Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

Obama tried to get medicare drug negotiations into ACA but had to drop it to get the bill passed with dem majorities. Where was AARP?

AARP only cares about the status quo. A lot of their power comes from being seen as non-partisan by members (and protecting their interests). If they start acting partisan (towards the left) then they lose the ability to affect voters on the right. It also doesn't help that it's hard to explain to the average voter. They need easily digested sound bites.

 

[ampere]

- For National (POTUS) focus on "New Blood" Democrats that can reignite the same kind of enthusiasm Obama did. The names I am looking at that I think show potential are Harris and Masto.

Hate that I'm even saying this, but is America ready for a woman president or was it just Hillary that people hated? I would vote for Harris/Masto in a heartbeat and be happy about it, just do not want a rust belt repeat in 2020

 

[TestOfTide]

Obama tried to get medicare drug negotiations into ACA but had to drop it to get the bill passed with dem majorities. Where was AARP?

Which Senators were against the Medicare Drug Negotiations?

I of course mean besides Joe Lieberman, because fuck Joe Lieberman.

Hate that I'm even saying this, but is America ready for a woman president or was it just Hillary that people hated? I would vote for Harris/Masto in a heartbeat and be happy about it, just do not want a rust belt repeat in 2020

Harris I need to look into more, but Masto clearly has the political chops. Remember that she was the one that adversitied voting during that one night where the Nevada Supermarket extended voting hours. And she clearly has access to Harry Reid's campaign machine.

 

[Makai]

Just pick likable actors like Tom Hanks or Will Smith. That's it.

Why did Reagan and Arnold win in California

 

[B-Dubs]

Hate that I'm even saying this, but is America ready for a woman president or was it just Hillary that people hated? I would vote for Harris/Masto in a heartbeat and be happy about it, just do not want a rust belt repeat in 2020

The fact it was Hillary didn't help, but even exits showed that a number of people (even women) felt a woman couldn't be president. The fact Hillary got this far will help whoever comes after, but we might need to let this one sit for another cycle or two. That said, a Hillary-type candidate without her baggage (Gillibrand anyone?) could probably make it happen.

Just pick likable actors like Tom Hanks or Will Smith. That's it.

I still say George Clooney. Now that man has shiny. There's even time to get him into Congress if he wanted.

 

[sphagnum]

Hate that I'm even saying this, but is America ready for a woman president or was it just Hillary that people hated? I would vote for Harris/Masto in a heartbeat and be happy about it, just do not want a rust belt repeat in 2020

It was Hillary due to the perceptions of her. Any female candidate will face sexism but I don't think it's insurmountable. It just has to be the right candidate.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Hate that I'm even saying this, but is America ready for a woman president or was it just Hillary that people hated? I would vote for Harris/Masto in a heartbeat and be happy about it, just do not want a rust belt repeat in 2020

I think this is where it comes in handy that Iowa is the first state in the primary. Even though the state is probably out of reach, I think if Harris or Masto can get Iowa WWC-type Democrats as excited as they were for Obama, then they'll probably be mostly fine in WI/MI. If they can't, that's when I'd start to panic some.

 

[B-Dubs]

It was Hillary due to the perceptions of her. Any female candidate will face sexism but I don't think it's insurmountable. It just has to be the right candidate.

I mean it didn't help that she had all that baggage, but being a woman did make it a bit heavier than it would normally be. If we want a woman to be president she'll have to have next to zero baggage. I mean, like I said before, you could probably slot Gillibrand into Hillary's campaign (and change nothing else) and she'd likely make it through.

 

[Crocodile]

Do people hate "identity politics" because they confuse it with tokenism?

As an aside, I checked that Symone Sanders video, is the only reason she doesn't like Dean is because he said something mean about Sanders/millennials once or twice? Is that literally it?

How about we all just agree that the following is the winnable strategy:

- Have a FULL TIME DNC Chariman who knows how to win not just blue areas and purple areas but even red areas.

- For red states/districts/areas run blue dogs who are catered to those specific parts. For example if a Dem is running in Arizona for Jeff Flake's seat they need to focus on how they will make sure immigration reform also includes border security reform and how they will protect the Gallieros Wilderness.

- For blue states/districts/areas run full-on progressives who push hard on both diversity and liberal economics. Warren is the perfect example of that.

- For National (POTUS) focus on "New Blood" Democrats that can reignite the same kind of enthusiasm Obama did. The names I am looking at that I think show potential are Harris and Masto.

