Anyone else thinking 2020 will be similar to 1984?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Bush Sr. was a good candidate in the context of 1988. He didn't need to and ultimately shouldn't have made the no new taxes pledge but he was tailor-made for the suburban voter, and the fact he didn't have roots in one region allowed him to keep most of the country competitive and have an EC landslide.

[maga2020]

Using the 538 interactive map (already outdated since it uses 2012 as a baseline), at a 65% turnout and 70% R support from WWCs, college educated whites splitting, blacks voting 88% D but at a 50% turnout (likely, they don't care about the post-Obama democratic party) and hispanics at 66% D at  45% turnout, Trump gets 357 electoral votes, flipping NH, ME at large, MN, VA, CO, NV and OR

He wins Florida by 10, Pennsylvania by 8.5, loses Delaware and Illinois by under 4, Washington by 2.5, New Mexico by 2, his midwest margins may be underestimated, the results in Iowa and Ohio were similar to what he did in 2016 and he only wins Maine by 1, same margin of victory he got in Oregon (doubt that would happen).

[uti2]

Bush Sr. was a good candidate in the context of 1988. He didn't need to and ultimately shouldn't have made the no new taxes pledge but he was tailor-made for the suburban voter, and the fact he didn't have roots in one region allowed him to keep most of the country competitive and have an EC landslide.

Dukakis originally had a double digit lead, it was widely expected that the FBI INVESTIGATION/iran-contra would derail Bush Sr.'s electoral chances.

[super6646]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

PA and MI don't have early voting, so the idea that the Comey won him those two states are rediculous. Republicans came home at the end, which is what allowed him to eek out a victory.

How is it ridiculous? No early voting means Hillary wasn't able to bank votes before the Comey letter. People who may have voted for Clinton in October probably just stayed home out of apathy after Comeyghazi. Her undoing was emboldened Trump support in rural areas and apathetic turnout in the urban areas. She very well may have won if she was able to have a month's long GOT(Early)V operation in Philly/Pittsburgh/Detroit/Milwaukee.

I really doubt people stayed home because of "comeyghazi". She got similar margins in Philly in 2012 than Obama, did better in Pittsburg, and still lost the state. Trump appealed to voters in rural PA, and the so called "suburban collapse" never happened. Excuses after excuses...

[twenty42]

Republican hacks obviously need to wake up and smell the coffee. The GOP has clearly been dead since the start of the 21st century...2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2014, and 2016 were obvious flukes that have masked how bad of shape in which the party really is.

These idiotic right-wing harpies just can't see the big picture. Just because Republicans keep winning elections and Democrats don't, they automatically assume Republicans actually have a shot to win the next one and that the Democrats might have problems. Morons.

People should just stop obsessing about results and admit the #permanentmajority is REAL.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

PA and MI don't have early voting, so the idea that the Comey won him those two states are rediculous. Republicans came home at the end, which is what allowed him to eek out a victory.

How is it ridiculous? No early voting means Hillary wasn't able to bank votes before the Comey letter. People who may have voted for Clinton in October probably just stayed home out of apathy after Comeyghazi. Her undoing was emboldened Trump support in rural areas and apathetic turnout in the urban areas. She very well may have won if she was able to have a month's long GOT(Early)V operation in Philly/Pittsburgh/Detroit/Milwaukee.

I really doubt people stayed home because of "comeyghazi". She got similar margins in Philly in 2012 than Obama, did better in Pittsburg, and still lost the state. Trump appealed to voters in rural PA, and the so called "suburban collapse" never happened. Excuses after excuses...

What is an excuse? Explaining why someone lost key late deciding voters in a state they lost by less than 50,000 votes is not an excuse. And it has been reported substantially that turnout was significantly lower in lower income, predominantly black neighborhoods and wards in Philadelphia and Milwaukee. Margins mean nothing if turnout is down.

[maga2020]

Using 538 Swing the Election

Trump vs Joe Biden:
Biden reduces the GOP advantage among WWCs to 57% R, black turnout goes to pre-Obama levels and most demographics barely change from 2012 - Biden wins with the same map as Obama 2012.

