The US Politics/Elections Thread 2.0

[Sweersa]

Imagine if Trump picks an inspirational OnlyFans model to be his VP.  

[evilfacelessturtle]

23 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

You see, you probably think everyone that isn't beating that democratic party (better?😉) drum is right wing. By the way. Democratic party candidates call themselves democrats.

Jesus Christ...

Assume a strawman of me ("yOu PrObAblY tHiNk..."), even though I stated exactly ZERO opinions of my own in that post. I was simply calling out your talking points.

"Democrats" and "Democratic" are two different words with different meanings. One is a noun, the other is an adjective. You are bolstering the right wing's latest rhetorical tactic of using incorrect grammar as a propaganda tactic to divorce the party from the concept of democracy in the mind of the public.

Quote

The best thing about your post is you do the exact same thing you're lambasting me for. Where's your counter argument to anything I said? Your argument against "that's right wing speak", that's not exactly compelling.

... what?

Pointing out the talking points you're repeating is "the same thing I'm lambasting you for"? That doesn't even make sense. You weren't pointing out how someone else was using talking points. You're so desperate to play "I'm rubber and you're glue" that you're not even making coherent sense.

Again, the point of my post was not to state my own opinions, it was to point out how you're just parroting talking points. You're trying to divert from that by acting like I was dodging the points when I wasn't responding to them in the first place. Really weak.

Quote

He got shot. I don't know why there's this push to make it less of a big deal. This "Why are we still talking about this, it was just a graze, other people have been shot before"  It's not like he cut himself shaving FFS!😄

"Push to make it less of a big deal"? By who? Left wing media has been tripping over itself to denounce violence and blame itself even though the shooter was a registered Republican.

"Why are we still talking about this, it was just a graze, other people have been shot before" 

Who said this quote? I'm curious...

If you have to paraphrase or make up quotes, it belies the weakness of your point.

Quote

Also it's not just Republicans and right wingers who think Trump getting shot heavily increased his ability to get reelected. I think there's a resistance there to hearing things that you know are true that you don't like. Of course it boosted his popularity. 

I'm sure this will become a theme here: Just because other people say it, doesn't mean it's not a right wing narrative.

Oh, gee, look at this:

Donald Trump Does Not Get Post-Shooting Poll Boost

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-no-poll-boost-after-assassination-attempt-us-election-1925680#:~:text=Donald Trump has not received,failed assassination attempt on Saturday.

oF cOuRsE iT bOoStEd hIs pOpUlArItY!

Quote

Race/gender card. I was talking about how they are obviously going to position her for the best chance of winning. What part of that isn't true and old hat? You might not understand how politics work😉 my issue with her has nothing to do with gender or race. It has everything to do with her believability and past choices. She's not going to win on the strength of her run as VP. So they will need to pull as many cards available to get the job done.

I've worked in politics for over a decade. yOu mIgHt nOt uNdEsRtaNd hOw PolItIcS wOrK

So which is it? You're not even making a coherent point here.

Quote

But....Nope. Not right wing. I just think both sides are equally moronic. It's like arguing whether coke is better than coke zero. Such a miniscule difference in the long term. I'm yet to hear a compelling argument that isn't heavily biased on one side or the other that makes me believe both parties are not at their core very similar (not identical, just to be clear). Ones a little more this, ones a little less this... Blah, blah. Policies on issues like healthcare, reproductive rights, and climate change vary pretty widely between both parties we can all agree on that, the other stuff is not small change though and that's where these two parties generally see eye to eye. What I'm anti is this attitude of "we have to elect anyone but Trump". That's just a moronic position to take. By all means we don't want to see another 4 years of Trump, the lesser of two evils argument is not going to do it for me though. 

Jordan Peterson and Tom Pool claim they aren't right wing. That means nothing anymore because it's the right's favorite new game; pretending to be impartial and centrist.

I don't care what your politics are, I was simply pointing out that you were almost exclusively repeating right wing talking points. Very simple.

What would be your idea of a candidate who is not evil, then? Imperfection or disagreement isn't evil.

[downzy]

On 7/29/2024 at 10:43 PM, Tom2112 said:

Great running partner🤣 he has to be removed, I find it hard to believe he was the best option available.

