Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 8/28 (323 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not really talking about a primary (0+ / 0-)

    but a strong Republican opponent (i. e. Christie) could absolutely take her down if a relatively perfect storm happens. It's not likely, but it's made likelier by Democrats believing she's invincible. She's still the strongest candidate since... Clinton '96.

    19/Sweden/Wonk. Prefers discussing opinions to having them. Learning by doing.

    by Tayya on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 10:16:18 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Chris Christie isn't strong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      That's a bigger error in judgment than the "Hillary is more vulnerable than the media thinks" comment you started off with.

      He can't win electoral votes in states he needs to against Hillary.  There is no perfect storm that can deliver him Washington or Oregon or Michigan or Pennsylvania for sure.  

      I can't think of what perfect storm makes Christie preferable to Clinton in Wisconsin, Minnesota or Ohio but I suppose it exists in theory.

      While there is a perfect storm that could maybe get Christie VA or NC or FL or NV, I don't see any way he could win all 4.    

      Add in the fact I expect Hillary's VP to come from either OH/VA/CO and she can probably lock down one of those states and take it off the board early.

      "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

      by rdw72777 on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 10:31:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If Clinton is brought down from her standing (0+ / 0-)

        among McCain-Romney voters who see her as above politics and different from Obama, she gets less than 60% with women and somewhat lower black turnout, Christie could probably flip enough suburban Rockefeller voters in places such as NOVA and the Philadelphia suburbs that he could eke out a win through NC-FL-CO-VA-OH-PA. I do believe that Christie has the potential to turn more suburban voters than people here think he can.

        Again, there are several factors that have to fall into place for such a scenario to come true, also including a crappy national environment for the Democrats, a campaign more similar to Clinton '08 than Obama '12, the media turning on HRC et cetera, in order to remove Clinton's existing advantages.

        All in all, I'd peg a Clinton-Christie race as one where Clinton wins around 75% of the time. I just want those who think that Clinton makes or breaks the race to calm down a bit.

        19/Sweden/Wonk. Prefers discussing opinions to having them. Learning by doing.

        by Tayya on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 10:53:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why do you think Christie (0+ / 0-)

          can flip suburban voters more than other people here supposedly believe?

          To be sure, aside from him and perhaps Walker and Jeb Bush, there's really nobody on their side who wouldn't lose to her by at least 7-10 points. And even Walker and Bush might be easily beaten.

          "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

          by bjssp on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 10:56:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  His indie credentials hold up as much as Clinton's (0+ / 0-)

            And he has a better chance of defying his party label in the long run, as Clinton has more of a record that her enemies can run on.

            Note - CAN doesn't necessarily mean WILL flip.

            19/Sweden/Wonk. Prefers discussing opinions to having them. Learning by doing.

            by Tayya on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 11:55:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You should do more analysis (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY

          Not much of what you say is even remotely backed up by trends or reality.  

          A Republican isn't winning Pennsylvania.  Dems romp in Philly and have won MontCo for several elections now (even Dan Onorato won it in 2010 and he was the worst candidate in a dreadful year) and the rest of the Philly burbs tend to even out (Bucks and Chester tend to be offset by DelCo).  Dems leave SEPA with an at least 350K vote margin in Pres years (more likely 400-500K) from the 5 big SEPA counties and there just aren't the votes elsewhere to over-turn that.

          There are other trends in VA/CO that would defy your prediction also.  Hillary doesn't need anywhere close to 60% of women to win, so I'm not sure what that metric was thrown out for.

          Also, that coalition of 6 states has gone GOP simulataneously in decades.  

          "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

          by rdw72777 on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 11:10:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yet PA is trending R relative to the nation. (0+ / 0-)

            If the 2012 national results were in the line of 2004, PA would have gone Republican. Now, it's possible that Western PA will swing back to the Democrats with Clinton on the ticket and there are more variables to takei nto account, but if the national mood is remotely pro-Republican, PA will be one of the states that will be in play.

            The 60% comment was meant to note that HRC of course would win if the women turn out that strongly for her, a Republican win assumes that they don't.

            Except PA, the named states went for Bush in '04, and it's possible that they all can swing back to the Democrats. Colorado might be a stretch but it depends on demographics and the Obama coalition holding. VA especially has many voters that I can see as Obama-Christie.

            19/Sweden/Wonk. Prefers discussing opinions to having them. Learning by doing.

            by Tayya on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 12:03:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Anything is possible, but PA isn't really (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BKGyptian89, MichaelNY

              trending red in any significant way.

              "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

              by bjssp on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 12:06:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  PA will not be in play (4+ / 0-)

              No one lives in western PA, all those red counties hold no people.  PA isn't in play in 2016, nor was it in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012.  There simply aren't 200K-300K voters available to the GOP just waiting in the wings for Chris Christie; they had choice of Dole, GHWB, W, McCain, Romney and said no to all of them.  

              Don't get me wrong, I want the GOP to spend a fortune in NJ/PA and then see Karl Rove throw a fit but nothing you state is based in reality.

              PA isn't trending red...it just isn't.

              "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

              by rdw72777 on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 12:21:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Western PA is also losing population (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                R30A, James Allen, BKGyptian89, MichaelNY

                while Eastern PA is gaining it, in most cases.

