• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

I’m not arguing that there aren’t candidates who have better chances based on where they fall on the political spectrum, I just meant that it’s an easier pill for you to swallow than a lot of those further left because your views are closer to those moderate candidates to start with
 
cville deac said:
Yeah, and I'm also practical. Can you paint me a likely scenario where we take the senate in the next president's 1st term? And when I say the next president, I'm assuming it's a Dem, but we could still blow this thing. You and I would both love to abolish the EC. But until we accomplish that, we still need to count 270, and the sad fact is the Dem nominee will likely have to win the general by at least 4-5 points in order to win the EC. If you take the solid red states, that gives Trump 204. You throw in FL, NC and AZ which lean red, and you're at 259. He won IA by 10 points in 2016. Now I get we can argue that Trump's tariffs are hurting IA, but culturally, IA is a Trump state, and that would get him to 265. And he only lost MN by 1% and NV by 2%. So even if PA and MI are back in Dem hands, it's still not a done deal. Trump altered the EC a bit when he turned OH red. The Pubs already had a bit of a house effect in their direction by the addition of the 2 senators being added to every state for EC purposes. So he's in a unique position where he can lose the northeast and west coast by yuge margins, but if he holds states like FL, GA, TX and NC by 1-5 points, he could possibly still win but lose the popular vote by maybe 6-7 points, which has never happened before. So yeah, let's be practical and find a nominee who can perform the best in these 10 states.
Click to expand...

Really liked this analysis, but is your math a little off if we add Wisconsin to the MI and PA category of Trump 2016 red States that now appear to be leaning blue?

Trump had 306 EC Votes in 2006. 270 is needed to win. If PA (20) and MI (16) are back in Dem hands, then that puts Trump back to 270. I would also put Wisconsin in the PA and MI category as that state has been more blue than red in recent elections before 2016, and WI took a turn left since the 2016 election. So, if the Dem candidate wins the same states as Hilary (while agreeing that NV (6) and MN (10) are far from locks), and also ads WI, MI, and PA, the Dem candidate wins even if he/she loses every other swing state that Trump carried in 2016 (IA, FL, NC, AZ, GA, OH; plus if the Dem candidate carries WI, MI and PA, he/she could lose NV and still prevail as well). Isn't that right or did the EC change since 2016?
 
Last edited:
Pilchard said:
Really liked this analysis, but is your math a little off if we add Wisconsin to the MI and PA category of Trump 2016 red States that now appear to be leaning blue?

Trump had 306 EC Votes in 2006. 270 is needed to win. If PA (20) and MI (16) are back in Dem hands, then that puts Trump back to 270. I would also put Wisconsin in the PA and MI category as that state has been more blue than red in recent elections before 2016, and WI took a turn left since the 2016 election. So, if the Dem candidate wins the same states as Hilary (while agreeing that NV (6) and MN (10) are far from locks), and also ads WI, MI, and PA, the Dem candidate wins even if he/she loses every other swing state that Trump carried in 2016 (IA, FL, NC, AZ, GA, OH; but if the Dem candidate carries WI, MI and PA, he/she could lose NV and still prevail as well). Isn't that right or did the EC change since 2016?
Click to expand...

If you add WI and keep what Hillary won plus PA & WI (and keep ME safe blue for 3, not 4), that adds up to 278. The reason I didn't add WI is because I don't think Trump's poll numbers there have been as bad as they've been in MI & PA, so I think it is a little less of a blue certainty. And again, Hillary only won MN & NH by 1, NV by 2, ME by 3 and VA by 5. But getting past 278 frankly looks daunting. The next most winnable states are FL, NC, AZ and IA in that order. I never want to count on FL for anything, and the other 3 are probably uphill climbs. Trump will most likely fare worse in 2020 than in 2016. As long as the Dem nominee is remotely palatable, I think he'll lose the popular vote by 5-10 points but will only lose the EC 278-260. And that's why it's critical not to lose a single state not named NH or ME. You win the popular vote by 6-7% and lose WI, you lose 270-268. And if you get a result like that, I'm guessing civil unrest could result.


Numbers, absolutely it's an easier pill for me to swallow. My larger point is, while I get how Trump has everyone so worked up, these large policy proposals ain't getting done in 2020-24, and I think some folks' expectations are getting a bit unrealistic. And what I don't want to happen is the left to sit home in 2024 because whoever the next president isn't able to accomplish most of what Dem candidates are currently talking about. I also don't want us to scare off independent and establishment Pub voters in those 10 states that will determine the election.
 
cville deac said:
You win the popular vote by 6-7% and lose WI, you lose 270-268. And if you get a result like that, I'm guessing civil unrest could result.
Click to expand...

Seriously -- not sure how anyone not being a disengenuous asshole could look at a result like that and say, yeah, the EC system is fair and makes sense. I mean, no one should right now, but that would really seal it.
 
cville, I think (hope) you're underestimating how much damage is being done to the Republican brand. The Senate could be in play. All of these incumbents are propping up an unpopular President.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Seriously -- not sure how anyone not being a disengenuous asshole could look at a result like that and say, yeah, the EC system is fair and makes sense. I mean, no one should right now, but that would really seal it.
Click to expand...

Given how unpopular Trump is on the coasts and how Pubs margins in big states like FL, TX, NC and GA are getting narrower, it's more than conceivable that Trump could lose by 7-10 points and only lose the EC 278-260. Or worse, win the EC 270-268 because you win a MN or WI by less than a point. Trump is the 1st president to govern only to his base and not to attempt to appeal to anyone else. And by doing that, he's created an anomaly where, for the 1st time in our history, you could have extremely disparate EC and popular vote tallies.
 
PhDeac said:
cville, I think (hope) you're underestimating how much damage is being done to the Republican brand. The Senate could be in play. All of these incumbents are propping up an unpopular President.
Click to expand...

I think Trump is doing long term damage to the Pub brand. But no, I am not underestimating the short term damage he's doing to the senate. In 2018, we picked up 40+ seats in the house and 2 seats in the senate. But we lost 4 seats in the senate, and of those 4, only 1 was by less than 5 points (FL). Have you looked at the 2020 senate map? It ain't pretty. Doug Jones is dead man walking. I'm hoping CO can offset that, but Hickenlooper isn't running, and he would have been the best candidate. Still a probable pick-up but no sure thing. So where are the other pick-ups? The only 3 that are remotely possible seem to be AZ, IA and ME. As I said, you'd think Trump's unpopular tariffs would be killing him in IA, and the 2018 house elections would suggest that a firebrand like Ernst is vulnerable. Vilsack would have made a good challenger, but he isn't running. And Trump won IA by 10 points last time. And Collins has never had a serious challenge in ME. Sure, 2020 could be the 1st time. I had forgotten about AZ earlier, but now realize McSally is up again, and we do have a good candidate there in Kelly, so that's the best shot of the 3. So yeah, we'd be doing well to pick up 1 or 2. And 2022 doesn't look great, especially when you consider the president's party normally performs poorly in midterms.
 
 
cville deac said:
I think Trump is doing long term damage to the Pub brand. But no, I am not underestimating the short term damage he's doing to the senate. In 2018, we picked up 40+ seats in the house and 2 seats in the senate. But we lost 4 seats in the senate, and of those 4, only 1 was by less than 5 points (FL). Have you looked at the 2020 senate map? It ain't pretty. Doug Jones is dead man walking. I'm hoping CO can offset that, but Hickenlooper isn't running, and he would have been the best candidate. Still a probable pick-up but no sure thing. So where are the other pick-ups? The only 3 that are remotely possible seem to be AZ, IA and ME. As I said, you'd think Trump's unpopular tariffs would be killing him in IA, and the 2018 house elections would suggest that a firebrand like Ernst is vulnerable. Vilsack would have made a good challenger, but he isn't running. And Trump won IA by 10 points last time. And Collins has never had a serious challenge in ME. Sure, 2020 could be the 1st time. I had forgotten about AZ earlier, but now realize McSally is up again, and we do have a good candidate there in Kelly, so that's the best shot of the 3. So yeah, we'd be doing well to pick up 1 or 2. And 2022 doesn't look great, especially when you consider the president's party normally performs poorly in midterms.
Click to expand...

So should Dems just give up all hope of taking the Senate? That's all three election cycles which a "bad" map for Dems. We've had the Senate in recent history, I have to think that there is a way to get it back. Heitkamp, Donnely, Manchin, etc all won in a Presidential election year.
 
deactherunner said:
So should Dems just give up all hope of taking the Senate? That's all three election cycles which a "bad" map for Dems. We've had the Senate in recent history, I have to think that there is a way to get it back. Heitkamp, Donnely, Manchin, etc all won in a Presidential election year.
Click to expand...

We got 60 in 2008. That's not a long time ago. All it took was a good candidate with a good operation and coattails.
 
19% undecided between two knowns. That’s pretty poor on both sides.

I’m assuming the large majority of undecideds will go to Trump. If someone hasn’t decided against Trump yet, it’s hard to assume they won’t vote Trump.
 
Last edited:
I feel like media want to declare Biden the winner so they can tear him down.
 
HuskyDeac said:
Or because he has all the financial backing.
Click to expand...

I’m not as knowledgeable about the inner workings of the Democratic Party but I’ve always heard Biden is a poor fundraiser and doesn’t have the same financial infrastructure/backers as a lot of other candidates.
 
I’m guessing he will have the traditional fundraising edge now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top