REMINDER: Ohio and Iowa are not battlegrounds in 2024
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:51:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  2024 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, GeorgiaModerate, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  REMINDER: Ohio and Iowa are not battlegrounds in 2024
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: REMINDER: Ohio and Iowa are not battlegrounds in 2024  (Read 3323 times)
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2021, 10:23:03 PM »

Iowa and Ohio lean towards populist rhetoric which is why they supported Trump after supporting Obama. Trump was similar to Obama in that he offered a message of changing the system, except his message was for a negative change. I cannot see either state being totally off the map in 2024 if Biden has a strong economy and a good record to run on.

Republicans winning these states is partial contingent on typical non-voters showing up again if Trump is not on the ballot and even if he is his appeal might have worn off.
Logged
THG
TheTarHeelGent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,192
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2021, 10:45:23 PM »

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 w
on/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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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

Quote
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



Look man, I'm not trying to get personal.

Quote
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.

I'm just saying.... 1998 and 2002 were special years and I highly doubt the conditions for those two years get recreated.

  • The Republicans have outperformed in every special election so far except one in New Mexico (which is par for the course, look at the 2017 special election in Georgia where Osoff underperformed Clinton).

Quote
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

  • I'm not saying about whether it should or shouldn't be forgotten, but the average voter doesn't have either BLM or 1/6 on their mind 24/7 at this point, though it still plays a fading part of their memories.

I also don't want Trump to run again, nor to I expect the suburbs of the places you mentioned to snap back Republican, though a little leeway is possible. However, I also do not expect Ohio or Iowa to snap back without Trump either, and I don't expect a non-Trump Republican to generate the same anger against them as Trump himself. Not all trends benefit Democrats or Republicans, and there is nuance.

Have a good day, sir. I enjoyed talking to you, even if I find many of your claims laughable.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,808
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2021, 11:09:43 PM »
« Edited: July 25, 2021, 11:18:54 PM by Mr. Kanye West »

I am not saying D's are gonna win OH, but they need it in 2024 and MT Senate race in 2024 to keep the Senate, and if the House flips, which it probably is, D's can most definitely win the House back in 2024/2026

D's don't have to win OH and Iowa in 2022 to keep the Senate and in a D Midterm they are harder to turn but in a Prez Election where WVA is surely gone, they must hold OH and MT

Sherrod Brown has beaten the odds in every Senate race

Similarly, in IA, in 2026 as opposed to 2022 Ernst is more vulnerable than Grassley, ME, IA and NC are D pickups in 2026 and Collins definitely won't win another term after obstruction of VR, she won reelection due to fact she voted for Cares Act in 2020, but now she is on record opposing VR

Biden is sitting at the EXACT SAME APPROVALS HE HAD ON ELECTION NIGHT 50/45, NOW, 51/46% ON ELECTION NIGHT, WHICH MEANS A NEUTRAL 304 Cycle, which means with only 220 seats, not 230 they're gonna lose the H without VR reform but solidify the S and Maj of Govs

His Approvals only went to 60% due to UBI stimulus since we are in a job crunch no more checks are issued, meaning no more 60% Approval
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2021, 06:10:27 AM »

As late as 2018, Iowa gave an absolute majority of its votes for Congressional Representatives to Democrats.

It is possible that Donald Trump is the best of all Republicans at appealing to visceral concerns, even if a certifiable failure at protecting Americans from COVID-19. There are limits, though, to what people tolerate.   
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 26, 2021, 07:43:38 AM »

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.

You are probably right but some places did swing back even in 2020 but maybe that's the full extent of any "coming home". There were a lot of unique circumstances. What I predict is that Ohio probably does keep trending right until and unless Columbus can grow as fast as the rest of the towns in the state stop shrinking. At this rate, Ohio is basically beginning to look just like Indiana, where, like Missouri, you have the rural areas being heavily Southernized and though cities like Cleveland and Kansas City feel like little Chicagos, though they might have had the votes to swing a state with 2:1 rural areas, they don't have the margins to swing 4:1 rural areas. Not even close. I think Iowa will be a swing state again but maybe not for another 20 years. There's good growth in Des Moines, but places like Dubuque, QC, or Cedar Rapids are no different than your Daytons, Akrons, Scrantons, Garys, and Auroras.

