ChrisWeigant.com

Possible 2020 Blue Pickups

[ Posted Monday, August 12th, 2019 – 17:16 UTC ]

The big story from the 2020 presidential election was the previously solid-blue states that flipped for Trump. Democrats still fixate on the roughly 70,000 votes it would have taken for them to hold onto three states in what had previously been considered solid Democratic states (part of the famous "Big Blue Wall," in other words): Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Was this a new demographic change, as blue-collar workers completed a journey they had begun in 1980 (they were originally called "Reagan Democrats," if you'll remember)? Did this shift in the red/blue map presage a much tougher road to victory for any future Democrat?

Well, the answer is still: "It's too early to tell," since we haven't had a presidential election since. Nobody really knows, in other words, whether Trump's pickups will be lasting or whether it was just the circumstances of the 2016 election (call it misogyny or anti-Hillary hatred or what you will). Flipping those three states back to blue would have meant an extra 46 Electoral College votes, which would have put Hillary Clinton over the top.

But there are other forces at play, as we head into the 2020 election season. Again, a caveat, it's still mighty early in the race -- I believe this is the first analytical general election article I've written this election cycle. But speculating about the race is fascinating, due to a few personality-driven situations as well as broader demographic changes. So rather than focusing on the three Midwestern states Trump flipped, it's also worth looking at some other states -- some of them surprising, some part of more gradual trends -- which could be prime targets not only for the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, but also down the ballot. Let's look at a few of these, loosely grouped into two regions.

 

The West and Mountain West

The first of these worth noting is Nevada. Nevada has been a rather purple state for the past few decades, voting for Bill Clinton twice, then George W. Bush twice, then Barack Obama twice. In 2016, it went for Hillary Clinton, breaking their run of voting for the winners of the races. But overall, the state is getting bluer for one big reason: Californians moving in.

The San Jose Mercury News pointed this out today, noting that the outflow of Californians to Nevada was far outpacing the inflow of Nevadans moving to the Golden State. California has gotten outrageously expensive to live in (take a look at San Francisco Bay Area real estate, if your heart can take such shocks), and this has led to a serious damping down of California's population growth. For the first time ever, in 2020 California risks losing a House seat. It used to regularly pick up House districts with each Census, but the last time around (also for the first time since California's growth explosion began), the state didn't pick up any seats at all. In 2020, it could lose one. And a lot of that exodus headed across the Nevada line.

This has changed the flavor of the electorate there, to the point where Nevada may be a solid-blue state for the foreseeable future. There are lots of minority voters there, and (almost as important) a very strong Union presence in the state as well. So Nevada may have slipped from being a tossup state to being reliably blue, at least in both presidential and Senate elections.

Two other states which have followed similar trajectories (although neither is as reliant on an influx of Californians as Nevada for this change) are Colorado and New Mexico. Both used to be tossups (Colorado voted for Bush twice and New Mexico voted for him in 2004) but are now generally seen as reliably Democratic. Democrats hope to pick up a second Senate seat in Colorado in 2020, and even Republicans admit that it's one of their two most vulnerable seats (Susan Collins of Maine being the other big one).

Also at risk for the GOP is a Montana Senate seat, although flipping the state in the presidential election is much more of a longshot. A Senate pickup would be good enough for the Democrats, though, since Montana (one way or the other) only has three Electoral College votes. In presidential races, it's just not that important, in other words.

What is a much bigger prize is the one state out West that Democrats could conceivably flip to blue. Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico all went for Hillary last time around, while Montana went for Trump in a big way. So if that status quo holds, it wouldn't move the Electoral College needle at all. But there is one state that Democrats are targeting that could: Arizona.

Arizona has seen similar demographic changes as New Mexico, although it has always been a redder state. This may be due to its historic retirement destination status, giving it an electorate where older voters (who tend to be more conservative as a group) wield more influence. But the big change in Arizona isn't so much a continuation of demographic changes making the state less white and more diverse, as it is the death of John McCain. McCain was a "favorite son" of Arizona and easily held onto his Senate seat for a long time. Now that he isn't around anymore, the state has become freer to consider new faces, including Kyrsten Sinema, the Democrat who flipped a Senate seat in the 2018 midterms. Whether this was just a fluke or a sign of things to come is an open question, at this point. But if Democrats could successfully flip Arizona in a presidential contest, it would mean the pickup of 11 Electoral College votes. That's one more than Wisconsin's 10, it's worth noting.

 

The South

The South is also undergoing some big demographic changes. The most visible example of this is Virginia, which for decades was a Republican stronghold, and has now almost completed its journey to being a solid blue state that Democrats can count on. Virginia holds off-off-year elections, meaning that this November we'll be able to see whether this journey has indeed ended successfully for Democrats. They have a chance to take control of both chambers of their statehouse, which would put the state's government completely in Democratic hands.

Virginia voted reliably for Republican presidential candidates in the 1990s and 2000s, right up until Barack Obama's 2008 election flipped it. Since then, it has not flipped back -- even Trump couldn't manage to win the state. The growth of the Virginia suburbs of D.C. has dramatically changed the electorate, and no longer is it a solid-red Southern state.

