COVID19

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

Image

Even if we assume some people lie, this is stunning.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

Back in July the US was 4th in the world for kids orphaned as a result of covid.

It’s the parents that refused the vaccine and their family ended up there that’s so frustrating. Their kids don’t deserve that.
Vaccinated parent who get sick anyways or before the vaccine have way more sympathy than purposefully putting yourself into that situation.

User avatar
Anthony_Hugo98
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 466
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:50 pm
Location: Vicenza, IT

Re: COVID19

Post by Anthony_Hugo98 »

flyingember wrote:
Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:42 pm
Back in July the US was 4th in the world for kids orphaned as a result of covid.

It’s the parents that refused the vaccine and their family ended up there that’s so frustrating. Their kids don’t deserve that.
Vaccinated parent who get sick anyways or before the vaccine have way more sympathy than purposefully putting yourself into that situation.
Do they have the actual # of kids orphaned?
For all my military brothers and sisters out there, thanks for paving the way, ill do my best! AIRBORNE!

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

As of a month ago 119,000 had lost at least one "primary caregiver" so it's under that number
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/120000-ch ... d=78931426

Up from 43,000 in April
https://time.com/5953001/covid-orphans/

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

Nice chart comparing vaccination vs not April through mid July

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ ... tm#F2_down

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

Found on Reddit from a couple weeks ago. Horrible story on the impact to the children and the comments aren’t much better.
Tonight at 2000, we will admit our 6th baby born to an unvaccinated, Covid mom on ECMO. I’m currently caring for a 26wk premie who’s mom passed away last night after the family removed life support. He never met his mom- she survived on ECMO for 23 days before suffering arrest and brain damage. They have 2 other kids at home.

Tonight’s delivery will be a 28 weeker. Mom has been on ECMO for 2 weeks and they haven’t been able to get her sats above 70% for 2 days so it’s time to take baby before we lose them both. They told Dad to expect Mom to survive for a day or so after delivery.

This will be our 6th baby that will never meet their mom since Covid started. We always hear moms say they worry about what the shot will to do baby, but they never consider what not getting the shot will to do baby. I’m not sure how much more I can handle.



We don’t automatically deliver Moms on ECMO. Baby remains on continuous monitoring and if we see the baby is worsening or mom is nearing death we operate if it’s the partner’s wishes. Typically moms don’t tolerate the csection well and delivering the baby doesn’t necessarily mean mom suddenly improves, so we avoid delivery to allow baby time to grow if at all possible.

None of our babies have tested positive for Covid. We resuscitate/transition in private rooms adjacent to the ORs to avoid exposure once baby is out. We test the babies at 24h, 48h and 7 days old. They stay in isolation until all 3 tests are cleared meaning partners/spouses can’t visit until the 7th day.

I live in a very anti-vax, low education state. We are the main nicu in our city. I’m sure my experience is jaded by our higher numbers. I’m hoping those of you in higher vaccinated areas are having a much more pleasant time.

I am enrolled in a therapy program. Covid has completely screwed me up, I’ve never held so many motherless babies or taught so many young widowed partners learn to care for a baby on their own. I highly suggest reaching out for help if you’ve been absolutely shattered by caring for the Covid+ yourself.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nursing/commen ... rspective/

User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 15935
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: COVID19

Post by FangKC »

Last night I saw on the news a story about two unvaccinated parents dying a short time apart from COVID, and leaving behind five children.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ca ... n-n1279044

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

2020 was the first year Alabama had more deaths than births (all causes). Haven’t seen any other state in that situation.

If the current pace keeps up they’re surpass their 2020 covid dead count in less than 3 weeks

41% vaccination rate

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/bri ... treatment/
https://www.ahip.org/health-insurance-p ... -covid-19/

The majority of major health plans will have dropped Covid cost sharing by December. That’s costs except for vaccination and testing.