RGV, Clark County, and South Florida are unique in that you had the one-two punch of people caring less about immigration and more about COVID restrictions. Another interesting thing about race relations is that third parties try to "get on the winning team" when conditions deteriorate between two other groups. Both of these things could weigh on things for just a little while or a long time.

If it was just for a little while, Democrats will probably do well enough in the southwest to win Arizona and  comfortably in Nevada and to keep Florida and Texas in contention (and might even win one). This makes it very hard, but not impossible (harder than 2016, but still doable), for Republicans to win.  If Democrats lose ground in the rust belt and can't make up for it in AZ,TX, and FL, then they have a choice to make whether we have reached a point as a country where focusing on Civil Rights for anyone in particular can deliver.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2021, 08:01:20 AM »

REMINDER: Maine and New Hampshire are not battlegrounds in 2024

Not even if Chris Sununu is the R nominee and Elizabeth Warren is the D nominee, no.

1) If you believe that Maine and New Hampshire will be competitive because Trump isn’t on the ballot as the nominee and that educated whites will (somehow) swing back to 1988 margins, you might as well use the inverse of that argument for Ohio and Iowa, but that is obviously a ludicrous suggestion that would get laughed off.

2) The rationale to why ME/NH trended D are not limited to Trump’s unique educated white repellant, and the rationale to why Ohio and Iowa trended R are also not limited to “Orange Man Good” (Reminder that Iowa was only D+5 in 2012, with Ryan on the ticket, and Romney 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 a Trump-less GOP would return to 2004/2012 levels with college educated white suburbanites, or that the RGV/Miami shall somehow magically swing back to 2012 margins, (also a delusional concept), but none of that is occurring any time soon.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2021, 08:27:19 AM »

REMINDER: Maine and New Hampshire are not battlegrounds in 2024

Not even if Chris Sununu is the R nominee and Elizabeth Warren is the D nominee, no.

1) If you believe that Maine and New Hampshire will be competitive because Trump isn’t on the ballot as the nominee and that educated whites will (somehow) swing back to 1988 margins, you might as well use the inverse of that argument for Ohio and Iowa, but that is obviously a ludicrous suggestion that would get laughed off.

2) The rationale to why ME/NH trended D are not limited to Trump’s unique educated white repellant, and the rationale to why Ohio and Iowa trended R are also not limited to “Orange Man Good” (Reminder that Iowa was only D+5 in 2012, with Ryan on the ticket, and Romney 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 a Trump-less GOP would return to 2004/2012 levels with college educated white suburbanites, or that the RGV/Miami shall somehow magically swing back to 2012 margins, (also a delusional concept), but none of that is occurring any time soon.

There's like 2:1 odds that THG is right. Take from that what you wish.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,808
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2021, 10:04:05 AM »
« Edited: July 26, 2021, 10:15:29 AM by Mr. Kanye West »

REMINDER RS CANT WIN THE 291 BLUE WALL BECAUSE ANGUS KING, KLOBUCHAR, BALDWIN, STABENOW, CASEY, KAINE, JACKY ROSEN AND SINEMA WHOM WERE UNBEATABLE IN 2018 ARE ON THE BALLOT, NOT EVEN DESANTIS BECAUSE BIDEN IS AT EXACTLY AT THE SAME APPROVALS AS HE WAS IN 2020 50/45 AND HE WON IT BY 51/46%. ALSO, TRUMP AND DeSANTIS are seven pts down

THE RS WONT EVEN WON ME2 BECAUSE COLLINS WHOM WONT WIN IN 2026 IS AN OBSTRUCTIONIST TO VR REFORM AFTER VOTING DURING TRUMP  FOR CARES ACT, SHE FOOLED HER CONSTITUENTS


The Rs might even loose OH because Sherrod Brown and Tester are needed to secure the Senate in 2024 abd GA in 2022 looses it's Bellweather status, after Warnock conloosed
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 26, 2021, 11:48:02 AM »

REMINDER: Maine and New Hampshire are not battlegrounds in 2024

Not even if Chris Sununu is the R nominee and Elizabeth Warren is the D nominee, no.

