REMINDER: Ohio and Iowa are not battlegrounds in 2024

[THG]

Not even if Nikki Haley is the R nominee and Sherrod Brown is the D nominee, no.

1) If you believe that Ohio and Iowa will be competitive because Trump isn’t on the ballot as the nominee and that WWC will (somehow) swing back to 2012 margins, you might as well use the inverse of that argument for Virginia and Colorado, but that is obviously a ludicrous suggestion that would get laughed off.

2) The rationale to why IA/OH trended R are not limited to Trump’s unique WWC appeal, and the rationale to why Virginia and Colorado trended D are also not limited to “Orange Man Bad” (Reminder that Virginia was only D+5 in 2016, with Kaine on the ticket, and Trump obviously being a horrific fit for the state).


I cannot comprehend why certain wish-casters on this forum are so desperately obsessed with deluding themselves into believing that those two states are magically competitive, or that the RGV/Miami shall somehow magically swing back to 2012 margins, or that a Trump-less GOP would return to 2004/2012 levels with college educated white suburbanites (also a delusional concept), but none of that is occurring any time soon.

[South Dakota Democrat]

I feel like this is mostly a straw man argument.  Very few people are saying Iowa or Ohio will be competitive.

[THG]

I feel like this is mostly a straw man argument.  Very few people are saying Iowa or Ohio will be competitive.

I’ve witnessed a lot of users lately (including a certain I-NY Trumpist) argue that Ohio or Iowa shall be competitive without Trump on the ballot.

[South Dakota Democrat]

I feel like this is mostly a straw man argument.  Very few people are saying Iowa or Ohio will be competitive.

I feel that I’ve seen a lot of users lately (including a certain I-NY Trumpist) argue that Ohio or Iowa will be competitive without Trump on the ballot.

Define a lot.  Still seems like it's a clear minority of posters on the site.

[THG]

I feel like this is mostly a straw man argument.  Very few people are saying Iowa or Ohio will be competitive.

I feel that I’ve seen a lot of users lately (including a certain I-NY Trumpist) argue that Ohio or Iowa will be competitive without Trump on the ballot.

Not necessarily. I think Cruz or Hawley (if they could secure the nomination) would hold OH/IA handily.

Even Nikki Haley (an admittedly poor fit for the Midwest) would secure those states handily.

[THG]

I feel like this is mostly a straw man argument.  Very few people are saying Iowa or Ohio will be competitive.

I feel that I’ve seen a lot of users lately (including a certain I-NY Trumpist) argue that Ohio or Iowa will be competitive without Trump on the ballot.

Define a lot.  Still seems like it's a clear minority of posters on the site.

Just read this thread.

[THG]

Even Nikki Haley (an admittedly poor fit for the Midwest) would secure those states handily.

Listen, Haley is not a good candidate electorally, but even then, this is an atrocious map. She would win OH/IA by 5 or so points, possibly lean margins.

Also, Ron DeSantis would win OH/IA by 10+ percentage points.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Listen, Haley is not a good candidate electorally, but even then, this is an atrocious map. She would win OH/IA by 5 or so points, possibly lean margins.

Also, Ron DeSantis would win OH/IA by 10+ percentage points.

DeSantis vs Biden (no recession): OH D+1, IA D+3
DeSantis vs Haley (no recession): OH pure tossup, IA D+1

Um...no.

[THG]

Listen, Haley is not a good candidate electorally, but even then, this is an atrocious map. She would win OH/IA by 5 or so points, possibly lean margins.

Also, Ron DeSantis would win OH/IA by 10+ percentage points.

DeSantis vs Biden (no recession): OH D+1, IA D+3
DeSantis vs Haley (no recession): OH pure tossup, IA D+1

Your election predictions are legitimately some of the most idiotic and wooden-headed statements I’ve ever had the misfortune of laying my eyes upon.

I don’t know if my grey cells can recover from the fatuity of that statement. But what is truly terrifying is the concept that you may not even be acting in jest.

[Roll Roons]

I'm calling both of them Likely R out of an abundance of caution.

But Likely does not equal Tossup. If Biden does win one or both, it's probably a landslide. And I fully expect both to vote more Republican than Texas, just like we saw last year.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Listen, Haley is not a good candidate electorally, but even then, this is an atrocious map. She would win OH/IA by 5 or so points, possibly lean margins.

Also, Ron DeSantis would win OH/IA by 10+ percentage points.

DeSantis vs Biden (no recession): OH D+1, IA D+3
DeSantis vs Haley (no recession): OH pure tossup, IA D+1

Your election predictions are legitimately some of the most idiotic and wooden-headed statements I’ve ever had the misfortune of laying my eyes upon.

