Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2020 8:34:54 GMT
Trump gaining Nevada, New Hampshire and New York isn't impossible but is very unlikely. Democrats have a better chance at gaining Michigan than Ohio too Sorry - I should point out that the colours of the map are reversed on Atlas for general elections. An anachronistic quirk to do with the site's history. okay that makes sense. Though Michigan is gain when Wisconsin isn't. That's weird
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 20, 2020 8:51:31 GMT
This exact electoral scenario (courtesy of Atlas) is obviously very unlikely given how many specific priors would need to fall into place, but I think something like it in which the electoral college victory is very narrow (so much so that the potential for faithless electors starts to matter) may not be. Personally, I'd consider it a death knell for liberal democracy in the USA and would expect riots as a result, but what are your thoughts on this? A scenario where the Democrats take back PA and MI getting them to 268 EV and win the popular vote is among the most likely, in which case two faithless electors would be enough and given the circumstances surrounding the Trump presidency it seems fairly likely there could be at least a couple of defectors. Twenty-one states don't have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate and in some others the penalty for doing so is just a fine, so it's certainly possible. If an insufficient majority of the Senate (say, 47 D and 5R) vote to convict Trump in the impeachment trial that may influence some electors. It would definitely be met with a major backlash from Trump supporters that would include at least some elements of violence, but the result would be upheld.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 20, 2020 9:26:02 GMT
Sorry - I should point out that the colours of the map are reversed on Atlas for general elections. An anachronistic quirk to do with the site's history. okay that makes sense. Though Michigan is gain when Wisconsin isn't. That's weird In a proportional sense, Michigan was closer than Wisconsin in 2016. Pennsylvania was too - only by a hair's breadth, but Biden would presumably get a small bump there on the basis of his background. Winning Nebraska's 2nd and losing Wisconsin is what stretches credibility a bit here, but they are quite different places so it's not at all implausible. It's worth noting that the House results were also marginally better in Michigan and more so in Pennsylvania than in Wisconsin in 2018, and (though these races are less nationalised) Scott Walker lost by just 1% with the Democrats securing the governorship in Michigan and retaining incumbency in Pennsylvania by better margins (9% and 17% respectively). It's early days yet, but both Biden and Sanders seem slightly stronger in Michigan match-ups with Trump than they do in Wisconsin ones. nelson Isn't there a near-equal risk of Biden/Sanders electors being faithless if they eke out a narrow win? It's not as if a sitting president wouldn't be well-placed to lobby them.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 20, 2020 17:08:37 GMT
Biden has spent considerably less than his rivals since New Year due more sluggish fundraising, which has led to his campaign canceling ads in NV. The two billionaires continue to spend at an unprecedented level.
|
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Jan 20, 2020 23:01:33 GMT
wait, is that so far or just the current year?
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jan 21, 2020 0:49:22 GMT
Steyer and Bloomberg are achieving a redistribution of wealth that Bernie just can't offer.
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Jan 21, 2020 1:57:54 GMT
I don't get the point of endorsing Klobuchar. She's polling 3% nationally, and looks like getting nothing from Iowa. Do the NYT just want people to waste their vote if they aren't voting for Warren? Also not sure why Klobuchar hasn't dropped out yet - she's stood on the debate stage, got plenty of publicity, surely now's the time when a serving Senator looks at the situation and decides not to get 1% in an election, or lose their home state.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 21, 2020 7:24:28 GMT
wait, is that so far or just the current year? Current year.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 21, 2020 8:07:36 GMT