He wasn’t.

He was chosen when Trump thought he was a lock to win after Biden’s brutal debate performance and the near assassination attempt.

Trump’s best option was (and maybe still is) Nikki Haley, assuming she would have accepted the job.

Vance is the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats. 

Also loving the whole ‘weird’ frame Democrats are employing. It’s a disarming and effective way to highlight how fucked many in the GOP have been and become. JD Vance use to be a relatively normal guy. What he has become in the last five years is hard to explain, and weird is a great and simple way to undermine both him and Trumpism. Who the fuck buries his ex wife (that he repeatedly cheated on) at his own personal golf course?

[Rindmelon]

9 hours ago, downzy said:

Who the fuck buries his ex wife (that he repeatedly cheated on) at his own personal golf course?

Possibly this type of person. 

 

 

[Tom2112]

9 hours ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Jesus Christ...

Assume a strawman of me ("yOu PrObAblY tHiNk..."), even though I stated exactly ZERO opinions of my own in that post. I was simply calling out your talking points.

"Democrats" and "Democratic" are two different words with different meanings. One is a noun, the other is an adjective. You are bolstering the right wing's latest rhetorical tactic of using incorrect grammar as a propaganda tactic to divorce the party from the concept of democracy in the mind of the public.

... what?

Pointing out the talking points you're repeating is "the same thing I'm lambasting you for"? That doesn't even make sense. You weren't pointing out how someone else was using talking points. You're so desperate to play "I'm rubber and you're glue" that you're not even making coherent sense.

Again, the point of my post was not to state my own opinions, it was to point out how you're just parroting talking points. You're trying to divert from that by acting like I was dodging the points when I wasn't responding to them in the first place. Really weak.

"Push to make it less of a big deal"? By who? Left wing media has been tripping over itself to denounce violence and blame itself even though the shooter was a registered Republican.

"Why are we still talking about this, it was just a graze, other people have been shot before" 

Who said this quote? I'm curious...

If you have to paraphrase or make up quotes, it belies the weakness of your point.

I'm sure this will become a theme here: Just because other people say it, doesn't mean it's not a right wing narrative.

Oh, gee, look at this:

Donald Trump Does Not Get Post-Shooting Poll Boost

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-no-poll-boost-after-assassination-attempt-us-election-1925680#:~:text=Donald Trump has not received,failed assassination attempt on Saturday.

oF cOuRsE iT bOoStEd hIs pOpUlArItY!

I've worked in politics for over a decade. yOu mIgHt nOt uNdEsRtaNd hOw PolItIcS wOrK

So which is it? You're not even making a coherent point here.

Jordan Peterson and Tom Pool claim they aren't right wing. That means nothing anymore because it's the right's favorite new game; pretending to be impartial and centrist.

I don't care what your politics are, I was simply pointing out that you were almost exclusively repeating right wing talking points. Very simple.

What would be your idea of a candidate who is not evil, then? Imperfection or disagreement isn't evil.

Who cares what my political beliefs are? Well, seemingly you. And you keep making this suggestive argument that I'm this far right moron. I guess I could beat you with your obvious hard left bias so? 

Ok. So you don't think that the Harris campaign is going to mention that she's both African American and a woman? I mean you've worked in politics for 10 years and you don't seem to understand how these people think at all. That would be like a war veteran not mentioning their time in the military. Certain things play well with certain voters, and yes this is one of them. If you can't even acknowledge that, then there's nothing really that we need to talk about. 

Difference between you and I, is I acknowledge both parties good and bad points, and that's why your "argument" unravels instantly. Having said that I am struggling to find a good thing to say about a Republican presidents term(s). 

[ShadowOfTheWave]

I don't believe using the term "Democrat party" is a psychological tactic to disassociate the party with democracy. If it is, it's not in reaction to the recent focus on democracy post 1/6,  because it's not at all a new term. I've seen people using it for many years, although it's always been used in a negative context and as a pejorative. I think it was something that originated in the silent/boomer conservative lexicon a couple decades ago and has seeped into regular discourse over time.