I don’t know if my grey cells can recover from the fatuity of that statement. But what is truly terrifying is the concept that you may not even be acting in jest.

Did you really create this entire thread just to call out one poster?  Sure seems like it.

[Ferguson97]

Yeah, I tend to agree with this.

Iowa and Ohio are to the Republicans what Virginia and Colorado are to the Democrats. They're just not swing states anymore.

[TodayJunior]

I’d say they’re still swing states but not tier 1 battlegrounds. While the landscape of 2024 is unclear as to the margins, the race won’t be in doubt. It could be anywhere from a 50/50 Dem win to a 55/45 Dem win. A 10 point margin would surely capture IA and OH. And yes, The GOP is not winning any national victory in 2024. I guarantee it. Big fat zero percent chance of this happening.

[Chips]

I'm calling both of them Likely R out of an abundance of caution.

But Likely does not equal Tossup. If Biden does win one or both, it's probably a landslide. And I fully expect both to vote more Republican than Texas, just like we saw last year.

[THG]

And yes, The GOP is not winning any national victory in 2024. I guarantee it. Big fat zero percent chance of this happening.

The Democrats, while facing an incumbent presiding over a financial crisis and a once in a lifetime pandemic....

1) Only won a presidential election by 40,000 votes (The EC decides elections, not the PV).

2) Is 50-50 in the Senate due to a fluke and the Republican base refusing to turnout because of lack of motivation (and nonsense conspiracy theories) in a rapidly left trending purple state? (The runoffs were still extremely close).

3) Is hanging by a thread in the House and actually managed to lose seats in the House when everyone expected them to gain seats!

If you really think the GOP has a 0% chance of winning a national election in 2024, you might be delusional.

[Progressive Pessimist]

You don't have to tell me twice.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

OH is much more likely to go D in 2024 than in a Midterm and Brown has survived, it is possible that OH can go D while GA goes R




This van be the map of 2024

[South Dakota Democrat]

And yes, The GOP is not winning any national victory in 2024. I guarantee it. Big fat zero percent chance of this happening.

The Democrats, while facing an incumbent presiding over a financial crisis and a once in a lifetime pandemic....

1) Only won a presidential election by 40,000 votes (The EC decides elections, not the PV).

2) Is 50-50 in the Senate due to a fluke and the Republican base refusing to turnout because of lack of motivation (and nonsense conspiracy theories) in a rapidly left trending purple state? (The runoffs were still extremely close).

3) Is hanging by a thread in the House and actually managed to lose seats in the House when everyone expected them to gain seats!

If you really think the GOP has a 0% chance of winning a national election in 2024, you might be delusional.

They were competitive, but calling races decided by 1.2% and 2% "extremely close" is pushing it.

[THG]

And yes, The GOP is not winning any national victory in 2024. I guarantee it. Big fat zero percent chance of this happening.

The Democrats, while facing an incumbent presiding over a financial crisis and a once in a lifetime pandemic....

1) Only won a presidential election by 40,000 votes (The EC decides elections, not the PV).

2) Is 50-50 in the Senate due to a fluke and the Republican base refusing to turnout because of lack of motivation (and nonsense conspiracy theories) in a rapidly left trending purple state? (The runoffs were still extremely close).

3) Is hanging by a thread in the House and actually managed to lose seats in the House when everyone expected them to gain seats!

If you really think the GOP has a 0% chance of winning a national election in 2024, you might be delusional.

They were competitive, but calling races decided by 1.2% and 2% "extremely close" is pushing it.

Well.... that was with the GOP base being fairly de-motivated. Also, Perdue won the first time.

[South Dakota Democrat]

And yes, The GOP is not winning any national victory in 2024. I guarantee it. Big fat zero percent chance of this happening.

The Democrats, while facing an incumbent presiding over a financial crisis and a once in a lifetime pandemic....

1) Only won a presidential election by 40,000 votes (The EC decides elections, not the PV).

2) Is 50-50 in the Senate due to a fluke and the Republican base refusing to turnout because of lack of motivation (and nonsense conspiracy theories) in a rapidly left trending purple state? (The runoffs were still extremely close).

3) Is hanging by a thread in the House and actually managed to lose seats in the House when everyone expected them to gain seats!

If you really think the GOP has a 0% chance of winning a national election in 2024, you might be delusional.

They were competitive, but calling races decided by 1.2% and 2% "extremely close" is pushing it.

Well.... that was with the GOP base being fairly de-motivated. Also, Perdue won the first time.

Both of those points are irrelevant to the point I made.

