Giving Trump every single probable state and EV, it comes down to 3 states and we have to sweep them

[Celerity]

Furthermore, drilling down as far as I am comfortable with, it comes down to 3 cities (Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Detroit, and the African American vote in those cities).

Here is the map (obviously flipping Florida (or North Carolina, etc) to Blue changes a tonne, but I am trying to paint a worst case scenario for us by giving Trump the all lightly pink 2016 states that were not nearly as close as the 3 biggies (the infamous 78,652 votes from WI, PA, MI)



We can alter that map so that we take NH, sweep Maine and all Trump needs is to win is take even the smallest of those 3 Browns (ie. Wisconsin) and he wins 270-268.

The main way we win all 3 is via what cost us badly (along with a myriad number of other things, some related) in 2016. The A-A vote (I am a POC myself), which was weak in Philly, Milwaukee, and Detroit.

If we run no POC on the ticket, especially 2 white males, we are sorely tempting fate, as those 3 states were by far the closest of the larger states, and they have a whopping 46 EV's combined.

I cannot envision a 'no POC ticket' that will swing enough of the other states to make up for that many votes. NC will be even harder to flip with no POC. Florida too. I could see Arizona and New Hampshire flipping without a POC on the ticket, but that is not enough to win, even if we also sweep Maine and take 2nd NE district. We lose 293-245. Pull AZ away from us in that scenario and ADD BOTH WI and MI (or even WI and PA), and we STILL lose.


In summation, we can lose EVERY other truly close swing state (and ME-2 and NE-2), as shown on the map.........

and just win WI, MI, and PA (states we have NO business losing, and states that all now have Dem governors) and we BEAT TRUMP.

A massive AA turnout in Philly (Chris Matthews, a Philly boy, as soon as he saw the low turnout there in inner city Philly, said that Hillary was in huge trouble, and that was hours, hours before anyone else), Milwaukee (brilliant move having the convention there), and Detroit (my god is their election system messed up,this MUST be fixed) pretty much guarantees that. We NEED a diverse ticket IMHO to get there.

[Vogon_Glory]

1. These and...

Texas might be in play in 2020. I suspect that a lot of Latinos are getting PO’d at Donnie’s anti-Hispanic race-baiting. Take away the Big Red Capstone, and it’s curtains for a 2020 Republican presidential campaign.

Imagine Election Night 2020 and Donnie has lost not only Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, but also Texas and possibly Arizona.

[Celerity]

2. Oh, I am not at all saying many other states are not in play, they are

I was painting the worst possible scenario of all the probable swing states that were not as close as those big 3 Rust Belt ones, all 3 of which we almost always have won lately, and yet were beaten in those 3 in 2016.

Even if my worst-case happens, if we win those 3, we still win. They are so so so crucial. If we win Texas, we win in a monster landslide of epic proportions.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. Thing may have changed but last month Trump's approval

Was higher in MI WI PA FL NC and OH than in Texas!!

I personally think we need a backup plan because remember TRussia likely had something to do with us losing MI PA & WI. Biden Beto has the strongest chance of doing that.

[Celerity]

50. 2 centrist white men, with the top of the ticket being 86 at the end of his terms is not

going to end well I fear.

It will hurt enthusiasm levels (which correlate to turnout) amongst women, youth (not so much on that if Beto was top and Biden VP again) and POC. We cannot talk about being the party of inclusion and then trot out a non-inclusive, non diverse ticket. That is just my opinion, but I think many others share this concern.

It especially would tempt the fate of a replay of 2016 with Africans Americans again, which I detail to a fairly large degree here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128736610#post18

[Laura PourMeADrink]

54. Both options have weaknesses. This particular team includes

white men (thought we were supposed to be colorblind) vs. less enthusiasm for not being diverse.

Missing key...we have to win! That tips the scales. Plus we have the added plus that Dem polls SAY the most important thing is to get rid of trump.

And also think about the world. We have to restore our standing and leadership in human rights and nuke disarmament. As well as make our US government whole again. What better person to do that than someone who has already lived it?

[dsc]

3. we will win arizona before we win texas

We won the majority of Congressional seats in AZ and a Senate seat plus the secretary of state race (they have no lt gov) so we won a majority of statewide races plus a majority of the congressional seats.

[Vogon_Glory]

5. Perhaps we'll luck out and win both

Texas has a larger percentage of Latinos than Arizona, although up until recently they had a dismaying habit of not voting. If enough folks get over their apathy, it’s curtains for Donnie.

