US Presidential Race 2020

[timmullen1]

Mar 13, 2020 6:34:35 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Mar 12, 2020 22:49:25 GMT timmullen1 said:

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.

Realistically, as things stand today, Trump isn’t going to expand the map from 2016; although he talks about expanding the map his campaign admits their goal is to repeat their 2016 performance. Colorado and Virginia are trending very safely Democratic now (and the Dems will be throwing additional resources at the former as the Senate seat is their easiest pick-up opportunity in the country). Maine’s 1st CD is almost certainly too big to allow the 2nd CD to carry the State, and there’s zero evidence to suggest Trump can outperform his 2016 numbers by ~4% to flip it and win the State. There’s far more evidence to suggest he’s going to be playing defence across the Midwest, with the likely exception of Ohio which I think is long gone for the Democrats, in Arizona and Georgia, the former is again going to get extra attention because of the Senate race, and there’s not much ticket splitting nowadays, so if Mark Kelly continues to poll ahead of Martha McSally then Trump needs to worry, and I suspect he’s going to have to pay more attention to Texas than a Republican has for a long time.

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2020 7:05:36 GMT timmullen1 said:

Mar 13, 2020 6:34:35 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

I think it's fairly unlikely Trump wins Maine but not impossible. It looks a lot more winnable than Colorado and Virginia.

Realistically, as things stand today, Trump isn’t going to expand the map from 2016; although he talks about expanding the map his campaign admits their goal is to repeat their 2016 performance. Colorado and Virginia are trending very safely Democratic now (and the Dems will be throwing additional resources at the former as the Senate seat is their easiest pick-up opportunity in the country). Maine’s 1st CD is almost certainly too big to allow the 2nd CD to carry the State, and there’s zero evidence to suggest Trump can outperform his 2016 numbers by ~4% to flip it and win the State. There’s far more evidence to suggest he’s going to be playing defence across the Midwest, with the likely exception of Ohio which I think is long gone for the Democrats, in Arizona and Georgia, the former is again going to get extra attention because of the Senate race, and there’s not much ticket splitting nowadays, so if Mark Kelly continues to poll ahead of Martha McSally then Trump needs to worry, and I suspect he’s going to have to pay more attention to Texas than a Republican has for a long time.

For sure. It seems like the most likely result if Trump wins is the Republicans taking exactly 270 Electoral Votes (2016 minus Michigan and Pennsylvania).

[matureleft]

Mar 13, 2020 7:05:36 GMT timmullen1 said:

Mar 13, 2020 6:34:35 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

I think it's fairly unlikely Trump wins Maine but not impossible. It looks a lot more winnable than Colorado and Virginia.

Realistically, as things stand today, Trump isn’t going to expand the map from 2016; although he talks about expanding the map his campaign admits their goal is to repeat their 2016 performance. Colorado and Virginia are trending very safely Democratic now (and the Dems will be throwing additional resources at the former as the Senate seat is their easiest pick-up opportunity in the country). Maine’s 1st CD is almost certainly too big to allow the 2nd CD to carry the State, and there’s zero evidence to suggest Trump can outperform his 2016 numbers by ~4% to flip it and win the State. There’s far more evidence to suggest he’s going to be playing defence across the Midwest, with the likely exception of Ohio which I think is long gone for the Democrats, in Arizona and Georgia, the former is again going to get extra attention because of the Senate race, and there’s not much ticket splitting nowadays, so if Mark Kelly continues to poll ahead of Martha McSally then Trump needs to worry, and I suspect he’s going to have to pay more attention to Texas than a Republican has for a long time.

North Carolina as well. In 2016 it was slightly tighter than Georgia. There was good progress in 2018 and the Democrats appear to have a credible Senate candidate. And the demographics should continue to shift.

Trump is playing defence across a wide area with very narrow margins of error. 

[mboy]

Mar 12, 2020 21:35:23 GMT nelson said:

Mar 12, 2020 21:04:42 GMT Merseymike said:

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. 

The most disgruntled Sanders voters will be on the east and west coasts, where their votes aren't needed anyway. That was the mistake Hillary made. Winning California by over 4 million votes was utterly pointless.

[nelson]

Mar 13, 2020 8:20:11 GMT mboy said:

Mar 12, 2020 21:35:23 GMT nelson said:

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. 

The most disgruntled Sanders voters will be on the east and west coasts, where their votes aren't needed anyway. That was the mistake Hillary made. Winning California by over 4 million votes was utterly pointless.

It doesn't matter where the most disgruntled Sanders voters are, what matters is in what states they may cost Biden the election.

Clinton couldn't decide how many votes she was going to get in CA, her campaign had limited influence on that. The state was always going to vote massively against Trump.

[mboy]

Mar 13, 2020 9:43:39 GMT nelson said:

Mar 13, 2020 8:20:11 GMT mboy said:

The most disgruntled Sanders voters will be on the east and west coasts, where their votes aren't needed anyway. That was the mistake Hillary made. Winning California by over 4 million votes was utterly pointless.

