Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 19:07:49 GMT
Civiqs poll of 1,441 RV civiqs.com/documents/Civiqs_DailyKos_monthly_banner_book_2020_03_y54g2h2.pdfBiden 48% Trump 46% Unsure 6% Sanders 49% Trump 46% Unsure 5% That's probably a Trump victory, at least over Biden. Sanders generally has a more efficient vote distribution so a three point lead may be enough (though that's not really relevant anymore since he doesn't have a realistic path to the nomination). We may see a repeat of 2016 with Biden but you'd think the two-party vote would go up given how polarised things are. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdchill on Mar 12, 2020 19:45:33 GMT
Civiqs poll of 1,441 RV civiqs.com/documents/Civiqs_DailyKos_monthly_banner_book_2020_03_y54g2h2.pdfBiden 48% Trump 46% Unsure 6% Sanders 49% Trump 46% Unsure 5% That's probably a Trump victory, at least over Biden. Sanders generally has a more efficient vote distribution so a three point lead may be enough (though that's not really relevant anymore since he doesn't have a realistic path to the nomination). We may see a repeat of 2016 with Biden but you'd think the two-party vote would go up given how polarised things are. Or maybe there's more people who are alienated from both of them, from one reason or another. This was a significant factor in 2016, and doesn't seem to have diminished greatly. However I think an increase is likely, simply because third parties are not getting even the limited exposure they had previously. The Libertarian party for instance, seem a lot less visible. It's not clear which of the two main parties former libertarian voters may be diverted to the most, and in what proportions. The Green party is almost certainly heading for a drop, with the vote transferring to the democrats. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 12, 2020 19:57:56 GMT
We may see a repeat of 2016 with Biden but you'd think the two-party vote would go up given how polarised things are. Or maybe there's more people who are alienated from both of them, from one reason or another. This was a significant factor in 2016, and doesn't seem to have diminished greatly. However I think an increase is likely, simply because third parties are not getting even the limited exposure they had previously. The Libertarian party for instance, seem a lot less visible. It's not clear which of the two main parties former libertarian voters may be diverted to the most, and in what proportions. The Green party is almost certainly heading for a drop, with the vote transferring to the democrats. The Libertarian Party might get some oxygen if Justin Amash, the ex Republican now Independent House Member from Michigan runs, other than that they may be down to Bill Weld. Both have refused to rule out running as a Libertarian, and Amash is pretty adept at working the media. However the Greens are lacking anybody with Jill Stein’s profile, and, whilst some Sanders supporters may be tempted to support whoever is the Green candidate, I think the narrowness of Trump’s victory in 2016 will scare most of them from doing a Susan Sarandon and thinking they have the luxury of a protest vote whilst still beating Trump. |
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 12, 2020 20:54:03 GMT
Civiqs poll of 1,441 RV civiqs.com/documents/Civiqs_DailyKos_monthly_banner_book_2020_03_y54g2h2.pdfBiden 48% Trump 46% Unsure 6% Sanders 49% Trump 46% Unsure 5% That's probably a Trump victory, at least over Biden. Sanders generally has a more efficient vote distribution so a three point lead may be enough (though that's not really relevant anymore since he doesn't have a realistic path to the nomination). We may see a repeat of 2016 with Biden but you'd think the two-party vote would go up given how polarised things are. The two-party vote is always higher when there is an incumbent, so that's inevitable (and the Libertarian candidate will be more obscure than Johnson). But a two point lead in the popular vote is unlikely to be enough for Biden to win the EC. I'm not sure why that poll made you think of 3rd parties - Hillary Clinton didn't lose because of 3rd parties. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 12, 2020 21:04:42 GMT
May be simply down to how many of Sanders' supporters don't bother to vote, and where they are based.