Two other Southern states are following a similar trajectory, but neither has moved as far into the Democratic column as Virginia -- both North Carolina and Georgia are purple, at best. And a rather reddish shade of purple, if truth be told.

North Carolina is experiencing the same sort of suburban growth that Virginia has, but to a lesser degree. It doesn't have as much influx of people from blue states, therefore the change is happening more gradually. Republicans have had such a lock on the state's government that they've gerrymandered the heck out of the election maps, which is a high hurdle for Democrats to overcome. But Barack Obama actually won the state in 2008. Since then, it has voted twice for Republican candidates, however, which is why I'd only call it reddish-purple at best. But it definitely will be a battleground state, which simply wasn't true before Obama flipped it. North Carolina has 15 Electoral College votes, more than Wisconsin and only one shy of Michigan's 16.

Georgia is a bigger prize, at 16 Electoral College votes, but it so far has remained tantalizingly out of reach for Democrats. Stacey Abrams came very close to winning the governor's seat in the 2018 election, but fell just short of the goal. Her impressive performance was driven by her focus on registering new Georgia voters, many of them African-Americans who moved into the Atlanta region from bluer states. So far this demographic shift hasn't flipped the state, but it could be only a matter of time before that happens. For now, it remains in the same category as New Mexico for Democrats -- a target, but one that might ultimately disappoint in 2020.

I saved the biggest prize of all for last in this category, however. The biggest dream Democratic strategists have had for the past decade or so is to turn Texas blue. So far, it hasn't happened, for two reasons. The first is that Latinos don't turn out to vote in Texas as reliably as they do elsewhere, probably because it has always been somewhat of a wasted effort. The second is that even when Latinos do turn out to vote, they're nowhere near as strongly in the Democratic column as they are elsewhere. Latinos have been in Texas since it was formed (the saying among those with family ties before this happened is: "My family didn't cross the border -- the border crossed us"). So they're generally a more conservative bunch than Latino voters elsewhere.

But Beto O'Rourke changed that in a big way. He ultimately fell short of defeating Ted Cruz for the Senate, but he sure had a lot of success signing up people who had never voted before and then turning them out on Election Day. Due to O'Rourke's success, Democrats flipped some suburban House districts in the 2018 midterms, and it's looking like they're on track to flip a few more in 2020. Texas Republicans in the House have been either nervously checking on their chances or just announcing their retirement and quitting before the voters kick them out. There will also be another Senate race in 2020 in Texas, although not as contentious as the Ted Cruz race. Democrats have two great possibilities for candidates in this race, but both O'Rourke and fellow Texan Julián Castro are currently running for president.

The ultimate dream, however, is to flip Texas in the presidential race. Is this possible? Well, maybe -- but then Democrats have been dreaming this dream ever since favorite son George W. Bush left office, and so far it hasn't panned out for them. However, demographics are in play as well. In the redistricting after the 2010 Census, Texas picked up a whopping four new House seats, showing it had been the fastest-growing state in the country over the previous decade. They may pick up more House seats after the 2020 Census as well. But this enormous influx of people from other states is changing the flavor of the Texas electorate. If this weren't true, then the feat O'Rourke pulled off simply would not have been possible. The suburban growth in Texas has changed the electorate in a big way, as this is where the influx of voters from other states is most notable -- the Democratic House pickups in 2018 were all in suburban districts, which is also where all those retiring Republican House members are from.

If California is the 800-pound gorilla in the Electoral College with its 55 votes, then Texas is its smaller brother. Texas now has a whopping 38 Electoral College votes -- far more than the next states down the list (Florida and New York, with 29 votes each). Flipping Texas would be "game over" for the Republicans in presidential politics, which is why it remains such a tantalizing dream for Democrats. Flipping Texas would have been even better than holding onto both Pennsylvania (20 votes) and Michigan (16) in 2016. Without Texas, Trump would have lost the race. Without Texas, it's likely that Trump would be doomed in 2020 as well.

Consider the fact that if Texas does flip to blue, Democrats could rack up over half the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency in just four states. California, New York, Illinois, and Texas add up to 142 Electoral College votes. That's how momentous it would be to flip the Lone Star State into the Democratic column.

 

Conclusion

In just two areas of the country, Democrats have some real possibilities of pickups in the presidential contest. If the Democratic nominee swept the board and picked up North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Arizona, it would mean a shift of 80 Electoral College votes. Even without Texas, the other three would add 42 votes to the blue column. Which is enough for the Democratic candidate to win even if Trump repeated his performance in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Of course, this is pretty farfetched, since if Democrats were making big gains by flipping these states it is quite likely that they'd also flip the three Midwestern states back to their column (it's hard to imagine a Democratic blowout in the South while Trump still held onto the Midwest, in other words).

