|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 10, 2020 14:03:38 GMT
nelson Iowa is a surprising omission (marginally more winnable than Ohio). Minnesota should have also been included if they’re going to spend money defending Clinton states (I disagree about the Twin Cities, a marginal UNS is needed for Trump to flip the state and similar things were said about the electoral prowess of Philadelphia, and we all know what happened there). I disagree. Iowa is firmly a "red state" by now and that has finally been recognized by the Democratic establishment. Ohio mainly voted for Trump due to trade issues and jobs, and Trump has failed to reverse outsourcing and "bring back jobs". His approval in Ohio has dropped a lot and if Biden wins big it'll include Ohio. Neither state is likely to flip, but Ohio is significantly more likely to do so than Iowa. Ohio (and the rest of the Rust Belt) will mainly vote based on the economy and the pandemic, whereas "cultural" factors will play a larger role in Iowa. Biden has a better chance in the "it's the economy, stupid" states than in states where the "culture war" resonates more. The Twin Cities are the only important metro area in MN (Duluth, Rochester and St Cloud only have about 700k inhabitants combined) with 55% of the state's population, whereas PA has several outside Philly, so the situation isn't comparable. Even if you extend Philly to include the entire CSA it "only" has 47% of PA's population (in which was you aren't comparing like with like and including lots of outlying Republican exurbs and small towns), the city itself has 1.6 mio. inhabitants out of the nearly 13 mio. in PA. MN also has a stronger Democratic party (the DFL is one of the best organized in the country). Trump is only likely to flip MN if he has already won the election, it's not going to be the tipping point state. Polling provides a mild indication that the Democrats are in a dire state in Iowa, but they won the House vote in 2018 and IA almost certainly remains a much more elastic state than OH, meaning their ceiling is probably higher there. While I wouldn't be surprised to see OH vote to the left of IA, the chance of IA flipping doesn't seem much lower and it's a cheaper state for the Democrats to operate in, in addition to having a Senate seat up for grabs. I'd say the DNC choosing to invest in OH but not IA is surprising; given that neither could be a tipping point state for the presidential campaign, and taking into account that the DNC is also responsible for supporting Senate campaigns, helping the eventual Democratic Senate nominee in IA would seem like a more prudent use of funds than contesting OH. MN could absolutely be a tipping point state. The Democratic organisation remains as strong as ever there, but the Republicans now seem poised to seriously contest it in a way they hadn't because assumptions about the Blue Wall applied doubly there; even Trump didn't attempt to build a MN-specific ground game in 2016. If they can get out their vote by spending more than $0 there in the final three months of the race and actually having him visit the state, it could conceivably vote to the right of Michigan, having only voted one point to the left of WI in the House elections in 2018. Should MI, AZ and NC fall into Biden's column thanks to a stronger performance (on his part) in the south and among African-American communities, MN could tilt the election back in favour of Trump. Given the sheer variability of turnout in a given state on election day, there are also plausible paths to 270 involving PA, FL and perhaps even WI voting marginally to the left of MN. Edit: I really don't see what the Democrats are going for in Ohio. There are municipal elections, two state Supreme Court seats, and the state House and state Senate, but all of the Democrats' US congresspeople in Ohio should be safe this time* unless Biden does worse than HRC. None of the Republican seats are likely to be in reach this year that weren't flipped in the midterms because Sherrod Brown is not on the ballot (he almost certainly boosted Democratic turnout) and no Ohioan Republican incumbents have indicated they're going to retire (any suspicions to the contrary here?). * Joyce Beatty (in a D+19 district) could be endangered by a primary challenge from the left, but I sincerely hope that money ostensibly earmarked for the GE won't go towards helping her fight that challenge off.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,015
|
Post by maxque on Apr 10, 2020 17:00:40 GMT
I disagree. Iowa is firmly a "red state" by now and that has finally been recognized by the Democratic establishment. Ohio mainly voted for Trump due to trade issues and jobs, and Trump has failed to reverse outsourcing and "bring back jobs". His approval in Ohio has dropped a lot and if Biden wins big it'll include Ohio. Neither state is likely to flip, but Ohio is significantly more likely to do so than Iowa. Ohio (and the rest of the Rust Belt) will mainly vote based on the economy and the pandemic, whereas "cultural" factors will play a larger role in Iowa. Biden has a better chance in the "it's the economy, stupid" states than in states where the "culture war" resonates more. The Twin Cities are the only important metro area in MN (Duluth, Rochester and St Cloud only have about 700k inhabitants combined) with 55% of the state's population, whereas PA has several outside Philly, so the situation isn't comparable. Even if you extend Philly to include the entire CSA it "only" has 47% of PA's population (in which was you aren't