Last edited:
Bitecofer: Dems start with 278
- Thread starter CowboyUp
- Start date
Unlike your position about avoiding anything written by an opposition supporter, I did actually read this. Its from Salon (very left) but I'm interested to see what her thoughts were.
1) It becomes heavily tied to the fact that he was up against not just a Democrat, but that particular Democrat the GOP had managed to cause a public opinion backlash toward. That’s certainly not going to be the case in the 2020 cycle. Really? Which of the likely candidates does not have baggage that will be a hard sell to middle America? I think this could be right if its someone like Yang or Gabbard, but neither of them is likely. Warren has lots of baggage. Sanders is a self-identified socialist. Bloomberg is the man who outlawed large sodas. $100M in election spending will make any of the major players look as corrupt and self-serving as Hillary.
2) It does that because of my model's prediction, based on turnout and predicted vote share, that Pennsylvania and Michigan will slip back to the Democrats. I'm uncertain about Ohio, but even if Trump wins Ohio, he can't win the other three Midwestern states. Isn't this EXACTLY what was said for the Hillary election? The blue wall of the midwest is unassailable? I've looked at her projections, and they look EXACTLY like the 2016 Hillary maps. The only difference is Penn, Wisc, and Mich are now Dem Leans instead of Dem Locks.
3) She has a large paragraph on why the Beto and Abrams campaign style will be effective for Dems in 2020, yet failed to even acknowledge that both of those individuals outspent their opponents 4x+, and still lost. Assuming those states will turn blue based on strong midterm turnouts is a fallacy. That's as stupid as Republicans predicting Massachusetts was turning Red when they elected Scott Brown to the senate in 2010. It wasn't part of a demographic shift, it was simply a mid-term vote where the "we want change" people can more easily outnumber the "happy with the status quo" people.
4) Finally, her narcissism would make Trump proud. And the sad truth of the matter is that the only way I’ve been able to figure out for people to do that is by following me and reading my research, because there’s no one else talking about it. Wow, a million data scientists in the world, and she's the ONLY one who understands what the real turnout will look like. That is truly Trump level narcissism.
1) It becomes heavily tied to the fact that he was up against not just a Democrat, but that particular Democrat the GOP had managed to cause a public opinion backlash toward. That’s certainly not going to be the case in the 2020 cycle. Really? Which of the likely candidates does not have baggage that will be a hard sell to middle America? I think this could be right if its someone like Yang or Gabbard, but neither of them is likely. Warren has lots of baggage. Sanders is a self-identified socialist. Bloomberg is the man who outlawed large sodas. $100M in election spending will make any of the major players look as corrupt and self-serving as Hillary.
2) It does that because of my model's prediction, based on turnout and predicted vote share, that Pennsylvania and Michigan will slip back to the Democrats. I'm uncertain about Ohio, but even if Trump wins Ohio, he can't win the other three Midwestern states. Isn't this EXACTLY what was said for the Hillary election? The blue wall of the midwest is unassailable? I've looked at her projections, and they look EXACTLY like the 2016 Hillary maps. The only difference is Penn, Wisc, and Mich are now Dem Leans instead of Dem Locks.
3) She has a large paragraph on why the Beto and Abrams campaign style will be effective for Dems in 2020, yet failed to even acknowledge that both of those individuals outspent their opponents 4x+, and still lost. Assuming those states will turn blue based on strong midterm turnouts is a fallacy. That's as stupid as Republicans predicting Massachusetts was turning Red when they elected Scott Brown to the senate in 2010. It wasn't part of a demographic shift, it was simply a mid-term vote where the "we want change" people can more easily outnumber the "happy with the status quo" people.
4) Finally, her narcissism would make Trump proud. And the sad truth of the matter is that the only way I’ve been able to figure out for people to do that is by following me and reading my research, because there’s no one else talking about it. Wow, a million data scientists in the world, and she's the ONLY one who understands what the real turnout will look like. That is truly Trump level narcissism.
Similar threads