Trump vs Bernie Sanders:
Sanders does similar to Biden among WWC but he scares rich college educated whites who don't want socialism, GOP makes inroads among asiants - Sanders wins 272-266

vs Eliazbeth Warren:
Same as Sanders with Obama-Romney WWC numbers - Trump wins 295-243

vs Kamala Harris:
Harris brings black turnout to slightly below Obama levels and wins them 90-10, loses college educated whites who voted for Romney because being a California liberal isn't appealing to them, however, it's even less apealing to WWC, who give Trump 70% of the vote and yuge turnout - Trump wins 374-164

vs. Corey Booker:
silightly better numbers than Kamala but sill, loses 348-190 to Trump

vs Kanye West:
Stellar number with blacks, awful among whites, Trump wins 437-101

[krazen1211]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

Lol. Hillary Clinton got 50% in about a dozen states and barely that in Oregon.

[krazen1211]

Because people in this thread are retroactively revising history and dismissing Clinton's electoral ability. The whole reason why Obama cleared the path for her is because he knew she would be a political force to be reckoned with one way or another, and he didn't want a messy 3-way primary between Hillary, Biden and Sanders/Warren potentially leading to a progressive capturing the nomination.

If Hillary was 'so weak' as people want to retroactively suggest, Obama never would've seen her as a threat and he wouldn't have done what he did.

It’s time to admit Hillary Clinton is an extraordinarily talented politician

Link


Clinton juggernaut hits 2014 campaign trail

Link


The people who tell the Democrat voter base what they are supposed to think were saying something very different!

[Kamala]

Using 538 Swing the Election

Trump vs Joe Biden:
Biden reduces the GOP advantage among WWCs to 57% R, black turnout goes to pre-Obama levels and most demographics barely change from 2012 - Biden wins with the same map as Obama 2012.

Trump vs Bernie Sanders:
Sanders does similar to Biden among WWC but he scares rich college educated whites who don't want socialism, GOP makes inroads among asiants - Sanders wins 272-266

vs Eliazbeth Warren:
Same as Sanders with Obama-Romney WWC numbers - Trump wins 295-243

vs Kamala Harris:
Harris brings black turnout to slightly below Obama levels and wins them 90-10, loses college educated whites who voted for Romney because being a California liberal isn't appealing to them, however, it's even less apealing to WWC, who give Trump 70% of the vote and yuge turnout - Trump wins 374-164

vs. Corey Booker:
silightly better numbers than Kamala but sill, loses 348-190 to Trump

vs Kanye West:
Stellar number with blacks, awful among whites, Trump wins 437-101

Idiot. Trump will win AT LEAST 85% of the WWC vote.

[super6646]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

PA and MI don't have early voting, so the idea that the Comey won him those two states are rediculous. Republicans came home at the end, which is what allowed him to eek out a victory.

How is it ridiculous? No early voting means Hillary wasn't able to bank votes before the Comey letter. People who may have voted for Clinton in October probably just stayed home out of apathy after Comeyghazi. Her undoing was emboldened Trump support in rural areas and apathetic turnout in the urban areas. She very well may have won if she was able to have a month's long GOT(Early)V operation in Philly/Pittsburgh/Detroit/Milwaukee.

I really doubt people stayed home because of "comeyghazi". She got similar margins in Philly in 2012 than Obama, did better in Pittsburg, and still lost the state. Trump appealed to voters in rural PA, and the so called "suburban collapse" never happened. Excuses after excuses...

What is an excuse? Explaining why someone lost key late deciding voters in a state they lost by less than 50,000 votes is not an excuse. And it has been reported substantially that turnout was significantly lower in lower income, predominantly black neighborhoods and wards in Philadelphia and Milwaukee. Margins mean nothing if turnout is down.

What are you talking about? Hillary was hoping for a 450k margin in Philly, and thats what she got (455k actually). Thats about what Obama got, and she did a little better in Pittsburg too. She got the vote she needed, but apparently that wasn't enough. Trump kept it close in the suburbs, then swamped her in the rural areas (which he over-performed nationwide). He even took Erie county, which hasn't gone republican since 1984. Hillary didn't appeal to the majority of the state, and the margins she lost in western PA were astounding - enough so that the basket of votes in the cities were counter-ballanced.

[uti2]

Because people in this thread are retroactively revising history and dismissing Clinton's electoral ability. The whole reason why Obama cleared the path for her is because he knew she would be a political force to be reckoned with one way or another, and he didn't want a messy 3-way primary between Hillary, Biden and Sanders/Warren potentially leading to a progressive capturing the nomination.

If Hillary was 'so weak' as people want to retroactively suggest, Obama never would've seen her as a threat and he wouldn't have done what he did.