comparing like with like and including lots of outlying Republican exurbs and small towns), the city itself has 1.6 mio. inhabitants out of the nearly 13 mio. in PA. MN also has a stronger Democratic party (the DFL is one of the best organized in the country). Trump is only likely to flip MN if he has already won the election, it's not going to be the tipping point state. Edit: I really don't see what the Democrats are going for in Ohio. There are municipal elections, two state Supreme Court seats, and the state House and state Senate, but all of the Democrats' US congresspeople in Ohio should be safe this time* unless Biden does worse than HRC. None of the Republican seats are likely to be in reach this year that weren't flipped in the midterms because Sherrod Brown is not on the ballot (he almost certainly boosted Democratic turnout) and no Ohioan Republican incumbents have indicated they're going to retire (any suspicions to the contrary here?). * Joyce Beatty (in a D+19 district) could be endangered by a primary challenge from the left, but I sincerely hope that money ostensibly earmarked for the GE won't go towards helping her fight that challenge off. They might try for the Supreme Court. They tried to get one of the two seats up in 2018 by running a serious campaign for the open seat and by running a random black county judge from Cleveland for the other, against an incumbent (to boost black turnout in Cleveland) and were very shocked (as everyone) to win both (61-39 for the one they targeted and 53-47 for the other).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2020 17:00:42 GMT
My point about the Twin Cities was that simply having a large metro is of little relevance in predicting whether a state is winnable for Trump. Minnesota was very marginal in 2016 and leaned more Republican than the country as a whole. It was marginal in 2016 despite the existence of and swings in the Twin Cities. The votes from the metro area are already baked into the competitiveness of the state and that resulted in a very small margin of victory for Clinton in 2016. The Twin Cities are not able to keep Minnesota in the Democratic column if they or the rest of the state saw a small swing to Trump. I also don’t get this idea that Trump is going to expand his performance from 2016; few Presidents do Most Republicans in recent times have done better in their re-election bid: Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 43 won a higher % and got more votes in the Electoral College the second time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2020 17:03:35 GMT
I disagree. Iowa is firmly a "red state" by now and that has finally been recognized by the Democratic establishment. Ohio mainly voted for Trump due to trade issues and jobs, and Trump has failed to reverse outsourcing and "bring back jobs". His approval in Ohio has dropped a lot and if Biden wins big it'll include Ohio. Neither state is likely to flip, but Ohio is significantly more likely to do so than Iowa. Ohio (and the rest of the Rust Belt) will mainly vote based on the economy and the pandemic, whereas "cultural" factors will play a larger role in Iowa. Biden has a better chance in the "it's the economy, stupid" states than in states where the "culture war" resonates more. The Twin Cities are the only important metro area in MN (Duluth, Rochester and St Cloud only have about 700k inhabitants combined) with 55% of the state's population, whereas PA has several outside Philly, so the situation isn't comparable. Even if you extend Philly to include the entire CSA it "only" has 47% of PA's population (in which was you aren't comparing like with like and including lots of outlying Republican exurbs and small towns), the city itself has 1.6 mio. inhabitants out of the nearly 13 mio. in PA. MN also has a stronger Democratic party (the DFL is one of the best organized in the country). Trump is only likely to flip MN if he has already won the election, it's not going to be the tipping point state. Polling provides a mild indication that the Democrats are in a dire state in Iowa, but they won the House vote in 2018 and IA almost certainly remains a much more elastic state than OH, meaning their ceiling is probably higher there. While I wouldn't be surprised to see OH vote to the left of IA, the chance of IA flipping doesn't seem much lower and it's a cheaper state for the Democrats to operate in, in addition to having a Senate seat up for grabs. I'd say the DNC choosing to invest in OH but not IA is surprising; given that neither could be a tipping point state for the presidential campaign, and taking into account that the DNC is also responsible for supporting Senate campaigns, helping the eventual Democratic Senate nominee in IA would seem like a more prudent use of funds than contesting OH. MN could absolutely be a tipping point state. The Democratic organisation remains as strong as ever there, but the Republicans now seem poised to seriously contest it in a way they hadn't because assumptions about the Blue Wall applied doubly there; even Trump didn't attempt to build a MN-specific ground game in 2016. If they can get out their vote by spending more than $0 there in the final three months of the race and actually having him visit the state, it could conceivably vote to the right of Michigan, having only voted one point to the left of WI in the House elections in 2018. Should MI, AZ and NC fall into Biden's column thanks to a stronger performance (on his part) in the south and among African-American communities, MN could tilt the election