Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 19, 2020 1:03:01 GMT
Someone's having a tough week... In fairness, the delegate lead doesn't seem *completely* insurmountable to me, but it's surely large enough for public pressure to start piling on. If Ohio had voted today, it would have been enough to practically eliminate him, but I reckon there's fair reason for Sanders to hold out (and Biden to take the challenge seriously) until Hawaii, Wyoming, Alaska and Wisconsin. I strongly suspect Biden will cement his victory there, but there's enough time for the state of the race to change again. Mathematically speaking the level clearly isn't insurmountable but in reality I think it is. Lets just looks at the current state of play going by two very reliable sources. New York Times has Biden: 1180 Sanders: 885 Others: 168 thegreenpapers has Biden: 1178 Sanders: 884 Others: 162 With 1991 needed for a first ballot win Biden needs another no more than another 713 delegates. He will certainly pick up at least another 20 from states that that have already voted and where ballots are still being counted. That leaves him needing less that 700 delegates with around 1900 still available, i.e less than 40%. When you factor in his rock solid support from African Americans and/or older voters it is pretty hard to imagine any scenario where he doesn't achieve that. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 19, 2020 1:07:53 GMT
Someone's having a tough week... In fairness, the delegate lead doesn't seem *completely* insurmountable to me, but it's surely large enough for public pressure to start piling on. If Ohio had voted today, it would have been enough to practically eliminate him, but I reckon there's fair reason for Sanders to hold out (and Biden to take the challenge seriously) until Hawaii, Wyoming, Alaska and Wisconsin. I strongly suspect Biden will cement his victory there, but there's enough time for the state of the race to change again. Mathematically Sanders has to win the remaining primaries by 20%, a 40% swing from what we’ve seen, and we know that states like New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania aren’t friendly turf for him. Given the behaviour of the Midwestern states that have already voted there’s little reason to believe he can be anymore successful in Wisconsin and Ohio if they ever get to in-person voting. Incidentally, on the subject of delegate math, Tulsi Gabbard was mathematically eliminated last night; there aren’t enough delegates left for her to gain the nomination, and she’s borderline not being able to overhaul Biden’s existing total. |
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 19, 2020 4:55:35 GMT
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 19, 2020 6:05:03 GMT
I still expect this to end up being fairly close due to Trump's populist instincts and x-factor (or whatever you want to call it) and Biden being a flawed and uninspiring candidate, but if you're only going by the indicators and assume the economy will be as decisive as it has historically been this could be a landslide (by modern standards, the current degree of polarization means the losing side will always get 100+ EVs).
|
|
|
|
Post by adlai52 on Mar 19, 2020 8:11:31 GMT
I still expect this to end up being fairly close due to Trump's populist instincts and x-factor (or whatever you want to call it) and Biden being a flawed and uninspiring candidate, but if you're only going by the indicators and assume the economy will be as decisive as it has historically been this could be a landslide (by modern standards, the current degree of polarization means the losing side will always get 100+ EVs). I'm still unsure just how the crisis will play. There's a concerted effort from the GOP to play up Trump as a 'war time' president and claim credit for the support being provided by the Federal Government, but how credible that looks to most voters is anyone's guess. At the same time, the support the Federal Government is going to be providing will be targeted and isn't going to remove the massive disruption that most of the population will experience. There is also evidence that some states (including Florida and Texas) are not well placed at all to deal with this type of emergency. Back to the map above, a blow-out win like that probably takes the Senate for the Dems pretty easily. If the presidential ticket is carrying Iowa, Georgia, Texas and Arizona the Senate candidate in those states are probably winning as well, meaning 5 pick ups (2 in Georgia), together with another 2 likely pick-ups in Colorado and Maine. Agree that the race is likely to be much closer, but how the Senate races respond to Covid 19 and the public health emergency will be interesting. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,853
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 19, 2020 10:13:38 GMT
Someone's having a tough week... In fairness, the delegate lead doesn't seem *completely* insurmountable to me, but it's surely large enough for public pressure to start piling on. If Ohio had voted today, it would have been enough to practically eliminate him, but I reckon there's fair reason for Sanders to hold out (and Biden to take the challenge seriously) until Hawaii, Wyoming, Alaska and Wisconsin. I strongly suspect Biden will cement his victory there, but there's enough time for the state of the race to change again. Quite a few will sympathise with Sanders comments in any case, I suspect. The media obsession with getting him to drop out NOW is all too familiar from over here. Let events take their course. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 11:29:41 GMT
