Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 12:36:03 GMT
The DNC has outlined its GE program to support Biden. It includes a battlegrounds program focused on 12 competitive states: GA, NH, NV, OH, TX, VA, AZ, FL, MI, NC, PA and WI, $22 million in YouTube ads across 14 states and a complete overhaul of their tech infrastructure. So attacks in the swing states PA, MI, WI, AZ, NC, GA, FL (all unsurprising) + TX and OH (TX makes sense due to down ballot gains and long term mobilization, OH is likely a waste of money, but Trump's approval ratings have dropped significantly). Defense of NH (always a must, too close for comfort), NV (low educational level, has the right kind of whites for Trump) and, surprisingly VA (should be very safe against Trump due to NoVA). Even more surprisingly MN is not included, which either means Klobuchar is going to be on the ballot or they're taking a chance (MN is likely fools' gold for the GOP thanks to the Twin Cities, but it's definitely less obviously so than VA). I'm not sure Minnesota is fools gold exactly. The McMullin vote in 2016 more than exceeded Clinton's margin in that state. This is before you take into account the sizeable Libertarian vote last time. Trump was the first candidate to break 70% in a Minnesota county in a presidential election since 1968 and there is room for Trump to improve in the state, especially in the iron range and western Minnesota.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 12:42:31 GMT
The unknown with Maine is its preferential voting system.
Yes, it cost the Republicans the 2nd District in the 2018 House election, but that 3se in the context of the Dems being ahead by 9% nationally.
In a state where Clinton only won by 3 points in 2016, ranked choice voting could make things interesting.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 9, 2020 13:01:54 GMT
The unknown with Maine is its preferential voting system. Yes, it cost the Republicans the 2nd District in the 2018 House election, but that 3se in the context of the Dems being ahead by 9% nationally. In a state where Clinton only won by 3 points in 2016, ranked choice voting could make things interesting. Ranked choice voting would almost certainly help Biden; there aren’t many obvious second preferences for Trump; the Greens are likely to operate an anybody but Trump policy, and most of the Libertarian vote is likely to be anti-Trump Republicans, so either doesn’t transfer at all or moves to Biden.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 13:14:34 GMT
The unknown with Maine is its preferential voting system. Yes, it cost the Republicans the 2nd District in the 2018 House election, but that 3se in the context of the Dems being ahead by 9% nationally. In a state where Clinton only won by 3 points in 2016, ranked choice voting could make things interesting. Ranked choice voting would almost certainly help Biden; there aren’t many obvious second preferences for Trump; the Greens are likely to operate an anybody but Trump policy, and most of the Libertarian vote is likely to be anti-Trump Republicans, so either doesn’t transfer at all or moves to Biden. How many anti-Trump Republicans are there now compared to 2016? He only got 44% in the primary then and is getting double that this year.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 9, 2020 13:16:03 GMT
Interesting that the DNC rates Virginia as more at risk than Colorado or Maine as well. CO is very safe (esp. against Trump). If the Democrats lose CO they'll already have lost the election. ME is a small state (one of its EV will always be won by the Dems and one has already been lost, so there are only two EVs at stake), that's not a genuine swing state and very unlikely to be decisive on its own (but I agree it does look odd, it's not that expensive to defend, especially not if you're already targeting neighbouring NH). Both contests should be irrelevant to Biden (the same goes for Georgia) as neither will be tipping point states, but ME is a better target for the DNC because of Collins' Senate seat (Mark Warner's VA seat shouldn't be in play unless the presidential campaign has already lost a pathway to 270 seats elsewhere, and there's certainly no pathway to a Democratic Senate if his incumbency is endangered). As a smaller state, ME is also presumably cheaper to contest than VA. Picking OH over IA strikes me as similarly bizarre, though there's a rationale if the party knows IA is a lost cause and cannot say the same for OH (it should be better informed about its level of support there thanks to the focus on IA in