Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

It actually makes perfect sense for her to want to defend rather than expand at the moment. There's no reason to be crazy right now. Focus on the areas where she's going to be weakest. I've always assumed that would be Pennsylvania and Ohio.

If her team feels the Bernie hold outs are the biggest problem, then, for the love of god, pick Warren. Please. Her economic populism will play well in Ohio. (I can't speak for Pennsylvania.) The only person I can see putting Ohio more firmly in her column is Sherrod, but that cannot happen. We cannot lose the seat for two years, and put someone in with the incumbency advantage.

Also, this is not me throwing shade at all. My family is from West Virginia. I loved spending summers there as a kid.

But someone on s4p thinks s/he should move from NoVA to WV because WV Is way more liberal.

: sigh : These children.

roflroflroflroflrofl

 

[NeoXChaos]

There's a danger in assessing Republican prospects in a state based on recent election results. Democrats have done very well in presidential elections in that time frame, winning four of six, none of which were particularly close. The worst performance for the Democrats during that time frame was John Kerry in 2004, and he still managed over 48% of the popular vote. A state would only have to be slightly Democratic leaning for us to expect it to go Democratic in every election since 1992.

An example I like to use to illustrate this is Wisconsin, because people were hyping Scott Walker's ability to win in a "deep blue" state back when he was being treated as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. As evidence people point to Wisconsin having voted Democratic in every presidential election starting in 1988. But its Partisan Voting Index is only D+2! Indeed the only elections in which Wisconsin even came close to mattering during that time were 2000 and 2004, and both Gore and Kerry won the state by razor thin margins. Gore won by less than 6000 votes, while Kerry won by just over 11000 votes. Really the most impressive Democratic performance during that time was 1988 itself when Dukakis beat Bush by a decent margin, but that was a long time ago. Long enough ago that West Virginia was one of ten states that went blue.

Another way of looking at it is that back in the late 1980s, states like Illinois, California, and New Jersey were seen as integral to the supposed Republican Electoral College "lock" because they had gone Republican in six straight presidential elections starting in 1968. Then Clinton won them in 1992 and they haven't gone Republican since.

To make a long story short, don't assume states can't go Republican just because they haven't recently. Although I certainly wouldn't expect Trump to be the candidate to flip any of them, it doesn't mean that all those states are safe.

How do states become swing states so fast? Or is it gradual like the bolded?

 

[pigeon]

You're not getting it, let's put it this way:

You are working for the Trump campaign, and are trying to figure out the most likely path to victory. What states do you focus on? And don't answer "lol I'd just quit/give up."

I think cogent's point is, sure, the GOP has to assume they could win PA. But the Democrats don't have to assume that just because the GOP is assuming it.

That said, I agree that if Trump flips any state PA is probably it.

I would note that the flip on the RV/LV screen (with Trump doing better among unlikely/unregistered voters rather than worse as most GOP candidates do) is important to keep in mind. There are two possibilities:

1) The more politically attentive you are the more likely you are to just be repulsed by Donald Trump already. Under this theory, he can only go down as the campaign period continues.
2) Trump actually is activating the disastermouse cohort of disenfranchised working-class white people who mostly don't vote but might actually turn out this year. Under this theory you'd expect Trump to outperform the LV screen, specifically in places like Appalachia or the Rust Belt.

I think both theories have some truth to them, but the first is probably dominant. Mostly I think Trump isn't doing well enough in polling in places like WV for 2 to be an especially strong theory.

 

[Basileus777]

How do states become swing states so fast? Or is it gradual like the bolded?

Changing demographics and changing party coalitions usually. And landslide elections can hide a lot of the changes gradually going on within states.

 

[googleplex]

Well.. I'll do my part for the Democrats in AZ.

