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.
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.
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!
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.
Most pollsters lean left, and use inadequate methods.
Whereas Rasmussen virtually nailed it using more expensive methods; likely voters and cell phones among other things. He basically used the author’s idea of polling those who will actually vote.
1) Never heard of this person. That, by itself, doesn’t mean that she’s wrong...but if she’s such a good prognosticator, then why is she so unknown?
2) More to the point, here is why she is wrong: I grant you that this is purely my own anecdotal “evidence,” but I literally do not know a single person who voted for Trump in 2016 who will not be doing so again (well, except for those who died - they’ll probably be voting for the Demonrat). So the Dems start off in the hole. Combine that with the vicious, mindless and childish behavior of the Dems one the one hand, and the incredibly healthy economy on the other, and you have a recipe for Trump winning over many people who previously didn’t vote at all, as well as a not insignificant number of Hillary voters who only chose her because they didn’t know much about him or because they feared what he would do because of lack of government experience. Trump has also made some very serious inroads into the minority communities, mainly because they see all of the jobs that have been created, that he is for stopping illegal immigration (which kills jobs and results in more crime in minority communities) and that he is constantly saying that ALL Americans are the focus of his efforts. All things considered, I would estimate that he will win a majority of the popular vote (52-48) and have nearly 400 EVs. Perhaps not a landslide, but a very clear and decisive victory.
Oh, and the Pubbies will take back the House, especially after Nancy’s childish hissy fit on Tuesday, which she not only hasn’t apologized for, but has doubled down on.
I have LONG advocated this thought. The “moderates” dont care that much about politics and rarely vote. Moving to the middle pisses off the base and “success” has to be measured in a gain of moderate voters vs the loss of the base voter. This is true of EITHER party.
It is the natural outcome of the introduction of divisiveness and tribalism into politics.
Nobody in their right mind couldn’t see the democrats were going to take the house in 2018. Democrats were energized, Ryan sucked and kept Trump under constant threat of impeachment.
She is over-rated.
If such a person existed, I would think they would already have a campaign up and running, or already be a Veep candidate on someone else's ticket.
Kamala Harris? /crickets chirping
Big Mike Obama? /crickets chirping
Bueller? /not enough melanin
She/He/It is delusional.
There are definitely swing voters. We can see this from the voter rolls. About 1/3 of the country is not registered either dem or GOP. They’re the ones that actually decide elections.