|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 09:35:35 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: VirginiŠ)
  538: Maybe Trump Didnít Remake The Political Map
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 538: Maybe Trump Didnít Remake The Political Map  (Read 2473 times)
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,365
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 29, 2017, 04:26:22 pm »
« edited: June 29, 2017, 05:37:31 pm by Technocracy Timmy »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not surprising. I've always been skeptical of this idea that college educated Romney Republicans will shift in any considerable way to the Party that's parading people like Warren and Sanders.
Logged
VirginiŠ
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,156
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2017, 04:49:28 pm »

Democrats outperforming Clinton the most in areas she underperformed Obama is pretty good news for Democrats. That does expand the playing field when taken in combination with districts where Clinton substantially outperformed Obama. It's better, but still an issue as neither Obama 2012 nor Clinton 2016 won a majority of Congressional districts.

All I can say is that 2018 is going to be very interesting. Most of us have only really seen what elections look like under Obama, and now we get to see if many of the trends we saw are going to stick, or if we can still compete in places that might have seen lost. After all, it's a much different story when you have an unpopular GOP incumbent president as opposed to a Democrat.
Logged
The Saint
TheSaint250
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,870


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2017, 05:02:29 pm »

This trend was kinda going to be a one-time thing. There are no real successors or any other people who have the views that trump does. If a social conservative/Tea Party person (including Pence) gets the nomination in 2020 or 2024, things will easily revert to what they were.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,365
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2017, 05:25:46 pm »
« Edited: June 29, 2017, 05:37:55 pm by Technocracy Timmy »

This trend was kinda going to be a one-time thing. There are no real successors or any other people who have the views that trump does. If a social conservative/Tea Party person (including Pence) gets the nomination in 2020 or 2024, things will easily revert to what they were.

Agreed. The idea that post-2016 the Democratic Party would become the upscale fiscally centrist Party while the GOP would morph into an economically populist working class Party never seemed to make any sense to me. The Democratic Party going back to Andrew Jackson and Franklin Roosevelt have represented working class voters with an economically populist platform. The GOP going back to the industrial northern business interests of Lincoln and McKinley have been the Party of economic classical liberalism.

I don't see a single election that saw only 6 states flip from 2012-2016 somehow undoing the entire 150 year history and structure of both Parties in such a drastic way. And of course, Trump now is governing so much like a standard Republican that even Mitch McConnell has openly said it's like having President Jeb Bush. And outside of killing a trade deal that was unlikely to pass anyhow; Trump is basically Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio in his policies. At the same time, you have people like Warren and Sanders driving the direction of the Democratic Party. I don't see any realignment happening with the possible exception of foreign policy.
Logged
PragmaticPopulist
Atlas Politician
Jr. Member
*****
Posts: 1,934
Ireland, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -5.57

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2017, 05:37:45 pm »

I suspected 2016 was mostly a one-off. I don't think it would be good for the Democratic Party to become a solely cosmopolitan party. I'd be satisfied if Democrats seriously contest some rural districts they lost in 2014, such as IL-12 and NY-21. However, I also think the sunbelt district where Hillary Clinton overperformed are trending D, they just aren't quite in a position yet to be won by a Democrat. Maybe when a few incumbents retire, they'll truly be competitive.
Logged
Nyvin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,884
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2017, 03:56:30 pm »

I would disagree.   The white working class voters show the beginnings of voting like a minority group does.   It might only be the beginning of a new trend, but the trend is definitely there and the interests of those people are real too.   

The Democratic Party might be becoming too cosmopolitan/globalist for them and the traditional strength of the Dem party with those people are unions, and those are disappearing fast.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,449
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2017, 04:31:09 pm »

I would disagree.   The white working class voters show the beginnings of voting like a minority group does.   It might only be the beginning of a new trend, but the trend is definitely there and the interests of those people are real too.   

The Democratic Party might be becoming too cosmopolitan/globalist for them and the traditional strength of the Dem party with those people are unions, and those are disappearing fast.

I keep seeing this word, and I had a question in another thread that got answered.  What about the Democratic Party is overly cosmopolitan?  Is the Black single mother who's never left west Chicago "cosmopolitan" because she's not a White rural Southerner?  Is the poor Hispanic farmer in California "cosmopolitan" because he speaks Spanish?  Is the music major who hangs out at Starbucks REALLY more "cosmopolitan" than the finance major who doesn't give a shlt about the liberal arts but has been to Paris twice with his family?

