electoral map reverting to 2012

[James Bond 007]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

so you are saying that our social school experiment is failing to educate

In rural areas, yes, people have less education on average. There may or may not be good reasons for that, but it is factually true.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by Kevroqs

Take a look at some of the liberal cities in this country (Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, Oakland, St Louis, Los Angeles, etc...). There's lots of homeless, poverty, filth, and crime. People with money (and or families) would not live in those areas.

But a lot of people with money do live in Los Angeles, Baltimore, St. Louis, Chicago and Oakland...

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by dannyboy84

There are solid candidates, Sherrod Brown of OH, Casey in PA, Hickenlooper of CO, wyden of Or, I think to a degree the dems are their own worst enemy, they are too focused with a "trophy" candidate, where it MUST be a woman/minority (ethnic or religious) at the top of the ticket from a solid blue state (warren, Sanders, Harris) that the purple "fly over states" feel left out on. A white Male or non-coastal woman (for example former MI Gov Granholm who was moderately popular from a state Trump narrowly won would be left out because she is from a "tougher state" and had to cross the aisle more than Warren or Harris would) are practically told you need not apply. A solid but not too crazy progressive yet moderate from OH or PA or MI or similar could swing those narrow trump states back to the dems and maybe just maybe make the GOP sweat in some not so solid any-more red states...AZ, GA and a hail mary in TX (remember 2016 was the closest any democrat got to taking Texas in a generation, Trump 8% victory was a far cry from the double digit blowouts of the past several presidential elections) put that at the top with a coastal left wing darling to appease that wing, something Clinton failed to do with Tim Kaine it could be a strong ticket



Going back to my example of PA-17, the democrat ran for the district not lock-step with Nancy Pelosi +34D district, and he won. If dems looked at the WHOLE picture like Obama did instead of only NYC, LA, SF, Boston, Chicago and other "safe spaces" (he won friggin Indiana in 2008 for gods sake, also took Iowa twice among others) they could pull of something strong.

I have never heard a single Democrat talk like you claim, Republicans seem to simply assume this because people like Kamala Harris and because Warren long ago started to pick up support.

The truth is politics as we know it is mostly a lie, Donald Trump( a New York Coastal Elite by conservative definition ) has proven that and for all the attacks on Clinton, it would have taken 35,000 votes in 3 states in the other direction for her to be President.

[mrpeatie]

Originally Posted by MinivanDriver

I'm neither Republican nor conservative, but I really don't trust Vox's polling.

The outcome in November really depends on if the economy keeps humming along. If we see more income growth, especially in the upper Midwest, then swing voters will shrug, go to the polls, and vote Republican. Of course, this assumes the Donald can put a sock in it during the month of October.

I have to disagree- the economy was doing well in 2000 and the nation went D to R. The economy improved greatly from 2009-2016 but we again went D to R. In 2006 the economy was seemingly going strong and Ds swept the House, Senate and Governorships.


Sometimes when things are going smoothly people are more likely to vote social or other interests first.


I think your last comment is pretty spot on- the whole shebang comes down to Trump managing to simultaneously fire up his base, not fire up the Dems and win over Independents. In 2016 he had the great benefit of an unpopular opponent with a dismal campaign. This year I think simple dislike of the new status quo is a bigger driver. Although the Rs have the benefit of an insane Senate map.