should the focus for dems now be

[freepcrusher]

on just intensifying/maintaining there dominance in areas they already hold? It's hard to explain what I mean but basically writing off the house for future midterms but to at least try to raise the floor. So for instance if dems can consistently win 90 of the 100 largest counties - the floor for there house performance shouldn't fall below 195-200. Likewise in the senate, the goal should be to raise the potential floor from 40 to 44.

When Joe retires/dies/resigns - my one hope is that the floor will be higher than it was in the obama years. I'm optimistic that it is because when he (Obama) was president - you were in an environment where you were seeing WI-7 type seats slip under your fingers while IL-6, MN-3 type seats were still somewhat out of reach. The WI-7 type seats were really just gangrene and without them, I think the party is better off.

[Mr.Phips]

I know what you mean. The Dem goal for 2022 should be not falling below 200 in the House and 46 in the Senate.  The problem with this strategy of giving up on Congress in midterms of a Dem President is that eventually there is going to be a Republican President again (in four or eight years) and not having Dem control of at least one chamber as a check on them will lead to disaster (like 2000 and 2016).

[freepcrusher]

I know what you mean. The Dem goal for 2022 should be not falling below 200 in the House and 46 in the Senate.  The problem with this strategy of giving up on Congress in midterms of a Dem President is that eventually there is going to be a Republican President again (in four or eight years) and not having Dem control of at least one chamber as a check on them will lead to disaster (like 2000 and 2016).

the question is - if WNC demographic is 38% of the electorate in 2024 or 2028 and republicans get 65% of there vote - isn't that not enough?

[Mr.Phips]

I know what you mean. The Dem goal for 2022 should be not falling below 200 in the House and 46 in the Senate.  The problem with this strategy of giving up on Congress in midterms of a Dem President is that eventually there is going to be a Republican President again (in four or eight years) and not having Dem control of at least one chamber as a check on them will lead to disaster (like 2000 and 2016).

the question is - if WNC demographic is 38% of the electorate in 2024 or 2028 and republicans get 65% of there vote - isn't that not enough?

Not enough for what? 

[freepcrusher]

I know what you mean. The Dem goal for 2022 should be not falling below 200 in the House and 46 in the Senate.  The problem with this strategy of giving up on Congress in midterms of a Dem President is that eventually there is going to be a Republican President again (in four or eight years) and not having Dem control of at least one chamber as a check on them will lead to disaster (like 2000 and 2016).

the question is - if WNC demographic is 38% of the electorate in 2024 or 2028 and republicans get 65% of there vote - isn't that not enough?

Not enough for what? 

winning prez election

[Mr.Phips]

I know what you mean. The Dem goal for 2022 should be not falling below 200 in the House and 46 in the Senate.  The problem with this strategy of giving up on Congress in midterms of a Dem President is that eventually there is going to be a Republican President again (in four or eight years) and not having Dem control of at least one chamber as a check on them will lead to disaster (like 2000 and 2016).

the question is - if WNC demographic is 38% of the electorate in 2024 or 2028 and republicans get 65% of there vote - isn't that not enough?

Not enough for what? 

winning prez election

With the electoral college there is always a chance even if they can’t win the popular vote.  Dems are definitely vulnerable going forward in MI, PA, and WI and probably MN and NH.  GA is probably the best chance for adding another VA/CO like state. 

If Dems can permanently control the Presidency but with Republicans permanently in control of Congress, do you think future Dem Presidents should basically just ignore Congress and simply try to govern by executive orders?

[freepcrusher]

With the electoral college there is always a chance even if they can’t win the popular vote.  Dems are definitely vulnerable going forward in MI, PA, and WI and probably MN and NH.  

a lot depends on how uniform the WNC vote becomes. Like what if it's 65% republican in Michigan but also 65% republican in South Carolina.

If Dems can permanently control the Presidency but with Republicans permanently in control of Congress, do you think future Dem Presidents should basically just ignore Congress and simply try to govern by executive orders?

Yes. I used to feel that someone like a Frank Pallone (i.e. generic mainstream dem) was the way forward for the party. But I'm at the point where if there are 100 AOCs in the dem caucus, that might actually be what gets us closer a constitutional crisis - which is where things can really change.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trumpians are a symbol of oil and gas and how they have gotten over on the consumers with pollution and tax giveaways to the wealthy, our sports owners Jerry Jones and Vince Mcmahon are oil men and of course Bush W and Enron and Houston Astros whom played at Enron Field. The sports teams pay athletes 30M contracts. Rs are good politicians, it's the oil companies like Enron that want tax cuts that causes voters to elect Ds

Oil pollutes the air, that's why we have to transition from a fossil fuel economy Flintstones to an electric era the Jetsons. It won't be a space economy, as of now, but an electric economy, certainly it will be in the near term

As for the EC map forget IA, KS, TX, AK, MT those states are gone, OH, PA, FL, AZ along with 278 states is the path to victory, with the all stars up again in 2024 Rosen, Sinema Casey Jr, Brown, Baldwin, Stabenow and Tim Kaine

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Democratic goal will be to find terrible candidates in unwinnable races like Amy McGrath and then spend $90 million.