Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2019, 02:43:18 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, VirginiŠ)
  KY-SEN: Amy McGrath in
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Print
Author Topic: KY-SEN: Amy McGrath in  (Read 3527 times)
Bagel23
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,915
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: -1.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: July 11, 2019, 05:43:08 pm »

Adkins would have the best shot, but he still most likely loses by double digits. at least he'd win back some ancestral Democrats and maybe a handful of moderate Republicans who don't like McConnell but won't vote for a "progressive" Democrat.

Hey, at least we would get to feel good that we will win Elliot county by a massive margin.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,774
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.87, S: -6.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: July 11, 2019, 05:43:29 pm »

I really love this quote : ''Yarmuth said it is a waste of time for Kentucky Democrats to court Trump voters, who delivered the president a 30 percentage point victory in 2016. He said the better pathway to defeating McConnell is running up huge margins in urban centers, such as his district of Louisville, and other Democratic strongholds such as Lexington.''

This strategy worked really well for Jim Gray.

Anyway, I think Rocky Adkins would have at least given McConnell a scare, but McGrath is going to do worse than ALG and Gray.

Worse than ALG is a pretty hard thing to fathom.

A Democrat getting less than 40% in KY is quite easy to fathom. Even against McConnell. And McGrath hardly inspires confidence.
Her campaigns off to a rocky start but don't count her off yet she nearly won a trump +10 district last year. I think Adkins is our best shot at the seat but McGrath isn't DOA just yet though this race is almost safe r

Actually Trump +16

So if she overperforms by as much as she did in the 6th district she'll only lose by 17.
Logged
Gravel/Feinstein 2020
DANNT
Full Member
***
Posts: 100


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: July 11, 2019, 06:01:38 pm »

Adkins would have the best shot, but he still most likely loses by double digits. at least he'd win back some ancestral Democrats and maybe a handful of moderate Republicans who don't like McConnell but won't vote for a "progressive" Democrat.

Hey, at least we would get to feel good that we will win Elliot county by a massive margin.

This but for real
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25,851
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: July 11, 2019, 06:09:35 pm »

Yeah I'd rather even spend on GA than this mess.


Dems are Spending  $$ on AK and KS, they are conceding GA, due to Tomlinson lack of funding
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,037
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.87, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: July 11, 2019, 08:24:44 pm »

The Democratic leadership couldn't get Bullock or Hickenlooper to run and instead are focusing recruitment attention and money on this fool's gold seat. Fell into the same trap in 2014.

What a joke of an opposition party on the Senate level.

Usually agree with most things you say; but honestly what would you do differently as Schumer & co?

Like the Senate is a god awful place to work; both Bullock and Hickenlooper are ex governors in their 60s (so are hardly going to be lifers) who want the ego trip of running for President.

What can Schumer do to get them to run?  People seem to forget how egotistical, stubborn and tin eared a lot of politicians are- it's not like there's just a lever for Schumer to pull.

I think we tend to obsess slightly over recruiting; Strickland, Bredesen, Bayh, McSally, and lots of others were seen as great recruits where as people Jacky Rosen were at the bottom of Harry Reid's list to run

I'm not going to pretend to know the details of what has or has not been done behind the scenes because we as the public don't know that. Therefore, all I can do is expect results. Schumer hasn't gotten a single one of his recruits to run other than Mark Kelly and the candidate in this race.

As politics become more nationalized, there is no strategy to win back the Senate in the foreseeable future. Eventually, Manchin, Tester, Jones, Brown, etc are going to retire or lose.

Schumer seems frustratingly content. It's time to retire.
Logged
THE BuckeyeNut
BuckeyeNut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,291


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: July 11, 2019, 09:23:09 pm »

The Democratic leadership couldn't get Bullock or Hickenlooper to run and instead are focusing recruitment attention and money on this fool's gold seat. Fell into the same trap in 2014.

What a joke of an opposition party on the Senate level.

Usually agree with most things you say; but honestly what would you do differently as Schumer & co?

Like the Senate is a god awful place to work; both Bullock and Hickenlooper are ex governors in their 60s (so are hardly going to be lifers) who want the ego trip of running for President.