[TodayJunior]

And yes, The GOP is not winning any national victory in 2024. I guarantee it. Big fat zero percent chance of this happening.

The Democrats, while facing an incumbent presiding over a financial crisis and a once in a lifetime pandemic....

1) Only won a presidential election by 40,000 votes (The EC decides elections, not the PV).

2) Is 50-50 in the Senate due to a fluke and the Republican base refusing to turnout because of lack of motivation (and nonsense conspiracy theories) in a rapidly left trending purple state? (The runoffs were still extremely close).

3) Is hanging by a thread in the House and actually managed to lose seats in the House when everyone expected them to gain seats!

If you really think the GOP has a 0% chance of winning a national election in 2024, you might be delusional.

It's not really that delusional when you consider the following that are going against the GOP...hard if I might.

1) Donald Trump, whether you want to admit it or not, is still the leader of the Republican Party. The base absolutely adores him and the nomination is his if he runs. Even if he, himself, is not the nominee, a Trump-ish candidate (DeSantis, Cruz, Hawley) will be the nominee for one main reason: turnout - the impossible though will be to run both to and away from Trump simultaneously to build a winning coalition in the states you need; the other side to that sword though is the slightly greater than equal and opposite reaction. For every 20 Trump votes, there are 21 Not-Trump votes (no matter who the candidate is). Dems will match turnout. He's THAT toxic to any non-MAGA member. There are VERY VERY few persuadable people not already with him or "leaners".

2) January 6. I know some Republicans dismiss this as a conspiracy, but when you think about the optics and rhetoric coming from DJT himself, it's really not that hard to convince people on the fence that we had a near death experience as a republic.

3) Suburban trends and increased partisanship. Even before Trump had taken over the party, places like suburban Philly, DC, ATL, DFW, Twin Cities, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. were already hemorrhaging Republican votes in this key demographic and Trump just accelerated it. 2018 has been the only election in the Trump era where he himself was not on the ballot, but his ideas are/were. Looking back, Arizona and Georgia should have been warning signs when the senate seat flipped (AZ) and the gov race wasn't called for days (GA). Furthermore, the big three WI/MI/PA that propelled Trump to victory also went solidly Dem that year. There were a few exceptions in the gov races (KS, MA, MD, LA) but on the Senate side, we've seen almost a 1:1 correlation with how a state votes for Senate and president. 2020 (minus Maine) was the same as 2016 where the party that won the presidential race was also the winner in the senate race. If you look to the future, 2022 appears to be a similar set up. I can't imagine 2024 being much different.

4) Electoral Math - where it all comes together in a heaping crash landing for the GOP. Looking at the map, this is a snapshot (IMHO where the states stand as they stand)

a) Dark Red (219) - I see no scenario in which any of these would vote for a Republican nominee (Yes, MN is not a mistake - the last time a republican won statewide was 2006 = SAME AS CALIFORNIA). This is not only a reflection of these state's voting patterns in presidential races, but also down-ticket races, US senate races, most gov races, and state legislatures.

b) Medium Red (23) - One party clearly has the upper hand.
- NV (all state-wide races are Dem); the Harry Reid machine and Clark County turnout alone decides this state though I have read about intra-party fighting from the DSA wing of the party. Definitely a state to watch in the future, but not really competitive right now. Only flips if the GOP is winning the NPV (not happening in 2024)
- MI (with the exception of the state leg, all state-wide races are Dem); I view 2016 as an anomaly similar to what Indiana-2008 was margins aside; a complete fluke, and it's hard to see how Dems will be taken by surprise again here in this traditionally Democratic state. A conservative Republican campaign is DOA here. Ditto to a THIRD Trump run.
- ME (AL); this is one where a moderate Republican can win, but it will be difficult to disassociate from Trump. Collins is somehow able to do this. She's a talented pol.

c) Light Red (31) - and this category is mostly GOP-unforced errors but Dems are able to capitalize
- AZ; it was never really pro-Trump to begin with, especially when you look at the Romney Vs Trump-2016 shift. This is also an example of the "one-county-rule" when it comes to how elections are won/lost. The longer the Maricopa County audit charade goes on, the more they look like sore losers and the lesser the the chance some of these suburban voters are won back. Continue at your own peril, GOP.
- GA; another example of the "one-county-rule" though you could argue it's really two counties' margins (Cobb and Gwinnett) where the changes there are what is driving this state hard left (honorable mention to Douglas and Henry though not as big). With the Trump loss and both senate seats flipping, I wouldn't be shocked if Gwinnett was ~63/64% Dem by 2024. There's no coming back from that. The Fulton Co audit is another example of the longer they persist with the charade, the longer it will take to win back any suburban support that was lost.
- NH; I put this one in this category, bc I do think this can be won at the presidential level in the right circumstances. Trump almost won it in 2016 and it's small state with fewer raw votes to flip. The word Republican is not a dirty word here, but it would take the right kind of Republican to win.

