Should we consider IA and OH lean Republican states in the 2020 election?

[Sumner 1868]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

[Sumner 1868]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

[Sumner 1868]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

[Sumner 1868]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

[Sumner 1868]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

Read the above again, there is the argument.

Let me rephrase - there is no argument beyond claim. There is no reasoning.

[Sumner 1868]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

Read the above again, there is the argument.

Let me rephrase - there is no argument beyond claim. There is no reasoning.

When I say read the above, I mean read the first post on this page again.  I added an expanded argument to it just for you

Do you believe Romney would have won the 2012 election if he just dog whistled a bit more?

[Sumner 1868]

It's weird so many on this forum think Iowa is "safe R" now. Why? Any Democratic messaging that wins back the industrial areas of Ohio return to fold will them back in Iowa as well, and the rural swing was because the state had it's worst fall in farmland value since the crisis of the 1980s rather then some creeping ultraconservatism. Are people just not interested in looking past 2016?

A few posters on a similar thread have given the usual lazy excuse of "white rural" causing the swing somehow, and I recall one even said that because Nebraska also has corn Iowa must be Republican.

Because this state and others in the Midwest are now starting to like and buy the argument of you vs. them( Being a visible minority, LGBT, immigrate).  The only way to counter that is to go back on some of those positions, which would destroy what apathetic support these groups have for the party left.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the notion that these people are going to vote for a progressive agenda which features social justice for all Americans. 

So I'll just assume that since you just keep posting that, you have no counter argument against what I'm saying.

There is no argument to counter because you never made an argument. That was the point I was trying to make but clearly it failed miserably.

Read the above again, there is the argument.

Let me rephrase - there is no argument beyond claim. There is no reasoning.

When I say read the above, I mean read the first post on this page again.  I added an expanded argument to it just for you

Do you believe Romney would have won the 2012 election if he just dog whistled a bit more?

It was a bit more complicated than that during that election, considering the Bain Capital arguments but yeah.  He could have made it much closer doing some more dog whistles.   Republicans use them because they work wonders. 
I'm saying that the dog whistles which were common in the South in the 1990's and 2000's are likely to work much better than they had in the past in the Industrial Midwest.  Whites in these areas are probably going to start to become polarised on race lines, and the only way in my mind to stop that is not focusing on those issues; which as I already said would destroy the turnout power of many POC, especially those who are younger and want a party to stand up against these issues.

This probably won't get caught by you but I personally think comparing 2012 to 2016 is not possible.  The fundamentals of each election are so diametrically opposed that it seems each election took place in a much different America. 

Well, POC issues (I assume your referring primarily to publicization of racial shootings by law enforcement in recent years, but correct me if I'm wrong) weren't really the focus of either Clinton or Sanders campaigns. That said, if you believe that racial polarization is only going to increase in the coming years, than we would  have to assume these issues aren't going to see any progress anytime soon. Which means everyone is running in circles.