- Have Keith Ellison work for the DNC not as chairman of the whole thing but maybe as the head of a division focused on getting millenials and minorities to vote in midterms.

- Have people like Obama and Reid working behind the scenes.

- Have Schumer lead all efforts to block the GOP agenda.

I agree with this though as others have said, Obama probably works best out in the open. It's the same reason we didn't want him on the SC.

I mean it didn't help that she had all that baggage, but being a woman did make it a bit heavier than it would normally be. If we want a woman to be president she'll have to have next to zero baggage. I mean, like I said before, you could probably slot Gillibrand into Hillary's campaign (and change nothing) and she'd likely make it through.

We were talking about the shitstorm that was this election at Thanksgiving and we all agreed that a big part of why Obama was successful was because he was basically squeaky clean. Literally any baggage would have sunk him because a Black person would never be given any slack or benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately this will have to be true of whoever the first female president ends up being.

 

[The Technomancer]

We were talking about the shitstorm that was this election at Thanksgiving and we all agreed that a big part of why Obama was successful was because he was basically squeaky clean. Literally any baggage would have sunk him because a Black person would never be given any slack or benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately this will have to be true of whoever the first female president ends up being.

And of course the most maddening part was how clean Clinton actually was and it still wasn't enough. Just the implication of impropriety was enough for the country

 

[B-Dubs]

Do people hate "identity politics" because they confuse it with tokenism?

I'm not entirely sure this would surprise me.

We were talking about the shitstorm that was this election at Thanksgiving and we all agreed that a big part of why Obama was successful was because he was basically squeaky clean. Literally any baggage would have sunk him because a Black person would never be given any slack or benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately this will have to be true of whoever the first female president ends up being.

Yup. Whoever it is will also have to navigate the issue with traditional gender rolls, just like Obama had to do with racial stereotypes. I do think it's why Gillibrand can do it. She doesn't really have any scandals or any skeletons (that I've ever heard of) and she navigates the gender issue fairly well.

 

[kirblar]

And of course the most maddening part was how clean Clinton actually was and it still wasn't enough. Just the implication of impropriety was enough for the country

This is why the Dems have to go young and fresh every time. Put the EXP in the VP slot.

 

[B-Dubs]

This is why the Dems have to go young and fresh every time. Put the EXP in the VP slot.

Not even young, just fresh to the national stage. I mean, Bernie was in government longer than Hillary and nothing stuck to him regardless of what it was (partly because no one really hit him hard but you get the idea). Keep everyone hidden on the state level until they're ready to go.

 

[TestOfTide]

Do people hate "identity politics" because they confuse it with tokenism?

As an aside, I checked that Symone Sanders video, is the only reason she doesn't like Dean is because he said something mean about Sanders/millennials once or twice? Is that literally it?



I agree with this though as others have said, Obama probably works best out in the open. It's the same reason we didn't want him on the SC.



We were talking about the shitstorm that was this election at Thanksgiving and we all agreed that a big part of why Obama was successful was because he was basically squeaky clean. Literally any baggage would have sunk him because a Black person would never be given any slack or benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately this will have to be true of whoever the first female president ends up being.

Yeah the pushback against Dean has been ridiculous.

As to your thanksgiving discussion, I think what helped keep Obama relatively squeaky clean was that he was a New Blood Democrat. He didn't have enough of a history for the GOP to find dirt on him and Obama's primary win caught the GOP by surprise because they were focused on attacking Hillary.

So inevitably the question becomes: Do Masto and Harris already have significant skeletons in their closets, or does the fact that they are new mean, as I would predict, that they are relatively squeaky clean?

 

[ampere]

And of course the most maddening part was how clean Clinton actually was and it still wasn't enough. Just the implication of impropriety was enough for the country

She dared to be involved in policy as a First Lady. The gall!

: / It just makes me sad/angry/frustrated. My younger brother's gf made the comment "i dk if a woman should be president" -_-

So inevitably the question becomes: Do Masto and Harris already have significant skeletons in their closets, or does the fact that they are new mean, as I would predict, that they are relatively squeaky clean?

The mere appearance of corruption seems like a strong negative, at least among millennials, so would be good if they didn't have many corporate ties.