[Jarqui]

4. Trump barely won Wisconsin & Michigan

Since then, his approval in those states has swung by 20+ points.

Here's some polls for those states for Biden v Trump
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Michigan.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_biden-6849.html

If Biden runs, he was born and lived in Scranton, PA and he's working there as a professor.
Trumps approval in PA has shifted about 17 points - I think it is -7
There are no polls for PA yet

But if the leading Democrat Biden ran against Trump, there is a very good chance that Biden would sweep these states from the present polling data

[Celerity]

6. Many miles to go until then, and Biden isn't even in the race yet. When he enters many other

candidates (no, not just the Berner) and the turgid MSM are going to tear into him, especially if he is the presumed front runner. That will more than like knock that lead down.

Let's hope the Mueller report, whilst having no recco's for indictments, DOES have a lot of massively damning other things. If Trump somehow walks away relatively unscathed, his bounce is going to be immense as well, grrrrrr. Also, IF (and I do not think it will hold) the economy stays as it basically is now, it's going to make things even harder.

I am not at all remotely sold on Biden, for a lot of reasons. Time will tell.

[Jarqui]

9. There is a long way to go but I like our position for those states

I've always liked Biden but I'm hoping for a fresh face to be our candidate.

Based on the polls now, I think a Democrat will do well in all those states.

We'll see how things go.

[R B Garr]

28. The poster was talking about Biden vs Trump and you

gleefully make it about Sanders “tearing” into Biden to lower his numbers, which would be the primary.

Nice to know so soon in this thread that your analysis is a biased wish list and not to be taken seriously.

[R B Garr]

29. Yes, Biden could sweep those states, and it was a huge discredit

to this exercise to suggest that Sanders “tearing” into him will mean Biden couldn’t win those states. Ridiculous bias and leaps in that logic.

[Celerity]

30. you misrepresent what I said

I certainly did not single out Sanders at all, I said many other candidates will have a go at Joe, NOT JUST Bernie (as so many here focus mostly on him as the main source of attacks of any and all Democrats). I am no fan in the slightest of Sanders, so your charge of bias is unfounded.

[R B Garr]

31. None of that would matter if it was Biden v Trump,

so it was a strange glimpse into your mindset of Biden being torn down.

Biden has a good rep in those states mentioned, so dismissing his strong points, especially in Scranton seems a bit too biased.

[Celerity]

32. Other candidates will, at some point, have a go at him, especially if he is the front-runner.

I see nothing out of the ordinary in saying that, it is is the way politics works. Far too early to assume anything as to who the nominee for us will be, other than I think we could both bet our collective farms that it will not be Sanders.

[R B Garr]

33. That primary part would be over if it was Trump v Biden.

We already beat one of our nominees up, so that was just a striking statement to be almost upbeat that Sanders would tear into Biden.

Agreed, Sanders will not be our nominee. Burnt bridges and all that.

[Celerity]

35. Again with the misrepresenting of what I said, and also some strange attempt at projection.

I added Sanders only as a counterpoint to emphasise that he will not be the only one who critiques Biden. Examining records and policies and stances will most definitely occur, for all candidates and from all candidates. It happens every primary. Biden is neither exempt from that process nor is he the presumptive nominee.

There was

almost upbeat

in my original reply that you responded to. That is projection from you.

[R B Garr]

36. Again. The poster you responded to was talking about

Biden v Trump. Sanders attacking Biden would have nothing to do with that contest, except for YOUR projections about Sanders attacks on Biden in the primary.

I’ve seen this pattern before where there become multiple posts trying to make this about me. Your post, your words.

[Celerity]

37. the only centering of Bernie came from you, you are completely trying to turn it into yet another

Sanders-centric argument when he is so peripheral to this entire OP and my replies throughout the thread.

I stand by all I have posted in both the OP and my thread replies (literally 99.9% of which have zero to do with Sanders), and reject your attempts to misrepresent my words, project motivations and intent onto me, and your attempts make it a Bernie battle. He bores me, same for all the drama over him. It is why I almost get involved in OP's about him. I only tangentially used his name in ONE reply here, and that was only to make a point as to what I said in that very reply.

You latched onto the mere mention of his name (in which, btw I called him Berner, a not flattering at all name) and won't let go, lolol.

Go argue with a Bernie supporter, you certainly are not doing so here.

[R B Garr]

38. No, you. Your post, you. The poster you responded to

was not talking about the primary. They were talking about Biden v Trump. You provided an explanation that Sanders might “tear” Biden up (your word) which would presumably lower his numbers. Now you are trying to make this about me/-very recognizable.

