metalslimer
Member
The real problem is more MI and WI than Ohio.
It's going to be a rough election if we can't get those back.
It's going to be a rough election if we can't get those back.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
whyamihere
Banned
I actually think those are possible, because it's theoretically easy to get higher turnout in Milwaukee and Wayne County with a candidate who pays more attention to those areas.
PA is harder. Feels like SEPA is maxed out.
Florida is the big exception. There's not really much that the Clinton campaign could have done better there. The only thing the Dems can do in the future is keep turnout up while also trying to eat away at the now relevant panhandle.
You just have to keep from getting destroyed by 50 points in the rural counties in the Midwest. Those people aren't all permanent Republicans now.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
The real issue is the margins we lose noncities by. Upper midwest rural areas aren't lost causes, compare the county wins for WI and MN between Obama and Clinton.
KI1600 mentioned that a lot of the Obama state losses came from places like Scranton and ultimately Philly wasn't carrying the state by itself.
Part of the problem might have been how data driven they were. There were a few articles out there about it, how they wouldn't make a move without the data team getting massive input, and that might have done it. It kept them in places they could win and out of places they couldn't and as a result they suffered in more rural areas of the rust belt and lost those states as a result. I think next cycle whoever runs is going to have to make sure they strike a far better balance between data and traditional methods.
Bingo. Just need a candidate and campaign that targets them better.
balladofwindfishes
Member
We just need to hold the mid west for maybe one more round and then we're in the clear because NC and Arizona can carry us to 270, with Texas and Georgia in the wings, and a bluer Florida.
No.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I don't see why we give up on them at all! Ceding states costs us Senate seats and if we can get those rural upper Midwest counties back they can be as reliable as they were before.
Florida has been a pain in the ass for a long time and I don't see that changing with this freakshow election, and barring some complete idiocy like going out of NAFTA Texas isn't gonna turn blue any time soon.
Uh not if you start losing Maine, Iowa, Minnesota, etc etc. Let's not take entire states for granted because they will keep trending more white as other states trend more brown.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Agreed. I do think for a variety of reasons that those areas are going to be a challenge going forward, but we can hold those margins down enough to where we can compete with the right candidate/strategy. Iowa is a bit of an exception, where I think we were so dependent on those voters we probably have to just write the state off. Ultimately though as bad as the swings were, I don't think they're permanent, at least to that magnitude.
VendettaRed07
Member
But her campaign schedule was not as varied or didn't go deep into some rural areas like Obama did.
Like imagine if you are in a small town in western Pennsylvania. You work at the local autoshop, stick close to your group of friends, don't really watch much TV or travel to the city often.. Then Trump comes through with the show, Throwing the waterbottles screaming ITS RUBIO! Screaming he's going to bring the jobs back!.. that the Washington politicians don't really care about you and that's why these areas are left behind.. And then his opponent and none of her surrogates, the typical "Washington politicians", don't even come through that area, not even once..Is it really all that surprising they went for him in such large numbers? Hillary simply did not play enough defense in states that Trump was contesting.
Obama went through many of the same areas that Trump contested.. And promised hope and change. He didn't win the rural areas and mostly still relied on huge city turnout, but he limited the damage significantly and picked up a lot of areas Hillary simply got destroyed in. She lost by incredibly narrow margins in the three states that lost it for her
MI and WI are absolutely possible next time around. Remember she only lost those states by 10-30k. That's not insurmountable in the least, and if she actually campaigned in those states she probably could've won those voters.
I think PA is doable too - the most notable difference between Hillary and Obama in PA is that Hillary didn't win the suburbs around Philly like Bucks County.
I think PA is doable too - the most notable difference between Hillary and Obama in PA is that Hillary didn't win the suburbs around Philly like Bucks County.
PA is not impossible to win again. Hilary lost the state by less than 100k.
Who takes Iowa for granted?
VendettaRed07
Member
I think Rubio running for re-election here while the dems ran a dud helped as well. He massively outperformed numbers he got from Latinos elsewhere. Also, Florida gonna Florida.
I don't think Maine or Minnesota are going red anytime soon.I expect both states to be slightly more blue next time.
balladofwindfishes
Member
NC + Florida + AZ is 270 even without Minnesota or Maine or any state Trump won in 2016.