 

[Ecotic]

Hate that I'm even saying this, but is America ready for a woman president or was it just Hillary that people hated? I would vote for Harris/Masto in a heartbeat and be happy about it, just do not want a rust belt repeat in 2020

America is ready for a woman President, Hillary won the popular vote by a large enough amount and she would have won going away were it not for Weiner and Comey.

Hillary was also uniquely revolting in so many ways. At some point she clearly thought she was going to be attacked no matter what and stopped giving a fuck and stopped being careful.

 

[TestOfTide]

She dared to be involved in policy as a First Lady. The gall!

: / It just makes me sad/angry/frustrated. My younger brother's gf made the comment "i dk if a woman should be president" -_-



The mere appearance of corruption seems like a strong negative, at least among millennials, so would be good if they didn't have many corporate ties.

I doubt that vague corporate ties could have any effect.

I just checked Masto's Wikipedia and the only possibly damning thing is that she led a case against a Republican Lieutenant Governor 4 days after her husband hosted a fundraising dinner for the Democratic opponent.

Other than that she seems squeaky clean.

Edit: Just checked Harris's Wikipedia page too. Her career is pretty much squeaky clean, with the closest thing to a "scandal" being the fact that she refused to recommend the death penalty for someone that shot a police officer.

 

[Debirudog]

God damn, KAMALA HARRIS GOOOO!!!!!

 

[faisal233]

Do people hate "identity politics" because they confuse it with tokenism?

As an aside, I checked that Symone Sanders video, is the only reason she doesn't like Dean is because he said something mean about Sanders/millennials once or twice? Is that literally it?



I agree with this though as others have said, Obama probably works best out in the open. It's the same reason we didn't want him on the SC.



We were talking about the shitstorm that was this election at Thanksgiving and we all agreed that a big part of why Obama was successful was because he was basically squeaky clean. Literally any baggage would have sunk him because a Black person would never be given any slack or benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately this will have to be true of whoever the first female president ends up being.

No, the only reason she doesn't like dean is because he supported HTC as a superdelegate and asserted his right to vote for who ever he wanted as a superdelegate. Nevermind that he was squeaky clean as DNC chair during the very contested HRC/Obama primary.

 

[TestOfTide]

God damn, KAMALA HARRIS GOOOO!!!!!

What did I miss? Did she says something really awesome on of the cable news networks or something?

 

[Debirudog]

What did I miss? Did she says something really awesome on of the cable news networks or something?

Nope just my inner fanboynism breaking out on the fact that she's scandal-free.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

The mere appearance of corruption seems like a strong negative, at least among millennials, so would be good if they didn't have many corporate ties.

I'm confident most young people don't care how many corporate ties they have as long as the firms they're associating with don't have a reputation of being up to no good.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Hate that I'm even saying this, but is America ready for a woman president or was it just Hillary that people hated? I would vote for Harris/Masto in a heartbeat and be happy about it, just do not want a rust belt repeat in 2020

Clinton had terrible baggage and isn't a good politician. I wouldn't indict all female candidates based on her. IMO Harris is the best democrat talent since Obama. Does that mean I think she can beat Trump in four years, specifically in the rust belt? No. But I don't know who can beat him at this point. We'll see.

 

[Debirudog]

I believe Harris would drive other demographics through the roof. The only weakness she has is her lack of connection with the rural populous but I just know she's got the skills to be president.

 

[TestOfTide]

Nope just my inner fanboynism breaking out on the fact that she's scandal-free.

BTW, speaking of scandals, when I was reading her Wikipedia page I found out that apparently San Francisco once had a scandal called "FajitaGate"....

I believe Harris would drive other demographics through the roof. The only weakness she has is her lack of connection with the rural populous but I just know she's got the skills to be president.

Considering what I read of her, she would be the perfect candidate to push hard on criminal justice reform.

 

[RastaMentality]

Harris/Masto sounds so good it's like Tumblr fanfic. a blasian woman running with a latina. whew. the white male republican vote would be up the roof.

 

[TestOfTide]

Harris/Masto sounds so good it's like Tumblr fanfic. a blasian woman running with a latina. whew. the white male republican vote would be up the roof.

I wasn't suggesting they run on a ticket together. I was suggesting that either Harris or Masto become the Democratic nominee.

Like with Obama, you have the VP nominee be some old white dude with lots of experience. So like Schumer, or Whitehouse, or Jerry Brown.

