Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Wisconsin is in the 5 or so states. Flip it and the other states that finished at around 1% or less difference and you have Hillary as the Prez. Those are the states that will get all the attention.
Right, point is Hillary didn’t figure WI in the states to matter last time. Could be a different one this time.
NH and ME-1 are also up for grabs even though their EV values are small.KPD said:
Which state do you see Trump spending resources in that he didn't get last time outside of those listed?KPD said:
Why would either candidate step foot in those states from say their conventions on? Has Trump every stepped foot in Maine?
Yes, every last EV is important. Given how few states there are in play and the permutations. Even that 1 vote in Maine attracted Trump in 2016. I had their districts reversed before, it's ME-2 in play
I'd be happy if he spends time there. Would have to come at the expense of Penn, Florida, and Michigan.
Not only that, but they almost voted him back into the WH in 2016. So I guess being impeached doesn't really matter after all.
But still valuable. When you start looking at possibilities of states, there are scenarios where those make the difference. And at the least they change the states he could afford to lose. Right now, Trump could lose 2 of the 3 of WI/PA/MI and be fine. I don't see a situation he could lose FL and be ok because it's hard for me to envision him winning those 3 states and losing FL. To me it's bang for your buck. Your visits to places such as ME and NH are very possibly proportionally more advantageous. If you win 5,000 votes from a stop, is that more valuable in NH or FL? It's statistically more likely to be the difference in NH or ME-2. Ignoring them would be foolish.
Especially when it heads for a contested convention. And if they put someone in there other than who the people chose. You think Iowa was a joke, hang on.
Michigan has double the EV of both those states put together and was won by something like 10k votes. Much bigger bang for you buck there.
Of course it will. There will be one candidate to rally behind.
Bernie, AOC, Talib, Omar, etc.- the real leaders of the Democrat party - will never let that happen.
I know you guys love AOC, Omar and Talib. But, Bernie is the only one of that group that matters and he has repeated at every chance the most important thing is to defeat Trump.
Of course he and the gang are going to say that - they are trying to install Socialism. Anything to distract you guys from that ultimate goal is the key.
You just had 62,000 less Democrats than in 2008 show up at the Iowa Caucus. There is zero enthusiasm for the Democrat candidates even from Democrats. You got a complete clunker on your hands.
Sure, if it's that close. I think WI is the lowest hanging fruit of the 3 of those for Trump. In many ways MI may be the toughest for him. Not that he should give up on that either, but I can promise you both Trump and whoever the Dem nominee is are both going to be in NH, and likely ME as well given that Trump got that one extra vote last time.
This is a legitimate concern although Iowa is going Trump either way I think.
Also, to point out the math there, take the 2016 map. Say Trump loses MI and PA and only keeps the lowest EV state of those 3 rust belt states he flipped in WI. He wins 270 to 268. Well, how important is ME-2 then? Because if he lost it as well it's 269-269 and goes to the House, currently held by the Democrats. Then look at that from Trump's view, ok, if that happens, where can we gain? The obvious answer is NH given how tight that was. Given that WI is probably the one of the three that is most suited to Trump it's important to find ways from both standpoints to get ME-2 and NH. The math of the map dictates it. That's assuming the election is close again.
WI also will go Trump strong support from farmers and Americans who are greatful for his support for having the safest and lowest cost food in the world. 28 billion a small amount to pay. However, maybe we shouldn’t count the Dems out with them wanting free healthcare for illegals.
We can divide the board up any number of ways. Neither side is willing going to give up EVs but the amount of attention given to the 5 or so states that have gotten it over the past few elections is going to be the same. I’d be surprised if Maine, NH will get even slightly more attention than say Washington where I live and a fraction of what Penn, Florida, Michigan get.
You won't see either candidate in the general election, neither will I, but NH and ME-2 will. Now, they certainly will not see the volume of attention and visits as those three rust belt states and Florida. I'll leave it up to the campaigns to settle that argument for us. I'll take the odds that NH and ME will get more general election visits than you and I do in WA and AL.
Just take Trump out of all that (I realize the irony of this being a Trump thread). For 3 years all we have heard is how energy the Democrats have. Then when it’s time to show up they didn’t.
No one I’m particularly excited for but all better than Trump. When it gets down to one it will be easier to rally I believe unless people get their feelings hurt.
The hand is totally shown here, Trump is beyond horrible so the strategy is to make the opposition unacceptable and thereby suppress D turnout. Almost all of these candidates have bios that are ethical, experienced and likable. So though folks like Graham try to rehab Trump constantly it’s pretty apparent no one believes it will be successful because just look at the overt strategy.
I was surprised how close MN came in 2016. I haven't really given much thought to it in 2020 but I never thought I'd see the day it got as close as it did.
So Trump is suppressing the Democrat turnout? It’s his fault 62,000 less Democrats showed up last week in Iowa than in 2008?
Voter suppression here means a strategy to discourage. I’m not referring to barriers to poll access or anything like that. Look at the discussion by Bannon. What is the point of raising Hillary’s failure to campaign in the Midwest in 2016? Sure the Dems could totally make the same mistake but I seriously doubt it. The point is the ‘arrogance’ tag, which elicits resentment, anger, disgust.
I would guess D turnout would not depend on Trump depressing numbers. They have a clear reason to vote regardless of what he says. Lower taxes on rich people, reduce benefits for everyone to pay for it.
If that’s your definition of voter suppression, I am never turning on the news or picking up a newspaper again. I might just hide in a remote shack in the woods until November 3rd.
The fact that we are even talking about voter turnout mattering for the Democrats should be a huge concern. It's Donald Trump, the worst president in our country's history, remember? If the Democrats can't get people to turnout for this election, the party has bigger concerns than just the presidential election.
Yes. It is one state but it’s not a great start.
He hasn’t done anything to cause this. And the impeachment had nothing to do with it (I still say it’s going to hurt him, perhaps fatally. )Maurile Tremblay said:
Come on Tim, you can't seriously believe that.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/arrest-made-after-van-plowed-through-tent-of-trump-supporters-in-a-florida-parking-lot.amp
Hopefully he gets his felony record before 11/3.
I'll agree to call it whatever you like, but the clear strategy is to decrease anti-Trump turnout. That's done by creating the impression of 'they all suck just as much as Trump' or creating wedge between Sanders and moderates, or creating faux corruption scenarios and parallels with Trump's own moral and ethical failings. The point is to generate a sense of disgust that will blur the liens between Trump and opponents, leading to people who are genuinely appalled by Trump from GOP, Indy or Dem tracts to just not show up, vote 3rd party, or simply pull the lever for Trump because he's {cough} not 'a politician'.
