Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump

[Bidenworth2020]

discuss.

[Lord Admirale]

If she runs a Hillary-esque campaign

294-244

If she runs a good campaign

333-205

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

OVERATED!!! I think she does worse in middle america than even hillary, but she would skyrocket black turnout enough to the point where she would narrowly win back PA, WI, and MI. In other words, Trump would narrowly lose.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Closest states are AZ, NC, and FL.

[Deblano]

A random guess:

Donald Trump/Mike Pence (R): 244 EV
Kamala Harris/Roy Cooper (D): 294 EV

[AN63093]

Basically the Clinton map, but the possibility of increased minority turnout to flip MI, FL, and a shot at NC.  It'd be tight, but that route is arguably more viable for the Dems than flipping back states like IA, WI, PA, OH.

OVERATED!!! I think she does worse in middle america than even hillary, but she would skyrocket black turnout enough to the point where she would narrowly win back PA, WI, and MI. In other words, Trump would narrowly lose.

Why does this myth persist... that black turnout was down in PA?  MI yes.  Clinton was off some 75k votes in Detroit from Obama.

But PA?  No.  Clinton beat Obama in turnout in every county in the Philly metro except Philly itself, where she was only off by 4k votes.

She did poorly in areas like Lackawanna and Luzerne.  Those counties are over 90% white.  They are only about 3% Black.  There are even more Hispanics there than Blacks.

[Deblano]

Basically the Clinton map, but the possibility of increased minority turnout to flip MI, FL, and a shot at NC.  It'd be tight, but that route is arguably more viable for the Dems than flipping back states like IA, WI, PA, OH.

OVERATED!!! I think she does worse in middle america than even hillary, but she would skyrocket black turnout enough to the point where she would narrowly win back PA, WI, and MI. In other words, Trump would narrowly lose.

I'd be very surprised if Harris depresses turnout even more than Clinton did.

Clinton to put it bluntly had a lot more stigma and baggage than Harris will.

Why does this myth persist... that black turnout was down in PA?  MI yes.  Clinton was off some 75k votes in Detroit from Obama.

But PA?  No.  Clinton beat Obama in turnout in every county in the Philly metro except Philly itself, where she was only off by 4k votes.

She did poorly in areas like Lackawanna and Luzerne.  Those counties are over 90% white.  They are only about 3% Black.  There are even more Hispanics there than Blacks.

[Burke Bro]

I think she'd do quite well (at least, against Trump she would). She's new to the stage, has some progressive appeal and could drive up minority turnout.

[Sir Mohamed]

If Trump's approval rating stays around 35%:

✓ Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA)/Governor John Bel Edwards (D-LA): 308 EVs.; 50.7%
President Donald Trump (R-NY)/Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN): 230 EVs.; 46.8%

If his approval rating is at 30% or below:

✓ Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA)/Governor John Bel Edwards (D-LA): 359 EVs.; 52.5%
President Donald Trump (R-NY)/Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN): 230 EVs.; 45.6%

[Sir Mohamed]

If Trump's approval rating stays around 35%:

✓ Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA)/Governor John Bel Edwards (D-LA): 308 EVs.; 50.7%
President Donald Trump (R-NY)/Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN): 230 EVs.; 46.8%

If his approval rating is at 30% or below:

✓ Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA)/Governor John Bel Edwards (D-LA): 359 EVs.; 52.5%
President Donald Trump (R-NY)/Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN): 230 EVs.; 45.6%

She will win GA and possibly TX before OH and IA

GA would be very close in the second scenario (within 2-3 points). I still think TX is out of reach for 2020 unless it's a landslide (Dem winning over 53% of the national PV). The Lone-Star-State ay become competative in 2024 or 2028. OH and IA are more elastic. Dems simply must win back Obama voters and mobilize their voters to carry these two again.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Easy win for Harris. She's popular, the only baggage she has is Mnuchin's bank but even that isn't a big deal, she's a woman poc, she's intelligent, and charismatic.

[McGovernForPrez]

I think in a non-landslide national environment she wins with an absolute nail biter.

[Rookie Yinzer]

If Trump's approval rating stays around 35%:

✓ Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA)/Governor John Bel Edwards (D-LA): 308 EVs.; 50.7%
President Donald Trump (R-NY)/Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN): 230 EVs.; 46.8%

If his approval rating is at 30% or below:

✓ Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA)/Governor John Bel Edwards (D-LA): 359 EVs.; 52.5%
President Donald Trump (R-NY)/Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN): 230 EVs.; 45.6%

This. But if she will have a Southern white male governor as VP I prefer Roy Cooper.

