88Comrade2000 Posted November 5, 2018 Author Share Posted November 5, 2018 What Kind of Democrat Can Beat Trump in 2020? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 31 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said: What Kind of Democrat Can Beat Trump in 2020? Quote She noted that most of the Democrats signaling possible candidacies “are from blue states and don’t really understand the Trump phenomenon — and that is a disadvantage. In my little liberal Democratic world in Massachusetts, people seriously can’t comprehend how this guy got elected president. But when you travel around the country, it’s very clear.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 Racism, inbreeding, and an utter contempt for the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 5, 2018 Author Share Posted November 5, 2018 3 hours ago, twa said: We know you would be in heaven, if she ran again. You would cry tears of joy, if she actually beat Donald. Your one true love, President at last. There's no way the Dems would turn to her again, the result would be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 3 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said: There's no way the Dems would turn to her again, the result would be the same. That is why it is so funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 If he doesn't win tomorrow he should def get in the race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 7, 2018 Author Share Posted November 7, 2018 On to 2020. I think by Christmas, a couple of major candidates will have entered the race. I think I heard a blurb somewhere that Kamala Harris will be announcing soon. If we thought the 2018 campaign was bad, especially the rhetoric; campaign 2020 will be worse. Trump will devise more things to divide us and scare enough voters to give him reelection. Since some of the Trumpy embracing candidates like Desantos and Kemp won; I'd expect the 2020 GOP candidates for House/Senate/Governorships/Etc.. to be like those 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 I jus saw 4 Exxon mobile commercials in a row on cnn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 At the end of the day, Dem nominee for 2020 may just have to park in MN, WI, MI, and PA. That's the firewall. Forget the sexy prizes like Ohio and Florida. For all the rural strength Trump's base showed last night, Dems still showed strong in the above 4 states (and any dem nominee other than Clinton or if Clinton spent more time in the Midwest firewall, might have carried those states in 2016). The nominee that excites the base on the coasts may not be the best shot to close the deal in the Midwest unless the nominee has generational appeal like Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 16 minutes ago, bearrock said: At the end of the day, Dem nominee for 2020 may just have to park in MN, WI, MI, and PA. That's the firewall. Forget the sexy prizes like Ohio and Florida. For all the rural strength Trump's base showed last night, Dems still showed strong in the above 4 states (and any dem nominee other than Clinton or if Clinton spent more time in the Midwest firewall, might have carried those states in 2016). The nominee that excites the base on the coasts may not be the best shot to close the deal in the Midwest unless the nominee has generational appeal like Obama. There's not a lot of evidence that visiting a state actually does much in terms of votes. Really, it is probably a waste of money vs. spending the money on ads and putting more money into allowing local surrogates being active. (There are 2 possible issues: 1. How much does a visit drive enthusiasm by local partisans and therefore drive participation in the campaign by them and fund raising (but then visiting poorer states is much less likely to have a benefit))? 2. If you were the first Presidential candidate to eschew local visits, that would make you different (and odd) and there might be a penalty for that. Visiting doesn't seem to help, but simply not visiting anywhere might hurt simply because voters are used to Presidential candidates appearing active and visiting all these places.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted November 7, 2018 Author Share Posted November 7, 2018 7 minutes ago, PeterMP said: There's not a lot of evidence that visiting a state actually does much in terms of votes. Really, it is probably a waste of money vs. spending the money on ads and putting more money into allowing local surrogates being active. (There are 2 possible issues: 1. How much does a visit drive enthusiasm by local partisans and therefore drive participation in the campaign by them and fund raising (but then visiting poorer states is much less likely to have a benefit))? 2. If you were the first Presidential candidate to eschew local visits, that would make you different (and odd) and there might be a penalty for that. Visiting doesn't seem to help, but simply not visiting anywhere might hurt simply because voters are used to Presidential candidates appearing active and visiting all these places.) For states that are competitive, you have to visit. Even if you favored to win, you need to visit. Hillarry assumed she had those states won and chose not to visit. Ignoored what the locals were telling the campaign about Trump's support and paid the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 14 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said: For states that are competitive, you have to visit. Even if you favored to win, you need to visit. Hillarry assumed she had those states won and chose not to visit. Ignoored what the locals were telling the campaign about Trump's support and paid the price. And that's the thing that gets missed in all this trying to figure out how Dems win in 2020. She didnt lose in those states because she couldn't get those people, she lost on pure hubris and complacency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 I am ready for Beto-mania to go national. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 39 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said: For states that are competitive, you have to visit. Even if you favored to win, you need to visit. Hillarry assumed she had those states won and chose not to visit. Ignoored what the locals were telling the campaign about Trump's support and paid the price. Except, there is actually no evidence to support that and not just in the last campaign, but actually historically. Even just looking at battle ground states, there is no historical evidence that votes follow visits. Hillary actually spent more days in PA than Trump and lost. She spent less time in VA and won. If Trump had lost and VA was seen as key to the loss, people would be talking about how Trump ignored VA. In general, Trump was more active and hit more states more times, but he also tended be in a state less time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 The Democrats had no one canvassing key parts of MI and WI. Volunteers knocking on doors and building turnout models is crucial to any campaign. The loss almost falls squarely on Robby Mook and the other incompetent Ivy League dolts that the Clintons like to hire. If anyone has ever had the privilege to interact with people at the Clinton think tank Center for American Progress, they would know exactly what I’m talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 The Dems are going to have a hard time winning in 2020. I touched on this in another thread, but the way electoral votes are now apportioned ends up slanting the contest for a much smaller number of voters to control a much larger number of voters. Unless the house is expanded I don't know how you stop this from happening. It will be like ground hog day, the Dems will win the popular vote by a larger margin than 2016 but the Rep's will win the electoral votes. It's out of whack right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 52 minutes ago, HOF44 said: The Dems are going to have a hard time winning in 2020. I touched on this in another thread, but the way electoral votes are now apportioned ends up slanting the contest for a much smaller number of voters to control a much larger number of voters. Unless the house is expanded I don't know how you stop this from happening. It will be like ground hog day, the Dems will win the popular vote by a larger margin than 2016 but the Rep's will win the electoral votes. It's out of whack right now. This is one way, although it's a ways off from actually being accomplished: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Federal judges in gerrymandering case toss Maryland’s congressional voting map Federal judges in Maryland on Wednesday blocked the state from using its congressional voting map in future elections, ordering political leaders to draw new electoral lines for contests in 2020. The three-judge panel unanimously threw out the congressional map in a longrunning partisan gerrymandering case. The decision gives Maryland officials until March to submit a new redistricting plan. The judges acknowledged the inherently political redistricting process, but declared the boundaries unconstitutional and intentionally designed to target Republican voters in the 6th congressional district because of their political affiliation. Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, China said: Federal judges in gerrymandering case toss Maryland’s congressional voting map Federal judges in Maryland on Wednesday blocked the state from using its congressional voting map in future elections, ordering political leaders to draw new electoral lines for contests in 2020. The three-judge panel unanimously threw out the congressional map in a longrunning partisan gerrymandering case. The decision gives Maryland officials until March to submit a new redistricting plan. The judges acknowledged the inherently political redistricting process, but declared the boundaries unconstitutional and intentionally designed to target Republican voters in the 6th congressional district because of their political affiliation. Click on the link for the full article fantastic timing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 5 hours ago, HOF44 said: The Dems are going to have a hard time winning in 2020. I touched on this in another thread, but the way electoral votes are now apportioned ends up slanting the contest for a much smaller number of voters to control a much larger number of voters. Unless the house is expanded I don't know how you stop this from happening. It will be like ground hog day, the Dems will win the popular vote by a larger margin than 2016 but the Rep's will win the electoral votes. It's out of whack right now. Assuming the 2020 electoral map is the same, they would just need to win back Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and all the states that Clinton won in 2016. That puts them at 273. They wouldn't even need Ohio or Florida. Obama won those three in 2008 and 2012. Going with a candidate from the rust belt might be the best move, but offhand can't think of anyone who would make a good national candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 hour ago, China said: Federal judges in gerrymandering case toss Maryland’s congressional voting map Federal judges in Maryland on Wednesday blocked the state from using its congressional voting map in future elections, ordering political leaders to draw new electoral lines for contests in 2020. The three-judge panel unanimously threw out the congressional map in a longrunning partisan gerrymandering case. The decision gives Maryland officials until March to submit a new redistricting plan. The judges acknowledged the inherently political redistricting process, but declared the boundaries unconstitutional and intentionally designed to target Republican voters in the 6th congressional district because of their political affiliation. Click on the link for the full article 1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said: fantastic timing Yeah, they've only been using gerrymandered districts for what, 8 years? But thanks to this order, MAYBE they will draw a non-gerrymandered (or more likely, not as obviously gerrymandered) district. For one election. (Then reset). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 1 hour ago, DCSaints_fan said: Assuming the 2020 electoral map is the same, they would just need to win back Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and all the states that Clinton won in 2016. That puts them at 273. They wouldn't even need Ohio or Florida. Obama won those three in 2008 and 2012. Going with a candidate from the rust belt might be the best move, but offhand can't think of anyone who would make a good national candidate. The projected census reapportionment will mean the Dems will need those 3. Plus all Clinton votes. PLUS 10-12 more EVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 21 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: The projected census reapportionment will mean the Dems will need those 3. Plus all Clinton votes. PLUS 10-12 more EVs. Doesn't the reapportionment start to take effect with the 2022 election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted November 8, 2018 Share Posted November 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, bearrock said: Doesn't the reapportionment start to take effect with the 2022 election? I’m actually not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.