Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chances of a Presidential win based on the 2016 Trump coalition gets a little less with every 4 year POTUS cycle due to declining numbers of white non-college/ Christian Fundamentalist voters.
If the base doesn’t expand beyond where it was in 2016, the only variable is time.
It does seem like Democrats are doing everything they can to not win the election in 2020.
With their far left "squad" essentially being the face of the 2019 Democrat party, and the bulk of the rest of them focused only on 'impeach Trump," things aren't looking too put together for them.
Their candidates:
*Biden: Their leading candidate and is near dementia, it seems--or at best cannot remember facts or the past very well along the trail. Add in Ukraine and his son and that mess, well, it could be the nail in his coffin to get the Democratic nod.
*Warren: A far left candidate who could isolate any moderate Democratic voter, and most likely would not pick up independents by any large amount. Could be disliked similar to Hillary.
*Sanders: He didn't truly have a chance anyway, but now that his health is failing, he should probably hang it up.
*Buttigieg: The guy is likable but comes across to green, too golly gee whiz, and a bit naive. His policies may be too left.
*Yang: $1k a month proposal is both his golden ticket to success and golden ticket to exit the campaign trail. Too expensive and he comes across too gimmicky often.
*Harris: Less likable each debate. Not a politician, but an attorney who hates Trump. And little substance.
*Booker: Dude seems always surprised with the look on his face, and comes across untrustworthy. No thanks, say the people.
*Steyer: Maybe his campaign can gain traction--too early to tell. But may be too far left, still.
*Castro: No thanks--this guy comes across a bit mean LOL...not a likable guy.
*Gabbard: Sharp, moderate, but upsetting the establishment too much. She will probably exit soon.
*Klobuchar: I like her a lot. Too bad she is far too reasonable, far too moderate and far too common sense oriented to be nominated.
*O'Rourke: This guy seems way too in over his head, and comes across thinking the presidency is his next "gig" to stardom. He is elite in a "normal guy everyday facade." And everyone sees it...
I'd probably vote Klobochar if it were a Trump/Klobuchar face off. But, alas, she won't get past 2019, most likely.
The Democrats need to chalk up 2020 as a Trump win, and move on and figure out how to win 2022 mid-terms. And for 2024, position a fresh, new presidential candidate, as well as strategy.
Chances of a Presidential win based on the 2016 Trump coalition gets a little less with every 4 year POTUS cycle due to declining numbers of white non-college/ Christian Fundamentalist voters.
If the base doesn’t expand beyond where it was in 2016, the only variable is time.
counting on the opposition messing up is why the Dems visit our POTUS in the WH, vs their expectation of occupying it from 1-20-2017 to today.
You projected that HRC would win in 2017.
Long term you’re playing a losing hand, and you know it.
All of Trump’s efforts are designed to pump up turnout among his base, that is primarily white non-college and/or Christian Evangelical. Taken as a demographic group, those voters are older than dirt and losing 2/3% share of potential voters and registered voters every four year POTUS election cycle. The groups that are growing despise Trump and any party that he is associated with.
He can win in 2020, but if he can’t expand his base, he’s in a weaker position than in 2016 because in demographic terms, his base is a little smaller. 2024 would be tougher still. If things remain the same in every subsequent election, to win you’d have to pump higher percentage and turnout out of a shrinking base while praying that the groups that oppose you and are growing just don’t vote or you can suppress their vote.
IMO, you’re just deluding yourself about how long the current coalition can win without expanding.
The current coalition can win several decades w/o expanding as each census shifts 6-10 EC votes from the blue wall (part that did not crack in 16) to the beautiful southern red wall.
The current coalition can win several decades w/o expanding as each census shifts 6-10 EC votes from the blue wall (part that did not crack in 16) to the beautiful southern red wall.
MAGA.
It could go down that way but I find it highly highly improbable.
It’s more likely that Trump will speed up the timetable of the political effect of demographic change by alienating all other groups and increasing turnout.
Maybe the R’s can hold Tejas, Arizona and Georgia for another 20 years, but I wouldn’t bet the house on that either.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 10-28-2019 at 08:32 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
