Which Dem can win general election in 2020?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:most people who know anything about politics will admit that the swing states are the key to the elections

The problem is that getting too swing-state oriented (in terms of resources and rhetoric) puts congressional races in non-swing states at risk, which is why no one with any discernible power or statute will ever say that only swing states matter.

IMO the bigger issue is that both parties waste time and resources on fake swing states (i.e., ones that seem attainable but really aren't absent a seismic shift in which case they weren't tipping point in the first place). For example, in 2020 Democrats should focus less on TX, MO, AZ, and possibly even OH. They should try to force the Republicans to play defense in NC, GA, and IA though. On the other side, Republicans shouldn't bother with CO, NM, or VA and should instead force the Democrats to play defense in MN, MI, WI, and PA. I think there are only a few completely up-for-grabs states -- FL, NV, and NH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:most people who know anything about politics will admit that the swing states are the key to the elections

The problem is that getting too swing-state oriented (in terms of resources and rhetoric) puts congressional races in non-swing states at risk, which is why no one with any discernible power or statute will ever say that only swing states matter.

IMO the bigger issue is that both parties waste time and resources on fake swing states (i.e., ones that seem attainable but really aren't absent a seismic shift in which case they weren't tipping point in the first place). For example, in 2020 Democrats should focus less on TX, MO, AZ, and possibly even OH. They should try to force the Republicans to play defense in NC, GA, and IA though. On the other side, Republicans shouldn't bother with CO, NM, or VA and should instead force the Democrats to play defense in MN, MI, WI, and PA. I think there are only a few completely up-for-grabs states -- FL, NV, and NH.

Great analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last three Democratic winner of the Presidency have been relative outsiders. Two southern Presidents and one first term Senator. It is likely that someone from the wilderness will emerge from the scrums of Iowa, NH and SC.

Steve Bullock

Bullock would probably lose his own state.

Might as well as get Tom Wolf (pa gov that just won re-election) to run.

At least he would carry PA and it is a much more consequential state than MT.

Not a bad idea. If he takes PA, he would aslo take OH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great analysis

Thanks! I just spent a few minutes playing on 270towin.com and it appears that, if the Democrats can take MN, MI, WI, and PA, that puts them at 268 only needing NV, NH, or FL for the win. FL is the hardest to flip IMO but would leave some margin for error with the rust-belt states and their outcomes tend not to be highly correlated due to the vastly different demographics.

One other twist is that the Democrats, if they had 268, could target both NE-2 and ME-2 -- both of which would put them at 270 as well.

Although an Electoral College tie would go to the House, votes are by state delegations (26 out of 50 to win) and Republicans have more of those even as the minority party.

[Anonymous]

FL just restored felon's voting rights. I don't think it's as hard to flip as you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FL just restored felon's voting rights. I don't think it's as hard to flip as you think.

With the right candidate, FL could be blue. Sen. Nelson was old and tired and barely campaigned, and he still almost won against Rick Scott who spent 3x what he did and who was pandering to the Puerto Ricans and Cubans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FL just restored felon's voting rights. I don't think it's as hard to flip as you think.

With the right candidate, FL could be blue. Sen. Nelson was old and tired and barely campaigned, and he still almost won against Rick Scott who spent 3x what he did and who was pandering to the Puerto Ricans and Cubans.

Nelson was an incumbent in a Democratic wave year. It's pretty pathetic that he lost, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hint: you need to engage and persuade voters, not insult then or intimidate them.

This is a strategic mistake IMO, and one of the reasons why Democrats lose many winnable elections. Apart from her other flaws, HRC wasted time and resources persuading and/or appealing to the moderates when doing so ran the risk of alienating a greater number of voters from her base. The juice is often not worth the squeeze.

I'm not saying that you insult or intimidate moderates, but energizing the base is typically an easier and more efficient way to win votes.