I just noted the strange bias since Biden v Trump has nothing to do with Sanders. It’s as obvious as a beam in your eye.

[Celerity]

39. again, and again and again with the misrepresentation and the attempts at Sanders-centric deflection

Many miles to go until then, and Biden isn't even in the race yet. When he enters many other candidates (no, not just the Berner) and the turgid MSM are going to tear into him, especially if he is the presumed front runner. That will more than like knock that lead down.




reading is fundamental


I do take ownership of my typo

it should have said likely, not like



done here, and done your continuing tedious projections

ie.

It’s as obvious as a beam in your eye.

that is cheap ad hominem



The vast majority of the 2020 Primaries narrative will NOT be about Bernie, regardless of how it may seem reading this board.

If you think that if he were to magically disappear, then there will not be contentiousness, debate, policy/philosophical arguments, struggles, vettings, plus agenda-driven news coverage and hit pieces from every angle between the other 15 or so other candidates, then apparently you have not been through very many primary seasons.

I was not old enough to vote in 2008 (as but one example, another being 1980, from what I have read and seen), but I was old enough to see that Sanders himself is not needed at all to get there.

[R B Garr]

40. Again and again and again, and again, I noted your

obvious bias. The bias is that Biden is going to get so torn up that he will be irrelevant. “Not just the Berner” tearing him up means that the Berner will be tearing him up, along with others: right?!

Again, and again, and again, the poster you were responding to was talking about BIDEN v TRUMP, and in particular the states that Biden is strong in, but your view is Biden will be too torn up. I just noted your unsubstantiated bias. That’s about it, lol!

[Garrett78]

7. Greater turnout of POC is key, I agree. Those aren't the only 3 states that will flip.

In addition to those 3 states being back in our column (as they were in every presidential election between 1992 and 2012), I think Trump will lose a few other battleground states. I think Trump will be closer to 200 than 264.

It's not just that Trump has a high disapproval rating, it's that the vast majority of those who disapprove do so "strongly." Just as his approval rating isn't likely to go down much, it isn't likely to rise.

I'll say it again, 2016 was loaded with unique circumstances. Way too much analysis is being based on an election that was extraordinary. Many factors at play then won't be at play next year.

[Celerity]

10. at this moment, barring an implosion (surely possible) by the orange rotter

I see this as our ceiling of max EV totals.

[CincyDem]

8. Separate from your point (that is fully accurate)

That map really highlights our issues in the Senate.

Sheesh.

[Demsrule86]

15. Thee senate is tough. I don't think any senator from a state that has a GOP governor should run

President...including Warren, Sanders or Brown .

[karynnj]

24. Brown is not running and the other states are likely not problems.

MA already addressed this twice. The current rule is the Governor nominates someone to fill the short time before a special election. If Warren were the nominee, that election's primaries and general election would be set the day she wins. She could stay as Senator until the day before she is sworn in. When Kennedy died, I think it was 5 months to do this. That means a Republican would be there for two and a half months. Not to mention, it would be one named by a moderate New England governor.

Vermont has 2 year terms for governor. If, and I don't think he will, Bernie is the choice, it sets an odd dynamic where we know the Senate seat is at risk. At this point, the Democrats have veto proof majorities in both houses. This means they could pass a law like MA has if this was likely to happen.

[Demsrule86]

25. They have GOP governors. Neither are my first choice but if we lose a

Senate seat it is so not worth it.

[StevieM]

11. I totally disagree.

Florida, North Carolina and Arizona are all swing states that are absolutely in play.

And we would have won them handily, along with PA, WI, and MI, in 2016 had it not been for the Comey intervention.

[Celerity]

12. you completely miss my point, I never said those other states were not in play

I was painting a worst case scenario based off a specific criteria and showing what was left in play after that, then suggesting how to win those 3 states and STILL WIN the election, even if we lost EVERY other close swing state.

Down thread I also posted a BEST realistic case scenario for us too, with our candidate winning 335 EV's (barring a complete systemic Trump implosion and as stated in that reply, I also said Trump is capable of that).

[Demsrule86]

14. We did not win any of those states last time or in 12 either.

Our best chance is to win in PA,WI AND MI. I I gives me hope since all three elected Democratic governors in 18.

[StevieM]

16. Our best hope is not to embrace the notion that we can only win with 277 EVs.

The common sense thing to do is to widen the map.

We did win Florida in 2012. And we won both FL and NC in 2008.

[Demsrule86]

21. It is the minimum and our blue wall. I hope for more.

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2019, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)

If you look at the map...it is tough for us. And a win is a win.

