Jump to content
Columbo

2020 Presidential Election Discussion

Recommended Posts

Keep in mind that Kentucky's state politics are a little weird and the way they vote in state elections doesn't always correspond to how they feel about the national parties. They've had far more Democratic governors than Republican governors, even after the post-Nixon Dixiecrat inversion. 


“To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, audidave said:

In massive landslide scenario, I could see Utah and Montana going Biden.  I would wonder about Kentucky since they just voted for an anti-trump governor.  I’m sure there are better people here to give insight. I believe the primary is this Tuesday so that will give a better indication of what is going on in KY. 


The last poll in Kentucky had Trump up 20%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^it would seem that there are enough cities and suburbs in KY to offset the rural vote that might be buying what trump is spouting.  If this is a big turnout election like Obama which I can certainly see it being, then yes Democrats have a good chance.  There will be a lot of money spent going after McConnell so it will be high stakes there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Moore Facebook post from earlier this morning on the Trump followers...he's 100% correct.     Just saw video from 7 am in Tulsa and the line is huge outside the arena.   

 

 

Screen Shot 2020-06-20 at 9.41.32 AM.png

Screen Shot 2020-06-20 at 9.41.23 AM.png

Edited by Cleburger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

Michael Moore Facebook post from earlier this morning on the Trump followers...he's 100% correct.     Just saw video from 7 am in Tulsa and the line is huge outside the arena.   

 

 

Screen Shot 2020-06-20 at 9.41.32 AM.png

Screen Shot 2020-06-20 at 9.41.23 AM.png

 

I disagree with his whole premise.  First of all, there is plenty of evidence Trump actually HAS lost at least some support, especially from the moderates and independents who were willing to give him a chance the first time because they didn't like Clinton.  His rallies are not indicative of the national feelings of Trump anymore than they were in 2016 when he lost the popular vote.  A few few states put Trump in office, and many Democrats were caught off guard in part because little polling in those critical states failed to capture late movement, especially after the Comey October surprise.  Second, Trump's base is still very much the minority.  Trump has never had positive approval ratings.  He's never been able to expand his base.  His base IS certainly enthusiastic about him, but camping out for days to see him does not change that a lot more people despise him.  

The key is obviously going to be turnout, and turnout specifically in swing states.  Personally, I've never been more motivated to vote in my life.  I don't know anyone who isn't motivated.  Trump's base may or may not be more enthusiastic to support him specifically than Biden's base is for him, but this is less about Biden and far more about Trump, just like the 2018 midterms were.  Far more people want Trump gone than want him to stay, no matter how many thousands show up for a MAGA rally.  All polling supports this, especially when even long-established red states are showing Trump has lost half his support or more.  

Now, that is certainly not to say that we should all get complacent.  We absolutely should not.  We should work to get everyone out to vote, to make sure our friends and families either make it to the  polls, or make sure their ballots are sent in before any deadlines.  We need to make sure this is a massive repudiation of everything Trump and his supporters stand for, to completely destroy the moral bankruptcy and monstrous corruption of their agenda.  I will personally do everything I can to do my part to make that a reality.  Trump is a clear danger to the country and every citizen within it, even to his own supporters who he would mow down if they ever stood in his way.  So yeah, I disagree with Moore's premise almost entirely, but at the same time, I'm fine with him making it.  If it keeps some people from getting too comfortable with the polling or movement, then that's a good thing.  

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Agreed. Honestly at this point if his most ardent trump supporters wish to risk getting covid to hear the idiot spew whatever pops into his mind I’m totally cool with it.  Its an interesting test of what not to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, audidave said:

^Agreed. Honestly at this point if his most ardent trump supporters wish to risk getting covid to hear the idiot spew whatever pops into his mind I’m totally cool with it.  Its an interesting test of what not to do. 

It's a sign of weakness too that he's starting in Oklahoma, one of the very reddist states, and will next be going to Arizona, TX (both reliably red but purpling) and NC in the next few weeks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in America could we get a dictator that rails on about voting by mail, after voting by mail.  Most would have shown up for a photo op at the ballot box. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

This report has Biden taking in $12 million more than Trump last month. 

 

That's only one piece of the total funding:

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/20/858347477/money-tracker-how-much-trump-and-biden-have-raised-in-the-2020-election

 

Besides, Hillary out-raised Trump by almost double in 2016 and we all saw how that worked out. I'm hesitant to put much emphasis on fundraising as an indicator of votes. It seems to be an indicator of a radial base moreso than overall support. Bernie is notoriously good at fundraising and notoriously bad at getting votes, for example. He manages to eek out $25 or $100 from every one of his voters, but can't manage to get many undecideds to vote for him. Elections are won with the votes of people who wouldn't ever dare donate to a political campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cleburger said:

This report has Biden taking in $12 million more than Trump last month.  

