Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Didn’t NC elect a democrat governor?

[Skintime]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Didn’t NC elect a democrat governor?

Yes

4 hours ago, Springfield said:

That map gives a lot of the states that Trump won back to the Dems.  I’d be happy, but I gotta figure that he keeps some of those states.

Not sure. He was more of an unknown then, many hoped that he would tone down and act like a president. He never did and continues to be the ass we all knew he was. Few moderates what that kind of scum as the president. Many will be voting to put him back in his place on his gold toilet in TT.

[Hersh]

8 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Didn’t NC elect a democrat governor?

 

In 2016 it was easy to see NC would go GOP for POTUS and Senate but Gov was on play because of the infamous bathroom bill. 

It’s an uphill climb for a Democrat for POTUS 

[ixcuincle]

 

[Burgold]

I think Rapinoe would kick Trump's balls in any sort of campaign.

 

(Sorry. Couldn't help myself.)

[Momma There Goes That Man]

9 hours ago, Hersh said:

In 2016 it was easy to see NC would go GOP for POTUS and Senate but Gov was on play because of the infamous bathroom bill. 

It’s an uphill climb for a Democrat for POTUS 

 

Dems need to spend time in NC, even other states that lean Red. It helps downticket Dem candidates take back state seats and can help setup organization within that state that can have long lasting impacts. Don't concede ground to the GOP here. I'd like to see the Dem candidate in the usual PA, MI, WI, OH, FL but also in NC, GA, TN, AZ and even TX. Maybe we flip a couple or worst case we setup the organization and momentum that leads to them flipping down the road. 

 

 

[Hersh]

19 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Dems need to spend time in NC, even other states that lean Red. It helps downticket Dem candidates take back state seats and can help setup organization within that state that can have long lasting impacts. Don't concede ground to the GOP here. I'd like to see the Dem candidate in the usual PA, MI, WI, OH, FL but also in NC, GA, TN, AZ and even TX. Maybe we flip a couple or worst case we setup the organization and momentum that leads to them flipping down the road. 

 

 

 

The Dems should always have a 50 state strategy. Just don't plan on winning NC for the POTUS election. Think of it as a bonus

[visionary]

 

[PeterMP]

13 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

Its a tossup in the sense that you don't know who's going to win.  I agree that its been a "must win" for recent Republican presidential candidates.  Recent meaning since 1992.  GHWB could have lost in '88 and he still would have crushed Dukakis.  

 

Obama won Florida in '08 and '12, Bush won in '04 and we all know what happened in '00, Clinton won in '96 but not in '92.    

 

So in terms of presidential candidates, its oscillated between Rs and Ds over the last 30 years, and I'm pretty sure the margin its always been within a percentage point or two (would have to check on that)

 

The link is also calling it a tossup state. 

 

As for Ohio, won by Obama in '08 and '12, and Clinton in '92 and '96.

 

Yes, but they currently have two Republican senators and a Republican governor.  It is also an older state that isn't very diverse and isn't growing (as much as other states and so isn't become more diverse like other states).

 

 

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Dems need to spend time in NC, even other states that lean Red. It helps downticket Dem candidates take back state seats and can help setup organization within that state that can have long lasting impacts. Don't concede ground to the GOP here. I'd like to see the Dem candidate in the usual PA, MI, WI, OH, FL but also in NC, GA, TN, AZ and even TX. Maybe we flip a couple or worst case we setup the organization and momentum that leads to them flipping down the road. 

 

 

The big thing is make sure you have policies that help their pockets. Outside of Bernie and Warren, none of these Dems do.

[PeterMP]

12 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

Bless your heart.

Thank God you aren’t a Democrat running cause this is the dumbest strategy I’ve seen. Don’t waste time in NC

 

NC is more diverse and younger than Michigan and growing more (so more increase in diversity). 

 

Talking to those NC voters allow Democrats to focus on issues that will appeal to the rest of their base (and so will help in areas in PA with diversity and youth and so will help them re-win PA) and generally grow (as the country becomes younger and more diverse).

Despite the gerrymandering (one Republican even ran unopposed), in 2018 the Democrats only lost the total House votes in NC by ~2% so they aren't that far off.

 

If you can bring the older mostly white union voters along with you that you'll need to win MI, then fine, but that shouldn't be the focus of the Democrats in 2020.  That'll turn into a losing proposition.

 

(WI is a little different.  Unions are important there, but in WI it is less industrial workers and more government and academic unions and liberals.  If you think about it in terms of education of the voters, WI easily out ranks NC and MI.  I think mostly what plays well in NC will play pretty well in WI.)

[Hersh]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

NC is more diverse and younger than Michigan and growing more (so more increase in diversity). 

