Hillary won 3 million more votes and still lost. Trump could lose by 5 million and win again.

It’s disgusting.

I tend to be sanguine about these things, but if he gets elected again while losing the popular vote by a large margin, it will be the end of something.

I know, MARY!!!!!!!!, but I fear that a second Trump term will mean the end of the American experiment as we know it.

I doubt the Democratic candidate would ignore the electoral swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania like Hillary did.

Very important to remember that Trump got less votes than Romney did in Wisconsin and some other states. Romney lost all those states. Those people don't actually like Trump, many just refused to vote for Hillary. Things there aren't grim

Whoever the nominee is, he or she should just forget about spending more than token amounts in the solid red states.

I say this as someone who lives in one.

Believe me, these people are eaten up with Trumpism and nothing the DEM candidate could do would sway them. Their provincial, reactionary, myopic, xenophobic conservatism runs bone deep.

Only a few states send electors to the Electoral College based upon the popular vote in their states, so it will mostly be winner-take-all again. It's discouraging to know my DEM vote will not count for very much in my state, but still I vote against Republicans -- local, state, and Federal -- at every opportunity I have,

I know past DEM Chairman Howard Dean espoused the 50-state philosophy but these are different times. Trump's based is fired up and think he's doing an excellent job. This is sickening and heartbreaking, but it's true.

At this stage, I can sympathize with the "good Germans" who knew from the outset in the early '30s that support for Adolf Hitler would lead Germany to utter ruination.

A big reason Trump’s base is riled up is because they are tired of being vilified. It seems like democrats would rather hate on Trump supporters than beat them. Obviously, people are entitled to free speech, but that seems like selfish, self-indulgent virtue signaling if they actually think it’s important to beat Trump. I don’t think they do. They don’t want to reduce provincial, myopic, and xenophobic behaviors, they want to complain about them.

If people don’t want Trump to win, why don’t they support a moderate democrat with a plan to end illegal immigration (which could include amnesty)? That candidate would win. At this point, I think the democrats are willing to die on this hill. Why is illegal immigration so important to them?

It disproportionately benefits the middle and upper classes, who get their houses cleans, kids babysat, and lawns mowed cheap, and disproportionately penalizes poorer Americans because of downward salary pressure for low skill jobs and schools in lower income areas filled with kids who don’t speak English and need extra support adapting to the US educational system. Not to mention the illegal immigrants themselves. We need the labor. Why should they have to be illegal? It disgusts me to see rich assholes clutching their pearls over Trump, while getting their lawns mowed in 100 degree weather by guys who have no medical coverage when they get heat stroke.

I think even a late entry, high profile independent could win. Because Trump IS a fucking embarrassment. But the democrats don’t seem to have any interest in winning. Not if they have to give up on illegal immigration.

OK, start calling me a racist asshole now. I know you’d rather do that than win an election.

R6 Every single poll that has asked the question "Who do you agree with more on immigration? Trump or the Democrats?" Has shown democrats with a WIDE lead on the issue. I've seen it go as high as 30 points. Every pollster has shown this. That's why democrats are focusing on this issue, it's a very weak issue for Trump. Separate even from approval polls, many studies have shown Americans have gotten significantly more liberal on immigration over the last 3 years. Trump has been anti-persuasive on this issue. His policies has repulsed everyone in the middle. Record breaking numbers of Americans describe immigration as positive for the country.

You and Trump both don't like immigrants. You want them out of this country for God knows what reason. But your view is held by a minority of the population. Tens of millions more people disagree with you. In a democracy that means you don't get to have the policy you want. You need to accept that and move on for your life rather than try to fear monger dems on an anonymous message board.

OP, there's a lot of contradictory polling data coming out right now. It will be many months before we get a more stable picture on the 2020 race.