What can Schumer do to get them to run?  People seem to forget how egotistical, stubborn and tin eared a lot of politicians are- it's not like there's just a lever for Schumer to pull.

I think we tend to obsess slightly over recruiting; Strickland, Bredesen, Bayh, McSally, and lots of others were seen as great recruits where as people Jacky Rosen were at the bottom of Harry Reid's list to run

I'm not going to pretend to know the details of what has or has not been done behind the scenes because we as the public don't know that. Therefore, all I can do is expect results. Schumer hasn't gotten a single one of his recruits to run other than Mark Kelly and the candidate in this race.

As politics become more nationalized, there is no strategy to win back the Senate in the foreseeable future. Eventually, Manchin, Tester, Jones, Brown, etc are going to retire or lose.

Schumer seems frustratingly content. It's time to retire.

♪ One of these Senators' states is not like the others, one of these names does not belong. ♪
Logged
Ilhan Apologist
Glowfish
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,111


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: July 12, 2019, 01:01:07 pm »

The Democratic leadership couldn't get Bullock or Hickenlooper to run and instead are focusing recruitment attention and money on this fool's gold seat. Fell into the same trap in 2014.

What a joke of an opposition party on the Senate level.

Usually agree with most things you say; but honestly what would you do differently as Schumer & co?

Like the Senate is a god awful place to work; both Bullock and Hickenlooper are ex governors in their 60s (so are hardly going to be lifers) who want the ego trip of running for President.

What can Schumer do to get them to run?  People seem to forget how egotistical, stubborn and tin eared a lot of politicians are- it's not like there's just a lever for Schumer to pull.

I think we tend to obsess slightly over recruiting; Strickland, Bredesen, Bayh, McSally, and lots of others were seen as great recruits where as people Jacky Rosen were at the bottom of Harry Reid's list to run

I'm not going to pretend to know the details of what has or has not been done behind the scenes because we as the public don't know that. Therefore, all I can do is expect results. Schumer hasn't gotten a single one of his recruits to run other than Mark Kelly and the candidate in this race.

As politics become more nationalized, there is no strategy to win back the Senate in the foreseeable future. Eventually, Manchin, Tester, Jones, Brown, etc are going to retire or lose.

Schumer seems frustratingly content. It's time to retire.

♪ One of these Senators' states is not like the others, one of these names does not belong. ♪

Which one? All of them are solidly red, and only trending further.
Logged
gracile
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 770


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: July 12, 2019, 01:29:42 pm »

The Democratic leadership couldn't get Bullock or Hickenlooper to run and instead are focusing recruitment attention and money on this fool's gold seat. Fell into the same trap in 2014.

What a joke of an opposition party on the Senate level.

Usually agree with most things you say; but honestly what would you do differently as Schumer & co?

Like the Senate is a god awful place to work; both Bullock and Hickenlooper are ex governors in their 60s (so are hardly going to be lifers) who want the ego trip of running for President.

What can Schumer do to get them to run?  People seem to forget how egotistical, stubborn and tin eared a lot of politicians are- it's not like there's just a lever for Schumer to pull.

I think we tend to obsess slightly over recruiting; Strickland, Bredesen, Bayh, McSally, and lots of others were seen as great recruits where as people Jacky Rosen were at the bottom of Harry Reid's list to run

I'm not going to pretend to know the details of what has or has not been done behind the scenes because we as the public don't know that. Therefore, all I can do is expect results. Schumer hasn't gotten a single one of his recruits to run other than Mark Kelly and the candidate in this race.

As politics become more nationalized, there is no strategy to win back the Senate in the foreseeable future. Eventually, Manchin, Tester, Jones, Brown, etc are going to retire or lose.

Schumer seems frustratingly content. It's time to retire.