 

Talking to those NC voters allow Democrats to focus on issues that will appeal to the rest of their base (and so will help in areas in PA with diversity and youth and so will help them re-win PA) and generally grow (as the country becomes younger and more diverse).

Despite the gerrymandering (one Republican even ran unopposed), in 2018 the Democrats only lost the total House votes in NC by ~2% so it isn't they aren't that far off.

 

If you can bring the older mostly white union voters along with you that you'll need to win MI, then fine, but that shouldn't be the focus of the Democrats in 2020.  That'll turn into a losing proposition.

 

(WI is a little different.  Unions are important there, but in WI it is less industrial workers and more government and academic unions and liberals.  If you think about it in terms of education of the voters, WI easily out ranks NC and MI.  I think mostly what plays well in NC will play pretty well in WI.)

 

I don’t mean this with any negative connotation, do you live in NC?

[PeterMP]

33 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

I don’t mean this with any negative connotation, do you live in NC?

 

No, but realistically, you are telling me about MI and you don't live there (not that I do either).  The demographics are leaning Democrats way in NC.  In MI and OH, they aren't.

 

And I do know about PA (I work in PA and have family there) so I can tell you what the Democrats do need to win PA, and if they don't re-take PA, the Democrats are in big trouble.  And the key to Democrats re-taking PA is not trying to regain the older white industrial worker.

 

The key to PA is liberal college educated government, academic white collar workers and the cities (youth and diversity).  Not the industrial unions and workers of MI and parts of PA (i.e the ex-steel worker, coal miner, or car assembly line worker).

 

https://www.inquirer.com/news/trump-election-pa-northampton-county-20190405.html

 

The Democrats can either look forward and grow or look back and leave the growing part of the population wondering who to support.

 

(Democrats lost the House races in NC by over 4% in 2014.  They cut it in over half in 4 years to 2018.  (Comparing non-Presidential election to non-Presidential election.))

[Hersh]

Michigan has traditionally been a Democrat state which Hillary lost by less than 11,000 votes. NC has been a GOP state nationally which Hillary lost by 170,000 votes. Please do not tell me that NC should be the focus over Michigan. 

 

Now, the Dems should retain the Governorship in 2020. We should have a fairly strong Senate candidate and a good POTUS candidate could put it in play BUT you don't do what Hillary did and think you are going to carry the day here for POTUS. You win back the blue wall and hope to carry some other states.  

 

Any Dem campaigning in NC needs to be talking Health Care until they are blue in the face. 

In thinking more about NC, given how fired up Dems are to win back a portion of the NC state legislature, I'm not sure if having POTUS candidate campaign hard here helps or hurts. It really depends on who it is. 

[No Excuses]

I don't think it would be a bad idea for Democrats to campaign a lot in NC. I would even add GA to this list. Both states might be trending towards becoming VA-esque, with the influx of Dem-leaning voters in the research triangle and Atlanta suburbs. Virginia's northern suburbs, particularly Loudoun have undergone a pretty dramatic shift from the early 2000s to the present state. Parts of GA and NC seem to be trending similarly.

 

But MI should be a top priority for every Democrat running. The midterms were very favorable to Democrats in MI, despite the Republicans running a good Senate candidate: https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_elections,_2018

[PleaseBlitz]

GA needs Stacey Abrams to run for Senate in order for it to be competitive up ballot. 

[NoCalMike]

Florida - old people - GOP is not hiding the fact that they want to cut medicare and social security.   Come on already.

[DCSaints_fan]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

No, but realistically, you are telling me about MI and you don't live there (not that I do either).  The demographics are leaning Democrats way in NC.  In MI and OH, they aren't.

 

And I do know about PA (I work in PA and have family there) so I can tell you what the Democrats do need to win PA, and if they don't re-take PA, the Democrats are in big trouble.  And the key to Democrats re-taking PA is not trying to regain the older white industrial worker.

  

The key to PA is liberal educated government employees and the cities (youth and diversity).  Not the industrial unions and workers of MI.

 

https://www.inquirer.com/news/trump-election-pa-northampton-county-20190405.html

 

The Democrats can either look forward and grow or look back and leave the growing part of the population wondering who to support.

 

(Democrats lost the House races in NC by over 4% in 2014.  They cut it in over half in 4 years to 2018.  (Comparing non-Presidential election to non-Presidential election.))

 

The demographics have never been favorable in Michigan, but look at the last few election cycles.  

 

2004    Kerry  2.479m    Bush 2.313m   Turnout 64.7%

2008    Obama  2.867m     McCain 2.044m  Turnout 66.2%

2012     Obama  2.564m    Romney 2.115m  Turnout 63%

2016    Clinton  2.268m    Trump  2.279m  Turnout 63%

 

The raw numbers and the turnout % highly suggest, that Clinton lost because the D base didn't show up, while the R base did.   Yes it is true that Trump stole some blue collar votes, but its questionable if he can hold on to those.   His trade wars haven't amounted to this great boom of manufacturing jobs that he was claiming.  

