So, I felt like discussing something with the electoral college today. Trump might have won in 2016, but this should not be seen as a normal path to victory. It was, in my opinion, a fluke caused by the worst case scenario for democrats. I discussed electoral college math last election extensively and even had frequent updates. I did not see the rust belt turning to Trump, but it's safe to say outside of that unforeseen development, that the electoral college heavily favors democrats. Here's why.
If the democrats held the blue wall, Clinton would have won 296-242. With Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania held by democrats, I only saw one path to victory for Trump, and it would've given him a narrow 270-268 victory. This with the GOP sweeping the board more or less. You could MAYBE throw in Colorado and Virginia in there, which used to vote republican more, but that would still have Trump winning less than he did with the states he won.
In an election cycle the democrats aren't quite as unpopular and unlikable, the dems will kick the crap out of the republicans. Take this map for instance. This is a much more middle of the road map in my opinion. The dems win, but not by a massive margin. Basically Trump's 2016 margin or Obama's 2012 margin. If the democrats really do good, this isn't out of the question.
Considering how the GOP will not be nearly as popular or the democrats nearly as unpopular going into 2020, I could see the democrats winning, assuming they win the rust belt. The rust belt is currently the most integral region to swinging elections. Traditionally democratic territory in recent years but has been turning more purple as the democrats have basically abandoned these people. If the democrats can win them back with a strong working class message, and run a candidate not nearly as disliked as Clinton, the democrats could have won 2016 with ease. And they'll likely win 2020 with ease too.
A huge aspect of Clinton's strategy that fell apart was she was trying too hard to go on the offensive in the south in states like Georgia, Arizona, and Texas, appealing to Latinos and moderates in an attempt to swing those states. But these states aren't purple enough to consider Clinton a serious candidate, and as such, she not only failed to win them over, she lost more traditional battleground states and rust belt states who wanted something different. Triangulation works good for democrats in theory, but in practice, is a double edged sword. You stand to gain 2 demographics instead of 1, but you could also lose both, which is what Clinton did.
The current political map favors democrats overall, it just requires them to run a competent game plan that doesn't gamble away their advantage in hope of a landslide victory. It doesn't matter if you win by 270 electoral votes or 400, you're president all the same (although admittedly 400 does give you a stronger mandate). It's highly likely in my opinion that Trump will lose his bid for a second term, although it's not a foregone conclusion. If the democrats go into next election overconfident again, they could end up with another rude awakening.
No comments:
Post a Comment