Jersey Girl wrote:Thanks. I don't have these details (electoral college) in my head like some of the rest of you do. I understand what you're saying though. Trying to pay attention, follow what's going on, learn more, read more, and ask questions. And I am reminded of why I always cynically thought that politics was one big game with bare bones honesty in very short supply or altogether non-existent.
The electoral college is looking more challenging than we talk about right now. In 2016 Ohio was considered in play. Most of the polling suggests it would go red if the election were held today. If you want to get a sense of how little most of our votes matter, check out this interactive map:
https://www.270towin.com/It shows the general sense of where the electoral college sits today but lets you change things to see how either the Democrats or Republicans can find a path to 270. As it sits currently, if the Democrats could lock down Florida the assumption is that they would win. That said, if we look at how 2016 played out, most of the rust belt states that flipped for Trump were ones where Bernie beat out Clinton in the Democrat primary. I think that is going to matter again, and as we move towards the Democrat convention we should keep an eye on how each state that might be blue now could end up underperforming for the eventual winner of the nomination if their preferred candidate isn't it.
Now, many people will say that Arizona is in play for the Dems. I don't know. It's probably a question of demographics and if younger voters and Hispanics turn out over the older, white voters then it might happen. I think that will also come down to who actually wins the Democrat nomination.
I'm seeing most of my conservative Facebook friends already carrying the meme that Trump is defending America from socialism and making 2020 about socialism being a threat to the American way of life. That's a message more Democrats should take seriously because the places that are onboard with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are hard blue anyway. They'll probably be able to win the popular vote but could they win Florida? I'm not sure. Maybe they could lock down Wisconsin or possibly Pennsylvania but it's also possible they could turn off independent voters in those same critical states while ensuring the states Dems hope to poach go red like Arizona. Would it matter if all of Denver votes for Bernie if everywhere else in Colorado goes red? Maybe. There are Republican strategists who are eyeing Colorado as a potential pick-up, though, and that's built on the idea outside of the urban core people might not be ready for a self-proclaimed socialist president.
Clinton, though, was about as strategic as a bronco with a hornet caught under its saddle. I'm sure the thinking was that putting it out in the open would help counter it. But she made it look like the DNC is trying to keep Gabbard down which probably just helped make the message appear credible that could justify Gabbard running as a third party.
As I implied in a post to Cam, it made me feel that it was simply an expression of her resentment/bitterness and envy because her shot when she had it.
On the other hand, I was also shocked by Gabbard's response. However much I might agree with her assessment of Clinton, I felt like it was unnecessarily biting and overkill. An immediate turn-off and far too Trumpish for my liking. We need an informed, smart, statesperson. Not another politician out to play cutthroat but I am not running and maybe that's what it takes to stay in the running.
Though, from what I've read on this thread, it doesn't sound like she's really in the running to begin. Never say never I guess.
When I read what Clinton said, the criticism seemed like much ado about nothing. But when I listened to the interview I was reminded that Clinton has a way of making the rather uncontroversial things she is saying seem controversial. It kinda did come across like she was responding to it personally even through the transcript read more like she was pointing out that voters and Democrats should be concerned with the same shenanigans taking place that occurred in 2016. I'm sure I'd be bitter about it if it happened to me so that is understandable. But recognizing that, perhaps she ought to have let someone else carry that message and realize tying it back to her was a mistake.
I don't know what to make of Gabbard, myself. Perhaps Cam is right and she's angling for a Senate seat. It could also be that the filters that let certain things pass and keep certain things out work these days to let people come up to the national spotlight who have anti-establishment appeal of a certain kind and she simply reflects the shape of those filters. It could be she's the anti-establishment candidate this time and the bots love themselves a spoiler.