[Demsrule86]

13. I posted a map earlier and that was my conclusion also,

[ucrdem]

17. Do we know that they didn't turn out?

Chris M aside, I remember stories of massive early voting that were very encouraging, in cities particularly. Then poof, she lost. So when did they count all those early ballots? We'll never know, as MI and PA wouldn't allow recounts to go forward, but let's say turnout in those 3 cities WAS low. Was it for lack of enthusiasm, which seems unlikely, or was it that voters had been removed from the rolls, misinformed, or forced to meet ID requirements that made it too difficult?

[Celerity]

18. Black voter turnout fell in 2016, even as a record number of Americans cast ballots

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

he black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks. (It’s also the largest percentage-point decline among any racial or ethnic group since white voter turnout dropped from 70.2% in 1992 to 60.7% in 1996.) The number of black voters also declined, falling by about 765,000 to 16.4 million in 2016, representing a sharp reversal from 2012. With Barack Obama on the ballot that year, the black voter turnout rate surpassed that of whites for the first time. Among whites, the 65.3% turnout rate in 2016 represented a slight increase from 64.1% in 2012.





Why black voter turnout fell in 2016
How voting Democratic has become integral to African Americans’ cultural identity.

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/1/15/16891020/black-voter-turnout

“Black Voters Aren’t Turning Out For The Post-Obama Democratic Party.” It’s a familiar headline in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. Indeed, post-election analysis of voter data shows black turnout in presidential elections declined 4.7 percent between 2012 and 2016 (overall turnout showed a small decline from 61.8 percent in 2012 to 61.4 percent in 2016).

How do we explain it — and can it be changed? My ongoing research with Ismail White on political norms among black Americans says we ought to have expected the decline, but that the Democratic Party can do much more to cut it back by recognizing how social dynamics shape African-American politics.

Some have attributed the decline in black turnout to voter suppression tactics made possible by the Shelby v. Holder (2013) decision that rescinded key protections from the Voting Rights Act. But black turnout saw similar declines in states where no new voter laws were implemented after the Shelby decision. Others have simplistically pointed to the absence of the first black president on the ballot — as if that fact offers an explanation. Our work on the social dynamics of politics within the black community provides the missing explanation.

In our recent publication in the American Political Science Review, we argue that the continued social isolation of blacks in American society has created spaces and incentives for the emergence of black political norms. Democratic partisanship has become significantly tied to black identity in the United States. The historical and continued racial segregation of black communities has produced spaces in which in-group members can leverage social sanctions against other group members to ensure compliance with group partisan norms.

snip



Study: Black turnout slumped in 2016

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/black-election-turnout-down-2016-census-survey-238226


Census shows pervasive decline in 2016 minority voter turnout

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/


Study: Black voter turnout in Wisconsin declined by nearly one-fifth in 2016

https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/study-black-voter-turnout-in-wisconsin-declined-by-nearly-one/article_d3e72e41-96a0-51fb-83ba-11dfc6693daf.html

Turnout among black voters in Wisconsin dropped about 19 percent in the 2016 election from 2012, more than four times the national decline, according to a new study by a liberal group.

The study, released by the Center for American Progress, made the estimates based on data from the U.S. Census, polls and state voter files.

It provides the strongest evidence yet that Wisconsin’s decline in voter turnout, while seen in other demographic groups, was much more dramatic among African-Americans.

The study also found in Wisconsin, as in other key states, the 2016 electorate was significantly more white and non-college- educated than was reported by exit polls immediately after the election.

snip


Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote — and Don’t Regret It

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html

MILWAUKEE — Four barbers and a firefighter were pondering their future under a Trump presidency at the Upper Cutz barbershop last week.

“We got to figure this out,” said Cedric Fleming, one of the barbers. “We got a gangster in the chair now,” he said, referring to President-elect Donald J. Trump.They admitted that they could not complain too much: Only two of them had voted. But there were no regrets. “I don’t feel bad,” Mr. Fleming said, trimming a mustache. “Milwaukee is tired. Both of them were terrible. They never do anything for us anyway.”

Wisconsin, a state that Hillary Clinton had assumed she would win, historically boasts one of the nation’s highest rates of voter participation; this year’s 68.3 percent turnout was the fifth best among the 50 states. But by local standards, it was a disappointment, the lowest turnout in 16 years. And those no-shows were important. Mr. Trump won the state by just 27,000 voters.