 

 

 

 

 

Basically anything this sad, old man does at this point puts him in a position to be mocked.  It's only funny because he's so damned cruel when he thinks he's on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

That's only one piece of the total funding:

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/20/858347477/money-tracker-how-much-trump-and-biden-have-raised-in-the-2020-election

 

Besides, Hillary out-raised Trump by almost double in 2016 and we all saw how that worked out. I'm hesitant to put much emphasis on fundraising as an indicator of votes. It seems to be an indicator of a radial base moreso than overall support. Bernie is notoriously good at fundraising and notoriously bad at getting votes, for example. He manages to eek out $25 or $100 from every one of his voters, but can't manage to get many undecideds to vote for him. Elections are won with the votes of people who wouldn't ever dare donate to a political campaign.


To your point @Ram23, I believe money in politics doesn’t turn that many people. However, the Republican Party has run out of scare tactics. They never had ideas how to govern and people outside of the rich and virulent racist have figured out that their platform doesn’t really jell with independents.


Republicans also lost the whole “ balanced budget argument.” Fiscal conservatism is dead. Passing a tax cut  without any offsetting cuts to other programs goes against the very ideas of fiscal conservatism. The offset to that is even more of the “ rich get richer and the poor get poorer), not to mention another trillion dollars a year to the federal deficit just so “Bif” can get a tax cut on his private jet. This tax reform bill totally screws the middle class.and everyone knows that. My wife and I make a decent amount of money and without changing a thing tax wise, we are getting an extra 20k back a year. To me that’s not right but I’ll take it because, why not, it’s the great American Republican handout,. Calling yourselves a conservative is a joke these days. 
 

I won’t touch on the racist piece. That’s kinda well known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 9:52 AM, Cleburger said:

Michael Moore Facebook post from earlier this morning on the Trump followers...he's 100% correct.     Just saw video from 7 am in Tulsa and the line is huge outside the arena.   

 

 

Screen Shot 2020-06-20 at 9.41.32 AM.png

Screen Shot 2020-06-20 at 9.41.23 AM.png

 

Dem voters knew they weren't getting crowd sizes when they picked Biden. However, in spite of Trump's 2016 victory, crowd sizes are still not votes. If they were, Biden wouldn't have won the primary. If Moore was serious about trying to beat Trump/help Biden, he'd be posting something positive about Joe Biden instead of concern trolling. If he was serious about building enthusiasm, he'd help build enthusiasm instead of helping to dampen it. But he isn't serious, so instead we get this trash, Michael Moore might as well be a Trump supporter as far as I'm concerned.

 

Moore and his ilk want Biden to fail for the same reason they wanted Hillary to fail - if Biden fails, Moore gets to pat himself on the back and parade around talking about how clairvoyant he is. 

 

And I didn't even mention the fact that the rally didn't turn out like this at all.

Edited by mu2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.692a73129e662762ef3eb8299e011417.png

Biden is now up 10% nationally in 538's average.

image.png.cb2ceaaa5435adbd90031afab0013153.png

 

RCP doesn't weight for anything and allows in fewer polls (Morning Consult - with a large ~31k sample size - and Data for Progress - which nailed most of the early Dem primary states - are excluded) has it at Biden +10.2% nationally.

 

image.png.3e9c19c23aa2cececbb0c412edcc7770.png

 

Dems also lead by over 8% on the Generic Ballot for the House.

 

Back to the Presidential and what will decide it - the six battleground states and where they stand:

-AZ: Biden +4.9% (538) / Biden +4% (RCP)

-FL: Biden +7.5% (538) / Biden +6.2% (RCP)

-MI: Biden +9.7% (538) / Biden +8% (RCP)

-NC: Biden +1.9% (538) / Trump +0.6% (RCP)

-PA: Biden +5.7% (538) / Biden +5.6% (RCP)

-WI: Biden +7.3% (538) / Biden +5.4% (RCP)

 

If you follow RCP's average of these states as is, Biden racks up 318 electrical college votes - and that's absent any further flips in OH, GA, TX, IA, NH, etc.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.blackenterprise.com/eric-trump-calls-black-lives-matter-protesters-animals-at-tulsa-rally/

 

We kind of glossed over it this weekend because it was more about Trump's pathetic turnout in Tulsa, but Trump *did*...sort of...try to "kick off" his re-election campaign.

 

The rally was held on June 20th, the day after Juneteenth in Tulsa, OK, the site of one of the worst attacks on black Americans in U.S history in 1921.

 

Here is what Eric Trump focused on:

Quote

“We’re going to keep the moral fabric of this country,” he claimed, with wife Lara by his side. “Because when you watch the nonsense on TV, when you see these animals literally taking over our cities, burning down churches, this isn’t America. That’s not what Americans do.”