Add those up and you're at 273 already, and we haven't even gotten to the real tossups.




I think it's fair to say WI/PA should be in the tossup category as those are true swing states were each party is pretty evenly split across all races. NC should be here as well due to its tiny margins statewide, but also bc they can elect Democrats at the state level. I also left both ME-02 and NE-02 as tossups as there is a possibility the PVI changes if redrawn.

Light Blue (Texas, Ohio) - Texas because of the ever-decreasing redness in Suburbia but Republicans are still the dominant party; Ohio is light blue bc right now we don't have enough non-Trump election cycles to see if it's truly a shift or just Trump himself.

Medium Blue (Iowa, FLorida (SHOCKER!!!!) - Though I've been confident in the ability for a wide Democrat victory to pull in Iowa, for every action, there's an opposite reaction. Iowa is one of these.

Florida - for some reason my gut tells me that any intervention by DC into Cuban affairs is going to exacerbate the vote in Miami even more than it already was in 2020. Biden may be damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. It gives cannon fodder to every Republican state wide. The slogan "Keep Florida Free" is really catching on however irritating and annoying and misleading it may be...it's working. I see it here in Orlando and i'm seeing Trump flags everywhere still. Also, there are alot of "refugees" as the GOP rank in file calls them who flee their terribly governed states to start life over again in the land of the free. CRINGE...TAKE THE BOULDER OUT OF YOUR OWN EYE!!!!

all that to say, Florida may actually be becoming the new Texas. Attitude and all.

Dark Blue - the rest of the states not mentioned. Until one of these falls below 10% in a presidential election in the Trump-era, they're solidly GOP to me.


SORRY THAT WAS SUCH A LONGWINDED REPLY!!

[THG]

And yes, The GOP is not winning any national victory in 2024. I guarantee it. Big fat zero percent chance of this happening.

The Democrats, while facing an incumbent presiding over a financial crisis and a once in a lifetime pandemic....

1) Only won a presidential election by 40,000 votes (The EC decides elections, not the PV).

2) Is 50-50 in the Senate due to a fluke and the Republican base refusing to turnout because of lack of motivation (and nonsense conspiracy theories) in a rapidly left trending purple state? (The runoffs were still extremely close).

3) Is hanging by a thread in the House and actually managed to lose seats in the House when everyone expected them to gain seats!

If you really think the GOP has a 0% chance of winning a national election in 2024, you might be delusional.

They were competitive, but calling races decided by 1.2% and 2% "extremely close" is pushing it.

Well.... that was with the GOP base being fairly de-motivated. Also, Perdue won the first time.

Both of those points are irrelevant to the point I made.

Fair enough, though 1.2-2% are still close. Even then, that doesn’t negate the other points I made about the runoffs.

[THG]

And yes, The GOP is not winning any national victory in 2024. I guarantee it. Big fat zero percent chance of this happening.

The Democrats, while facing an incumbent presiding over a financial crisis and a once in a lifetime pandemic....

1) Only won a presidential election by 40,000 votes (The EC decides elections, not the PV).

2) Is 50-50 in the Senate due to a fluke and the Republican base refusing to turnout because of lack of motivation (and nonsense conspiracy theories) in a rapidly left trending purple state? (The runoffs were still extremely close).

3) Is hanging by a thread in the House and actually managed to lose seats in the House when everyone expected them to gain seats!

If you really think the GOP has a 0% chance of winning a national election in 2024, you might be delusional.

It's not really that delusional when you consider the following that are going against the GOP...hard if I might.

1) Donald Trump, whether you want to admit it or not, is still the leader of the Republican Party. The base absolutely adores him and the nomination is his if he runs. Even if he, himself, is not the nominee, a Trump-ish candidate (DeSantis, Cruz, Hawley) will be the nominee for one main reason: turnout - the impossible though will be to run both to and away from Trump simultaneously to build a winning coalition in the states you need; the other side to that sword though is the slightly greater than equal and opposite reaction. For every 20 Trump votes, there are 21 Not-Trump votes (no matter who the candidate is). Dems will match turnout. He's THAT toxic to any non-MAGA member. There are VERY VERY few persuadable people not already with him or "leaners".

2) January 6. I know some Republicans dismiss this as a conspiracy, but when you think about the optics and rhetoric coming from DJT himself, it's really not that hard to convince people on the fence that we had a near death experience as a republic.