The money cost of not being vaccinated is going up if it hasn’t already

If you haven’t seen this Last Week Tonight piece on Health Care Sharing Ministries, it’s worth watching with the cultural overlap between those unvaccinated and religion
https://youtu.be/oFetFqrVBNc

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

Image

Percent of deaths this summer (uses the total number of voters for both numbers, not the total number of people in each county)

10-20%: 1% of people, 0.15% of deaths. (Better than average)
20-30%: 5% of people, 1.78% of deaths. (Better than average)
30-40%: 16% of people, 6.65% of deaths. (Better than average)
40-50%: 31% of people, 26.3% of deaths. (Better than average)

50-60%: 19% of people, 19.1% of deaths. (Worse than average)
60-70%: 15% of people, 18.4% of deaths. (Worse than average)
70-80%: 10% of people, 14.9% of deaths. (Worse than average)
80-90%: 3% of people, 4.7% of deaths. (Worse than average)

90-100%: 0.04% of people, 8% of deaths. (Way Worse than average)

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

Found the chart source

https://acasignups.net/21/09/12/simple- ... l-analysis

They attempt to make a 2022 midterms assessment and figure about 115k more Republicans die nationwide by then

The argument made in the article at the end is Republicans in power don’t care about those deaths if it means they can flip voters. It’s a little more than a year to the election, so we’ll see what happens. Meanwhile, people are dieing.

If accurate, it’s a horribly unethical position to take.


Edit: my assessment might need to be far more pessimistic
The people who are unvaccinated are dominated by the most stubborn, most right wing individuals

The Republicans may be trying to shift their party to the left a little, more of a 1994 party and less a Tea Party one. Getting rid of Trump voters would benefit them. It’s not like Trump helped the party in 2020, they lost a majority in both houses and the presidency. So if you figure that moderate voters are more likely to get vaccinated and they think they can gain moderates back, they may be betting against Biden and then own voters at the same time.

They likely desperately want to ignore Jan 6 as it’s their hardcore voters. The easiest way to lose in 2022 is to have Trump friendly candidates across the country. But if they can’t get past the primaries because their likely voters are dead, it benefits the party.

User avatar
AlkaliAxel
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:58 pm
Location: Brookside

Re: COVID19

Post by AlkaliAxel »

flyingember wrote:
Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:20 pm
Found the chart source

https://acasignups.net/21/09/12/simple- ... l-analysis

They attempt to make a 2022 midterms assessment and figure about 115k more Republicans die nationwide by then

The argument made in the article at the end is Republicans in power don’t care about those deaths if it means they can flip voters. It’s a little more than a year to the election, so we’ll see what happens. Meanwhile, people are dieing.

If accurate, it’s a horribly unethical position to take.


Edit: my assessment might need to be far more pessimistic
The people who are unvaccinated are dominated by the most stubborn, most right wing individuals

The Republicans may be trying to shift their party to the left a little, more of a 1994 party and less a Tea Party one. Getting rid of Trump voters would benefit them. It’s not like Trump helped the party in 2020, they lost a majority in both houses and the presidency. So if you figure that moderate voters are more likely to get vaccinated and they think they can gain moderates back, they may be betting against Biden and then own voters at the same time.

They likely desperately want to ignore Jan 6 as it’s their hardcore voters. The easiest way to lose in 2022 is to have Trump friendly candidates across the country. But if they can’t get past the primaries because their likely voters are dead, it benefits the party.
I don't want to go full political data here, but this last part isn't true at all. White working class voters that Trump brought in, instead of upper class voters, demographically benefits the GOP more and expands the electoral college & Senate for GOP. It took the Dems most moderate candidate to barely squeak by that in 2020. The GOP going more populist is what's helping them alot more than going moderate.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

AlkaliAxel wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:37 pm

I don't want to go full political data here, but this last part isn't true at all. White working class voters that Trump brought in, instead of upper class voters, demographically benefits the GOP more and expands the electoral college & Senate for GOP. It took the Dems most moderate candidate to barely squeak by that in 2020. The GOP going more populist is what's helping them alot more than going moderate.
That's simply not true for this topic
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -religion/

Look at the second and third set of charts. The GOP is more white and older with each poll. It's not gaining young voters who are increasingly diverse. Going more white isn't a good thing politically.


This one has a really good chart showing that the electorate grew older in 2020
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter- ... mographics

That's why the GOP did as well as it in 2020. It wasn't that a more white electorate is beneficial, it shows the benefit of a more white and older turnout. The age chart shows it was the oldest voting average across 40 years.


The Covid death rate right now is strongly coordinating with the older, white, conservative GOP base.

I still don't expect huge changes in national races, it's local races to watch. And I don't necessarily expect Democrats to win, but more moderate Republicans to take more seats.