Actually the opposite. Her convention advertised cop-haters and "transgender" cross-dressers. She completely abandoned the middle-class economic message that got her husband elected twice. Democrats win when they focus on economic issues, not the radical social agenda which puts off most people outside the coasts. Rural counties in the Midwest which Obama had lost by 20 went for Trump by 50. Add them up and it's how she lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last three Democratic winner of the Presidency have been relative outsiders. Two southern Presidents and one first term Senator. It is likely that someone from the wilderness will emerge from the scrums of Iowa, NH and SC.

Steve Bullock

Bullock would probably lose his own state.

Might as well as get Tom Wolf (pa gov that just won re-election) to run.

At least he would carry PA and it is a much more consequential state than MT.

Not a bad idea. If he takes PA, he would aslo take OH.

Tom Wolf has zero charisma and he's a bald white guy. there's nothing wrong with that but I don't think the Dem base will be enthused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, what exactly are we supposed to do, then? Just sit back and watch these assholes destroy our system of government because people who aren't paying attention think we are "too angry" or "too aggressive" or whatever bullshit you are trying to tell us?

I honestly don't understand wtf you are trying to tell us. If it's to sit down and shut up, too bad - not happening.

I took my anger and directed it toward campaigning for candidates here in VA. I've gotten involved in the local party. Guess what? The candidates I knocked doors for and gave money to won. And I will continue to do so. WHILE remaining angry about every horrible thing this administration and the complicit republicans in congress and in the states visit on us/this country.

Complacency is what got us into this gigantic clustf@#$. I will not sit back like a good little girl and watch evil people ruin our country. If people are too lazy and/or stupid to realize what is happening right there in plain sight, I don't care what they think of me personally.

Hear hear. They mocked the women's march, they mocked the resistance - they insist it would all backfire in spectacular manner. I'd say that the midterms suggest otherwise. Keep on keeping on, sisters. 2020 is around the corner.

the "women's march" was full of rich, pampered women with nothing in their lives to actually be upset about. it was out of boredom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, what exactly are we supposed to do, then? Just sit back and watch these assholes destroy our system of government because people who aren't paying attention think we are "too angry" or "too aggressive" or whatever bullshit you are trying to tell us?

I honestly don't understand wtf you are trying to tell us. If it's to sit down and shut up, too bad - not happening.

I took my anger and directed it toward campaigning for candidates here in VA. I've gotten involved in the local party. Guess what? The candidates I knocked doors for and gave money to won. And I will continue to do so. WHILE remaining angry about every horrible thing this administration and the complicit republicans in congress and in the states visit on us/this country.

Complacency is what got us into this gigantic clustf@#$. I will not sit back like a good little girl and watch evil people ruin our country. If people are too lazy and/or stupid to realize what is happening right there in plain sight, I don't care what they think of me personally.

Hear hear. They mocked the women's march, they mocked the resistance - they insist it would all backfire in spectacular manner. I'd say that the midterms suggest otherwise. Keep on keeping on, sisters. 2020 is around the corner.

the "women's march" was full of rich, pampered women with nothing in their lives to actually be upset about. it was out of boredom.

so true! How many of the pussy marchers are good friends with the waitresses at the local iHop? It's nice to 1) have a flexible schedule or 2) have the leave to use.

How quickly we forget that money matters!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, what exactly are we supposed to do, then? Just sit back and watch these assholes destroy our system of government because people who aren't paying attention think we are "too angry" or "too aggressive" or whatever bullshit you are trying to tell us?

I honestly don't understand wtf you are trying to tell us. If it's to sit down and shut up, too bad - not happening.

I took my anger and directed it toward campaigning for candidates here in VA. I've gotten involved in the local party. Guess what? The candidates I knocked doors for and gave money to won. And I will continue to do so. WHILE remaining angry about every horrible thing this administration and the complicit republicans in congress and in the states visit on us/this country.

Complacency is what got us into this gigantic clustf@#$. I will not sit back like a good little girl and watch evil people ruin our country. If people are too lazy and/or stupid to realize what is happening right there in plain sight, I don't care what they think of me personally.

Hear hear. They mocked the women's march, they mocked the resistance - they insist it would all backfire in spectacular manner. I'd say that the midterms suggest otherwise. Keep on keeping on, sisters. 2020 is around the corner.

the "women's march" was full of rich, pampered women with nothing in their lives to actually be upset about. it was out of boredom.

Case in point of why women, particularly educated women, are abandoning the GOP in droves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, what exactly are we supposed to do, then? Just sit back and watch these assholes destroy our system of government because people who aren't paying attention think we are "too angry" or "too aggressive" or whatever bullshit you are trying to tell us?

I honestly don't understand wtf you are trying to tell us. If it's to sit down and shut up, too bad - not happening.

I took my anger and directed it toward campaigning for candidates here in VA. I've gotten involved in the local party. Guess what? The candidates I knocked doors for and gave money to won. And I will continue to do so. WHILE remaining angry about every horrible thing this administration and the complicit republicans in congress and in the states visit on us/this country.

Complacency is what got us into this gigantic clustf@#$. I will not sit back like a good little girl and watch evil people ruin our country. If people are too lazy and/or stupid to realize what is happening right there in plain sight, I don't care what they think of me personally.

Hear hear. They mocked the women's march, they mocked the resistance - they insist it would all backfire in spectacular manner. I'd say that the midterms suggest otherwise. Keep on keeping on, sisters. 2020 is around the corner.

the "women's march" was full of rich, pampered women with nothing in their lives to actually be upset about. it was out of boredom.

Case in point of why women, particularly educated women, are abandoning the GOP in droves.

+1
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/02/us/politics/republicans-midterms-house-losses.html
Republicans are alarmed at the possibility that disgust with President Trump among suburbanites and women may not dissipate in 2020, when he will likely be on the ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, what exactly are we supposed to do, then? Just sit back and watch these assholes destroy our system of government because people who aren't paying attention think we are "too angry" or "too aggressive" or whatever bullshit you are trying to tell us?

I honestly don't understand wtf you are trying to tell us. If it's to sit down and shut up, too bad - not happening.

I took my anger and directed it toward campaigning for candidates here in VA. I've gotten involved in the local party. Guess what? The candidates I knocked doors for and gave money to won. And I will continue to do so. WHILE remaining angry about every horrible thing this administration and the complicit republicans in congress and in the states visit on us/this country.

Complacency is what got us into this gigantic clustf@#$. I will not sit back like a good little girl and watch evil people ruin our country. If people are too lazy and/or stupid to realize what is happening right there in plain sight, I don't care what they think of me personally.

Hear hear. They mocked the women's march, they mocked the resistance - they insist it would all backfire in spectacular manner. I'd say that the midterms suggest otherwise. Keep on keeping on, sisters. 2020 is around the corner.

the "women's march" was full of rich, pampered women with nothing in their lives to actually be upset about. it was out of boredom.

you're hilarious! please keep mocking - you make us stronger and more resolute. your weakness and stupidity is delicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last three Democratic winner of the Presidency have been relative outsiders. Two southern Presidents and one first term Senator. It is likely that someone from the wilderness will emerge from the scrums of Iowa, NH and SC.

Steve Bullock

Bullock would probably lose his own state.

Might as well as get Tom Wolf (pa gov that just won re-election) to run.

At least he would carry PA and it is a much more consequential state than MT.

Not a bad idea. If he takes PA, he would aslo take OH.

Tom Wolf has zero charisma and he's a bald white guy. there's nothing wrong with that but I don't think the Dem base will be enthused.

Pp who floated wolf’s name - I agree but my comment was to underscore how ridiculous the bullock suggestion was by another poster.

No one cares about some boring white guy who wears bolo ties and cowboy boots.