3) Suburban trends and increased partisanship. Even before Trump had taken over the party, places like suburban Philly, DC, ATL, DFW, Twin Cities, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. were already hemorrhaging Republican votes in this key demographic and Trump just accelerated it. 2018 has been the only election in the Trump era where he himself was not on the ballot, but his ideas are/were. Looking back, Arizona and Georgia should have been warning signs when the senate seat flipped (AZ) and the gov race wasn't called for days (GA). Furthermore, the big three WI/MI/PA that propelled Trump to victory also went solidly Dem that year. There were a few exceptions in the gov races (KS, MA, MD, LA) but on the Senate side, we've seen almost a 1:1 correlation with how a state votes for Senate and president. 2020 (minus Maine) was the same as 2016 where the party that won the presidential race was also the winner in the senate race. If you look to the future, 2022 appears to be a similar set up. I can't imagine 2024 being much different.

4) Electoral Math - where it all comes together in a heaping crash landing for the GOP. Looking at the map, this is a snapshot (IMHO where the states stand as they stand)

a) Dark Red (219) - I see no scenario in which any of these would vote for a Republican nominee. This is not only a reflection of these state's voting patterns in presidential races, but also down-ticket races, US senate races, most gov races, and state legislatures.

b) Medium Red (23) - One party clearly has the upper hand.
- NV (all state-wide races are Dem); the Harry Reid machine and Clark County turnout alone decides this state
- MI (with the exception of the state leg, all state-wide races are Dem); I view 2016 as an anomaly similar to what Indiana-2008 was margins aside; a complete fluke, and it's hard to see how Dems will be taken by surprise again here in this traditionally Democratic state.
- ME (AL); this is one where a moderate Republican can win, but it will be difficult to disassociate from Trump. Collins is somehow able to do this. She's a talented pol.

c) Light Red (31) - and this category is mostly GOP-unenforced errors but Dems are able to capitalize
- AZ; it was never really pro-Trump to begin with, especially when you look at the Romney Vs Trump-2016 shift. This is also an example of the "one-county-rule" when it comes to how elections are won/lost. The longer the Maricopa County audit charade goes on, the more they look like sore losers and the lesser the the chance some of these suburban voters are won back. Continue at your own peril, GOP.
- GA; another example of the "one-county-rule" though you could argue it's really two counties' margins (Cobb and Gwinnett) where the changes there are what is driving this state hard left (honorable mention to Douglas and Henry though not as big). With the Trump loss and both senate seats flipping, I wouldn't be shocked if Gwinnett was ~63/64% Dem by 2024. There's no coming back from that. The Fulton Co audit is another example of the longer they persist with the charade, the longer it will take to win back any suburban support that was lost.
- NH; I put this one in this category, bc I do think this can be won at the presidential level in the right circumstances. Trump almost won it in 2016 and it's small state with fewer raw votes to flip. The word Republican is not a dirty word here, but it would take the right kind of Republican to win.

Add those up and you're at 273 already, and we haven't even gotten to the real tossups.




I think it's fair to say WI/PA should be in the tossup category as those are true swing states were each party is pretty evenly split across all races. NC should be here as well due to its tiny margins statewide, but also bc they can elect Democrats at the state level.

Light Blue (Texas, Ohio) - Texas because of the ever-decreasing redness in Suburbia but Republicans are still the dominant party; Ohio is light blue bc right now we don't have enough non-Trump election cycles to see if it's truly a shift or just Trump himself.

Medium Blue (Iowa, FLorida (SHOCKER!!!!) - Though I've been confident in the ability for a wide Democrat victory to pull in Iowa, for every action, there's an opposite reaction. Iowa is one of these.

Florida - for some reason my gut tells me that any intervention by DC into Cuban affairs is going to exacerbate the vote in Miami even more than it already was in 2020. Biden may be damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. It gives cannon fodder to every Republican state wide. The slogan "Keep Florida Free" is really catching on however irritating and annoying and misleading it may be...it's working. I see it here in Orlando and i'm seeing Trump flags everywhere still. Also, there are alot of "refugees" as the GOP rank in file calls them who flee their terribly governed states to start life over again in the land of the free. CRINGE...

all that to say, Florida may actually be becoming the new Texas. Attitude and all.












SORRY THAT WAS SUCH A LONGWINDED REPLY!!

This is one of the most vapid examples of wishcasting I have ever read, but I figured out that I might as well destroy your vapid arguments.

