Keys to unseating Trump

[GDViking]

Plan for 6 more glorious years, you heard it here.

No, I think he will get more prison time than that...

 

[PoppyCock]

No, I think he will get more prison time than that...

No, Hillary set the bar. He is not a fraction as guilty as her.

 

[GDViking]

No, Hillary set the bar. He is not a fraction as guilty as her.

All of his money laundering for Russians was uncovered by muellers investigation a d turned over to the appropriate state AGs.

There is a reason he tried to keep mueller out of his finances and is still trying to hide his taxes...

 

[GDViking]

No, Hillary set the bar. He is not a fraction as guilty as her.

So what was Hillary guilty of?

 

[GDViking]

Another thing will be the Mueller report, it will show all the collusion that just border on conspiracy and coordination.

When people learn just how corrupt this administration is and it is repeated to the same amount as the Russian troll lies spread about Hillary that will easily take over the 78,000 votes that got him into office.

I expect this to be the largest loss ever handed to an incumbent...

 

[it's just me]

Barring a widespread economic crisis, insurmountable scandal or rise of a charismatic opposition candidate, an incumbent retains a prohibitive advantage.

In 2000 and 2016, the choices did not include an incumbent. Both of those elections, the GOP lost the popular election and won with controversy. Tax cuts and a strong economy gave the GOP impetus to claim success.



The DNC has dubbed the phrase Salient Voters to describe potentially disenfranchised Trump Supporters vulnerable to entering the Anti-Trump camp. Efforts focus on identifying and targeting these voters on a local basis.



DNC launches hyper-local 2020 effort to shadow Trump on the trail

What do you consider the keys to unseating Trump?

You might try running a candidate who isn't crazy, a liar, a criminal, or just plain stupid.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

... Trump's vote "was incredibly efficient," said Tom Bonier of TargetSmart, a Democratic data and strategy firm based in Washington. "Where he lost, he lost big. Where he won, he won by a little. There weren't many wasted votes. He won almost all the close ones."

Trump narrowly eked out the victories he needed in key states of nation's industrial belt, taking Michigan by 10,704, according to final returns, Wisconsin by 22,717 and Pennsylvania by just under 45,000, according to a compilation of the latest data maintained by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

The reasons that happened varied from state to state, Bonier and other analysts note. In Ohio and Wisconsin, for example, turnout fell, belying the image of an army of previously hidden Trump voters storming the polls.

In Pennsylvania, by contrast, that image may be more accurate — turnout rose significantly across the state. Similarly, in Florida, Clinton won heavily in nearly all the places that Democrats generally count on, but lost because of a huge election-day upsurge in heavily white, nonurban counties of the central part of the state, according to an analysis by Democratic strategist Steve Schale.

One big, consistent piece of the problem was that Clinton performed worse than Obama did in blue-collar, predominantly white communities outside of major cities; such as the counties that include Scranton and Erie, Pa.; Youngstown, Ohio; Green Bay, Wis.; and Daytona Beach in Florida. In many such counties, Clinton's vote was 15 percentage points or more below what Obama received in his reelection.

In 2020, if the DEMs win Florida, Trump probably doesn't win reelection. Or if the DEMs regain PA, WI and MI, Trump probably doesn't win reelection.

Good cause exists for optimism! Let's gain momentum. Viva the Anti-Trump movement!

 

[Helix]

Keys to unseating Trump

run a good candidate with a compelling and properly prioritized platform.

 

[Perotista]

Barring a widespread economic crisis, insurmountable scandal or rise of a charismatic opposition candidate, an incumbent retains a prohibitive advantage.

In 2000 and 2016, the choices did not include an incumbent. Both of those elections, the GOP lost the popular election and won with controversy. Tax cuts and a strong economy gave the GOP impetus to claim success.



The DNC has dubbed the phrase Salient Voters to describe potentially disenfranchised Trump Supporters vulnerable to entering the Anti-Trump camp. Efforts focus on identifying and targeting these voters on a local basis.



DNC launches hyper-local 2020 effort to shadow Trump on the trail

What do you consider the keys to unseating Trump?

A decent candidate that can attract the independent voter. Hillary couldn't. She was about the only democrat that could have possibly lost to Trump. It wasn't like the democrats didn't have advance warning about her. In February of 2016 an poll showed 56% of all Americans wanted the democrats to nominate someone other than Clinton. The Democrats ignored America as a whole which was their right and nominate her anyway. The rest is history.

History shows those who identify with our two major parties vote for their candidate 90% of the time on average. 88% of republicans voted for Trump, 89% of democrats voted for Hillary. In 2012 93% of Republicans voted for Romney, 92% of Democrats for Obama and you can take that back as far as you like with the average coming out at roughly 90%. Independents are the key, now so more than ever. In 2006 independents made up 30% of the electorate, today that is up to 40%.

Trump won the white house by winning the independent, the non-affiliated voters. Yet 12% of all independents voted against both Trump and Clinton by casting their ballot for a third party candidate. 6% of the total electorate, some 9 million people voted against both major party candidates. For 2020, that 12% probably still doesn't like or want Trump. The question is can the Democrats nominate a candidate that could attract some or a large portion of that 12% to vote for their candidate? The Democratic Party is still the larger of the two major parties, a decent candidate attractive to independents could persuade at least half of that 12% to vote Democratic in 2020. That would probably guarantee a Democratic victory.

Whom the Democrats nominate is all important. In 2016 the democrats failed to realize candidates matter. So the only remaining question in my book is, have the Democrats learned from 2016 that candidates matter or not? If not, history could repeat itself.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A decent candidate that can attract the independent voter. Hillary couldn't. She was about the only democrat that could have possibly lost to Trump. It wasn't like the democrats didn't have advance warning about her. In February of 2016 an poll showed 56% of all Americans wanted the democrats to nominate someone other than Clinton. The Democrats ignored America as a whole which was their right and nominate her anyway. The rest is history.

History shows those who identify with our two major parties vote for their candidate 90% of the time on average. 88% of republicans voted for Trump, 89% of democrats voted for Hillary. In 2012 93% of Republicans voted for Romney, 92% of Democrats for Obama and you can take that back as far as you like with the average coming out at roughly 90%. Independents are the key, now so more than ever. In 2006 independents made up 30% of the electorate, today that is up to 40%.

Trump won the white house by winning the independent, the non-affiliated voters. Yet 12% of all independents voted against both Trump and Clinton by casting their ballot for a third party candidate. 6% of the total electorate, some 9 million people voted against both major party candidates. For 2020, that 12% probably still doesn't like or want Trump. The question is can the Democrats nominate a candidate that could attract some or a large portion of that 12% to vote for their candidate? The Democratic Party is still the larger of the two major parties, a decent candidate attractive to independents could persuade at least half of that 12% to vote Democratic in 2020. That would probably guarantee a Democratic victory.

Whom the Democrats nominate is all important. In 2016 the democrats failed to realize candidates matter. So the only remaining question in my book is, have the Democrats learned from 2016 that candidates matter or not? If not, history could repeat itself.

Excellent analysis. I would add (emphasize?) two more things: the percentage of folks self-identifying as either D or R is dropping making "independent" voters even more important (for a general election win) and that "extremists" tend to do better in the major party primary contests than they will do in the general election.

 

[bubbabgone]

Barring a widespread economic crisis, insurmountable scandal or rise of a charismatic opposition candidate, an incumbent retains a prohibitive advantage.

In 2000 and 2016, the choices did not include an incumbent. Both of those elections, the GOP lost the popular election and won with controversy. Tax cuts and a strong economy gave the GOP impetus to claim success.



The DNC has dubbed the phrase Salient Voters to describe potentially disenfranchised Trump Supporters vulnerable to entering the Anti-Trump camp. Efforts focus on identifying and targeting these voters on a local basis.



DNC launches hyper-local 2020 effort to shadow Trump on the trail

What do you consider the keys to unseating Trump?

They should find a candidate who is most unlike those running now.
You won't be successful by trying to out-Bernie Bernie in the primaries and then trying to claw your way back from that far left in the general.

 

[Perotista]

Excellent analysis. I would add (emphasize?) two more things: the percentage of folks self-identifying as either D or R is dropping making "independent" voters even more important (for a general election win) and that "extremists" tend to do better in the major party primary contests than they will do in the general election.

Exactly. If one compares 2006 to today, according to Pew Research and Gallup. In 2006 33% identified with the Democratic Party, 28% with the GOP and 30% as independents. Today it is 30% Democrats, 26% Republican, 42% independents. The two major parties gave us in 2016 the two least liked and the two most disliked candidates in our history or since Eisenhower. Polarization, both parties drifting further and further to the extremes probably gave us this result. As less and less Americans belong to each major party, less Americans as a percentage have a say in whom each party nominates. It will become easier and easier to nominate two unwanted and disliked candidates by America as a whole as they did in 2016. FYI, here are the favorable/unfavorable ratings of all major party candidates beginning with IKE. Only two major party candidates have ever had an unfavorable rating of over 50%, both happened in 2016. Only three major party candidates had an unfavorable rating higher than their favorable one. Trump, Clinton and Goldwater back in 1964.

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.
Favorable/unfavorable
1956 Eisenhower 84/12%
1964 LBJ 81/13%
1976 Carter 81/16%
1960 JFK 80/14%
1960 Nixon 79/16%
1968 Nixon 79/22%
1976 Ford 79/20%
1972 Nixon 76/21%
1968 Humphrey 72/28%
1984 Reagan 71/30%
1980 Carter 68/32%
1984 Mondale 66/34%
1980 Reagan 64/31%
1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%
2008 Obama 62/35%
2012 Obama 62/37%
1956 Stevenson 61/31%
2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%
2008 McCain 60/35%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%
2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%
2004 Kerry 57/40%
1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%
2000 Gore 55/45%
2012 Romney 55/43%
1972 McGovern 55/41%
1996 Dole 54/45%
1988 Dukakis 50/45%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/58%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%

 

[ElChupacabra]

Chom, I would honestly like to believe that, really I would. I left the democratic party when clinton signed nafta. Trump on the other hand could shoot someone on fifth ave and it wouldn't matter. I tend to believe that sooner than I think the pragmatism of the farmers will change their minds. If they have the money, I think most will bite the bullet and like the second farmer said, believe it will get better in the long run and vote trump again. I also think trump will not win again. Those who gave him a chance the first time because he was a business man, they're gone. His harsh rhetoric and actions are really wearing on people who do not support trump and he's only going to get crazier as election time draws nearer.

I agree, and the reason I do is because some people are invested in the idea that the tough tactics and sacrifices are necessary to bring about change; it's a gamble they may be willing to take. I do think the independent voters who chose Trump out of a real disdain for Clinton aren't likely to vote Trump again if there is a more viable option. What remains to be seen is if the Democrats are going to field a viable candidate; by viable I mean one which will have enough mass appeal for the wide range of independent voters out there.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Exactly. If one compares 2006 to today, according to Pew Research and Gallup. In 2006 33% identified with the Democratic Party, 28% with the GOP and 30% as independents. Today it is 30% Democrats, 26% Republican, 42% independents. The two major parties gave us in 2016 the two least liked and the two most disliked candidates in our history or since Eisenhower. Polarization, both parties drifting further and further to the extremes probably gave us this result. As less and less Americans belong to each major party, less Americans as a percentage have a say in whom each party nominates. It will become easier and easier to nominate two unwanted and disliked candidates by America as a whole as they did in 2016. FYI, here are the favorable/unfavorable ratings of all major party candidates beginning with IKE. Only two major party candidates have ever had an unfavorable rating of over 50%, both happened in 2016. Only three major party candidates had an unfavorable rating higher than their favorable one. Trump, Clinton and Goldwater back in 1964.

Highest to lowest favorable/unfavorable ratings of each major party presidential candidate.
Favorable/unfavorable
1956 Eisenhower 84/12%
1964 LBJ 81/13%
1976 Carter 81/16%
1960 JFK 80/14%
1960 Nixon 79/16%
1968 Nixon 79/22%
1976 Ford 79/20%
1972 Nixon 76/21%
1968 Humphrey 72/28%
1984 Reagan 71/30%
1980 Carter 68/32%
1984 Mondale 66/34%
1980 Reagan 64/31%
1992 Bill Clinton 64/33%
2008 Obama 62/35%
2012 Obama 62/37%
1956 Stevenson 61/31%
2004 G.W. Bush 61/39%
2008 McCain 60/35%
1992 G.H.W. Bush 59/40%
2000 G.W. Bush 58/38%
2004 Kerry 57/40%
1996 Bill Clinton 56/42%
1988 G.H.W. Bush 56/39%
2000 Gore 55/45%
2012 Romney 55/43%
1972 McGovern 55/41%
1996 Dole 54/45%
1988 Dukakis 50/45%
1964 Goldwater 43/47%
2016 Hillary Clinton 38/58%
2016 Donald Trump 36/60%

The favorability numbers for both candidates tell an interesting story on how people felt about the choices presented to them.

 

[Perotista]

The favorability numbers for both candidates tell an interesting story on how people felt about the choices presented to them.

Exactly. It also tells in my opinion that in the past when both parties had their conservative and liberal wings, before each party decided to migrate further and further left and right leaving middle America, by that I mean ideological wise not geographical behind. Favorable ratings of both candidates were in the 60's or above. Once both parties shed their unwanted wing, which their unwanted wings made each party more moderate, more in the center, center right or center left than they are now. Today, we are getting a choice of extremes although those left in each party view themselves the norm or the political mainstream when in reality they aren't.

 

[noonereal]

Independents choose the president, not any "bases". I am an independent who always votes for a mix of parties every election. I voted for Obama in 2012. In order to get my vote for president the Democratic nominee must have these two things:

1. not run an anti-Trump campaign

2. not be a Democratic socialist

Not run an anti-Trump campaign?

That makes no sense. The candidate will be running against TRump!

You need to rethink this post. I am sure you mean something different than you said.

I am a republican who never votes straight party line.

To get my vote THIS TIME all the DEms need to do is be on the ballad. They could be a welfare queen and I'd vote for her over Trump.

 

[Moderate Right]

Obama lost independents in 2012 by a slightly larger % than Hillary lost to Trump in 2016, and STILL won his election by a stronger margin than Trump did in 2016, in both the EC and popular vote.

So, Obama proved the Democrats CAN win general elections on the strength of their base, Republicans on the other hand...haven't.

Keep on thinking that. By the way, in 2012 the Democratic party wasn't as far left as it is now and we didn't have any Democratic Socialists running. These people scare independents away. Independents aren't going to vote for a Democratic Socialist.

 

[noonereal]

Keep on thinking that. By the way, in 2012 the Democratic party wasn't as far left as it is now and we didn't have any Democratic Socialists running. These people scare independents away. Independents aren't going to vote for a Democratic Socialist.

I totally agree.

I would hold my nose and vote for a socialist but I am a republican never Trumper, not an independent.

I am one of those republicans that has been run out of the party for having values and concern for the deficit.

 

[Moderate Right]

Not run an anti-Trump campaign?

That makes no sense. The candidate will be running against TRump!

You need to rethink this post. I am sure you mean something different than you said.

I am a republican who never votes straight party line.

To get my vote THIS TIME all the DEms need to do is be on the ballad. They could be a welfare queen and I'd vote for her over Trump.

You suffer from TDS. That removes you from being objective.

 

[Moderate Right]

I totally agree.

I would hold my nose and vote for a socialist but I am a republican never Trumper, not an independent.

I am one of those republicans that has been run out of the party for having values and concern for the deficit.

It would be stupid to vote for a bunch of values and policies you disagree with just to get rid of Trump. In 2016 I was a never Trumper. I didn't vote for him in the primary or in the general election. But, I would never vote for Hillary or a socialist just to get rid of Trump. As much as you might hate Trump, for the most part, you must like most of his policies. If not, then you are not a Republican as you claim.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Barring a widespread economic crisis, insurmountable scandal or rise of a charismatic opposition candidate, an incumbent retains a prohibitive advantage.

In 2000 and 2016, the choices did not include an incumbent. Both of those elections, the GOP lost the popular election and won with controversy. Tax cuts and a strong economy gave the GOP impetus to claim success.



The DNC has dubbed the phrase Salient Voters to describe potentially disenfranchised Trump Supporters vulnerable to entering the Anti-Trump camp. Efforts focus on identifying and targeting these voters on a local basis.



DNC launches hyper-local 2020 effort to shadow Trump on the trail

What do you consider the keys to unseating Trump?

For all this talk of a strong economy forty percent of working Americans don't have enough savings on hand to cover a four hundred dollar emergency. The stock market is high because corporations are furiously using their tax break windfall money to buy back shares in order to inflate their figures.

Unemployment is at historic lows but most of these new jobs are subsistence wage McJobs.

The key to unseating Trump is the onset of reality. Unless people get jerked back to certain realities, they will continue to entertain themselves with an illusion instead. Illusions eventually become too expensive to maintain.

 

[noonereal]

It would be stupid to vote for a bunch of values and policies you disagree with just to get rid of Trump. In 2016 I was a never Trumper. I didn't vote for him in the primary or in the general election. But, I would never vote for Hillary or a socialist just to get rid of Trump. As much as you might hate Trump, for the most part, you must like most of his policies. If not, then you are not a Republican as you claim.

I think you may not realize the system harm he is doing to the country.

That is why I'd literally vote for anyone else.

I see Trump as a blood letting and even a socialist will apply pressure to the wound even if they don't know enough to put a tourniquet on and rush to the hospital.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Independents choose the president, not any "bases". I am an independent who always votes for a mix of parties every election. I voted for Obama in 2012. In order to get my vote for president the Democratic nominee must have these two things:

1. not run an anti-Trump campaign

2. not be a Democratic socialist

In other news, pigs fly. There is no way on Earth you've ever voted for a single Democrat in your life.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Fair enough. I do agree the Midwest "Trump Dems", those that crossed over for him, particularly in the suburbs & exurbs, will likely be the first and largest group to cross back. I'd hope we could get at least a few farmers. But regardless, places like MI & WI were won by a razor-thin margin, and it won't take much to overcome it. After looking at the 2018 results in the Midwest, I think those states are there already, as long as the Dems don't screw it up.

Maher said last night that the Democrats on Twitter don't resemble ANY Democrats he actually knows in real life, and that the "woke" generation is finding all kinds of ways help make Democrats look absolutely insane. Yes, guys like the Joe Bidens need to get through to the more liberal wing of the party but "being woke" is just that, you JUST woke up and NO, you do NOT have the clarity of mind as someone who has BEEN AWAKE all along.
Being "woke" means you've been asleep for a long time, remember? You "woke" kids missed a lot while you were enjoying your nice little naps.

Remember, waking up means you're NOT aware of what was going on while you were sleeping. Examples ABOUND!!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You suffer from TDS. That removes you from being objective.

And you suffer from repeatedly making the false claim that you have voted for Democrats.