 

[ctothej]

Just curious, are there any states that are trending red? Say, states where there's a growing share of white voters? I kind of just assume every state is turning blue, but that's probably not the case.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

There's a report that Clarence Thomas is thinking about retiring after the election. Can't say how reliable it is though.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2594317/

 

[HanShotFirst]

There's a danger in assessing Republican prospects in a state based on recent election results. Democrats have done very well in presidential elections in that time frame, winning four of six, none of which were particularly close. The worst performance for the Democrats during that time frame was John Kerry in 2004, and he still managed over 48% of the popular vote. A state would only have to be slightly Democratic leaning for us to expect it to go Democratic in every election since 1992.

An example I like to use to illustrate this is Wisconsin, because people were hyping Scott Walker's ability to win in a "deep blue" state back when he was being treated as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination. As evidence people point to Wisconsin having voted Democratic in every presidential election starting in 1988. But its Partisan Voting Index is only D+2! Indeed the only elections in which Wisconsin even came close to mattering during that time were 2000 and 2004, and both Gore and Kerry won the state by razor thin margins. Gore won by less than 6000 votes, while Kerry won by just over 11000 votes. Really the most impressive Democratic performance during that time was 1988 itself when Dukakis beat Bush by a decent margin, but that was a long time ago. Long enough ago that West Virginia was one of ten states that went blue.

Another way of looking at it is that back in the late 1980s, states like Illinois, California, and New Jersey were seen as integral to the supposed Republican Electoral College "lock" because they had gone Republican in six straight presidential elections starting in 1968. Then Clinton won them in 1992 and they haven't gone Republican since.

To make a long story short, don't assume states can't go Republican just because they haven't recently. Although I certainly wouldn't expect Trump to be the candidate to flip any of them, it doesn't mean that all those states are safe.

I agree but I think its a also important to look at the trends of each state. If the trends point to PA becoming Republican I would be worried, but they arent. the most conservative areas are losing population and Obama has done better in PA than every other Democrat since Johnson. (Clinton was a three way race though.) As for places like Jersey and California and West Virginia. they were either experiencing demographic changes or in WV's case were always conservative but were slowly switching parties as Democrats gradually moved away from conservatism.

 

[Box of Kittens]

How do states become swing states so fast? Or is it gradual like the bolded?

One factor is that the overall results can mask partisan movement of a state. Between 1968 and 1988 the only Democratic victory was 1976, when Carter's margin in the popular vote was just over 2 points. The next best performance was 1968, when Humphrey just barely lost the popular vote. The other four elections were all landslide Republican victories. So you had several states that were trending Democratic in the 1980s that people didn't notice because they were still voting Republican (along with pretty much everyone else). Then suddenly in 1992 you have Clinton doing much better than any Democratic had done since LBJ and you have this tidal wave of supposedly safe Republican states going Democratic. On the opposite side you have West Virginia, whose rapid movement towards the Republicans was somewhat masked by Clinton's strong performances in 1992 and 1996. It basically went from safe Democratic to safe Republican in the span of a decade.

In the case of the states mentioned above, the real movement was not always as dramatic. Illinois and California were traditional swing states that had just gone Republican because, well, Republicans were winning nearly every election so they were cleaning up in the swing states. They basically moved from purple to blue. Vermont, on the other hand, was a genuine red to blue movement, as it had gone Republican in every election since the party was founded expect 1964 until Clinton won it in 1992, and now it's one of the most Democratic states in the country.

And then you have a state like Ohio that has impressively managed to remain a swing state for a long time.

 

[cogent]

You're not getting it, let's put it this way:

You are working for the Trump campaign, and are trying to figure out the most likely path to victory. What states do you focus on? And don't answer "lol I'd just quit/give up."

It doesn't matter. If that state was California would anyone be talking about it? It's only being discussed about PA because there is some strange perception that Trump has a greater than 0% chance there.

It's like saying that Obama should have based his 2012 strategy on this.

Because Dick Morris said so. I don't think the Dems need to react to Trump people claiming they are going to win a state that hey have 0% chance of winning. If they said they were going to win the moon vote should we be having a real conversation about it?

