Given the close result, was the 2020 environment really that bad? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 09:10:20 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Given the close result, was the 2020 environment really that bad? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Given the close result, was the 2020 environment really that bad?  (Read 2559 times)
Pres Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,485
United States


« on: June 04, 2022, 06:45:35 PM »

It was closer than the national environment would suggest because the recession was Covid-induced (and as we know now, only lasted two months) and anyone blaming Trump for it was never going to vote for him anyway.
Yeah this was always a weird talking point.

"Trump had 15% unemployment! The economy is horrible! Entire industries are going bankrupt!"

Weren't Democrats the ones most vocal about folks staying home? True or not, the narrative was Trump wanted people shopping and back to work. Kids in school.

That hurt Democrats with Hispanics in Nevada and Texas. And the losses in VA and NJ in 2021.

Plus it was a "COVID" recession. No one blamed Trump for record unemployment. Nothing he did cause that. Anyone who blamed him wasn't going to vote for him at all.

Nor did most Americans think it was a real "Recession". It wasn't like in 2007 when the balance sheets for big companies led to layoffs. People assumed everyone would go back to normal once COVID was defeated.

Logged
Pres Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,485
United States


« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2022, 06:48:26 PM »

In retrospect, Democrats' decision to reduce in-person campaigning as a result of the pandemic did hurt them in many places. For example, a prominent Democratic political strategist from Florida pointed out that Republican gains in South Florida in 2020 were partially the result of Democrats reducing in-person campaigning and their failure to adequately respond to misinformation about their party and their candidates (he mentioned that Obama's success in FL was partly because he went into various communities there and directly confronted misinformation about himself with those voters). I do think that Democrats would probably have won by a bigger margin (and possibly won more seats in Congress) had they done a little more in-person campaigning (albeit still trying to maintain safety precautions whenever possible).
I agree the ban on in person campaigning hurt Democrats. Probably cost them a few house seats.

But other than NC, where else would it have affected at the presidential or senate level? Sure AZ/GA/WI were too close for comfort so some extra padding would have been nice.

But I doubt it would have flipped FL or TX.
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 0.019 seconds with 13 queries.