Conversation
Notices
-
Trump has a clean record of never having campaigned for anyone who lost.... which I assume is why he hasn’t done a single campaign rally in Virginia despite (or perhaps because of) Republicans facing losing their last footholds in the state.
Tuesday, 05-Nov-19 17:09:23 UTC from web-
@mrmattimation Full aware of the dangers of asking this question, I have to ask "What does that mean to you ?"
Some sort of "Virginia pride" ?Jonathan Chouinard likes this. -
@drinkingpony it means the persona he’s cultivated of being the GOP’s “fixer” is a sham, he only campaigns on behalf of people who were already going to win anyway. Beyond that I think it’s really, really funny that his 2020 strategy involves flipping Virginia yet he can’t even set foot in the state without causing other Republicans to dip in polling.
-
@mrmattimation Well, he is a politician. Try to name me a POTUS from the last 50 years and I can probably give you a sham or two.
But we both know what is currently going on in Virginia. No I do not think Trump should have said anything about minority members of Congress, in fact someone should have slapped him, camera's rolling or no. But last time I checked the black caucus of Virginia certainly is spreading a whole lot of influence to making sure to keep the whole area stays as anti-Trump as possible.
Do I think that is a bad thing ? Nah, Time will tell. Can Trump win a second time without Virginia ? Time will tell, after all, it worked for Calvin Coolidge, Warren G. Harding, William Howard Taft, and Theodore Roosevelt before. But hey still, 19/26 winrate is not bad. Lets hope this is a good horserace.
I can not wait to see who they will back this election cycle, all I know it is going to be some [Name] with a D at the end.Jonathan Chouinard likes this. -
@drinkingpony There’s 100% a path to re-election that doesn’t involve Virginia, which is why I’m confused why he’s targeting this state. He’s planning to offset potential losses in PA, WI, and especially MI by flipping Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New Mexico. Problem is Clinton won three of those states by 5% or more and they only got more Democratic in elections after that. Realistically I could see him winning New Hampshire and maybe Nevada, which is TECHNICALLY enough assuming he loses the Great Lakes and wins Maine’s second congressional district, but it’s not at all a comfortable margin, and Democrats winning even one more electoral vote (ie by winning Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district) would screw him. His best path to victory is maintaining states he already won, not winning new ones, and going after the swing states that went for Clinton is a very weird move.
-
@mrmattimation Ohkay, I think I found the sore spot right then and there.
> "best path to victory is maintaining states already won, not winning new ones,"
That is way too much true to the whole idea of political ideologies eating themselves once they get more and more totalitarian. That is "Back your base !" "Back Your Base !" "BACK YOUR OWN FRIGGIN BASE !" untill you have alienated everyone that was not already part of the in-group by the first time those words were chanted.
Back to modern day America. No group is going to win without the support of the people who feel no strong affiliation and rather let the policies ( or gut ) speak to them. Hell, the Rust Belt voted surprisingly Trump after 2 election cycles of "Hope".
Not to say I would not be surprised that in the campaign office they jokingly talk about 'It is not about winning, it is about sending a message' while giving it their best Michael Caine impression.
But it honestly sometimes is, just about sending a message.Jonathan Chouinard likes this. -
@drinkingpony It’s all in state leans really. If Trump doesn’t win Wisconsin, he can’t win Michigan, and if he can’t win Michigan, he can’t win Virginia, if he doesn’t win Virginia, he can’t win Colorado, etc, etc. Once you lose one state it becomes a lot harder to win states that lean further from you, not impossible, but harder.
-