back in favour of Trump. Given the sheer variability of turnout in a given state on election day, there are also plausible paths to 270 involving PA, FL and perhaps even WI voting marginally to the left of MN. Edit: I really don't see what the Democrats are going for in Ohio. There are municipal elections, two state Supreme Court seats, and the state House and state Senate, but all of the Democrats' US congresspeople in Ohio should be safe this time* unless Biden does worse than HRC. None of the Republican seats are likely to be in reach this year that weren't flipped in the midterms because Sherrod Brown is not on the ballot (he almost certainly boosted Democratic turnout) and no Ohioan Republican incumbents have indicated they're going to retire (any suspicions to the contrary here?). * Joyce Beatty (in a D+19 district) could be endangered by a primary challenge from the left, but I sincerely hope that money ostensibly earmarked for the GE won't go towards helping her fight that challenge off. A lot of people forget that Hillary got a lower vote share in Minnesota than Michigan in 2016. Romney also got closer in Minnesota than Michigan in 2012. The Republicans are stronger in the Twin Cities than in Detroit or Philadelphia. Disagree with you on Wisconsin. If Trump wins Minnesota he likely holds onto Wisconsin.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 10, 2020 17:32:23 GMT
Polling provides a mild indication that the Democrats are in a dire state in Iowa, but they won the House vote in 2018 and IA almost certainly remains a much more elastic state than OH, meaning their ceiling is probably higher there. While I wouldn't be surprised to see OH vote to the left of IA, the chance of IA flipping doesn't seem much lower and it's a cheaper state for the Democrats to operate in, in addition to having a Senate seat up for grabs. I'd say the DNC choosing to invest in OH but not IA is surprising; given that neither could be a tipping point state for the presidential campaign, and taking into account that the DNC is also responsible for supporting Senate campaigns, helping the eventual Democratic Senate nominee in IA would seem like a more prudent use of funds than contesting OH. MN could absolutely be a tipping point state. The Democratic organisation remains as strong as ever there, but the Republicans now seem poised to seriously contest it in a way they hadn't because assumptions about the Blue Wall applied doubly there; even Trump didn't attempt to build a MN-specific ground game in 2016. If they can get out their vote by spending more than $0 there in the final three months of the race and actually having him visit the state, it could conceivably vote to the right of Michigan, having only voted one point to the left of WI in the House elections in 2018. Should MI, AZ and NC fall into Biden's column thanks to a stronger performance (on his part) in the south and among African-American communities, MN could tilt the election back in favour of Trump. Given the sheer variability of turnout in a given state on election day, there are also plausible paths to 270 involving PA, FL and perhaps even WI voting marginally to the left of MN. Edit: I really don't see what the Democrats are going for in Ohio. There are municipal elections, two state Supreme Court seats, and the state House and state Senate, but all of the Democrats' US congresspeople in Ohio should be safe this time* unless Biden does worse than HRC. None of the Republican seats are likely to be in reach this year that weren't flipped in the midterms because Sherrod Brown is not on the ballot (he almost certainly boosted Democratic turnout) and no Ohioan Republican incumbents have indicated they're going to retire (any suspicions to the contrary here?). * Joyce Beatty (in a D+19 district) could be endangered by a primary challenge from the left, but I sincerely hope that money ostensibly earmarked for the GE won't go towards helping her fight that challenge off. A lot of people forget that Hillary got a lower vote share in Minnesota than Michigan in 2016. Romney also got closer in Minnesota than Michigan in 2012. The Republicans are stronger in the Twin Cities than in Detroit or Philadelphia. Disagree with you on Wisconsin. If Trump wins Minnesota he likely holds onto Wisconsin. I agree it's likely; I just don't think it's >95% certain that WI will vote to the right of MN. Individually, paths to 270 on which the tipping point state is MN have very small chances of occuring (with the exception of the AZ/NC/MI path, IMO) but collectively, they ensure MN could be the tipping point state.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 10, 2020 21:02:24 GMT
I also don’t get this idea that Trump is going to expand his performance from 2016; few Presidents do Most Republicans in recent times have done better in their re-election bid: Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 43 won a higher % and got more votes in the Electoral College the second time. Point taken, but Nixon and Bush 43 in particular were helped by specific circumstances - McGovern was almost the case history for not nominating Sanders, and shot himself proverbially in the foot with the farce over his VP pick. Bush 43 obviously won a rally around the flag election before the anti Iraq war movement became mainstream. But accepting that none of them, unless you include the somewhat dodgy polling of Truman/Dewey, have done so from such low approval ratings (worth noting that a CNN poll this week showed Trump losing all of his coronavirus approval rating gains).
