I'm getting really tired of seeing democrat talking heads flapping their gums about rural america being an issue but none of them actually engaging rural america. Ffs I live smack in the middle of...
I'm getting really tired of seeing democrat talking heads flapping their gums about rural america being an issue but none of them actually engaging rural america. Ffs I live smack in the middle of Trump country and I can tell you it's REAL EASY to get people to vote for you here, as long as you do it right. At least for the midwest:
Provide a clear plan of action for whatever things you're trying to accomplish in office (that means no "Lower taxes!" or "Less corruption!". Missouri, for example, is the show-me state for a reason. Don't talk about it, show it.
Get yourself a candidate without big ties to washington or corporations (admittedly more difficult than it would seem).
Hold events at or near any of the 8 billion churches we have, thereby all but guaranteeing you're reaching as many people as possible (as much as I might like to point to the declining religiousness of America, religion ain't going anywhere in the midwest anytime soon).
Boom done. You'll get yourself within spitting distance in the polls without even having to do any of the real, granular heavy lifting.
Then again it's super easy to sit here and be an armchair campaign chief, so what do I know.
This is basically asking for a candidate with rockstar charisma because those are the two options for getting enough money to run a competitive race. You either know rich funders (corporations),...
Get yourself a candidate without big ties to washington or corporations (admittedly more difficult than it would seem).
This is basically asking for a candidate with rockstar charisma because those are the two options for getting enough money to run a competitive race. You either know rich funders (corporations), have connections in the press (to get earned media) or be independently wealthy (corporations again). If you don't have that option, you need to be electrifying enough to work off small-donors alone, like Beto. And that's still no guarantee.
Hold events at or near any of the 8 billion churches we have, thereby all but guaranteeing you're reaching as many people as possible (as much as I might like to point to the declining religiousness of America, religion ain't going anywhere in the midwest anytime soon).
Doesn't the church itself need to be down with this? That seems like a church issue more than a Democrats issue.
Right, that's why I said it's get you within spitting distance in the polls, rather than guarantee you a win. You'd be surprised how many churches couldn't give less of a shit about your...
And that's still no guarantee
Right, that's why I said it's get you within spitting distance in the polls, rather than guarantee you a win.
Doesnt the church itself need to be down with this?
You'd be surprised how many churches couldn't give less of a shit about your denomination (or political stance) if you're there to help the community in some capacity (food drive, entertainment event, etc). The megachurches would probably be a no-go because they've got "reputations" to uphold but in my experience any small or medium sized church would be happy to host an event like that, as long as it's not JUST to meet the candidate.
Plus let's be real, if a person's buying into someone like Joel Osteen then you're very unlikely to win them over as a voter anyway, unless you're Joel Osteen endorsed.
But, again, this is all very easy to say from the safety and confines of a random internet message board. I'm confident that it would work, but that's just me.
I live on the cusp of conservative country, and I feel the same way. In my area at least, many conservatives I know share many of the same concerns as their democrat neighbors but feel demonized...
I live on the cusp of conservative country, and I feel the same way. In my area at least, many conservatives I know share many of the same concerns as their democrat neighbors but feel demonized by the right instead of being spoken to as if they may be able to participate solutions.
the GOP "senate advantage" may exist by virtue of how the senate is set up, but it's not 40 seats and there's no reason to think it'll be the decider in 2020. this analysis is silly. at a...
the GOP "senate advantage" may exist by virtue of how the senate is set up, but it's not 40 seats and there's no reason to think it'll be the decider in 2020. this analysis is silly.
By the numbers: Those "built-in" advantages are based on each party's "base" states, where they won the presidential vote by 10 percentage points or more in the last election.
Democrats won 13 states by that measure in 2016, which translates to 26 Senate seats.
Republicans won 20 states by that measure, which gives them an advantage in 40 Senate races.
at a fundamental level, this idea is flawed. just because a state votes republican or democratic like this up-ballot does not mean it will do so down-ballot. it's an okay proxy, sure, but senate seats are more complicated than just which party wins the presidency in that state; there are several "red" states with a democratic senator, and several "blue" states with republican ones. (it wasn't that long ago that democrats had senators in places like south dakota, and republicans in places like massachusetts!) additionally, there's a good case to be made that the GOP majority is endangered and will most likely end in 2022 if it doesn't end next year. democrats seem poised to flip colorado, and maybe north carolina, arizona, and maine, and with good democratic candidates in texas, kansas, iowa, south carolina, georgia, they're certainly not leaving anything even remotely competitive off the table.
