Interesting- I hadn't really thought of that one myself. Probably the best answer I've seen yet. However, going back to the original premise: who wins in a white democratic ticket VS Nikki Haley? No Ross Perots or Ralph Nader to peel off votes from one side or the other, and we are assuming Trump is no longer a factor for whatever reason you like.
Assuming the orange moron actually lasts two more years, I see any number of Republicans saying "Fuck This" and getting in to the race to replace him and salvage the smouldering remains of their party. On the D side, don't expect to win running deranged socialist Bernie or silly, but lovable, Biden. That side needs some new perspective which is why I think Beto is the best choice there, at the moment at least.
The party deserved to be demolished in mid-terms, I don't want any of that smoldering rubble to be salvaged - these guys couldn't even push forward a response to expensive care act after years of promises, and continue to muff border security, and give us budget deficits and growing debt. Fuck em all. Tax cuts, deregulation, pushing back on historical lousy deals and SCOTUS picks is slight consolation, but only that first one was in any major way due to actions of GOP in congress (aside from some 'advise and consent' from the Senate).
Really, what we should do is have a system where you have a couple of states have early primaries before everyone else, this gets people's attention and shakes out some of those who've no real chance, then follow it up with, say, 4 big primary days, a month apart, where the rest of the country votes. Try to arrange those 4 primary days so that you have roughly the same number of people voting. That way you don't end up with someone getting all the votes needed to win after the first or second primary unless they're unopposed, or really outstanding candidates. Rotate which states make up the preliminary primaries each time (so, one time it's New York and Oregon, the next it's Ohio and Arizona), as well as swapping around the states in the other primaries. That would help shift focus around to different parts of the country (and what issues are important to them), as helping people to see that their votes matter. If the media and candidates are swarming all over your states in the year before the primary, you're probably going to be more engaged in the process, than if you're in an "also-ran" primary where nearly all the candidates have dropped out.
It's too hard a situation to read. If we are talking 2020 then the ghost of Trump hangs over the election no matter what. Step forward to 2024 and it all depends on who has been in the White House the previous 4 years.
In two years perhaps, but do you see it happening within the next year? First 2020 primaries are in just over 13 months, so they would need to be starting their preparations to run in the next few months.
Meanwhile, in the "people with a very low level of self-awareness" category: Trump pans Beto 2020 talk: 'I thought you were supposed to win before you run for president' ... says the president who's never gotten the majority of voters to vote for him for anything.
It might be interesting (although it would never happen) to offer the "first two" day to the two states which had the closest outcome in the previous general election - so that you're candidates would not be pulled to pander to an extreme. Still, in that regard, NH isn't SO bad because it basically never votes in an extreme direction for either party. You could do a lot worse for a representative population.
It's up to each state (in consultation with the state parties in some cases) to set their primary date(s). Me, I want to see other states call the bluffs of NH, IA, and SC and move their primaries to the same dates. Somewhere big like CA or NY or TX (or all 3). If NH et al. move theirs back to be first, the others move with them. Force them to keep moving back, even into 2019. Either they'll end up pushing them back to prior to the then-present date and won't have primaries at all, or they'll cave and allow other primaries on the same day, and probably schedule it for March. At which point I'd expect most other states to follow onto that date.
That was done back in 2008 and both states were punished for doing so. Both the Democrat and Republican parties penalized Florida and Michigan for moving their primaries to an earlier date. The Republicans docked both states half their delegates while the Democratic party took away ALL the delegates.
Republicans did not. Democrats did once they realized that it wouldn't make a difference in the final outcome
Another interesting fact from that race, Hillary won the popular vote yet lost the nomination due to pledged delegates.
I think @Nova did this before, but I couldn't find it. This is based on the popular House vote in each state, with the deepest colors for margins of more than 10 points, medium for margins between 5 and 10 points, and light for margins of less than 5 points. Link: https://www.270towin.com/maps/QNRz4
if that's based on House vote there are some caveats. Notably that the House vote is really off in Florida because they had several uncontested races in which no votes were registered that would have been heavily Democrat. In FL it's better to sub the Gov/Sen races for a better representation. Also in GA the Gov race was tighter than the House by 3 points and in TX the Sen race was about 1 point closer than the House aggregate. (and then there's Montana but they ain't voting Dem in 2020) - but my map looked just like yours except I rated Florida as a toss up. (and yes, as O2C points out, the 2010 midterms did not at all reflect the 2012 presidential election BUT the Dems were very complacent in 2010, whereas the Republicans overshot the historical turnout in 2018 just as much as Democrats did. It's a much better participation rate reflection) Here's a fun idea though - take those results and presume that because of whatever factor - recession, scandal, indictment, whatever - the results move 5 points to the left (fairly evenly distributed) and include the Florida adjustment and you get this map: And conversely, if Trump recovers 5 points in his direction - he still loses Finally, while I'm playing with the map - here's one that has nothing to do with the EV but shows movement from '16 to '18. The tan states moved less than half a point Light blue moved left between .5 and 5% Medium blue 5-10& Dark blue over 10% light red .5-5% to the right. Behold Trump is killing the GOP - and I'm here for it. "If we nominate Donald Trump we'll be destroyed, and we'll deserve it." ~Lindsey Graham (2016)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...cLmZrjwzp0JCxDVwtXPsW1gLGSBEfps0UfBenUf6yZXJY By 47-33, Americans blame Trump over Dems for government shutdown. Only 35% want wall funding in spending bill. Only 25% support shutting down gov't over it. Meanwhile his approval rating overall hovers in the high 30's (38-39 in most everything but Rasmussen) Keep in mind, W left office at 33% in the midst of the Great Recession's worst days Nixon was at 34% when he resigned. Basically a third of Americans at any given point is stubbornly committed to the GOP no matter how bad it gets. Which is just the proportion who's passionate about the wall. Also, it means that Trump has a margin above the minimal baseline of 5-6%
I see it shaking out as a SITCOM! "She's a blah blah blah....... but he's a blah blah blah blah uh oh and he's also a blah blah blah blah blah .....together they are blah blah blah....."
Warren is going to run. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/12/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-exploratory-committee-2020/index.html
And with that, the 2020 Presidential campaign has officially began. I think she's the best candidate of the names mentioned because she actually has the credentials to back up her talk. Id gladly vote for her over Trump. So I won't be surprised if she doesnt win the nomination because these days flashy and inexperienced seem to be what voters want. Plus that whole Indian fiasco will bring charges of stolen heritage which won't play well with some members of the base
Liz Warren for Prez, Beto O'Roarke for VP. Winning ticket. Were the Dems stupid enough to run Hillary again, they might as well just tell Trump he's good for four more years.
Unless the economy is in shambles, if Trump runs he'll win. Plus I guess there's a tiny chance that Mueller actually finds something unpalatable that derails Trump. Another scotus pick and Trump could basically go, he will have done what he came to do (the important stuff anyway), and we'll have reaped many superlative bits of a legacy (removing all emotional reaction, purely on a rational, judging policy, basis) that will be viewed as remarkably strong in the context of history.
I agree with Warren's message, but worry that she carries too much negative baggage to win it all. I really would not look forward to a general election campaign where "Pocahontas" is a major theme.
no one in the base care about this other than some very small number of passionate single-issue advocates. Nevertheless, the NYT and others will run 10,000 #ButHerDNA stories over the next year+
that just makes Trump look stupid. NO ONE CARES except redhats who'll never consider any Democrat and some major media ediotrs who sit in their silos and try to guess what the nation is thinking (and they don't care either they just think it drives eyeballs just like the e-mail story) The difference is that as stupid as it was, the e-mails had SOME traction as a matter relevant to being president. The DNA doesn't. And every voter she has a shot at reaching already knows this.