It doesn't matter where the most disgruntled Sanders voters are, what matters is in what states they may cost Biden the election.

Clinton couldn't decide how many votes she was going to get in CA, her campaign had limited influence on that. The state was always going to vote massively against Trump.

Of course she could - she could have tailored her platform more towards the rust-belt and less towards the party faithful. (Your accusation there might as well be thrown at every campaign, everywhere, btw)

[ColinJ]

I don't think we have noted the following overnight developments:

1. NBC have called California for Sanders, whose lead is currently 6.8% with "95% reporting".
2. Biden's lead in Washington has crept up to a 2% margin: Biden 491,749 (36.9%), Sanders 464,767 (34.9%), with "87% reporting".

[mboy]

^ Who got the other 30% in Washington??

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Mar 13, 2020 10:18:31 GMT mboy said:

^ Who got the other 30% in Washington??

Washington has an all postal ballot so lots of people voted weeks ago when there were a lot more candidates. Hence the current vote totals are:

Biden 37%
Sanders 35%
Warren 10%
Bloomberg 9%
Buttigeig 5%
Klobuchar 2%
Gabbard 1%
Uncommitted 0.5%
Yang 0.5%

[dizz]

Mar 13, 2020 9:55:59 GMT ColinJ said:

I don't think we have noted the following overnight developments:

1. NBC have called California for Sanders, whose lead is currently 6.8% with "95% reporting".
2. Biden's lead in Washington has crept up to a 2% margin: Biden 491,749 (36.9%), Sanders 464,767 (34.9%), with "87% reporting".

California should have been called days ago - as the lead has been stretching in absolute terms even though in percentage terms it has got over 2% closer.

[timmullen1]

Mar 13, 2020 10:30:16 GMT dizz said:

Mar 13, 2020 9:55:59 GMT ColinJ said:

I don't think we have noted the following overnight developments:

1. NBC have called California for Sanders, whose lead is currently 6.8% with "95% reporting".
2. Biden's lead in Washington has crept up to a 2% margin: Biden 491,749 (36.9%), Sanders 464,767 (34.9%), with "87% reporting".

California should have been called days ago - as the lead has been stretching in absolute terms even though in percentage terms it has got over 2% closer.

The New York Times have said they held off because there’s still over half of Los Angeles outstanding, and until yesterday over half of San Fran outstanding, both of which were trending towards Biden in late votes, but when SF uploaded its final numbers yesterday the gap was too large for LA to overturn. They’re still holding off allocating the final 22 delegates, presumably because of LA’s tardiness.

[The Bishop]

Mar 13, 2020 10:25:21 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Mar 13, 2020 10:18:31 GMT mboy said:

^ Who got the other 30% in Washington??

Washington has an all postal ballot so lots of people voted weeks ago when there were a lot more candidates. Hence the current vote totals are:

Biden 37%
Sanders 35%
Warren 10%
Bloomberg 9%
Buttigeig 5%
Klobuchar 2%
Gabbard 1%
Uncommitted 0.5%
Yang 0.5%

What a nonsense.

[carlton43]

Mar 13, 2020 10:18:31 GMT mboy said:

^ Who got the other 30% in Washington??

Ashfield Independents of course.

[Richard Allen]

Mar 13, 2020 11:02:11 GMT The Bishop said:

Mar 13, 2020 10:25:21 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Washington has an all postal ballot so lots of people voted weeks ago when there were a lot more candidates. Hence the current vote totals are:

Biden 37%
Sanders 35%
Warren 10%
Bloomberg 9%
Buttigeig 5%
Klobuchar 2%
Gabbard 1%
Uncommitted 0.5%
Yang 0.5%

What a nonsense.

It does seemed to have dawned on people this year that having early voting weeks ahead (either by post or in person) is seriously flawed for the Presidential Primaryand has effectively disenfranchised millions of voters.

[Richard Allen]

Mar 12, 2020 1:18:20 GMT timmullen1 said:

Mar 12, 2020 1:00:29 GMT Richard Allen said:

I do get what he saying, but I also get that you are simply clueless. As I have already said, he chaired a full Senate Committee last time the Democrats had a majority and has been Ranking Member of the Budget Committee for 5 years. How much he could achieve as Chairman is up for debate but he can clearly achieve more from such a position than he can from being just a rank and file member of the Senate. He may be stubborn but he is not so foolish to turn down an opportunity to achieve something just because he can't get everything. The idea that he would turn down the position is palpably absurd.

The only reason to turn it down (assuming the Democrats are in the majority next year), and I’m not for a second saying he would, is if he feels he can achieve more on another committee, and then, with the agreement of the Majority Leader, he can defer to the next person in line and there’s a whole game of musical chairs. In his latter years, Ted Kennedy declined what in Senate terms was a promotion to stay as Chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to try and navigate Obamacare through the Senate. Heidi Heitkamp skipped promotion to stay on the Indian Affairs Committee as the Senators from States with large Native American populations see benefit in being on that committee.