For example, a few days ago there was a new poll showing Trump behind in Georgia & North Carolina:

[quote]Trump is underwater in both Georgia (which he won by 5 points in 2016) and North Carolina (which he won by 4 points in 2016.) In Georgia 45% of voters approve of the job he’s doing to 49% who disapprove and in North Carolina 46% of voters approve of the job he’s doing to 48% who disapprove. In Georgia Trump trails a generic Democrat for reelection 50-46, and in North Carolina Trump trails a generic Democrat for reelection 49-44. We wouldn’t go so far as to say Trump is an underdog based on these numbers- Democrats may very well end up with a candidate who’s not as strong as Good Old Generic- but we see them as toss ups if Trump remains as unpopular as he is right now.

R7, R6 here. Where do you get that I don’t like immigrants and want them to leave? That is a borderline lie. I don’t think they should have to be illegal, and I would be fine with a program of amnesty for those already here. We pretty much invited them in, why should they have to be fearful and work for bullshit wages in sub-standard conditions? Have you even personally sponsored someone for a VISA? I have. Do you pay your p/t (legal immigrant) housekeeper $30 an hour and give her paid vacation and sick days? I do.

I would be interested in seeing the specific polls you mention. I’d like to see how the questions were phrased.

R9 My mother came to this country as an illegal immigrant. About one third of the kids I went to elementary school with came from mixed legal status households. This is true for most people who grew up in inner cities. So most democrats don't need lecturing on this issue from people who have only ever known illegal immigrants as people that do house work for them. These are our lived experiences.

[quote] I don’t think they should have to be illegal, and I would be fine with a program of amnesty for those already here.

If you actually believe this, then you should be fine with the Democrats. The main thrust of the Dream Act, which Dems have tried to pass and GOP has blocked for literal decades now, would give all immigrants in the country a path to citizenship if they paid some back taxes and maintained residency. The latest incarnation even agreed to pair it up with border walls and more enforcement money, GOP voted it down anyway. They are the ones you need to be convincing to adopt mainstream positions. Not democrats

R10, I avoid having illegal immigrants doing housework for me because I consider it potentially exploitative. I don’t want anyone working for me because they aren’t eligible for other jobs. I want them to work for me because the comp and conditions are satisfactory relative to their other, legal alternatives. I think I might be missing a point you are trying to make in your comments about my unfamiliarity with illegal immigrants.

I think the Dream Act is a great idea, but I haven’t seen it paired with a plan to prevent continuing illegal immigration. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t out there. Are any of the current likely democratic candidates emphasizing anything like this in their platforms? I think the Dream Act + a figurative wall (with a more palatable name) would be a huge win for a moderate Democrat.

Clarification about - I did read the part of R10’s post that discussed the latest incarnation of the Dream Act. I have not seen any current candidates espousing this. But there are a lot of them to keep track of. Are any of them pushing this?

He’ll be re-elected easily if the economy stays the same. Democrats have no one that is going to motivate the base. The party is fractured beyond repair.

[quote]Democrats have no one that is going to motivate the base.

Oh, dear!

Russia will hack vote totals again, so Repugs aren’t that worried.

[quote]"The Obama-Trump voters are basically Republicans on immigration, or at least much closer to Trump’s position than they are to the Democrats’.

These people don’t like “kids in cages” and they want an amnesty solution for the Dreamers.

But at the same time, we can’t have open borders and just allow everyone in with no ability to control the border.

Democrats need to firmly state that they are NOT for open borders if they expect to win back these voters. None of the candidates are saying this.

[quote]voters who turned out for Obama in 2012 but then stayed home in 2016 are more moderate than the average Democratic voter on health care,

Ending private health insurance, which many of the candidates are supporting, will not win back these voters.

[quote]Oh, dear!

Oh, dear what?

"That" should be "who" at r13, r17.

[quote] if he gets elected again while losing the popular vote by a large margin, it will be the end of something

Democracy

[quote] Ending private health insurance, which many of the candidates are supporting, will not win back these voters.

I totally agree, Americans are stupid. They have to learn the hard way that private insurance will never have your back. You will have co-pays. deductibles, co-insurance, in-network-out-of-network, payments denials, chance of bankruptcy, etc,

Perhaps a Single-payer like public option without all those copays and such will show Americans the value of getting rid of private insurance for most of your medical needs.