♪ One of these Senators' states is not like the others, one of these names does not belong. ♪

Brown may be less vulnerable than say Manchin or Tester, but let's not act like he isn't going to have trouble in future races - especially with the way Ohio is trending. His 2018 win showed him losing a lot of ground from his previous two runs.
Logged
TrendsareReal
Full Member
***
Posts: 144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: July 12, 2019, 01:45:15 pm »

Yes, Ohio is clearly a swing state that just happened to vote for Republicans in all row offices in a D+9 year. TX is not competitive though even though two statewide races were closer than any of the OH row office races, thatís a fluke

And before anyone @ me, no Im not saying TX is a swing state. Not yet at least
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25,851
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: July 12, 2019, 01:59:58 pm »

Dems arent gonna win TX with MJ Hegar.
Logged
Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,070
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.00, S: -4.00

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: July 12, 2019, 02:48:47 pm »

Yes, Ohio is clearly a swing state that just happened to vote for Republicans in all row offices in a D+9 year. TX is not competitive though even though two statewide races were closer than any of the OH row office races, thatís a fluke

And before anyone @ me, no Im not saying TX is a swing state. Not yet at least
Democrats swept all the statewide offices in Minnesota in 2014. Clearly anyone who calls it a swing stats is a moron. Connecticut had closer statewide races than Minnesota, so clearly it'll be more competitive in 2016.
Logged
Left-Libertarian
Xeuma
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 456


Political Matrix
E: -4.19, S: -7.22

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: July 12, 2019, 02:50:18 pm »

Yes, Ohio is clearly a swing state that just happened to vote for Republicans in all row offices in a D+9 year. TX is not competitive though even though two statewide races were closer than any of the OH row office races, thatís a fluke

And before anyone @ me, no Im not saying TX is a swing state. Not yet at least
Democrats swept all the statewide offices in Minnesota in 2014. Clearly anyone who calls it a swing stats is a moron. Connecticut had closer statewide races than Minnesota, so clearly it'll be more competitive in 2016.

Those aren't the same thing at all and I think you know that.
Logged
#Kavanaugh For Prison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,852


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: July 12, 2019, 02:52:44 pm »

The Democratic leadership couldn't get Bullock or Hickenlooper to run and instead are focusing recruitment attention and money on this fool's gold seat. Fell into the same trap in 2014.

What a joke of an opposition party on the Senate level.

Usually agree with most things you say; but honestly what would you do differently as Schumer & co?

Like the Senate is a god awful place to work; both Bullock and Hickenlooper are ex governors in their 60s (so are hardly going to be lifers) who want the ego trip of running for President.

What can Schumer do to get them to run?  People seem to forget how egotistical, stubborn and tin eared a lot of politicians are- it's not like there's just a lever for Schumer to pull.

I think we tend to obsess slightly over recruiting; Strickland, Bredesen, Bayh, McSally, and lots of others were seen as great recruits where as people Jacky Rosen were at the bottom of Harry Reid's list to run

I'm not going to pretend to know the details of what has or has not been done behind the scenes because we as the public don't know that. Therefore, all I can do is expect results. Schumer hasn't gotten a single one of his recruits to run other than Mark Kelly and the candidate in this race.

As politics become more nationalized, there is no strategy to win back the Senate in the foreseeable future. Eventually, Manchin, Tester, Jones, Brown, etc are going to retire or lose.

Schumer seems frustratingly content. It's time to retire.

♪ One of these Senators' states is not like the others, one of these names does not belong. ♪

Brown may be less vulnerable than say Manchin or Tester, but let's not act like he isn't going to have trouble in future races - especially with the way Ohio is trending. His 2018 win showed him losing a lot of ground from his previous two runs.

He did slightly better statewide in 2018 than he did in 2012.
Logged
gracile
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 770


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: July 12, 2019, 03:05:14 pm »

The Democratic leadership couldn't get Bullock or Hickenlooper to run and instead are focusing recruitment attention and money on this fool's gold seat. Fell into the same trap in 2014.

What a joke of an opposition party on the Senate level.

Usually agree with most things you say; but honestly what would you do differently as Schumer & co?

Like the Senate is a god awful place to work; both Bullock and Hickenlooper are ex governors in their 60s (so are hardly going to be lifers) who want the ego trip of running for President.

What can Schumer do to get them to run?  People seem to forget how egotistical, stubborn and tin eared a lot of politicians are- it's not like there's just a lever for Schumer to pull.

I think we tend to obsess slightly over recruiting; Strickland, Bredesen, Bayh, McSally, and lots of others were seen as great recruits where as people Jacky Rosen were at the bottom of Harry Reid's list to run

I'm not going to pretend to know the details of what has or has not been done behind the scenes because we as the public don't know that. Therefore, all I can do is expect results. Schumer hasn't gotten a single one of his recruits to run other than Mark Kelly and the candidate in this race.