These aren't the only battleground states to watch, either. Democrats could flip other states they've won before, such as Iowa, especially if Trump doesn't cut a deal with China and more and more farmers go bankrupt as a direct result of his trade policies. If Kris Kobach becomes the nominee for a Senate race in Kansas, the Democrats could flip a Senate seat in a very red state (Kobach has already lost a statewide race for governor, because even some staunch Kansas Republicans view him as far too extreme).

I have to add a big note of caution here at the end, though, that all of this is wildly optimistic speculation on my part. We're over a year away from the 2020 general election, and the Democratic nominee is still a big question mark. Whichever Democratic candidate wins the nomination could take the White House back simply by reversing Trump's flip of the three Midwestern states that shocked Democrats in 2016. If every other state held, then that wouldn't be all that big a political shift in presidential politics, but more of a return to the norm.

But what the heck -- why not be optimistic? Trump is already vulnerable in a big way due to his continued lack of public approval of the job he's been doing -- Trump has never topped 50 percent in the average of his job approval polling for a single day of his presidency. In normal times, that is a signal of impending disaster for any re-election hopes.

If Trump is indeed vulnerable, though, and if voters across the country decide they've had enough of his antics, it could unleash a big shift in the tectonic plates of electoral politics. Picking up Arizona and Texas would mean that no state that borders Mexico would have voted for Trump -- which would be significant indeed, given his reliance on border issues in his campaigning. If Democrats won not only Virginia and (what the heck) Florida, but also picked up North Carolina and Georgia, then you could walk from Maine to Key West without ever setting foot in a red state. That would be historic, because it would dismantle the "Big Red Wall" the Republicans have been relying upon in the South.

None of this is guaranteed to happen, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun to think about. The big story of the 2016 election was Trump flipping states that touch the Great Lakes. In 2020, Democrats could either just repair that damage and flip them back (although Ohio is likely a lost cause), or they could have a breakout moment where they returned the favor to Republicans in the South and the West. Which, like I said, is sure fun to dream about on a lazy August afternoon.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

64 Comments on “Possible 2020 Blue Pickups”

  1. [1] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    I prefer all the recent stories about how the president could win the Electoral College vote in 2020 while losing the popular vote by 5%, simply by holding small majorities in key medium-size states while losing by landslides in large states he isn't going to win anyway.

    Not because I want him to win. I prefer reading painful stuff like this to remind me over and over again: the fact that stories like this could be written, without being laughed off the media stage, shows that our presidential election system is basically broken. And the same broken system more or less guarantees that a constitutional amendment to democratize the presidency is impossible.

    I sometimes wonder, given America's fundamentally democratic nature, just how large a majority of citizens needs to realize its vote doesn't count before it basically takes to the streets to demand reform of the federal constitution to reflect the urban-suburban realities of present-day political borders and districts, in the face of a Senate, presidency, and Supreme Court that are structurally opposed to any such reform.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    John M-
    Or they could take to the voting booth and vote against the big money candidates.

    I know this is wildly optimistic speculation, but someone recently said "what the heck- why not be optimistic?". That someone should follow their own advice.

    If CW can speculate about the possibilities in this article there is no valid reason that prevents him from also speculating about One Demand that has a much better chance of happening if citizens are informed about the possibility than what is in the article.

    Come on CW, shouldn't we try the voting booth before it reaches the point of having to take it to the streets?

    It won't make a significant difference if some big money Democrats replace some big money Republicans.

    Replacing big money legislators with small donor legislators is the only way to fix our broken democracy and voting for big money candidates is not a realistic way to achieve that goal.

    Get real.

  3. [3] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John M

    I prefer reading painful stuff like this to remind me over and over again: the fact that stories like this could be written, without being laughed off the media stage, shows that our presidential election system is basically broken.

    I have read and reread this line trying to determine if you are simply being critical of our electoral system or if you are also being critical of Chris’s writings. What makes this story painful for you to read? Is it the content or is it the construction?

    “the fact that stories like this could be written, without being laughed off the media stage,” sounds like a slam against CW’s abilities as a journalist, which I feel is unwarranted — if that was, in fact, how you wanted your words to be taken.

    Clarification would be appreciated, thanks!

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Yesterday, we were discussing how someone who makes disturbing comments or writings should not be allowed to own a gun..

    “As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two … I had killed nearly 38 people by the time of my twenty-third birthday.”

    I asked about a person who made comments like this owning a car.

    Your thoughts??

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    But what the heck -- why not be optimistic? Trump is already vulnerable in a big way due to his continued lack of public approval of the job he's been doing -- Trump has never topped 50 percent in the average of his job approval polling for a single day of his presidency. In normal times, that is a signal of impending disaster for any re-election hopes.

    Trump's Approval numbers are very Obama-esque.. :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not because I want him to win. I prefer reading painful stuff like this to remind me over and over again: the fact that stories like this could be written, without being laughed off the media stage, shows that our presidential election system is basically broken. And the same broken system more or less guarantees that a constitutional amendment to democratize the presidency is impossible.

    Changing to a straight popular vote won't democratize the presidency..

    It will simply mean that the majority will be able to victimize the minority...

