HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The NY Times is wrong and...

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 04:41 PM

The NY Times is wrong and here is why: elections don't happen in a vacuum.

It's easy to suggest that, because of the Electoral College, Trump could lose by an even wider-margin in the national popular vote than he did in 2016 and still exceed the total Electoral Votes he won in 2016 - but this is unlikely.

Tthe general election is not, no matter what anyone tells you, 50 miniature campaigns. These localized electoral elections do not happen in a vacuum. The fact is, yes, Hillary won the popular vote by about two-points nationally - however, had she equaled Obama's popular vote margin over Romney in 2012, she is likely the president right now.

Here is why:

Again, I point to the fact that the election doesn't happen in a vacuum. Nearly almost every state will follow the national trend. There might be exceptions (more due to a candidate being from there that may drive up a larger than expected vote) but on the whole, the trend swings in conservative states and liberal states and there's no further evidence of this than margins.

Let's start by looking at the most Democratic states from 2012. Those states, where Obama won the highest amount of support, were (along with his percentage of support):

Hawaii (70.55%)
Vermont (66.57%)
New York (63.35%)
Rhode Island (62.70)
Maryland (61.97%)
Massachusetts (60.65%)
California (60.24%)

Those seven states (and you can throw in DC, which voted Obama with 90% of the vote) gave Obama 60% or greater in the 2012 election. Now compare that to 2016's results for Hillary in these states:

Hawaii (62.22%)
California (61.73%)
Maryland (60.33%)
Massachusetts (60.01%)

There were only four states Hillary won in 2016 with 60% or greater of the vote (compared to seven for Obama). Of those four states, Hillary only did better than Obama in one: California.

So, what about the three other states Obama carried with 60% or greater of the popular vote - how'd Hillary do?

New York (59.01%)
Vermont (56.68%)
Rhode Island (54.41%)

Despite being from New York, Hillary actually did worse all around than Obama there - by roughly four-points. That's a lot. She did nine-points worse than Obama in Rhode Island and roughly six-points worse than Obama in Vermont.

I hope it's becoming clear what my point is here: None of these states acted independently. Only California of those listed saw an increase - every other state saw a decline in support from 2012 to 2016 for the Democratic nominee. Even heavily Democratic states.

Why? Because, again, these elections aren't independent of each other. They're all still connected. So, if Hillary sees a four-point loss of support in New York, it almost reasons other states would see a similar shift. These weren't minor shifts, either. Hillary lost nearly two-points off Obama's total in Maryland. In New Jersey, which Obama won by with 58.38% of the vote in 2012, Hillary won with 54.99% - basically, rounded, a three-point decrease. It's not significant on its own, because these are blue states. She could absorb those margins and still win their electoral votes.

But what about closer states?

Obama won Pennsylvania with 51.97% in 2012. Hillary only managed 47.46%. That's a decrease of 4.5 points from Obama's total. That decrease seems fairly understandable now, right, in the context of some of these blue states where Hillary performed, at times, four-plus points worse than Obama.

Maybe there's no better example of this than Maine, where Obama did nearly ten-points better than Hillary. Maine has been a reliable Democratic state and likely will remain one but it followed the national mood and the tight, tight popular vote margins.

Of course, the margins shift depending on the state. Some saw larger shifts than others but the constant is that the shift happened across the board. It wasn't just on the coasts, as we've shown Hillary actually did worse than Obama on the East Coast, and while Hillary did marginally better in California than Obama, in 2012, Obama won Washington with 56.16% of the vote, compared to 52.54% for Hillary. In Oregon, Obama won it with 54.24% and Hillary carried it with 50.07%.

So, knowing this, knowing that the shift was pretty much across most every state from 2012 to 2016, it reasons that if there's a shift back to the Democrats that it will take place across the country - and won't be isolated just to the coastal states or the Democratic strongholds. That's the fallacy of the argument. It assumes that what makes Trump unpopular in Oregon isn't there for people in Pennsylvania when it is. Sure, Trump is far less popular in California than he is on Pennsylvania but he's still fairly unpopular in Pennsylvania, too.

To be sure, this doesn't guarantee anything. 2016 was so narrow that it literally came down to just three states. If the national polls indicate a very tight margin again, then absolutely Trump could manage to expand his grip on the map (most likely by winning New Hampshire, which was very narrowly won by Hillary in 2016). But that's about it. Of course, it doesn't matter if it's by 308 or 304, a win is a win. But if his national support, which is well underwater now, shifts even marginally worse for him, or even remains as it is right now, he's likely to lose Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin and therefore the presidency.