User avatar
AlkaliAxel
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:58 pm
Location: Brookside

Re: COVID19

Post by AlkaliAxel »

flyingember wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 8:30 am
AlkaliAxel wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:37 pm

I don't want to go full political data here, but this last part isn't true at all. White working class voters that Trump brought in, instead of upper class voters, demographically benefits the GOP more and expands the electoral college & Senate for GOP. It took the Dems most moderate candidate to barely squeak by that in 2020. The GOP going more populist is what's helping them alot more than going moderate.
That's simply not true for this topic
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -religion/

Look at the second and third set of charts. The GOP is more white and older with each poll. It's not gaining young voters who are increasingly diverse. Going more white isn't a good thing politically.


This one has a really good chart showing that the electorate grew older in 2020
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter- ... mographics

That's why the GOP did as well as it in 2020. It wasn't that a more white electorate is beneficial, it shows the benefit of a more white and older turnout. The age chart shows it was the oldest voting average across 40 years.


The Covid death rate right now is strongly coordinating with the older, white, conservative GOP base.

I still don't expect huge changes in national races, it's local races to watch. And I don't necessarily expect Democrats to win, but more moderate Republicans to take more seats.
No, you’re making the same mistake every Democrat data scientist made in 2016 (and somewhat 2020) which was to play for the popular vote- we don’t vote nationally, we vote on the electoral college by states. You’re using National stats for races that are decided by a handful of states.

In Pew and every metric available the country is getting less white, more moderate, etc but it doesn’t matter what *the country* is, it matters what the *key states* are. The popular vote is meaningless

By sacrificing college educated voters for WWC voters, you actually activate more states. In 2016, Trump took massive losses in the more educated states in TX, GA, other sun belt areas but made up the difference in MI, PA, OH, WI, rust belt areas because they are *much* more WWC then the rest of the country. AKA- if winning Michigan means you’ll have to lose CA by 30 instead of 10, then fine. That’s what they did in 2016 and what they’ll do from here on out.

The conclusion- by going full WWC, they will lose heavier in the popular vote but do better in the key rust belt states needed to win that are filled with WWC. And all they need is MI, WI, PA and GOP is President no matter what popular vote is.

WWC= white working class

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 4243
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: COVID19

Post by grovester »

AlkaliAxel wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:24 pm
flyingember wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 8:30 am
AlkaliAxel wrote:
Mon Sep 27, 2021 6:37 pm

I don't want to go full political data here, but this last part isn't true at all. White working class voters that Trump brought in, instead of upper class voters, demographically benefits the GOP more and expands the electoral college & Senate for GOP. It took the Dems most moderate candidate to barely squeak by that in 2020. The GOP going more populist is what's helping them alot more than going moderate.
That's simply not true for this topic
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -religion/

Look at the second and third set of charts. The GOP is more white and older with each poll. It's not gaining young voters who are increasingly diverse. Going more white isn't a good thing politically.


This one has a really good chart showing that the electorate grew older in 2020
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter- ... mographics

That's why the GOP did as well as it in 2020. It wasn't that a more white electorate is beneficial, it shows the benefit of a more white and older turnout. The age chart shows it was the oldest voting average across 40 years.


The Covid death rate right now is strongly coordinating with the older, white, conservative GOP base.

I still don't expect huge changes in national races, it's local races to watch. And I don't necessarily expect Democrats to win, but more moderate Republicans to take more seats.
No, you’re making the same mistake every Democrat data scientist made in 2016 (and somewhat 2020) which was to play for the popular vote- we don’t vote nationally, we vote on the electoral college by states. You’re using National stats for races that are decided by a handful of states.

In Pew and every metric available the country is getting less white, more moderate, etc but it doesn’t matter what *the country* is, it matters what the *key states* are. The popular vote is meaningless

By sacrificing college educated voters for WWC voters, you actually activate more states. In 2016, Trump took massive losses in the more educated states in TX, GA, other sun belt areas but made up the difference in MI, PA, OH, WI, rust belt areas because they are *much* more WWC then the rest of the country. AKA- if winning Michigan means you’ll have to lose CA by 30 instead of 10, then fine. That’s what they did in 2016 and what they’ll do from here on out.

The conclusion- by going full WWC, they will lose heavier in the popular vote but do better in the key rust belt states needed to win that are filled with WWC. And all they need is MI, WI, PA and GOP is President no matter what popular vote is.

WWC= white working class
But then Trump went and lost MI, WI, and PA in 2020 by the same margin (or more) that he won in 2016.

Meanwhile seemingly safe red states like AZ and GA go blue.

I would argue that Trump's wave crested in 2016 and he will bet beat by a bigger margin in 2024.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

You’re (AlkaliAxel) still countering the argument I’m not making.

