Posted on 02/07/2020 7:38:00 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
Rachel Bitecofer’s radical new theory predicted the midterms spot-on. So who’s going to win 2020?
*SNIP*
Bitecofer has already released her 2020 model, and is alone among election forecasters in giving the Democrats—who, of course, do not yet have a nominee—the 270 electoral votes required to claim the presidency without a single toss-up state flipping their way. She sees anyone in the top tier, or even the second tier of candidates, as strong enough to win back most of the Trump states in the industrial Midwest, stealing a march in the South in places like North Carolina and Florida, and even competing in traditional red states like Georgia, Texas and Arizona. The Democrats are likely to pick up seats again in the House, she says, pegging the total at nine pickups in Texas alone, and have a decent chance of taking back the Senate.
And in a view that goes against years of accepted political wisdom that says the choice of a running mate doesn’t much matter, the key she says, to a 2020 Democratic victory will lie less in who is at the top of the ticket than in who gets chosen as veep. A good ticket-mate would be a person of color like Stacey Abrams or Julián Castro, she suggests, someone who can further ignite Democratic partisans who might otherwise stay home. The reason Trump won in 2016 was not, she says, because of a bunch of disaffected blue-collar former Democrats in the Midwest; it is because a combination of Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin pulled away more than 6 percent of voters in a state like Michigan. These were anti-Hillary voters, yes—but they were anti-Trump voters especially, and they are likely to come to the Democratic fold this time around if they’re given a reason.
Trump appears to understand Bitecofer’s theories as well as anyone in politics. He leans into the divisions and negative partisanship. In 2018, Trump turned the midterms into a referendum on him, warning that Democrats would bring crime and chaos into their neighborhoods if they won. There was a turnout surge among Trump voters in some places, but it wasn’t enough to offset the Democratic gains.
Bitecofer already sees the Trump playbook coming together for 2020: warning of a demographic takeover by nonwhites in order to boost turnout among noncollege white voters, and trying to sow chaos in the Democratic ranks so that supporters of a losing primary candidate either stay home or support a third-party candidate.
“I am arguing radical sh!t, OK?”
- Rachel Bitecofer
Unlike forecasters like FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, who believe that candidates seen as too ideologically extreme pay a political cost, Bitecofer doesn’t see much of a downside to a candidate like Bernie Sanders. But she doesn’t see much of an upside either, since ideology isn’t as big a motivator as identity, and since Sanders did not in fact bring hordes of new voters to the polls in 2016. (Overall turnout in the 2016 primaries was down compared with 2008, when Barack Obama led a surge in the youth vote. In 2016, Sanders just did remarkably well among the young as Clinton tanked.) There is some risk to nominating Joe Biden, who could be seen as a candidate of the status quo against a disrupter like Trump, but either way, the key will be to do their version of what Trump does to them every day: make the prospect of four more years of Republican rule seem like a threat to the Republic, one that could risk everything Democratic-leaning voters hold dear.
“If you want to win the election, you have to be able to frame your candidacy in a way that reminds voters that Trump is an abnormality that must be excised,” she said. “People always say in campaigns, ‘America’s future is on the ballot.’ Well this time you will have to convince them that it really is.”
BUT, she's the 'political expert' the Left is pinning their hopes to, so we've got THAT going for us! ;)
(Don't tell her that President Trump is running UNOPPOSED this time - there ARE no votes to split!)
Never heard of her. And probably never will again.
IIRC Rush has maintained there are no swing voters. Those are voters who are afraid to say one way or the other for fear of being labeled as liberal or conservative....usually more of the latter.
The left predicted high turnout in Iowa... they predicted Hillary had a 90%+ chance of being elected President.
Democrats can put out this BS because the corrupt press never challenges them...
I tend to agree that there are very few swing voters - as in people who think both candidates are ok, so they carefully weigh their vote. People either love Trump or hate him.
One exception though - although black voters are the last bunch Republicans tend to think about, they may be instrumental in Trump winning, particularly if it’s a blowout.