It’s time to admit Hillary Clinton is an extraordinarily talented politician

Link


Clinton juggernaut hits 2014 campaign trail

Link


The people who tell the Democrat voter base what they are supposed to think were saying something very different!

I never knew Vox and some newspaper outlet were representative of the Democratic base

Because talented politicians have to spend their entire time fighting a primary challenge from a 74 year old socialist, Jewish but not religious, no name recognition independent senator from a tiny rural state am I right? Is that a sign of an extraordinarily talented politician?

Sanders represents the Eugene Mccarthy faction of the party. Obama won the '08 primary by pandering to that demo + taking the AA vote.

[krazen1211]

What are you talking about? Hillary was hoping for a 450k margin in Philly, and thats what she got (455k actually). Thats about what Obama got, and she did a little better in Pittsburg too. She got the vote she needed, but apparently that wasn't enough. Trump kept it close in the suburbs, then swamped her in the rural areas (which he over-performed nationwide). He even took Erie county, which hasn't gone republican since 1984. Hillary didn't appeal to the majority of the state, and the margins she lost in western PA were astounding - enough so that the basket of votes in the cities were counter-ballanced.

It's almost as if there were massive, sustained swings in the rural and exurban midwest across the board, including states like Iowa with a ton of early voting.

[FairBol]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps you should ask those who always vote for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  LOL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HChzRB8h6LU

The LOLs you put at the end of all your comments are neither endearing nor cute.

Neither are most Democrats. 

[FairBol]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps you should ask those who always vote for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  LOL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HChzRB8h6LU

The LOLs you put at the end of all your comments are neither endearing nor cute.

BTW....awww, is someone butt-hurt? :: chuckles ::

[Kamala]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps you should ask those who always vote for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  LOL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HChzRB8h6LU

The LOLs you put at the end of all your comments are neither endearing nor cute.

BTW....awww, is someone butt-hurt? :: chuckles ::

Why would I be "butt hurt" about some loser virgin from Connecticut?

[Rookie Yinzer]

Oh please. Trump barely won. He did not run a great campaign, he just ran one that was less worse than Hillary Clinton.

Comey and Russia helped him eek out wins in the upper midwest he didnt even get 50% in any of the major battlegrounds.

PA and MI don't have early voting, so the idea that the Comey won him those two states are rediculous. Republicans came home at the end, which is what allowed him to eek out a victory.

How is it ridiculous? No early voting means Hillary wasn't able to bank votes before the Comey letter. People who may have voted for Clinton in October probably just stayed home out of apathy after Comeyghazi. Her undoing was emboldened Trump support in rural areas and apathetic turnout in the urban areas. She very well may have won if she was able to have a month's long GOT(Early)V operation in Philly/Pittsburgh/Detroit/Milwaukee.

I really doubt people stayed home because of "comeyghazi". She got similar margins in Philly in 2012 than Obama, did better in Pittsburg, and still lost the state. Trump appealed to voters in rural PA, and the so called "suburban collapse" never happened. Excuses after excuses...

What is an excuse? Explaining why someone lost key late deciding voters in a state they lost by less than 50,000 votes is not an excuse. And it has been reported substantially that turnout was significantly lower in lower income, predominantly black neighborhoods and wards in Philadelphia and Milwaukee. Margins mean nothing if turnout is down.

What are you talking about? Hillary was hoping for a 450k margin in Philly, and thats what she got (455k actually). Thats about what Obama got, and she did a little better in Pittsburg too. She got the vote she needed, but apparently that wasn't enough. Trump kept it close in the suburbs, then swamped her in the rural areas (which he over-performed nationwide). He even took Erie county, which hasn't gone republican since 1984. Hillary didn't appeal to the majority of the state, and the margins she lost in western PA were astounding - enough so that the basket of votes in the cities were counter-ballanced.

Neither did her opponent.

It is a fact that turnout was down in the urban areas especially among black voters and she got shellacked in the rural areas that she didn't try to contest. The absence of early voting hurt her because hesitant Clinton voters probably viewed Comey letter as a last straw and she wasn't able to bank their votes earlier so it is not "ridiculous" to assume that the Comey letter helped him in these states. Don't understand what about that is far fetched or an excuse....

[AN63093]

The repetition by ahugecat in this thread is not very helpful, nor would I describe his analysis as particularly sophisticated or elegant, but notwithstanding that, whether he is stumbling into this point or not, I think there is a fair point to be made and is the same point that AndrewCA addressed several pages back.