Milwaukee’s lowest-income neighborhoods offer one explanation for the turnout figures. Of the city’s 15 council districts, the decline in turnout from 2012 to 2016 in the five poorest was consistently much greater than the drop seen in more prosperous areas — accounting for half of the overall decline in turnout citywide.

The biggest drop was here in District 15, a stretch of fading wooden homes, sandwich shops and fast-food restaurants that is 84 percent black. In this district, voter turnout declined by 19.5 percent from 2012 figures, according to Neil Albrecht, executive director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission. It is home to some of Milwaukee’s poorest residents and, according to a 2016 documentary, “Milwaukee 53206,” has one of the nation’s highest per-capita incarceration rates.

At Upper Cutz, a bustling barbershop in a green-trimmed wooden house, talk of politics inevitably comes back to one man: Barack Obama. Mr. Obama’s elections infused many here with a feeling of connection to national politics they had never before experienced. But their lives have not gotten appreciably better, and sourness has set in.


snip





and when they did vote there was this...

Mostly black neighborhoods voted more Republican in 2016 than in 2012

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/25/mostly-black-neighborhoods-voted-more-republican-in-2016-than-in-2012/

snip




A few things jump out. First: The most heavily white neighborhoods voted much more heavily Republican in 2016 than in 2012 (the dark red line shoots up past the light-red one). Second, the most heavily black neighborhoods voted less heavily Democratic last year than four years ago. (We’ll come back to this, obviously.) Third, Hispanic neighborhoods voted for Republicans less than in 2012.

The net effect of those shifts can be measured by comparing the margin between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012 with the Trump-Clinton margin in each neighborhood last year. In heavily white neighborhoods, a big shift to the Republicans. In mostly Hispanic neighborhoods, generally more support for the Democrat, except in the most dense places (although, as the chart on the right makes clear, the sample size for those is very small and therefore more subject to volatility).




snip


This Chart Shows Philadelphia Black Voters Stayed Home, Costing Clinton
A shift in Philadelphia voter turnout, which broke along racial lines, appears to have cost Hillary Clinton almost 35,000 votes.



https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johntemplon/this-chart-shows-philadelphia-black-voters-stayed-home-costi



One of the most surprising results of Election Day was Donald Trump winning Pennsylvania — a state that had voted for the Democrat in every election since 1988. As of the Pennsylvania Board of Elections’ latest tally, Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 57,588 votes. More than 60% of that margin comes from a shift in the vote in Philadelphia.

The Philadelphia data offers a particularly clear glimpse at what went wrong for Hillary Clinton: A block of voters who showed up for Barack Obama wasn’t inspired enough by her — or scared enough by Donald Trump — to show up. And as analysts pore over the results of the campaign, the numbers in Philadelphia offer perhaps the most devastating single data point for the Clinton campaign.

snip



massive drop in 85% black Detroit too

Link to tweet

[ucrdem]

19. hey that's some impressive research!

Okay let's accept that there was a drop. My point is that there were a lot of factors beyond the candidates that contributed to it, which aren't reflected in the numbers. In the NYT Milwaukee story above I noticed this:

The biggest drop was here in District 15, ... that is 84 percent black. In this district, voter turnout declined by 19.5 percent from 2012 figures, .... It is home to some of Milwaukee’s poorest residents and, according to a 2016 documentary, “Milwaukee 53206,” has one of the nation’s highest per-capita incarceration rates.

That means that a lot of voters wouldn't be able to vote based on their having been in prison. WI does allow ex-offenders to vote, but only after they've completed all their parole and post-prison obligations:

In another 19 states, including Wisconsin, convicted felons may vote after they complete their entire sentence (prison, parole and probation).

In addition they have to re-register to vote. If I was an ex-offender in 2016, I would much rather avoid voting than risk getting nailed for some kind of voter fraud. And who knows what they were told? So what I'm getting at is that even if the reported numbers were lower in 2016, that doesn't mean they would have been higher if the candidates were different.

http://archive.jsonline.com/blogs/purple-wisconsin/176831361.html

[Celerity]

20. yes, there are so many reasons for the drop

Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2019, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

We live in an utterly dysfunctional nation at a myriad number of levels, vectors, inflection points and socio-political, socio-economic pathologies.

It doesn't help that the superstructure (our Constitution and its resultant form of government) is being shredded, warped, and weaponised by one party in a two party system. We are living in a period where its (the Constitution) long wave endemic flaws and limitations are coming to the fore.

Fairplay distribution of voting power is running headlong into a great unlevelling force via demographical presentations of ever-increasing(numerically) and ever more concentrated pockets of the population having their aforementioned voting impact diluted in the House, the Senate, and thus also in the Electoral College.