I don't get the point of endorsing Klobuchar. She's polling 3% nationally, and looks like getting nothing from Iowa. Do the NYT just want people to waste their vote if they aren't voting for Warren? Also not sure why Klobuchar hasn't dropped out yet - she's stood on the debate stage, got plenty of publicity, surely now's the time when a serving Senator looks at the situation and decides not to get 1% in an election, or lose their home state. They held a vote on their editorial board and Klobuchar got one less vote than Warren, so they decided to pick both. Their reasoning is that it's a two lane race and Warren is the best progressive candidate and Klobuchar is the best moderate, this is primarily based on her record of getting support for her proposals in Congress and knowing "which buttons to push" to actually implement legislation. They simply think she'd be more efficient than Biden or Buttigieg, which is a reasonable assumption imo. Klobuchar is also considered the most electable of the contenders by many experts. She is proven winner in a Midwestern state repeatedly over performing other Democrats and would be very difficult for Trump to handle (besides a lack of charisma her only real weakness is reports of abusive behaviour of staff due to her temper, but "Crazy Amy" won't be very efficient against someone with Klobuchar's demeanour). Since the election will likely be decided in the Upper Midwest it would make sense to nominate her to win MI/WI and have a good chance at winning IA (which no other D has a real shot at). Klobuchar is too boring to produce high turnout among young voters and the marginal part of their base, but she is reassuring to Midwestern swing voters which would more than compensate for that in the states that matter. A third argument is that she is a "moderate progressive" who is ideologically in the middle of the field between Biden/Buttigieg and Sanders/Warren, so nominating her could unite the party. Klobuchar does have an outside chance of winning Iowa, it's small (maybe 5%), but it's there. She is the only candidate that has visited every county in the state and there will be rural precincts were she is above 15% and gets delegates. The Iowa caucus has an unpredictable element due to the caucus dynamic and while a NYT endorsement won't matter with the electorate it's not meaningless, it's a signal to political pundits and journalists around the country that they should consider the arguments for Klobuchar, and that NYT don't believe in Biden.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 21, 2020 13:23:28 GMT
Biden close to Sanders in new poll from Suffolk University. Warren's support among men has collapsed from 13% to 4% (which means she can't win), while her support among women has remained steady at 14%. Nearly a quarter of the respondents are stil undecided. Gabbard is banking everything on NH, but is still only at 5%.
Sanders 16.4% Biden 14.8% Buttigieg 12.2% Warren 9.8%
Yang 5.6% Gabbard 5.4% Klobuchar 4.6%
Steyer 2.6% Bennet 1.4% Patrick 0.6% Delaney 0.0% Other 1.2% Undecided 23.8%
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jan 21, 2020 13:51:38 GMT
Warren's support among men has collapsed (which means she can't win). Fancy that. Bernie was (allegedly) right!
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 22, 2020 7:04:45 GMT
Sanders polling better against Trump than Biden in new SurveyUSA poll.
Yang 46% (+2) Trump 44%
Steyer 44% Trump 44%
Trump 45% (+2) Klobuchar 43%
Trump 44% (+5) Gabbard 39%
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2020 8:47:01 GMT
okay that makes sense. Though Michigan is gain when Wisconsin isn't. That's weird In a proportional sense, Michigan was closer than Wisconsin in 2016. Pennsylvania was too - only by a hair's breadth, but Biden would presumably get a small bump there on the basis of his background. Winning Nebraska's 2nd and losing Wisconsin is what stretches credibility a bit here, but they are quite different places so it's not at all implausible. It's worth noting that the House results were also marginally better in Michigan and more so in Pennsylvania than in Wisconsin in 2018, and (though these races are less nationalised) Scott Walker lost by just 1% with the Democrats securing the governorship in Michigan and retaining incumbency in Pennsylvania by better margins (9% and 17% respectively). It's early days yet, but both Biden and Sanders seem slightly stronger in Michigan match-ups with Trump than they do in Wisconsin ones. nelson Isn't there a near-equal risk of Biden/Sanders electors being faithless if they eke out a narrow win? It's not as if a sitting president wouldn't be well-placed to lobby them. Before 2000, Wisconsin was the more Democratic of the three Rust Belt states Trump won. Now it's the most Republican.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2020 8:53:18 GMT
This exact electoral scenario (courtesy of Atlas) is obviously very unlikely given how many specific priors would need to fall into place, but I think something like it in which the electoral college victory is very narrow (so much so that the potential for faithless electors starts to matter) may not be. Personally, I'd consider it a death knell for liberal democracy in the USA and would expect riots as a result, but what are your thoughts on this? A scenario where the Democrats take back PA and MI getting them to 268 EV and win the popular vote is among the most likely, in which case two faithless electors would be enough and given the circumstances surrounding the Trump presidency it seems fairly likely there could be at least a couple of defectors. Twenty-one states don't have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate and in some others the penalty for doing so is just a fine, so it's certainly possible. If an insufficient majority of the Senate (say, 47 D and 5R) vote to convict Trump in the impeachment trial that may influence some electors. It would definitely be met with a major backlash from Trump supporters that would include at least some elements of violence, but the result would be upheld. It's a big risk for any faithless elector. If the Democrats want to win the election, then they will need to win the Electoral College.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 22, 2020 10:57:47 GMT
nelson Isn't there a near-equal risk of Biden/Sanders electors being faithless if they eke out a narrow win? It's not as if a sitting president wouldn't be well-placed to lobby them. No, I think political motives are more likely to cause defections than outright selling your vote in the EC for some personal gain. There are more potential defectors on the GOP side, handing the election to Trump is "a bridge too far" even among the Democrats who detest Sanders, even if you could argue a second Trump term would set the Democrats up for a landslide in 2024. But the chance of a few Democratic electors defecting is higher with Sanders on the ballot. There is still a significant anti-Trump segment in the GOP and a number of Republican electors will belong to this. 1) Trump is unlikely to win the popular vote and a second EC win/PV loss will reduce his public legitimacy, there is a chance a few electors will be influenced by this. 2) The evidence against him in the impeachment trial is damaging and it's increasingly clear that he is objectively guilty and that only partisan motives will prevent a conviction. 3) There is a chance a narrow majority of the Senate votes to impeach him and even if that has no practical consequences it might add to 2). 4) A second term for Trump will harm the GOP long term, they'll likely lose the Senate in 2022 and lose the presidency in 2024 in what could be a landslide defeat (a recession is almost guaranteed to have happened by then). Some GOP electors among the many Republicans that have never liked him will be tempted to get rid of him. Both Sanders and Biden would be one-term presidents giving the GOP a good chance to win in 2024 with a "normal" candidate.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 22, 2020 11:17:48 GMT
A scenario where the Democrats take back PA and MI getting them to 268 EV and win the popular vote is among the most likely, in which case two faithless electors would be enough and given the circumstances surrounding the Trump presidency it seems fairly likely there could be at least a couple of defectors. Twenty-one states don't have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate and in some others the penalty for doing so is just a fine, so it's certainly possible. If an insufficient majority of the Senate (say, 47 D and 5R) vote to convict Trump in the impeachment trial that may influence some electors. It would definitely be met with a major backlash from Trump supporters that would include at least some elements of violence, but the result would be upheld. It's a big risk for any faithless elector. If the Democrats want to win the election, then they will need to win the Electoral College. Your second sentence do not follow logically from your first (which I agree with).
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 22, 2020 11:44:09 GMT
Sorry - I should point out that the colours of the map are reversed on Atlas for general elections. An anachronistic quirk to do with the site's history. okay that makes sense. Though Michigan is gain when Wisconsin isn't. That's weird In general it's assumed that the easiest "2016 firewall" state for the Democrats to take back is PA (based on 2018 results and demographics), followed by Michigan which the Democrats think a competent campaign should be able to win back (losing Michigan is generally viewed by them as "an accident" due to the Clinton campaign's incompetence), but Wisconsin's trade union base has eroded more than Michigan's, it's whiter than MI (about 6.5 to 7 percentage point so) and Trump is less unpopular and it's essentially a "coin flip" by now (like neighbouring IA it's a state where increased polarization favours the GOP). Trump currently has a net approval of -15 in Michigan and "only" -10 in Wisconsin (comparable to IA and MN) in the Morning Consult polls (it's -6 in PA, but with two metro areas the dynamic is different in PA). Both parties seem to mostly agree on the ranking of the three states (even if Republicans are more optimistic on PA), and vast sums have already been used by the Trump campaign to "prime" WI voters. WI will no doubt be the state that will be most heavily contested. It's fairly likely that the extreme level of polarization means that the election will come down to two "coin flips" in WI and AZ while all the other swing states will go to the party that's favoured in them (incl. FL to Trump thanks to retirees). If Sanders is the D nominee it might very well come down to who wins WI.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Jan 22, 2020 12:38:36 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2020 20:34:10 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2020 20:43:17 GMT
|
|