the primaries). I would guess that both of these slightly unconventional targets have something to do with HoR seats where the Democrats are in close-fought races, but padding their majority in one chamber instead of trying to win one in the other should not be where the national party's focus is. Unless the VP pick is from MN, the DNC would do better to invest there than in OH. NV is a similar case where the trends should be firmly in favour of the Democrats. At the presidential level, they are better off simply narrowing their focus. W.r.t. the Senate campaign, they are better off investing in Montana and Alaska*, in addition to Kansas if Kobach is the Republican nominee (however, there's no reason to hype up KS unless and until Republicans make the mistake of nominating him). *Alaska should receive support, but of the low-key variety. Given that the candidate is an independent, I suspect it's the sort of place where an establishment-driven ad blitz could backfire massively for the Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 9, 2020 13:17:59 GMT
Ranked choice voting would almost certainly help Biden; there aren’t many obvious second preferences for Trump; the Greens are likely to operate an anybody but Trump policy, and most of the Libertarian vote is likely to be anti-Trump Republicans, so either doesn’t transfer at all or moves to Biden. How many anti-Trump Republicans are there now compared to 2016? He only got 44% in the primary then and is getting double that this year. The primary this year hasn't been remotely competitive so a lot have either voted in the Democratic primaries or not voted at all. We will get a better idea of how many there are when the results for its Senate race come in - Susan Collins' attempts to craft a moderate image should still offer her reelection bid some help, although considerably less than ever before if her approval ratings and polls are anything to go by.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 9, 2020 14:00:27 GMT
Ranked choice voting would almost certainly help Biden; there aren’t many obvious second preferences for Trump; the Greens are likely to operate an anybody but Trump policy, and most of the Libertarian vote is likely to be anti-Trump Republicans, so either doesn’t transfer at all or moves to Biden. How many anti-Trump Republicans are there now compared to 2016? He only got 44% in the primary then and is getting double that this year. Precisely, so they’re going to vote for him on the first ballot meaning he doesn’t pick up many second preferences. The Greens didn’t run in Maine four years ago, and Gary Johnson picked up a little over 5%; I doubt this year’s Libertarian candidate, assuming they get on the ballot, matches that, I’d also expect a large portion of what they get not to transfer, but what does transfer I’d suggest goes to Biden as Trump represents pretty much everything the Libertarians oppose. Just taking one example Biden’s position on marijuana legalisation is already way closer to theirs than is Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 14:34:11 GMT
How many anti-Trump Republicans are there now compared to 2016? He only got 44% in the primary then and is getting double that this year. Precisely, so they’re going to vote for him on the first ballot meaning he doesn’t pick up many second preferences. The Greens didn’t run in Maine four years ago, and Gary Johnson picked up a little over 5%; I doubt this year’s Libertarian candidate, assuming they get on the ballot, matches that, I’d also expect a large portion of what they get not to transfer, but what does transfer I’d suggest goes to Biden as Trump represents pretty much everything the Libertarians oppose. Just taking one example Biden’s position on marijuana legalisation is already way closer to theirs than is Trump. Interesting what you say about ballot access. It would be interesting if California had a top-two presidential primary because 1) it could allow a progressive Dem to win Electoral Votes while at the same time 2) a Republican could lose by 6,000,000 votes nationally and still win in the Electoral College.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,841
|
Post by jamie on Apr 9, 2020 15:05:38 GMT
nelson Iowa is a surprising omission (marginally more winnable than Ohio). Minnesota should have also been included if they’re going to spend money defending Clinton states (I disagree about the Twin Cities, a marginal UNS is needed for Trump to flip the state and similar things were said about the electoral prowess of Philadelphia, and we all know what happened there).