It's impossible to tell in advance.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 12, 2020 21:35:23 GMT
May be simply down to how many of Sanders' supporters don't bother to vote, and where they are based. It's impossible to tell in advance. We know that the Democratic vote allocation is likely to be a less efficient than in 2016 with an establishment/moderate Democrat as nominee because of their many new suburban middle class voters in safe states (and in states they aren't going to win like TX), a lot of them wouldn't vote for Sanders which is why his vote allocation would have been more efficient. So on most realistic distributions Biden needs to win the national vote by more than Clinton in order to win the EC. Disgruntled Sanders supporters staying home is only likely to be a risk in MI, WI and PA (with MI being the most likely), but those are of course also extremely important states. I don't think there are any of the "Clinton states" Biden could lose because of depressed turnout, maybe NV but I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 12, 2020 21:46:10 GMT
May be simply down to how many of Sanders' supporters don't bother to vote, and where they are based. It's impossible to tell in advance. We know that the Democratic vote allocation is likely to be a less efficient than in 2016 with an establishment/moderate Democrat as nominee because of their many new suburban middle class voters in safe states (and in states they aren't going to win like TX), a lot of them wouldn't vote for Sanders which is why his vote allocation would have been more efficient. So on most realistic distributions Biden needs to win the national vote by more than Clinton in order to win the EC. Disgruntled Sanders supporters staying home is only likely to be a risk in MI, WI and PA (with MI being the most likely), but those are of course also extremely important states. I don't think there are any of the "Clinton states" Biden could lose because of depressed turnout, maybe NV but I doubt it. There aren't a great many close runs, indeed. Maine? But he will have to win some marginal states back.which does mean motivating voters. Also you are assuming that those voters will be disgruntled, whereas they might just be not bothered enough to vote for Biden. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 21:50:33 GMT
We may see a repeat of 2016 with Biden but you'd think the two-party vote would go up given how polarised things are. The two-party vote is always higher when there is an incumbent, so that's inevitable (and the Libertarian candidate will be more obscure than Johnson). But a two point lead in the popular vote is unlikely to be enough for Biden to win the EC. I'm not sure why that poll made you think of 3rd parties - Hillary Clinton didn't lose because of 3rd parties. The poll has a two-party vote that is broadly unchanged from last time. I think Trump's narrow wins in 2016 will lead to a combined two-party vote share similar to 2004. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 12, 2020 21:52:25 GMT
May be simply down to how many of Sanders' supporters don't bother to vote, and where they are based. It's impossible to tell in advance. We know that the Democratic vote allocation is likely to be a less efficient than in 2016 with an establishment/moderate Democrat as nominee because of their many new suburban middle class voters in safe states (and in states they aren't going to win like TX), a lot of them wouldn't vote for Sanders which is why his vote allocation would have been more efficient. So on most realistic distributions Biden needs to win the national vote by more than Clinton in order to win the EC. Disgruntled Sanders supporters staying home is only likely to be a risk in MI, WI and PA (with MI being the most likely), but those are of course also extremely important states. I don't think there are any of the "Clinton states" Biden could lose because of depressed turnout, maybe NV but I doubt it. W.r.t potential tipping point states, I'd have thought it could matter more than in most states in AZ, MN and NH, too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 21:53:33 GMT
We know that the Democratic vote allocation is likely to be a less efficient than in 2016 with an establishment/moderate Democrat as nominee because of their many new suburban middle class voters in safe states (and in states they aren't going to win like TX), a lot of them wouldn't vote for Sanders which is why his vote allocation would have been more efficient. So on most realistic distributions Biden needs to win the national vote by more than Clinton in order to win the EC. Disgruntled Sanders supporters staying home is only likely to be a risk in MI, WI and PA (with MI being the most likely), but those are of course also extremely important states. I don't think there are any of the "Clinton states" Biden could lose because of depressed turnout, maybe NV but I doubt it. W.r.t potential tipping point states, I'd have thought it could matter more than in most states in AZ, MN and NH, too. And possibly Maine where Sanders did even better than in Minnesota and New Hampshire. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 12, 2020 21:57:21 GMT