 

I don't for a second believe that Michigan is somehow now a red state that should be written off a Democratic candidates for POTUS.    They just elected a Democratic governor, a Democratic Senator,  their other Senator is a Democrat, their Congressional delegation was split 50/50 R/D until Justin Amash decided to openly call for Trump's impeachment and quit the Republican party.   Do you think he would do that if his constituency was pro-Trump? 

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Dems need to spend time in NC, even other states that lean Red. It helps downticket Dem candidates take back state seats and can help setup organization within that state that can have long lasting impacts. Don't concede ground to the GOP here. I'd like to see the Dem candidate in the usual PA, MI, WI, OH, FL but also in NC, GA, TN, AZ and even TX. Maybe we flip a couple or worst case we setup the organization and momentum that leads to them flipping down the road. 

 

 

 

I think visiting the vast majority of states is not only important from a strategic point but also shows that you want to be the President for all Amercians, not just the ones that are in states you think will vote your way.

[NoCalMike]

Was Howard Dean the head of the DNC during Obama's run?  Didn't he stress a 50 state strategy? Or was that when he was a candidate himself in 2004?

[Hersh]

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Was Howard Dean the head of the DNC during Obama's run?  Didn't he stress a 50 state strategy? Or was that when he was a candidate himself in 2004?

 

He did stress it when head of DNC

[PeterMP]

 

6 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

The demographics have never been favorable in Michigan, but look at the last few election cycles.  

 

2004    Kerry  2.479m    Bush 2.313m   Turnout 64.7%

2008    Obama  2.867m     McCain 2.044m  Turnout 66.2%

2012     Obama  2.564m    Romney 2.115m  Turnout 63%

2016    Clinton  2.268m    Trump  2.279m  Turnout 63%

 

The raw numbers and the turnout % highly suggest, that Clinton lost because the D base didn't show up, while the R base did.   Yes it is true that Trump stole some blue collar votes, but its questionable if he can hold on to those.   His trade wars haven't amounted to this great boom of manufacturing jobs that he was claiming.  

 

I don't for a second believe that Michigan is somehow now a red state that should be written off a Democratic candidates for POTUS.    They just elected a Democratic governor, a Democratic Senator,  their other Senator is a Democrat, their Congressional delegation was split 50/50 R/D until Justin Amash decided to openly call for Trump's impeachment and quit the Republican party.   Do you think he would do that if his constituency was pro-Trump? 

 

When union membership was higher and industrial union members voted more Democrat, the demographics were better.

 

I'm not saying that they should give up on MI as a red state.  I said, I don't think OH can be flipped (I've said: "I'd be shocked if OH flips.", but nothing similar with MI).  I just wouldn't make MI the focus.

 

Why did Hillary lose MI?

 

Because the urban vote didn't turn out.  And that's part of what you need in PA.  If you can win MI without the industrial blue collar worker based on urban vote and college educated white collar public employees, then win MI.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

 

"By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said."

 

But from what I read I think to win MI, Democrats have to pick up those ex-industrial union workers.  If you try to win MI based on that.  You'll lose again.  Because the urban vote isn't going to show up, and it isn't just going to show up in MI.  It isn't going to show up in PA (which then absolutely kills you).

 

(MI urban areas are losing population.  Everybody is leaving, but especially motivated/active people are leaving places like Detroit and Flint, and so unless you do something specific to excite the urban populations in those areas, it is going to be very hard to get them to come vote.  Even the African American population in places like Detroit is declining.  You just aren't going to get the same amount of urban vote out in those places, and the people that are being left behind are the least active/motivated people and so least likely to vote.  I don't think you can credibly and regularly expect large turn out from MI urban areas.)

 

I will point out that the Democratic Senator that won, won by her lowest margin since she's been an incumbent.  Even in 2014, which was a very anti-Democratic year, she did better than she did in 2018, which was supposed to be a big anti-Trump vote.  When your incumbent Senator is winning by the smallest margin she's ever won with (and no real specific issues related to her) in what was nationally a protest election against the other party, you have to worry about winning that state going forward.  The demographics in MI are leaning the wrong way for Democrats.  Winning a governor is a different election.

 

And she didn't have to worry about delivering a national message.  She didn't have to worry about winning PA and she still lost ground in 2018 as compared to the other years she was an incumbent.

 

The demographics for Democrats in MI aren't as bad as in OH, which I don't think they can win.  MI is a little less white, a little less Christian (especially evangelicals), and a little more educated so maybe they can win MI.  But that wouldn't be my focus.