    Putting it into a football analogy (since pre-season play has started) it would be as if a team who ALWAYS loses wants to change the rules so that the most running yards wins the game..

    Games would always be ZERO-ZERO because no one will worry about scoring. And there won't be any passes because running is the goal.. No need to draft receivers or defensive backs... Players would be drafted soley based on their size.. It would totally change the dynamics of the game..

    Would also make the gave very very boring..

    We have the system we have, not the system we would want... And, if Democrats started losing the Vanity Vote, all of the sudden they would have the EXACT same arguments the Right has vis a vis the Electoral College.

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats have demonized every Trump voter as a ‘deplorable’

    Universal Studios has canceled the release of its violent new R-rated massacre movie, “The Hunt,” for now, but the fact it even was made shows we’ve reached a dangerous new point in our political culture.

    You have to wonder what twisted minds would dream up this liberal fantasy of jet-setting elites hunting down conservatives like vermin.

    “They’re not human beings,” the Hillary Swank character says at one point, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

    “The Hunt,” originally titled “Red State vs. Blue State,” is a sign of where irrational Trump hatred has taken us.

    It’s what the left is doing in real life. They’re dehumanizing their opponents and trying to incite violence against them.

    The president’s detractors have tried for almost three years to break him. Russia didn’t work, Stormy didn’t work. Impeachment won’t work.
    https://nypost.com/2019/08/11/democrats-have-demonized-every-trump-voter-as-a-deplorable/

    Personally, I would have liked to have seen THE HUNT.. From what I understand, the "deplorables" fight back and end up massacring all the liberals.. :D

    I am sure the movie will be released in some format.. :D

    Until then, I have the Schlichter PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC books to fulfill my whimsical thoughts about the Left getting their most well-deserved come-uppence... :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    They’ve used the most violent rhetoric imaginable, from Madonna thinking about blowing up the White House to Kathy Griffin posing with a severed fake Trump head to Robert De Niro wanting to punch Trump in the face.

    But nothing works. The more they abuse him, the more he relishes baiting them. He is impervious to their attacks, and his approval ratings haven’t budged.

    So they have gone berserk. First, they projected their own murderous thoughts onto Trump, blaming him for the recent El Paso and Dayton massacres.

    And in the next breath, they issued death threats against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

    “Just stab the motherf–ker in the heart,” said one charming protester on the lawn outside his house last weekend.

    For Trump haters, the means justify the ends, and everyone knows that removing the president from public life is the only end worth pursuing, no matter how foul the means.

    All this from the Party of "love" and "peace" and "respect" and "tolerance"...

    :eyeroll:

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, straight from Iowa..

    The rest of the candidates were hopeless. Joe Biden was foggy, Cory Booker was shouty, Kamala Harris was fake, Bill de Blasio was his usual putzy self, Elizabeth Warren was dogmatic, Marianne Williamson was flaky, though stylish, Amy Klobuchar was whiny, Beto O’Rourke wasn’t even there and he was annoying. Just a very unimpressive mob.

    Gotta give credit to Beto... He is annoying even when he isn't around!! :D

  10. [10] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    The person should be involuntarily committed if they insist that they intend to carry out this sort of fantasy when questioned by law enforcement. This is how our mental healthcare system and our judicial system have chosen to address incidents like the one you have offered.

    A car’s primary function is as a transportation device, not as a weapon. While a court may decide the person should not be allowed to operate or have access to a vehicle, that usually only happens after the person has caused injuries. They may have their license revoked as an initial precaution. It really all depends on the person’s state of mind. How this all plays out is up to the psychiatrists and psychologists treating this person to determine.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Paula,

    Sounds like conspiracy-theorizing but it's not. White nationalists have infiltrated lots of places.

    And yet,

    "Honest to goodness real white nationalists racists in this country? Actually, I think it's not a large number."

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Just so we're clear on our wager..

    If Biden wins the Dem primary, you and I will both vote for Biden in the General election..

    If anyone but Biden wins the Dem primary, you and I will vote for President Trump in the General election...

    Do I have that factually accurate??

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    rut roh..

    The problem for Warren is that Biden’s strongest groups are typically the ones who determine the winner of Democratic presidential primaries. Most nominees forge an establishment-friendly coalition of black voters and working-class whites to win. Barack Obama was the exception to the rule, winning Iowa with strong support from college-educated whites, which gave him enormous credibility in the black community to prevail in South Carolina and beyond.
    https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/680785?unlock=V7S6FAQWMVQVAOEO

    That doesn't bode well.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don,

    This one's for you..

    The problem is, all of the racially tinged accusations against Officer Wilson were likely false, according to the final analysis by President Obama’s Department of Justice. The report, issued in 2015, found that Officer Wilson’s accounts were corroborated. He’d acted in self-defense. Brown, the report said, had reached into the police vehicle and grabbed Officer Wilson by the neck. And Brown appeared to be lunging toward Officer Wilson when Officer Wilson shot him in self-defense.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/457049-time-to-retire-ferguson-narrative

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    The person should be involuntarily committed if they insist that they intend to carry out this sort of fantasy when questioned by law enforcement.