 

[Crocodile]

If we had 3 more blue dogs then we could have prevented scalia 2.0 and flipped the SC, we could have prevented the gutting of the ACA, we could have prevented the most extreme of the GOP agenda from ever being a reality and kept trump in check.

Im voting for my long shot blue dog senate candidate in Louisiana on the 10th. You guys can keep your party purity.

FWIW, I donated to the Louisiana Senate race today. Seeing so many people donate to Jill "Wi-Fi" Stein's scam pissed me off enough that I felt I had to put some money to a more worthwhile cause (even if its also a big longshot).

Clinton had terrible baggage and isn't a good politician. I wouldn't indict all female candidates based on her. IMO Harris is the best democrat talent since Obama. Does that mean I think she can beat Trump in four years, specifically in the rust belt? No. But I don't know who can beat him at this point. We'll see.

Is this a "who knows what things will look like in 4 years" post or a "we should look forward to 8 years of Trump because the Rust Belt is gone for the foreseeable future" post?

 

[B-Dubs]

Clinton had terrible baggage and isn't a good politician. I wouldn't indict all female candidates based on her. IMO Harris is the best democrat talent since Obama. Does that mean I think she can beat Trump in four years, specifically in the rust belt? No. But I don't know who can beat him at this point. We'll see.

Might it be worth looking more into Arizona and Georgia in that case? Those were both within single digits, with Arizona being closer than Ohio, if memory serves.

 

[numble]

Might it be worth looking more into Arizona and Georgia in that case? Those were both within single digits, with Arizona being closer than Ohio, if memory serves.

Ceding the Rust Belt, taking back Wisconsin and taking Arizona and a Georgia still means you are short of 270.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

The Rust Belt states were all so close that it would be incredibly stupid to give up on them, especially since we need as many states to give us senate seats as possible. If Harris or whoever can be just marginally better than Clinton we can win those states and it seems silly to just give up on them like they're now Republican forever.

 

[whyamihere]

How about we all just agree that the following is the winnable strategy:

- Have a FULL TIME DNC Chariman who knows how to win not just blue areas and purple areas but even red areas.

- For red states/districts/areas run blue dogs who are catered to those specific parts. For example if a Dem is running in Arizona for Jeff Flake's seat they need to focus on how they will make sure immigration reform also includes border security reform and how they will protect the Gallieros Wilderness.

- For blue states/districts/areas run full-on progressives who push hard on both diversity and liberal economics. Warren is the perfect example of that.

- For National (POTUS) focus on "New Blood" Democrats that can reignite the same kind of enthusiasm Obama did. The names I am looking at that I think show potential are Harris and Masto.

- Have Keith Ellison work for the DNC not as chairman of the whole thing but maybe as the head of a division focused on getting millenials and minorities to vote in midterms.

- Have people like Obama and Reid working behind the scenes.

- Have Schumer lead all efforts to block the GOP agenda.

This is smart. I like you. You should stay.

 

[TestOfTide]

Might it be worth looking more into Arizona and Georgia in that case? Those were both within single digits, with Arizona being closer than Ohio, if memory serves.

Arizona was a 50,000 vote difference if I recall correctly.

The test run for if Arizona is on play will be midterms. Have a good Dem run for Jeff Flake's seat. If Flake loses, then they need to go all in on Arizona. If Flake wins in a landslide, then don't waste time on it.

I think the battleground states that will be focused on in 2020 are NH, ME-2, MI, WI, PA, AZ, GA, NC, FL, NE-2, and maybe IA.

OH is now Indiana Ver.2 and we better hope that a good enough primary performance will keep IA from becoming Nebraska Ver.2

 

[B-Dubs]

Ceding the Rust Belt, taking back Wisconsin and taking Arizona and a Georgia still means you are short of 270.

It's actually a straight up tie given the current results.

Arizona was a 50,000 vote difference if I recall correctly.

The test run for if Arizona is on play will be midterms. Have a good Dem run for Jeff Flake's seat. If Flake loses, then they need to go all in on Arizona. If Flake wins in a landslide, then don't waste time on it.

I think the battleground states that will be focused on in 2020 are NH, ME-2, MI, WI, AZ, GA, NC, FL, NE-2, and maybe IA.

OH is now Indiana Ver.2 and we better hope that a good enough primary performance will keep IA from becoming Nebraska Ver.2

Good plan. Why are you not in-charge?

EDIT: But yea, obviously give it a test to see if it was a one-off or worth going after. The more states the Dems can put into play, and force the GOP to defend, the better.