[quote]Perhaps a Single-payer like public option without all those copays and such will show Americans the value of getting rid of private insurance for most of your medical needs.

Good luck with that!

Medicare doesn't pay for everything and has copays and deductibles, r20.

The thing I don’t understand is, why is the policy proposal ‘Medicare for all’? Why so extreme? Why not a propose a gradual expansion?

Seriously - why can’t the Democrats propose lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 55. That would cover a huge chunk of people who are in desperate for health insurance just at the point when they age out of the job market.

‘Medicare for all’ will NEVER get passed. ‘Medicare at 55’ very much could be implemented.

It’s a mystery to me why the Democratic Party is not proposing gradual progressive steps instead of screaming about pie in the sky policies that will never happen.

That's the public option backed by moderates, r23.

With the loudest, it's always an 'All or nothing.' type thing, R23. And no interest in compromise or rationality. People like that don't solve problems, only ever complain or create them.

Young people don’t have healthcare.

Voters in every state must demand paper back-up ballots. Dems are voting to push a Bill through requiring it, but as usual, the Pigs are trying to block. How can such fuckery go on every day and nobody calls it for what it is? Our useless MSM should face antitrust investigations much like Big Tech.

Why can't we go back to the days when medical insurance companies could onle be non-profit? There was a time when Wellpoint did not own Blue Cross/Blu Shield and things were better.

R28 Democracy means fair elections and that must include having a paper back-up ballots or a paper trail.

We should have paper ballots, period.

No more of this Russian fuckery.

The myth of the Obama-Trump voter just won't die, I guess.

About 10% of Dems voted Repub in 2016, but about 8% of Repubs voted Dem, too, so it mostly evened out.

The stat that people trot out about 24% of HRC supporters voting McCain in 2008 is also a lie based on a pre-election poll that seemed to be an anomaly.

Anyhow, a fraction of registered voters vote for a different party than they are registered with all the time. There was no huge Obama-to-Trump swing. Time after time it's been shown that third party votes combined with people staying at home, plus the effects of the Comey letter and foreign propaganda, turned the election.

Should also mention that, as others have already said, Americans are not on Trump's side wrt immigration. That's why it makes no sense to say that Obama voters went Trump "because of immigration."

This is just a lengthy version of the old "you Dems want open borders and Trump will win again because of it" troll.

There will either be electoral reform or civil war. There’s no reason a vast majority should be ruled by a minority with narrow, self-serving interests.

What R23 is suggesting in regard to healthcare...is basically what Amy Klobuchar’s proposal is... a gradual shift to Medicare as a public option while keeping private insurance as is.

[quote]With the loudest, it's always an 'All or nothing.' type thing, [R23]. And no interest in compromise or rationality. People like that don't solve problems, only ever complain or create them.

There’s a reason why Amy Klobuchar ranks first among any current Senator in the number of bills she’s gotten signed into law. It’s because she’s a moderate who has rational solutions and is willing to compromise as needed to get things done.

Yet you can see that she’s polling at 1% among Democrat primary voters. That’s because Democrats aren’t interested in realistic solutions. They want purity tests and they want “pie in the sky” proposals that have absolutely no chance of ever being passed.

Enjoy the next term of Trump.

OP links to a conservative blog and no one cares or calls it out?

Why the hell does this garbage get 33 replies before someone does .02 seconds googling? Block this troll and kill the thread. We don't need advice that Democrats should move to the center (to the right) from a right wing troll. PAY ATTENTION. Jesus.

R35, [italic]it's in the first sentence of the post [/italic] "[bold]A view from the Right [/bold] about the current Electoral College math speculation."

It's difficult to convince people that one person = one vote should be the norm, when the population of small areas on the coasts equals the population of a HUGE chunk of the center of the country. People see that on a map and it makes them think there's something unfair about letting "smaller areas decide what the whole country does."