1) If you believe that Maine and New Hampshire will be competitive because Trump isn’t on the ballot as the nominee and that educated whites will (somehow) swing back to 1988 margins, you might as well use the inverse of that argument for Ohio and Iowa, but that is obviously a ludicrous suggestion that would get laughed off.

2) The rationale to why ME/NH trended D are not limited to Trump’s unique educated white repellant, and the rationale to why Ohio and Iowa trended R are also not limited to “Orange Man Good” (Reminder that Iowa was only D+5 in 2012, with Ryan on the ticket, and Romney 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 a Trump-less GOP would return to 2004/2012 levels with college educated white suburbanites, or that the RGV/Miami shall somehow magically swing back to 2012 margins, (also a delusional concept), but none of that is occurring any time soon.

There's like 2:1 odds that THG is right. Take from that what you wish.

I agree. But the odds are at least as good that I am right as well. And there is no contradiction there. ME and NH are about as safe for Dems as OH and IA are safe for Rs now. Which makes perfect sense considering they voted, you know, almost exactly parallel to each other. The people with the worst takes on this forum are those who think that somehow OH and IA are now titanium R but ME and NH (and MN for that matter) are not safe D. There is no rational, logically consistent reason to believe this. And if you say “muh elasticity,” well Iowa and Ohio have also been considered “elastic.” If you say because trends could revert to pre-Trump well, again, same argument for Iowa and Ohio. Except actually it’s dumber than the opposite because it has been way longer since these states, Maine in particular, voted R than it has been since OH/IA voted D.

So again, I agree that in all likelihood, in almost all realistic scenarios, Ohio and Iowa are now out of reach for Dems. It’s just that ME, NH, etc. also are out of reach for Rs for pretty much the exact same reasons, and anyone who pretends otherwise is a hack.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,808
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2021, 02:17:07 PM »
« Edited: July 26, 2021, 02:25:47 PM by Mr. Kanye West »

OH and IA are wave insurance as well as NC we don't know what 2022/2024 holds, there hasn't been any polls on the Senate race, it's not being a hack to insinuate that OH and IA and NC are D pickups

But, in a Covid Environment they're not polling these states, but Clyburn is heading towards OH to solidify Shontel Brown and plans on endorsing Ryan in the GE

How can you predict wave insurance 500 days or 1500 days from an Election, but OH Senate race will be competetive not the Gov race, JD VANCE AND MANDEL ARE UNTESTED BUT EVERYONE KNOWS RENACCI

DISCOUNTING Brown, Ryan or Manchin whom never lost a race before is inaccurate


If that's the case, we shouldn't run any candidate for Senate in IA, OH or NC ever again or Gov


FL s very far gone due to DeSantis and how popular he is


IF WE DONT COMPETE IN YOUR IA, AND NC WE WON'T WIN IT IN 2026 EITHER

WE DONT KNOW THE NPVI THE FINAL RESULT,  BUT THE COMMISSION IS GONNA MAKE IT TOUGH ON RS

All the Rs thought Beshear was DOA TO BEVIN AND HE WON SO CAN TIM.RYAN, Ryan and Beshear are too blue dogs
Logged
UncleSam
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,498


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2021, 04:08:58 PM »

They’re Likely R states that could well veer towards safe Ala CO and VA over the next four years. My guess is that 2024 will be the last time they’re on the map as ‘comprtitive’ (similar to VA and CO in 2020), and after the R nominee carries both by 10+ and Rs sweep all the statewide races news organizations will stop paying attention to them and focus on the new real political battlegrounds that will define the 2020s: PA, GA, TX, AZ, WI, and MI.

Also FL is going to fall into Likely R territory soon, and will probably follow OH and IA into the pseudo-safe, only vaguely competitive category. Sooooo many old people living there and Non-Mexican Latino voters shifting towards the GOP is just a combined death knell for the Dems there.
Logged
Tekken_Guy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,765
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 26, 2021, 06:44:52 PM »

As late as 2018, Iowa gave an absolute majority of its votes for Congressional Representatives to Democrats.