1) Donald Trump, whether you want to admit it or not, is still the leader of the Republican Party. The base absolutely adores him and the nomination is his if he runs. Even if he, himself, is not the nominee, a Trump-ish candidate (DeSantis, Cruz, Hawley) will be the nominee for one main reason: turnout - the impossible though will be to run both to and away from Trump simultaneously to build a winning coalition in the states you need; the other side to that sword though is the slightly greater than equal and opposite reaction. For every 20 Trump votes, there are 21 Not-Trump votes (no matter who the candidate is). Dems will match turnout. He's THAT toxic to any non-MAGA member. There are VERY VERY few persuadable people not already with him or "leaners".

There is some validity to this, but there are people who dislike Trump but are more receptive to his ideas than you'd think. Don't agree with me? Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Senate_election_in_New_Mexico

Mark Ronchetti outperformed Trump by 4.6%, going against someone far more popular in the state than Biden (though to be fair, so was Ronchetti). And Ronchetti had literally the exact same policy platform as Trump, but simply was not Trump in persona. That alone, along with him being a popular weatherman, was more than enough to cause that 4.5% overperformance.

This alone disproves your fantasy that every Republican not named Trump will generate the same amount of negative turnout as Trump himself.

2) January 6. I know some Republicans dismiss this as a conspiracy, but when you think about the optics and rhetoric coming from DJT himself, it's really not that hard to convince people on the fence that we had a near death experience as a republic.

Look man.... I think January 6th was a disgrace (sane).... but if you guys really want to make 2022 and 2024 solely about this, do it, and see how well it works out. Most people "on the fence" have probably forgotten about the events of that day.

Also noteworthy: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/two-thirds-want-blm-riots-192600820.html

3) Suburban trends and increased partisanship. Even before Trump had taken over the party, places like suburban Philly, DC, ATL, DFW, Twin Cities, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. were already hemorrhaging Republican votes in this key demographic and Trump just accelerated it. 2018 has been the only election in the Trump era where he himself was not on the ballot, but his ideas are/were. Looking back, Arizona and Georgia should have been warning signs when the senate seat flipped (AZ) and the gov race wasn't called for days (GA). Furthermore, the big three WI/MI/PA that propelled Trump to victory also went solidly Dem that year. There were a few exceptions in the gov races (KS, MA, MD, LA) but on the Senate side, we've seen almost a 1:1 correlation with how a state votes for Senate and president. 2020 (minus Maine) was the same as 2016 where the party that won the presidential race was also the winner in the senate race. If you look to the future, 2022 appears to be a similar set up. I can't imagine 2024 being much different.

Ok.... do you realize that the incumbent president's party always gets their asses kicked in midterms?

If you cannot comprehend this basic fact, I will not respond to any more of the sheer codswallop that comes out of your keyboard. I am capable of, but someone who is so hackish that they do not understand that basic fact is not worth arguing with. Good day, sir, and have fun wishcasting.

[TodayJunior]

And yes, The GOP is not winning any national victory in 2024. I guarantee it. Big fat zero percent chance of this happening.

The Democrats, while facing an incumbent presiding over a financial crisis and a once in a lifetime pandemic....

1) Only won a presidential election by 40,000 votes (The EC decides elections, not the PV).

2) Is 50-50 in the Senate due to a fluke and the Republican base refusing to turnout because of lack of motivation (and nonsense conspiracy theories) in a rapidly left trending purple state? (The runoffs were still extremely close).

3) Is hanging by a thread in the House and actually managed to lose seats in the House when everyone expected them to gain seats!

If you really think the GOP has a 0% chance of winning a national election in 2024, you might be delusional.

It's not really that delusional when you consider the following that are going against the GOP...hard if I might.

1) Donald Trump, whether you want to admit it or not, is still the leader of the Republican Party. The base absolutely adores him and the nomination is his if he runs. Even if he, himself, is not the nominee, a Trump-ish candidate (DeSantis, Cruz, Hawley) will be the nominee for one main reason: turnout - the impossible though will be to run both to and away from Trump simultaneously to build a winning coalition in the states you need; the other side to that sword though is the slightly greater than equal and opposite reaction. For every 20 Trump votes, there are 21 Not-Trump votes (no matter who the candidate is). Dems will match turnout. He's THAT toxic to any non-MAGA member. There are VERY VERY few persuadable people not already with him or "leaners".

2) January 6. I know some Republicans dismiss this as a conspiracy, but when you think about the optics and rhetoric coming from DJT himself, it's really not that hard to convince people on the fence that we had a near death experience as a republic.