My point is that just because Democrats win big metro areas doesn't mean their voter base or even the party platform is "cosmopolitan," especially when a lot of the voters that help them get such big margins in those areas are about as UN-cosmopolitan as they come.  Not trying to offend anyone, I just think this characterization of a metropolitan Democratic Party vs. a bunch of rednecks is ... well, at best lazy and at worst, intentionally deceptive and self-absorbed.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,365
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2017, 04:37:36 pm »
« Edited: June 30, 2017, 04:39:08 pm by Technocracy Timmy »

I would disagree.   The white working class voters show the beginnings of voting like a minority group does.   It might only be the beginning of a new trend, but the trend is definitely there and the interests of those people are real too.  

The Democratic Party might be becoming too cosmopolitan/globalist for them and the traditional strength of the Dem party with those people are unions, and those are disappearing fast.

Maybe this would happen if Trump actually began governing like an economic populist, had a GOP congress that was willing to go along with that kind of agenda, 2016 was a realigning election, and the structures of both political parties suddenly switched after 150 years. Lower income and noncollege educated voters are much less likely to be partisan loyalists compared to  their college educated and higher income peers and are very swingable. Internationally, we just saw a similar event happen with many former UKIP voters going for Corbyn's Labour Party.

But none of that has happened or is happening. The recent special elections suggest that 2016 was a blip and that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Trump ran as a more isolationist, economically populist Republican which was definitely gonna create some bizarre trends but without any actual congressional support for his agenda plus Trump's unwillingness to commit to his agenda (see how Trumpcare compares to his comments on the campaign trail), this isn't going anywhere in the medium or long term.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,999
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2017, 04:43:59 pm »

I disagree with this, like I generally do with most of what 538 publishes. If Trump wins reelection, he will do it by recreating the 2016 map and coalition. For the most part, the 2018 and 2020 elections will see a continuation of 2016 trends IMO.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,365
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2017, 04:53:59 pm »
« Edited: June 30, 2017, 05:08:16 pm by Technocracy Timmy »

I disagree with this, like I generally do with most of what 538 publishes. If Trump wins reelection, he will do it by recreating the 2016 map and coalition. For the most part, the 2018 and 2020 elections will see a continuation of 2016 trends IMO.

Well 2020 is probably a given if Trump is running since an incumbent's reelection map usually looks quite similar to their first map.

But I don't see this playing down-ballot at all when you look at the results of the recent special elections. You had GA-06 as lean D then Handel won by 3 points*. Enough upscale republicans are gonna give the middle finger every time to the Democrats no matter how much the DCCC tries to target them. They have no economic self interest in voting for Democratic representatives to go to D.C. and represent the agenda of Nancy Pelosi.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,365
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2017, 05:12:46 pm »

Handel only won by 3.6, not 5 points. This district used to be more Republican downballot.

Ossoff got less raw votes facing a non incumbent than the Democratic candidate running against Tom Price did in 2016. The idea that any significant number of anti-Trump republicans are flipping to the Democrats thus far has not been proven. And the Democrats couldn't have ran a more moderate candidate without alienating their base than Jon Ossof was. He opposed taxes on the rich, any step towards single payer, wanted to pursue defecit reduction, etc. If they can't win with this guy then they need to recognize that becoming a Fairfax, VA Party (which will alienate working class voters and progessives) will cause them to underperform nationally in 2018 and to lose outright in 2020.
Logged
Wherever you want to go, you can't go there!
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,397
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2017, 12:18:01 pm »

I think if there wasn't the huge collapse as there was in 2008, Obama would have won more narrowly and would have probably tried to finish running and have governed as an Anti-Trump. A "liberaltarian" populist who focused on social liveralism and economic fairness by stopping collusions between Big Business and Government as a way to help down and middle market people get ahead. I think that's why Montana almost voted for him. When the crash hit, he was forced to run as a run of the mill liberal and things kind of regressed to the mean. Maybe Democrats will get another chance to expand the Party? And maybe Trump's attempt will ultimately fail as well or be no more succesful as W's.
Logged
❤️❤️❤️
omegascarlet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,655


