otoh, with a margin of 3.5%, AZ was behind only FL/PA/MI/WA among red states for how close it was (beating GA and NC in being moderately close, then a large gap before you get to OH/TX/IA).

While it's certainly possible that 2020 will be a huge turnout surge, there's another possibility that I don't think people have talked about enough. What if the turnout in 2018 was really just the people who usually vote every four years coming out in the midterm election cause they were pissed? In other words, did the presidential year voter base actually expand in 2018, or did the presidential year voters just show up in the midterm for a change?

That thought scares me quite a bit, but it's a possibility.

I don't like to think about this too much, but it could definitely get somewhat significantly bigger than 2016. Basically as turnout due to outrage goes up, it'll go up more in blue states than red and swing states. Thus the Dem runs up even bigger margins in California, New York, Oregon, Washington, etc... The good news is, at some point that also has to translate to putting red states with big urban population centers in play (Florida, Arizona, Texas). So the realistic cap is probably somewhere between 5 million and 10 million.

Oh and by the way, as for talking about it, the conversation would go something like this:

Dems: Trump lost by six million votes and still won the electoral college. That's ridiculous!

GOP: Dems only "won" by running up a huge margin in California and New York on fraudulent votes by illegal immigrants. If you only count the real votes, he would have won. The electoral college saved us from Dems stealing the election!

Media: Is there any veracity to this claim of fraudulent votes? Let's examine it! This will be a wonderful and vigorous debate!

It was neither a joke nor racist. I was pointing out that a Floridian, or anyone else for that matter who voted for Obama, could not automatically be assumed to be someone who would not be reluctant to vote for most black people because of those three unusual aspects he had. How is my meaning not obvious?

Stay on target guys.... stay.... on... target...

63% chance at that moment who thought his name was Tim Apple. 24% he was just joshing. 13% chance words tumble off his tongue without being processed by the brain.

I am accusing the president of a massive laundry list of serious crimes.

Sorry Charlie.

Also no racists in Florida confirmed. Although racists hate half blacks more because it means a dirty black defiled a white.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/investig...506783231.html

Standard.

FAME!

so we've reached the point now where dersh is being named in headlines as a pedo

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffre...afficking-ring

weeeeeeeeeeee

wat

also telling imo that alan says "i havent seen or spoken to jeffrey in years" as if that matters one iota

Your meaning was obvious. You don’t need to explain it to us like we are morons. Because we aren’t morons.

LOL @ racist voters considering Obama half white and a Harvard graduate!

I don’t always vote for black people, but when I do I pick the ones who are half AFRICAN.

You're right that we probably have to think of racial prejudice (or resentments, or however phrased) as only one input into a more complicated process that most people go through when choosing how to vote. The Obama "we're voting for the ------" anecdote is famous. But you highlighted a set of attributes that I doubt are that relevant: the nationality of his father, that he was raised by a white mother, and that he went to Harvard Law.

As far as nationality, I've never seen any data that would suggest that Americans' racial prejudices are modified by nationality. If you meant that they would view him more positively because his father was Kenyan I think you're wrong: consider the birther movement. Consider Trump's comments about "****hole countries". I think those are more representative of how people with racial resentments view Africa. As far as being mixed race, in American history there's no indication this has ever caused people to be less prejudiced, cf. the "one-drop rule". There's some evidence that people are more prejudiced towards those of darker skin color, but that isn't directly related to being mixed race in a straightforward way. As far as going to Harvard Law, I doubt most Americans care about it specifically, although I think it's probably relevant that Obama presented himself as a very mainstream American candidate with familiar institutional credentials for a politician. But I think it's far more important that he was just a very good politician, i.e. a great speaker, great with people, likeable, etc. He also discussed race in a very careful way so as not to provoke white Americans very much.

So I think I agree with your general point that voting for Obama specifically isn't evidence against the proposition that a voter might be generally less inclined to vote for a black person than a white person (and we know there were Obama-Trump voters), but I think you're focused on the wrong reasons why Obama might be a special case.

talk to me Goose

This seems like something an innocent person would say.

Cohen's closed-door testimony got him SHOOK

Okay if this is true does that mean Cohen perjured himself when he said he never sought and would not accept a pardon from Trump?

What happened to "I didn't know anything about it"?

We’re gonna need more dog cages.

"You'll have to ask my attorney Michael Cohen about that"

I honestly can’t tell whether this post is meant as a joke/self-parody or you actually have a point?