Can Democrats Rebuild Their Blue Wall?

[applegrove]

Can Democrats Rebuild Their Blue Wall?

https://politicalwire.com/2019/02/14/can-democrats-rebuild-their-blue-wall/

February 14, 2019 at 7:31 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 175 Comments

"SNIP....

Amy Walter: “There’s something of a consensus forming that the ‘easiest’ or least risky electoral path for the Democratic nominee in 2020 is to reconstruct the so-called Blue Wall in the industrial midwest. If the Democratic nominee wins every state Hillary Clinton carried in 2016, plus Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, that Democrat would win 278 electoral votes — eight more than the 270 needed to win.”

“Just as important, it means that Democrats wouldn’t need to sweat Ohio or Florida. They can lose those big, electoral-vote-rich states, and still have enough to win the White House.”

Use the new interactive Electoral Vote Map to test your own assumptions.

....SNIP"

[Gothmog]

1. The democrats are working on this

[StTimofEdenRoc]

2. They may have to actually show up and campaign next time

[applegrove]

3. They have work to do no doubt. Many things Hillary's campaign missed.

Like the russians targeting certain voters in the midwest. She lost for numerous reasons. They all added up to her winning by 3 million. We have to win by even more than that. A tough slog.

[StTimofEdenRoc]

4. Yup, can't take the upper midwest and Pennsylvania for granted next time.

[applegrove]

5. Or all those former union members. They used to vote solid Dem.

[Awsi Dooger]

6. One of the few truthful things Trump has ever said

"She campaigned in the wrong states," referring to Hillary.

No kidding. It is unbelievable that we took states for granted when they had basically the same relationship of self-identified liberals and conservatives as the nation itself. That is the best way to identify a swing state, yet other than Pennsylvania we brainstormed that they weren't swing states.

Then we push hard in states like Ohio and North Carolina which were not even close to the national split in that category.

I'm convinced polling would be much more reliable and campaigns would own more clarity if that liberal/conservative question were posed, instead of merely asking which candidate they prefer, or the utterly ridiculous Democratic/Republican split.

[Garrett78]

7. There were factors at play in 2016 that won't be at play in 2020.

Our nominee was under attack (from Republicans and the media) for 25 years, Trump had 'newness' going for him, Comey made that last minute announcement, etc.

We had won PA and MI for 6 straight presidential elections prior to 2016, and we had won WI for 7 straight. Over that stretch, our average margin of victory in PA was around 7 points. In MI, our average margin of victory was more than 9 points. In WI, our average margin of victory was around 7 points.

And gerrymandering aside, we did quite well in those states in 2018. We now have a Democratic governor in all 3 states, picking up WI and MI while easily holding on to power in PA.

Naturally, we shouldn't take any of those states (or VA, CO, NV, MN, etc.) for granted (none of them are HI or CA or IL or MD), but I do think there's a bit too much hand-wringing over those 3 states.

We should also be considering the value in forcing Republicans to spend a lot of resources in NC, FL, GA, AZ and TX.

[radius777]

8. There are also factors in 2020 different from 2016.

In 2016, Trump lost a portion of GOP voters to the Libertarian (Johnson), who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Trump. There was division and chaos amonst Repubs. Hillary did manage to attract a portion of moderate Repubs to cross over and vote for her... she was long viewed as a sensible moderate who pro-business suburbanites could trust. The Dem party (AOC, Bernie, Warren) has shifted considerably to the economic left (with the prospect of higher taxes and increased regulations) since then.

Trump is now an incumbent president that has been normalized by the media. He has strong support amongst Repub voters, as good as any "normal" Repub, and has the full backing of his party establishment now. He has shown he can be friendly to Wall Street, cut taxes etc as any typical Reagan Repub. Incumbent presidents rarely lose, especially if the economy is doing "good" (yes, it's only on paper, and the middle class is getting shafted, but that is how the media will portray it).

Mueller's probe won't bring down Trump, and his findings won't matter enough (already factored in to people's minds) to the aforementioned voting blocs.

IOW, 2020 is going to be more difficult for a Dem to win than 2016 - especially with Trump able to use the power of the presidency to spin narratives that will scare White America... similar to what Bush did in 2004, but on a more conspiratorial/tabloid-ish level.

[Garrett78]

9. I disagree with your conclusion.

Trump is, it's true, very popular among Republicans. And incumbency carries weight. But Trump's overall approval/disapproval numbers are not that of someone who is likely to win re-election. And the party-affiliation percentages have shifted in our direction. The Mueller investigation may not bring down Trump but it's definitely taking a toll. Democratic turnout in the most recent midterm was much better than normal.

As has been the case in every presidential election since LBJ, we won't win the white vote. But I like our chances of taking back the White House.