W.r.t potential tipping point states, I'd have thought it could matter more than in most states in AZ, MN and NH, too. And possibly Maine where Sanders did even better than in Minnesota and New Hampshire. Maine isn't a tipping point state. There is no path, IMO, in which Maine is the difference between a candidate reaching 270 electoral votes or not. If the Democrat loses it, they'll have already thrown the election due to defeats elsewhere. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 12, 2020 22:00:16 GMT
May be simply down to how many of Sanders' supporters don't bother to vote, and where they are based. It's impossible to tell in advance. We know that the Democratic vote allocation is likely to be a less efficient than in 2016 with an establishment/moderate Democrat as nominee because of their many new suburban middle class voters in safe states (and in states they aren't going to win like TX), a lot of them wouldn't vote for Sanders which is why his vote allocation would have been more efficient. So on most realistic distributions Biden needs to win the national vote by more than Clinton in order to win the EC. Disgruntled Sanders supporters staying home is only likely to be a risk in MI, WI and PA (with MI being the most likely), but those are of course also extremely important states. I don't think there are any of the "Clinton states" Biden could lose because of depressed turnout, maybe NV but I doubt it. However we saw on Tuesday that whilst Sanders increased his raw vote in Michigan it was swamped by the increase in Biden’s vote over Clinton’s. What should worry Trump is the continued willingness of suburban voters not just to stay at home but to actively vote for Democrats - it was there in 2018, last year specifically in Virginia, and has continued in this year’s primaries. The other cause for concern for Trump is Biden’s ability to motivate the African American vote - in Michigan the increase in turnout in predominantly African American counties (not just around Detroit, but places like Flint) was greater than Trump’s 2016 margin of victory. We may not get a complete picture as turnout in the remaining Midwest states may become depressed as the primaries take on the air of a formality, but if Biden can keep the level of turnout amongst African Americans and suburbanites then he will be extremely well positioned in those Obama-Trump states. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 22:07:48 GMT
And possibly Maine where Sanders did even better than in Minnesota and New Hampshire. Maine isn't a tipping point state. There is no path, IMO, in which Maine is the difference between a candidate reaching 270 electoral votes or not. If the Democrat loses it, they'll have already thrown the election due to defeats elsewhere. I didn't read the post fully. It's not a tipping point state but it is in play. However the use of Ranked Choice Voting means Trump may have a hard time winning Maine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 22:11:20 GMT
We know that the Democratic vote allocation is likely to be a less efficient than in 2016 with an establishment/moderate Democrat as nominee because of their many new suburban middle class voters in safe states (and in states they aren't going to win like TX), a lot of them wouldn't vote for Sanders which is why his vote allocation would have been more efficient. So on most realistic distributions Biden needs to win the national vote by more than Clinton in order to win the EC. Disgruntled Sanders supporters staying home is only likely to be a risk in MI, WI and PA (with MI being the most likely), but those are of course also extremely important states. I don't think there are any of the "Clinton states" Biden could lose because of depressed turnout, maybe NV but I doubt it. However we saw on Tuesday that whilst Sanders increased his raw vote in Michigan it was swamped by the increase in Biden’s vote over Clinton’s. What should worry Trump is the continued willingness of suburban voters not just to stay at home but to actively vote for Democrats - it was there in 2018, last year specifically in Virginia, and has continued in this year’s primaries. The other cause for concern for Trump is Biden’s ability to motivate the African American vote - in Michigan the increase in turnout in predominantly African American counties (not just around Detroit, but places like Flint) was greater than Trump’s 2016 margin of victory. We may not get a complete picture as turnout in the remaining Midwest states may become depressed as the primaries take on the air of a formality, but if Biden can keep the level of turnout amongst African Americans and suburbanites then he will be extremely well positioned in those Obama-Trump states. There wasn't much of an anti-Trump swing in Northern Virginia in 2016 compared to suburban Atlanta or Phoenix. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 12, 2020 22:17:05 GMT