I’m saying Covid wont have an impact on the electoral college or big elections but it will be seen in small elections.

That it’s small local elections which will see the impact
So if you’re looking at Richmind, Van Buren, Hannibal or Farmington and smaller that this is where the impact will be seen.

1. When the entire electorate of a district is white working class losing the most conservative voters can shift elections. Democrats won’t win but more moderate voters will have a better chance.

2. Go back to 2020. Redistricting is being made off of numbers from before the end of 2020 case increase. Districts are being made off counts of voters who have passed since then.

So when more conservative voters die in total districts shift more moderate.

There’s a lot of really small elections with low double digit wins. Ones where all the candidates are Republican like a rural water district, county collector or school board. That’s the impact in play. If 2x conservatives voters to moderates die then policies can change long term across the state.

These small seats also feed the state house. If half as many conservatives win in cities and counties then the state house will see an impact with more moderate Rs.

User avatar
AlkaliAxel
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:58 pm
Location: Brookside

Re: COVID19

Post by AlkaliAxel »

grovester wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:53 pm
AlkaliAxel wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:24 pm
flyingember wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 8:30 am


That's simply not true for this topic
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -religion/

Look at the second and third set of charts. The GOP is more white and older with each poll. It's not gaining young voters who are increasingly diverse. Going more white isn't a good thing politically.


This one has a really good chart showing that the electorate grew older in 2020
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter- ... mographics

That's why the GOP did as well as it in 2020. It wasn't that a more white electorate is beneficial, it shows the benefit of a more white and older turnout. The age chart shows it was the oldest voting average across 40 years.


The Covid death rate right now is strongly coordinating with the older, white, conservative GOP base.

I still don't expect huge changes in national races, it's local races to watch. And I don't necessarily expect Democrats to win, but more moderate Republicans to take more seats.
No, you’re making the same mistake every Democrat data scientist made in 2016 (and somewhat 2020) which was to play for the popular vote- we don’t vote nationally, we vote on the electoral college by states. You’re using National stats for races that are decided by a handful of states.

In Pew and every metric available the country is getting less white, more moderate, etc but it doesn’t matter what *the country* is, it matters what the *key states* are. The popular vote is meaningless

By sacrificing college educated voters for WWC voters, you actually activate more states. In 2016, Trump took massive losses in the more educated states in TX, GA, other sun belt areas but made up the difference in MI, PA, OH, WI, rust belt areas because they are *much* more WWC then the rest of the country. AKA- if winning Michigan means you’ll have to lose CA by 30 instead of 10, then fine. That’s what they did in 2016 and what they’ll do from here on out.

The conclusion- by going full WWC, they will lose heavier in the popular vote but do better in the key rust belt states needed to win that are filled with WWC. And all they need is MI, WI, PA and GOP is President no matter what popular vote is.

WWC= white working class
But then Trump went and lost MI, WI, and PA in 2020 by the same margin (or more) that he won in 2016.

Meanwhile seemingly safe red states like AZ and GA go blue.

I would argue that Trump's wave crested in 2016 and he will bet beat by a bigger margin in 2024.
Yeah he did lose them because the Dems figured it out and realized you need to cater to rust belt states and WWC class still in 2020. They got arrogant in 2016 and thought "all we need to do is let Latinos send us to the the Oval Office because they're too big of a demographic now and they'll never vote GOP". Problem is, while Latino's may be 30% nationally- they're only like 5% in MI, WI, PA, MN and all the key states needed to win. Flash forward, they nominated Biden for the sole reason to win those rsut belt states and changed alot of their messaging. Remember the meme's about "Hillary didn't even visit Wisconsin" in 2016...that never would happen again after that. The Dems were crucified for that mistake.

Regardless, even though Biden *barely* won the rust belt states in 2020, Trump still is the only Republican that could've put them in play. Wanna know how much Romney lost Michigan by? 10 points. 8 for Wisconsin too. Trump flipped the entire MI electorate 10% in just 4 years. No other Republican was gonna be able to put those states in play because they weren't running a WWC campaign. Populist issues like changing the GOP position on trade, protecting entitlements, etc, is what made GOP viable in rust belt.

AZ & GA were trending Blue long before Trump- he only accelerated it. One could argue because GA demographics were soon to be majority black state anyway that it was unwinnable for GOP no matter what they would do anyway.