    So, if the guy who posts the gun massacre fantasy convinces law enforcement he was just kidding, or setting the stage for a horror novel, then you would be ok with him owning and/or carrying a gun??

    A car’s primary function is as a transportation device, not as a weapon. While a court may decide the person should not be allowed to operate or have access to a vehicle, that usually only happens after the person has caused injuries.

    Or death..

    But we're not talking about closing the barn door after the horse escapes..

    We're talking about FUTURE crimes...

    They may have their license revoked as an initial precaution. It really all depends on the person’s state of mind. How this all plays out is up to the psychiatrists and psychologists treating this person to determine.

    So, you feel that Beto O'Rourke should release his mental health records???

    Those are passages from Beto's online comments when he was part of a hacker group...

    What's your opinion of Democrats who want to vote for Beto, what with these violent fantasies that Beto put online for posterity...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    A car’s primary function is as a transportation device, not as a weapon.

    Primary function is irrelevant..

    Dead is dead, whether by gun or by car..

    Excluding suicides, 3 times as many people are killed by cars than by guns every year..

    I am sure the people who have lost loved ones DON'T say to themselves, "If only they had died by a murderer with a car... I would feel SO much better about that..."

    I'm just sayin'...

    Until we focus on the PERSON who commits these heinous acts and NOT on the tool they chose to use...

    Crowd Based Mass Shootings will continue to happen..

  17. [17] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    John

    Where the hell is "Ct"? If it's part of the U.S.A., and you're over 5 yrs old, you should be aware that you don't live in a "democracy".

    This country is a REPUBLIC, and the founders intentially and knowingly set it up to operate exactly as it operated in 2016, and I'm betting it ain't real likely to change in the near future.

    That fact does not insure that no idiot ever becomes president, but it's the system we're stuck with.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Officer Andre Moye
    California Highway Patrol, California
    End of Watch: Tuesday, August 13, 2019

    And remind the few...
    When ill of us they speak..
    That we are all that stands between..
    The monsters and the weak..

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    This country is a REPUBLIC, and the founders intentially and knowingly set it up to operate exactly as it operated in 2016, and I'm betting it ain't real likely to change in the near future.

    What just chaps my ass is that the Left's positions are so situational..

    If illegal immigrant criminals voted en mass for the GOP, then Democrats would be making the exact same illegal immigrant criminal arguments that the GOP makes.

    If Democrats lost the Vanity Vote but won the election, they would be screaming how awesome the Electoral system is and how wondrous it was that the founding fathers were so prescient..

    It's why no one can take anything the Left says at face value...

    Because it's SOLELY dependent on the Party agenda..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Riot police storm Hong Kong Airport after second day of cancellations due to protests
    https://abcnews.go.com/International/riot-police-storm-hong-kong-airport-day-cancellations/story?id=64941993

    And so it begins.....

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is harsh on China, except when it comes to democracy

    The president regularly thrashes China over trade policy but has been mostly silent on the growing pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/08/trump-china-hong-kong-protests-1452624

    Obama.... Iran..... 'nuff said...

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

    Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to "heal" the court in the near future.

    The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court's conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

    "The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it," the brief said. "Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be 'restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'"
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-dems-deliver-stunning-warning-to-supreme-court-heal-or-face-restructuring

    WOW.. Democrats VS SCOTUS....

    Another battle that Democrats will lose and lose BIG....

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [20,21] Not sure what point you're making, Mike. That Trump ought to be promoting democracy or not?

    So far, Trump hasn't even promoted democracy in this country, much less others. Are you setting the bar too high?

  24. [24] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And a quick note to Chris, which will be lost in all of the right-wing nonsense that follows his posts..

    Wisconsin and Michigan have newly installed Democrats in the Governor's position, which will end the shenanigans that put Trump in the White House.

    Interesting that you didn't mention it...

  25. [25] 
    John M from Ct. wrote:

    To ListenWhenYouHear re [3] and my [1] above.

    Sorry not to have written more clearly. My second para, with reference to 'painful stuff' and 'stories like this', etc., is an expansion on my first para. There I say I prefer, in contrast to Chris' optimistic thoughts about a blue wave in purplish states, the very depressing series of articles that came out about two weeks ago in the political press. They laid out a scenario of a Trump electoral college win despite a 5% plurality for the Democratic candidate. That is the writing that I assumed we had to take seriously because it had not been laughed at by any later analysts.
    So my comments made no reference to Chris' reportage at all - in effect, I changed the subject. I apologize again for the confusion I may have caused!

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember when Democrats used to be the "good guys"?

    HEWITT: The party of Robert F. Kennedy is gone

    In the aftermath of the murder of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, then a candidate for president, went forward with a planned rally at 17th and Broadway in the heart of Indianapolis’ African-American community. The country had witnessed more than 100 race riots that left at least 83 dead and 1,800 injured the previous summer, and Kennedy knew that news of King’s assassination could result in similar violence. Instead, he called for “an effort to understand with compassion and love.”