[UncleSam]

Why on earth would Kamala Harris out perform Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Florida? I understand Michigan because that was a bit flukish and I understand why GA / AZ could be had if she all ins on them but I'm having a hard time seeing why Harris had any appeal to the Midwest in any of these scenarios. Sure she could campaign more in them than Hillary did but she will be less popular there (and they will have drifted right for four more years) - I just don't see how she (or Warren, or Booker) is going to claw back ground in Scranton PA or Eau Claire WI

[Greedo punched first]

[AN63093]

Why on earth would Kamala Harris out perform Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Florida? I understand Michigan because that was a bit flukish and I understand why GA / AZ could be had if she all ins on them but I'm having a hard time seeing why Harris had any appeal to the Midwest in any of these scenarios. Sure she could campaign more in them than Hillary did but she will be less popular there (and they will have drifted right for four more years) - I just don't see how she (or Warren, or Booker) is going to claw back ground in Scranton PA or Eau Claire WI

This, except I would exclude FL from that list.  Harris certainly has the potential in FL.  I could see her (assuming she's actually a good candidate, which obviously is a big "if" at this point), bringing the margin in Palm Beach Cty back to Obama levels, increasing turnout to Obama levels in places like Volusia Cty, flipping back Pinellas, etc.

PA, I'd agree with you though.  I am completely befuddled as to why people keep making maps with PA in it.  Harris has a route to the White House, but it doesn't go through PA.  To win PA, the Dems have to win back places like Wilkes-Barre and Erie.  I don't see Harris as a great fit for these counties, unless she surprises us all and it turns out she's basically the female Obama.  And there isn't some secret magical hidden cache of blacks in PA that Harris can tap into either.  I went into this above- Clinton actually exceeded Obama's turnout in Philly and still managed to lose the state.  Of course, the myth will continue that somehow the Dems lost PA due to black turnout, no matter what the numbers say.  :shrug:

[Deblano]

If Trump's approval rating stays around 35%:

✓ Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA)/Governor John Bel Edwards (D-LA): 308 EVs.; 50.7%
President Donald Trump (R-NY)/Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN): 230 EVs.; 46.8%

If his approval rating is at 30% or below:

✓ Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA)/Governor John Bel Edwards (D-LA): 359 EVs.; 52.5%
President Donald Trump (R-NY)/Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN): 230 EVs.; 45.6%

This. But if she will have a Southern white male governor as VP I prefer Roy Cooper.

I agree. Cooper does not have the reputation of being a Conservative Dem like Bel Edwards, and isn't a bumbling schmuck like Kaine

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I just don't see how she (or Warren, or Booker) is going to claw back ground in Scranton PA or Eau Claire WI

She doesn't have to. She has to claw back ground in Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

Philadelphia 2016:
Hillary 584,025 votes

Philadelphia 2012:
Obama 588,806 votes

She lost Pennsylvania by 45k votes, and only underperformed Obama by about 5k. So your statement is objectively mathematically false.

Milwaukee County 2016:
Hillary 288,822 votes

Milwaukee County 2012:
Obama 332,438 votes

Bigger difference, 44k votes...and Hillary lost it by 23k votes...but that's also the whole county. Also if your strategy to win a state at best results in a victory of 21k votes which is less than Trump's strategy and has zero margin of error in a state Obama won by almost 7 points in 2012...it's pretty flawed to put it mildly.

This is simply not a working strategy. There's only so many votes you can get out of inner city urban centers. With the margins Democrats get from them they don't necessarily have to win the rest of the state, but a Hillary margin of loss is clearly not acceptable.

[Beet]

So according to the forum since Kamala Harris, the second-worst polling Dem candidate (39%) over only Delaney, is virtually certain to beat Trump, I can't wait to see how much the other Dem candidates would beat him by.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

So according to the forum since Kamala Harris, the second-worst polling Dem candidate (39%) over only Delaney, is virtually certain to beat Trump, I can't wait to see how much the other Dem candidates would beat him by.

The reason why she polls low against Trump is because of her name recognition (duh). Trump polls the same against her as he does for about every other democrat candidate, either 38% or 39%.

