4. It was good for Rs on policy to win in 2016, but it would have been better in strictly partisan terms to lose to Hillary in 2016. 5. In 2020, losing will be bad in both policy & partisan terms. And, again, that's on Trump.
-
-
Show this thread
-
6. The theory that Trump is uniquely suited to win in the Midwest ignores that he drives off more voters than he brings in. Note the GOP did really well in the Midwest downticket in 2010, 2014, & 2016 but terribly in 2018.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
There is not a single R other than him that appeals to the rust belt.
-
Dan Crenshaw, but too early. Tom Cotton, but a bit charmless. Anyway, it's possible to do.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Agreed. The problem is worsened by the fact that he's convinced by the 2016 experience (or more accurately, the way the media covered 2016) that the polls aren't telling the real story. He presumably has a price.
-
We could offer him Greenland . .
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If hypothetically: -Trump decided to retire and let Mike Pence or another squeaky clean generic Republican head the ticket; AND -The economy stays strong, What would be the Republicans odds of winning in 2020? Surely greater than 60%?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.