Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Putin's Impeachable Puppet vs The Rise of BootyWalker & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:
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.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, twa said:

afb102318dAPR20181023124556-300x214.jpg

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.)

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Doesn't the reapportionment start to take effect with the 2022 election?

I’m actually not sure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.