Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 11:09:22 GMT
Pretty self-explanatory.
I’d say Maine or Minnesota but too early to call.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 11:16:11 GMT
1984 style landslide in 2020  Seriously though, Virginia surely? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 11:27:48 GMT
1984 style landslide in 2020 Seriously though, Virginia surely? The white working-class population of VA fell by 3.85% between 2012 and 2016 - and there was a swing of about 1.37% from Republican to Democratic in 2016. Barring a landslide I don’t see the GOP winning there. It would take Sanders running as an independent and being for the Democrats what Perot was for the Republicans in 1992 for the GOP to win Colorado or Virginia imo (even thigh both states voted for Dole in 1996). Minnesota by contrast was more Republican than the nation for the first time since 1956 in 2016, so a more fruitful state to target than the Old Dominion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 11:32:29 GMT
Maybe none at all or he doesn't get to run again? Who needs freeze peach when we can have impeach? |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,846 
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Aug 24, 2018 11:37:43 GMT
Pretty self-explanatory. I’d say Maine or Minnesota but too early to call. Agreed. Although the scenario of Trump even gaining states won't be so likely, will it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 11:39:59 GMT
Pretty self-explanatory. I’d say Maine or Minnesota but too early to call. no I reckon Neveda would go before those two |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 11:40:39 GMT
Pretty self-explanatory. I’d say Maine or Minnesota but too early to call. no I reckon Neveda would go before those two Really? I’d have thought New Hampshire. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 11:41:18 GMT
no I reckon Neveda would go before those two Really? I’d have thought New Hampshire. yes sorry I wasn't sure if NH had already flipped |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 11:48:41 GMT
Really? I’d have thought New Hampshire. yes sorry I wasn't sure if NH had already flipped NH must be one of the few genuinely purple states. 2016 Republican pickup in the Governor elections. Democratic gain from Republican by 1,000 votes in the Senate election. Hilary won it by 2k in the presidential election. Republicans control the state legtslature and the governorship its House and Senate delegation meanwhile is wholly Democratic. |
|
colm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 69
|
Post by colm on Aug 24, 2018 11:51:51 GMT
NH,Minnesota,Nevada and Maine were the closest in 2016 and his approval has held up ok in Nevada, but that state is very difficult to poll accurately. The president usually loses at least one state unless they are re-elected in a bloodbath like '84 and '72, so he will almost certainly lose Michigan and may lose Wisconsin or Arizona even in a winning effort. Arizona probably goes dem during their next presidential victory, but someone like Harris could flip it in a narrow loss. It will be interesting to see if Sinema can hold out and what the margin will be -Arizona has not elected a dem senator in 30 years so she still has to actually get over the line. Having said all that I see Arizona as most likely to go the way of Virginia 2008 before Georgia. Arizona will still probably be more competitive in the long-term due to people retiring there like Florida.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 12:06:40 GMT
Wisconsin really sticks out to me.
It voted Democrat in 1988 while Michigan and Pennsylvania voted for Bush and yet Trump won there by a bigger margin than those other two. GOP Governor Scott Walker also looks pretty hard to dislodge.
I’m biased of course as I bet on a Trump victory in all 3 but just interesting to note, particular given that the GOP share in 2016 in Wisconsin. Was the lowest of the 3 states.
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,961
|
Post by mondialito on Aug 24, 2018 12:08:04 GMT
None but that doesn't mean he won't win.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,056
|
Post by jamie on Aug 24, 2018 13:02:14 GMT
Assuming we get broadly similar numbers nationwide to 2016 (hopefully and probably not likely)
New Hampshire - The most likely. Was super close in 2016 and has a shed load of swing voters, many of whom went in opposite directions in 2016. The ticket splitting between president and governor shows there can be a Republican plurality if you unite everyone.
Minnesota - There's still room to gain among rural voters, but at the same time any Democratic candidate not named Hillary Clinton should be able to improve on her numbers with many of these voters (who vote Democrat in literally every other election but 2016 president). Tariffs probably don't help either.
Nevada - There's a lot of white working class voters in Reno and Las Vegas who still vote Democrat and could be persuaded, but the growth of and union based turnout operation for Hispanic voters will very likely stop Trump winning Nevada.
Maine - Hard to see Portland + south coast being outvoted in a presidential election. Room for improvement in rural areas but like Minnesota I think there will be swing back.