[Freddie]

51. PA does not have early voting

What Chris saw in Philly was correct. Usually in PA the cities outvote the “Alabama” part of the state to turn us blue. But if the (largely minority) cities aren’t enthused about a candidate, we lose.

[ucrdem]

57. Well, that's another barrier.

I don't know that state but I imagine if fair and honest elections were a priority it would offer early voting. Likewise it would have cooperated with Stein and let her recount their votes. They certainly didn't do that. The point is that the barriers to Democratic voting are systemic and serious and can't be fixed just by choosing a particular candidate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Well done

I agree that this is our worst case scenario (though it is unlikely we lose NH in my opinion with all of the Democratic campaign events that will be held there during the primaries.) We are not out of the woods until we solidify the Mid West and/or break through in states like Arizona Texas and Georgia and/or have massive gains in voter registration in Florida.

[allgood33]

23. Be mindful of damage done with the Russian trolling of black millennials during the 2016 campaign

Some in BLM were so totally gaslighted they will never come back to the Democrats. Trumpians have thrown money at them.

[exboyfil]

26. Excellent analysis

I agree with you completely, and I have been saying the same thing in not such such an eloquent manner for a while.

If Biden is the nominee, then I think parking Abrams in Detroit and having her visit the four critical states (I think Minnesota has to be guarded as well) like clockwork should be the approach.

I said before the last election that African Americans need a reason to vote for Clinton. The reasons were not adequately articulated to them by the campaign. I took some heat for that opinion.

I would prefer a different ticket (Klobuchar/Booker), but Harris/Buttigieg or Biden/Harris also works for me. I also don't want the confusion of a sitting Senator in a Republican controlled state being on the ticket. The Senate is just as important as the Presidency. Without it you just logjam judicial nominees until the next election. Republicans have proved this strategy is effective, and they will continue to do it because those states don't give a damn.

[BlueWI]

27. Thanks for the links and articles.

Your focus on numerical trends is very helpful.

Last time, I didn't think the nominee was very effective at reaching purple voters or Democratic-leaning but disillusioned voters in these swing states. Can Harris, Booker, or Castro do better at motivating these key constituencies?

Which candidates will foreground policy proposals that have deep and specific support in black communities? Are we too risk-averse to appeal directly and openly to issues of concern to black communities?

In WI, Lt. governor Mandela Barnes will be an incredible asset in the 2020 presidential race. He is from central Milwaukee, witty and telegenic, and a straight talker. The nominee needs to connect with potential surrogates like him to get critical votes from constituencies that didn't turn out as handily in 2016.

[Celerity]

41. oh, wow, Mandela Barnes looks so impressive, he absolutely has a big future in our party!!

Last time, I didn't think the nominee was very effective at reaching purple voters or Democratic-leaning but disillusioned voters in these swing states. Can Harris, Booker, or Castro do better at motivating these key constituencies?

Yes, yes, and yes.

I hope that if a candidate, any candidate drops out, they immediately try to keep all their supporters engaged still in the process.

I think 2020 is again going to be a 'change' driven election. Multiple analysis pieces I have read and programmes I have watched over the past 2 plus years said that was a big driver against us versus the despicable Trump in 2016. Hillary, they argued, represented the status quo and that opened up people who had a 'toss the bastards out' mentality to throw their votes to the monster, regardless of any deep-rooted thinking.

If we go with a complete pre-November 2016 status quo ticket or a top of the ticket with multiple issues from their past that cut against the grain in terms of appeal to those groups you mentioned, we are courting trouble.

Which candidates will foreground policy proposals that have deep and specific support in black communities? Are we too risk-averse to appeal directly and openly to issues of concern to black communities?

I think the strongest voices atm for that would be Booker and a person who probably is not running this year, Stacey Abrams. I also think Buttigieg is a speaker and thinker of such eloquence, clarity, depth, and clear sense of purpose and mission that he could make inroads in that lane as well, irregardless of his race/gender.

Harris/Buttigieg would be great

Harris/Brown sooo strong (but damn, losing that OH Senate seat is a killer, grrr)

Harris/Inslee (all West Coast though) so strong too

Inslee/Abrams could be a big big win (I have never seen that combo floated, it ticks sooo many 'win' boxes')

Buttigieg/Abrams would be dazzling oratorically

Booker/Buttigieg the same
Buttigieg/Booker the same

last 2 have no female though

Warren in the mix too, but another Senate seat lost

Julian Castro in a VP slot is another great one

we have so many great choices!