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 10, 2020 22:46:05 GMT
Most Republicans in recent times have done better in their re-election bid: Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 43 won a higher % and got more votes in the Electoral College the second time. Point taken, but Nixon and Bush 43 in particular were helped by specific circumstances - McGovern was almost the case history for not nominating Sanders, and shot himself proverbially in the foot with the farce over his VP pick. Bush 43 obviously won a rally around the flag election before the anti Iraq war movement became mainstream. But accepting that none of them, unless you include the somewhat dodgy polling of Truman/Dewey, have done so from such low approval ratings (worth noting that a CNN poll this week showed Trump losing all of his coronavirus approval rating gains). 50 years ago, and he also had the small problem of Watergate. He might not have been nominated to begin with if not for Nixon's Plumbers, and had to deal with a more fractured establishment than any nominee today is likely to face (because the Dixiecrats' base were in the midst of a profound political realignment). Most importantly, though, McGovern was running against an economy booming in a way that today's wasn't even before COVID.* Bush 43's 2004 bid may have been saved by an anti-endorsement from Osama Bin Laden in the final two weeks of the campaign. *Nevertheless, an economy in good health tends to be credited to incumbents and cause an uptick in support for them in the final 6 months of the campaign. Trump stood to gain from this, but I'd say it's very unlikely now.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 22,387
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Apr 12, 2020 7:42:54 GMT
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Apr 12, 2020 8:28:04 GMT
Narrow Biden win in Alaska, Sanders may have won it if he hadn't suspended his campaign. The delegates split 8-7.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 12, 2020 8:41:19 GMT
Narrow Biden win in Alaska, Sanders may have won it if he hadn't suspended his campaign. The delegates split 8-7. Unlikely Sanders would have won as the ballots had to be returned two days after he suspended his campaign, leaving at best only one day to actually post them. Oddly the Associated Press are allocating 11 delegates to Biden and only four to Sanders. Also another State to drop its caucus and see both substantially increased turnout and a Sanders defeat.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Apr 12, 2020 8:44:36 GMT
Narrow Biden win in Alaska, Sanders may have won it if he hadn't suspended his campaign. The delegates split 8-7. Unlikely Sanders would have won as the ballots had to be returned two days after he suspended his campaign, leaving at best only one day to actually post them. Oddly the Associated Press are allocating 11 delegates to Biden and only four to Sanders. Also another State to drop its caucus and see both substantially increased turnout and a Sanders defeat. That's mainly a result of voting after the primary had been decided. Disagree on the "unlikely" part (I think it would've made the difference), but to worth arguing over.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 12, 2020 9:19:50 GMT
Oddly the Associated Press are allocating 11 delegates to Biden and only four to Sanders. The Associated Press are correct. Alaska is using the same rules as Colorado and Utah where by a candidate who has withdrawn by the time of the state convention is not entitled to receive statewide delegates. Alaska allocates 9 delegates on the basis of the congressional districts (yes I know it only has one) and they will be split 5-4 in Biden's favour. The 6 delegates it issues statewide (4 at large and 2 PLEO*) will all go to Biden. * Party Leaders and Elected Officials - These are pledged delegate positions that are only open to certain party officers and publicly elected officials.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 13, 2020 19:09:26 GMT
Sanders has endorsed Biden in a livestream event. The latter has been taking questions from the former, and - in tone, at least - Biden's campaign been smarter in its appeals for unity than HRC's:
I wonder whether Warren is happy about Sanders having got to this point first (she has not yet endorsed Biden). I'd have been less surprised about this coming from the Warren of six months ago as I'd have interpreted it as an attempt to woo the 'Bernie or Bust' crowd for a 2024 bid, but the last stretch of her campaign was hammering out calls for unity; I'm not sure she can credibly pivot to the rail-against-the-establishment types so soon after ticking them off.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 13, 2020 19:12:45 GMT