 

The key is you have to win PA, and today the key to winning PA for a Democrat is the urban vote and college educated white collar and public employee voters.

 

If you go out of your way to appeal to the blue collar industrial union worker (that I think a Presidential Democratic candidate will need to beat Trump in MI), you aren't going to drive the turnout among the urban and college educated white collar and public employee voters you need to beat Trump in places like PA.  And you might win MI, but you'll lose PA (and other states).

 

(Again, assuming we don't have a recession or something like that.)

 

Here's my focus:

PA

I think a lot what I need to win PA helps in WI, AZ, and NC so I'm using that to pull in those states.

MI

OH and FL

 

6 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Florida - old people - GOP is not hiding the fact that they want to cut medicare and social security.   Come on already.

 

Yeah, the problem is that the old people are also the least educated voters (and so least likely to vote on actual facts).

 

If you are a Democrat and you can win FL, that's great, but I don't think that can be the key.

5 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Was Howard Dean the head of the DNC during Obama's run?  Didn't he stress a 50 state strategy? Or was that when he was a candidate himself in 2004?

 

Not against visiting and appealing to as many voters as possible.  But the reality is you have to have your signature issues.  What do you emphasize during the debates or during the convention.  Those are your key issues that have be about winning the election.

 

Am I focused on gun violence, economic policies that move us forward etc. or am I focused on illegal immigration and bringing back old jobs, etc.

[Bozo the kKklown]

3 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

The demographics have never been favorable in Michigan, but look at the last few election cycles.  

 

2004    Kerry  2.479m    Bush 2.313m   Turnout 64.7%

2008    Obama  2.867m     McCain 2.044m  Turnout 66.2%

2012     Obama  2.564m    Romney 2.115m  Turnout 63%

2016    Clinton  2.268m    Trump  2.279m  Turnout 63%

 

The raw numbers and the turnout % highly suggest, that Clinton lost because the D base didn't show up, while the R base did.   Yes it is true that Trump stole some blue collar votes, but its questionable if he can hold on to those.   His trade wars haven't amounted to this great boom of manufacturing jobs that he was claiming.  

 

I don't for a second believe that Michigan is somehow now a red state that should be written off a Democratic candidates for POTUS.    They just elected a Democratic governor, a Democratic Senator,  their other Senator is a Democrat, their Congressional delegation was split 50/50 R/D until Justin Amash decided to openly call for Trump's impeachment and quit the Republican party.   Do you think he would do that if his constituency was pro-Trump? 

 

 

Michigan is not a red state. At best, it's purple but it leans more blue than red. Neglecting that state is idiotic and how Clinton lost.

 

But it's not enough to just campaign there. People want real policies that will impact them.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Michigan is not a red state. At best, it's purple but it leans more blue than red. Neglecting that state is idiotic and how Clinton lost.

 

But it's not enough to just campaign there. People want real policies that will impact them.

 

Clinton didn't lose MI because she neglected the state.  She lost because she failed to communicate a message that appealed to the Democratic constituency nationally and consistently (and voter suppression efforts).  

 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1536504218766525

 

"So, in 2016, Hillary Clinton got Black women voters, but they constituted a much smaller share of the overall electorate. Nearly every Black woman who voted, voted for Hillary, but instead of making up 9% of the population of voters, they dropped down to closer to 7%… That decline in participation is not solely about lacking an inspirational candidate. This was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA). After the Supreme Court decision in Shelby v. Holder gutted the VRA, all observers expected a decline in Democratic voter turnout. "

 

If anything, she spent too much time talking about Trump voters (in the debates and such) because Trump was able to dictate the conversation.

 

Black women voters didn't drop by 2% nationally because Clinton didn't visit (heavily white) MI, WI, and OH.

 

Relatedly:

 

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-clinton-lost-election-democrats-inclusivestudy.html

 

"Clinton lost US election because Democrats were too inclusive—study"

 

The more time you spend talking to and about ex-blue color workers the less the voters that are real keys to the Democrats winning (nationally) feel important, part of, and motivated to vote for Democrats.  You hurt yourself by trying to be overly inclusive.

 

The Democratic party cannot allow Trump (and his voters) dictate the conversations and debates that will happen in this cycle, and I'll add it is even going to be harder to do so then ever because fake news and social media are going to try to drive the conversations

 

(https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2982233

 

Social Bots Distort the 2016 US Presidential Election Online Discussion)

 

but even the real media likes to talk about the "working class Americans" (by which they mean white non-college educated men).

[nonniey]

4 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Florida - old people - GOP is not hiding the fact that they want to cut medicare and social security.   Come on already.

That would have no effect on those old people.