[BlueWI]

55. Thanks for your thoughts!

[BlueFlorida]

34. We will win

Arizona and NH next time around as well. Especially if Mark Kelly is running there.

[Celerity]

43. Oh, I think we will win NH probably for sure, and have a good shot at AZ

The whole point to my OP was to show a worst case swing state scenario and yet show we could lose EVERY actual swing swing state (no way can I see us losing NV, CO, VA, they are past purple and are now solid light blue) that was carried by Trump (and I tossed in NH as well) and yet still win as long as we win MI, WI, and PA, all of which have been Dem at POTUS level for decades until 2016.

Pre 2016, the last time Wisconsin went for a Rethug was 1980, Michigan, 1988, and Pennsylvania, 1988. That's 92 total years combined of Democratic winning at POTUS level.

The massive drop of in A-A votes was a big, big reason we lost those 3 (those numbers and what caused it I discussed in great depth here). https://www.democraticunderground.com/128736610#post18

My conclusion is that we should strive to have a diverse ticket or we may run into those same issues again, with the added threat of increased voter suppression to boot.

[Poiuyt]

42. Wisconsin

I remember one of the Republican state legislators boasting before the 2016 election that Trump would win WI because they had just enacted a voter ID requirement. That law is still in effect so I hope enough people have been educated as to what to bring to the polls.

Republicans have been very good at suppressing the vote in WI

[Celerity]

44. What happened over the decades to turn WI so reddish?

The last time it went Repug for POTUS prior to 2016 was 1980, and it has such a long progressive tradition (La Follette, etc).

Its state legislature sounds like it would fit in in Alabama ffs.

[susanna]

46. Something similar is true of Michigan.

Last edited Thu Mar 28, 2019, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)

We have gone red, but it's very rare. Look at our votes over time.

As for WI, Scott Walker. That's all you need to know. He took WI to AL.

on edit: I screwed up big here...Michigan USUALLY goes blue, not red. So when I wrote the original reply, I was delusional. Or tired. Or...?

[Celerity]

48. before the orange turd picked the man married to Mother as VP, I was thinking Walker

But then (at that point alarm bells were going off about those rust belt states due our campaign not going there much and talking about 'expanding the map' and winning AZ, GA, and TX, which I was very dubious of) and I said no, the Rethugs need Walker and his ilk in WI and other places to make sure they rig the system (mostly voter suppression, etc, I was thinking at the time, due to Greg Palast freaking out warning about it). I am sure they never saw him (Walker) losing this last election, BUT they are ruthless, and definitely went ahead anyway and pre-planned that illegal power grab that just got shot down in the courts. The fuckers leave nothing to chance, and there is no way they did work on that way before the election, it was far too thought out, surgical, and devious.

[Poiuyt]

52. Gerrymandering

I forget what the proportions were, but in the last election, Democrats won the majority of the votes, but the Republicans won the majority of the seats. We've got a new Democratic governor, but the legislature is still controlled by the Republicans, and they show no signs of fair play.

[Celerity]

53. Scott Walker is such a fuckstick

Scott Walker, Finally a Former Governor, Is Still Causing Trouble for Democracy

He has dedicated himself to protecting gerrymandering and voter-suppression schemes.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a26907820/scott-walker-gerrymandering-wisconsin-eric-holder/

[susanna]

61. I did not reply originally,

because I was travelling and didn't check DU that night.

That said, "Scott Walker is such a fuckstick" just deserves a full-on applause moment because YES HE IS.

So here you are, Celerity:

TO INFINITY and beyond.

I hear you.

[Demsrule86]

56. They lost Good paying manufacturing jobs , Janesville GM closed in 08.

Globalization has been devastating for the rustbelt. A liar ( Trump) promised to fix this. Is it any surprised they voted for him? And the jobs that remain are shitty. And the Green jobs have moved overseas as well. Our candidate needs a manufacturing plan that includes carrots and sticks to begin to fix this. Did our politicians not notice what happened in Detroit, Gary and Youngstown? A candidate can't show up every election promising to fix these issues and then do nothing. Hope it hurts Trump in 20. He is a big liar and hurt the rustbelt

[susanna]

47. This just infuriates me.

They KNOW.

They know that they are suppressing legal votes.

And they do not care.

[susanna]

45. Interestingly, the same states that 'won' it for him last time.

I live in one of them.

Fascinating analysis.