Sure, but how the fuck are you gonna reliably win Florida? It's Florida.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I think ceding states, especially normally reliably blue states, as forever lost is pretty dangerous when we're already having trouble taking the senate. I think there's a bit too much cheerleading about the future map that leads to us giving up the voters we have now while fantasizing about our future majority minority nation.
This, basically.
I think a lot of people are forgetting how slim Trump's margin of victory was. These are recoverable margins. This is not a Reagan style landslide.
I feel like by the time FL is reliable, half of it will be underwater
balladofwindfishes
Member
Even in this crazy election, Florida is still trending more blue every year.
It'll continue to get easier to win as time goes on.
QuiteWhittle
Member
MInnesota was only won by a less than 2% margin, wow, I never checked the margin until now. That's depressing.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Even then, the Dems obviously recovered from Regan. People are too quick to give up on WI, MI, and PA based on one general and some mid-terms.
VendettaRed07
Member
Minnesota is almost never won by huge margins despite how long it has been won by dems for, even in the Reagan years.
John Kerry only won it by like 3.5%
Think Al Gore won it by less than Hillary did.
But the thing is, we have no guarantee the Trump surge won't hold in future elections. So why on Earth would you count on Florida?
Yep.
The cities saved hilary from losing MN.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Also, has NC continued to trend towards blue? It's been a swing state for the past 3 elections and I'm not aware of any signs that it will be as blue as Virginia in one or two cycles.
Mackenzie 92
Member
yeah but with the change of congress, maybe they won't be able to do that? or that's the hope anyhow
balladofwindfishes
Member
Yea, these states aren't gone. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't also look for alternative paths that don't rely on them.
Ohio and Iowa though, those were ridiculous margins Trump won by.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Gore's not the best comparison since Nader did really well there.
I think Minnesota will stay reliable so long as we don't just give up entirely on the Midwest.
Minnesota was almost completely ignored. No Clinton advertising outside of the occasional national ad, and maybe a Bernie Sanders visit at one point. At the time it seemed like a sensible enough strategy since none of the (few) polls had the race very close, but taking it for granted was obviously the wrong move in retrospect.
Nope. Al Gore won the state by more than Hilary. I think third parties hurt her a bit in MN because trump only did slightly better then Romney did.He won a bunch of counties by a tiny margin in the state.
Box of Kittens
Banned
I think what worries a lot of people is that, even before now, the general thought was that trends in those states were unfavorable, so there's a sense that it can only get worse.
But I do agree that it's too soon to give up on those states. The margins were still very close. Those states are winnable and the gains Republicans have made are not irreversible. It will take a serious effort, but long term I think we are better served trying to hold down our losses in the smaller towns than focusing exclusively on the major cities (which are hugely important, of course, just they can't be the exclusive focus).
hydragonwarrior
Member
So Ted Cruz as Attorney General... I don't know anymore.
People need to realize Iowa is not the same as Michigan and Minnesota. Iowa's biggest export is corn. It's barely part of the rust belt.
Nowhere near as bad as Nader hurt Al Gore.
Hillary did nothing to even attempt to turn the tides in those states so just throwing up your hands and saying it's impossible to make up a 10,000 voter margin is dumb, imo. I know you're agreeing with me on this, I'm just reinforcing your point.
Not sure about that. Stein,McMullin and Johnson combined got more votes than Nader in the state.Realistically Stein and Johnson probably hurt her more then McMullin.Trump won a bunch of counties in the state by like 0-3 percent.Trump got aroumd the same amount of votes as romney got in the state in 2012 while Hilary did like 200k worse than Obama because of factors like strong third party support and possibly low democratic turnout.
balladofwindfishes
Member
On the flip side, NC is trending blue, and went for Obama in 2008, but hasn't been won by a Democrat since.
So the swing states trending red, and went red this year, are probably all still in reach, other than maybe Ohio and Iowa. A 1-2% loss is not a huge loss that will never be impossible to overcome.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Iowa's considered lost because all the young people moved to cities right? Before 2014 it was supposed to have a D-lean.
whyamihere
Banned
Manhattan will NEVER love him.
The funniest part of this is that's all he's ever really wanted. Everything he's ever done has been an attempt to be accepted by the upper crust elites in Manhattan and none of it has ever worked. It'd be sad if it didn't result in our current predicament.
- Status