 

[TestOfTide]

It's actually a straight up tie given the current results.

Wasn't Michigan closer than Wisconsin? If we can flip back Wisconsin than Michigan will flip back as well. And all we need to flip back PA is higher Dem turnout and/or rural areas to be disappointed in a Trump presidency.

Even Florida is still in play. Remember, states like Florida only went red this year because Trump did to the Rural areas this year what Obama did to the Urban areas in 2008.

Good plan. Why are you not in-charge?

EDIT: But yea, obviously give it a test to see if it was a one-off or worth going after. The more states the Dems can put into play, and force the GOP to defend, the better.

Oh don't worry. I am going to be working for Elizabeth Warren's reelection campaign at least as a part time volunteer.

 

[numble]

It's actually a straight up tie given the current results.



Good plan. Why are you not in-charge?

EDIT: But yea, obviously give it a test to see if it was a one-off or worth going after. The more states the Dems can put into play, and force the GOP to defend, the better.

No, it is not a straight up tie if you cede the Rust Belt, which is Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania (and Iowa and Indiana).

 

[B-Dubs]

No, it is not a straight up tie if you cede the Rust Belt, which is Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania (and Iowa and Indiana).

I'm getting 269-269 if you take Clinton's map and give her WI+AZ+GA

 

[numble]

I'm getting 269-269 if you take Clinton's map and give her WI+AZ+GA

Okay, you're right-I forgot to flip back Wisconsin. It still does not get to 270, which will give the win to the House majority.

 

[TestOfTide]

Okay, you're right-I forgot to flip back Wisconsin. It still does not get to 270, which will give the win to the House majority.

Michigan was closer than Wisconsin this year and Rick Snyder is about to piss off a shit load of people by having his legal team try to downplay the importance of literacy, so if Wisconsin flips back then so does Michigan.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

You try to flip back Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Campaign also in Florida, NH, Nevada, Colorado.

Forget North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Why would you forget North Carolina, though? It wasn't a blow out % wise. It is still rapidly urbanising. It has a growing Hispanic population.

Cooper should be able, to some degree, to remedy the voter suppression.

Michigan, Pennsylvannia, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona should all be target flips.

Also worth noting:

From Upshot.

 

[The Chosen One]

Didn't see this posted yet:

Conway joins attacks on Romney
http://www.politico.com/blogs/donal...1/kellyanne-conway-attacks-mitt-romney-231830

And it’s been all downhill from there, as Trump supporters and surrogates have piled on, slamming Romney for his attacks on Trump during the GOP primary and his refusal to endorse Trump.

Now Kellyanne Conway, a senior transition adviser and Trump’s campaign manager, has joined the fray.

“Receiving deluge of social media & private comms re: Romney Some Trump loyalists warn against Romney as sec of state,” Conway posted on Twitter Thursday, linking to a POLITICO article about the attacks on Romney.

“Kissinger & Schultz [sic] as Secs of State flew around the world less, counseled POTUS close to home more. And were loyal. Good checklist,” she added later, referring to former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz.

I thought Conway was one of the moderates (relatively speaking) in Trump's camp and she would be one of the ones advocating for Romney. That fact that she made a public tweet for something she could have easily just said and kept private, means she's either trying to persuade Trump publicly because he's leaning toward Romney or they've already chosen Guilianni and they're now in the process of establishing the narrative for why Romney couldn't be picked.

Morning Joe is going to have a meltdown since they were perhaps the biggest advocates of Romney being Sect. of State. Joe was actually first to break the news that Romney was in consideration and ever since Joe has been pumping up Romney relentlessly But judging by Conway's latest tweet, Romney isn't going to happen. .

 

[neurosisxeno]

Why would you forget North Carolina, though? It wasn't a blow out % wise. It is still rapidly urbanising. It has a growing Hispanic population.

Cooper should be able, to some degree, to remedy the voter suppression.

Michigan, Pennsylvannia, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona should all be target flips.

Also worth noting:

From Upshot.

Texas will be a swing state in either 2020 or 2024 depending on who runs.

EDIT: I highly suspect Arizona will absolutely be a battleground in 2020.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Why would you forget North Carolina, though? It wasn't a blow out % wise. It is still rapidly urbanising. It has a growing Hispanic population.

Cooper should be able, to some degree, to remedy the voter suppression.

Michigan, Pennsylvannia, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona should all be target flips.

