|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by UkWinds5353
(Post 12835090)
Let me say it is always preferable to be forewarned and over prepared than to get caught by surprise, and for that reason I much rather see all voters hold your concerned approach to the upcoming election. Most of us do know there will be a multitude of dirty tricks yet to come from the Trump & company administration. And I repeat this election will be decided based on those voters that were not excited about Hillary and stayed home.
Those same voters are extremely excited about Joe Biden which explain to a large degree why the Vice President has been able to come from behind and pull away from Bernie Sanders and take a stranglehold on the Democrat nomination. And I think the honorable Senator from Vermont has said as much himself. Those are the same voters in line today in Wisconsin despite being forced to vote in deadly circumstances, by certain powers that put those voters in danger during a dangerous pandemic. Those same powers that could care less about an American Navy warship filled with young people that had a brave Captain who begged for help to protect his crew that were sick with a deadly virus that was spreading on his ship. Trust me, there are a lot of rational people who are Republicans that have had enough. And November can't come soon enough. What will be interesting is: 1. While I mentioned the Upper Midwest previously - in 2016, Arizona was Trump + 3.5%, North Carolina was Trump + 3.5%, and Georgia was Trump + 5%. In any normal recent election - if the Democrat was within 5% of the Republican in those states, you would have assumed that the Democrat was winning the overall election, going away. So what will be interesting is to see if these states and the Upper Midwest continue to decouple from the trend - at which point we may look back at 2016 as the harbinger of a realignment election, and 2008 and 2012 as the last goes of an old map. 2. This also means, a fairly modest national swing to Biden could result in an Electoral College landslide. 3. But it does worry me - 3.5% is a lot to make up in one election cycle (not impossible, just difficult), and it means Biden's margin for error in other states could be a lot less than it seems. This why he needs Florida. Florida plus any one of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Arizona, North Carolina, or Georgia would be enough. Without Florida, the road gets more complex and difficult. 4. The popular vote in 2016 was 48.2% to 46.1%. On 48.2% - Democrats usually lose. Kerry lost on 48.3% and Gore lost (or 'lost') on 48.4%. Clinton won in 1996 on 49.1%. That Trump won on 46.1% is absolutely astonishing and defies electoral physics. But it highlights that, despite the harping on Clinton's popular vote win - she actually did not get a percentage of the vote outside of the historical "lose zone" for the Democratic Party. Biden will need to grow Hillary's total by another 1% to 1.5% at least. Which sounds easy but as I just said - few have actually done it in modern presidential politics. 5. The perception has somehow become otherwise - but Hillary Clinton was actually one of the most inexperienced and untested major nominees in history. Clinton's 1990s wins were Bill's, not hers. She was not in on strategy or major stumping or any of that. Her first foray into major policy with Health Care Reform in the early 1990s was an abject disaster and Bill had to usher her into the broom closet afterwards. She got parachuted into an ultra-safe Senate seat in 2000 - she did not have to be likable or connect with voters to win in New York State, she just had to be a Democrat. In her presidential primary in 2008, she took almost unprecedented advantages and coughed them up, and her campaign in 2016 was incompetent. It seems to go unremarked that in 2016, Hillary got absolutely stomped in Arkansas. In 2008, that was one of the selling points that she used, that Arkansas was in the bag and she would open up the South for the Democrats. So, did something change, or was it just more poor, incorrect and inaccurate analysis from her and her team? I am expecting much more competence, situational awareness, tactical innovation and, frankly, professionalism from Joe Biden. 6. West Virginia, will have some interesting data that pertains to Pennsylvania and Ohio. West Virginia went from McCain + 13% in 2008 to Romney + 29% in 2012 to Trump + 42% in 2016. That's significant because the West Virginia demographic is the same as the rural Pennsylvania and rural Ohio demographic. If it continues to radicalise to the right - Ohio is probably gone and it makes generating enough turnout in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to overcome that, a lot tougher. The rural Michigan and rural Wisconsin demographic isn't that much different either. Iowa will trend somewhat similar to Ohio but may be a bit more Biden-friendly. I'm not sure that winning back Iowa fits prominently on Biden's mathematical path to victory - I would not expect him to spend a lot of time or money there unless the polls there prove unexpectedly favourable. 7. Number of registered Democrats vs number of registered Republicans in a particular state, is a useless statistic. These are relics to past eras. Louisiana has 25% more registered Democrats than Republicans and that is far from an outlier in the South. Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky and South Carolina all have substantially more registered Democrats than Republicans. There are more registered Republicans in New Hampshire than Democrats. Etc etc etc. |
Re: 2020 Election
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by civilservant
(Post 12835416)
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Jerseygirl
(Post 12835417)
the only surprise is the length of time it’s taken to announce this.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by carcajou
(Post 12835225)
...