Because that's how it works. Wisconsin might be more conservative than Vermont but the same rules apply here. If Vermont shifts even marginally back toward the Democrats in 2020, it reasons so will Wisconsin because that's typically the nature of the game. And with the margins being so close in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016, even a very slight shift should be enough.

44 replies, 2776 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply The NY Times is wrong and here is why: elections don't happen in a vacuum. (Original post)
Drunken Irishman Jul 20 OP
blue neen Jul 20 #1
BadgerMom Jul 20 #12
blue neen Jul 20 #18
pbmus Jul 20 #2
spooky3 Jul 20 #3
Drunken Irishman Jul 20 #4
Wellstone ruled Jul 20 #9
Drunken Irishman Jul 20 #10
Wellstone ruled Jul 20 #19
AlexSFCA Jul 20 #5
Drunken Irishman Jul 20 #6
kacekwl Jul 20 #16
pnwmom Jul 20 #7
Drunken Irishman Jul 20 #13
pnwmom Jul 20 #17
Drunken Irishman Jul 20 #23
pnwmom Jul 20 #24
Drunken Irishman Jul 20 #32
pnwmom Jul 20 #34
uponit7771 Jul 20 #8
Drunken Irishman Jul 20 #15
uponit7771 Jul 20 #21
Drunken Irishman Jul 20 #22
uponit7771 Jul 20 #27
Drunken Irishman Jul 20 #30
uponit7771 Jul 21 #37
brush Jul 20 #33
uponit7771 Jul 21 #35
brush Jul 21 #36
uponit7771 Jul 21 #38
brush Jul 21 #39
uponit7771 Jul 21 #40
brush Jul 21 #41
uponit7771 Jul 21 #42
brush Jul 21 #43
uponit7771 Jul 22 #44
delisen Jul 20 #25
uponit7771 Jul 20 #28
yonder Jul 20 #11
Kind of Blue Jul 20 #14
padfun Jul 20 #20
dsc Jul 20 #26
Drunken Irishman Jul 20 #31
brush Jul 20 #29

Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 04:55 PM

1. Thank you.

I'm damn sick of the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blue neen (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 06:12 PM

12. Me, too.

I know we must be realists as well as hard campaigners. But these stories seem to want to ignore the polling showing every major Dem beating DJT.

We know the electoral college is not our friend. I’m not about to call it for Trump in the summer of 2019.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BadgerMom (Reply #12)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 06:40 PM

18. Agreed.

We have to work as hard as possible to get out the vote, but we can't obsess on the media's constant negativity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 04:58 PM

2. In other words, some states are smarter than others...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 05:20 PM

3. Third party candidates wins bigger share of the vote in 2016

than in most prior elections. It will be interesting to see what happens with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spooky3 (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 05:22 PM

4. Yup. That was one of the big deciding factors...

Both nominees were extremely polarizing and I believe the Comey Letter pushed those very soft Clinton supporters to vote Gary Johnson or Stein because they just couldn't, for whatever reason, accept voting for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #4)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 05:51 PM

9. Oh how you nailed the change agent.

Watched this play out in real time while phone Banking. The Voice inflections took a big turn the next morning. Especially in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #9)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 06:04 PM

10. It was very evident...

I remember being at work and talking to a Republican friend of mine. He's LDS, from Mexico, and was staunchly anti-Trump. He wasn't sold on Hillary but couldn't fathom voting, or supporting Trump - let alone him winning. He did consider voting Evan McMullin (we're in Utah) but I don't know if he ever did.

He was the one who told me about the letter and he was sick. It was a Friday - and I think he felt it was going to hand Trump the election. It was devastating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #10)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 06:45 PM

19. My contacts in Utah were talking

Hillary until the Comey thing went down. So what I suspected in the Hispanic Wards did happen. McMullin numbers pretty much reflect the numbers within the Hispanic Wards in Washington County . The Stein Numbers here reflected a major change in preference from our pre letter polling. Thank fully,we had a huge Hillary voter turn out in our early voting. Had that letter dropped ten days earlier,it would have change Nevada from blue to red in the final tabulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 05:30 PM

5. I wonder how Obama would have performed had FBI director declared investigation a week before electi

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSFCA (Reply #5)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 05:31 PM

6. Probably would have been dinged pretty badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSFCA (Reply #5)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 06:17 PM

16. That was the biggest ace that

Was pulled out of the sleeve that cause her to lose .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 05:41 PM

7. Nationally, Hillary only had 70K fewer votes than Obama in 2012. The key difference:

in 2013 the Supreme court dismantled the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which allowed for the suppression of millions of votes across the country, including hundreds of thousands in the key states -- through new and onerous voter ID requirements and reduced hours and days of voting.