Edited July 31 by ShadowOfTheWave

[evilfacelessturtle]

9 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Who cares what my political beliefs are? Well, seemingly you. And you keep making this suggestive argument that I'm this far right moron. I guess I could beat you with your obvious hard left bias so? 

Quote one of the "hard left" opinions I've stated.

I'll wait...

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the source of this supposed quote, too:

"Why are we still talking about this, it was just a graze, other people have been shot before" 

... why can't you produce the source of this supposed quote?

Quote

Ok. So you don't think that the Harris campaign is going to mention that she's both African American and a woman? I mean you've worked in politics for 10 years and you don't seem to understand how these people think at all. That would be like a war veteran not mentioning their time in the military. Certain things play well with certain voters, and yes this is one of them. If you can't even acknowledge that, then there's nothing really that we need to talk about. 

Do I think they're going to mention it? Of course they are. That's not what "playing the race card" is. Surely you understand that phrase is a pejorative, right? It requires the invocation of race in bad faith. Any mention of race is not playing the race card.

Do you think Obama "played the race card"? That would be something like Obama accusting McCain of being racist because he doesn't like his coffee black. Not Obama putting out ads that say "let's make history with the first black president". That's literally just stating a fact.

Quote

Difference between you and I, is I acknowledge both parties good and bad points, and that's why your "argument" unravels instantly. Having said that I am struggling to find a good thing to say about a Republican presidents term(s). 

My "argument" was that you were using right wing talking points, not that you are right wing. So your strawman is the only thing unraveling here.

So you acknowledge both parties' good points, but you can't think of a good thing Republicans have done?

Edited July 31 by evilfacelessturtle

[evilfacelessturtle]

8 hours ago, ShadowOfTheWave said:

I don't believe using the term "Democrat party" is a psychological tactic to disassociate the party with democracy. If it is, it's not in reaction to the recent focus on democracy post 1/6,  because it's not at all a new term. I've seen people using it for many years, although it's always been used in a negative context and as a pejorative. I think it was something that originated in the silent/boomer conservative lexicon a couple decades ago and has seeped into regular discourse over time.

Apparently the term goes back further than I knew, but yes, it was created to do exactly that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

"United Press International reported in August 1984 that the term Democrat Party had been employed "in recent years by some right-wing Republicans" because the party's Democratic name implied that the Democrats were "the only true adherents of democracy".[8]

Language expert Roy Copperud said it was used by Republicans who disliked the implication that Democratic Party implied to listeners that Democrats "are somehow the anointed custodians of the concept of democracy".[9] According to Oxford Dictionaries, the use of Democrat rather than the adjective Democratic "is in keeping with a longstanding tradition among Republicans of dropping the –ic in order to maintain a distinction from the broader, positive associations of the adjective democratic with democracy and egalitarianism"."

[Tom2112]

2 hours ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Quote one of the "hard left" opinions I've stated.

I'll wait...

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the source of this supposed quote, too:

"Why are we still talking about this, it was just a graze, other people have been shot before" 

... why can't you produce the source of this supposed quote?

Do I think they're going to mention it? Of course they are. That's not what "playing the race card" is. Surely you understand that phrase is a pejorative, right? It requires the invocation of race in bad faith. Any mention of race is not playing the race card.

Do you think Obama "played the race card"? That would be something like Obama accusting McCain of being racist because he doesn't like his coffee black. Not Obama putting out ads that say "let's make history with the first black president". That's literally just stating a fact.

My "argument" was that you were using right wing talking points, not that you are right wing. So your strawman is the only thing unraveling here.

So you acknowledge both parties' good points, but you can't think of a good thing Republicans have done?

It's not a quote it's a collection of BS I've seen and heard spouted. I also don't need to quote you for hard left leanings it's clearly evidenced by your unbalanced response to my comment. If you were impartial you wouldn't have gone line for line nitpicking all the negatives I mentioned. Your politics, your business, fire away!

If that's what you meant then you need to say that. But of course in the context of America and the civil rights history, talking about an African American woman becoming president they will subtly or not so subtly bring up that history, that's the race card. And I don't necessarily mean she will have it on billboards, but her team will talk with media and "suggest" certain ways they want her to be portrayed. And yes, the Obama campaign was heavily fuelled on making history with the first African American president. 

