Should Democrats be concerned about maintaining their margins in urban centers? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2024, 11:04:41 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  2024 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, GeorgiaModerate, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  Should Democrats be concerned about maintaining their margins in urban centers? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Should Democrats be concerned about maintaining their margins in urban centers?  (Read 2324 times)
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,938


« on: January 17, 2021, 10:05:07 AM »
« edited: January 17, 2021, 10:16:50 AM by ProgressiveModerate »

One thing I'm surprised more people are talking about is how despite many suburbs swinging hard left, many city centers like Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Dallas, LA, ect, ect swung right. For the most part, these cities are so one sided that only winning a district 80-20 as opposed to 90-10 isn't going to make a difference, but if the GOP can continue to make gains in these city centers as Trump did, it might cancel out some of the suburban trend, and could potentially bring states like NY and IL into play down the road. What do you think?
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,938


« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2021, 04:22:05 PM »

No, because this reduces our geographical disadvantage.
We should still campaign in these places and try our best to get as many votes as possible, but the current geography is awful for Dems. These new shifts aren’t a terrible thing if we can balance them out with other gains.
If anything we should prioritize doing better in Mid size cities/towns in smaller states such as Boise, SLC, and Anchorage where the city itself is large enough to determine the state.



Boise definitely isn’t large enough to determine the whole state. Dems could handily win Ada county but that won’t change the fact that Idaho is safe R.

No, but between Boise growing and improving in a bunch of other smaller cities throughout the state could set the Democrats in a good place to make ID competative down the road. MT, UT, KS, and AK are examples of where this sort of strategy may be achievable in the near future.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,938


« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2021, 04:25:54 PM »

No, because this reduces our geographical disadvantage.
We should still campaign in these places and try our best to get as many votes as possible, but the current geography is awful for Dems. These new shifts aren’t a terrible thing if we can balance them out with other gains.
If anything we should prioritize doing better in Mid size cities/towns in smaller states such as Boise, SLC, and Anchorage where the city itself is large enough to determine the state.



For the sake of the House and Senate, that may be true, but if IL and/or NY become competative on the Presidential level for instance, that could cause some real issues. It could also revert GA to being red and basically any state where politics are dominated by 1 specific city gets redder.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 12 queries.