Namely, why do we think that the Democrats won't make similar mistakes as in 2016?  Or perhaps even the same precise mistakes?  Now, obviously the counter-argument being that these mistakes were mostly related to Clinton individually, but I'm not so sure her loss doesn't also say something about issues going deeper in the party.

Of course, this is not to suggest that there has been no introspection whatsoever.. we've all seen the relevant pieces in sources like The Atlantic and numerous articles with people doing their best to channel JD Vance's shtick.  But that being said,  the impression I've gotten over the past 6 months is that the Dems haven't done much in the way of earnest reflection upon why this election was lost, nor is there much of a genuine interest in understanding the opinions of people who voted for Trump, beyond a superficial one, along with a sizeable serving of general mockery and derisive attitudes.  I guess another way of putting it, to take a page out of the five stages of grief, at least from my perspective, it appears a portion of the party has been stuck in the "denial" phase since November.

Going back to the original post, I do think it's somewhat silly to suggest we'll see anything like 1984 given how polarized the nation is currently, and the concerns of the OP are little too dramatic, in my opinion.  However, I also don't think it's patently ridiculous to suggest that Trump could exceed 300 EVs again, even if his administration currently appears to be run in amateur fashion.  I'm sure most of you have read some of the so-called 'insider looks' into the Clinton campaign, and much has been said of Brooklyn's foibles and what not... my point is simply that while it's possible this mostly had to do with Clinton's mis-management, I believe it's not unreasonable to suggest this was also the result of larger issues going up-and-down the Democratic Party that haven't been addressed in any meaningful way by the party thus far.


By the way, obviously new here but not really- I've popped in now and then over the past decade to get a read on people's opinions on certain issues, but never had the free time to actually register/post until now.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The repetition by ahugecat in this thread is not very helpful, nor would I describe his analysis as particularly sophisticated or elegant, but notwithstanding that, whether he is stumbling into this point or not, I think there is a fair point to be made and is the same point that AndrewCA addressed several pages back.

Namely, why do we think that the Democrats won't make similar mistakes as in 2016?  Or perhaps even the same precise mistakes?  Now, obviously the counter-argument being that these mistakes were mostly related to Clinton individually, but I'm not so sure her loss doesn't also say something about issues going deeper in the party.

Of course, this is not to suggest that there has been no introspection whatsoever.. we've all seen the relevant pieces in sources like The Atlantic and numerous articles with people doing their best to channel JD Vance's shtick.  But that being said,  the impression I've gotten over the past 6 months is that the Dems haven't done much in the way of earnest reflection upon why this election was lost, nor is there much of a genuine interest in understanding the opinions of people who voted for Trump, beyond a superficial one, along with a sizeable serving of general mockery and derisive attitudes.  I guess another way of putting it, to take a page out of the five stages of grief, at least from my perspective, it appears a portion of the party has been stuck in the "denial" phase since November.

Going back to the original post, I do think it's somewhat silly to suggest we'll see anything like 1984 given how polarized the nation is currently, and the concerns of the OP are little too dramatic, in my opinion.  However, I also don't think it's patently ridiculous to suggest that Trump could exceed 300 EVs again, even if his administration currently appears to be run in amateur fashion.  I'm sure most of you have read some of the so-called 'insider looks' into the Clinton campaign, and much has been said of Brooklyn's foibles and what not... my point is simply that while it's possible this mostly had to do with Clinton's mis-management, I believe it's not unreasonable to suggest this was also the result of larger issues going up-and-down the Democratic Party that haven't been addressed in any meaningful way by the party thus far.


By the way, obviously new here but not really- I've popped in now and then over the past decade to get a read on people's opinions on certain issues, but never had the free time to actually register/post until now.

Welcome to Atlas, smart nuanced poster!

[AN63093]

It is not revisionist history to say she was flawed and should have sensed Trump's rise in the "impregnable" blue wall. The revisionism comes from the Trumpettes who derided Hillary and her strength as a candidate for 18 months who are now claiming she was the strongest option now that they need to convince themselves that the president with a near 60 percent disapproval in the "honeymoon" phase will coast to 350+ electoral votes in 2020.

I understand that the argument hasn't been made with any real nuance in this thread so far, however, I'm not so sure these are as mutually exclusive as you say.  It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me to suggest that Clinton, in the grand pantheon of Democratic candidates over the years, was on the weaker side with some significant flaws.. but nonetheless, was not only the Dems' best candidate in 2016 but also had certain advantages (say, institutional support, funding, "demographics is destiny", etc.) that meant that Trump had to overcome certain hurdles and therefore his campaign and abilities as a candidate were (and are still being) underestimated.