4. The popular vote in 2016 was 48.2% to 46.1%. On 48.2% - Democrats usually lose. Kerry lost on 48.3% and Gore lost (or 'lost') on 48.4%. Clinton won in 1996 on 49.1%. That Trump won on 46.1% is absolutely astonishing and defies electoral physics. But it highlights that, despite the harping on Clinton's popular vote win - she actually did not get a percentage of the vote outside of the historical "lose zone" for the Democratic Party. Biden will need to grow Hillary's total by another 1% to 1.5% at least. Which sounds easy but as I just said - few have actually done it in modern presidential politics. ... |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12835528)
A lot is said about the popular vote but I think it is over-estimated. Both sides understand the ways of the electoral college and thus, campaign appropriately. I doubt Trump spent a penny campaigning in CA or NY for example, because he knew he wouldn't win those populous states, and as a result, he probably got fewer votes in those states than he would have had he (wasted his time and money) campaigned there. Similarly, No democrat is going to spend money campaigning in Utah. Further - if you are a Republican voter in CA or NY, you may very well not bother to vote because you know your vote isn't going to 'mean anything'. So placing a lot of emphasis on who won the 'popular vote' is simply wrong. IF the popular vote were to matter, campaigns would be run differently.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by robin1234
(Post 12835607)
Surely, it partly depends on your house district, even if the republican voter is in CA or NY? I’m in NY 21, Elise Stefanik’s district, she’s prominent nationally as a Trump attack dog, she’ll be spending a huge amount on this year’s campaign. Assuming she motivates her supporters to get out and vote, they’ll vote for President Trump too - coat-tails work in both directions, I guess?
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by carcajou
(Post 12835225)
I wonder if they are excited about Biden or just Sanders is very toxic, but that's neither here nor there.
What will be interesting is: 1. While I mentioned the Upper Midwest previously - in 2016, Arizona was Trump + 3.5%, North Carolina was Trump + 3.5%, and Georgia was Trump + 5%. In any normal recent election - if the Democrat was within 5% of the Republican in those states, you would have assumed that the Democrat was winning the overall election, going away. So what will be interesting is to see if these states and the Upper Midwest continue to decouple from the trend - at which point we may look back at 2016 as the harbinger of a realignment election, and 2008 and 2012 as the last goes of an old map. 2. This also means, a fairly modest national swing to Biden could result in an Electoral College landslide. 3. But it does worry me - 3.5% is a lot to make up in one election cycle (not impossible, just difficult), and it means Biden's margin for error in other states could be a lot less than it seems. This why he needs Florida. Florida plus any one of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Arizona, North Carolina, or Georgia would be enough. Without Florida, the road gets more complex and difficult. 4. The popular vote in 2016 was 48.2% to 46.1%. On 48.2% - Democrats usually lose. Kerry lost on 48.3% and Gore lost (or 'lost') on 48.4%. Clinton won in 1996 on 49.1%. That Trump won on 46.1% is absolutely astonishing and defies electoral physics. But it highlights that, despite the harping on Clinton's popular vote win - she actually did not get a percentage of the vote outside of the historical "lose zone" for the Democratic Party. Biden will need to grow Hillary's total by another 1% to 1.5% at least. Which sounds easy but as I just said - few have actually done it in modern presidential politics. 5. The perception has somehow become otherwise - but Hillary Clinton was actually one of the most inexperienced and untested major nominees in history. Clinton's 1990s wins were Bill's, not hers. She was not in on strategy or major stumping or any of that. Her first foray into major policy with Health Care Reform in the early 1990s was an abject disaster and Bill had to usher her into the broom closet afterwards. She got parachuted into an ultra-safe Senate seat in 2000 - she did not have to be likable or connect with voters to win in New York State, she just had to be a Democrat. In her presidential primary in 2008, she took almost unprecedented advantages and coughed them up, and her campaign in 2016 was incompetent. It seems to go unremarked that in 2016, Hillary got absolutely stomped in Arkansas. In 2008, that was one of the selling points that she used, that Arkansas was in the bag and she would open up the South for the Democrats. So, did something change, or was it just more poor, incorrect and inaccurate analysis from her and her team? I am expecting much more competence, situational awareness, tactical innovation and, frankly, professionalism from Joe Biden. 