[Awsi Dooger]

58. Hillary won Minnesota by 1.5% with 46.4% of the vote

Sorry, but that is not a cinch state. Hillary won by 45,000 yet somehow we are taking it for granted. Minnesota has 87% whites in the electorate and only 4% blacks and 4% Hispanics. If we learned anything from 2016 it should be to ignore polls and prior results and look at demographics of the state. Those upper midwestern states with liberal voting tendencies but simply too few minorities are not nearly as automatic as we prefer to believe.

Minnesota has 32% conservatives and 28% liberals as of the 2016 exit poll. That is shaky advantage at best. The national gap is 9% more conservatives than liberals. A state can only be taken for granted when the percentage of liberals is higher than percentage of conservatives.

Similarly this thread is applying too much faith in Nevada and Virginia. Nevada has 11% more conservatives than liberals at 36-25. We have maximized Clark County lately but anyone who has lived in Nevada can attest to how balanced it is politically.

Virginia had 7% more conservatives than liberals in 2016, at 33-26. Again, that is hardly comfortable. I would expect to win but any betting line on that state would not be prohibitive.

Colorado likewise has a positive trend but is not impossible for Trump if he owns a national polling edge. That state at 78% whites and 4% blacks is not the perfect blueprint for our side.

I realize the numerical versions are not as popular as raw subjectivity and taking everything for granted if recent results are favorable. The overall demographic trend is good beyond 2020 but an incumbent who is very popular with white voters can pull additional surprises if his approval rises sharply, and if we are not careful with who we nominate.

[Celerity]

60. I agree as to the majority of your points, but can you envision a scenario

where we win MI, PA, WI, and yet lose MN and/or CO? Odds of that have to be extremely remote, no?

[SKKY]

59. Luckily, with a crap candidate, we only lost those three states by less than 80K votes...

Last edited Mon Mar 25, 2019, 08:08 AM - Edit history (1)

...So with a solid ticket, and with a 50 state campaign, we should be fine. I refuse to believe that those "Centrists" who voted for Obama twice, but then switched to Trump (presumably in a protest vote against Clinton), will do so again.

[crazytown]

62. So we should find a young black man

like Obama.

[thesquanderer]

63. Interesting analysis. Two questions...

I see you're a Buttigieg supporter, so I'll ask, assuming for now that he's the candidate...

... Do you worry about Buttigieg not having sufficient appeal to POC? At least enough more than Hillary to increase her 2016 numbers in these states to flip them? Or put differently, do you think it is unlikely Buttigieg could generate enough POC support on his own?

... Do you think there's a concern that the non-minority 2016 Trump voters who are not eager to vote for him again might be more willing swing to the Dems in 2020 if the gay candidate were balanced by a more "traditional" candidate rather than someone they may perceive as another "non-mainstream" candidate? I'd like to think it would make no difference, but I worry that it might, i.e. that the potential Trump defector who says, "okay, maybe I can go with the gay Buttigieg" may find the addition of a Stacey Abrams to yield a ticket that crosses the threshold of being too "other" for them to be comfortable with. If so, then gains in some voter groups (or even states?) could possibly be more than offset by losses in others. I hope we're ready for a winning ticket that doesn't include a white hetero male, but are we there yet?

[Celerity]

65. IF he were to get the nomination, I would hope he would chose

a POC (preferably female, and for full disclosure, I am a female POC myself) as his running mate. Kamala Harris (my first choice for VP and 2nd choice for POTUS if Pete doesn't win the nomination) or Stacey Abrams would be the first 2 that come to mind. I also would love to see him as their VP pick (that assumes Abrams runs for POTUS and not the Senate). I think he is so eloquent and deeply reflective upon minority voter's concerns that he would overcome most issues there, especially if he chooses a great VP (or is a VP candidate himself).

The best way to overcome the 'gay' question is for him to just be heard and gain exposure, IMHO. He strikes a great balance of not running from anything to do at all with his sexual orientation (in fact he weaves in his husband into many of his narratives), but also does not make it central to his messaging at all. The best way I can put it is that he just seems an extraordinary person who just happens to be LGBTQ (full disclosure, I am a lesbian and this is what my wife and I strive to do as well). He projects both steadiness, deep lucid thought, and also a vibrancy and natural, organic charisma.

[PatrickforO]

64. Which is why all of us need to continue to support the National Popular Vote Compact

I believe enough states have signed it now (agreeing to require their electors to vote in the same way as the national popular vote) to make up 189 electoral votes. Another few states making up 81 electoral votes and viola! we've hacked the antiquated electoral college system and forced presidential candidates into a 50 state strategy.

Colorado has just signed.

[Celerity]

66. +1

We need to get some pink and more purple states!