Both scenarios are fantasy.

To make a long story short, don't assume states can't go Republican just because they haven't recently. Although I certainly wouldn't expect Trump to be the candidate to flip any of them, it doesn't mean that all those states are safe.

I'm not. I'm from Pennsylvania and have a Masters in Political Science. I know the demographics of the state, I know the growing population centers and discussing PA as a possible Trump state is an absolute waste of time.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Jesus, Chuck Todd, that's like the worst hair cut ever.

 

[User 463088]

I think cogent's point is, sure, the GOP has to assume they could win PA. But the Democrats don't have to assume that just because the GOP is assuming it.

That said, I agree that if Trump flips any state PA is probably it.

I would note that the flip on the RV/LV screen (with Trump doing better among unlikely/unregistered voters rather than worse as most GOP candidates do) is important to keep in mind. There are two possibilities:

1) The more politically attentive you are the more likely you are to just be repulsed by Donald Trump already. Under this theory, he can only go down as the campaign period continues.
2) Trump actually is activating the disastermouse cohort of disenfranchised working-class white people who mostly don't vote but might actually turn out this year. Under this theory you'd expect Trump to outperform the LV screen, specifically in places like Appalachia or the Rust Belt.

I think both theories have some truth to them, but the first is probably dominant. Mostly I think Trump isn't doing well enough in polling in places like WV for 2 to be an especially strong theory.

The beautiful thing is without some type of ground organization, I don't see how he can take advantage of these unlikely voters. If he had an organization in place, sure. I'm sure he could drive turnout among them. (Although I think they're confined to certain states in which the margins won't mean much).

So, the great part about option 2 is that Trump is ill positioned to take advantage of it.

The money/time investment in PA makes perfect sense. There's a competitive Senate race and, demographically, it's not as advantageous as Florida, Colorado or Virginia to Queen.

 

[Mr. Lemming]

Please take PA out of contention. The political ads are so terrible and overwhelming when we are considered a swing state.

 

[User 463088]

Please take PA out of contention. The political ads are so terrible and overwhelming when we are considered a swing state.

As an Ohioan and former Floridian, to you I say.......deal with it. If we have to experience it, so should everyone else.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I think cogent's point is, sure, the GOP has to assume they could win PA. But the Democrats don't have to assume that just because the GOP is assuming it.

That said, I agree that if Trump flips any state PA is probably it.

I would note that the flip on the RV/LV screen (with Trump doing better among unlikely/unregistered voters rather than worse as most GOP candidates do) is important to keep in mind. There are two possibilities:

1) The more politically attentive you are the more likely you are to just be repulsed by Donald Trump already. Under this theory, he can only go down as the campaign period continues.
2) Trump actually is activating the disastermouse cohort of disenfranchised working-class white people who mostly don't vote but might actually turn out this year. Under this theory you'd expect Trump to outperform the LV screen, specifically in places like Appalachia or the Rust Belt.

I think both theories have some truth to them, but the first is probably dominant. Mostly I think Trump isn't doing well enough in polling in places like WV for 2 to be an especially strong theory.

Ultimately I think there's sort of two different arguments going on here. If you look at the big talk from Trump and the media about how "this is the year Republicans capture PA," just like the Republicans said in 2012, and 2008, and so on, well, it's just not very likely. It seems that cogent is reacting to that.

But what theprodigy and I are saying is that if you look at potential paths to a Trump victory, one that goes through Pennsylvania is among the less far-fetched. Now this is really a sign of Trump's weakness more so than strength. There are a lot of states that have recently been battlegrounds that are really looking bad for him. States like Florida, Virginia, and Nevada present significant demographic challenges to Trump, and in the case of the latter two are becoming more Democratic anyway.

Basically, Hillary campaigning in Pennsylvania isn't about what the most likely scenarios are, but rather what the most likely paths to a Trump victory are and closing those paths off. I happen to think that this is a smart strategy, and is not incompatible with laughing at the usual suspects saying "this is the year it happens."

 

[Spoiled Milk]

California might swing. After all, there are a lot of swingers, here.

 

[Valhelm]

Jill ain't breaking 5% but the Libertarians have a pretty decent shot at cracking the magic number.

I'm silently cheering on the Libertarian Party. In addition to weakening the GOP, Gary Johnson's success might give more legitimacy to other independents.

 

[Iolo]

The problem right now is that recent state level polling is absolute trash quality, with a couple exceptions. We have reasonable national polling, which won't be awesome until we get into the LV phase, and the campaigns—well, one campaign—should have internal polling we can't see.

So it's hard to know what exactly is happening in OH and PA.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Please take PA out of contention. The political ads are so terrible and overwhelming when we are considered a swing state.

Good good.

Operation Florida 2.0 is going according to plan

 

[cogent]

Ultimately I think there's sort of two different arguments going on here. If you look at the big talk from Trump and the media about how "this is the year Republicans capture PA," just like the Republicans said in 2012, and 2008, and so on, well, it's just not very likely. It seems that cogent is reacting to that.

But what theprodigy and I are saying is that if you look at potential paths to a Trump victory, one that goes through Pennsylvania is among the less far-fetched. Now this is really a sign of Trump's weakness more so than strength. There are a lot of states that have recently been battlegrounds that are really looking bad for him. States like Florida, Virginia, and Nevada present significant demographic challenges to Trump, and in the case of the latter two are becoming more Democratic anyway.

Basically, Hillary campaigning in Pennsylvania isn't about what the most likely scenarios are, but rather what the most likely paths to a Trump victory are and closing those paths off. I happen to think that this is a smart strategy, and is not incompatible with laughing at the usual suspects saying "this is the year it happens."

And what I'm saying is that his path through Pennsylvania is as likely as his path to victory through California. If the election got the point where Trump was flipping Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania wouldn't matter.

 

[Y2Kev]

Define "working class". Does this just mean poor but not welfare poor? Or what?

 

[User 463088]

Define "working class". Does this just mean poor but not welfare poor? Or what?

It would probably include welfare poor too, to be honest.

 

[Basileus777]

And what I'm saying is that his path through Pennsylvania is as likely as his path to victory through California.

It's Pennsylvania or all of Colorado/Iowa/NH for Trump. That's his two paths to victory as Virginia is actually less likely for Trump than PA. It's too early for Hillary to be campaigning like she has already won.

 

[cogent]

Define "working class". Does this just mean poor but not welfare poor? Or what?

Working class traditionally refers to hourly wage, no salary, blue collar jobs. Whether it means that anymore is debatable.

It's Pennsylvania or all of Colorado/Iowa/NH for Trump. That's his two paths to victory as Virginia is actually less likely for Trump than PA. It's too early for Hillary to be campaigning like she has already won.

Based on what data?

 

[shinra-bansho]

I mean I work. Why can't I be working class?

 

[Box of Kittens]

I'm not. I'm from Pennsylvania and have a Masters in Political Science. I know the demographics of the state, I know the growing population centers and discussing PA as a possible Trump state is an absolute waste of time.

But based on demographics and growing population centers and whatnot, he's going to struggle in nearly all the recent battleground states. Do you think he's going to be competitive in Virginia or Nevada? It's not about what's likely, but about what's least unlikely. Not that I'm saying Pennsylvania would even be his best of the swing states, but if all his paths to 270 are implausible, well, you have to start preparing for implausible scenarios.

And what I'm saying is that his path through Pennsylvania is as likely as his path to victory through California. If the election got the point where Trump was flipping Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania wouldn't matter.

This is hyperbole. Pennsylvania is D+1. California is D+9, with a huge Hispanic population to boot.

Pennsylvania wouldn't be my first choice for Trump's tipping point state, but it wouldn't be all that far down the list either. There's a reason the Clinton campaign wants to lock it down rather than just take it for granted.

 

[cogent]

But based on demographics and growing population centers and whatnot, he's going to struggle in nearly all the recent battleground states. Do you think he's going to be competitive in Virginia or Nevada? It's not about what's likely, but about what's least unlikely. Not that I'm saying Pennsylvania would even be his best of the swing states, but if all his paths to 270 are implausible, well, you have to start preparing for implausible scenarios.

I think it's going to be the largest electoral landslide since 1988. I think Trump has a 0% chance of winning the election.

 

[Mr. Lemming]

As an Ohioan and former Floridian, to you I say.......deal with it. If we have to experience it, so should everyone else.

2012 wasn't too bad, but 2008 we had it worse than Ohio or Florida (~$71MM vs Mid-$50s MM), so I totally understand the pain.

Edit: Not to mention I still had a land line then... so many polls...

 

[Box of Kittens]

I think it's going to be the largest electoral landslide since 1988. I think Trump has a 0% chance of winning the election.

Fair enough, but then it really doesn't matter where Hillary campaigns, so what's the harm in Pennsylvania? She can always start moving resources to Georgia or whatnot later.

 

[Basileus777]

Fair enough, but then it really doesn't matter where Hillary campaigns, so what's the harm in Pennsylvania? She can always start moving resources to Georgia or whatnot later.

Well then what matters is states with down ticket races that she can influence, in which case Pennsylvania is a pretty good place to spend money.

 

[cogent]

Fair enough, but then it really doesn't matter where Hillary campaigns, so what's the harm in Pennsylvania? She can always start moving resources to Georgia or whatnot later.

I'd rather she campaign in red states where we have chances to pickup seats that otherwise (without Trump) wouldn't be attainable.

Because I think that close races in blue states will break Dem because of the toxicity of Trump.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Well then what matters is states with down ticket races that she can influence, in which case Pennsylvania is a pretty good place to spend money.

One of the reasons I'd love to see Hillary campaign in Indiana even though it's something of a reach is that the governor's race is likely to be close. Well, that and I'm originally from Indiana.

 

[Coriolanus]

Jesus, Chuck Todd, that's like the worst hair cut ever.

he's just trying to give fuckmyshitup.jpg a run for his money, is all.

 

[aspiegamer]

Is there any kind of scientific formula for TV ad time to high explosive tonnage equivalent we can use to calculate how doomed Florida is this year? More importantly, will it be enough to sink it and/or detach it from the mainland?

 

[VendettaRed07]

https://www.ncscooper.com/5-million-uncounted-sanders-ballots-found-on-clintons-email-server/


So that's where all the votes went!!

Spoiler

It's funny because people believe this isn't a joke

 

[Box of Kittens]

I'd rather she campaign in red states where we have chances to pickup seats that otherwise (without Trump) wouldn't be attainable.

Because I think that close races in blue states will break Dem because of the toxicity of Trump.

I suppose what I'd like to see is for her to make some offensive investments right now but also play a good amount of defense, then start shifting resources to red states as victory (hopefully) looks more and more likely.

 

[itschris]

Politico: Sanders collides with black lawmakers

In a letter sent to both the Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns, the Congressional Black Caucus is expressing its resolute opposition to two key reforms demanded by Sanders in the run-up to the Democratic convention: abolishing the party’s superdelegate system and opening Democratic primaries up to independents and Republicans.

"The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states," says the letter, which was obtained by POLITICO. "The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process."

...

The opposition to open primaries is based on the fear that allowing independent or Republican voters to participate in Democratic primaries would dilute minority voting strength in many places.

The actual letter (PDF).

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I don't think Bernie even considered that the South has closed primaries for a very good reason.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I don't think Bernie even considered that the South has closed primaries for a very good reason.

Yeah, I mean, Bernie was complaining about how the South is more conservative... But imagine if South Carolina independents voted in the primaries!

 

[danm999]

So the Sanders 8-ball is back to "superdelegates must go".

 

[Valhelm]

I mean I work. Why can't I be working class?

The term was created by early socialists to refer to those who worked versus those who profited -- "work" generally meant manual labor. Before our modern service economy, it was much easier to separate laborers from employers. Most middle-class people would have been independent artisans or farmers who were self-employed.

In American politics, it's just a euphemism for poor. Some sociologists only use it for employed people not reliant on government assistance, but that isn't how it's used colloquially.

 

[User 463088]

Basketball is stupid. Cleveland is stupid. Cock uses are stupid. Primaries are stupid. Everything is stupid.

Vote Trump 2016.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Politico: Sanders collides with black lawmakers



The actual letter (PDF).

Sanders continues his revolution of disimpowering minorities in favor or the whites who "get it"

 

[FloydtheFathead]

#prayforeBay

 

[itschris]

Basketball is stupid. Cleveland is stupid. Cock uses are stupid. Primaries are stupid. Everything is stupid.

Vote Trump 2016.

Sounds like you need a visit from Captain Hillster to get you back on track!

 

[Crocodile]

I don't think Bernie even considered _______________.

FTFY

 

[watershed]

Politico: Sanders collides with black lawmakers



The actual letter (PDF).

I don't quite understand what is wrong with having to register as a democrat in order to vote in the democratic party's primary process. I would hate to see open primaries disempower registered democratic voters who have a huge stake in the success of the party like minorities or other demos that have no political home elsewhere.

 

[neurosisxeno]

I don't quite understand what is wrong with having to register as a democrat in order to vote in the democratic party's primary process. I would hate to see open primaries disempower registered democratic voters who have a huge stake in the success of the party like minorities or other demos that have no political home elsewhere.

I think the logic is that it isn't very welcoming to new voters. People who are invested in the political system are probably good to go, but imagine being one of those people who waits in line to vote and finds out they can't because they had to register with that party weeks or even months earlier. It's not a very welcoming system.

 

[cogent]

I don't quite understand what is wrong with having to register as a democrat in order to vote in the democratic party's primary process. I would hate to see open primaries disempower registered democratic voters who have a huge stake in the success of the party like minorities or other demos that have no political home elsewhere.

College students can't be bothered to mark that "DEM" box when they register to vote! FRAAAUDDDD.

I think the logic is that it isn't very welcoming to new voters. People who are invested in the political system are probably good to go, but imagine being one of those people who waits in line to vote and finds out they can't because they had to register with that party weeks or even months earlier. It's not a very welcoming system.

People should register for the party that most closely aligns with their values. Being Independent is the stupidest thing you can you. It offers zero benefit in our politcal system and basically exists for people who want to feel like they are a special flower.

 

[Manmademan]

I think cogent's point is, sure, the GOP has to assume they could win PA. But the Democrats don't have to assume that just because the GOP is assuming it.

That said, I agree that if Trump flips any state PA is probably it.

I would note that the flip on the RV/LV screen (with Trump doing better among unlikely/unregistered voters rather than worse as most GOP candidates do) is important to keep in mind. There are two possibilities:

1) The more politically attentive you are the more likely you are to just be repulsed by Donald Trump already. Under this theory, he can only go down as the campaign period continues.
2) Trump actually is activating the disastermouse cohort of disenfranchised working-class white people who mostly don't vote but might actually turn out this year. Under this theory you'd expect Trump to outperform the LV screen, specifically in places like Appalachia or the Rust Belt.

I think both theories have some truth to them, but the first is probably dominant. Mostly I think Trump isn't doing well enough in polling in places like WV for 2 to be an especially strong theory.

This is a bizarre conclusion. Ohio should be #1 on everyone's list.

PA is not a flippable state, but its weird that every four years the "swing state" talking point gets trotted out.