yeah and it was the "same thing" for rust belt and bible belt non-voters, until a few decades of economic downturn pushed them into the voting booth in 2016 in surprising numbers. honestly this healthcare crisis imo came just a hair too late, otherwise Bernie would have made a comeback. so many kid sitting at home, a few reddit posts on how to get absentee ballots online could have seriously inflated the votes.

Rust belt voters have always voted though...they just switched parties in a significant way. That's very different than NEVER voting. I don't think turnout changed significantly in 2016 but I don't have the data on hand.

so factor in a rust belt swap of GOP voters to the bernie block and mobilizing never voting youngsters, and you could get a far leftist POTUS.

that's what happened in Trump, midwest industrial unions are no longer democratic voters, and southern backwater trash humans are now driving their 1986 bronco down to the polls.

I explained this to ThatAlex a couple months ago. For every voter that "switches," you need to get two non-voters to replace them. In the extreme scenario where no voters switch, you would need turnout levels that have never happened in the history of our country. To me, that seems like a colossal waste of resources. In the 2020 election, I think it makes most sense to target enough consistent voters to tip the scales. Obviously, you should have a mixed strategy, but I would prioritize the "switchers" because they are more valuable.

Also, I'm not sure if America even wants a "far-anything" candidate. Polarizing candidates rely on turnout of their base which is a risky proposition.

i'd argue its far easier to get midwestern unions to switch back to the left than it is to convince kids to vote.

also i'd argue we have a far right potus right now.

Case in point: Trump would never have gotten into position to snag an electoral college win if he hadnt happened to run against a historically polarizing and unpopular candidate. The extreme distaste for Hillary is what has kept a lot of Trump-wary GOP voters in line in 2016.
The GOP took a huge risk by running a very polarizing candidate. They only got away with it because Hillary was super polarizing and flawed in her own right, so that her weaknesses neutralized Trump's.

So we are in agreement!

As for Trump being a far right president, I think there's merit to that. But Trump is also an incredibly risky candidate who frankly got really lucky. Republicans are at a disadvantage though so they might HAVE to rely on that strategy until they can get a candidate who can unite conservatives and centrists. IMO, that person is likely Nikki Haley. Her ability to thread the needle is really impressive.

yup 100% agreement i'd say

https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1250136612165636098

Indeed.

we'll see i guess. didn't work that well last time the dnc screwed bernie over and went full establishment - they lost against the worst president in american history, lol.