If that hadn't happened she would probably have exceeded Obama's total and beaten Trump in the Electoral College.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 06:14 PM

13. This is why I looked at percentage...

It's meaningless to compare the overall vote because that doesn't account for population changes and turnout. The fact is, turnout increased by .8% in 2016 over 2012. More people voted in 2016 than any election in history. But what does that mean? Not really a lot when you factor in those changes.

Fewer of the voting population turned out in 2016 than 2008 and 2004, with a total similar to 1992's turnout and yet, in that election, there were 32,698,873 fewer voters. So, that stat to me doesn't say much, especially when, in 2012, Obama won 51% of the popular vote and Hillary won 48% four years later (so, three-points worse). That 70,000 votes wasn't the difference - the three-percent was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 06:25 PM

17. The other unmentioned factor is that black turnout declined from 66% to 60% in 2016 --

which was the point of the voter suppression. It impacted black districts -- which are heavily Democratic -- much more heavily than white.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #17)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 07:23 PM

23. Voter suppression was real and we need to fight it...

But voter suppression wasn't a factor in Vermont or Rhode Island or even Maryland. We have to concede there was a shift there. It was enough to deliver a close election to Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #23)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 07:33 PM

24. Without voter suppression it wouldn't have been a close election. When, in history,

has a win by 2.9 million votes been considered a squeaker?

When in history has a candidate won by 2.9 million votes and lost the Electoral College?

Never before 2016. The closest before was the half million votes by which Gore beat Bush, while losing the EC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #24)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 10:22 PM

32. It would have been close. Why? Because it was close.

Hillary's popular vote margin over Trump was less than Bush's over Kerry (percentage wise) in 2004, which was a squeaker. Guess what? Had Kerry won Ohio, despite losing the popular vote by nearly three-points nationally (Hillary won it by two-points), he would've won the presidency. That's the quirk of the electoral college. In a very narrow election, which 2016 was by all accounts (as was 2004), stuff like that matters.

So, the never before is just plain dumb luck of the circumstances. The evidence of this is how close we came to seeing it in 2004 with Kerry/Bush. Kerry essentially lost 2004 by 118,601 votes - despite losing the popular vote by three-points. Had he been able to find a bit more votes in Ohio to win it, we'd be having this discussion twelve years prior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #32)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 11:59 PM

34. No. It was close in those states because the votes of black voters -- i.e., Democrats --

had been systematically suppressed.

Voter suppression didn't affect both parties equally. If it had, then the margin would've been the same. But it mostly suppressed Democratic votes. Without that suppression, the outcome in the EC would have flipped to Hillary.

Even in a "red" state like Georgia, voter suppression of Democrats/black voters might have affected the results.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/10/georgia-election-recount-stacey-abrams-brian-kemp

Furthermore from 2012 to 2016, 1.5 million voters were purged – more than 10% of all voters – from records, according to a 2018 report from the Brennan Center for Justice. In comparison, 750,000 were purged from 2008 to 2012.

Kemp took office in 2010 and he and fellow conservatives argue the law requires ineligible voters who move or die to be cleared from rolls. But voting rights advocates say the removals disproportionately affect groups who tend to vote at lower rates, like minorities and low-income voters – the same groups who generally support Democrats.

It’s a fundamental problem that stretches back into the history of Georgia and the wider south where racial tensions and the fight over who can vote persists from the days of civil rights struggles.

Sophia Lakin, a staff attorney on the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, points to the fact that until 2013 Georgia was covered by a section of the Voting Rights Act that stipulated it submit election changes to get “pre-clearance” from the federal government – a regulation meant to protect minority voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 05:42 PM

8. The Russians helped get Donald Trump elected. End of story

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #8)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 06:16 PM

15. It's not end of story.

If we dismiss the loss as just Russian meddling, we'll lose again in 2020. Democrats need to do a better job getting their voters out to the polls - and yes, it's an uphill climb because of the laws put in place to hinder voter turnout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #15)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 07:10 PM

21. Well be losing again in 2020 if there is no recognition of the depth of penetration into our ...

... electoral systems the Russians were able to achieve.