3) Suburban trends and increased partisanship. Even before Trump had taken over the party, places like suburban Philly, DC, ATL, DFW, Twin Cities, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. were already hemorrhaging Republican votes in this key demographic and Trump just accelerated it. 2018 has been the only election in the Trump era where he himself was not on the ballot, but his ideas are/were. Looking back, Arizona and Georgia should have been warning signs when the senate seat flipped (AZ) and the gov race wasn't called for days (GA). Furthermore, the big three WI/MI/PA that propelled Trump to victory also went solidly Dem that year. There were a few exceptions in the gov races (KS, MA, MD, LA) but on the Senate side, we've seen almost a 1:1 correlation with how a state votes for Senate and president. 2020 (minus Maine) was the same as 2016 where the party that won the presidential race was also the winner in the senate race. If you look to the future, 2022 appears to be a similar set up. I can't imagine 2024 being much different.

4) Electoral Math - where it all comes together in a heaping crash landing for the GOP. Looking at the map, this is a snapshot (IMHO where the states stand as they stand)

a) Dark Red (219) - I see no scenario in which any of these would vote for a Republican nominee. This is not only a reflection of these state's voting patterns in presidential races, but also down-ticket races, US senate races, most gov races, and state legislatures.

b) Medium Red (23) - One party clearly has the upper hand.
- NV (all state-wide races are Dem); the Harry Reid machine and Clark County turnout alone decides this state
- MI (with the exception of the state leg, all state-wide races are Dem); I view 2016 as an anomaly similar to what Indiana-2008 was margins aside; a complete fluke, and it's hard to see how Dems will be taken by surprise again here in this traditionally Democratic state.
- ME (AL); this is one where a moderate Republican can win, but it will be difficult to disassociate from Trump. Collins is somehow able to do this. She's a talented pol.

c) Light Red (31) - and this category is mostly GOP-unenforced errors but Dems are able to capitalize
- AZ; it was never really pro-Trump to begin with, especially when you look at the Romney Vs Trump-2016 shift. This is also an example of the "one-county-rule" when it comes to how elections are won/lost. The longer the Maricopa County audit charade goes on, the more they look like sore losers and the lesser the the chance some of these suburban voters are won back. Continue at your own peril, GOP.
- GA; another example of the "one-county-rule" though you could argue it's really two counties' margins (Cobb and Gwinnett) where the changes there are what is driving this state hard left (honorable mention to Douglas and Henry though not as big). With the Trump loss and both senate seats flipping, I wouldn't be shocked if Gwinnett was ~63/64% Dem by 2024. There's no coming back from that. The Fulton Co audit is another example of the longer they persist with the charade, the longer it will take to win back any suburban support that was lost.
- NH; I put this one in this category, bc I do think this can be won at the presidential level in the right circumstances. Trump almost won it in 2016 and it's small state with fewer raw votes to flip. The word Republican is not a dirty word here, but it would take the right kind of Republican to win.

Add those up and you're at 273 already, and we haven't even gotten to the real tossups.




I think it's fair to say WI/PA should be in the tossup category as those are true swing states were each party is pretty evenly split across all races. NC should be here as well due to its tiny margins statewide, but also bc they can elect Democrats at the state level.

Light Blue (Texas, Ohio) - Texas because of the ever-decreasing redness in Suburbia but Republicans are still the dominant party; Ohio is light blue bc right now we don't have enough non-Trump election cycles to see if it's truly a shift or just Trump himself.

Medium Blue (Iowa, FLorida (SHOCKER!!!!) - Though I've been confident in the ability for a wide Democrat victory to pull in Iowa, for every action, there's an opposite reaction. Iowa is one of these.

Florida - for some reason my gut tells me that any intervention by DC into Cuban affairs is going to exacerbate the vote in Miami even more than it already was in 2020. Biden may be damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. It gives cannon fodder to every Republican state wide. The slogan "Keep Florida Free" is really catching on however irritating and annoying and misleading it may be...it's working. I see it here in Orlando and i'm seeing Trump flags everywhere still. Also, there are alot of "refugees" as the GOP rank in file calls them who flee their terribly governed states to start life over again in the land of the free. CRINGE...

all that to say, Florida may actually be becoming the new Texas. Attitude and all.












SORRY THAT WAS SUCH A LONGWINDED REPLY!!

This is one of the most vapid examples of wishcasting I have ever read, but I figured out that I might as well destroy your vapid arguments.

1) Donald Trump, whether you want to admit it or not, is still the leader of the Republican Party. The base absolutely adores him and the nomination is his if he runs. Even if he, himself, is not the nominee, a Trump-ish candidate (DeSantis, Cruz, Hawley) will be the nominee for one main reason: turnout - the impossible though will be to run both to and away from Trump simultaneously to build a winning coalition in the states you need; the other side to that sword though is the slightly greater than equal and opposite reaction. For every 20 Trump votes, there are 21 Not-Trump votes (no matter who the candidate is). Dems will match turnout. He's THAT toxic to any non-MAGA member. There are VERY VERY few persuadable people not already with him or "leaners".