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 9, 2020 15:19:29 GMT
Precisely, so they’re going to vote for him on the first ballot meaning he doesn’t pick up many second preferences. The Greens didn’t run in Maine four years ago, and Gary Johnson picked up a little over 5%; I doubt this year’s Libertarian candidate, assuming they get on the ballot, matches that, I’d also expect a large portion of what they get not to transfer, but what does transfer I’d suggest goes to Biden as Trump represents pretty much everything the Libertarians oppose. Just taking one example Biden’s position on marijuana legalisation is already way closer to theirs than is Trump. Interesting what you say about ballot access. It would be interesting if California had a top-two presidential primary because 1) it could allow a progressive Dem to win Electoral Votes while at the same time 2) a Republican could lose by 6,000,000 votes nationally and still win in the Electoral College. Probably unlikely, partly because California’s system is still winner takes all so the Democrat would still take the electoral college votes, but also there would be nothing to prevent a second Democrat filing only in California and squeezing the Republican out entirely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2020 15:25:39 GMT
Interesting what you say about ballot access. It would be interesting if California had a top-two presidential primary because 1) it could allow a progressive Dem to win Electoral Votes while at the same time 2) a Republican could lose by 6,000,000 votes nationally and still win in the Electoral College. Probably unlikely, partly because California’s system is still winner takes all so the Democrat would still take the electoral college votes, but also there would be nothing to prevent a second Democrat filing only in California and squeezing the Republican out entirely. It was based on two Democrats advancing to the general like in the 2018 Senate race yes.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Apr 9, 2020 19:35:55 GMT
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Apr 10, 2020 11:34:21 GMT
nelson Iowa is a surprising omission (marginally more winnable than Ohio). Minnesota should have also been included if they’re going to spend money defending Clinton states (I disagree about the Twin Cities, a marginal UNS is needed for Trump to flip the state and similar things were said about the electoral prowess of Philadelphia, and we all know what happened there). I disagree. Iowa is firmly a "red state" by now and that has finally been recognized by the Democratic establishment. Ohio mainly voted for Trump due to trade issues and jobs, and Trump has failed to reverse outsourcing and "bring back jobs". His approval in Ohio has dropped a lot and if Biden wins big it'll include Ohio. Neither state is likely to flip, but Ohio is significantly more likely to do so than Iowa. Ohio (and the rest of the Rust Belt) will mainly vote based on the economy and the pandemic, whereas "cultural" factors will play a larger role in Iowa. Biden has a better chance in the "it's the economy, stupid" states than in states where the "culture war" resonates more. The Twin Cities are the only important metro area in MN (Duluth, Rochester and St Cloud only have about 700k inhabitants combined) with 55% of the state's population, whereas PA has several outside Philly, so the situation isn't comparable. Even if you extend Philly to include the entire CSA it "only" has 47% of PA's population (in which was you aren't comparing like with like and including lots of outlying Republican exurbs and small towns), the city itself has 1.6 mio. inhabitants out of the nearly 13 mio. in PA. MN also has a stronger Democratic party (the DFL is one of the best organized in the country). Trump is only likely to flip MN if he has already won the election, it's not going to be the tipping point state.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 10, 2020 11:53:22 GMT
nelson Iowa is a surprising omission (marginally more winnable than Ohio). Minnesota should have also been included if they’re going to spend money defending Clinton states (I disagree about the Twin Cities, a marginal UNS is needed for Trump to flip the state and similar things were said about the electoral prowess of Philadelphia, and we all know what happened there). I disagree. Iowa is firmly a "red state" by now and that has finally been recognized by the Democratic establishment. Ohio mainly voted for Trump due to trade issues and jobs, and Trump has failed to reverse outsourcing and "bring back jobs". His approval in Ohio has dropped a lot and if Biden wins big it'll include Ohio. Neither state is likely to flip, but Ohio is significantly more likely to do so than Iowa. Ohio (and the rest of the Rust Belt) will mainly vote based on the economy and the pandemic, whereas "cultural" factors will play a larger role in Iowa. Biden has a better chance in the "it's the economy, stupid" states than in states where the "culture war" resonates more. The Twin Cities are the only important metro area in MN (Duluth, Rochester and St Cloud only have about 700k inhabitants combined) with 55% of the state's population, whereas PA has several outside Philly, so the