6. West Virginia, will have some interesting data that pertains to Pennsylvania and Ohio. West Virginia went from McCain + 13% in 2008 to Romney + 29% in 2012 to Trump + 42% in 2016. That's significant because the West Virginia demographic is the same as the rural Pennsylvania and rural Ohio demographic. If it continues to radicalise to the right - Ohio is probably gone and it makes generating enough turnout in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to overcome that, a lot tougher. The rural Michigan and rural Wisconsin demographic isn't that much different either. Iowa will trend somewhat similar to Ohio but may be a bit more Biden-friendly. I'm not sure that winning back Iowa fits prominently on Biden's mathematical path to victory - I would not expect him to spend a lot of time or money there unless the polls there prove unexpectedly favourable. 7. Number of registered Democrats vs number of registered Republicans in a particular state, is a useless statistic. These are relics to past eras. Louisiana has 25% more registered Democrats than Republicans and that is far from an outlier in the South. Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky and South Carolina all have substantially more registered Democrats than Republicans. There are more registered Republicans in New Hampshire than Democrats. Etc etc etc. When you're not the most likable person to begin with it's super important to at least show people you will care about their concerns and fight to make their life better. Not going to a person's state to ask for their vote is a weird way to prove your loyalty. Now let's contrast that with Joe Biden aka Uncle Joe. That man has spent his life not enriching himself but improving the opportunities of others. He is Mr middle class and voters know it. Look how African Americans put him on their backs and treated him as Obama's wingman, and took him from South Carolina's blowout win to Super Tuesday to the second super Tuesday with wins in Michigan, all the way over to Washington state. And Biden won all those states with ZERO money. It was people power. That is the same reason why people stood in line yesterday in Wisconsin knowing full well they could get sick with the virus. I'm telling you people will do what it takes to get Trump out and Donald knows it. Have you heard his latest comments about Hispanics and African Americans need to be careful voting in public places. From all the acts of putting children in cages to Donald attacking women, all those things are going to be on the ballot and quite a few Republicans who support Trump are going to try explain away Donald's behavior. There is a old say in politics if you are having to explain your behavior you are probably losing. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12835749)
Definitely, and there are some Republican strongholds in CA, and those districts will therefore turn out. But I think overall, there's both strategic campaigning and strategic voting, and the combination of the two can lead to variations in the popular vote. If the presidency were decided on a popular vote, I do feel the numbers would be significantly different.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...epresentatives |
Re: 2020 Election
The debates are going to be hilarious. "The pandemic of 17...16"
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by kimilseung
(Post 12836290)
The debates are going to be hilarious. "The pandemic of 17...16"
"The pandemic of 17....16" |
Re: 2020 Election
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/09/polit...ick/index.html
The Top 10 women Joe Biden might choose as his VP1. Kamala Harris: At a virtual fundraiser Wednesday, Biden praised the California senator for running a "helluva race" for president and adding: "I'm so lucky to have you be a part of this partnership going forward. Working together, we can make a great deal of progress. ... I'm coming for you, kid." Eyebrows raised! Harris checks all the boxes for Biden -- an African American and Indian American woman from a huge Democratic (and donor) state who proved herself to be an able debater during her own run for president. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12836303)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/09/polit...ick/index.html
The Top 10 women Joe Biden might choose as his VPThe adds write themselves. Various politicos like Harris etc will also be gunning for other senior jobs in the Cabinet etc and these wink-wink things could be references to that too. Biden doesn't need Harris to help with California fund-raising. He has that sewn up already, and his campaign operation will tap into their storehouse of tech and corporate execs, and celebrities and use the superior networks of those people. They don't need the network of a medium-profile Senator. When was the last time someone from California was on any ticket? Reagan? |
Re: 2020 Election
After all the fuss, I am expecting a PoC. But Kamala, really?
|
Re: 2020 Election
Bernie is showing a lot of class. Bernie says Joe is 100 bazillion times better than Trump. Does Bernie have dementia too?
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 6:15 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.