I still expect this to end up being fairly close due to Trump's populist instincts and x-factor (or whatever you want to call it) and Biden being a flawed and uninspiring candidate, but if you're only going by the indicators and assume the economy will be as decisive as it has historically been this could be a landslide (by modern standards, the current degree of polarization means the losing side will always get 100+ EVs). This was meant to be the result last time. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 19, 2020 11:46:00 GMT
I still expect this to end up being fairly close due to Trump's populist instincts and x-factor (or whatever you want to call it) and Biden being a flawed and uninspiring candidate, but if you're only going by the indicators and assume the economy will be as decisive as it has historically been this could be a landslide (by modern standards, the current degree of polarization means the losing side will always get 100+ EVs). This was meant to be the result last time. I still expect this to end up being fairly close due to Trump's populist instincts and x-factor (or whatever you want to call it) and Biden being a flawed and uninspiring candidate, but if you're only going by the indicators and assume the economy will be as decisive as it has historically been this could be a landslide (by modern standards, the current degree of polarization means the losing side will always get 100+ EVs). This was meant to be the result last time. I still expect this to end up being fairly close due to Trump's populist instincts and x-factor (or whatever you want to call it) and Biden being a flawed and uninspiring candidate, but if you're only going by the indicators and assume the economy will be as decisive as it has historically been this could be a landslide (by modern standards, the current degree of polarization means the losing side will always get 100+ EVs). This was meant to be the result last time. Not at all; Texas was never remotely in play, and most certainly not leaning Democratic, Iowa was conceded early, and anyone paying attention knew Ohio was given that the Democrats abandoned Ted Strickland’s Senate challenge to Rob Portman before their nominating convention. Arizona was at the most a toss-up, but like Texas, never favoured Clinton, ditto Georgia. Maine and New Hampshire were never better than “Lean Democratic”, and Trump was favoured in Maine’s CD-2. North Carolina was only gettable if Clinton was replicating Obama 2008 rather than Obama 2012. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 12:36:40 GMT
I really don't see Biden beating Trump in Florida
1) Obama barely won Florida in 2012
2) Republicans were well ahead in the House elections in Florida in 2018
3) Florida now has two Republican Senators for the first time since 1875
4) Republican turnout exceeded Democratic turnout in the Florida primary
5) Every incumbent President has won Florida since 1980
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 19, 2020 13:42:12 GMT
I really don't see Biden beating Trump in Florida 1) Obama barely won Florida in 2012 2) Republicans were well ahead in the House elections in Florida in 2018 3) Florida now has two Republican Senators for the first time since 1875 4) Republican turnout exceeded Democratic turnout in the Florida primary 5) Every incumbent has won it since 1980 Florida will be its usual jump ball. 1) Nobody anytime soon is going to win Florida by a lot, it’s at best toss-up, before COVID-19 I’d have edged it to Trump, but I wonder if those vulnerable retirees might be less than impressed by Trump’s haphazard response. 2) 300,000 votes ahead, but House elections are a poor example as so many are utterly uncompetitive on both sides. A more accurate picture is the Senate, Republicans up by 10,000 votes and the Gubernatorial race, Republicans winning by 45,000 against an unknown Democrat. However if you do want to take a figure from the House election, what about the ~4% swing to the Democrats from 2016? 3) Meaningless. Since 2012 Virginia has two Democratic Senators for the first time since 1965 when Harry Byrd sat as an independent in protest at Johnson’s civil rights legislation. Demographics change the political power in States: it’s only a little over a decade ago that the Republicans didn’t contest a Federal election in Arkansas, either House or Senate, this year is almost a complete reversal. 4) Tuesday turnout is meaningless; Republicans are only now beginning to accept the coronavirus as a serious threat; even in the post primary polling less than 66% of Republicans said they were “concerned” or “very concerned” about it, mirroring the narrative in conservative media. For what it’s worth Biden polled more votes than Trump in the latter’s strongest 2016 County (which houses the largest retirement village in the country, so potentially lends support to my suggestion about seniors being dissatisfied with the Administration’s Covid-19 response. 5) And? Another bland stat that ignores demographic changes. As an example, linking to 1) above, Bush 41 beat Clinton by less than 1.5% indicating that when the country is close, Florida is close. I think the consensus of putting it in the toss-up category is the most justified, and anybody who thinks they can forecast a winner this far out should stick to playing the lottery. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 19, 2020 14:53:48 GMT
Shock news that Tulsi Gabbard is suspending her Presidential run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 15:12:59 GMT