Virginia - It's gone. Washington DC despises Trump and has already transferred the apathy to downballot despite previously having a lot of split ticketing. The 2017 governor's election shows that you can dominate rural Virginia but ultimately you cannot win without the moderates in DC, Charlottesville, Hamptons etc. Furthermore, there is a massive disparity between the fast population growth in Democratic areas and the actual decline in Republican areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 24, 2018 13:23:39 GMT
1984 style landslide in 2020? Much less likely these days due to polarisation. I saw some crunching that suggested that for anyone to get 49 states would require so lopsided a popular vote it would be nigh on impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Aug 24, 2018 13:46:02 GMT
It would take Sanders running as an independent and being for the Democrats what Perot was for the Republicans in 1992 for the GOP to win Colorado or Virginia imo (even thigh both states voted for Dole in 1996). Contrary to popular myth, Perot actually took votes approximately equally from both sides. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 14:06:40 GMT
Wisconsin really sticks out to me. It voted Democrat in 1988 while Michigan and Pennsylvania voted for Bush and yet Trump won there by a bigger margin than those other two. GOP Governor Scott Walker also looks pretty hard to dislodge. I’m biased of course as I bet on a Trump victory in all 3 but just interesting to note, particular given that the GOP share in 2016 in Wisconsin. Was the lowest of the 3 states. though I dont know Wisconsin other than its rather cold. I suppose its a bit like Mansfield, WWC community in a former industrial town attracted by the protectionist talk of the right |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 14:26:04 GMT
It would take Sanders running as an independent and being for the Democrats what Perot was for the Republicans in 1992 for the GOP to win Colorado or Virginia imo (even thigh both states voted for Dole in 1996). Contrary to popular myth, Perot actually took votes approximately equally from both sides. Yes I agree nationally but there must’ve been states that were exceptions to this. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 16:23:24 GMT
Wisconsin really sticks out to me. It voted Democrat in 1988 while Michigan and Pennsylvania voted for Bush and yet Trump won there by a bigger margin than those other two. GOP Governor Scott Walker also looks pretty hard to dislodge. I’m biased of course as I bet on a Trump victory in all 3 but just interesting to note, particular given that the GOP share in 2016 in Wisconsin. Was the lowest of the 3 states. though I dont know Wisconsin other than its rather cold. I suppose its a bit like Mansfield, WWC community in a former industrial town attracted by the protectionist talk of the right Same sort of demographics I guess. I bet on Trump winning nationwide and specifically in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin the day after the Brexit referendum. Of course the Tory surge in Mansfield was more pronounced than Trump’s victory in Wisconsin. |
|
|
|
Post by rivers10 on Aug 24, 2018 16:27:53 GMT
1984 style landslide in 2020 Seriously though, Virginia surely? The white working-class population of VA fell by 3.85% between 2012 and 2016 - and there was a swing of about 1.37% from Republican to Democratic in 2016. Barring a landslide I don’t see the GOP winning there. It would take Sanders running as an independent and being for the Democrats what Perot was for the Republicans in 1992 for the GOP to win Colorado or Virginia imo (even thigh both states voted for Dole in 1996). Minnesota by contrast was more Republican than the nation for the first time since 1956 in 2016, so a more fruitful state to target than the Old Dominion. Not directly relevant but I had to correct you on this point. All pre and post election polling showed Perot was taking voters off the two main parties in remarkably equal numbers. The result (in terms of states) in that election minus Perot would have been identical I'd wager.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2018 17:52:08 GMT
The white working-class population of VA fell by 3.85% between 2012 and 2016 - and there was a swing of about 1.37% from Republican to Democratic in 2016. Barring a landslide I don’t see the GOP winning there. It would take Sanders running as an independent and being for the Democrats what Perot was for the Republicans in 1992 for the GOP to win Colorado or Virginia imo (even thigh both states voted for Dole in 1996). Minnesota by contrast was more Republican than the nation for the first time since 1956 in 2016, so a more fruitful state to target than the Old Dominion. Not directly relevant but I had to correct you on this point. All pre and post election polling showed Perot was taking voters off the two main parties in remarkably equal numbers. The result (in terms of states) in that election minus Perot would have been identical I'd wager.
You think Perot took equally from each party jn each state? |
|