Oddly the Associated Press are allocating 11 delegates to Biden and only four to Sanders. The Associated Press are correct. Alaska is using the same rules as Colorado and Utah where by a candidate who has withdrawn by the time of the state convention is not entitled to receive statewide delegates. Alaska allocates 9 delegates on the basis of the congressional districts (yes I know it only has one) and they will be split 5-4 in Biden's favour. The 6 delegates it issues statewide (4 at large and 2 PLEO*) will all go to Biden. * Party Leaders and Elected Officials - These are pledged delegate positions that are only open to certain party officers and publicly elected officials. The state party (this is a party-run primary) is apparently reporting otherwise. Does this rule account for informal withdrawal (i.e. "suspension", but not formal withdrawal, from the campaign)? Many campaigns have done this before so that they can send their delegates to the convention, and I presume Sanders' operation has done the same given that they want to accrue delegates.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 13, 2020 20:23:51 GMT
Sanders has endorsed Biden in a livestream event. The latter has been taking questions from the former, and - in tone, at least - Biden's campaign been smarter in its appeals for unity than HRC's: I wonder whether Warren is happy about Sanders having got to this point first (she has not yet endorsed Biden). I'd have been less surprised about this coming from the Warren of six months ago as I'd have interpreted it as an attempt to woo the 'Bernie or Bust' crowd for a 2024 bid, but the last stretch of her campaign was hammering out calls for unity; I'm not sure she can credibly pivot to the rail-against-the-establishment types so soon after ticking them off. Firstly I’m not surprised Sanders has got to this point; there’s a much better relationship between he and Biden than he had with Clinton, Biden has made moves towards Sanders on some positions particularly free college, and I think he realises he miscalculated four years ago by joining the common wisdom that Trump couldn’t win and he doesn’t want to be held responsible for a second Trump term. For Warren to be a player in 2024 Trump would have to be re-elected or she’s Biden’s VP, because whoever is is in pole position in 2024 if they win this year. She can now endorse Biden without upsetting all but the Bernie or bust brigade by saying she demurred to him to make his endorsement. Given also that Biden has also hired a lot of her campaign staff it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that discussions on either adopting some of her policies, or even a role in his Administration have taken place. The other option for her in 2021 would be to challenge Schumer for the Democratic leadership in the Senate.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 13, 2020 20:31:20 GMT
The Associated Press are correct. Alaska is using the same rules as Colorado and Utah where by a candidate who has withdrawn by the time of the state convention is not entitled to receive statewide delegates. Alaska allocates 9 delegates on the basis of the congressional districts (yes I know it only has one) and they will be split 5-4 in Biden's favour. The 6 delegates it issues statewide (4 at large and 2 PLEO*) will all go to Biden. * Party Leaders and Elected Officials - These are pledged delegate positions that are only open to certain party officers and publicly elected officials. The state party (this is a party-run primary) is apparently reporting otherwise. Does this rule account for informal withdrawal (i.e. "suspension", but not formal withdrawal, from the campaign)? Many campaigns have done this before so that they can send their delegates to the convention, and I presume Sanders' operation has done the same given that they want to accrue delegates. That is a good question and the more I read the less clear it gets. The rule reads "If a presidential candidate otherwise entitled to an allocation is no longer a candidate at the time of selection of the at-large delegates, their allocation will be proportionally divided among the other preferences entitled to an allocation." Further investigation shows that this rule should apply to all states however it is being interpreted in different ways by different states. Here we have the The Colorado Democratic Party which clearly thinks that only Biden should get any statewide delegates. www.coloradodems.org/2020-presidential-primary-results/Conversely thegreenpapers.com cites a quote from the New Hampshire Democratic Party stating that Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar are entitled to received statewide delegates because they have only suspended their campaigns.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 13, 2020 20:39:30 GMT