It's an emotional response but when people are confronted with graphics like this, good luck explaining the truth to them.

Right wingers have to come up with some justification for why they like the electoral college, and when you are fighting against basic principle that everyones votes should count the same they don't have a lot of options. So it basically turns into this idea that land is somehow more important than people.

[quote] The thing I don’t understand is, why is the policy proposal ‘Medicare for all’? Why so extreme? Why not a propose a gradual expansion?

It's not really about whether to be left or moderate. This is just the most efficient way to craft a healthcare system. In the last 50 years, dozens of countries have grappled with this issue and none have gotten private markets to work without heavy subsidies and extreme price controls. All things that would also never garner support from republicans in the US. What you want to do, have private companies that NEED to make profit administer healthcare but also make the care universal and comprehensive, is not possible and that system doesn't exist anywhere in the world. I would argue that makes your radical, but again that's not the point.

For just one example of why this can't work, there is no financial incentive to open hospitals in poor rural areas. You are guaranteed to lose money no matter what you do. There just aren't enough people and the people there are older and less healthy. If you believe they deserve healthcare regardless of where they live, and I think you do, we really do have to just give it to them. There is also no financial incentive to cover people with preexisting conditions. No premiums they could ever afford would actually cover the cost of diabetes or cancer treatments. Obamacare just mandated insurance companies have to take losses on those patients rather than deny them coverage or charge them tens of thousands a month. The GOP and private insurance companies have spent the last several years successfully unwinding it. Due to a law they passed last year, in red states people with preexisting conditions will start be moved to separate insurance pools like they used to have. When those pools start showing dramatic, unsustainable losses, because it's impossible they won't, those same states will argue "See? We have to be allowed to raise their premiums or our state will go bankrupt" and they will win that in court because it will be true. It's a situation they will have created just for that purpose, but it will work nonetheless. The private sector is just fundamentally not equipped to provide good, universal coverage. It will never work, no one in the world has ever gotten it to work.

And from another perspective, single payer is the only insurance option that will ever be safe from political attack. Obamacare started out as a stronger law. The GOP and the courts spent the last decade hobbling it. And after the preexisting conditions weakening and the individual mandate repeal last year, practically speaking all that's left of Obamacare is the medicaid expansion. And even THAT was just never adopted by many red states because the GOP refused. The only way to make sure the GOP and all their pet judges leave healthcare policy alone is if Mitch McConnell, Joni Ernst, Ted Cruz, Brett Kavanaugh, and all the rest of them and all of their children and all of their grandchildren are on the exact same health care plan as you and me. And if there is no way for them to get out of it, because no one can. If we achieve that, GOP will very quickly get over all their reservations and find money to pay for it. They will never care about people like us, but you can be damn sure they will never take a single step to weaken their own family's health care.

This is the only way. If we do what the moderates want it will fail for the same reasons Obamacare failed and we will be in the same position 10 years from now.

People look at the VA as an example of “government-run healthcare” and see what a disaster it is. Nobody wants that.

New Mexico the fourteenth state to sign over its votes to the popular vote

R40 Medicare and Medicaid are 100x larger than the VA and both programs are very popular with people that use them so that line if attack makes no sense.

[quote]so that line if attack makes no sense.

That's never mattered to the right.

R43 it doesn't need to make sense to them. GOP will never support any healthcare plan ever put forward by a dem. Moderate or liberal. They want to decrease the number of people currently covered, not increase it. They don't care how we try to do it.

But most people in the middle aren't stupid or Fox News zombies. Everyone has a parent or grandparent on Medicare.

One thing to remember about polls: most of them are done for PR purposes.

In other words they are looking for a result that will get clickable headlines.

This is true in the business world where many of the "surveys" you see have little to no statistical relevance and are used to prove a point (e.g., "See! Affluent young Americans still love mainstream domestic beer!") and political polls are no different.

Methodology on all telephone-based polling is questionable at this point when many people, not just Millennials, don't have landlines and don't answer calls from unknown numbers due to the incredibly high volume of spam.