Democrats electoral college strategy for 2020 presidential election.

Forums: Politics, Democrats, 2020
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Democrats electoral college strategy for 2020 presidential election.

Facts:

1. Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

2. Donald Trump won the electoral college vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016.

3. The winner of the electoral college vote wins the presidency.

In my opinion:

1. The democrats nominee's strategy should be to focus on winning the electoral college in 2020.

2. The best strategy for winning the electoral college vote should be to win back those Barack Obama states, that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump.

The Barack Obama states, that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump includes the following states:

1. Florida (29 electoral votes)

2. Iowa (6 electoral vote)

3. Michigan (16 electoral votes)

4. Ohio (18 electoral votes)

5. Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes)

6. Wisconsin (10 electoral votes)

Facts:

These 6 Barack Obama states, that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump total 99 electoral votes of the 270 needed to win the White House.

My opinion:

1. Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that the democrats nominee should only focus on these 6 Barack Obama states. I am only suggesting that the democrat's nominee place much more emphasis on winning back these 6 Barack Obama states.

2. Obviously the democratic party should also have a robust 50 state strategy for the down ticket votes. The 50 state strategy for the down ticket votes will be super important in winning House seats, Senate seats, Governors seats, and local state houses all across the country.

Facts:

1. There is a limited amount of time.

2. There is a limited amount of money.

3. There is a limited amount resources.

My opinion:

1. The democrat's presidential nominee should pour an enormous amount of television ads, radio ads, and mailings, in all 6 of these Barack Obama states.

2. Whoever ends up winning the democratic nomination should be participating in an enormous number of campaign stops and visits in these six Barack Obama states. The democrat's presidential nominee should be spending so much time in these six Obama states, that you would think that person actually live and reside in these six Obama states.

3. The democrats presidential nominee should establish a robust ground game in these six Barack Obama states.

4. When I say robust ground game, I am referring to having a very large number of supporters knocking on doors, manning the phones, telephoning potential voters, and getting voters to the polls.

My opinion:

1. The democrats should be putting a lot of time and resources of getting voters to utilize and maximize early voting in all 50 states, but especially in these six Barack Obama states.

2. The more early votes the democrats can bank prior to election day, the greater the chance of winning.

3. Early voting is a huge key to democrats winning.

4. The better the democrats do in early voting, the less the democrats would have to depend on election day voters.

5. Utilizing and maximizing early voting can partially help counter the efforts of voter suppression tactics that may occur on election day.

6. Early voting is super important in all 50 states.

7 .Early voting is extremely important in all 50 states.

8. Early voting is hugely important in all 50 states.

9. In case I forgot to mention, early voting is very important in all 50 states.

My opinion:

1. The democrats nominee should really focus on winning back all 6 of these Barack Obama states.

2. Even if the democrats nominee fail to win back all 6 of these Barack Obama states, just winning back most of these 6 Obama states, will very likely win the White House for the democrats.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 13,463 • Replies: 204

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

1. Donald Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

2. Donald Trump won the electoral college vote against Hillary Clinton in 2016.

3. The winner of the electoral college vote wins the presidency.

The point of the electoral college is to ensure balance of power throughout the various branches of government. If you want a Democrat to win the White House by winning the electoral college, the best thing you can do is give up the house and senate to Republicans. If you do this, you will almost certainly get a Democrat elected via the electoral college, even if she or he loses the popular vote.

Democracy involves representing dissenting views in government so that they have to work together and find common ground.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

The point of the electoral college is to ensure balance of power throughout the various branches of government.

1. Are you drunk?

2. That is a complete boat load of bullshit.

3. Do you have any clue to what you are talking about?

4. You are making absolutely no sense at all.

Quote:

If you want a Democrat to win the White House by winning the electoral college, the best thing you can do is give up the house and senate to Republicans.

Or the democrats can win The Senate, the House, and the White House all at the same time in 2020.

Quote:

Democracy involves representing dissenting views in government so that they have to work together and find common ground.

1. Are you intoxicated?

2. Once again you are talking BS.

3. Dissenting views is not defined as democracy.

4. Democracy is not defined as dissenting views.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

Quote:
If you want a Democrat to win the White House by winning the electoral college, the best thing you can do is give up the house and senate to Republicans.
Or the democrats can win The Senate, the House, and the White House all at the same time in 2020.

Quote:
Democracy involves representing dissenting views in government so that they have to work together and find common ground.
1. Are you intoxicated?

2. Once again you are talking BS.

3. Dissenting views is not defined as democracy.

4. Democracy is not defined as dissenting views.

The day one party takes over all the branches of government to squelch dissent and overpower resistance by the other party is the day the US becomes like Germany in 1933.

Respect and cooperation between dissenting views is an essential part of democracy. Without it you have a tyranny of the majority, which is not democratic.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

The day one party takes over all the branches of government to squelch dissent and overpower resistance by the other party is the day the US becomes like Germany in 1933.

Respect and cooperation between dissenting views is an essential part of democracy. Without it you have a tyranny of the majority, which is not democratic.

1. You truly have no clue to what democracy is.

2. If the outcome of a fair democratically held election results in divided government, then that is democracy.

3. If the outcome of a fair democratically held election results in one party winning the White House and both branches of congress, then that also is democracy.

4. For you to say that any fair democratically held election that does not result in divided government is not defined as democracy is utterly ridiculous.

5. You have really lost your mind.

6. Everything that you are saying is the exact opposite democracy.

7. You are clearly opposed to voters having the right to vote for who they want to vote for, if the outcome does not result in divided government.

8. So basically what you are saying is "**** the voters"

9. You are showing yourself to be someone who hates democracy.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

I think you need to take it one step further. Why did Clinton lose those states? In every case, the reason was Democratic turnout was terrible compared to four years earlier, especially among African American voters. The answer then is not to advertise like mad, it is to push get out the vote efforts overall and in minority areas specifically.

4 Replies

@engineer,

I would suggest that, as the various candidates drop out, they should either try for federal offices in their home states or to turn out the vote in these swing states.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

I think you need to take it one step further. Why did Clinton lose those states?

1. I think, one of the reasons Clinton lost those Obama states was because she took those states for granted.

2. The Clinton campaign were focusing on expanding to other new states in her column while not securing the all important Rustbelt states, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and so on.

3. She should have spent a whole lot more time campaigning in those states rather than trying to expand new states in her column.

Quote:

In every case, the reason was Democratic turnout was terrible compared to four years earlier, especially among African American voters.

I agree. I too believe that this is one of the reasons she lost those states.

Quote:

The answer then is not to advertise like mad, it is to push get out the vote efforts overall and in minority areas specifically.

1. I agree that there should be a better get out the vote effort in the African American areas. But, not just the African American and minority. I would add that the Obama suburban white vote is just as important. Getting back those Obama suburban votes must not be overlooked. Failing to get back those Obama suburban white votes could very easily cause the democrats nominee to lose to Donald Trump.

2. Regarding television ads, mailings, and radio ads, I definitely believe the democrats nominee desperately need to advertise like mad in those states. If the democrat doesn't advertise like mad in those state, I truly fear would cause them to lose those states. They cannot afford to take those states for granted the way they did the last time.

1 Reply

@engineer,

I think the answer is doing something about their needs.
They’ll vote for them then.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

I think the answer is doing something about their needs.
They’ll vote for them then.

1. Yes, that is a valid point.

2. Especially when some states have specific issues that are very uniquely important to that state, that may not be an important issue in another state.

3. Some states have unique issues that only certain states consider to be important, while other states don't.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Nothing will be done for the average Joe until we get a democratic congress and president. Bernie isent going to turn congress because everyone knows he is a socialist. Not a bad thing in itself but the average Joe has been taught since the second war that socialism and communism is the same thing.

1 Reply

@jespah,

Quote:

I would suggest that, as the various candidates drop out, they should either try for federal offices in their home states or to turn out the vote in these swing states.

That is what I expect is going to happen eventually.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

That’s ignorant. He’s not a Socialist. This country ALREADY operates with components of socialism, but for the benefit of the rich.

It time for regular people to get their version of current American democratic socialism.

You were brainwashed by McCarthyism. Read a bit more, and try to think independently.

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Quote:

I think, one of the reasons Clinton lost those Obama states was because she took those states for granted.

EXACTLY. I was watching in Pa and when our state election pundit, Terry Madonna noted in August 2016 that Hillary was not visiting anywhere in Pa except for Philly and once in Pittsburgh.
The trump ground pounders had Trump loaded up to meet with people from Scranton to Schuylkill Haven and from ri to Ebensburg. People were so attuned to be hearing what they heard from a guy who came off as pissed off as they, that madonna state that "Whatever the outcome elsewhere, Pa is probably going to go TRUMP. MS Clinton is ignoring the coal regions and the hunters and farmers"

She did it magnificently . Not only did she ignore these people but she gave a speech in Philly about how weve gotta get rid of GUNS and She further stated that in Pennsylvania we need to stop burning coal and re educate the miners for future opportunities in other areas.(That is a fact but espousing doing away with coal in Pa and learn "computer skills" is not a brilliant campaign strategy)

She shot herself in her big feet and then , when she compounded the story with how Trump Supporters were basically composed of the wacko fringe, she sealed her own fate.

I think, with the exception of one or two, the majority of the Dem wannabee candidates, have learned mightily from Hillary's lesson

Trumps plurality in Pa alone was just the margin given him by about 3 cities up north and west .

I recall how Obama made trips to Bradford and Erie and PEnn State, and even Mansfield , as he rode on to Wilkes Barre SCranton Allentown and Reading. Trump didnt have any belly fire, his staff did though. Hillary took Trumpism for granted and fed him election results that were a quick turn after Pa was lost, and Ohio , Wisconsin, and Michigan came in.

Hell Trump went to Lancastr, Hillary didnt even acknowledge our existence.

Madonna, in late AUgust or September stated that TRUMP "COULD WIN" because Hillary had set a pattern of only visiting urban centers of rust belt states. and after the election he did a talk show where the entire talk was based on Hillary saying something like "OOPS" we figured that one wrong ddnt we. I cant understand why Bill didnt give more advice caue he was eating french fry topped onion- cheese- burgers and kielbasi sammiches all over Pa during his yers

Th Electoral College needs to be changed, Starting with a national removal of the "Winner take all" BS . Because, In Pa, Ohio, Wisconsin,Michigan, if that would have been added to NY, Hillary would have won by a percentage rule of electoral votes. It was winner take all that scored for Trump in the election.
Hillary would have won the presidency by 5 electoral votes in a percentage based apportionment of electoral votes. Really good candidates will still win and a percentage distribution of electors does NOT favor one party over another.

having said that, theres really no way any EC changes can be made now. Its gotta become a Congressional activity in the Senate in some year hen it more evenly personned.

"

1 Reply

@Real Music,

Real Music wrote:

1. You truly have no clue to what democracy is.

I can say the same to you, but the problem is that you said it first so that makes it seem like I am just copying back what you said instead of actually revealing the fact that you misunderstand democracy.

Quote:

2. If the outcome of a fair democratically held election results in divided government, then that is democracy.

No, that is the common misconception; that majoritarian tyranny over dissent can be legitimated by elections and thus fascism can be justified by popular sovereignty. That was what happened in 1933 Germany.

Quote:

3. If the outcome of a fair democratically held election results in one party winning the White House and both branches of congress, then that also is democracy.

If there is no dissent among the people, the question is why. There are likely power-plays going on at the level of the people that are preventing people from voting or even thinking freely. If, for example, employers all threatened to fire employees for voting for the wrong party, you would have all employees voting with their employers to keep their jobs. That could result in single-party government if all employers chose the same party, but it wouldn't be democratic.

Quote:

4. For you to say that any fair democratically held election that does not result in divided government is not defined as democracy is utterly ridiculous.

Dissent has to be represented and respected in government for government to be just.

Quote:

6. Everything that you are saying is the exact opposite democracy.

The opposite of democracy is when some people rule over others by whatever means, whether the ruling class is a majority or minority. Democracy is governance by/with consent.

Quote:

8. So basically what you are saying is "**** the voters"

Not at all. I'm saying to respect dissent. If dissent is utterly unreasonable, then you have to work around it; e.g. if someone just wants to demand money in exchange for their consent. But if dissent is reasonable, then it should be given consideration.

The problem with Democrats currently is they simply want to work around GOP dissent, conscience, etc. instead of respecting it. The problem would be the same if the GOP refused to give any consideration to Democrat POVs, which is also a problem with climate reform, for example.

0 Replies

Poll: Tight race between Donald Trump and top 3 Democrats in battleground states.

President Donald Trump is trailing former Vice President Joe Biden in six battleground states in potential 2020 matchups, but is slightly ahead of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in the same states, according to new polling data. CNN's Harry Enten takes a closer look at the data from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona and North Carolina.

Start watching the following video at the 1:22 mark of the video:

Published November 4, 2019

0 Replies

@Lash,

Real ignorance is calling someone ignorant because they have a different opinion than yours.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

No, you’re ignorant about this too.

Real ignorance is being ignorant about facts. You called Bernie a Socialist, but he’s not.

There’s an easy example of ignorance for you.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

1. Your posting is definitely on point.

2. I just hope the democrats eventual nominee doesn't repeat the same mistakes that were made the last time.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

, especially among African American voters.

The Democrats have no one except Biden with Black support. Biden will not be the nominee. You will lose the black vote again. They will stay home or vote for Trump. Trump will get four more years.

0 Replies

Democrats electoral college strategy for 2020 presidential election.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know