(This is for Mike as patently Richard knows what he’s talking about and doesn’t need it explaining) Sanders could achieve much as Chairman of the Budget Committee. Traditionally the budget submitted by a President bears no resemblance to that which emerges as Appropriations Acts out of Congress, so Sanders could use his position to try and influence the committee to delete sections he thinks are too weak, or too “moderate” and replace them with his own priorities.

After the 2018 election many on left wanted Sanders to give up his position as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee and instead become Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in order to prevent Joe Manchin taking up that position (Maria Cantwell had given it up in favour of becoming Ranking Member on the Commerce Committee following Bill Nelson's defeat). Sanders declined to do so as he felt that the Budget Committee was a better place for him to pursue his agenda.

[timmullen1]

Mar 13, 2020 11:42:10 GMT Richard Allen said:

Mar 12, 2020 1:18:20 GMT timmullen1 said:

The only reason to turn it down (assuming the Democrats are in the majority next year), and I’m not for a second saying he would, is if he feels he can achieve more on another committee, and then, with the agreement of the Majority Leader, he can defer to the next person in line and there’s a whole game of musical chairs. In his latter years, Ted Kennedy declined what in Senate terms was a promotion to stay as Chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee to try and navigate Obamacare through the Senate. Heidi Heitkamp skipped promotion to stay on the Indian Affairs Committee as the Senators from States with large Native American populations see benefit in being on that committee.

(This is for Mike as patently Richard knows what he’s talking about and doesn’t need it explaining) Sanders could achieve much as Chairman of the Budget Committee. Traditionally the budget submitted by a President bears no resemblance to that which emerges as Appropriations Acts out of Congress, so Sanders could use his position to try and influence the committee to delete sections he thinks are too weak, or too “moderate” and replace them with his own priorities.

After the 2018 election many on left wanted Sanders to give up his position as Ranking Member of the Budget Committee and instead become Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in order to prevent Joe Manchin taking up that position (Maria Cantwell had given it up in favour of becoming Ranking Member on the Commerce Committee following Bill Nelson's defeat). Sanders declined to do so as he felt that the Budget Committee was a better place for him to pursue his agenda.

I could understand the “stop Manchin” bit but Energy and Natural Resources never seemed an obvious fit for Sanders; I don’t recall much of a Green New Deal element in his 2016 campaign, in fact once or twice he at least came across as being slightly bored by the topic.

[CatholicLeft]

For those who bafflingly keep saying Joe Biden is senile, or displays evidence of early-onset senility, watch this.

He gets tired, meanders sometimes and displays dyspraxic-style tendencies, but not senility. Wouldn't you rather this guy right now?

[edgbaston]

Mar 13, 2020 12:40:33 GMT CatholicLeft said:

For those who bafflingly keep saying Joe Biden is senile, or displays evidence of early-onset senility, watch this.

He gets tired, meanders sometimes and displays dyspraxic-style tendencies, but not senility. Wouldn't you rather this guy right now?

Rather low bar! But yes, would be nice.

I've never got involved with the Biden is senile line, my issue is more that while he may tackle this short term health crisis well, there is a constant crisis of healthcare in the US that only Bernie seems to have any perspective on whatsoever.

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2020 12:40:33 GMT CatholicLeft said:

For those who bafflingly keep saying Joe Biden is senile, or displays evidence of early-onset senility, watch this.

He gets tired, meanders sometimes and displays dyspraxic-style tendencies, but not senility. Wouldn't you rather this guy right now?

I don't know if Biden is dyspraxic. I understand from upthread he has an ABI which might look like dyspraxic tenancies. I meander but Ive always considered it a dyslexic tendency. Processing information in a different way to how it is presented and failing to respond appropriately or match a coherent thought process

[timmullen1]

Mar 13, 2020 14:02:23 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Mar 13, 2020 12:40:33 GMT CatholicLeft said:

For those who bafflingly keep saying Joe Biden is senile, or displays evidence of early-onset senility, watch this.

He gets tired, meanders sometimes and displays dyspraxic-style tendencies, but not senility. Wouldn't you rather this guy right now?

I don't know if Biden is dyspraxic. I understand from upthread he has an ABI which might look like dyspraxic tenancies. I meander but Ive always considered it a dyslexic tendency. Processing information in a different way to how it is presented and failing to respond appropriately or match a coherent thought process

I would doubt he was dyspraxic; I know two people at fairly opposite ends of the age range who have dyspraxia and it manifests itself very differently from Biden. Both have poor hand-eye cordination, both can stumble over their own shadow, have poor balance (the younger friend was diagnosed because she kept falling over in her PE class at school). She has a fairly noticeable speech difficulty, the other is a published poet who does public readings of her work, but can’t type without relying heavily on autocorrect. Biden has in the past had a habit of speaking very quickly, especially when reading - if you look at him swearing in new Senators as VP they’ve barely processed “raise your right hand” by the time he’s read the oath and asking them to confirm they “do solemnly swear”, but apparently he’s been working with a voice coach who has recommended a slower, more deliberate delivery.