As politics become more nationalized, there is no strategy to win back the Senate in the foreseeable future. Eventually, Manchin, Tester, Jones, Brown, etc are going to retire or lose.

Schumer seems frustratingly content. It's time to retire.

♪ One of these Senators' states is not like the others, one of these names does not belong. ♪

Brown may be less vulnerable than say Manchin or Tester, but let's not act like he isn't going to have trouble in future races - especially with the way Ohio is trending. His 2018 win showed him losing a lot of ground from his previous two runs.

He did slightly better statewide in 2018 than he did in 2012.

He still lost several counties he won previously in 2012 and 2006, though. And considering 2018 was a much more Democratic year nationwide than 2012, a small swing is not as significant.
Logged
TrendsareReal
Full Member
***
Posts: 144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: July 12, 2019, 04:08:27 pm »

Yes, Ohio is clearly a swing state that just happened to vote for Republicans in all row offices in a D+9 year. TX is not competitive though even though two statewide races were closer than any of the OH row office races, thatís a fluke

And before anyone @ me, no Im not saying TX is a swing state. Not yet at least
Democrats swept all the statewide offices in Minnesota in 2014. Clearly anyone who calls it a swing stats is a moron. Connecticut had closer statewide races than Minnesota, so clearly it'll be more competitive in 2016.

Those aren't the same thing at all and I think you know that.

I genuinely donít think he has the mental capacity to understand the difference. Either that or heís trying WAYY too hard to save face over his previous assertions of Texas definitely NOT trending blue

If you ask me, it just sounds like heíd rather Democrats try to win homogeneous white areas over diverse ones, but whatever
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25,851
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: July 12, 2019, 04:13:47 pm »
« Edited: July 12, 2019, 04:17:03 pm by Cory Booker »

The Gov race is still salvageable due to Bevin's approvals; Sen race in IA, TX and KY are lost. Barry Grissom will be the next Senator from KS and plan on donating to his campaign
Logged
THE BuckeyeNut
BuckeyeNut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,291


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: July 12, 2019, 05:15:47 pm »

The Democratic leadership couldn't get Bullock or Hickenlooper to run and instead are focusing recruitment attention and money on this fool's gold seat. Fell into the same trap in 2014.

What a joke of an opposition party on the Senate level.

Usually agree with most things you say; but honestly what would you do differently as Schumer & co?

Like the Senate is a god awful place to work; both Bullock and Hickenlooper are ex governors in their 60s (so are hardly going to be lifers) who want the ego trip of running for President.

What can Schumer do to get them to run?  People seem to forget how egotistical, stubborn and tin eared a lot of politicians are- it's not like there's just a lever for Schumer to pull.

I think we tend to obsess slightly over recruiting; Strickland, Bredesen, Bayh, McSally, and lots of others were seen as great recruits where as people Jacky Rosen were at the bottom of Harry Reid's list to run

I'm not going to pretend to know the details of what has or has not been done behind the scenes because we as the public don't know that. Therefore, all I can do is expect results. Schumer hasn't gotten a single one of his recruits to run other than Mark Kelly and the candidate in this race.

As politics become more nationalized, there is no strategy to win back the Senate in the foreseeable future. Eventually, Manchin, Tester, Jones, Brown, etc are going to retire or lose.

Schumer seems frustratingly content. It's time to retire.

♪ One of these Senators' states is not like the others, one of these names does not belong. ♪

Which one? All of them are solidly red, and only trending further.

1: Montana is trending blue.
2: You have to be willfully ignorant at best to think that Ohio is as red as West Virginia or Alabama. Not that we aren't trending red, mind. But it's an absurd leap.
Logged
Left-Libertarian
Xeuma
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 456


Political Matrix
E: -4.19, S: -7.22

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: July 12, 2019, 08:18:03 pm »

The Democratic leadership couldn't get Bullock or Hickenlooper to run and instead are focusing recruitment attention and money on this fool's gold seat. Fell into the same trap in 2014.

What a joke of an opposition party on the Senate level.