There's no one who's willing to say 2020 will be more free and fair than 2016 after red Don announced her was going to cheat.

No... Overwhelming numbers... Doesn't work when there's no audit

Yes, it's time to cut the arms off the purple guy so he doesn't small his fingers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #21)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 07:22 PM

22. Good luck with that narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #22)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 09:00 PM

27. Facts work

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #27)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 10:15 PM

30. You haven't provided any facts, tho...

Just saying it doesn't make it a fact.

You remind me of those who were adamant in 2007 that if we didn't do anything about the voting machines, the GOP would steal it again in 2008.

Well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #30)

Sun Jul 21, 2019, 03:13 PM

37. Mueller report did & outlined the level & depth of penetration by Russians into our election systems

Here is one fact: You're not willing to say that 20/20 will be more free and fair the 2016 that we both know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #21)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 10:22 PM

33. You're acting as if 2018 didn't happen. trump lost the election he called a referendum on himself.

Since then he has done nothing to widen his base, in fact he has done many things to hurt farmers, manufacturers and workers with his tariffs. He has alienated even more women as stories of his sexual assaults and associations with Epstein, and undoubtedly more women and others are disgusted at his caging of children on the border. Now his open, raging racism has turned many, many more against hlm.

The Russians also won't have free reign to pull their tricks the helped him win a scant victory margin in three states and the Electoral College. Nor will he be able suppress thousands of AA votes in Detroit/Michigan.

2020 won't be a repeat of 2016. 2018, precursor, actually happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #33)

Sun Jul 21, 2019, 03:36 AM

35. At the Senate level in the South and Red States it did not, Georgia and Florida were hacked and the

... kept control of the Senate which in the end is what matters most not just gaining seats

The Russians also won't have free reign to pull their tricks the helped him win a scant victory margin in three states


Says who ?!?!?

Donald Trump has already said he's going to cheat at that point he called off the 2020 election

if Donald Trump wins by a wide or even a thin margin there's no one on planet Earth that's going to believe it was fair and square

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #35)

Sun Jul 21, 2019, 07:17 AM

36. We're talking about trump not the senate. And voters are much more aware of Russian bots than...

than they were in 2016. And are you actually contending that trump has widen his 36-37% base of total voters? I mean you may want to ignore kids in cages, new allegations of sexual assault and association with Epstein the child molestor, and his blatant racism but that doesn't mean millions of voter will.

And Mueller's testimony coming up this very week on national TV will futher expose clear cut evidence of trump's criminality. That also has to be factored in.

He'll keep his racist base, but many more have been turned off by his actions since 2018 even, not to mention since 2016. Everything fell into place for him in 2016 and he barely "won" then.

You can keep being Debbie Downer but I don't believe all those things are going to repeat themselves again. 2020 will look more like 2018 than 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #36)

Sun Jul 21, 2019, 03:18 PM

38. I'm talking about the KGOP cheating with the Russians and Trump allowing it.

to do such he does not need a wider base he doesn't even need underwhelming numbers we can have overwhelming numbers and still lose if they cheat.

the level and depth of penetration into our electoral system by the Russia and the Republicans allowing it is gob smacking it's in the Mueller report.

There is going to be no 2020 election we have exposing Donald Trump's & the Republicans treachery and pretty much nothing else after that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #38)

Sun Jul 21, 2019, 04:57 PM

39. We can disagree. All those things are not going to fall into place again...

for trump to sqeak out a 77k margin in three states. Too many people are now aware of their tricks. Plus trump has alienated millions since 2016 and continues to. See 2018 for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #39)

Sun Jul 21, 2019, 05:02 PM

40. Like Adam Schiff said (link) there's nothing stopping them from cheating again

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212301056#post4

And I'm not just talking about an influencecampaign I'm talking about the Russians breaking into our electoral systems and either vote adding or registration shaving


the thing people who continue to believe there was nothing changed in those systems want us to bleed is that the intended to influence our elections but took no steps to do such with digital data that makes no sense at all.