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2017, 12:59:19 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some parts of the article you seem to have missed. And trends tend to not manifest downballot as quickly. The republicans didn't suddenly control the south after 1964. They mostly dominated it upballot, but they had to slowly whittle away democratic dominance. It took 46 years for democrats to lose their ability to win downballot while republicans crushed higher up in the south, and even now there's still Manchin and Justice. Similar story for democrats in much of the suburban northeast. RI had a republican senator as recently as 2006.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,365
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2017, 04:37:35 pm »

^ By that logic we'd be waiting decades for the sunbelt to become competitive; so your analogy is incredibly faulty to begin with. Which Republican demographic group has Trump given the middle finger to the way LBJ did to white southerners when he signed the VRA and CRA into law? It cannot be Hispanics or millennials since neither of these groups have ever voted for a Republican. Is it upscale suburban Republicans? Because these voters are perfectly content so far with Trump abandoning his populist economic rhetoric (something they did not like about him) and pursuing tax cuts, deregulation, etc.

And don't try and argue that these voters are somehow less racist and less bigoted because they're wealthy or more cosmopolitan. They typically live in the most cookie cutter white flight suburbs imaginable for a reason. They're also just as likely as their lower income counterparts to be socially conservative which is why even here in this coastal republican suburb there's a church every 5 feet.

Nobody is denying that the sunbelt is trending D (because of minority and millennial growth; not some BS fantasy of upscale republicans voting Democrat down-ballot), but the special election results thus far have demonstrated that the rust belt has more short term potential than the sunbelt. That was the crux of the article and you seemed to have conveniently ignored that entirely. Do you have some kind of agenda to push? Or do you just seriously despise the idea of Democrats reaching out to working class white voters?
Logged
VirginiŠ
Virginia
Administrator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,156
Ukraine


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2017, 04:55:27 pm »

On a non-content-based note, I would point out that if he had included all that text, I'd probably be forced to substantially trim his post (or ask him to) due to copyright issues Tongue

I mean after all, put together that is most of the article right there.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2017, 05:22:54 pm »

Handel only won by 3.6, not 5 points. This district used to be more Republican downballot.

Ossoff got less raw votes facing a non incumbent than the Democratic candidate running against Tom Price did in 2016. The idea that any significant number of anti-Trump republicans are flipping to the Democrats thus far has not been proven. And the Democrats couldn't have ran a more moderate candidate without alienating their base than Jon Ossof was. He opposed taxes on the rich, any step towards single payer, wanted to pursue defecit reduction, etc. If they can't win with this guy then they need to recognize that becoming a Fairfax, VA Party (which will alienate working class voters and progessives) will cause them to underperform nationally in 2018 and to lose outright in 2020.

Opposed Taxes on the rich
-Yeah that's a bad thing. Probably eventually taxes will have to be raised on everybody.

Any step toward Single Payer-That's a good thing since I am not a single payer advocate.

Wanted To Pursue Deficit Reduction
-That's a good thing since we are 20 trillion in the hole.
Logged
❤️❤️❤️
omegascarlet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,655


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2017, 05:49:29 pm »

^ By that logic we'd be waiting decades for the sunbelt to become competitive; so your analogy is incredibly faulty to begin with. Which Republican demographic group has Trump given the middle finger to the way LBJ did to white southerners when he signed the VRA and CRA into law? It cannot be Hispanics or millennials since neither of these groups have ever voted for a Republican. Is it upscale suburban Republicans? Because these voters are perfectly content so far with Trump abandoning his populist economic rhetoric (something they did not like about him) and pursuing tax cuts, deregulation, etc.

And don't try and argue that these voters are somehow less racist and less bigoted because they're wealthy or more cosmopolitan. They typically live in the most cookie cutter white flight suburbs imaginable for a reason. They're also just as likely as their lower income counterparts to be socially conservative which is why even here in this coastal republican suburb there's a church every 5 feet.

Nobody is denying that the sunbelt is trending D (because of minority and millennial growth; not some BS fantasy of upscale republicans voting Democrat down-ballot), but the special election results thus far have demonstrated that the rust belt has more short term potential than the sunbelt. That was the crux of the article and you seemed to have conveniently ignored that entirely. Do you have some kind of agenda to push? Or do you just seriously despise the idea of Democrats reaching out to working class white voters?