However, even if they lost AZ & GA, they could *still win* by 289-249 electoral college map if they take the rust belt. Heck, give the Dems NC also and the GOP still has over 270 to win. You're essentially saying to run the campaign they used to run with Romney, Bush, but they were getting absolutely destroyed doing that.

10 years ago, it was a pipe dream that a Republican could ever win OH, PA, WI, MI, ME, MN or heck even Iowa. Even FL is solid GOP now. So...they sacrificed GA and maybe AZ now? They'll take that deal any day of the week. They might lose some, like in 2020, but they'll also stand a much better chance to win than the Romney/Bush 2012 coalition does.

User avatar
AlkaliAxel
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:58 pm
Location: Brookside

Re: COVID19

Post by AlkaliAxel »

flyingember wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 1:04 pm
You’re (AlkaliAxel) still countering the argument I’m not making.

I’m saying Covid wont have an impact on the electoral college or big elections but it will be seen in small elections.

That it’s small local elections which will see the impact
So if you’re looking at Richmind, Van Buren, Hannibal or Farmington and smaller that this is where the impact will be seen.

1. When the entire electorate of a district is white working class losing the most conservative voters can shift elections. Democrats won’t win but more moderate voters will have a better chance.

2. Go back to 2020. Redistricting is being made off of numbers from before the end of 2020 case increase. Districts are being made off counts of voters who have passed since then.

So when more conservative voters die in total districts shift more moderate.

There’s a lot of really small elections with low double digit wins. Ones where all the candidates are Republican like a rural water district, county collector or school board. That’s the impact in play. If 2x conservatives voters to moderates die then policies can change long term across the state.

These small seats also feed the state house. If half as many conservatives win in cities and counties then the state house will see an impact with more moderate Rs.
A weird local trend that defies the national odds- St. Louis is actually getting whiter.

TX, FL, CA are almost 30% of the entire US population. If things shift one way in just these 3 states (i.e. become less white) then it can affect nationally how our entire demographics look- but it's a mirage because it's only 3 states. We have to be careful with using "national" trends and applying them everywhere, because typically we'll find that it's not so much a "national trend" as it is these 3 states trending one way and the rest of the country just gets averaged into it to make it "national". Just have to be careful on trends.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9737
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: COVID19

Post by flyingember »

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... y-suggests

UK data saying smokers more likely to be hospitalized, 60-80% higher, and more likely to die as a generic statement.
For someone with a genetic disposition to smoking, unclear how many people have this risk, the death risk is 10x compared to the general population.

This is 2014 smoking demographics
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... n-america/
And an unknown date, maybe current
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statis ... /index.htm

The map on the second link is interesting.

Between the two pages the clear item is the poorer and less educated you are the more likely you smoke

Best assessment I think can be made for Covid from the smoking map is that states with the lowest vaccination rates strongly overlap the states with additional risk from smoking. It doesn’t say smokers are more likely to get covid as a percentage of the general population, just that a smoker is more likely to die if they do.

Like many things, smoking connects to politics
https://medium.com/@andrew.riely/cigare ... 2f9c85514c
the ten US states with the highest cigarette taxes voted for Joe Biden in the recent presidential election, while eight of the ten with the lowest cigarette taxes voted for Donald Trump.

phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2552
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: COVID19

Post by phuqueue »

grovester wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:53 pm
But then Trump went and lost MI, WI, and PA in 2020 by the same margin (or more) that he won in 2016.

Meanwhile seemingly safe red states like AZ and GA go blue.

I would argue that Trump's wave crested in 2016 and he will bet beat by a bigger margin in 2024.
I would not argue that. The margins were thin in both elections, but they seem to be trending in the same direction as Ohio before them and, well, Missouri before that. Hanging your hat on winning Wisconsin by less than 1%, where the guy you beat was a historically unpopular president in the middle of bungling a pandemic, seems ill-advised to me.
AlkaliAxel wrote:
Tue Sep 28, 2021 1:12 pm
10 years ago, it was a pipe dream that a Republican could ever win OH, PA, WI, MI, ME, MN or heck even Iowa. Even FL is solid GOP now. So...they sacrificed GA and maybe AZ now? They'll take that deal any day of the week. They might lose some, like in 2020, but they'll also stand a much better chance to win than the Romney/Bush 2012 coalition does.
10 years ago, Republicans were only one cycle removed from winning in Ohio (for the second time in a row), Iowa, and Florida (also twice in a row), so I don't know about "pipe dream."

Post Reply