Usually agree with most things you say; but honestly what would you do differently as Schumer & co?

Like the Senate is a god awful place to work; both Bullock and Hickenlooper are ex governors in their 60s (so are hardly going to be lifers) who want the ego trip of running for President.

What can Schumer do to get them to run?  People seem to forget how egotistical, stubborn and tin eared a lot of politicians are- it's not like there's just a lever for Schumer to pull.

I think we tend to obsess slightly over recruiting; Strickland, Bredesen, Bayh, McSally, and lots of others were seen as great recruits where as people Jacky Rosen were at the bottom of Harry Reid's list to run

I'm not going to pretend to know the details of what has or has not been done behind the scenes because we as the public don't know that. Therefore, all I can do is expect results. Schumer hasn't gotten a single one of his recruits to run other than Mark Kelly and the candidate in this race.

As politics become more nationalized, there is no strategy to win back the Senate in the foreseeable future. Eventually, Manchin, Tester, Jones, Brown, etc are going to retire or lose.

Schumer seems frustratingly content. It's time to retire.

♪ One of these Senators' states is not like the others, one of these names does not belong. ♪

Which one? All of them are solidly red, and only trending further.

1: Montana is trending blue.
2: You have to be willfully ignorant at best to think that Ohio is as red as West Virginia or Alabama. Not that we aren't trending red, mind. But it's an absurd leap.

I predict that we will trend to a little less red than Missouri and stay there for the foreseeable future.
Logged
THE BuckeyeNut
BuckeyeNut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,291


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: July 12, 2019, 08:46:35 pm »
« Edited: July 12, 2019, 10:16:30 pm by THE BuckeyeNut »

The Democratic leadership couldn't get Bullock or Hickenlooper to run and instead are focusing recruitment attention and money on this fool's gold seat. Fell into the same trap in 2014.

What a joke of an opposition party on the Senate level.

Usually agree with most things you say; but honestly what would you do differently as Schumer & co?

Like the Senate is a god awful place to work; both Bullock and Hickenlooper are ex governors in their 60s (so are hardly going to be lifers) who want the ego trip of running for President.

What can Schumer do to get them to run?  People seem to forget how egotistical, stubborn and tin eared a lot of politicians are- it's not like there's just a lever for Schumer to pull.

I think we tend to obsess slightly over recruiting; Strickland, Bredesen, Bayh, McSally, and lots of others were seen as great recruits where as people Jacky Rosen were at the bottom of Harry Reid's list to run

I'm not going to pretend to know the details of what has or has not been done behind the scenes because we as the public don't know that. Therefore, all I can do is expect results. Schumer hasn't gotten a single one of his recruits to run other than Mark Kelly and the candidate in this race.

As politics become more nationalized, there is no strategy to win back the Senate in the foreseeable future. Eventually, Manchin, Tester, Jones, Brown, etc are going to retire or lose.

Schumer seems frustratingly content. It's time to retire.

♪ One of these Senators' states is not like the others, one of these names does not belong. ♪

Which one? All of them are solidly red, and only trending further.

1: Montana is trending blue.
2: You have to be willfully ignorant at best to think that Ohio is as red as West Virginia or Alabama. Not that we aren't trending red, mind. But it's an absurd leap.

I predict that we will trend to a little less red than Missouri and stay there for the foreseeable future.

I essentially agree. And apologize for derailing the thread to some degree.

Also, Mr. Illni, Steve Bullock is only 53, making him younger than Kamala Harris, who likely will be a Senate lifer if she isn't the nominee.

Did yíall know the DCCC tried to recruit Matt Jones for KY-06 last year, but he declined? I somehow doubt if he had lost to Barr by 5% that Senate leadership would be clamoring for him to get in the race against McConnell. A shame, because Jones seems to balance the flaws found Adkinsóa good fit for the state with low national fundraising potentialóand McGrathóthe opposite.
Logged
Georgia Is A Swing State
RFKFan68
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: July 12, 2019, 11:50:17 pm »

I genuinely donít think he has the mental capacity to understand the difference. Either that or heís trying WAYY too hard to save face over his previous assertions of Texas definitely NOT trending blue

If you ask me, it just sounds like heíd rather Democrats try to win homogeneous white areas over diverse ones, but whatever
He thinks 70 year old retired white factory workers who watch InfoWars are a more viable long term strategy than white progressives in Austin and Dallas, or low propensity black voters in Houston, or first time Latinx voters in Phoenix, or the burgeoning Asian electorate in Atlanta.

