senate. It has historically, and it will still in 2020. You simply can just do more with a president than you can with both chambers of congress. While I want a senate majority as much as you do, in the end, the Democrats should go for the presidency first, senate second. That, of course, doesnt mean giving the senate to the Republicans, but instead to go for states that are critical for both the presidency and senate first. This is why the first tier of priorities should be PA, MI, WI and FL(For the Presidency), while also going for ME, IA, and AZ(which are both important for the presidency and the senate). This plan of focus already gives the Ds a tied senate. From there, you can go second tier, which would be OH(presidency) NC, GA, and TX(Presidency and Senate).

[Heebie Jeebie]

In the end, the presidency will always take precedent over the senate. It has historically, and it will still in 2020. You simply can just do more with a president than you can with both chambers of congress. While I want a senate majority as much as you do, in the end, the Democrats should go for the presidency first, senate second. That, of course, doesnt mean giving the senate to the Republicans, but instead to go for states that are critical for both the presidency and senate first. This is why the first tier of priorities should be PA, MI, WI and FL(For the Presidency), while also going for ME, IA, and AZ(which are both important for the presidency and the senate). This plan of focus already gives the Ds a tied senate. From there, you can go second tier, which would be OH(presidency) NC, GA, and TX(Presidency and Senate).

I mostly agree, though I still think Congressional majorities are just as important as the presidency.  Also, I think North Carolina is more winnable than Iowa, so even based on your assumptions I'd place NC as a first tier priority and IA as a second.

[Zaybay]

In the end, the presidency will always take precedent over the senate. It has historically, and it will still in 2020. You simply can just do more with a president than you can with both chambers of congress. While I want a senate majority as much as you do, in the end, the Democrats should go for the presidency first, senate second. That, of course, doesnt mean giving the senate to the Republicans, but instead to go for states that are critical for both the presidency and senate first. This is why the first tier of priorities should be PA, MI, WI and FL(For the Presidency), while also going for ME, IA, and AZ(which are both important for the presidency and the senate). This plan of focus already gives the Ds a tied senate. From there, you can go second tier, which would be OH(presidency) NC, GA, and TX(Presidency and Senate).

I mostly agree, though I still think Congressional majorities are just as important as the presidency.  Also, I think North Carolina is more winnable than Iowa, so even based on your assumptions I'd place NC as a first tier priority and IA as a second.

That seems to be a personal thing, the order of IA/NC. Personally, I see IA as more flippable due to the 2018 results, and Trump's approval there. But there is a strong case to make for NC, such as Tillis being rather unpopular and unknown.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

In the end, the presidency will always take precedent over the senate. It has historically, and it will still in 2020. You simply can just do more with a president than you can with both chambers of congress. While I want a senate majority as much as you do, in the end, the Democrats should go for the presidency first, senate second. That, of course, doesnt mean giving the senate to the Republicans, but instead to go for states that are critical for both the presidency and senate first. This is why the first tier of priorities should be PA, MI, WI and FL(For the Presidency), while also going for ME, IA, and AZ(which are both important for the presidency and the senate). This plan of focus already gives the Ds a tied senate. From there, you can go second tier, which would be OH(presidency) NC, GA, and TX(Presidency and Senate).

I mostly agree, though I still think Congressional majorities are just as important as the presidency.  Also, I think North Carolina is more winnable than Iowa, so even based on your assumptions I'd place NC as a first tier priority and IA as a second.

I agree, and the senate seat is more winnable for the Dems in NC too. It depends on the candidates though, but NC is a first tier state, while IA is a state the Dems will win if they've already won the race, while it's possible for Trump to win without winning NC (although very hard). NC might have a few competitive congressional races too (lean R though due to gerrymandering).

[Dr. Arch]

Minor Investments to Hold: CO, ME-AL, VA, MN (only if Rs invest here)
Minor to Medium Medium Investments to Hold: NV
Major Investments to Hold: NH, ME-AL

Minor Investments on the Offensive: KS
Medium to Major Investments on the Offensive: WI, MI, ME-2, IA, OH (if it looks competitive)
Major Investments on the Offensive: FL, NC, PA, GA, AZ

Fringe Investments: TX (worth the house seats), AK (who knows?), MT (it can happen)

[Progressive Pessimist]

The priorities should be Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. End of story. If things start looking good for them Arizona, Florida, Iowa, and NE-2 could be invested in. North Carolina and Georgia may also be worthwhile to invest in, but it would depend on the candidate. 

[Frenchrepublican]

Minor Investments to Hold: CO, ME-AL, VA, MN (only if Rs invest here)
Minor to Medium Medium Investments to Hold: NV
Major Investments to Hold: NH, ME-AL

Minor Investments on the Offensive: KS
Medium to Major Investments on the Offensive: WI, MI, ME-2, IA, OH (if it looks competitive)
Major Investments on the Offensive: FL, NC, PA, GA, AZ

Fringe Investments: TX (worth the house seats), AK (who knows?), MT (it can happen)

KS and OH are not competitive

[JG]

The priorities should be Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. End of story. If things start looking good for them Arizona, Florida, Iowa, and NE-2 could be invested in. North Carolina and Georgia may also be worthwhile to invest in, but it would depend on the candidate. 

I'm not sure it's that good idea to only invest in three states, without any backup states. Especially considering that the democratic nominee will probably be drowning in cash.

[mgop]

They need to invest in WI, AZ, FL, and of course MI and PA. I really don't understand why fans of democrats think they can win in NC. Only time in the last 40 years they went for dems was when all sane world voted for them in 2008. and even then barely (0.3%).

[Politician]

Minor Investments to Hold: CO, ME-AL, VA, MN (only if Rs invest here)
Minor to Medium Medium Investments to Hold: NV
Major Investments to Hold: NH, ME-AL

Minor Investments on the Offensive: KS
Medium to Major Investments on the Offensive: WI, MI, ME-2, IA, OH (if it looks competitive)
Major Investments on the Offensive: FL, NC, PA, GA, AZ

Fringe Investments: TX (worth the house seats), AK (who knows?), MT (it can happen)

KS and OH are not competitive

Ohio is definitely competitive.