I can't think of many positives from democrat president tenures either, don't go getting all excited. It was a throwaway (meant to be light hearted) comment at the end of another point, I should have known someone as pedantic as you would jump on it though.

[downzy]

Polling looks far more favourable for Harris than it did for Biden.

She's now statistically tied or winning in battle ground states that Biden was losing.  Only in Wisconsin does Harris do worse against Trump than Biden did (and it's by one percent).

Trump's campaign feels really flat flooded against Harris at this point.  I'm sure they'll find their track (cough, racism, cough), but not having Biden's age as a punching bag is really messing with their game plan.  Trump's appearance today with black journalists (who the hell advised him to do that?) was an utter train wreck. 

I'd be shocked if Trump debated Harris at all going forward.  Trump likely thinks he can only lose the election at this point.  I can see him wanting a debate a week or two out if the polling shows Harris with a comfortable lead. 

One thing is for certain is that the enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats has all but disappeared.  Democrats seem much more jazzed with Harris leading the ticket.  Her VP pick will be interesting.  Choosing Shapiro likely delivers her PA, but it could cost her Michigan (though, the latest Bloomberg poll shows her up by 11 points, which is a bit hard to believe).  I still think Mark Kelly is the best and safest choice.  

[Rindmelon]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

Polling looks far more favourable for Harris than it did for Biden.

She's now statistically tied or winning in battle ground states that Biden was losing.  Only in Wisconsin does Harris do worse against Trump than Biden did (and it's by one percent).

Trump's campaign feels really flat flooded against Harris at this point.  I'm sure they'll find their track (cough, racism, cough), but not having Biden's age as a punching bag is really messing with their game plan.  Trump's appearance today with black journalists (who the hell advised him to do that?) was an utter train wreck. 

I'd be shocked if Trump debated Harris at all going forward.  Trump likely thinks he can only lose the election at this point.  I can see him wanting a debate a week or two out if the polling shows Harris with a comfortable lead. 

One thing is for certain is that the enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats has all but disappeared.  Democrats seem much more jazzed with Harris leading the ticket.  Her VP pick will be interesting.  Choosing Shapiro likely delivers her PA, but it could cost her Michigan (though, the latest Bloomberg poll shows her up by 11 points, which is a bit hard to believe).  I still think Mark Kelly is the best and safest choice.  

Nice to see journalists tying to do there job of holding those in power to account instead of throwing softballs. He reacted like he tends to react when pressed on things. But whilst that reaction may make those who already abhor him just continue too, it will be seen as strength from those who worship him.

In any other race in any other country I could see something like that swaying people's decision but in this instance I don't see too many undecided voters, If you were going to vote for him 6 months ago you still are & if you were going to vote against him you still are. So whilst it is good and clearly right that journalists do there job, i wonder if car crash tv segments like that will sway people in the long run. We shall see

 

[downzy]

8 hours ago, Rindmelon said:

In any other race in any other country I could see something like that swaying people's decision but in this instance I don't see too many undecided voters, If you were going to vote for him 6 months ago you still are & if you were going to vote against him you still are. So whilst it is good and clearly right that journalists do there job, i wonder if car crash tv segments like that will sway people in the long run. We shall see

Elections, particularly U.S. federal elections, aren't decided simply by convincing and converting people to your cause.  If 2016 proved anything, motivating (or demotivating) people to vote can swing an election.  These types of moments can be critical for deciding elections since it can motivate or demotivate a certain segment.  Particularly, Trump has been finding success with black voters, particularly black men.  An event like yesterday is a good reminder that Trump's views on black Americans are nothing but transactional; race to him is relevant only if it means something to him.  While a black male might not be swayed to vote for Harris, Trump's responses to yesterday's interview might be enough for him not to vote at all.  If he wants to win states like Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina, he needs to improve his share of the black vote.  And that doesn't happen with interviews like yesterday.  

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

why would VP Harris have Megan the Stallion perform at the Democratic convention? lol

I hope there's video of it!

On 7/30/2024 at 6:18 AM, Sweersa said:

Imagine if Trump picks an inspirational OnlyFans model to be his VP.  

Trump needs to re think Vance. The guy is a moron and a bigot. I'm surprised he's married to a woman of color with all his horrible views on woman?