situation isn't comparable. Even if you extend Philly to include the entire CSA it "only" has 47% of PA's population (in which was you aren't comparing like with like and including lots of outlying Republican exurbs and small towns), the city itself has 1.6 mio. inhabitants out of the nearly 13 mio. in PA. MN also has a stronger Democratic party (the DFL is one of the best organized in the country). Trump is only likely to flip MN if he has already won the election, it's not going to be the tipping point state. With regards to Iowa I think quite a few people have over interpreted the importance of the Democrats winning 3 of the 4 House seats (2 pick ups) in 2018. In what was a stunningly good year for the Democrats they still only secured a majority across the 4 districts of roughly 50,000 votes and that would have been much lower were in not for the fact Steve King being an overt racist who only won his safe GOP seat by about 10,000. I don't think it is out the question that Biden wins Iowa but if he does he will have carried every other swing state and won the election very comfortably.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 10, 2020 12:18:42 GMT
I disagree. Iowa is firmly a "red state" by now and that has finally been recognized by the Democratic establishment. Ohio mainly voted for Trump due to trade issues and jobs, and Trump has failed to reverse outsourcing and "bring back jobs". His approval in Ohio has dropped a lot and if Biden wins big it'll include Ohio. Neither state is likely to flip, but Ohio is significantly more likely to do so than Iowa. Ohio (and the rest of the Rust Belt) will mainly vote based on the economy and the pandemic, whereas "cultural" factors will play a larger role in Iowa. Biden has a better chance in the "it's the economy, stupid" states than in states where the "culture war" resonates more. The Twin Cities are the only important metro area in MN (Duluth, Rochester and St Cloud only have about 700k inhabitants combined) with 55% of the state's population, whereas PA has several outside Philly, so the situation isn't comparable. Even if you extend Philly to include the entire CSA it "only" has 47% of PA's population (in which was you aren't comparing like with like and including lots of outlying Republican exurbs and small towns), the city itself has 1.6 mio. inhabitants out of the nearly 13 mio. in PA. MN also has a stronger Democratic party (the DFL is one of the best organized in the country). Trump is only likely to flip MN if he has already won the election, it's not going to be the tipping point state. With regards to Iowa I think quite a few people have over interpreted the importance of the Democrats winning 3 of the 4 House seats (2 pick ups) in 2018. In what was a stunningly good year for the Democrats they still only secured a majority across the 4 districts of roughly 50,000 votes and that would have been much lower were in not for the fact Steve King being an overt racist who only won his safe GOP seat by about 10,000. I don't think it is out the question that Biden wins Iowa but if he does he will have carried every other swing state and won the election very comfortably. Just to add to that the Democrats came up short in the Governor’s race, and I think all other statewide races in 2018. This year could be an outside chance of a switch as the Democrats see Joni Ernst as amongst the Senate seats they can flip, so might be a case of letting the DSCC spend early and if it looks close, pile in late to drive up turnout, but they’d need a lot of things to fall their way.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,841
|
Post by jamie on Apr 10, 2020 12:24:52 GMT
The Twin Cities are the only important metro area in MN (Duluth, Rochester and St Cloud only have about 700k inhabitants combined) with 55% of the state's population, whereas PA has several outside Philly, so the situation isn't comparable. Even if you extend Philly to include the entire CSA it "only" has 47% of PA's population (in which was you aren't comparing like with like and including lots of outlying Republican exurbs and small towns), the city itself has 1.6 mio. inhabitants out of the nearly 13 mio. in PA. MN also has a stronger Democratic party (the DFL is one of the best organized in the country). Trump is only likely to flip MN if he has already won the election, it's not going to be the tipping point state. My point about the Twin Cities was that simply having a large metro is of little relevance in predicting whether a state is winnable for Trump. Minnesota was very marginal in 2016 and leaned more Republican than the country as a whole. It was marginal in 2016 despite the existence of and swings in the Twin Cities. The votes from the metro area are already baked into the competitiveness of the state and that resulted in a very small margin of victory for Clinton in 2016. The Twin Cities are not able to keep Minnesota in the Democratic column if they or the rest of the state saw a small swing to Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2020 13:00:24 GMT