                "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

                by bjssp on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 12:25:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BKGyptian89, MichaelNY

                  Philly is growing and the Pittsburgh suburbs are declining the GOP hopes are minimal.  Sure the growth in Eastern PA is not all in Dem-friendly places, but I don't see Lancaster and york county voting 70%+ for GOP like they did in 2010.  

                  "What if you're on a game show one day and the name of some random New Jersey state senator is the only thing between you and several thousand dollars? And you'll think to yourself, "if only I had clapped faster." - sapelcovits

                  by rdw72777 on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 01:39:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Biggest growth rates in PA (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MichaelNY

                    in the east are in Pike, at 23.90 percent, where Romney got 55.00 percent, and Monroe, at 22.50 percent, where Obama got 55.00 percent. The latter had about three times as many voters in 2012.

                    Then comes Chester, at 15.1 percent, where Romney only barely edged out Obama by .21 percent. About 250,000 people voted there in 2012.

                    Then comes York, if that isn't going too far, at 13.00 percent, where Romney crushed Obama with almost 60 percent of the vote. Around 190,000 people voted there in 2012.

                    Then comes Lehigh, at 12.00 percent, where Obama edged out Romney by 4.50 percent.

                    And so on. It's not all positive, because not everything from 2012 held, but it's definitely more than making up for whatever we lost in the western part of the state.

                    Here's a nice link. But here's a better one, with this part being key:

                    Frey also found that Hispanics account for 77 percent of the state’s growth, and the gains are tilted toward the eastern part, including suburban Philadelphia, Lehigh Valley, Lancaster, Reading and Harrisburg. Most of the decline in the under-18 population occurred in western Pennsylvania.

                    White Population Falls
                    Since 2000, the non-Hispanic white population fell 2.2 percent to 10,094,652, and whites now account for 79.5 percent of the population, 2010 Census data show. Blacks were up 10.4 percent to 1,327,091 and now make up 10.4 percent of the population. Asians rose 58.6 percent to 346,288 and make up 2.7 percent. Across the state, the Hispanic population rose 82.6 percent to 719,660, the data show.

                    Not only are whites not growing as quickly as other groups part of the state, they are actively shrinking! That's far from a guarantee that we'll always win, but the most likely voters for them are actually declining.

                    "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

                    by bjssp on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 02:43:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I hope you're the one of use who's right. (0+ / 0-)

                I do take pride in being pessimistic by default, so there's that.

                19/Sweden/Wonk. Prefers discussing opinions to having them. Learning by doing.

                by Tayya on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 12:45:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  That "relative trend" is junk "analysis" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              Pennsylvania isn't trending, and comparing to the country as a whole isn't valid analysis.  Any trend has to be absolute, not relative, or there's no trend.

              Talking about a "trend" that is "relative" to the country as a whole is classic misuse of PVI.

              45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

              by DCCyclone on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 03:51:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Mississippi will go blue before PA goes red (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              IntoGov

              You remind of someone who comes over here from a right leaning election blog, and who states that garbage. People who say that about Pennsylvania, can keep saying that till their face turns purple and the cows come home.

              NY-9/NJ-10; Russians can give you arms but only the United States can give you a solution. -- Anwar Sadat

              by BKGyptian89 on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 05:06:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Nevada isn't swinging back to the GOP (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              James Allen

              And Christie in particular wouldn't play well in Virginia.

              The Obama coalition is made up of demographics that were originally the Hillary coalition. She'll run strong with the African-Americans, the growing Latino population, and the college campuses especially in Blacksburg/Charlottesville. Hillary would also run better than Obama in SWVA.

              If Christie were to even get out of a primary he'd have to adopt or at least endorse the same harmful social and economic issues that drove out people in droves in Fairfax/Richmond to vote against Romney/Ryan.

              Florida could swing back, but Obama was a uniquely poor fit for the state with how poorly he runs with the elderly caucasians. Hillary would hopefully do better among that group, and we'll have four more years of demographic change to back us up.

        •  She doesn't make or break anything (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tayya, MichaelNY

          But clearly she is the strongest possible nominee in either party. Though arguably so was John McCain in 2008.

          "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

          by conspiracy on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 11:50:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Would Christie not run at all? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        R30A, MichaelNY

        Do you expect 2016's climate to be known fairly early on? Correct me if I am wrong, but while the panic starting in September of 2008 wasn't clear, it was widely expected to be a Democratic year. If we get a sense of what type of year it will be well in advance, wouldn't this have an impact on the race?

        In other words, what might make Christie stay out of the race? It's probably more likely 2016 will be better for them than 2012 was, but it could actually be pretty good for us, even before demographics, if the economy grows more quickly. If it looks like we are favored, does Christie run at all, especially if Clinton looks like she will be the nominee?

        "At this point, if the president came out in favor of breathing, [Republican leaders would] tell their caucus members to hold their breaths."--Jared Bernstein

        by bjssp on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 11:07:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Christie doesn't run (0+ / 0-)

          if he understands the situation rationally and is unwilling to run and lose. Of course, he could choose to run, knowing he's a likely loser, so as to make a point and increase the likelihood that he could win if he runs again in 2020.

          Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

          by MichaelNY on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 10:07:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (146)
  • Community (56)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Freddie Gray (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Racism (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site