However we saw on Tuesday that whilst Sanders increased his raw vote in Michigan it was swamped by the increase in Biden’s vote over Clinton’s. What should worry Trump is the continued willingness of suburban voters not just to stay at home but to actively vote for Democrats - it was there in 2018, last year specifically in Virginia, and has continued in this year’s primaries. The other cause for concern for Trump is Biden’s ability to motivate the African American vote - in Michigan the increase in turnout in predominantly African American counties (not just around Detroit, but places like Flint) was greater than Trump’s 2016 margin of victory. We may not get a complete picture as turnout in the remaining Midwest states may become depressed as the primaries take on the air of a formality, but if Biden can keep the level of turnout amongst African Americans and suburbanites then he will be extremely well positioned in those Obama-Trump states. There wasn't much of an anti-Trump swing in Northern Virginia in 2016 compared to suburban Atlanta or Phoenix. But there was in the gubernatorial election in 2017, the 2018 midterms and last year’s State legislative elections. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2020 22:22:56 GMT
There wasn't much of an anti-Trump swing in Northern Virginia in 2016 compared to suburban Atlanta or Phoenix. But there was in the gubernatorial election in 2017, the 2018 midterms and last year’s State legislative elections. Definitely, and in Texas the swings from 2012 to 2016 and 2018 were huge too. Out of interest, do you think Biden can flip Arizona and Georgia? |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 12, 2020 22:25:21 GMT
But there was in the gubernatorial election in 2017, the 2018 midterms and last year’s State legislative elections. Definitely, and in Texas the swings from 2012 to 2016 and 2018 were huge too. Out of interest, do you think Biden can flip Arizona and Georgia? Arizona on a very good night, if he’s able to devote the resources from elsewhere during the campaign, Georgia I very much doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 12, 2020 22:32:00 GMT
Maine isn't a tipping point state. There is no path, IMO, in which Maine is the difference between a candidate reaching 270 electoral votes or not. If the Democrat loses it, they'll have already thrown the election due to defeats elsewhere. I didn't read the post fully. It's not a tipping point state but it is in play. However the use of Ranked Choice Voting means Trump may have a hard time winning Maine. In b4 a challenge brought to the Supreme Court invalidates Maine's RCV for presidential elections after the fact, flipping the state as a result of not reassigning first preference votes. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 12, 2020 22:49:25 GMT
I didn't read the post fully. It's not a tipping point state but it is in play. However the use of Ranked Choice Voting means Trump may have a hard time winning Maine. In b4 a challenge brought to the Supreme Court invalidates Maine's RCV for presidential elections after the fact, flipping the state as a result of not reassigning first preference votes. As far as I can see there’s no challenge pending before SCOTUS. The Maine Republican Party are trying to get a “people’s veto” on the ballot in November, which would prevent RCV from being used. For that they need 63,000 petition signatures by July. Interestingly for those who for some unknown bizarre reason think Trump can carry the State the Maine Republican Party are openly admitting that it is only because they want to preserve the one Electoral College vote from the 2nd District. If Trump wins Maine statewide we’re talking beyond McGovern/Dukakis level defeats for Biden or Sanders. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2020 6:34:35 GMT
In b4 a challenge brought to the Supreme Court invalidates Maine's RCV for presidential elections after the fact, flipping the state as a result of not reassigning first preference votes. As far as I can see there’s no challenge pending before SCOTUS. The Maine Republican Party are trying to get a “people’s veto” on the ballot in November, which would prevent RCV from being used. For that they need 63,000 petition signatures by July. Interestingly for those who for some unknown bizarre reason think Trump can carry the State the Maine Republican Party are openly admitting that it is only because they want to preserve the one Electoral College vote from the 2nd District. If Trump wins Maine statewide we’re talking beyond McGovern/Dukakis level defeats for Biden or Sanders. I think it's fairly unlikely Trump wins Maine but not impossible. It looks a lot more winnable than Colorado and Virginia. |
|
