• Update on weirdness

    Update on site issues: (1. replies now need a title *and* something in the message box, 2. certain links are causing strange pop-ups on Apple devices, and 3. Some folks can't type anything into the text box.) Basically, a series of unfortunate events set us back on testing. We'll get to it as soon as we can, and hopefully things can get fixed by this weekend if not before.  More info: https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/site-problems-more-info/

Home Main Forums 2018 Elections The Democrats' New Base: Romney Voters

  • Purveyor (2633 posts)
    Profile photo of Purveyor Donor

    The Democrats' New Base: Romney Voters

    FEB 9, 2017 6:30 AM EST
    By Conor Sen

    There’s a paradox within the Democratic Party right now as leaders plot their path forward. On the one hand, they want to get back to their labor roots. On the other hand, electoral trends will pull them in the other direction: In 2016, the group that most swung toward Democrats was wealthy Mitt Romney voters, who will represent the key to Democrats making electoral gains in 2018.

    Democrats would be forgiven for thinking “make labor great again” should be their electoral approach right now. In times of confusion and uncertainty, it’s human nature to go with what you know. Even after losing many working-class white voters to the Republican Party, labor roots in the Democratic Party remain deep. On paper, focusing on those labor roots would please the labor interests within the party, and perhaps would win back some of those straying Trump voters.

    The problem is even the recent official strategy of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee acknowledges those aren’t the voters they’ll be targeting. Their main focus will be targeting the 23 seats held by House Republicans in districts that Hillary Clinton won, plus an additional 10 seats in districts that Clinton narrowly lost.

    And what we know about those districts that swung toward Clinton is that they’re full of rich people who voted for Romney in 2012. The five Republican-held House districts with the biggest swings toward Democrats in the presidential race in 2016 are in Texas and Georgia. All have average household incomes over $100,000 per year. Three of those five districts are on the DCCC list. Also on the list include four Republican-held districts in Southern California — the 39th, the 45th, the 48th and the 49th — which have average household incomes above $100,000.

    more…

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-09/the-democrats-new-base-romney-voters

    OzoneTom, mmonk, xynthee and 1 otherfrylock like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
22 replies
  • 3 months ago #19
    • daleanime (2089 posts)
      Profile photo of daleanime

      1. Key word for the DNC……

      “wealthy”.  :grr:

      When the going gets tough, the tough take care of each other
      • FanBoy (7985 posts)
        Profile photo of FanBoy

        10. which is the real problem with politics today

      • Major Hogwash (2315 posts)
        Profile photo of Major Hogwash

        11. It's like they googled it, saw the # of hits, and thought it was popular!

        Good thing they didn’t Google “boobs” or we may have wound up with one of those as the new DNC Chair.

        Oh, shit . . . forget it . . . they did.

    • ThinkingANew (1239 posts)
      Profile photo of ThinkingANew

      2. I would say that is proof that it is all about *their* jobs and percs

      as long as they can develop a strategy that keeps their positions secure it doesn’t really seem like they care about much else. They are content to shrink just keep that personal power.

      "(modern) newspapers publish nothing more than “weaponized text"" “When you read a newspaper article, you are reading weaponized text that is designed to affect a person just like you." Julian Assange  
      • FanBoy (7985 posts)
        Profile photo of FanBoy

        9. same strategy the union leadership has taken these past 30 years.

        • ThinkingANew (1239 posts)
          Profile photo of ThinkingANew

          14. I agree with that.

          Unfortunately.

          "(modern) newspapers publish nothing more than “weaponized text"" “When you read a newspaper article, you are reading weaponized text that is designed to affect a person just like you." Julian Assange  
      • Major Hogwash (2315 posts)
        Profile photo of Major Hogwash

        12. Yabbut, if they continue to lose, they soon won't have perks or jobs.

        Who the hell is going to hire people who keep losing?

        • ThinkingANew (1239 posts)
          Profile photo of ThinkingANew

          17. True. And they get a soft landing in private industry or think tanks

          for being good foot-soldiers while the rest of us have to rebuild and Republicans dominate for another Presidency or two.

           

           

          "(modern) newspapers publish nothing more than “weaponized text"" “When you read a newspaper article, you are reading weaponized text that is designed to affect a person just like you." Julian Assange  
    • SurrealAmerican (681 posts)
      Profile photo of SurrealAmerican

      3. Keep working at it, DNC.

      With this strategy in 2018 you’ll lose the non-white working class too!

    • GZeusH (1690 posts)
      Profile photo of GZeusH

      4. How that "suburbs of Philly" working out for ya??

      This Kleenex has Chuck Schumer’s snot all over it.

      Policy:  The mistaken notion that bossy people have that they can influence other people's behavior through majority rule.
    • FanBoy (7985 posts)
      Profile photo of FanBoy

      5. that's bloomberg for you. yep, those districts swung and she still lost.

      you can’t win by splitting the top 10% — though it might get you lots of money — but at some point the 90% realize they’re not getting any of it.

    • Colors of the Rainbow (1210 posts)
      Profile photo of Colors of the Rainbow

      6. Party Realignments

      Maybe we can just flip them.

      Progressives—You will become Republicans!

      Conservatives—You will become Democrats!

      Details on how parties operate—Oh, come on, now! I can’t tell the future.

      But, given this topic, well…

      Here’s a part of the future map for targeted states (colored in light shades if achieved):

       

       

       

      • Major Hogwash (2315 posts)
        Profile photo of Major Hogwash

        13. Are you suggesting that they are going down to Georgia?

        While Jeff Sessions is the AG?

        That would be wild.

        • Colors of the Rainbow (1210 posts)
          Profile photo of Colors of the Rainbow

          15. Oh, yes!

          In 2016, the U.S. Popular Vote margin for Hillary Clinton was +2.09 (something like 48.03% to Donald Trump’s 45.94%).

          24 states carried in 2012 for Mitt Romney. As the 2016 Republican presidential pickup winner, Donald Trump retained all and flipped six states: Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (plus the 2nd Congressional District of Maine).

          When it came to percentage-points margins, state after state, Trump’s Republican pickups of Wisconsin (+0.76), Pennsylvania (+0.72), and Michigan (+0.22) were his Nos. 28, 29, and 30 best-performed (of 30 carried) states. (His pickup of Florida, at +1.19, was his No. 27.)

          Trump underperformed Romney in Georgia as well as Arizona, two states close to each other in their margins. Romney won Georgia by +7.80 and Trump came down to +5.09. (Romney won Arizona by +9.03. Trump was reduced to +3.50.)

          Compared to Georgia, Trump did better in the margins with his pickups of the most reputable bellwether state, Ohio (+8.07), and Iowa (+9.41).

          The average percentage-points margins from the six pickup states for Trump was +3.39.

          Georgia was Trump’s No. 24 best-performed state. (Arizona was his No. 26.)

          With exceptions of 1824 (John Quincy Adams), 1960 (John Kennedy), and 1976 (Jimmy Carter), every presidential election has seen winners carry 50 percent and above of participating states. (Some, like Barack Obama, were in the 50s percentile range; some, like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, were in the 60s; some, like Calvin Coolidge and the last two for Franklin Roosevelt, were in the 70s; etc.)

          2016’s losing Democrat, Hillary Clinton, carried 20 states. If Donald Trump wins re-election, in 2020, he will likely increase with states count and his electoral-vote score (and win over the U.S. Popular Vote). That would leave the Democrats, for a pickup year, needing to flip about 10 states to carry at least 26 states.

          Since the 1980s, there have been party-pickup winners who flipped given states which have since not flipped back to the party which lost them. A 1980 Republican pickup winner Ronald Reagan flipped Texas, South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi. (They have not since carried Democratic.) A 1992 Democratic pickup winner Bill Clinton flipped California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine [statewide], Maryland, New Jersey, and Vermont. (They have not since carried Republican.) A 2000 Republican pickup winner George W. Bush flipped Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia. (You can can sort of add Arizona, Democratic for re-electing Bill Clinton, in 1996 but a likely Democratic pickup next such applicable election. Those listed states have not since carried Democratic.) And with a 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama, four of his nine pickup states did not flip Republican for 2016 pickup winner Donald Trump: Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Virginia. Looking at Trump’s six Republican pickup states, I’m sure the next Democratic pickup winner will not be able to flip one of them: Iowa.

          That map I presented may very well be the trajectory.

          • Major Hogwash (2315 posts)
            Profile photo of Major Hogwash

            16. Fuck, my head hurts. Thank you for the reply.

            That’s the most detailed answer I have seen in over a year and a half. I can’t believe you wrote all of that.

            It’s amazing that the states that flipped once, but not again, during times of deep stress, war, economic failures, etc, haven’t wound up in the D column as a result.

            I didn’t realize that Trump had won in 30 states. Romney took 24, but the Trumpster got 6 more than Romney!!

            There must be something in the water.

            • Rozinante (2954 posts)
              Profile photo of Rozinante

              20. Except Florida, the state's Trump flipped are in the rust belt.

              They are still suffering job losses from NAFTA and outsourcing. Trump may have lied to them, but Clinton took them for granted and ignored them. The blame lies entirely with her for ignoring working class voters, and running a poor campaign.

              Obama barely won Florida in 2008 and 2012, despite large voter turnouts. Anyone with half a brain could see Clinton was going to lose a chunk of Obama voters here. I think Trump got fewer votes than Romney and McCain. He didn’t so much win Florida as Clinton lost it.

              • Major Hogwash (2315 posts)
                Profile photo of Major Hogwash

                21. I agree.

                He didn’t so much win Florida as Clinton lost it.

                Yeah, coupled with the debacle surrounding the leaked DNC emails and with DWS having to resign as DNC chair, it would have been really hard to just hold one’s nose to vote for HER.

                I honestly think I would have thrown up a little in my mouth if I had just voted, and then realized I had voted for HER.

                • Rozinante (2954 posts)
                  Profile photo of Rozinante

                  22. I don't know that Sanders would have won Florida.

                  But I’m very sure he would have won the Rust Belt.

    • TwilightSporkle (1796 posts)
      Profile photo of TwilightSporkle

      7. Unsurprising, since the Democratic candidate was Mitt With Tits

      What if I want to tell you to leave me and my beloved ones in peace

      But you only understand the language of the sword

      I let the blade do the talking

      So my tongue shall become iron

      And my words the mighty roar of war

    • Two way street (1949 posts)
      Profile photo of Two way street

      8. Romney voters voted for Her because they were assured she would win. Now

      that Trump’s strategy won, why in the world would they want to support a loser now?

      Draft Bernie for a people's party
      • Snort McDork (2300 posts)
        Profile photo of Snort McDork Donor

        18. Thats right. Because corporations are people my friends.

    • Rozinante (2954 posts)
      Profile photo of Rozinante

      19. What a crock.

      Romney voters that swung to Clinton in 2016 don’t represent a trend. They represent disgust at Trump, and held their noses and voted for Clinton. If Romney had been running, they all would have voted for him, and Clinton would have lost by an even bigger margin.  Clinton lost because she’s very disliked (for a number of reasons), and because she swung so far to the right that many Obama voters either voted third party (a small percent) or simply didn’t vote at all (a large percentage). A Democratic candidate advocating a populist platform, trusted by voters, would have won in a landslide. Too bad the party was too corrupt to nominate such a candidate…they deserved to lose. And they will continue to lose until they listen to the people.