 

Trump went on to promise the sparse audience that if his dad is elected, he will protect the greeting “Merry Christmas,” which right-wing activists have long groundlessly claimed liberals are plotting to abolish.

 

"We are going to say, 'Merry Christmas,' which is totally under assault," Trump said.

 

-Throw in a term with racist overtones? Check.

-Completely miss the opportunity to discuss the history of racism in America at the site of one of the worst racist attacks in our history? Check.

-Lean in to a bullsh** culture war against the phrase, "Happy Holidays?" Check.

 

I'm confused - are we *NOW* saying "Merry Christmas" again or do we need to elect Trump in order to say it?  I can't keep up.  It can't be both.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I can't imagine what might be going on in this country right now that might be more important than a fight of saying "Merry Christmas".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t_1520964379793_name_fidgetspinner.gif


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.253ca7a6e306baff369ba36d7a096a1c.png

 

Truly incredible polling dump by an A+ rated pollster.  Biden up by at least 6 in every one of the six battleground states.  Dem candidates up in two of the more competitive Senate races as well.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biden Is Getting a Lot of Advice on His V.P. Here’s What Voters Think.

A large majority of voters say race should not be a factor in his decision, and none of the best-known candidates has emerged as a favorite.

 

By Alexander Burns and Katie Glueck

 

Joseph R. Biden Jr. appears to face limited political pressure from voters about whom to choose as his running mate, with no contender emerging as a clear favorite and the great majority of people saying that race should not be a factor in his decision, according to polling conducted by The New York Times and Siena College.

 

Mr. Biden has pledged to select a woman as his nominee for vice president, and his advisers are vetting more than half a dozen people for the job. In recent weeks, amid ongoing demonstrations against racism and police violence, a number of prominent Democrats have pressed Mr. Biden to select an African-American woman. And his search committee has been reviewing at least five black women, one Latina and one Asian-American candidate.

 

Earlier this month, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, a white moderate, removed herself from consideration for vice president after sustained criticism of her record as a prosecutor, and she publicly urged Mr. Biden to put a woman of color on his ticket.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/biden-vice-president-voters.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20200626&instance_id=19769&nl=the-morning&regi_id=102158875&segment_id=31917&te=1&user_id=c9e72708f4bc66e6d64b23c3b36509c8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The fact that there's any pressure whatsoever for Biden to choose a running mate based upon skin color or sex is a perfect example of one of the Democratic Party's major faults. It's identity politics run amok.

 

Promising to pick a woman was a dumb and desperate move that he should have never made. He essentially eliminated half of the candidates solely based upon their sex. In hiring practices, that isn't even legal. But for picking a vice president? It's not only perfectly fine, it's apparently commendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

^ The fact that there's any pressure whatsoever for Biden to choose a running mate based upon skin color or sex is a perfect example of one of the Democratic Party's major faults. It's identity politics run amok.

 

Promising to pick a woman was a dumb and desperate move that he should have never made. He essentially eliminated half of the candidates solely based upon their sex. In hiring practices, that isn't even legal. But for picking a vice president? It's not only perfectly fine, it's apparently commendable.

 

Trump's cabinet is 81.25% white men.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

^ The fact that there's any pressure whatsoever for Biden to choose a running mate based upon skin color or sex is a perfect example of one of the Democratic Party's major faults. It's identity politics run amok.

 

Promising to pick a woman was a dumb and desperate move that he should have never made. He essentially eliminated half of the candidates solely based upon their sex. In hiring practices, that isn't even legal. But for picking a vice president? It's not only perfectly fine, it's apparently commendable.

 

And depending on the woman chosen, it could lead to a huge landslide loss for Trump (a man who clearly lacks respect for women).   My wish:  Michelle Obama.   Trump losing to an Obama would be EPIC!   🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

And depending on the woman chosen, it could lead to a huge landslide loss for Trump (a man who clearly lacks respect for women).   My wish:  Michelle Obama.   Trump losing to an Obama would be EPIC!   🤣

 

Quote

And his search committee has been reviewing at least five black women, one Latina and one Asian-American candidate.

 

-Latina: I thought might have been Catherine Cortez Masto, but all the "insider" power rankings are saying it's New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham

-Asian-American: Tammy Duckworth

-Five black women: Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams, Val Demings, Susan Rice, and Keisha Lance Bottoms seem to be on all of the lists as well.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

And depending on the woman chosen, it could lead to a huge landslide loss for Trump...

 

It could also lead to a huge landslide loss for Biden, when his running mate inevitably drops out of the campaign after a couple weeks because he wouldn't stop sniffing her hair on the campaign bus.

 

BGYSJ3FB2A2I3KPS5OR4NJEAQ4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Warren but that pick just doesn't make sense unless polling shows that she uniquely helps secure the nomination. You really want someone younger to stand in line for the future presidency. Plus you don't want to lose Warren's senate seat. 

 

I don't want to see Kamala Harris. I'm hoping the choice is for someone more progressive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

It could also lead to a huge landslide loss for Biden, when his running mate inevitably drops out of the campaign after a couple weeks because he wouldn't stop sniffing her hair on the campaign bus.

 

Wait until you see the tape of what Trump once said on a bus...


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, surfohio said:

I'd like to see Warren but that pick just doesn't make sense unless polling shows that she uniquely helps secure the nomination. You really want someone younger to stand in line for the future presidency. Plus you don't want to lose Warren's senate seat. 

 

I don't want to see Kamala Harris. I'm hoping the choice is for someone more progressive.  

I think it will be Harris or Demmings. He could pick someone like Bottoms but that may be a pick that may not be vetted as well as it needs to be given there is no national office experience and she may have a short history. It could run the risk of being another Sarah Palin type pick. Not saying it will but that is the potential landmine Biden needs to avoid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

It could also lead to a huge landslide loss for Biden, when his running mate inevitably drops out of the campaign after a couple weeks because he wouldn't stop sniffing her hair on the campaign bus.

 

BGYSJ3FB2A2I3KPS5OR4NJEAQ4.jpg

 

LOL Conservative media addicts love to post these photos.   Anyone knows that someone in the public eye as long as Biden or Trump have photos that can be construed as something they aren't.    Just look at the records of sexual assaults of both Trump and Biden.   That is more telling.  

Trump Espstein Hug.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think it will be Harris or Demmings. He could pick someone like Bottoms but that may be a pick that may not be vetted as well as it needs to be given there is no national office experience and she may have a short history. It could run the risk of being another Sarah Palin type pick. Not saying it will but that is the potential landmine Biden needs to avoid. 

 

I don't see what Harris brings to the equation. She's not popular in California, and didn't seem to have any traction beyond her fairly epic smackdown on the racial record of....Joe Biden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, surfohio said:

 

I don't see what Harris brings to the equation. She's not popular in California, and didn't seem to have any traction beyond her fairly epic smackdown on the racial record of....Joe Biden. 

Not to sound trite, she checks the boxes of woman of color. Biden has boxed himself into a corner saying he will name a woman and hinting that it will likely be a minority woman.  Anything less will create issues with the progressive flank. Harris checks these boxes but gives the law and order crowd someone who they can potentially believe in, while progressives may be wary of her record, she has said the right things recently (whether she agrees with them or not is ireleveant)

Nationally, I think she does better with moderates than say a Stacy Abrams, and she has a much more recognized name than Bottoms or Demmings. She has a name that a lot of people will recognize and name recognition means a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a "who could win in 2024 perspective", I'd much prefer Tammy Duckworth to Kamala Harris.  I don't know enough about Val Demmings to figure out whether that's a good pick or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if it were an easy choice Biden would announce during the July 4th weekend.  It is a big choice since the VP likely will be the primary candidate for 2024.  It might be more important to keep  Val Demings as a leader in the House.  I think Kamala aligns fairly well with Biden. She might not be progressive enough for California but I think she is for the USA. The Senate will stay fairly moderate. All the progressive energy will be coming out of the House. I’m thinking it will likely be Pelosi again as Speaker to do the massive governmental overhaul that will need to be done.  
 

Harris/Hickenlooper for 2024

Edited by audidave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, audidave said:

I think if it were an easy choice Biden would announce during the July 4th weekend.

 

There isn't a big incentive for him to do it right now. This campaign at the moment seems to be in a good place for now, so might as well ride that wave for the time being then announce the VP when/if he needs a shot in the arm or if he has a bad news cycle. I think he said he'll announce by August 1 so that'll probably be when we hear.

 

I do think Harris is the clear choice.

Edited by mu2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spacer.png

 

Someone compiled a list of current state polling averages and layered on how far off the final '16 averages were from the actual result.  This is what the electoral college map would look like in that case.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

spacer.png

 

Someone compiled a list of current state polling averages and layered on how far off the final '16 averages were from the actual result.  This is what the electoral college map would look like in that case.

 

Kind of surprising to see GA and AZ flip without NC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mu2010 said:

Kind of surprising to see GA and AZ flip without NC.

 

Yeah, that's kind of hard to believe.  But NC apparently polled more towards Clinton in 2016 than the final results reflected.  Those three, plus Texas, are the three closest state margins when adjusted for 2016 polling differences, followed very closely by Wisconsin.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any reason to think that the polling errors will be the same as they were in 2016?  Wouldn't good pollsters be accounting for things that they learned then, and therefore this is an overcorrection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...