The Twin Cities are the only important metro area in MN (Duluth, Rochester and St Cloud only have about 700k inhabitants combined) with 55% of the state's population, whereas PA has several outside Philly, so the situation isn't comparable. Even if you extend Philly to include the entire CSA it "only" has 47% of PA's population (in which was you aren't comparing like with like and including lots of outlying Republican exurbs and small towns), the city itself has 1.6 mio. inhabitants out of the nearly 13 mio. in PA. MN also has a stronger Democratic party (the DFL is one of the best organized in the country). Trump is only likely to flip MN if he has already won the election, it's not going to be the tipping point state. My point about the Twin Cities was that simply having a large metro is of little relevance in predicting whether a state is winnable for Trump. Minnesota was very marginal in 2016 and leaned more Republican than the country as a whole. It was marginal in 2016 despite the existence of and swings in the Twin Cities. The votes from the metro area are already baked into the competitiveness of the state and that resulted in a very small margin of victory for Clinton in 2016. The Twin Cities are not able to keep Minnesota in the Democratic column if they or the rest of the state saw a small swing to Trump. Trump also lost the suburban counties of Dakota and Washington which border the Twin Cities. I think Trump can win Minnesota but he has to minimise losses in the suburbs. Trump has to spike turnout outside the metro area and soak up as many Johnson and McMullin votes as possible. I'm waiting to see who Biden picks for VP before betting on Trump winning MN.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,841
|
Post by jamie on Apr 10, 2020 13:02:42 GMT
For the record I don’t expect Trump to win Minnesota, but I don’t see any reason it should swing substantially differently to the rest of the country (or at least places like Wisconsin and Iowa) and is winnable if he’s competitive in the popular vote nationally.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 10, 2020 13:40:07 GMT
With regards to Iowa I think quite a few people have over interpreted the importance of the Democrats winning 3 of the 4 House seats (2 pick ups) in 2018. In what was a stunningly good year for the Democrats they still only secured a majority across the 4 districts of roughly 50,000 votes and that would have been much lower were in not for the fact Steve King being an overt racist who only won his safe GOP seat by about 10,000. I don't think it is out the question that Biden wins Iowa but if he does he will have carried every other swing state and won the election very comfortably. Just to add to that the Democrats came up short in the Governor’s race, and I think all other statewide races in 2018. This year could be an outside chance of a switch as the Democrats see Joni Ernst as amongst the Senate seats they can flip, so might be a case of letting the DSCC spend early and if it looks close, pile in late to drive up turnout, but they’d need a lot of things to fall their way. The Democrats did win the offices of Attorney General, Treasurer and Auditor. However two of those are held by very popular individuals who have been in office for decades. Tom Miller was first elected Attorney General in 1978 and has held that office for all but 4 years since then (he ran for Governor in 1990) while Mike Fitzgerald was first elected as Treasurer in 1982 and has served continuously since then.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 10, 2020 13:40:58 GMT
The Twin Cities are the only important metro area in MN (Duluth, Rochester and St Cloud only have about 700k inhabitants combined) with 55% of the state's population, whereas PA has several outside Philly, so the situation isn't comparable. Even if you extend Philly to include the entire CSA it "only" has 47% of PA's population (in which was you aren't comparing like with like and including lots of outlying Republican exurbs and small towns), the city itself has 1.6 mio. inhabitants out of the nearly 13 mio. in PA. MN also has a stronger Democratic party (the DFL is one of the best organized in the country). Trump is only likely to flip MN if he has already won the election, it's not going to be the tipping point state. My point about the Twin Cities was that simply having a large metro is of little relevance in predicting whether a state is winnable for Trump. Minnesota was very marginal in 2016 and leaned more Republican than the country as a whole. It was marginal in 2016 despite the existence of and swings in the Twin Cities. The votes from the metro area are already baked into the competitiveness of the state and that resulted in a very small margin of victory for Clinton in 2016. The Twin Cities are not able to keep Minnesota in the Democratic column if they or the rest of the state saw a small swing to Trump. The Democratic vote in the Twin Cities is expanding as white suburban voters abandon Trump’s brand of Republicanism. When Republicans win Minnesota it is with a moderate like Norm Coleman or Tim Pawlenty. I also don’t get this idea that Trump is going to expand his performance from 2016; few Presidents do, and certainly not ones with approval ratings as low as Trump’s. The campaign themselves have openly said their only realistic path is to repeat 2016, and there are few, if any, options to expand the map.
|
|