    Kennedy’s speech is rightfully hailed as one of the great moments of American political rhetoric. His plea was tragically not successful: More than 40 were killed and 2,500 injured in the riots that followed. The Democratic Convention in Chicago was a long clash between police and demonstrators. The Weathermen began their “days of rage” in 1969. The Kent State shootings shocked the nation a year later. Meanwhile, thousands of Americans died in Vietnam: 11,363 in 1967, 16,899 in 1968, 11,780 in 1969 and 6,173 in 1970.

    Nevertheless, Kennedy’s speech was a heartfelt, deeply moving appeal for healing and love among fellow citizens. Kennedy, who himself was killed two months later, saw all that had occurred, all that loomed and tried to stop it. Read his speech from that night in Indianapolis. Better yet, listen to it.
    https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/hewitt-the-party-of-robert-f-kennedy-is-gone

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why would Bill Clinton have more to worry about with regards to Epstein??

    FoxNews.com alleges there is more to come: "Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the 'Lolita Express' — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights...

    Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including 'Tatiana.' The tricked-out jet earned its Nabokov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls."

    Maybe because Clinton's connections to Epstein is 20x that of anyone else..

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[12],

    yes, that is correct.

    JL

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:
  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    @m[12],

    yes, that is correct.

    JL

    Awwwwwwwwwwww righty then.."
    -Ace Ventura

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wisconsin and Michigan have newly installed Democrats in the Governor's position, which will end the shenanigans that put Trump in the White House.

    What "shenanigans" would those be??

    You mean appealing to more Americans in the state???

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @crs,

    a republic is a KIND of democracy, just like a human is a kind of mammal. calling you a mammal isn't incorrect, it's just less specific.

    JL

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    [20,21] Not sure what point you're making, Mike.

    It's simple..

    No one on the Left cared when Odumbo didn't promote or help democracy in Iran..

    So, why should the Left care when Trump is allegedly doing the same thing in Hong Kong??

    Could it be because of the -R after President Trump's name vs the -D after Odumbo's name??

    I am not surprised you didn't get it.. One of those inconvenient FACTS you continue to ignore.. :D

    Peace Out... :D

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I do not believe Trump is a racist, much less a white supremacist. I think the rhetoric of the Democratic candidates is incendiary and dangerous, and also politically self-destructive. It is so absurd as to be laughable but for its repetition.

    From the editorial posted at [26] by Mike.

    The trouble is, that Hugh Hewitt isn't listening. Trump's racism was always there, from the first time that he came down the escalator. And Hewitt may not see a White Supremacist when he looks at Trump, but plenty of them see themselves reflected in him. Bobby was a long time ago, but Trump is now.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump's racism was always there, from the first time that he came down the escalator.

    I have already debunked the claim that President Trump is a racist..

    You have not a SINGLE fact that proves your claim..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    The "TRUMP IS A RACIST" claim is merely Goebbels at work....

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    What "shenanigans" would those be?

    *The Detroit News found voting scanning machines at 248 of the city’s 662 precincts — 37 percent — tabulated more ballots than the number of actual voters counted in the poll books.

    *In Wisconsin, Ms Clinton received 7 per cent fewer votes in counties that depended on electronic-voting machines compared to countries that used optical scanners and paper ballots, and consequently Ms Clinton may have lost up to 30,000 votes. She lost Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.

    *Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel suggested President Donald Trump wouldn’t have won Wisconsin and GOP Sen. Ron Johnson wouldn’t have won re-election in 2016 without the state’s voter ID law.

    *In Milwaukee County, which has a large African-American population, sixty thousand fewer votes were cast in 2016 than in 2012. To put it another way, Clinton received forty-three thousand fewer votes in that county than Barack Obama did—a number that is nearly double Trump’s margin of victory in all of Wisconsin.

    *Trump won those states by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively. Those three wins gave him 46 electoral votes.

    What are the odds of Trump repeating what Bannon called 'drawing to an inside straight'? Very, very slim. What are the odds of more Russian interference? Somewhat high.

    It'll be an interesting election, to be sure.

  38. [38] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The "TRUMP IS A RACIST" claim is merely Goebbels at work....

    But there is no Goebbels at work. Only people with their ears open.

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    let's leave joey the gimp out of this.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    But there is no Goebbels at work.

    Then you have unimpeachable FACTS that have NO OTHER possible conclusion but the 'racist' conclusion...???

    "I am all ears.."
    -Ross Perot

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    RE #37

    Your source for these claims??

  42. [42] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Your source for these claims?

    Compiled from the internet. The source for the Wisconsin attorney that attributed the win for Trump to the new voter ID law is: https://apnews.com/87fabc13bf724009ae68972dce79d189

    Look, any way that you spin the numbers for an election, you have to include a big thumb on the scale for local officials. Voter suppression is the way that the right wins. Own it!

  43. [43] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Then you have unimpeachable FACTS that have NO OTHER possible conclusion but the 'racist' conclusion...?