It is possible that Donald Trump is the best of all Republicans at appealing to visceral concerns, even if a certifiable failure at protecting Americans from COVID-19. There are limits, though, to what people tolerate.   

That was only because the state’s most Republican district had a radioactive white supremacist running and its only sitting house Democrat was not seriously challenged.
Logged
lord_moxley
Rookie
**
Posts: 108


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2021, 11:08:26 PM »

They aren't default battlegrounds but if there is a scenario where they are battlegrounds then it's a case of dems nominating the world's best candidate and the gop nominated a turd sandwich.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2021, 11:33:39 PM »

Agreed, but FL and TX are.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,808
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2021, 04:55:18 AM »


Brown in 2024 would win before Beto or Castro wins in TX in 2024
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2021, 11:29:28 PM »

Ohio is definitely going to be a battleground in 2024 because the Democrats are not just going to roll over and sacrifice Brown and Republicans rightly smell blood in the water given all the other statewide wins they've gotten over the last decade.  There's going to be a lot of money spent here trying to get him re-elected/defeated and if that much investment is already coming in then its highly likely we'll see a lot of presidential stumping as well. 

Having said that, I also think that Ohio IS NOT and HAS NOT been a "must win" state for Democrats at the presidential level in the 21st century.  Ohio was icing on the cake for Obama both times and with a very small uniform swing Hillary could have won without Ohio as well.  Even Kerry could have potentially won without Ohio.

Republicans NEED Ohio to win so when it comes under threat they defend it.  Democrats can win without Ohio but when it looks like it could be in play it is smart strategy to force the GOP into defense here.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2021, 02:47:18 AM »

OH and especially IA do not deserve to be in the same category as FL, and they’re absolutely non-competitive in our current alignment/with current party coalitions and under our national trends. Sherrod Brown never did nor will he ever provide the D nominee with "reverse coattails," he’s arguably the luckiest Class I Democratic Senator whose previous showings don’t exactly inspire confidence about his reelection prospects in 2024. Barring a complete Republican collapse and some really disastrous missteps by the OH GOP, the guy is on his way out.

Comparing OH and IA to NH and ME when the first two vote 10+ vote more Republican than the nation and the last two at best 5 points to (and at worst very close to, as in 2016) the national popular vote is also disingenuous. Republicans are infinitely more likely to win any statewide federal race in NH/ME than Democrats in IA.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,808
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 01, 2021, 11:44:47 AM »

D's don't even need these states they need MI, WI and PA and due to D Govs are gonna be Reelected in 2022, Biden is on track for Reelection
Logged
Builder Refused
Rookie
**
Posts: 227
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 01, 2021, 08:15:09 PM »

These are all interesting predictions but don’t y’all think maybe delusional hacks are more likely to be correct? That’s the biggest thing I think you’re missing, it’s just very important exactly which delusional hack you listen to. And this will assuage all the debates happening here, because nobody argues just to argue.
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,134
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2021, 12:11:32 PM »

OH should be competitive if Sherrod Brown runs, because he still has some working class appeal. If Brown doesn't run, though, then I agree that OH is Likely or Safe Republican (unfortunately, the latter seems more likely).
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,808
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 24, 2021, 03:04:14 PM »

D's don't need OH and IA, NC and FL and TX to win Prez, this Pollster thinks he's a magician. If this the case Election Guy, Coolidge and Progressive Moderate whom have been naysayers on Election should not be on Atlas, they would be on Nate Silver as a Consultant

500/1500 days to Election, D's are pessimistic about the election, but those three pollsters take the cake

Lol the D's still lead 45/44 on Generic ballot the only Elections Rs really wonwas 2002/2010/2014 2000/2004 Bush W won on dimpled chads which should of been outlawed in OH and of course FL in dimpled chads every other Election they lost fair and square


Don't forget D's have large leads in Early voting
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2021, 09:24:58 PM »