It will be easier to believe Donald Trump wasn't racist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #40)

Sun Jul 21, 2019, 05:32 PM

41. Why do you think I always mention the 77k votes in 3 states.

I've contended since the election that it was stolen. I just don't think lightning will strike twice in trump's favor. The Russians didn't stop their chicanery in 2018, enough people were turned off by trump that the vote hacking and repug vote suppression couldn't make up for the disgust many voters felt towards trump. White women who voted for him in 2016 were turned off by him and he's been worse since then and even more evidence had come out against him.

And speaking of evidence, do you actually think no votes will be turned against him after the Mueller hearings this week?

After Mueller's news conference a few weeks back many who were tricked by Barr's false claim that Mueller's report exonerated trump found out differently.

IMO 2016 was one-time thing that can't be duplicated. trump has turned off too many voters and the Russians and repug dirty tricks won't be able to make up for the disaffection and desertion by voters. Kids in cages? Raping a woman in a dept. store dressing room. Naked racism and "go back to where you came from" chants? Please!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #41)

Sun Jul 21, 2019, 07:19 PM

42. " IMO 2016 was one-time thing that can't be duplicated. " .... There has to be some

... changes digitally for that statement to be true.

There are few to no changes in the US election systems for 2016 to be a one time thing.

Overwhelming numbers won't over come vote adding or registration shaving.

I worked in it 3/4 of my life that's not the way computers work either you change something or the same things going to happen just on a different day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #42)

Sun Jul 21, 2019, 08:15 PM

43. We'll see. Willing to wager $5 that trump loses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #43)

Mon Jul 22, 2019, 08:38 AM

44. Depends on what happens beforehand if we expose him to maybe we win

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #8)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 08:32 PM

25. Russia , voter suppression & Democratic losing trend from 2010 forward

Last edited Sat Jul 20, 2019, 09:37 PM - Edit history (3)

plus the third party candidates all played a role, and Comey also.

The reality of the differences between conditions between 2008 and 2016: The fact is the Democratic Party was strong going into 2008 and very weak going into into 2016.

We lost about 1000 seats from 2010 to 2016. That means people were voting Republican not Democratic during the time we held the presidency.

We lost control of apportionment in 2010-right after the big win on the ACA health care. Republicans were happy to use their big tea party victories to gerrymander-especially in so-called battle ground states. They also their state legislature advantages and secretary of state offices to continue and extend suppressing the voting power of likely democratic voters.

We were unable or did not raise sufficient money to win down ballot offices during that time period.

So many Dems seem to want to ignore facts that do no support favorite narratives doing so does not win elections.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #25)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 09:02 PM

28. +1, 2010 really hurt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 06:10 PM

11. Thanks for this analysis.

That Times story was eating at me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 06:16 PM

14. K&R!

Thanks for this analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 06:58 PM

20. Well written and I agree.

I've noticed these crowd trends in Calif state elections as well over the decades. When Republicans make gains here, they do so in many counties. Same as when the Dems do well. This last election was a Dem sweep in the main positions as well as a huge majority in the legislature.

Right now, Dems have such a lock on this state but we cant be caught off guard. We got Pete Wilson in the 90's for heavens sake, and R's had some real power in the State Legislature back then. I don't think we should just assume Dems will keep winning here like that.

But well written piece that people need to be aware of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 08:54 PM

26. So what about the states Hillary did better in?

Arizona Hillary 45.1, Obama 44.5 Texas Hillary 43 Obama 41 She also did better in Georgia than he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #26)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 10:17 PM

31. I think those are states trending in the Dems' direction...

I believe demographics are likely the reason Hillary did better in those states compared to Obama - same with California.

Arizona and Texas are the two 'Republican' states likely to become the next real battle ground. It might not happen in 2020 but it will happen sooner rather than later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2019, 10:12 PM

29. 2018 was a referendum against trump and he was beaten dicisively. Since then he has done nothing to.

widen his base, in fact he has done many things to hurt farmers, manufacturers and workers with his tariffs. He has alienated even more women with as stories of his sexual assaults and associations with Epstein, and undoubtedly more women and others are disgusted at his caging of children on the border. Now his racism has turn many, many more against hlm.

The Russians also won't have free reign to pull their tricks the helped him win a scant victory margin in three states and the Electoral College.

No, 2020 will not be a repeat of 2016. trump was/is a one-time, lucky phenomenon where everything turn in his favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread