Tweet
Trump lost like a dog in that race.
-
-
If you carefully read my remarks, which you obviously did not, you would not see one word where I attempted to condone anything that Mr Trump has done. In fact, I do not condone his actions. But I know that statement will also sail over your head.Originally posted by froot loops View Post
My comment remains as I stated. This 'impeachment' is going nowhere, based on the numbers in the Senate. The Democrats are wasting their time chasing shadows, when they should be spending their time finding a qualified candidate that can beat Mr. Trump at the ballot box. They need to find a candidate that although they may be liberal, they don't hate Christians, don't hate conservatives, don't hate pretty much anyone that lives in flyover America, .. and focus on getting that candidate elected. Of course the Dems will not do that, because they believe they can win without the average American who does not live on a coast or large Democrat controlled city.
On the first day of the impeachment hearings, Mr Trump raised 3.1 million dollars for his re-election coffers. What did the Democrats do? Questioned someone who might have been in the other room and heard 2nd and 3rd hand what might have been said on a conversation that might have included Trump. Real good stuff. Real "Watergate class" evidence.
Last edited by lineygoblue; November 17, 2019, 02:44 AM."What you're doing, speaks so loudly, that I can't hear what you are saying"Comment
-
The Governor's race ended up being about a 40,000 vote margin. So not really as close as Kentucky.
In Louisiana, turnout went up from the numbers in the primary
29% In New Orleans
25% in Shreveport
14-15% in Baton Rouge and New Orleans suburbs
Only about 9% everywhere else
For whatever reason you might think it happened, Republicans did not get the combination of increased rural turnout + depressed urban turnout that they needed.
Listen, Trump will easily win in Louisiana and Kentucky. But he's the one who chose to take the stage and declare both races referendums upon himself. Especially in Louisiana where he held two rallies in the last two weeks and a third little over a month ago. But there should be a a lot of doubt at this point that Trump has wide coattails and whether he stimulates excitement in his opponents as much as his own base.Comment
-
Let me turn the question around on you. Why aren't Republicans trying to do more to appeal to Urban/Suburban America? Alienating suburban voters who used to be solidly in your camp for the sake of trying to squeeze a few extra votes from dying rural counties is not a good long-term strategy.Originally posted by lineygoblue View PostComment
-
The only realistic way to keep surburban votes is to turn against PDJT. That's it. Suburban voters are fine with R policies, by and large. They're the ones cruising along with this fantastic economy. They're happy. But they hate PDJT.
The Rs aren't going to turn on an R President. It's not going to happen. So, they'll lose surbaban votes.
Then, of course, your boys and their rampant communism will send them all back to the Rs.
The idea of finding a candidate that appeals to the coastal elites and heartland is just crazy. The ven diagram sliver is either nonexistent or microscopic.
However, to answer your question --- urban areas aren't the battleground states. Rs aren't going to win any NE state or any state that is primarily urban. And, they don't NEED to. Ds NEED to win the B10 states (or Florida or NC). Flyover country is where the election is won or lost. So, Liney's question is actually on point -- the Ds need to win those states. Your point is about voters that Rs just don't need -- well half -- they need suburban voters.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
I think Trump has made more permanent changes to the R Party than you probably do. Not "for all time" changes but a decade , possibly more. I don't think in 2024, for example, it's foreseeable that an anti-Trump Republican wins the nomination, no matter WHAT happens in 2020.Comment
-
It varies state-to-state, but to win statewide office in the Midwest, Republicans need to do better than just 50% of the suburban vote. I think they typically need closer to 60-70%. I mean, if DeWine had only won 51% of the vote in places like Butler County, Delaware County, Medina County, etc. then Cordray might've won. Instead he got 61-67% in all the Cincinnati burbs and upper 50's-low 60's in most of the Columbus/Cleveland burbs.Comment
-
And stuff like this is why the tax cuts aren't popular even among Trump's populist base
********************************
he said on an August 2017 radio show hosted by Larry Kudlow, who is now chairman of the National Economic Council.
Four months later, President Trump signed into law the $1.5 trillion tax cut that became his signature legislative achievement. FedEx reaped big savings, bringing its effective tax rate from 34 percent in fiscal year 2017 to less than zero in fiscal year 2018, meaning that, overall, the government technically owed it money. But it did not increase investment in new equipment and other assets in the fiscal year that followed, as Mr. Smith said businesses like his would.
Nearly two years after the tax law passed, the windfall to corporations like FedEx is becoming clear. A New York Times analysis of data compiled by Capital IQ shows no statistically meaningful relationship between the size of the tax cut that companies and industries received and the investments they made. If anything, the companies that received the biggest tax cuts increased their capital investment by less, on average, than companies that got smaller cuts.
Comment
-
And you and I surely disagree on how much suburban voters are turned off by PDJT versus PDJT policies.I think Trump has made more permanent changes to the R Party than you probably do. Not "for all time" changes but a decade , possibly more. I don't think in 2024, for example, it's foreseeable that an anti-Trump Republican wins the nomination, no matter WHAT happens in 2020.
Right. And what I would say, to build on Liney's point, is that the suburban midwest vote is more aligned with the rural midwest vote than it is with traditional urban vote. So, I think there is something to the notion that Ds have to appeal to more moderate interests -- the suburbanites. It doesn't matter this election because they hate PDJT so much. But, it will matter going forward (of course, you think not so much).It varies state-to-state, but to win statewide office in the Midwest, Republicans need to do better than just 50% of the suburban vote
I don't think the Rs should waste a second trying to persuade traditional urbanites. I do think they should at least try to sway some AA voters. As I've said, that bloc of voters has a similar cross-section to white voters -- they're probably even more socially conservative and I think suburban AAs are ripe for the picking. But, the Rs don't really bother.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
When Republicans ignore urban voters, that's because they're practical and sensible. But when I say Dems should ignore the guy from Bucyrus, Ohio in the John Deere cap that thinks there needs to be more Christ in government. well that makes me an elitist. HehOriginally posted by iam416 View Post
I made the point about all not all suburbs being the same a couple weeks ago. Waukesha County, WI, just west of Milwaukee, is a great example. There's been virtually no change in that county in Republican support since the 60's. It is rock solid Republican. Compare that with the suburbs around rapidly growing Sun Belt cities like Dallas and Atlanta and you've got a different story. SO you may be right that a Midwest suburb has more in common with the rural countryside than the urban core. But Parma ain't the same as Shaker Heights ain't the same as Grove City ain't the same as Reynoldsburg. Obviously. So we're speaking in very broad generalities.
Parma's actually a pretty unique example...could probably talk a long time about that place. And the suburb outside Chicago where my brother lives is very heavily Polish as well and today it has the same political outlook.Comment
-
My point is this: "the suburban midwest vote is more aligned with the rural midwest vote than it is with traditional urban vote. So, I think there is something to the notion that Ds have to appeal to more moderate interests -- the suburbanites." Appealing to someone in Bucyrus does a D candidate more good -- a lot more good, IMO, than appealing to someone in the Bronx.But when I say Dems should ignore the guy from Bucyrus, Ohio in the John Deere cap that thinks there needs to be more Christ in government. well that makes me an elitist. Heh
If you think the swing and/or suburban (I think they're largely the same) midwestern votes are more aligned with urban/coastal interests then we just disagree. That'd be the better statement, IMO, then some sort of snarky summary.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
If you put a gun to my and force me to decide then i agree with you. Generally speaking a Midwest burb (except maybe around Chicago) is more prone to vote with Rural America than Urban America. With exceptions. A suburb like Shaker Heights or Bexley probably has more cultural affinity with the dreaded East Coast than Paulding County.
Comment
-
It's a blunt comparison. I agree. There are lots of exceptions. Even in a single metro area. But I do think the Ven diagraom overlap is considerably more for midwestern suburbans/midwest rural as opposed to coastal urban/midwest surburban.
And I'm fairly certain that suburban voters absolutely want PDJT out of office. So that appeal actually has a huge overlap with coastal/urban voters. Heh. But on policy, generally, I think it's the above.Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.Comment
-
Comment
-
Liney I did mean to comment on some of this medical stuffOriginally posted by lineygoblue View Post
1) Trump was not previously scheduled to get a checkup or physical yesterday. It was decided to go to Walter Reed at the very, very last minute.
2) Reporters were asked to not even tell the public where Trump was going until he was already there
3) The WH and Hospital have both been dead silent on what tests Trump had. Although I admit Stephanie Grisham took time to announce Trump is the healthiest person to ever live or some such stupid shit.
4) Trump's last physical was only 8 months ago so it's a little unusual that he would do another so soon
5) There's a long history of Presidents lying about or covering up their health issues, whether it be Wilson or FDR, Kennedy or Reagan.
6) Any President has less medical privacy than an ordinary person. If he's had a stroke, for example, he's is NOT entitled to keep quiet about that.Comment
Comment