... Most people outside of the populist left perceive trump as a populist, like it or not. Most of the gains are among (formerly) R-leaning independents, not actual registered republicans. Short term electoral results show that the sunbelt has not yet trended as far downballot as 2016 would indicate, not that the rust belt has trended more democratic. AZ-02, TX-23, CA-10, 25 and 29(your own district is one of the narrowest Clinton gains IIRC), FL-26 and 27, VA-10, CO-6, etc provide top tier pickup opportunities right now. the rust belt has... A potential gerrymander breakdown in MI, some suburban seats in PA and MN, and IA 1/3. Only a few of those look as good as the plethora of sun belt districts I laid out.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,069
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2017, 09:21:39 am »

I disagree with this, like I generally do with most of what 538 publishes. If Trump wins reelection, he will do it by recreating the 2016 map and coalition. For the most part, the 2018 and 2020 elections will see a continuation of 2016 trends IMO.

Well 2020 is probably a given if Trump is running since an incumbent's reelection map usually looks quite similar to their first map.

But I don't see this playing down-ballot at all when you look at the results of the recent special elections. You had GA-06 as lean D then Handel won by 3 points*. Enough upscale republicans are gonna give the middle finger every time to the Democrats no matter how much the DCCC tries to target them. They have no economic self interest in voting for Democratic representatives to go to D.C. and represent the agenda of Nancy Pelosi.

Midterm elections have shown two contradictory tendencies: first they are tough on the Party of the incumbent President and they are tough on Democrats who generally do badly in low-turnout elections.  Which tendency will prevail, or will they offset enough to make things meaningless? That's the best prediction that anyone can give for 2018 until the electoral news
takes shape.

As for 2020 -- the 2014 GOP wave gets tested in 2020. Should the pattern of 2016 hold, then Republicans lose a little but not enough to lose power. They will further gerrymander districts, and they will use state legislatures to disqualify voters -- perhaps finding more people to strike from voter rolls, as for getting government aid, being college students with two official residences, having misdemeanor convictions or unpaid tickets. The tendency of the merger between economic power and political power intensifies, and America has the political reality of Mussolini's stato corporativo if without the violence.

But that is one nightmare.

Ordinarily one expects the re-election campaign of an incumbent President to work with conditions similar to those with which he got elected. Most Presidents satisfy their supporters without solving all the problems of their supporters and are able to exploit much the same themes. Thus Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama won with similar maps between their initial elections and their re-election bids. It may be mere coincidence that the last three Presidents succeeded at that.  Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and Dwight Eisenhower did so, too, winning landslides because their opposition Party ran a weak challenger in the re-election bid. So what can go wrong?

First, a President can solve all the problems while showing that they have no idea of a sequel. George H W Bush, not a truly bad President, got into that trap. Second, the incumbent President could disappoint his supporters in the first election. Even without the hostage situation in Iran, Jimmy Carter was in trouble because he disappointed his essential support in the South. He ran on the cultural values of southern white people but didn't reshape America in the way that his personality suggested. Ronald Reagan would appeal to such voters. To win in 1980, Carter would have had to pick off a raft of States outside the South, which Democrats would do -- but not until 1992.

Donald Trump has shown a willingness to appeal to the unspoken, unvarnished concerns of white people who have had a hard time in an economy casting them off much as it used to cast off most blacks. He then showed himself to be a supporter of class privilege above all else. He ran as Williams Jennings Bryan and then has governed like William McKinley.

So far the approval and disapproval ratings suggest that he is in trouble. Were the pattern that got Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama re-elected to be appearing again, one would expect the same swing states to seem on the margin. If Trump were losing ground in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (his three barest wins), then he would be picking up support in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Virginia. His three barest wins are turning sharply against him... and three of his five barest wins are turning sharply against him. The pattern of 1996, 2004, and 2012 is not shaping up. He stands for economic policies that fit the dreams of the economic elite after running against their alleged elitism (even though nobody could be more of an expression of the economic elite than could be Donald Trump) while standing for policies that hurt many who voted for him.

OK, Obama picked up nothing from 2008 to 2012 -- but he faced an unusually-strong opponent. (Had Romney been the Republican nominee he would have defeated Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in a landslide at least comparable to Obama in 2008).

President Trump (or should he resign or die, Mike Pence) has little room for error. People who rejected him in 2016 are not coming toward him in significant numbers. Many who voted for him are recognizing him as a wolf wearing a well-made sheep-suit. That conservatives are getting cold feet about his erratic behavior and verbal incoherence should be a warning about a possible third-party challenge from someone on the Right; losing five percent of the vote to a Constitution, Reform, or Libertarian alternative who draws little support from the center-Left moves him in that way alone from getting about 46% of the vote to getting about 40% of the vote. 40% of the vote? That's about what Carter got in 1980.

...This is all before an economic meltdown or some diplomatic or military catastrophe.  He is going to need a miracle with which to win the election of 2020 -- or chicanery by his political allies.       
         
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,421
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2017, 07:18:38 pm »
« Edited: July 08, 2017, 07:24:55 pm by hopper »

I disagree with this, like I generally do with most of what 538 publishes. If Trump wins reelection, he will do it by recreating the 2016 map and coalition. For the most part, the 2018 and 2020 elections will see a continuation of 2016 trends IMO.

Well 2020 is probably a given if Trump is running since an incumbent's reelection map usually looks quite similar to their first map.

But I don't see this playing down-ballot at all when you look at the results of the recent special elections. You had GA-06 as lean D then Handel won by 3 points*. Enough upscale republicans are gonna give the middle finger every time to the Democrats no matter how much the DCCC tries to target them. They have no economic self interest in voting for Democratic representatives to go to D.C. and represent the agenda of Nancy Pelosi.

Midterm elections have shown two contradictory tendencies: first they are tough on the Party of the incumbent President and they are tough on Democrats who generally do badly in low-turnout elections.  Which tendency will prevail, or will they offset enough to make things meaningless? That's the best prediction that anyone can give for 2018 until the electoral news
takes shape.

As for 2020 -- the 2014 GOP wave gets tested in 2020. Should the pattern of 2016 hold, then Republicans lose a little but not enough to lose power. They will further gerrymander districts, and they will use state legislatures to disqualify voters -- perhaps finding more people to strike from voter rolls, as for getting government aid, being college students with two official residences, having misdemeanor convictions or unpaid tickets. The tendency of the merger between economic power and political power intensifies, and America has the political reality of Mussolini's stato corporativo if without the violence.

But that is one nightmare.

Ordinarily one expects the re-election campaign of an incumbent President to work with conditions similar to those with which he got elected. Most Presidents satisfy their supporters without solving all the problems of their supporters and are able to exploit much the same themes. Thus Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama won with similar maps between their initial elections and their re-election bids. It may be mere coincidence that the last three Presidents succeeded at that.  Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and Dwight Eisenhower did so, too, winning landslides because their opposition Party ran a weak challenger in the re-election bid. So what can go wrong?

First, a President can solve all the problems while showing that they have no idea of a sequel. George H W Bush, not a truly bad President, got into that trap. Second, the incumbent President could disappoint his supporters in the first election. Even without the hostage situation in Iran, Jimmy Carter was in trouble because he disappointed his essential support in the South. He ran on the cultural values of southern white people but didn't reshape America in the way that his personality suggested. Ronald Reagan would appeal to such voters. To win in 1980, Carter would have had to pick off a raft of States outside the South, which Democrats would do -- but not until 1992.

Donald Trump has shown a willingness to appeal to the unspoken, unvarnished concerns of white people who have had a hard time in an economy casting them off much as it used to cast off most blacks. He then showed himself to be a supporter of class privilege above all else. He ran as Williams Jennings Bryan and then has governed like William McKinley.

So far the approval and disapproval ratings suggest that he is in trouble. Were the pattern that got Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama re-elected to be appearing again, one would expect the same swing states to seem on the margin. If Trump were losing ground in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (his three barest wins), then he would be picking up support in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Virginia. His three barest wins are turning sharply against him... and three of his five barest wins are turning sharply against him. The pattern of 1996, 2004, and 2012 is not shaping up. He stands for economic policies that fit the dreams of the economic elite after running against their alleged elitism (even though nobody could be more of an expression of the economic elite than could be Donald Trump) while standing for policies that hurt many who voted for him.

OK, Obama picked up nothing from 2008 to 2012 -- but he faced an unusually-strong opponent. (Had Romney been the Republican nominee he would have defeated Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in a landslide at least comparable to Obama in 2008).