    Then, you're saying that calling Mexicans rapists and murderers, that saying that Congresswomen of color should 'go back to where they came from', and that calling Baltimore a 'rat infested shithole', and many, many more statements are just the way that he ingratiates himself to those communities?

    Strange man...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look, any way that you spin the numbers for an election, you have to include a big thumb on the scale for local officials. Voter suppression is the way that the right wins. Own it!

    And they just fell asleep on the job in 2018??

    You can spin it all you like.. Blame phantom Russians and mystical voter suppression..

    Anything to avoid acknowledging the FACT that you Democrats put forth a shitty candidate who ran a shitty campaign....

    I can't wait til Nov 2020 when it happens ALL over again and ya'all spend the NEXT 4 years crying and whining and stamping yer feet.. :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Compiled from the internet.

    In other words, nothing but spin, rumor and innuendo..

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then, you're saying that calling Mexicans rapists and murderers,

    Even if Trump did say that (which he didn't) mexican is a nationality, NOT a race..

    Ergo, NOT racism..

    saying that Congresswomen of color should 'go back to where they came from',

    How is that racist when the color of their skin was not relevant?? It's their America hate that was the defining point..

    Again.. NOT racism..

    and that calling Baltimore a 'rat infested shithole',

    Is it not factually accurate??

    It's what Bernie Sanders and Elijah Cummings themselves had said..

    Again.. NOT racism..

    But thank you for proving my point..

    There are NO FACTS to support the racism claim so Democrats, being the good little Goebbels followers they are, just keep repeating the lie over and over till it becomes their Truth..

    And, as Joe Biden said, "We care for Truth, not FACTS"

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I did a search for those claims you made in #37...

    Funny.. Not a SINGLE one of them panned out...

    Funny how that is, eh? :D

    I like you, Balthy.. You always make me look good.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    mexican is a nationality, NOT a race..

    Nice try. Sorta like saying Japanese is a nationality. But if you criticize Japanese people for 'being japanese', you're a racist.

    How is that racist when the color of their skin was not relevant?

    Did he say that about any non-colored congressmen or women? No. Racist bastard.

    calling Baltimore a 'rat infested shithole'

    Context: he was calling out Cummings at the time. Ironically, Kushner owns a number of properties there that were specifically cited for being rat infested shitholes, so he gets a double back racist flip for that.

    But there have been many other utterances that beat even these. Why do you excuse them? Why not do as the Daily Stormer has done, and just admit that he's a racist? Is it for us?

    We don't care.

  49. [49] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I did a search for those claims you made in #37.

    Even the one where the republicant attorney cited the photo ID law for winning? That one was good.

    I don't think that you even looked.

    That's okay. We're gonna beat you anyway.

  50. [50] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CRS-17

    "the founders intentially(sic)and knowingly set it up to operate exactly as it operated in 2016"

    I think you should amend your statement.

    Do you really think the Founders agreed on everything that went into original Constitution? If so, why did they squabble so much?* Did they figure circumstances would never change? If so, why did the framers put in provisions to change it.

    "If God had meant us to fly, he would have given us tickets."

  51. [51] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John M [25]

    Thank you for the clarification! I appreciate it.

  52. [52] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    So, if the guy who posts the gun massacre fantasy convinces law enforcement he was just kidding, or setting the stage for a horror novel, then you would be ok with him owning and/or carrying a gun??

    My being OK with it or not being OK with it doesn’t matter or play any part in it...if we are aware that someone is saying or posting things that are red flags for potential acts of violence, we must act or we are negligent when those acts of violence become a reality. If there are no psychological or legal reasons that prevent him from owning a gun, then he can buy one if he wants one.

    We're talking about FUTURE crimes...

    No! We are talking about trying to prevent FUTURE crimes!

    So, you feel that Beto O'Rourke should release his mental health records???

    No. If he is cleared by mental health professionals and is not an on going problem, what reason do you have for making private records public?

    Those are passages from Beto's online comments when he was part of a hacker group...

    1. You didn’t post the comments you are referencing here.

    2. Honestly, I am sick of people working as hard as they can to uncover things said 10, 15, 20, 30, 50 years ago and treating those past words —often without benefit of the context in which they were said, as if they were just stated this very minute. How much more dishonest can one be to ignore everything in that person’s life that occurred after those words were said, but instead to act as if those words, and those words alone, define the person’s entire life and who they are?

    What's your opinion of Democrats who want to vote for Beto, what with these violent fantasies that Beto put online for posterity...
    .

    If the reason they chose to vote for Beto was because he wrote those “violent fantasies”, then I think that is majorly fugged up! But I personally have never met anyone who based their decision on who they will vote for solely on something said or done by the candidate decades earlier.

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Hey CW,

    Did one of my posts get pulled? Hit “Submit” and it just disappeared.

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [15 & 16]

    I did respond to these posts, and hopefully CW has it. I swear It’s always the posts that I really invest time into answering that get snagged. Personally, I suspect that Siri is getting too big for her britches and deleting anything she does not like!