There is some validity to this, but there are people who dislike Trump but are more receptive to his ideas than you'd think. Don't agree with me? Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_Senate_election_in_New_Mexico

Mark Ronchetti outperformed Trump by 4.6%, going against someone far more popular in the state than Biden (though to be fair, so was Ronchetti). And Ronchetti had literally the exact same policy platform as Trump, but simply was not Trump in persona. That alone, along with him being a popular weatherman, was more than enough to cause that 4.5% overperformance.

This alone disproves your fantasy that every Republican not named Trump will generate the same amount of negative turnout as Trump himself.

2) January 6. I know some Republicans dismiss this as a conspiracy, but when you think about the optics and rhetoric coming from DJT himself, it's really not that hard to convince people on the fence that we had a near death experience as a republic.

Look man.... I think January 6th was a disgrace (sane).... but if you guys really want to make 2022 and 2024 solely about this, do it, and see how well it works out. Most people "on the fence" have probably forgotten about the events of that day.

Also noteworthy: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/two-thirds-want-blm-riots-192600820.html

3) Suburban trends and increased partisanship. Even before Trump had taken over the party, places like suburban Philly, DC, ATL, DFW, Twin Cities, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. were already hemorrhaging Republican votes in this key demographic and Trump just accelerated it. 2018 has been the only election in the Trump era where he himself was not on the ballot, but his ideas are/were. Looking back, Arizona and Georgia should have been warning signs when the senate seat flipped (AZ) and the gov race wasn't called for days (GA). Furthermore, the big three WI/MI/PA that propelled Trump to victory also went solidly Dem that year. There were a few exceptions in the gov races (KS, MA, MD, LA) but on the Senate side, we've seen almost a 1:1 correlation with how a state votes for Senate and president. 2020 (minus Maine) was the same as 2016 where the party that won the presidential race was also the winner in the senate race. If you look to the future, 2022 appears to be a similar set up. I can't imagine 2024 being much different.

Ok.... do you realize that the incumbent president's party always gets their asses kicked in midterms?

If you cannot comprehend this basic fact, I will not respond to any more of the sheer codswallop that comes out of your keyboard. I am capable of, but someone who is so hackish that they do not understand that basic fact is not worth arguing with. Good day, sir, and have fun wishcasting.

1) If the boss you despise gave you a 20% raise, you'd take it. What does it say then about a voter who likes his ideas but can't stand him to the point that they knowingly vote against their own self interest. It's not a fantasy of mine as you say. I'm just pointing out that good ideas with a terrible messenger is not a winning strategy.

And good for the guy who overperformed Trump, but an L is still an L.




2) Disagree - Yes it was a disgrace, and it should NEVER be forgotten. As for the BLM rioters, there has been a strong response. See below. Violence and looting of any form shouldn't be tolerated.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/07/figures-show-stark-difference-between-arrests-at-dc-black-lives-matter-protest-and-arrests-at-capitol-hill/?sh=15eb1c2b5706


3) Yes, I do realize this, but it's not always the case. These historical trends are only true until they're not. In recent times, 1998 and 2002 are examples of midterms where the incumbent party either held both chambers or increased their numbers.

Please stop with the personal attacks. I'm not a Republican or Democrat. I would actually like to see the GOP succeed but you need people in leadership who don't kiss the ring (Trump). I see it as a warning for your party to make the changes you need to start winning the suburbs again, but perhaps a third Trump run and losing by 10% nationally will be the only thing to break the fever (Trump himself). To have a stronger America, we need both parties to be functional. When you have polls showing a shocking number (37%) wanting this country to balkanize because they HATE one another, how can we possibly stand against threats from our adversaries (China, Russia, Iran, N Korea). Both parties are responsible for this, and deep down everyone knows it. I hate blind partisanship. It's literally tearing people apart that don't speak to each other anymore. I know this because I have family members who just will not let this go. Politics has become a false god and it needs to crumble...like yesterday!!!

https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/563221-shocking-poll-finds-many-americans-now-want-to

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lol you can't count out OH just like D's can't count on GA being reliably blue, either, what's with Rs making it seem that OH will never vote D and it has predominantly black cities Cleveland, Dayton, Cincy and Columbus, the Election is 500 days, we haven seen any polls from OH, IA, NC

It's wave insurance and don't count out Brown 2024 he has survived every race

The Midterms are 500 days and Prez Election is 1500 days