President Trump (or should he resign or die, Mike Pence) has little room for error. People who rejected him in 2016 are not coming toward him in significant numbers. Many who voted for him are recognizing him as a wolf wearing a well-made sheep-suit. That conservatives are getting cold feet about his erratic behavior and verbal incoherence should be a warning about a possible third-party challenge from someone on the Right; losing five percent of the vote to a Constitution, Reform, or Libertarian alternative who draws little support from the center-Left moves him in that way alone from getting about 46% of the vote to getting about 40% of the vote. 40% of the vote? That's about what Carter got in 1980.

...This is all before an economic meltdown or some diplomatic or military catastrophe.  He is going to need a miracle with which to win the election of 2020 -- or chicanery by his political allies.      
        
Well 2018 looks like 2006 for the GOP which isn't a good thing since in the 2006 mid-terms the GOP lost in the low 30's(30-33 House Seats) in terms of House Seats.

You have a point that Trump campaigned as a William Jennings Bryan-type but hasn't governed like that.

As far as Carter goes in the 1980 Presidential Election as far as Southern States go Carter lost some of those states narrowly: Tennessee(-0.29 of the overall vote in the state), Arkansas(-0.61), Alabama(-1.30), Mississippi(-1.32), Kentucky(-1.46), South Carolina(-1.53), and North Carolina(-2.12).  He did win Georgia by 14% points though. It was his home state that he was a Governor of after all.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,467


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2017, 02:00:24 pm »
« Edited: July 09, 2017, 02:04:04 pm by Old School Republican »

This healthcare bill will make Trump path to 270 much harder in 2020 , as that bill likely costs Trump Michigan and PA which drops him to 270 electoral votes. This means Trump has zero room for error if he wants to be reelected.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,365
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2017, 03:20:23 pm »

There are still 15-20 better Romney-Clinton opportunities out there, and special election results so far suggest that there are another 15-20 narrow Obama-Trump districts in Upstate NY and the Midwest that Democrats could easily win back.  I do think most places that voted for Trump by 5 or more are gone for good, even if they are historically Dem or have Dem incumbents, but there actually aren't that many House districts like that out there.

I think it's the exact opposite. Romney-Clinton voters are usually lifelong Republicans who either didn't like Trump because he was too uncultured (I.e. too overtly racist, xenophobic, sexist etc.) or wasn't a true conservative (too populist for their tastes). That's been the story with every Romney-Clinton voter I know ( I live in a clear cut Romney-Clinton district) and they have no interest voting Democratic down-ballot. They're too polarized and have no sincere interest in the Democratic Party platform. If the stock market stays high and their 401K's stay good and Trump (as Mitch McConnell recently noted) keeps governing more like Jeb Bush than a populist then they'll stick with the GOP down-ballot. The fact that many of them are wealthier keeps them from flipping as well.

Obama-Trump voters appear to be much more malleable and swingable. They were typically more working class "Reagan Democrats" in the Midwest and Northeast who can much more easily switch back to voting Democrat down-ballot (certainly much, much faster than Romney-Clinton voters).
Logged
PoliticalShelter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 398
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2017, 03:37:20 pm »

Where is this meme coming from that Obama-trump voters are somehow gone for good? I mean many of these people have continually swung between the two parties throughout the past few decades, but apparantly now they've somehow become a unwinneable, core GOP consitisuentcy. I'm not buying it.
Logged
Technocracy Timmy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,365
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2017, 03:46:15 pm »

Where is this meme coming from that Obama-trump voters are somehow gone for good? I mean many of these people have continually swung between the two parties throughout the past few decades, but apparantly now they've somehow become a unwinneable, core GOP consitisuentcy. I'm not buying it.

In my experience it depends on what you think the motive for voting for Trump was for these voters. A lot of people think former Obama voters were driven solely or overwhelmingly by racism and xenophobia. Never mind how many of them voted for Trump for his economic populism (and how many nonwhite voters broke for Trump for the same reason), his personality, generic change, sheer anger at Washington DC, etc.

A lot of people really want the next realignment to be a populist white working class vs. a more cosmopolitan college educated whites plus minorities faceoff. Why? It satisfies a lot of people's stereotypes of either side. Democrats get to smugly look down at the country bumpkins in the GOP while the GOP get to point at the Democrats being a bunch of out of touch smug liberals. This realignment won't happen for a variety of reasons, but it's a comfy narrative for people to think of as a way to stereotype the opposition Party.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines