Support NeoGAF

[Box of Kittens]

Iowa saw one of the largest swings of any state last November. Sometimes huge swings are temporary and things revert back to normal the next election (Indiana 2008). But those swings often persist or even continue to get more dramatic (West Virginia 2000). The reason why I tend to think Iowa is more likely to stay R is that it has a high non-college white population without any growing Democratic-leaning groups to really balance it out.

 

[TestOfTide]

We're writing them off because history moves forwards, not backwards, and the changes we're seeing w/ the Southern Strategy going national aren't going to undo themselves.

Well with an attitude like that, they will turn safe red.

We can't continue the Rahm Emanuel attitude of only investing in "competitive" races. We have to help places become and/or stay competitive by investing in those places.

And considering that we are getting record high donations, now is the perfect time to invest everywhere.

 

[Autodidact]

I think it's also worth remembering that each election has its own particular context, especially vis-a-vis swing states. In 2000 and 2004, Gore and Kerry won Wisconsin by razor-thin margins - almost the same margins by which Trump won it last year - but then in 2008 Obama had a blowout followed by a 5% win in 2012. Next time we'll have a Republican president (whoever it may be) on the defensive, and right-wing media won't be able to use the specter of the black president. I don't disagree that certain states are trending red or that we should reevaluate the resources we allocate to them. However, we should be aware that 2020 won't be 2016. In the context of that election we might have a much better chance of winning those states back.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Iowa saw one of the largest swings of any state last November. Sometimes huge swings are temporary and things revert back to normal the next election (Indiana 2008). But those swings often persist or even continue to get more dramatic (West Virginia 2000). The reason why I tend to think Iowa is more likely to stay R is that it has a high non-college white population without any growing Democratic-leaning groups to really balance it out.

so how did Democrats manage to win the last 5/7 times going back to Dukakis, What held Iowa and Ohio longer compared to West Virginia with similar demographics? the dynamic of the two candidates?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Well with an attitude like that, they will turn safe red.

We can't continue the Rahm Emanuel attitude of only investing in "competitive" races. We have to help places become and/or stay competitive by investing in those places.

And considering that we are getting record high donations, now is the perfect time to invest everywhere.

Yeah, unless we're really strapped for cash this seems more like a discussion to be had when determining which states Obama should go stump in.

 

[kirblar]

Well with an attitude like that, they will turn safe red.

We can't continue the Rahm Emanuel attitude of only investing in "competitive" races. We have to help places become and/or stay competitive by investing in those places.

And considering that we are getting record high donations, now is the perfect time to invest everywhere.

I'm not saying don't invest in Senate races. I'm talking only about the Presidential level. Fucking hell.

Senate races have never been off-limits anywhere because people still believe in the "Mavericks".

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

We shouldn't write off states because of one election since we have much more data than just that one election

If it's a clear trend and we're losing bigly more than once, sure. I'm not convinced it was anything other than the fact that Hillary Clinton was a poor match for Iowa and always had been.

 

[kirblar]

We shouldn't write off states because of one election since we have much more data than just that one election

If it's a clear trend and we're losing bigly more than once, sure. I'm not convinced it was anything other than the fact that Hillary Clinton was a poor match for Iowa and always had been.

I feel like if we are winning these types of states (were purple, turning red), it's because it's a blowout due to forces far beyond our control. And thus more resources (again, at Pres level) aren't going to actually help much. Send it to the local campaigns instead.

 

[Dan]

well, huh.

Heard this on the radio yesterday, it was pretty amazing.

Step 1. Redefine success as reducing number of people using government services.
Step 2. Slash funding to all government services.
Step 3. Watch fewer people be able to access and receive services.
Step 4. Declare success!
Step 5. Return to Step 2.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

We shouldn't write off states because of one election since we have much more data than just that one election

If it's a clear trend and we're losing bigly more than once, sure. I'm not convinced it was anything other than the fact that Hillary Clinton was a poor match for Iowa and always had been.

This sums up how I feel about Iowa and Ohio.

I think we should wait to see what happens in the 18 governor's race and polling early on in 2020 to decide whether or not to spend in Iowa!

This too

 

[whyamihere]

I think we should wait to see what happens in the 18 governor's race and polling early on in 2020 to decide whether or not to spend in Iowa!

 

[NeoXChaos]

I feel like if we are winning these states, it's because it's a blowout due to forces far beyond our control.

so Obama was a force beyond our control when he won them in 08 and 12?

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm not saying don't invest in Senate races. I'm talking only about the Presidential level. Fucking hell.

Senate races have never been off-limits anywhere because people still believe in the "Mavericks".

That can go hand-in-hand with the presidential election though.

Not a single state in 2016 split its ticket between the presidential and Senate votes. Some like IN or MO were divergent, but in general I think you need to get people jazzed about the presidential race in order to win downticket as well. Few Iowa Democrats are going to want to turn out for whoever their Senate candidate is, they'll want to turn out for Franken or Booker or Gillibrand or whoever.

 

[kirblar]

so Obama was a force beyond our control when he won them in 08 and 12?

I would point to Indiana in '08 as being a direct result of Bush.

 

[TestOfTide]

I'm not saying don't invest in Senate races. I'm talking only about the Presidential level. Fucking hell.

Senate races have never been off-limits anywhere because people still believe in the "Mavericks".

But even still that leads to an attitude of only focusing POTUS campaigns in "competitive" areas, which will inevitably have a negative affect on any downticket races not occurring in "competitive" areas.

Look at Trump.Trump pretty much campaigned EVERYWHERE and it payed off. Even Obama knew to go to counties you don't think you will win to reduce how much you lose them by.

 

[whyamihere]

I would point to Indiana in '08 as being a direct result of Bush.

I mean, yes, but also, I don't think Hillary Clinton would've won Indiana in 08!

 

[kirblar]

But even still that leads to an attitude of only focusing POTUS campaigns in "competitive" areas, which will inevitably have a negative affect on any downticket races not occurring in "competitive" areas.

Look at Trump.Trump pretty much campaigned EVERYWHERE and it payed off. Even Obama knew to go to counties you don't think you will win to reduce how much you lose them by.

I don't think any amount of campaigning by Clinton was going to help in those areas. That's what 30 years of political history in the public eye does to you.

I mean, yes, but also, I don't think Hillary Clinton would've won Indiana in 08!

I mean, yeah, I wish she had the self-awareness to bow out and recognize that being the flagbearer was a very bad fit for her, but alas, she did not.

 

[Box of Kittens]

I actually agree with the argument that we should be investing everywhere. My understanding is that spending money in a particular race/state hits a point of diminishing returns more quickly than one would expect so there's a lot of benefit to spreading the money around more. Writing states off entirely is a bad idea for several reasons. There's downballot considerations, neglecting an area can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, you want to be able to take advantage of opportunities that arise, only investing in the places you "need" can screw you over when the landscape changes and you need to start winning in places you traditionally haven't, etc.

I also agree that we don't know for sure what the landscape in 2020 will be exactly. I mean, if Trump's approvals stay sub-40 then honestly the Democrats will be able to win by nominating a ham sandwich. If Sherrod Brown is the nominee then Ohio may be more competitive than it would otherwise be. There's just a lot of unknowns that we won't be able to get a handle on until the election is closer. It seems likely that playing offense in WI/PA/MI while playing defense in MN/NH will be important in the event of a competitive 2020 election.

My point about Iowa is not so much that we should abandon the state entirely but that, at a presidential level, I consider the scenario where it becomes a red state more likely than the one where it reverts to purple.

 

[RustyNails]

Hannity is going down with the ship

@grynbaum

Hannity on radio just now: "For those accusing me of pushing a conspiracy theory, you are the biggest phony hypocrites in the entire world."

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Hannity is going down with the ship

Incoming "it was a joke/satire" defense.

 

[kirblar]

I actually agree with the argument that we should be investing everywhere. My understanding is that spending money in a particular race/state hits a point of diminishing returns more quickly than one would expect so there's a lot of benefit to spreading the money around more. Writing states off entirely is a bad idea for several reasons. There's downballot considerations, neglecting an area can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, you want to be able to take advantage of opportunities that arise, only investing in the places you "need" can screw you over when the landscape changes and you need to start winning in places you traditionally haven't, etc.

I also agree that we don't know for sure what the landscape in 2020 will be exactly. I mean, if Trump's approvals stay sub-40 then honestly the Democrats will be able to win by nominating a ham sandwich. If Sherrod Brown is the nominee then Ohio may be more competitive than it would otherwise be. There's just a lot of unknowns that we won't be able to get a handle on until the election is closer. It seems likely that playing offense in WI/PA/MI while playing defense in MN/NH will be important in the event of a competitive 2020 election.

My point about Iowa is not so much that we should abandon the state entirely but that, at a presidential level, I consider the scenario where it becomes a red state more likely than the one where it reverts to purple.

Ya, this is pretty much where I'm at in general. Spread resources. An appearance/rally or two? Sure. That's fine.

I'm just saying that a presidential campaign investing a lot of time and effort into the state is likely about to go as well as Obama trying to recruit Collins for the ACA did.

The broader point that Iowa and other rust belt states are a stand-in for: They're not the future of the party. The "WWC" obsession, the need to "go back to what worked" - we can't.

 

[TestOfTide]

I don't think any amount of campaigning by Clinton was going to help in those areas. That's what 30 years of political history in the public eye does to you.

I'm not talking about Hillary I'm talking about when we have a much more inspiring candidate in 2020.

 

[Wilsongt]

Hannity is going down with the ship

I am wondering if he is just trying to get fired at this point.

 

[jmdajr]

Hannity is going down with the ship

Cool so he admits it.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Hannity is going down with the ship

 

[Plinko]

Hannity is going down with the ship

What? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How are they "hypocrites?"

 

[Blader]

I am wondering if he is just trying to get fired at this point.

He can leave whenever he wants. He has a clause in his contract that if Roger Ailes goes, he can resign with just 30 or 60 days notice.

What? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How are they "hypocrites?"

Because the people accusing him of pushing a conspiracy theory are also the ones pushing the fake news conspiracy of Trump/Russia collusion, of course.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Trade was a significant factor in Iowa swinging like it did.

Obama successfully positioned himself as an anti-trade candidate and McCain/Romney with their corporate business ties shipped jobs over seas.

Then Obama tried to push TPP, Hillary couldn't walk back her comments or her NAFTA ties, etc.

 

[The Technomancer]

I actually agree with the argument that we should be investing everywhere. My understanding is that spending money in a particular race/state hits a point of diminishing returns more quickly than one would expect so there's a lot of benefit to spreading the money around more. Writing states off entirely is a bad idea for several reasons. There's downballot considerations, neglecting an area can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, you want to be able to take advantage of opportunities that arise, only investing in the places you "need" can screw you over when the landscape changes and you need to start winning in places you traditionally haven't, etc.

I also agree that we don't know for sure what the landscape in 2020 will be exactly. I mean, if Trump's approvals stay sub-40 then honestly the Democrats will be able to win by nominating a ham sandwich. If Sherrod Brown is the nominee then Ohio may be more competitive than it would otherwise be. There's just a lot of unknowns that we won't be able to get a handle on until the election is closer. It seems likely that playing offense in WI/PA/MI while playing defense in MN/NH will be important in the event of a competitive 2020 election.

My point about Iowa is not so much that we should abandon the state entirely but that, at a presidential level, I consider the scenario where it becomes a red state more likely than the one where it reverts to purple.

I agree with this, with the caveat that we should be tuned into how this stuff appears. The logic that injecting too much into Montana early would make it look like the candidate was being backed by "the big Dems" seemed sound to me

 

[whyamihere]

Ya, this is pretty much where I'm at in general. Spread resources. An appearance/rally or two? Sure. That's fine.

I'm just saying that a presidential campaign investing a lot of time and effort into the state is likely about to go as well as Obama trying to recruit Collins for the ACA did.

The broader point that Iowa and other rust belt states are a stand-in for: They're not the future of the party. The "WWC" obsession, the need to "go back to what worked" - we can't.

It actually doesn't seem like you're where Box of Kittens is?

We don't know who our nominee is or what Trump's numbers are or, really, what we're running on, and there are a host of unknowns that mean that we actually have no idea what 2020 will look like and if we should invest in Iowa.

I know you don't like populism and maybe abandoning the Rust Belt to the "future of the party" is a nice stand in for that, but there are a multitude of combinations of EVs for 2020.

We actually could do a lot worse with WWC votes and lose Minnesota and New Hampshire and Maine, which is 17 more EVs we need to make up elsewhere. I'm a little scared that you seem almost giddy to turn your back on trying to even cut into the margins with these voters, something we need to do to win Georgia, Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina!

 

[TestOfTide]

What? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How are they "hypocrites?"

He's calling the Trump/Russia stuff a "conspiracy theory".

Keep in mind Hannity has LITERALLY been using the term "Deep State" to whine about the IC.

 

[Plinko]

No states should be written off at this point. 2016 may end up an anomaly. Trump energized the xenophobes and Clinton was immensely unlikeable and had a metric ton of baggage. It was far, far from what would be classified a "normal" election.

He's calling the Trump/Russia stuff a "conspiracy theory".

Keep in mind Hannity has LITERALLY been using the term "Deep State" to whine about the IC.

Ah, OK. So the thing with an active FBI investigation is a conspiracy theory, and the thing with no evidence whatosever is not. Sure thing, Hannity.

 

[Teggy]

.

 

[The Technomancer]

Trade was a significant factor in Iowa swinging like it did.

Obama successfully positioned himself as an anti-trade candidate and McCain/Romney with their corporate business ties shipped jobs over seas.

Then Obama tried to push TPP, Hillary couldn't walk back her comments or her NAFTA ties, etc.

Trade is so frustrating because its such a misdirected priority, and its something that the left gets wrong almost as often as the right. Not that stuff like TPP doesn't contain very troubling corporate concessions, but the idea that global trade is the cause of lost jobs and increased poverty is...basically wrong. Its a factor, but gains in efficiency and skill requirements are why the jobs went, and refusal to tax the wealthy and redistribute it are why the gains haven't been felt

 

[Plinko]

.

As a math teacher, this is my favorite story in quite some time. Either huge accounting errors or blatant disregard for the truth. I guess the latter.

 

[TestOfTide]

No states should be written off at this point. 2016 may end up an anomaly. Trump energized the xenophobes and Clinton was immensely unlikeable. It was far, far from what would be classified a "normal" election.

I've been saying for months now that 2016 was the red Rural White Wave election. Look at Florida and Pennsylvania where Trump literally only won because he got the rural areas to completely outvote everywhere else.

I'm predicting that over time the suburban areas are going to start voting more and more like the urban areas. And at that point the only states that vote GOP are the ones where there are more rural voters than non-rural voters.

 

[Beer Monkey]

He's calling the Trump/Russia stuff a "conspiracy theory".

Keep in mind Hannity has LITERALLY been using the term "Deep State" to whine about the IC.

I need to get one of these hoodies that Sam Bee sells.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I actually agree with the argument that we should be investing everywhere. My understanding is that spending money in a particular race/state hits a point of diminishing returns more quickly than one would expect so there's a lot of benefit to spreading the money around more. Writing states off entirely is a bad idea for several reasons. There's downballot considerations, neglecting an area can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, you want to be able to take advantage of opportunities that arise, only investing in the places you "need" can screw you over when the landscape changes and you need to start winning in places you traditionally haven't, etc.

I also agree that we don't know for sure what the landscape in 2020 will be exactly. I mean, if Trump's approvals stay sub-40 then honestly the Democrats will be able to win by nominating a ham sandwich. If Sherrod Brown is the nominee then Ohio may be more competitive than it would otherwise be. There's just a lot of unknowns that we won't be able to get a handle on until the election is closer. It seems likely that playing offense in WI/PA/MI while playing defense in MN/NH will be important in the event of a competitive 2020 election.

My point about Iowa is not so much that we should abandon the state entirely but that, at a presidential level, I consider the scenario where it becomes a red state more likely than the one where it reverts to purple.

Ya, this is pretty much where I'm at in general. Spread resources. An appearance/rally or two? Sure. That's fine.

I'm just saying that a presidential campaign investing a lot of time and effort into the state is likely about to go as well as Obama trying to recruit Collins for the ACA did.

The broader point that Iowa and other rust belt states are a stand-in for: They're not the future of the party. The "WWC" obsession, the need to "go back to what worked" - we can't.

I agree that states like Iowa/Ohio don't represent the future of the party, but we also need to be concerned with the present of the party. The point where North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia are reliably voting blue is still several cycles away. If we can still win some rust belt states in the meantime as a Plan B that's something worth pursuing, even if we count them as Tier 2 or 3 states.

If I were looking at the electoral math in 2020, here's how I'd prioritize the states (with all the knowledge that five months into 2017 has given me):

Tier 1 flips - Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin (even if these are trending red, they were extremely close and these three alone would have given us the presidency)
Tier 1 holds - Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada
Tier 2 flips - Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia
Tier 2 holds - Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico
Tier 3 - Iowa, Ohio, Texas

 

[NeoXChaos]

It actually doesn't seem like you're where Box of Kittens is?

We don't know who our nominee is or what Trump's numbers are or, really, what we're running on, and there are a host of unknowns that mean that we actually have no idea what 2020 will look like and if we should invest in Iowa.

I know you don't like populism and maybe abandoning the Rust Belt to the "future of the party" is a nice stand in for that, but there are a multitude of combinations of EVs for 2020.

We actually could do a lot worse with WWC votes and lose Minnesota and New Hampshire and Maine, which is 17 more EVs we need to make up elsewhere. I'm a little scared that you seem almost giddy to turn your back on trying to even cut into the margins with these voters, something we need to do to win Georgia, Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina!

I agree that states like Iowa/Ohio don't represent the future of the party, but we also need to be concerned with the present of the party. The point where North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia are reliably voting blue is still several cycles away. If we can still win some rust belt states in the meantime as a Plan B that's something worth pursuing, even if we count them as Tier 2 or 3 states.

If I were looking at the electoral math in 2020, here's how I'd prioritize the states (with all the knowledge that five months into 2017 has given me):

Tier 1 flips - Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin (even if these are trending red, they were extremely close and these three alone would have given us the presidency)
Tier 1 holds - Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada
Tier 2 flips - Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia
Tier 2 holds - Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico
Tier 3 - Iowa, Ohio, Texas

No states should be written off at this point. 2016 may end up an anomaly. Trump energized the xenophobes and Clinton was immensely unlikeable and had a metric ton of baggage. It was far, far from what would be classified a "normal" election.



Ah, OK. So the thing with an active FBI investigation is a conspiracy theory, and the thing with no evidence whatosever is not. Sure thing, Hannity.

All of this.

 

[Plinko]

Robert Frank‏Verified account @robtfrank

Mnuchin tells @JohnJHarwood the Estate Tax hurts "lots of farmers and small family businesses." By "lots" he means 80 out of 5,400.

Every one of these people in this administration is just the worst.

 

[Crocodile]

Trade was a significant factor in Iowa swinging like it did.

Obama successfully positioned himself as an anti-trade candidate and McCain/Romney with their corporate business ties shipped jobs over seas.

Then Obama tried to push TPP, Hillary couldn't walk back her comments or her NAFTA ties, etc.

Sometimes it isn't clear to me which states trade conversations play well in. Like hasn't NAFTA been great for Iowa?

 

[BlastProcessing]

@AliABCNews
Burr, Warner announce they're going to subpoena Flynn's company to get the documents he's refusing to provide."Business can't plead the 5th"

Get fucked boi.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate intelligence committee to subpoena two of former national security adviser Mike Flynn's businesses.

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/867120646236639233

^Damn beaten

 

[The Technomancer]

@AliABCNews
Burr, Warner announce they're going to subpoena Flynn's company to get the documents he's refusing to provide."Business can't plead the 5th"

Get fucked boi.

 

[CoolOff]

5 o'clock.

OPPO-TIME.

 

[TestOfTide]

I agree that states like Iowa/Ohio don't represent the future of the party, but we also need to be concerned with the present of the party. The point where North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia are reliably voting blue is still several cycles away. If we can still win some rust belt states in the meantime as a Plan B that's something worth pursuing, even if we count them as Tier 2 or 3 states.

If I were looking at the electoral math in 2020, here's how I'd prioritize the states (with all the knowledge that five months into 2017 has given me):

Tier 1 flips - Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin (even if these are trending red, they were extremely close and these three alone would have given us the presidency)
Tier 1 holds - Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada
Tier 2 flips - Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia
Tier 2 holds - Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico
Tier 3 - Iowa, Ohio, Texas

Honestly for tiers I would put it like this:

Easy flips: Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, Arizona

Medium flips: Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan

Hard Flips: NE-2, Texas, Ohio, ME-2, Iowa

Risky Holds: NH, Minnesota, Maine

I put Florida as easy flip because literally the only reason Trump won it was because he maximized red rural turnout.

 

[Diablos]

It's 5!

 

[Greigor The Fellhand]

Pretty sure when they do that they'll find incriminating evidence to also lock up flyn jr..

 

[VendettaRed07]

Sometimes it isn't clear to me which states trade conversations play well in. Like hasn't NAFTA been great for Iowa?

It has been, but the problem is almost no politicians are willing to make the case for why Free trade works.

Trashing NAFTA like Trump said he would, would destroy the agriculture industry in Iowa which the state really relies upon for example. But politicians know it's harder to argue for free trade and where some of our deals went wrong and how they could be better than "THEY SUCK! THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!"

 

[whyamihere]

why do y'all have tiers when it's 2017