Also worth noting:

From Upshot.

Arizona was closer than NC.

Don't want resources spread too thin. We need to campaign like Trump did, people laughed at his hectic schedule but it worked.

Spread the candidate over the states which are must wins.

Oh and Minnesota will need campaigning too, along with Maine.

Georgia actually didn't swing that much, just 2 points from 2012.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

My worry is 2020 is too early for Harris. I like her and she's clearly talented, but the Sun Belt isn't quite ready yet and I think reaching for it over the Rust Belt, at least in 2020 is premature, and Harris probably isn't the right candidate to reach for the Rust Belt. Arizona was Trump +4.5%. Michigan was Trump +0.3%. Even if Arizona becomes 2% more Democratic relative to the rest of the country, and Michigan 2% less, Michigan is still a relatively more Democratic state in 2020. Going for the Sun Belt will be just a repeat of Clinton's overreach - a less bad one, but probably still not a winner.

And 2024 is way too premature for Texas. 2028 with an exceptionally good candidate, maybe, but just projecting present demographic changes forward, it's not a really serious prospect until 2032.

I think 2020 should (and probably will) be fought in the Rust Belt. Maybe the penultimate or even final election that does so, but yeah, it's time isn't over yet and trying to force it will probably lead to another Republican win. That's something to bear in mind when you're thinking about picking metropolitan coastal candidates.

 

[numble]

My worry is 2020 is too early for Harris. I like her and she's clearly talented, but the Sun Belt isn't quite ready yet and I think reaching for it over the Rust Belt, at least in 2020 is premature, and Harris probably isn't the right candidate to reach for the Rust Belt. Arizona was Trump +4.5%. Michigan was Trump +0.3%. Even if Arizona becomes 2% more Democratic relative to the rest of the country, and Michigan 2% less, Michigan is still a relatively more Democratic state in 2020. Going for the Sun Belt will be just a repeat of Clinton's overreach - a less bad one, but probably still not a winner.

And 2024 is way too premature for Texas. 2028 with an exceptionally good candidate, maybe, but just projecting present demographic changes forward, it's not a really serious prospect until 2032.

I think 2020 should (and probably will) be fought in the Rust Belt. Maybe the penultimate or even final election that does so, but yeah, it's time isn't over yet and trying to force it will probably lead to another Republican win. That's something to bear in mind when you're thinking about picking metropolitan coastal candidates.

If you are playing demographics, Michigan and PA are in reach with higher African-American turnout, which is possible with Harris. The hope would be that Trump has maximized his appeal to the Rust Belt and doesn't earn more votes with policies targeted towards the Rust Belt.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

It all depends on whether public has realized that electing someone with zero governing experience is a bad thing out not.

For all we know public wants a more experienced leader by then.

 

[Marvie_3]

My worry is 2020 is too early for Harris. I like her and she's clearly talented, but the Sun Belt isn't quite ready yet and I think reaching for it over the Rust Belt, at least in 2020 is premature, and Harris probably isn't the right candidate to reach for the Rust Belt. Arizona was Trump +4.5%. Michigan was Trump +0.3%. Even if Arizona becomes 2% more Democratic relative to the rest of the country, and Michigan 2% less, Michigan is still a relatively more Democratic state in 2020. Going for the Sun Belt will be just a repeat of Clinton's overreach - a less bad one, but probably still not a winner.

And 2024 is way too premature for Texas. 2028 with an exceptionally good candidate, maybe, but just projecting present demographic changes forward, it's not a really serious prospect until 2032.

I think 2020 should (and probably will) be fought in the Rust Belt. Maybe the penultimate or even final election that does so, but yeah, it's time isn't over yet and trying to force it will probably lead to another Republican win. That's something to bear in mind when you're thinking about picking metropolitan coastal candidates.

Agreed on Texas. I think 2020 or 2024 are too optimistic. Its turning but theres still a long way to go.

 

[Pixieking]

It all depends on whether public has realized that electing someone with zero governing experience is a bad thing out not.

For all we know public wants a more experienced leader by then.

Absolutely this! Who could've said 4 years ago that someone with zero experience would win out over someone with 20 years experience, including helping open-up Myanmar to the possibilities of American trade.

 

[Teggy]

What a campaign against Bernie might have looked like:

https://medium.com/@sashastone/ten-...not-have-beaten-trump-b596674c1c93#.hzwyz68ec