I wasn't posting on this forum at the time, but I recall that before the election, while Clinton's flaws were not being dismissed outright, many of the people posting about these flaws were brushed off as either concern trolls or bitter Sanders supporters.  The general concensus being, that even if Clinton was not the picture-perfect candidate or the strongest or ideal candidate (if one could create one with a magic wand), that still... due to some of her advantages I outline above, along with Trump's significant and numerous issues, Clinton would be "strong enough."  It was not an opinion on these forums at the time, at least not a common one that I can remember, that Clinton was in any real peril.

[AN63093]

Welcome to Atlas, smart nuanced poster!

Thanks, though I think you will come to find I'm not particularly smart or nuanced.

[Ruby2014]

If Trump is extremely successful I could see him winning 45 states. California Hawaii Massachusetts Rhode Island and Vermont I don't see ever voting for Trump.

[krazen1211]

I never knew Vox and some newspaper outlet were representative of the Democratic base

Because talented politicians have to spend their entire time fighting a primary challenge from a 74 year old socialist, Jewish but not religious, no name recognition independent senator from a tiny rural state am I right? Is that a sign of an extraordinarily talented politician?

Well, yes. The media, the entertainment, and the blacks all voted for Hillary.

Hillary beat Bernie pretty badly among 'Democrats' by close to 2-1 margins, as opposed to 'Democratic leaning independents', which went the other way.


The Democrat voter base is pretty dumb and voted Hillary because their masters told them to.....but surely Hillary gets an ounce of credit for that deception?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Why is it always about winning back/understanding Trump voters? What about the people who voted for Stein or Johnson? Winning back a chunk of either of their bases in 2020 would beat Trump and might prove to be easier

[Hindsight was 2020]

The repetition by ahugecat in this thread is not very helpful, nor would I describe his analysis as particularly sophisticated or elegant, but notwithstanding that, whether he is stumbling into this point or not, I think there is a fair point to be made and is the same point that AndrewCA addressed several pages back.

Namely, why do we think that the Democrats won't make similar mistakes as in 2016?  Or perhaps even the same precise mistakes?  Now, obviously the counter-argument being that these mistakes were mostly related to Clinton individually, but I'm not so sure her loss doesn't also say something about issues going deeper in the party.

Of course, this is not to suggest that there has been no introspection whatsoever.. we've all seen the relevant pieces in sources like The Atlantic and numerous articles with people doing their best to channel JD Vance's shtick.  But that being said,  the impression I've gotten over the past 6 months is that the Dems haven't done much in the way of earnest reflection upon why this election was lost, nor is there much of a genuine interest in understanding the opinions of people who voted for Trump, beyond a superficial one, along with a sizeable serving of general mockery and derisive attitudes.  I guess another way of putting it, to take a page out of the five stages of grief, at least from my perspective, it appears a portion of the party has been stuck in the "denial" phase since November.

Going back to the original post, I do think it's somewhat silly to suggest we'll see anything like 1984 given how polarized the nation is currently, and the concerns of the OP are little too dramatic, in my opinion.  However, I also don't think it's patently ridiculous to suggest that Trump could exceed 300 EVs again, even if his administration currently appears to be run in amateur fashion.  I'm sure most of you have read some of the so-called 'insider looks' into the Clinton campaign, and much has been said of Brooklyn's foibles and what not... my point is simply that while it's possible this mostly had to do with Clinton's mis-management, I believe it's not unreasonable to suggest this was also the result of larger issues going up-and-down the Democratic Party that haven't been addressed in any meaningful way by the party thus far.


By the way, obviously new here but not really- I've popped in now and then over the past decade to get a read on people's opinions on certain issues, but never had the free time to actually register/post until now.

Well mainly because there seems to be two trains of thought on the left about why Hil lost. A) she was an out of touch, uncharismatic, "corrupt" figure who failed to sell voters a reason to vote for her or B) she lost because whites (mainly rural) are now racially polarized following Obama/Trayvon Martin/BLM and see Trump as their middle finger to "others". Now expected front runners like Warren and Booker don't fall in the a) catagory so that is why many don't think dems problems will not follow the same mistakes because of the reason Hillary lost is b then we are in serious trouble beyond partisan politics as 60's style race relations in the country now as diverse as it is and getting could get really ugly