We must fight for people who will be dead in 10 years, in states that are becoming less and less electorally relevant (if they aren't already)
Logged
TrendsareReal
Full Member
***
Posts: 144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: July 13, 2019, 11:54:27 am »
« Edited: July 13, 2019, 12:50:05 pm by Brittain33 »

I genuinely donít think he has the mental capacity to understand the difference. Either that or heís trying WAYY too hard to save face over his previous assertions of Texas definitely NOT trending blue

If you ask me, it just sounds like heíd rather Democrats try to win homogeneous white areas over diverse ones, but whatever
He thinks 70 year old retired white factory workers who watch InfoWars are a more viable long term strategy than white progressives in Austin and Dallas, or low propensity black voters in Houston, or first time Latinx voters in Phoenix, or the burgeoning Asian electorate in Atlanta.

We must fight for people who will be dead in 10 years, in states that are becoming less and less electorally relevant (if they aren't already)

Absolutely dumbfounding. And donít get me wrong, Iíd love to be able to compete in Ohio and Missouri, but at some point ya gotta accept the fact that these people just donít like Democrats anymore. Itís an exercise in futility to expend more effort trying to turn back time in those places over going with the path of least resistance in growing states like AZ, TX and GA where most the new people moving in or coming of age are overwhelmingly Democrat
Logged
#Kavanaugh For Prison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,852


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: July 13, 2019, 04:58:24 pm »

I genuinely donít think he has the mental capacity to understand the difference. Either that or heís trying WAYY too hard to save face over his previous assertions of Texas definitely NOT trending blue

If you ask me, it just sounds like heíd rather Democrats try to win homogeneous white areas over diverse ones, but whatever
He thinks 70 year old retired white factory workers who watch InfoWars are a more viable long term strategy than white progressives in Austin and Dallas, or low propensity black voters in Houston, or first time Latinx voters in Phoenix, or the burgeoning Asian electorate in Atlanta.

We must fight for people who will be dead in 10 years, in states that are becoming less and less electorally relevant (if they aren't already)

Absolutely dumbfounding. And donít get me wrong, Iíd love to be able to compete in Ohio and Missouri, but at some point ya gotta accept the fact that these people just donít like Democrats anymore. Itís an exercise in futility to expend more effort trying to turn back time in those places over going with the path of least resistance in growing states like AZ, TX and GA where most the new people moving in or coming of age are overwhelmingly Democrat
I doubt Ohio will ever trend any more Republican than it became in 2016. On a Demographic level, Trumps coalition in the state is inherently unstable. He ran up the score in the rural areas of the state to the point of winning every single voter that would ever be willing to vote Republican in any circumstance. These areas happen to be losing population; so success based on reliance on these voters becomes harder every cycle. Meanwhile, the Cincinnati and Columbus Metros, basically the only areas of the state that are gaining population continue to trend Democratic, and will continue to do so as urban expansion continues, and as the areas diversify even more. The only part that is truly difficult for Democrats is that they need to get decent margins in urban area in Northern Ohio. Democrats need strong margins in places like the Toledo and Cleveland Metros. If the trends in the Cincinnati and Columbus Metros continue; then Democrats only need to get their margins back up in Urban Northern Ohio to take back the state; with no need to regain any of their lost ground in rural Ohio to win the state back.
Logged
RogueBeaver
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,611
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: July 15, 2019, 02:53:52 pm »

Logged
96FJV
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 82
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: July 16, 2019, 06:51:49 am »

I really hope other Democrats get in this race. After that Morning Joe appearance, I really am concerned that Mitch can win by over 20%. Not saying a Dem will win, but a strong candidate will cause Republicans to have to spend money.
Logged
#Kavanaugh For Prison
Solid4096
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,852


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: July 16, 2019, 10:36:50 am »

Here is a Bold Prediction of note: Democrats have better odds of defeating Mitch McConnell than they do of re-electing Doug Jones in 2020.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC