Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31480
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#1

Post by Addie » Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:27 am

Politico
‘The map is different now’: Trump blows the 2020 race wide open

The next presidential campaign is going to be fought on unfamiliar battlegrounds.


For years, presidential campaigns followed relatively predictable lines of trench warfare, with the outcome decided in a handful of battleground states.

But the era of the hardened electoral map — 40 of 50 states voted for the same party from 2000 to 2012 — may be coming to an end.

Interviews with more than two dozen politicians, consultants and activists throughout the country suggest that between Donald Trump’s sweep through the upper Midwest and the demographic shifts powering Democrats in the South and West, the field of competitive states stands to be dramatically reshaped in 2020.

Minnesota, which hasn’t gone for Republican for president in nearly a half-century, suddenly rates high on the GOP wish list. Arizona and Georgia, until recent years considered red-state locks, are undeniably within Democratic reach.

Democrats are engaged in shoot-the-moon speculation about Texas — the red citadel of the modern GOP — while Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, views Colorado as a target despite three consecutive Republican defeats there.
Adding for reference, the 2016 Map:

Democracy is a garden that has to be tended. -Barack Obama

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31480
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#2

Post by Addie » Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:08 pm

Daily Beast
Wisconsin Elections Suggest Trump Is Losing His Grip on the Rust Belt

Journalist Dan Kaufman makes a case in ‘The Fall of Wisconsin’ that Democrats are primed for a comeback.


Donald Trump won Wisconsin in 2016, but he did not surge to victory there. Whatever narrative of populist fervor you may have assigned to Trump’s election night surprise, he won Wisconsin with 6,000 fewer votes than Mitt Romney got there four years earlier. ...

Clinton underperformed Obama’s 2012 total in Wisconsin by 239,000 votes—15 percent of his total—which is how Trump was able to win there with sub-Romney numbers. And it’s only gotten worse for Trump in the nearly two years since. His 35 percent approval rating in Wisconsin is well below the national average, and two-thirds of the state’s voters say they’re ready for a new president in 2020.

In The Fall of Wisconsin, his new book about the state’s recent political history, Kaufman paints an optimistic case for Democrats to retake the state in 2020 if the party nominates a presidential candidate who generates more excitement there than Hillary Clinton did. (It’s almost certain the 2020 Democratic nominee will actually campaign in Wisconsin. Clinton did not.)

Kaufman sat down with The Daily Beast to talk about the past, present and future of Wisconsin politics.
Democracy is a garden that has to be tended. -Barack Obama

User avatar
Till Eulenspiegel
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:55 am
Location: France
Occupation: Lawyer (retired )

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#3

Post by Till Eulenspiegel » Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:07 pm

Addie wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 12:08 pm
Daily Beast
Wisconsin Elections Suggest Trump Is Losing His Grip on the Rust Belt

Journalist Dan Kaufman makes a case in ‘The Fall of Wisconsin’ that Democrats are primed for a comeback.

.........snip

Donald Trump won Wisconsin in 2016, but he did not surge to victory there. Whatever narrative of populist fervor you may have assigned to Trump’s election night surprise, he won Wisconsin with 6,000 fewer votes than Mitt Romney got there four years earlier. ...

Clinton underperformed Obama’s 2012 total in Wisconsin by 239,000 votes—15 percent of his total—which is how
In The Fall of Wisconsin, his new book about the state’s recent political history, Kaufman paints an optimistic case for Democrats to retake the state in 2020 if the party nominates a presidential candidate who generates more excitement there than Hillary Clinton did. (It’s almost certain the 2020 Democratic nominee will actually campaign in Wisconsin. Clinton did not.)

Kaufman sat down with The Daily Beast to talk about the past, present and future of Wisconsin politics.
hear hear !
„Er aber, sag’s ihm, er kann mich im Arsche lecken!“ - J.W. Goethe - Götz von Berlichingen

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31480
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#4

Post by Addie » Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:09 am

Vox - Matt Yglesias
Trump voters stood by Trump in the midterms — but there just aren’t enough of them

Back in 2016, Donald Trump got about 46 percent of the vote nationally, 2 percentage points less than Hillary Clinton. But his support was so artfully distributed that he earned the crucial electoral votes of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Two years later, his party got creamed in elections of the US House of Representatives, losing 35 to 40 seats despite a map whose geography favors the GOP even more strongly than the Electoral College does. It looks like, though, when all the votes from California are in, Republicans will have earned just about 46 percent of the vote nationally — almost exactly the same share as two years ago. ...

There were never enough Trump voters to form a majority of the electorate. And that, more than suburban backlash or anything else, is what did in Republicans on Tuesday. The Trump voters stood by Trump and voted Republican, but this time around, everyone else voted for the Democrats. And the Democrats won. ...

But the central reality of the 2016 campaign is that both major parties’ nominees were unusually unpopular. The typical scenario in 21st-century presidential campaigns has been for even the losing candidate to be viewed favorably by at least a narrow majority of the population. But 2016 gave us a unique scenario in which both nominees were underwater, leaving voters who approved of neither candidate as a crucial swing constituency. ...

Through it all, the press would stop from time to time to remark on how attuned Trump was to his base, and how perfect he was at picking various fights — with the media, with the nation of Canada, with immigrants, with the FBI’s counterintelligence division — that played to his base’s sensibilities.

This was all probably true. (Though, again, wet-noodle Romney got a higher share of the vote.) But it was also somewhat bizarre. Winning the presidency while losing the popular vote 46-48 is within the rules of the game, but it left Trump with a negative margin of error. The math was plain as day that all Democrats had to do was consolidate the people who didn’t like Trump and they’d blow the Republicans out.

User avatar
Bill_G
Posts: 734
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:10 am
Location: Portland OR
Occupation: I work at being pleasantly surprised everyday.

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#5

Post by Bill_G » Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:08 pm

The math was plain as day that all Democrats had to do was consolidate the people who didn’t like Trump and they’d blow the Republicans out.
... and come up with a viable, strong, energetic candidate that people with rally behind. We don't need Hillary II. It's time to scour the country, and groom someone for the position.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16567
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#6

Post by Suranis » Sat Nov 10, 2018 8:44 pm

Bill_G wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:08 pm
... and come up with a viable, strong, energetic candidate that people with rally behind. We don't need Hillary II. It's time to scour the country, and groom someone for the position.
There isnt a single Candidate you could muster that would not be ripped apart ny the Left and the Right. See Obama in 2007 and 2008.

You have this fantasy of this godlike superman that will sweep all before him with his cleft chin and movie star looks, but, sorry, all you have is flawed human beings to choose from. I'm sorry, and I know you don't want to undergo the pain of critisism and whatnot, but you will. No way to avoid it. Its time to accept tjat you wont have a perfect candidate and start preparing to run with one.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7857
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#7

Post by RVInit » Sat Nov 10, 2018 8:53 pm

No matter who the Democratic party nominee is, the Rethuglicans will manage to condense 30 years worth of demonization into 20 months or less. Count on it.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Bill_G
Posts: 734
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:10 am
Location: Portland OR
Occupation: I work at being pleasantly surprised everyday.

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#8

Post by Bill_G » Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:21 am

Suranis wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 8:44 pm
There isnt a single Candidate you could muster that would not be ripped apart ny the Left and the Right. See Obama in 2007 and 2008.

You have this fantasy of this godlike superman that will sweep all before him with his cleft chin and movie star looks, but, sorry, all you have is flawed human beings to choose from. I'm sorry, and I know you don't want to undergo the pain of critisism and whatnot, but you will. No way to avoid it. Its time to accept tjat you wont have a perfect candidate and start preparing to run with one.
Bravo. Great job on demonstrating aggressive political tactics by falsely attributing beliefs to me without evidence, breathless spittle and all. :clap:

That is exactly what candidates go through, and the higher the office they aspire, the wider the field of attack. The right person has to possess a special mettle to do more than survive. They have to thrive in it. My suggestion is to look through current and recent Democratic governors for that special someone. That's where we found Clinton in 92.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10348
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#9

Post by Mikedunford » Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:45 am

Suranis wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 8:44 pm
Bill_G wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:08 pm
... and come up with a viable, strong, energetic candidate that people with rally behind. We don't need Hillary II. It's time to scour the country, and groom someone for the position.
There isnt a single Candidate you could muster that would not be ripped apart ny the Left and the Right. See Obama in 2007 and 2008.

You have this fantasy of this godlike superman that will sweep all before him with his cleft chin and movie star looks, but, sorry, all you have is flawed human beings to choose from. I'm sorry, and I know you don't want to undergo the pain of critisism and whatnot, but you will. No way to avoid it. Its time to accept tjat you wont have a perfect candidate and start preparing to run with one.
Obama got ripped apart by the left. But he was still a strong, energetic candidate that people could - and did, in massive numbers - rally behind.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Bill_G
Posts: 734
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:10 am
Location: Portland OR
Occupation: I work at being pleasantly surprised everyday.

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#10

Post by Bill_G » Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:44 am

Mikedunford wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:45 am

Obama got ripped apart by the left. But he was still a strong, energetic candidate that people could - and did, in massive numbers - rally behind.
Obama was a crap magnet on a whole new level. People tried to engage me in political debate even at Radio Shack. Rallies in Portland were gigantic. True Come to Jesus events. And he freaked out Righties worse than Clinton's blue helmets and black helicopters. 2008 was an amazing year. I don't know that there is someone in the wings with that kind of draw, but we won't know without trying.

User avatar
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater
Posts: 5141
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#11

Post by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater » Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:51 am

Well could anyone say back at the start of the primaries in 2007 that they thought Obama had a shot over Edwards and Clinton. It's entirely possible in the next two years someone could emerge with the same dynamic energy he had

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10348
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#12

Post by Mikedunford » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:06 pm

Beto.

2 years ago, I would have said Warren (actually, I think I might have said it then). Not as sure about her now, but time will tell. Haven't seen enough of Kamala Harris to have a firm opinion.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 9547
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#13

Post by Chilidog » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:36 pm

Bill_G wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:44 am

Obama was a crap magnet on a whole new level.
Projection won't get you far, here.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16567
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#14

Post by Suranis » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:41 pm

Bill_G wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:21 am

Bravo. Great job on demonstrating aggressive political tactics by falsely attributing beliefs to me without evidence, breathless spittle and all. :clap:

That is exactly what candidates go through, and the higher the office they aspire, the wider the field of attack. The right person has to possess a special mettle to do more than survive. They have to thrive in it. My suggestion is to look through current and recent Democratic governors for that special someone. That's where we found Clinton in 92.
Actually I was responding to a lot of discussions I've seen around the net where people started puttingtogether a jigsaw of the "perfect candidate to take on Trump" which no-one could match, and which people were priming themselves to be disapointed about no matter who emerges. So I'm sorry.

YOu make good points about the personal resolve of someone willing to thake on the task.

Personally I'd like to see Eric Holder, the guy has spent time in the fire, he is very personable, and he is as tough as nails. While I like Warren I just dont see her as Presidential material. She would be a great VP I think.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#15

Post by Dan1100 » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:48 pm

As I've said before, the best role for Elizabeth Warren is to stand out front, take the brunt of the abuse from the right wing hate machine, and then step aside and be Secretary of the Treasury and/or Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7857
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#16

Post by RVInit » Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:55 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:06 pm
Beto.

2 years ago, I would have said Warren (actually, I think I might have said it then). Not as sure about her now, but time will tell. Haven't seen enough of Kamala Harris to have a firm opinion.
:like:
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31480
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#17

Post by Addie » Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:04 am

NBC News: New election map: Ohio, Colorado no longer swing states

The results for November 6th, suggest that the battleground states of 2020 may look a bit different than they did in the 2016 campaign.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31480
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#18

Post by Addie » Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:12 am

McClatchy
‘The new swing states:’ Presidential battleground map shifts heading into 2020

Democrats and Republicans see a reshuffled map for the next presidential campaign that puts a handful of upper Midwest and Sun Belt states at the center and minimizes the role of some traditional battlegrounds.

After the Democrats’ suburban dominance and the GOP’s rural success in the 2018 elections, members of both parties say they think the Republican strongholds of Arizona and Georgia will come more into play in 2020, while the swing states of Ohio and Iowa are increasingly turning red.

And there’s general agreement that at the outset of the 2020 contest, three historically Democratic-leaning midwestern states President Donald Trump flipped in 2016 -- Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- along with the perennial battleground of Florida will be at the core of the fight.

“In a really close race, I believe Florida and the three industrial Midwest states will matter the most,” said Democratic pollster Paul Maslin, a presidential campaign veteran. “We don’t have a big margin for error here. It’s going to be extremely competitive.”

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31480
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#19

Post by Addie » Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:59 am

CityLab
Why Suburban Swing Voters May Be Less Common Than You Think

A new poll finds that far from being more moderate than urban or rural voters, suburbanites are actually more partisan.


The popular image of America’s suburbs as a realm of swing voters, moderates, and independents is wrong, a new poll suggests. In fact, suburban voters are much less likely to be political independents than either urban or rural voters. Only 15 percent of the poll’s suburban respondents were independents, lower than the rate among rural or urban residents.

What makes the suburbs politically distinct in America may not be moderation, but rather a more even split between Democrats and Republicans than exists in left-leaning cities or right-leaning rural areas.

“I think people reached the conclusion that there must be a lot of independents and swing voters in the suburbs,” said Christopher Berry, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, who conducted the poll with the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. “We found suburbs were just as partisan, if not more so than other areas. The reason elections were closer there was because there was a more even balance of partisans there, not because there’s more independents.”

Of course, “the suburbs” is a huge category, encompassing around half of the country’s population.1 Some individual suburbs are quite conservative, some quite liberal, and some moderate. But taken as a whole, suburban America shows no signs of the political independence often attributed to it. That’s true whether self-described independents are lumped in with the party they lean toward, or whether they are broken out into their own category.

CityLab previously documented how suburban areas swung the 2018 U.S. House election using the CityLab Congressional Density Index, which classifies each district based on the density of the neighborhoods within it. Before 2018, predominantly suburban House districts were closely divided between Democrats and Republicans, but after significant Democratic gains they now lean sharply left.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31480
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#20

Post by Addie » Wed Feb 27, 2019 6:56 am

Newsweek
Donald Trump Approval Rating Above 50 Percent in Just 17 States in '18, Worth Only 102 Electoral College Votes

President Donald Trump's approval rating hit or topped 50 percent in 17 states in 2018, according to the results of a recent Gallup survey. ...

The president found his strongest 2018 support in the South and Mountain West regions of the country, Gallup found in the survey released last week. States giving Trump the highest approval ratings were West Virginia at 62 percent; Wyoming, 61 percent; North Dakota, 58 percent; Alaska, 56 percent; Mississippi, 56 percent; Alabama, 55 percent; Tennessee, 54 percent; Kentucky, 53 percent; and Arkansas, 53 percent.

Trump's lowest levels of support came mostly from the Northeast. States with the lowest approval ratings were Hawaii, at 26 percent; Vermont, 28 percent; Massachusetts, 29 percent; California, 29 percent; Maryland, 31 percent; New York, 32 percent; Illinois, 35 percent; New Jersey, 35 percent; New Hampshire, 35 percent; Rhode Island, 36 percent; Washington, 36 percent; and Connecticut, 36 percent.

Should Trump win every state that shows an approval rating higher than 50 percent, it would guaranty him 102 electoral votes. The states where his approval rating is below 40 percent account for 201 electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

"In order to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, Trump would have to win all but one or two of the states in which his 2018 approval rating was between 41 percent and 49 percent," noted Gallup. "Some of the more challenging states to win from among this group, based on that approval rating, would be Texas," at 41 percent; Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, all at 42 percent; and Arizona and Florida, at 43 percent, according to Gallup.

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 20321
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#21

Post by RTH10260 » Sun Mar 03, 2019 12:03 am

Unhappy with Trump and populists, Kochs for first time will intervene in GOP primaries

by David M. Drucker
| March 01, 2019 11:38 AM
| Updated Mar 01, 2019, 02:22 PM

OXON HILL, Md. — The Koch political network for the first time plans to intervene in GOP primaries as part of a deliberate 2020 strategy to reverse years of essentially rubber-stamping the Republican Party in general elections.

Disappointed with Republicans in Congress and occasionally at odds with President Trump, the coalition of political groups overseen by Charles Koch has been re-evaluating its engagement in federal campaigns. Playing in GOP primaries to elect more like-minded Republicans to the House and Senate is key tactical adjustment the network has agreed to, with a top Koch official confirming that incumbents could be targeted for defeat.

“We think that if we’re going to be more selective, you know, raise the bar before getting involved, that it makes sense, therefore, to do more primaries,” Tim Phillips, who runs Americans for Prosperity, the Koch grassroots arm, told the Washington Examiner on Thursday while making the rounds at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The Washington Examiner is a CPAC media sponsor.

“If your model is, be more selective — try to find people who are genuinely policy champions,” Phillips added, “then there are going to be times that the primary is the crucial aspect of being able to do that.”

Unhappy with Republicans and Trump on issues ranging from trade, to immigration, to deficits and debt, the Koch groups are scaling back their support for the GOP out of concern that they had become an organ of the party. Phillips said the network still plans to make a substantial investment in federal and state campaigns over the next two years. He emphasized that Koch has worked closely with the president and Republicans in Congress on criminal justice reform and the tax overhaul to achieve key policy victories.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... -primaries

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31480
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#22

Post by Addie » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:47 pm

FiveThirtyEight
We Re-Ordered The Entire Democratic Primary Calendar To Better Represent The Party’s Voters

Few things stay the same from one presidential primary season to another, but one remains constant: Iowa holds its caucuses first, and New Hampshire follows with its first-in-the-nation primary. But kicking off the primary season with these two states might not make sense for Democrats. These are two of the whitest states in the country, which makes their populations a poor reflection of the increasingly diverse Democratic Party.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say Democrats could order the primary calendar any way they wanted. How should they do it? One way would be to order primaries1 by how similar a state’s Democratic electorate is to the party’s nationwide voter base. The early states play a key role in winnowing the candidate field, and a state electorate that looks more like the party as a whole may vote in a way that better reflects the opinion of Democrats across the country.

To sort states by how much they resemble the larger party, I looked at the race, ethnicity and education levels of Democratic voters in each state using the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a survey of more than 50,000 people conducted by YouGov in conjunction with Harvard University.2 The CCES asks respondents who they voted for in the general election, so to estimate a state’s potential Democratic electorate, I included anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, plus anyone else who identified as a Democrat. From there, I broke the Democratic electorate into five groups: white voters with no college degree, white voters with a college degree, African-American voters, Hispanic voters, and “everyone else.”3 (I broke white voters into two groups because education is a particularly meaningful distinction among white Democrats — and white voters overall.) I then looked at how different each state’s demographic makeup was from that of the national Democratic Party electorate. This allowed me to sort states by which ones best reflected the party.4

And as you can see in the table below, Illinois is the state whose population comes closest to being a cross section of Democratic voters. So under this hypothetical where Democrats prioritize states that best reflect their party, Illinois would go first in the nominating process, and Iowa and New Hampshire would move toward the back of the line. Now, if this calendar followed the current setup where four “carve-out” states vote by themselves at the start of the primary process, the three states after Illinois would be New Jersey, New York and Florida. Just after the first four would be Nevada, which currently goes third, reflecting the fact that there has been some effort to increase diversity at the start of the real presidential primary calendar.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 27969
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#23

Post by Foggy » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:59 pm

This highlights a serious problem with the primary/caucus schedule, because if you lose Iowa and New Hampshire, you are pretty much out of the race. People stop donating to your campaign, and the MSM writes you off, even though at that point, basically only white people have voted.

If there's some rational reason why Iowa and New Hampshire should always go first, I'm unaware of it. Who gives a crap about Dix Notch or whatever it is? :smoking:
"Islam loved Hitler and his elk.” - SSG Moe Ron

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31480
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#24

Post by Addie » Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:03 am

Reuters
Trump campaign preparing early focus on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign is preparing an early focus on Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, states that were instrumental to his improbable 2016 victory but where his support has softened, two campaign advisers said.

The decision to accelerate campaign organizing and eventually get the Republican president to make trips to the three states is a recognition that Trump’s path to re-election in 2020 will need to repeat some of the successes he had in 2016.

Advisers also see a need to bolster Trump’s support in Florida, a battleground state he considers his second home but where opinion polls show him struggling.

They also see an opportunity for gains in Minnesota and Colorado, two states Trump narrowly lost. The Trump team views those states as competitive places where the president can go on offense, according to the advisers, who asked not to be named so they could speak freely about the campaign strategy.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 31480
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Unfamiliar Battlefields, The 2020 Map

#25

Post by Addie » Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:01 pm

New York Times - Nate Cohn
Why Texas Is Nearing Battleground Status (It’s Not Just About Beto)

Hispanics represent the (elusive) upside for Democrats, but it’s a shift in white voters that is making the biggest difference. ...

But his performance may have demonstrated something else: Texas is on the doorstep of emerging as a battleground state, and any number of Democrats might stand a chance to compete there in 2020 for the presidency or the Senate.

His relatively close loss is promising for the party because he did not take full advantage of the longer-term trends that might put it over the top sooner than later. His strength came almost exclusively from white voters, not from the growing Hispanic population in the state.

None of this is to take away from his accomplishment. He did better than every Democrat running statewide in Texas in the 2018 midterms. It seems unlikely that many Democrats would have fared as well as he did, and you could argue it bodes well for his chances in a presidential race. But on balance his success was a reflection of deeper trends.

Mr. O’Rourke’s close result wasn’t because of an exceptional turnout that will be hard for other Democrats to repeat in 2020. Republican voters, defined as those who have participated in a recent Republican primary, turned out at a higher rate than Democratic ones. Neither the Hispanic nor youth voter share of the electorate was higher than it was in 2016, when President Trump won the state by nine points.

On the contrary, Democrats in 2020 can be expected to enjoy a more favorable turnout because presidential races tend to draw in more young and Hispanic voters. Mr. O’Rourke might have won Texas last November if turnout had been at the level of a contested presidential race, based on an Upshot analysis of Times/Siena poll responses, actual results and voter file data from L2, a nonpartisan voter file vendor.

Post Reply

Return to “Presidential Election”