[Beet]

So according to the forum since Kamala Harris, the second-worst polling Dem candidate (39%) over only Delaney, is virtually certain to beat Trump, I can't wait to see how much the other Dem candidates would beat him by.

The reason why she polls low against Trump is because of her name recognition (duh). Trump polls the same against her as he does for about every other democrat candidate, either 38% or 39%.

That assumes that if she were more known, she would be polling 3-12 points better, while Trump would gain virtually nothing. While that's certainly possible, it's a best case scenario for her. The other candidates besides Delaney all poll better for sure.

[Beet]

So according to the forum since Kamala Harris, the second-worst polling Dem candidate (39%) over only Delaney, is virtually certain to beat Trump, I can't wait to see how much the other Dem candidates would beat him by.

I thought you said she would win by activating "black girl magic" in another one of your posts?

The primary, not the general. White working class voters don't care about black girl magic, sadly.

[Mr. Morden]

So according to the forum since Kamala Harris, the second-worst polling Dem candidate (39%) over only Delaney, is virtually certain to beat Trump, I can't wait to see how much the other Dem candidates would beat him by.

The reason why she polls low against Trump is because of her name recognition (duh). Trump polls the same against her as he does for about every other democrat candidate, either 38% or 39%.

That assumes that if she were more known, she would be polling 3-12 points better, while Trump would gain virtually nothing. While that's certainly possible, it's a best case scenario for her. The other candidates besides Delaney all poll better for sure.

The candidates who are already better known also haven't yet become the targets of the GOP attack machine in the way that they would once they win the nomination.  If, say, Joe Biden wins the nomination, then many Republicans and Republican-leaning voters who currently don't have that much of a problem with him will suddenly discover reasons to view him as the devil incarnate.  That's what'll happen with whoever wins the nomination.  So while Harris might not ever get the kind of polling lead over Trump that Biden has now, Biden himself won't keep that lead if he's nominated either.

The current GE polls just aren't very instructive of how the candidates would fare were they to actually win the nomination, because they have no way of pricing in how voters would actually react to them were they nominated.  And that goes for both candidates who are already well know and those who aren't.

[AN63093]

I just don't see how she (or Warren, or Booker) is going to claw back ground in Scranton PA or Eau Claire WI

She doesn't have to. She has to claw back ground in Philadelphia and Milwaukee.

Philadelphia 2016:
Hillary 584,025 votes

Philadelphia 2012:
Obama 588,806 votes

She lost Pennsylvania by 45k votes, and only underperformed Obama by about 5k. So your statement is objectively mathematically false.

Milwaukee County 2016:
Hillary 288,822 votes

Milwaukee County 2012:
Obama 332,438 votes

Bigger difference, 44k votes...and Hillary lost it by 23k votes...but that's also the whole county. Also if your strategy to win a state at best results in a victory of 21k votes which is less than Trump's strategy and has zero margin of error in a state Obama won by almost 7 points in 2012...it's pretty flawed to put it mildly.

This is simply not a working strategy. There's only so many votes you can get out of inner city urban centers. With the margins Democrats get from them they don't necessarily have to win the rest of the state, but a Hillary margin of loss is clearly not acceptable.

This.  For some reason, this whole "Clinton lost PA because of black turnout in Philly" myth just drives me nuts.  No idea why this has become a pet peeve of mine, but it has.

Now a place like MI?  Different story.  Clinton was off some 75k votes in Detroit from Obama.  And that was the 2012 numbers.  She was off over 140k votes from '08.  Now some of that will be population loss, but it won't account for it all.

If there's one state where this myth is true, it's MI.  Dems should be able to flip it back merely by increasing black turnout in Detroit.

But PA?  Nope.

[Beet]

I was one of those who helped mobilize Clinton voters in Philly. There were a ton of volunteers there from out of state knocking on doors. Who knows if it might have been Milwaukee'd without our efforts. But the situation was just so frustrating, because the Clinton campaign was mobilized in Florida and Pennsylvania, and we got great turnout in Florida and good turnout in Pennsylvania... only to be swamped by Trump's massive turnout surge in these two states. On the other hand, states where we saw a turnout collapse, Trump's turnout was also unimpressive. It's almost as if Trump voters knew just where they'd be needed and turned out in those places.