Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Yeah the Democrats really need to make sure they don't fuck up and win by 3 million votes again.

They could win by 10M, but it wouldn’t matter if it doesnt include rural and rust belt voters.

tragabigzanda wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Yeah the Democrats really need to make sure they don't fuck up and win by 3 million votes again.

They could win by 10M, but it wouldn’t matter if it doesnt include rural and rust belt voters.

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:Yeah the Democrats really need to make sure they don't fuck up and win by 3 million votes again.

They could win by 10M, but it wouldn’t matter if it doesnt include rural and rust belt voters.

If only there was a way suppress their vote by rapidly enlarging the population in reliably blue areas.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:That's about what it's come to, huh? I'm tougher than you, whoever can do more pushups is better

The basic reality here is that one of the key pillars of the Democratic majority consists in the 43 seats that Democrats flipped from GOP control in 2018. Those 43 districts are way more conservative on average than the remaining 192 Democratic-held seats are.

You can use the Cook Partisan Voter Index to get a sense of this. The PVI calculates the partisan lean of a given district, relative to the country as a whole, by averaging together the differences between the presidential vote breakdown in the district — vs. the nation as a whole — in the past two elections.

Because Democrats won the majority by picking up lots of districts Trump carried in 2016, and lots of moderate, suburban and even a few rural districts, the PVI in most of those 43 districts tilts Republican. That is, those districts voted more Republican than the nation as a whole.

We’re talking about districts — in places such as southern Virginia and southwestern Pennsylvania and upstate New York and southern New Jersey and even Kansas and Oklahoma — that are +3, +4, +5, +6 or even more Republican-leaning than the country.

What’s the upshot? According to calculations Wasserman shared with me, the average PVI of all 43 of those Democratic-held districts is R+2, meaning on average they tilt two points more Republican-leaning than the country.

By contrast, Wasserman tells me, the remaining 192 Dem-controlled districts have an average PVI of D+16, meaning on average they’re very Democratic-leaning. That striking disparity is the result of structural factors, such as heavy concentrations of Democratic voters due to geographic sorting.

Why are the 43 districts that Democrats flipped so much more Republican-leaning? One reason, Wasserman points out, is that the median House district overall is five points more Republican-leaning than the nation as a whole, due to gerrymandering and structural factors (again like geographic sorting). This means the seats that push Democrats into the majority are going to lean Republican.

All this explains another phenomenon we’re seeing: The high profile of the most progressive members appears to be having at least as much influence on what the Democratic presidential candidates are doing as on what the House is doing. By activating the base through social media and other means, progressive members are creating incentives for the presidential candidates to embrace more progressive policies, even as the moderate House bloc remains resistant.

The reason for this, Wasserman points out, is that much of the Democratic presidential primary fight is fought out on the turf of those 192 districts, which again are far more Democratic-leaning. “Those districts get a lot more delegates in the Democratic nomination fight,” Wasserman says.

As all these numbers show, we’re dealing with some very deep structural tensions here that will continue to roil House Democrats. And they aren’t going away anytime soon.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:That's about what it's come to, huh? I'm tougher than you, whoever can do more pushups is better

But Mr. Trump’s approval rating has been stable even after seemingly big missteps. And if it improves by a modest amount — not unusual for incumbents with a strong economy — he could have a distinct chance to win re-election while losing the popular vote by more than he did in 2016, when he lost it by 2.1 percentage points.

The president’s relative advantage in the Electoral College could grow even further in a high-turnout election, which could pad Democratic margins nationwide while doing little to help them in the Northern battleground states.

It is even possible that Mr. Trump could win while losing the national vote by as much as five percentage points.

digster wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/upshot/trump-electoral-college-edge-.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-upshotnyt

But Mr. Trump’s approval rating has been stable even after seemingly big missteps. And if it improves by a modest amount — not unusual for incumbents with a strong economy — he could have a distinct chance to win re-election while losing the popular vote by more than he did in 2016, when he lost it by 2.1 percentage points.

The president’s relative advantage in the Electoral College could grow even further in a high-turnout election, which could pad Democratic margins nationwide while doing little to help them in the Northern battleground states.

It is even possible that Mr. Trump could win while losing the national vote by as much as five percentage points.

"He's been running for president for 721 days. He's spent nearly $19 million as a 2020 candidate since 2017. He's loaned over $11 million of his own money to his campaign this year. He's visited all of Iowa's 99 counties already ... And it's all been for nothing."

digster wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/upshot/trump-electoral-college-edge-.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-upshotnyt

But Mr. Trump’s approval rating has been stable even after seemingly big missteps. And if it improves by a modest amount — not unusual for incumbents with a strong economy — he could have a distinct chance to win re-election while losing the popular vote by more than he did in 2016, when he lost it by 2.1 percentage points.

The president’s relative advantage in the Electoral College could grow even further in a high-turnout election, which could pad Democratic margins nationwide while doing little to help them in the Northern battleground states.

It is even possible that Mr. Trump could win while losing the national vote by as much as five percentage points.