Firstly I’m not surprised Sanders has got to this point; there’s a much better relationship between he and Biden than he had with Clinton, Biden has made moves towards Sanders on some positions particularly free college, and I think he realises he miscalculated four years ago by joining the common wisdom that Trump couldn’t win and he doesn’t want to be held responsible for a second Trump term. For Warren to be a player in 2024 Trump would have to be re-elected or she’s Biden’s VP, because whoever is is in pole position in 2024 if they win this year. She can now endorse Biden without upsetting all but the Bernie or bust brigade by saying she demurred to him to make his endorsement. Given also that Biden has also hired a lot of her campaign staff it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that discussions on either adopting some of her policies, or even a role in his Administration have taken place. The other option for her in 2021 would be to challenge Schumer for the Democratic leadership in the Senate. Schumer has been bloody awful as Minority Leader, which is ironic because he spent years plotting his rise to the top, although he might make a better Majority Leader. However he still retains a lot of loyalty from his colleagues, in part because he raised a hell of a lot of money for a lot of them when they first ran for office. Warren would have little or not chance in challenging him, especially after a presidential campaign that demonstrated a significant lack of political nous. If Senate Democrats tire of Schumer the one to watch is Patty Murray.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Apr 13, 2020 21:00:09 GMT
Firstly I’m not surprised Sanders has got to this point; there’s a much better relationship between he and Biden than he had with Clinton, Biden has made moves towards Sanders on some positions particularly free college, and I think he realises he miscalculated four years ago by joining the common wisdom that Trump couldn’t win and he doesn’t want to be held responsible for a second Trump term. For Warren to be a player in 2024 Trump would have to be re-elected or she’s Biden’s VP, because whoever is is in pole position in 2024 if they win this year. She can now endorse Biden without upsetting all but the Bernie or bust brigade by saying she demurred to him to make his endorsement. Given also that Biden has also hired a lot of her campaign staff it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that discussions on either adopting some of her policies, or even a role in his Administration have taken place. The other option for her in 2021 would be to challenge Schumer for the Democratic leadership in the Senate. Schumer has been bloody awful as Minority Leader, which is ironic because he spent years plotting his rise to the top, although he might make a better Majority Leader. However he still retains a lot of loyalty from his colleagues, in part because he raised a hell of a lot of money for a lot of them when they first ran for office. Warren would have little or not chance in challenging him, especially after a presidential campaign that demonstrated a significant lack of political nous. If Senate Democrats tire of Schumer the one to watch is Patty Murray. Not Durbin?
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Apr 13, 2020 21:06:32 GMT
Schumer has been bloody awful as Minority Leader, which is ironic because he spent years plotting his rise to the top, although he might make a better Majority Leader. However he still retains a lot of loyalty from his colleagues, in part because he raised a hell of a lot of money for a lot of them when they first ran for office. Warren would have little or not chance in challenging him, especially after a presidential campaign that demonstrated a significant lack of political nous. If Senate Democrats tire of Schumer the one to watch is Patty Murray. Not Durbin? I think Durbin’s time has passed; indeed he was on some analysts retirement list for this year, and before the emergence of JB Pritzker was even mentioned as retiring to run for Governor in 2018. I agree with Richard Allen about Schumer; I actually hoped Durbin would try his luck in succeeding Reid, but wonder whether Murray is a dynamic enough personality (perhaps it’s just me she bores to tears).
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 13, 2020 21:12:01 GMT
Schumer has been bloody awful as Minority Leader, which is ironic because he spent years plotting his rise to the top, although he might make a better Majority Leader. However he still retains a lot of loyalty from his colleagues, in part because he raised a hell of a lot of money for a lot of them when they first ran for office. Warren would have little or not chance in challenging him, especially after a presidential campaign that demonstrated a significant lack of political nous. If Senate Democrats tire of Schumer the one to watch is Patty Murray. Not Durbin? He would like the the job but he doesn't have it in him to challenge Schumer. Harry Ried quite rightly recognised that while Durbin was an able No2 he didn't have what was necessary for the top job and Durbin being so easily leapfrogged by Schumer demonstrated that in spades. Murray comes across as unassuming but she is ambitious and smart.
|
|