In 2020, Dems will win the WH, increase the House, and maybe take the Senate

[iuwclurker]

according to Rachel Bitecofer, who predicted in 2018 the Dems would win 42 seats in the House. Her theory is based on turnout plus the shape of the electorate in that moment. In this moment, the electorate is shaped to oust Trump, that is, the preponderance of likely voters want him good and gone.

She say:

“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.”​

To me, the biggest way to take advantage of that strategy is to terrorize young voters about Trump's ruination of the environment. Of course, you excite all other groups as well, but adding young people to the mix, as Obama did to some degree in 2008, could be a game changer, especially in pink and purple states where GOP Senate seats are vulnerable.

 

[hoosboot]

according to Rachel Bitecofer, who predicted in 2018 the Dems would win 42 seats in the House. Her theory is based on turnout plus the shape of the electorate in that moment. In this moment, the electorate is shaped to oust Trump, that is, the preponderance of likely voters want him good and gone.

She say:

“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.”​

To me, the biggest way to take advantage of that strategy is to terrorize young voters about Trump's ruination of the environment. Of course, you excite all other groups as well, but adding young people to the mix, as Obama did to some degree in 2008, could be a game changer, especially in pink and purple states where GOP Senate seats are vulnerable.

Maybe. I suspect you have to clear a certain trust bar and then convince them that you represent a positive future. I'm not a big Bloomberg guy, but I've noticed a subtle turn in his avalanche of ads that offer the strong contrast of his positive vision for the future with Trump's bleak, exclusionary vision. The big quibble I'd make with what you suggest is that I don't think terrorizing people works nearly as well highlighting why you'll lead a bright future for the environment, the economy, and the American values we hold dear (and that turn to ash in Trump's hands).

 

[iuwclurker]

Maybe. I suspect you have to clear a certain trust bar and then convince them that you represent a positive future. I'm not a big Bloomberg guy, but I've noticed a subtle turn in his avalanche of ads that offer the strong contrast of his positive vision for the future with Trump's bleak, exclusionary vision. The big quibble I'd make with what you suggest is that I don't think terrorizing people works nearly as well highlighting why you'll lead a bright future for the environment, the economy, and the American values we hold dear (and that turn to ash in Trump's hands).

I agree with the positive vision. I see that as the binary contrast to the terror of Trump. Each enhances the other. Plus, each person responds to a certain emotion most. Trump mostly goes for anger, hate, fear and (his violiny voice) sympathy. Better would be to expand the range of emotions appealed to, from apathy at the bottom (give them hope) through fear and anger up to cheerfulness and enthusiasm. Obama did a great job of that, although he backed off on the anger stuff. Here that's required or else Trump could corner the angry voters.