The Bernie Bros are not taking their hero's defeats well, with plenty of guff about "rigging", "voter suppression", the "corrupt DNC establishment" and so on. In addition, Biden is apparently no better the Trump (really?) and they won't vote for him. Own worst enemies? You decide. That's a stupid slur. It was already an incorrect stereotype in 2016 and with the much more diverse coalition Sanders has this time around it's even less appropriate. There has been a certain amount of mechanisms preventing young people from voting (too few polling stations in districts with a young population like college towns, closure and moving of polling stations, inflexible school and employer schedules. It all adds up. It's of course not the main reason Sanders lost, but it can't just be hand-waived away. The whole US electoral setup works to systemically keep turnout down for certain groups (young people/students, the poor, PoC) and Americans use the term voter suppression in a broader sense than in British English. Keep in mind that a Biden presidency is not necessarily an advantage for the left, that depends how he'll govern, who he picks as his running mate and who gets into the cabinet (e.g. Anne Finucane from Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase boss Jamie Dimon are both rumoured to be on Biden's shortlist for Secretary of the Treasury, a Biden administration could be very Wall Street influenced). If Trump is reelected the Democrats are going to win the mid-terms and the establishment will have lost two winnable elections by selecting "safe" moderate candidates, which will make it harder to resist whoever becomes the progressive standard bearer in 2024. If Biden picks a middle aged "corporate Democrat" (esp. if it's someone that ticks of lot of identity political boxes like Kamala Harris) she'll be favoured to succeed him in 2024 and the left will be out in the dark, especially with the influx of wealthy suburbanites caused by Trump's takeover of the GOP. The Democratic Party is two parties in one, like a forced marriage of the Liberals and NDP in Canada, and you can't expect them to like the other side. A party system where a right wing populist but still plutocrat controlled GOP competes with a woke neoliberal Democratic Party controlled by Wall Street and Silicon Valley is a nightmare scenario for the left. Finally, there is no reason why this thread should be filled with "x minimal group I think is silly and/or dislike said sometime stupid on twitter". Twitter isn't real life and doesn't reflect the candidates supporters or any substantial voter groups. On the subject of potential voter suppression: If Coronavirus is so bad that polling stations have to be closed, then running the primary at all and putting lives at risk is indefensible. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 19, 2020 16:29:18 GMT
Gabbard has endorsed Biden. She has close to zero credibility with the Democratic base, but her appeal to anti-establishment voters is better than your average politician’s and she’s been built up by Republicans betting on her failure, so perhaps she is a long-shot VP pick.
Defending his reversal of policy on the Iraq war (back in July) despite being extremely critical of Clinton etc suggests to me that she’s always been angling for that rather than just grifting.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 19, 2020 16:45:36 GMT
Gabbard has endorsed Biden. She has close to zero credibility with the Democratic base, but her appeal to anti-establishment voters is better than your average politician’s and she’s been built up by Republicans betting on her failure, so perhaps she is a long-shot VP pick. Defending his reversal of policy on the Iraq war (back in July) despite being extremely critical of Clinton etc suggests to me that she’s always been angling for that rather than just grifting. She really isn't, she has burned far too many bridges and given Biden's age his VP has to be both qualified and someone the base can accept as president. In other news: Sen. Bernie Sanders Outlines $2 Trillion Coronavirus Emergency Plan |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Mar 19, 2020 16:56:23 GMT
Gabbard has endorsed Biden. She has close to zero credibility with the Democratic base, but her appeal to anti-establishment voters is better than your average politician’s and she’s been built up by Republicans betting on her failure, so perhaps she is a long-shot VP pick. Defending his reversal of policy on the Iraq war (back in July) despite being extremely critical of Clinton etc suggests to me that she’s always been angling for that rather than just grifting. She really isn't, she has burned far too many bridges and given Biden's age she VP has to be both qualified and someone the base can accept as president. In other news: Sen. Bernie Sanders Outlines $2 Trillion Coronavirus Emergency PlanI agree it’s very unlikely, but I think there’s enough of a case to be made for her to be in with a shout. Gabbard has burned bridges with Hillaryworld, but her anti-DNC antics has actually helped her in Bernieworld, and Biden may believe he needs to mend the latter after a potentially drawn-out primary process (should Sanders run until Biden reaches 1991 pledged delegates). She has not really gone after Biden, aiming for Harris and Buttigieg instead - this seems like deliberate strategy. Her relative youth balances the otherwise elderly ticket in the time of coronavirus, and she is a woman (Biden has suggested his choices have now narrowed down to an all-female group of candidates), but she’s not a newbie to Congress, so doesnt face the same “inexperience”-shaped barriers Buttigieg would. Given how much this primary is fixated on electability and her appeal to Republicans built by years of positive Republican commentary, I think parts of the establishment could be brought to terms with Gabbard having the VP slot. Many of the Biden backers who hate her weren’t in his campaign until recently and so might not have that much sway over him here. I highly doubt this will happen, mind you, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely. If nothing else, it stops her from getting behind a 3rd party bid of some kind. |
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 19, 2020 16:58:00 GMT