    Just wanted ya to know I wasn’t ignoring your questions. If CW doesn’t have it, i’ll re-type my replies from my computer.

    -R

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    Nice try. Sorta like saying Japanese is a nationality. But if you criticize Japanese people for 'being japanese', you're a racist.

    Nice try.. Mexican is not a race.. Japanese is not a race..

    If Trump had said hispanics or orientals, then you might have a claim to racism..

    Even without that bullshit, President Trump was talking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIMINALS, not mexicans..

    Did he say that about any non-colored congressmen or women? No. Racist bastard.

    So, it's ONLY because of their skin color that it's racist??

    So, if you call a black person a moron and you have never called anyone else a moron, does that mean you are racist??

    So, your basing your entire argument on the color of a person's skin..

    Hmmmm Yunno.. That sounds kinda racist..

    Context: he was calling out Cummings at the time.

    So??? President Trump calls out a LOT of Congress Critters..

    But, because Cummings is black, it HAS to be racist??

    So, in other words, just because President Trump says something factually accurate about Cummings (his shithole district) it must be racism because Cummings is black?

    In other words, it is you belief that any time someone says ANYTHING negative about a black person, it's racism..

    Even if it is factually accurate??

    Does that apply BOTH to Democrats AND Republicans??

    Or just Republicans???

    Silly question.. Of course it's just Republicans..

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale [15 & 16]

    I did respond to these posts, and hopefully CW has it. I swear It’s always the posts that I really invest time into answering that get snagged. Personally, I suspect that Siri is getting too big for her britches and deleting anything she does not like!

    Just wanted ya to know I wasn’t ignoring your questions. If CW doesn’t have it, i’ll re-type my replies from my computer.

    Thanx for the heads up, Russ...

    Yea, the NNL filters can be picky.. One of the most common things that trip them is a url that has review DOT com..

    I'll be patient and wait.. No need to retype.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's okay. We're gonna beat you anyway.

    Yea.. You said that in 2016..

    How did THAT work out, eh? :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno, Balthy..

    We have gone thru this before.. Me asking you for facts that "prove" President Trump is a racist.

    Ya'all gave me the same old BS and I refuted it and ya'all ended up admitting, "OK he is not a racist!! But he IS a bigot!!"

    Remember that??

    Democrats just love to throw the accusation RACIST around so much, it has become meaningless...

  59. [59] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    I'm sure his view is that he got you to admit that Donald is at LEAST a bigot, while not conceding at all on the matter of whether or not he's a racist. For the record, i -believe- based on the body of evidence, he certainly is.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm sure his view is that he got you to admit that Donald is at LEAST a bigot,

    He could have saved himself the trouble and simply asked..

    Of COURSE President Trump is a bigot..

    Just like everyone here.. Just like I am..

    We're all bigots in one form or another..

    For the record, i -believe- based on the body of evidence, he certainly is.

    Case in point.. :D

    Based on the FACTS I put forth in the newest commentary, it's clear that President Trump is not a racist..

    But, as long as you are in the realm of opinion only, that cannot be argued with..

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,
    reading comprehension please. donald's thousands of words and actions, documented since at least the 1970's, probably earlier, point to a high quantity of bigoted statements and acts specifically against black people, which most people consider to be racism. he was sued by the federal government for racist housing practices during the nixon administration, was sued by multiple former employees for racial discrimination during the reagan administration, was fined a quarter million dollars for removing all the black dealers from sight at his casino to suit racist clients during bush 41's administration. he railed for obama's entire term about barry not being a real u.s. citizen, multiple recent former employees have said he regularly uses the N-word behind the scenes, and their accounts have been backed up with recorded conversations of other employees trying to spin the utterances in a more positive light. now that's about as stone cold a factual basis for believing someone is racist as one can imagine. donald is even deeper in evidence of racism than northam is, and that guy has a klansman on his med-school yearbook page.
    JL

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: But if Democrats could successfully flip Arizona in a presidential contest, it would mean the pickup of 11 Electoral College votes.

    Lovely Arizona. Where else can one go in America and take a stroll over London Bridge? I wouldn't bet against the astronaut either. :)

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    16

    Primary function is irrelevant..

    Wrong. Wrong because the vast majority of people own/travel in automobiles while it is a disproportionately smaller number who own/use firearms yet the numbers are similar.

    Dead is dead, whether by gun or by car..

    Excluding suicides, 3 times as many people are killed by cars than by guns every year..

    "Dead is dead" is what you just said so why exclude suicides? You shouldn't exclude them. The number of people killed by firearms is growing annually while automobile deaths are decreasing and more people travel in them.

    https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18135976/gun-deaths-us-2017-suicide

    I am sure the people who have lost loved ones DON'T say to themselves, "If only they had died by a murderer with a car... I would feel SO much better about that..."

    That's a stupid thing to say. I'm just saying.

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    24

    Wisconsin and Michigan have newly installed Democrats in the Governor's position, which will end the shenanigans that put Trump in the White House.

    Because honey badger don't give a shit, Balthy; it just takes what it wants. :)

Comments for this article are closed.