[Sweersa]

2 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Trump needs to re think Vance. The guy is a moron and a bigot. I'm surprised he's married to a woman of color with all his horrible views on woman?

I don't know much about Vance aside from his comment on crazy single cat ladies. I'm a crazy single cat daddy.  

I didn't realize he was married to a woman of color. As long as they are both happy, good for them. 

I'm pretty sure the Trump official campaign has printed up Trump Vance merch, yard signs, etc. so maybe that's the only reason Trump is keeping him? Vance was a known critic of Trump a little while ago, so perhaps that was intentional for some reason? (As a way to challenge Trump?) Who knows. 

I'm more interested to see who Kamala picks as her VP. 

[-W.A.R-]

8 minutes ago, Sweersa said:

 Vance was a known critic of Trump a little while ago, so perhaps that was intentional for some reason? (As a way to challenge Trump?) Who knows.

No he just genuflected enough and that's all that matters to Trump. It was Don Jr who thought a guy with the politics of an incel was a good VP pick. 

[Sweersa]

45 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

No he just genuflected enough and that's all that matters to Trump. It was Don Jr who thought a guy with the politics of an incel was a good VP pick. 

Well, if it works.

-Anakin Skywalker

[downzy]

Oops…

 

[evilfacelessturtle]

22 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

It's not a quote it's a collection of BS I've seen and heard spouted.

Just as I suspected, you put quotes around something that was never said by any left winger of any power or influence, and which cannot be verified. Characterizing an entire party with a made up quote that a couple random people supposedly said (trust me, bro).

Quote

I also don't need to quote you for hard left leanings it's clearly evidenced by your unbalanced response to my comment. If you were impartial you wouldn't have gone line for line nitpicking all the negatives I mentioned. Your politics, your business, fire away!

What a lame cop out. If it were so obvious, it would be incredibly easy to quote. And yet, you can't.

I never said I was impartial. I said that my comment did not state my opinions. One can have opinions without stating them. You're not very good at this.

Pointing out that someone is attacking only one side makes you partisan? That's not how it works. If somebody was claiming to be impartial but only attacking republicans, I would call BS on that just the same. Your need to turn this around on me reveals how incapable you are of simply responding to what I'm saying.

Quote

If that's what you meant then you need to say that.

I need to define well known phrases when using them by their most common usage? Are you seriously going to stand here and say that "playing the race card" is not primarily used as a pejorative?

Quote

But of course in the context of America and the civil rights history, talking about an African American woman becoming president they will subtly or not so subtly bring up that history, that's the race card.

So now, not only is merely mentioning the existence of discrimination "playing the race card", but even mentioning anything that might bring that to mind by tangential relation is playing the race card?

This means that a black person cannot even talk about discrimination without being accused of playing the race card. Do you really not see the problem with this logic? "Playing the race card" is a cynical and dishonest leveraging of race in a situation where it does not apply. Getting kicked out of a bar for being belligerent, then claiming you were kicked out because of your race would be an example of "playing the race card". It does not mean "being black and mentioning race".

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply using the term incorrectly.

[evilfacelessturtle]

6 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

why would VP Harris have Megan the Stallion perform at the Democratic convention? lol

I hope there's video of it!

Trump needs to re think Vance. The guy is a moron and a bigot. I'm surprised he's married to a woman of color with all his horrible views on woman?

The whole thing is a grift. He started by trying to grift the left with his book Hillbilly Elegy. Had moderate success with that, but then it fizzled out and he realized that the right is a scammer's paradise, and where all the billionaire funding lives. He got backed by billionaire Peter Thiel, who then offered Trump a ton of money in exchange for Vance as VP and unsurprisingly the most nakedly corrupt politician of all time accepted this quid pro quo.

If anyone is wondering why Trump picked the guy who called him "American Hitler", there you have it. The MAGA movement is entirely made up of scammers and grifters.

[-W.A.R-]

1 hour ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

The MAGA movement is entirely made up of scammers and grifters.

The scary part is I think they are actually starting to believe their own fear mongering and have become completely deluded.