Rather odd that Gabbard decided to drop out now, she was de facto not campaigning and could have continued to the convention without spending any money. She had no chance of the nomination at any point and after NH that was abundantly clear so it was clearly a self-promotion run. I suppose the most logical explanation is that she wanted to avoid being humiliated in the upcoming Hawaiian primary despite not seeking reelection she may want to keep her options open.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 19, 2020 17:06:39 GMT
That's a stupid slur. It was already an incorrect stereotype in 2016 and with the much more diverse coalition Sanders has this time around it's even less appropriate. There has been a certain amount of mechanisms preventing young people from voting (too few polling stations in districts with a young population like college towns, closure and moving of polling stations, inflexible school and employer schedules. It all adds up. It's of course not the main reason Sanders lost, but it can't just be hand-waived away. The whole US electoral setup works to systemically keep turnout down for certain groups (young people/students, the poor, PoC) and Americans use the term voter suppression in a broader sense than in British English. Keep in mind that a Biden presidency is not necessarily an advantage for the left, that depends how he'll govern, who he picks as his running mate and who gets into the cabinet (e.g. Anne Finucane from Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase boss Jamie Dimon are both rumoured to be on Biden's shortlist for Secretary of the Treasury, a Biden administration could be very Wall Street influenced). If Trump is reelected the Democrats are going to win the mid-terms and the establishment will have lost two winnable elections by selecting "safe" moderate candidates, which will make it harder to resist whoever becomes the progressive standard bearer in 2024. If Biden picks a middle aged "corporate Democrat" (esp. if it's someone that ticks of lot of identity political boxes like Kamala Harris) she'll be favoured to succeed him in 2024 and the left will be out in the dark, especially with the influx of wealthy suburbanites caused by Trump's takeover of the GOP. The Democratic Party is two parties in one, like a forced marriage of the Liberals and NDP in Canada, and you can't expect them to like the other side. A party system where a right wing populist but still plutocrat controlled GOP competes with a woke neoliberal Democratic Party controlled by Wall Street and Silicon Valley is a nightmare scenario for the left. Finally, there is no reason why this thread should be filled with "x minimal group I think is silly and/or dislike said sometime stupid on twitter". Twitter isn't real life and doesn't reflect the candidates supporters or any substantial voter groups. On the subject of potential voter suppression: If Coronavirus is so bad that polling stations have to be closed, then running the primary at all and putting lives at risk is indefensible. This doesn’t come close to voter suppression, in fact prima facie he’s done exactly what voting rights advocates want - allowing you to vote anywhere in the county rather than at your designated polling station allows you to queue hop. There was a video from Texas of a mile long queue at a Houston high school in an African American area, and 500 yards around the corner in a predominantly white area there was just 10 voters inside and no queue, so the argument goes why can’t people move out of the queue and vote at the empty polling place. The equivalent of Australia’s provisional ballot - you vote anywhere, it goes through extra security to mitigate against multiple voting, but it encourages turnout if you know you’ve not got to queue for three hours. If you want voter suppression in Illinois on Tuesday a large number of polling places never opened because the staff simply refused to work. Of course continuing with in-person voting now is foolish and States and, where appropriate, the DNC, should be delaying until late April and moving to all mail voting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2020 17:13:35 GMT
On the subject of potential voter suppression: If Coronavirus is so bad that polling stations have to be closed, then running the primary at all and putting lives at risk is indefensible. This doesn’t come close to voter suppression, in fact prima facie he’s done exactly what voting rights advocates want - allowing you to vote anywhere in the county rather than at your designated polling station allows you to queue hop. There was a video from Texas of a mile long queue at a Houston high school in an African American area, and 500 yards around the corner in a predominantly white area there was just 10 voters inside and no queue, so the argument goes why can’t people move out of the queue and vote at the empty polling place. The equivalent of Australia’s provisional ballot - you vote anywhere, it goes through extra security to mitigate against multiple voting, but it encourages turnout if you know you’ve not got to queue for three hours. If you want voter suppression in Illinois on Tuesday a large number of polling places never opened because the staff simply refused to work. Of course continuing with in-person voting now is foolish and States and, where appropriate, the DNC, should be delaying until late April and moving to all mail voting. In theory, the ability to queue hop is great, but if there are fewer polling stations people have to walk further and queue for longer surely? I agree with your last point. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 19, 2020 20:38:23 GMT
In theory, the ability to queue hop is great, but if there are fewer polling stations people have to walk further and queue for longer surely? I agree with your last point. [/quote] Not if the polling stations are, like here, relatively close by, and if they’re used at every election then you should begin to know which get busy, and at what point during the day, and vice versa, so you can head directly to the quieter one. |
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 20, 2020 11:51:53 GMT
|
|