Ohio and Iowa are Safe R, and Sherrod Brown is almost certainly on his way out, it'd take a very controversial candidate to make them competitive again (far worse than Trump, think Todd Akin-tier). Also people will pretend Tim Ryan has a chance in 2022, especially if Mandel or Vance is the nominee, and says some stupid thing that immediately draws Akin parallels, and then will pretend they saw it coming all along when Ryan loses by like 15. Rick Scott has a higher chance of losing FL than Sherrod Brown has of losing OH. I wouldn't be shocked if IA/OH moved right of AK in 2024 on the presidential level, in all honestly (In fact, it's probably what I expect to happen). Also both should be double digit GOP wins in 2024, unless we encounter some sort of massive Democratic wave.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,808
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 24, 2021, 11:27:37 PM »
« Edited: August 24, 2021, 11:31:17 PM by Mr. Kanye West »

Here we go again with OH safe R, Lol the only poll that was released on OH had Ryan tied with all R challengers, the Gov race is safe R and so is the Sen race FL Rubio will win

Split voting occured in OH 2018 and NC 2020


Lol and don't give me that 12 pt D victory, Obama and Biden won OH, FL, NC and IA in 2008/12 and PVI was 5

Who thought that Nikki Fried was gonna lead DeSantis by 53/47 lol if Gwen Graham would of been nominated, DeSANTIS would have lost



This pollster Coolidge thinks that Biden is gonna have a 40% Approval rating in 500 days lol if Biden really had 40% we would be losing Cali or VA or both


Rs thought that Biden had a 40% that's why they thought they could win VA and Cali, NOT
Logged
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 24, 2021, 11:37:24 PM »

Here we go again with OH safe R, Lol the only poll that was released on OH had Ryan tied with all R challengers, the Gov race is safe R and so is the Sen race FL Rubio will win

You know better than to trust OH polling, especially this early. Pepperidge Farm remembers when Ted Strickland was leading at this point in 2016.

Split voting occured in OH 2018 and NC 2020

Never mind that 2018 was a massive Democratic wave, and also Biden, Cunningham, and Cooper's percentages were quite close together

Lol and don't give me that 12 pt D victory, Obama and Biden won OH, FL, NC and IA in 2008/12 and PVI was 5

Ah yes, the it's 2008/2012 forever line and coalitions don't change. I guess I should go look back at Trump's 2016 Virginia victory with the Bush 00/04 coalition....oh wait......

Who thought that Nikki Fried was gonna lead DeSantis by 53/47 lol if Gwen Graham would of been nominated, DeSANTIS would have lost

That pollster was trash and literally everyone said it, yes Graham would've won though

This pollster Coolidge thinks that Biden is gonna have a 40% Approval rating in 500 days lol if Biden really had 40% we would be losing Cali or VA or both

Biden does need anywhere near a 40% approval rating to lose both OH and IA, I know you know that.

Rs thought that Biden had a 40% that's why they thought they could win VA and Cali, NOT

Or maybe it's that polls suggest it and turnout in off-year elections is especially erratic and anger from voters who identify with the party out of power makes them more likely to turn out in such erratic electorates.



Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,808
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 24, 2021, 11:42:30 PM »
« Edited: August 24, 2021, 11:48:52 PM by Mr. Kanye West »

Strickland lost because he said Scalias death was good for America,

Why the polls showed Ryan tied with all R challengers, if you really think D's can't win Ohio again, that is inaccurate just because a massive wave and we lost seats in the Senate

Can we wait for polls in IA, NC and OH Senate before we assume the obvious, Trump won Mahoning County I'm 2016/2020 and OH have Afro Americans in it that's why Blks voted for Brown

Clinton in 1996 won OH and he didn't win 50% of the vote

Just wait until 2022/ when Ryan all we have to do is vote

Midterm jinx don't matter that much because since 2002, Voters have been voting Congresses in with their Prez, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Clinton had opposite party Congresses because D's and Rs worked together, the Rs are an OBSTRUCTIONIST party


They are using the Filibuster to obstruct not pass legislation

It's a 52/48 Senate but in a wave OH, NC and IA are our path to DC Statehood and 55 seats which is possible in 500 days, it's a long time til Election
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 11 queries.