(that's also before we get to realignment, which is happening.)
in fact, to demonstrate how ridiculous this is, here are the number of seats the democrats have to win over the next 2 cycles, with 43 GOP seats up: 4. that four could be any four (or more) of the...
in fact, to demonstrate how ridiculous this is, here are the number of seats the democrats have to win over the next 2 cycles, with 43 GOP seats up: 4.
that four could be any four (or more) of the following: CO, AZ, ME, NC, IA, GA, TX, KS, SC, MT in 2020 assuming AL is a wash, or three if it's not. if short by any number, then they have to win any of FL, GA, IA, NC, PA, WI, or AK in 2022 when there are zero competitive democratic seats up.
like, you can construct a pretty viable--although supremely unlikely due to the stacking of probabilities necessary--map to 60 seats just with entirely probable outcomes. that map would be CO + AZ + ME + NC + IA + GA + (AL/TX, take your pick) in 2020, getting you to 53, followed by a clean sweep of those 2022 seats i listed with three seats to spare for the least likely three flips/holds. that's also without potential demographic changes which, while they might make the upper north seats harder to hold, should make the sun belt seats readily winnable. the democrats really don't--and shouldn't--have a problem per se with the GOP's "senate advantage" here unless they do garbage in 2020 and 2022 and then bomb in 2024, when some of their more "vulnerable" candidates are up like tester and manchin.
I'm getting really tired of seeing democrat talking heads flapping their gums about rural america being an issue but none of them actually engaging rural america. Ffs I live smack in the middle of Trump country and I can tell you it's REAL EASY to get people to vote for you here, as long as you do it right. At least for the midwest:
Provide a clear plan of action for whatever things you're trying to accomplish in office (that means no "Lower taxes!" or "Less corruption!". Missouri, for example, is the show-me state for a reason. Don't talk about it, show it.
Get yourself a candidate without big ties to washington or corporations (admittedly more difficult than it would seem).
Hold events at or near any of the 8 billion churches we have, thereby all but guaranteeing you're reaching as many people as possible (as much as I might like to point to the declining religiousness of America, religion ain't going anywhere in the midwest anytime soon).
Boom done. You'll get yourself within spitting distance in the polls without even having to do any of the real, granular heavy lifting.
Then again it's super easy to sit here and be an armchair campaign chief, so what do I know.
This is basically asking for a candidate with rockstar charisma because those are the two options for getting enough money to run a competitive race. You either know rich funders (corporations), have connections in the press (to get earned media) or be independently wealthy (corporations again). If you don't have that option, you need to be electrifying enough to work off small-donors alone, like Beto. And that's still no guarantee.
Doesn't the church itself need to be down with this? That seems like a church issue more than a Democrats issue.
Right, that's why I said it's get you within spitting distance in the polls, rather than guarantee you a win.
You'd be surprised how many churches couldn't give less of a shit about your denomination (or political stance) if you're there to help the community in some capacity (food drive, entertainment event, etc). The megachurches would probably be a no-go because they've got "reputations" to uphold but in my experience any small or medium sized church would be happy to host an event like that, as long as it's not JUST to meet the candidate.
Plus let's be real, if a person's buying into someone like Joel Osteen then you're very unlikely to win them over as a voter anyway, unless you're Joel Osteen endorsed.
But, again, this is all very easy to say from the safety and confines of a random internet message board. I'm confident that it would work, but that's just me.
I live on the cusp of conservative country, and I feel the same way. In my area at least, many conservatives I know share many of the same concerns as their democrat neighbors but feel demonized by the right instead of being spoken to as if they may be able to participate solutions.
the GOP "senate advantage" may exist by virtue of how the senate is set up, but it's not 40 seats and there's no reason to think it'll be the decider in 2020. this analysis is silly.
at a fundamental level, this idea is flawed. just because a state votes republican or democratic like this up-ballot does not mean it will do so down-ballot. it's an okay proxy, sure, but senate seats are more complicated than just which party wins the presidency in that state; there are several "red" states with a democratic senator, and several "blue" states with republican ones. (it wasn't that long ago that democrats had senators in places like south dakota, and republicans in places like massachusetts!) additionally, there's a good case to be made that the GOP majority is endangered and will most likely end in 2022 if it doesn't end next year. democrats seem poised to flip colorado, and maybe north carolina, arizona, and maine, and with good democratic candidates in texas, kansas, iowa, south carolina, georgia, they're certainly not leaving anything even remotely competitive off the table.
(that's also before we get to realignment, which is happening.)
in fact, to demonstrate how ridiculous this is, here are the number of seats the democrats have to win over the next 2 cycles, with 43 GOP seats up: 4.
that four could be any four (or more) of the following: CO, AZ, ME, NC, IA, GA, TX, KS, SC, MT in 2020 assuming AL is a wash, or three if it's not. if short by any number, then they have to win any of FL, GA, IA, NC, PA, WI, or AK in 2022 when there are zero competitive democratic seats up.
like, you can construct a pretty viable--although supremely unlikely due to the stacking of probabilities necessary--map to 60 seats just with entirely probable outcomes. that map would be CO + AZ + ME + NC + IA + GA + (AL/TX, take your pick) in 2020, getting you to 53, followed by a clean sweep of those 2022 seats i listed with three seats to spare for the least likely three flips/holds. that's also without potential demographic changes which, while they might make the upper north seats harder to hold, should make the sun belt seats readily winnable. the democrats really don't--and shouldn't--have a problem per se with the GOP's "senate advantage" here unless they do garbage in 2020 and 2022 and then bomb in 2024, when some of their more "vulnerable" candidates are up like tester and manchin.