You cannot be a Democrat without being a pessimist. You have to be the chicken-little guy or gal walking around looking at the sky, measuring how far it fell today. Barack Obama actually grabbed an entire month of tweets when a panic set in during the 2012 election cycle when the “I got this!” meme-thing happened. This election is no different.
Many Democrats have spent the last month in a comprehensive panic attack over Donald Trump’s re-emergence after a Harris’s late summer beat-down. I am probably leading the charge in the fear cycle, and have been major, major, majorly called out for it on this site. Yes. So – herewith, CNN’s reasons for Democrats not to panic, not be in disarray, not kicking your shoes, but instead holding it all together with a small slice of optimism.
CNN’s Larry Enten is currently bewildered by the fact that Democrats are ignoring the close polls with Harris having narrow leads and yet many different pathways to victory. Forget momentarily that we Democrats worry that Harris can win 48 states and still face a brick wall in a red-Congress. Yes – definitely set that aside at least for the purposes of this exercise and consider this. From Mediaite, reporting on Enten’s assessment:
You know, you talk about Wisconsin. Let’s turn that blue. All right. That gets Harris to 236 electoral votes. How about Michigan? We’ll give her blue there, 251 electoral votes. How about Pennsylvania? Look at this, two 270 electoral votes if those Washington Post polls are, in fact, correct.
Yeah. Well – that serves somewhat as an anxiolytic, especially since Harris is currently leading the aggregate polls in those states. Be careful, though – her lead is so small it is really silly to put any faith in anything right now. Disarray go beyond duty and straight to entirely appropriate. It is hard to hear the rundown of those three states and not remember the zoo-break that was 2020. Anyway, yes – 270, blue wall, thanks Larry.
Wait, he wasn’t done. More pathways – always a good thing.
We got a point lead in the polls there for Donald Trump, well within the margin of error. Less than a point in North Carolina, two point lead for Donald Trump, again, well within the margin of error in Arizona, less than a point lead for Kamala Harris in Nevada. So, you know, even if we gave, you know, Donald Trump, say, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, you can still, in fact, Kamala Harris to 270 by giving her North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. So, again, I don’t understand this Democratic panic.
Let me help you out with validating the panic on that one Larry. I have a better chance at Winona Ryder than Harris’s chance of winning North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada, straight while losing everything else. Sorry – we know that to be true. Panic!
No – don’t quite yet because they call it a blue wall for a reason, the Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin thoroughfare. (Minnesota used to be part of the wall but seems to have calmed down to lake blue) Harris is far more likely to win two in the wall while looking to pick off a couple of the southern states.
One takeaway is near certain. Harris has to win Pennsylvania. Trump has to win North Carolina. Why? Because they have almost identical numbers of electoral votes and they are bell-weather states for each candidate. If Harris is having trouble in the northeast – issue, if Trump is having trouble in this part of the southeast – major major issue.
Actually, if Harris wins North Carolina, there could be a new blue wall. Virginia and Georgia have gone blue. Put North Carolina in that mix and – wow, kinda weird. But she best stick to a plan to win Pennsylvania. And Trump? If you think Harris has many paths to victory… Trump does, too – only he’s the one with some off-road vehicles.
Then again, I’m a Democrat. I tend to panic over these things. It’s also my job.
God Bless:Â I can be reached at [email protected] and @JasonMiciak
“No – don’t quite yet because they call it a blue wall for a reason, the Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin thoroughfare. (Minnesota used to be part of the wall but seems to have calmed down to lake blue)”
Yes, they call it a “blue wall” for a reason and you don’t seem to understand that reason. The “blue wall” came about because of a group of Midwestern states CONSISTENTLY voting “blue” (or Democratic). Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio along with the Atlantic seaboard from Maryland to Maine formed the “blue wall.” BUT that wall occasionally developed “windows” that turned into major cracks in the past 20 years (about as long as the famed blue wall originally existed). First, Indiana fell out. Then Ohio, and the wall was broken. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania–all became more like the gates or doors in a wall (of course, when there’s no real wall, there won’t be any gates or doors either).
The real problem is that this “blue wall” just became a political shorthand that never took into account political candidates or circumstances. And, it’s a very recent development since the whole “red/blue” thing only became the current “conservative/liberal” matter around the 1988 or 1992 elections. American media covering the presidential elections (especially after the prevalence of color TV and the electoral maps displayed on election night) began with the TRADITIONAL red/blue scheme where the party in power was displayed in blue and the party out of power was displayed in red (the tradition, for the record, was that “blue” stood for the king and conservative values while “red” stood for revolution and/or change). For some reason, however, the news media began equating the colors with specific parties (possibly because the American TV audience and average voter can’t be bothered to remember something that they only see once every four years and the media can’t be bothered to remind them).