But for the rest - this election will be determined by TURNOUT!!!!
I’m not against “radical” theory, per se. I’m against radical stupidity.
There is no fixed class or cluster or gaggle of people who are swing voters. But I strongly believe there are people who have no particularly party loyalty, and I say that with no disparagement implied. I think lots lots lots more people who hated Trump are coming around to him than moving the other way.
Regardless of theory or whichever gender bathroom it originates in, Trump is looking to double the African-American vote to the “R” side. If that’s the case, he wins 47-3 or better and that’s just a mathematical fact.
There are Voters who Swing, but there are no swing Voters.
One of them used to be a Rat Congresswoman from Simi Valley, CA.
She is grossly unappealing, too much so to ever win a national office.
“..but it wasn’t enough to offset the Democratic gains...”
Not enough to offset the Democratic voter fraud.
Never heard of her. And probably never will again.
This is Pure liberal bs posing as scientific analysis!
Well then she had a lucky guess because unless her theory took into account the vote fraud perpetuated by California's new "ballot harvesting" law, there is no way those ten seats in California would have been taken by Democrats.
And she thinks the Dems have any prayer of winning in 2020? She's nuts.
Not a single swing state is going to flip to the Democrats, and therefore neither will the election.
he reason Trump won in 2016 was not, she says, because of a bunch of disaffected blue-collar former Democrats in the Midwest; it is because a combination of Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin pulled away more than 6 percent of voters in a state like Michigan. These were anti-Hillary voters, yes—but they were anti-Trump voters especially, and they are likely to come to the Democratic fold this time around if they’re given a reason.
~~~
Complete BS.
I voted 3rd party last time and I WILL be voting Trump this time. Evidence may be anecdotal, but this whole article smells both of disinformation and self-deception (a defense mechanism otherwise known as denial).
We always have 3rd party candidates, and some years, like Perot or Ralph Nader, a much bigger effect than 2016.
It’s complete bunk in order to deny blue collar and rural shifts because they already know they’re not winning them back. They are also ignoring the inroads made with minorities in the last 3 years. These people are going to have another sad wakeup call.
Maybe not 47-3, but it would still be pretty substantial.
It could add the following to Trump's side:
Delaware
VA
It could keep MI, WI and PA in his column.
It could solidify GA and NC.
*****
The key demographic in the election IMHO will be the Roman Catholic vote.
IF RCs vote for Trump as they did last time he will win. The RC vote has only gone for the GOP candidate four times since 1952.
Like it or not they will determine the election.
She is a foul-mouthed fatso. More importantly, all she is really arguing is that turnout is king and that turnout is dominated by factors that do not include the positions and personal characteristics of the candidates (as opposed to the more usual idea of it being important to persuade swing voters). Typical method of becoming famous: take a truism (turn-out is important) and then exaggerate it into your own academic theory (turn-out is all that matters)..... Anyway, the dimwit has already predicted a Democrat will be elected President in November. Without even knowing who the Dem nominee is (no wonder she is suddenly a media darling). Because it does not matter. LOL!
Partisan Media Shills update.
DJT asked blacks in 2016 what they had to lose by voting for him. They now know what they would lose if they don’t vote for him in 2020.
I see this “unsettling new theory” as actually a good thing. Nothing worries me more, with the current string of victories for Trump, is overconfidence come election time, so much so that many who would vote for Trump will stay home thinking we’ve “got it in the bag.”
Maybe this unsettling theory will still be in vogue come election time, getting more of us who might otherwise stay home to the voting booths.
Well, she is right that who the Democrat nominee is won’t matter. All of them would lose to Trump.
Exactly. The black vote is going to create an electoral college landslide for Trump in 2020.
The dims being evil, communist idiots doesn’t hurt.
But that is 2020. If we don’t start becoming intolerant and take back control of the culture - war or some variant of national socialism (yeah that national socialism) is our future.
Given the recent events in Virgin1a - war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.