Edited August 2 by -W.A.R-

[downzy]

24 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

The whole thing is a grift. He started by trying to grift the left with his book Hillbilly Elegy. Had moderate success with that, but then it fizzled out and he realized that the right is a scammer's paradise, and where all the billionaire funding lives. He got backed by billionaire Peter Thiel, who then offered Trump a ton of money in exchange for Vance as VP and unsurprisingly the most nakedly corrupt politician of all time accepted this quid pro quo.

If anyone is wondering why Trump picked the guy who called him "American Hitler", there you have it. The MAGA movement is entirely made up of scammers and grifters.

For me, Vance is a good example of the "recent convert" phenomenon.

I don't think any of it is actually a grift.  I think he believed what he believed back in 2016 and believes what he believes in 2024.

You can see this dynamic in the anti-anti Trump group and the never Trump group.  The anti-anti Trump folks started out disliking some of the responses from Democrats to Trump (particularly around Russia), which put them on a path that led them to being pro-Trump.  Russell Brand is a good example of this.  Here's a guy who was predominantly left-leaning and ripped into Trump and Trumpism eight years ago, but now shows up at the RNC convention and hawks the most insane theories about Democrats and the left. 

Recent coverts are often more hardcore in ideological beliefs than old stalwarts.  Part of it is about convincing themselves.  You see this with the Never Trumpers, who a few years ago were fairly conservative about everything and who have now bought into the Democratic platform.  It's an interesting phenomenon that I think explains guys like Vance.

Trump himself use to be in on the joke (that is himself as a character). He supported Democratic politicians and causes.  Just like Trump, Vance's personal ambitions outweighed his principles and values.  I think it's really hard to believe one thing and act in the opposite direction for a long time.  It can be done for a short term, but for a lot of these guys, cognitive dissonance is too strong and their fall down the rabbit hole is not a conscious one.  I saw the same thing with a lot of members who use to post here.  Guys like @bran use to be fairly even keeled and sensible in his posts; now he spouts inane conspiracy theories about election fraud elsewhere.  It's a shame really. 

[downzy]

12 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

The scary part is I think they actually starting to believe their own fear mongering and have become completely deluded.

I can only hope voters don't delude themselves into thinking Trump's concern is the economy.

 

Most absolutely believe it.

Maybe for a time in 2016 did they play along and enjoy the spectacle, believing that it wasn't likely Trump was a plausible candidate to be President.  Trump was a fun middle finger to the system for most of these people.  

But after eight years of this nonsense, many have converted to the Church of MAGA.  It's a religion for many.  And religion is big on belief and faith, not so much on critical and rational thinking. 

[Sweersa]

12 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

The scary part is I think they are actually starting to believe their own fear mongering and have become completely deluded.

You could say the same thing about the left, or at least the ones who were ignoring Biden's fairly obvious decline until he dropped. The whole thing is a mess. It blows my mind both major parties can't shake themselves from who they have been propping up for years. Easy for me to say though, as an independent. (I guess that is what I would be? I hate labels!) 

[downzy]

2 hours ago, Sweersa said:

You could say the same thing about the left, or at least the ones who were ignoring Biden's fairly obvious decline until he dropped. The whole thing is a mess. It blows my mind both major parties can't shake themselves from who they have been propping up for years. Easy for me to say though, as an independent. (I guess that is what I would be? I hate labels!) 

Sorry, I'm having a hard time following here.

Both parties have responded differently with respect to his leading their party at this point.  So I'm curious why you think both parties are guilty of not being able to shake who they have been propping up.  Democrats are no longer carrying Biden after his debate performance.  Republicans continue to support Trump despite his obvious cognitive decline (and other issues).

So again, not sure why you're employing both side-ism with respect to how each party has managed a very similar situation.  

[downzy]

Looks like the betting markets are predicting Shapiro will get the VP nod.  So I guess I was off about Kelly.

Shapiro makes sense if Harris wants to lock down Pennsylvania.  The guy is a rock star in his state.  Whether it costs Harris support in Michigan is up to debate.

But if this does help give PA to Harris, it leaves her needing two of the five other swing states (WI, MI, AZ, GA, NC).  Trump would need to essentially win four of them if he can't win PA.  That assumes she's able to hold on to NM and NV.