Members stevenkesslar Posted August 30, 2020 Author Members Posted August 30, 2020 (edited) There's actually a part II to the last long rant of mine directly above. I was editing what I had posted and fact checking all these poll numbers from the Morning Consult poll. And I guess the edit function on any post times out after some relatively brief period of time. So I'm going to reprint the final paragraph from above about whether voters even care from this huge poll, and then post the remainder. Then there's a question about whether voters care who wins. 90 % of both Democrats and Republicans care "a lot" or "somewhat". 10 % of both Democrats and Republicans say they care only a little, or not at all. So my read of that is that there is no real difference in partisan motivation. Both parties are on fire. And turnout will likely be really high for both parties. If that happens, Democrats win. Because there are more registered Democrats. Republicans only win big, like in 2010, when Democratic turnout sucks. The thing that jumps out at me most is that 25 % of Independents care only a little, or not at all, about who wins. For me, this is very easy when you just think about it in whore think. You can fuck me because you are madly in love with me. Or you can fuck me because I'm just an asshole. In the first case, you'll slip a wedding ring on my finger. In the second case, you'll leave an envelope on the dresser. But either way, I'm fucked. So whether we love Biden, or it's just whoring, winning is still winning. Granted, I'm just a dumb ass whore. But that's how I see it. Related to that, here's another very interesting and disturbing poll result in terms of motivation. To me, there's a difference between being a political whore, and saying any means justifies the end of winning. 50 % of all voters say Joe Biden is a good person. Almost all Democrats see him that way. Only 29 % of voters see President Toxic as a good person. That right there is incredible. He is the President of the United States. And most people don't even see him as a good person. Only 65 % of Republicans think President Toxic is a good person. And this is AFTER several years of bleeding party registrations. Meaning for the first time ever there are more registered Independents than registered Republicans. So the ones like Flake and Kasich that think President Toxic is NOT a good person already abandoned ship. But even 1 in 3 of the rats on the sinking ship still say this guy is not a good person. Is it possible some of that third will decide between now and November that they'd best jump ship? Who knows? But it's possible. Now I'll make a 100 % emotional statement. It's based on years of intimate relationships with lifelong Republicans. But it's reinforced by almost everything these Never Trumpers who know the party deep in their heart are saying Some of these people would gladly elect Satan if it got them power, and got them their agenda. They don't give a shit. Any means, including putting Satan in power, justifies their ends. They want conservative judges, a big fucking Wall, get rid of abortion, get rid of same sex marriage, get rid of Obamacare, cut taxes, as many guns as they want, and can we all just figure out some reasonable way to get these Black people to just dribble their fucking basketballs and SHUT THE FUCK UP and not have these god damn awful Marxist Black women running for Congress AND FUCKING WINNING!!! How could Black Marxists win? Now maybe not every Republican is like the McCloskeys, and they may part company on this or that. But I agreed with Hillary back in 2016 that some of these people were deplorables. It was really, really dumb for someone running for President of all Americans to say it, of course. It was a big nail in her political coffin. But history has kind of redeemed her, I think. So yes, maybe Donald Trump did not 100 % drain the swamp. But it's a tough job for a mere perfect mortal. So that's why we'll just haul Satan's ass up from hell to finish the job. What could possibly go wrong? Sorry. But if I just listen to what lifelong Republicans who fled the rat's nest are saying, that's what they say about how some of these people who stayed behind think. Again, I'm having a moment. But some of what these people say and do suggest I am not far off the mark here. Now, to try to tiptoe back to fact and logic, there's a few other really interesting things here about Independents. I suspect it means that about 80 % of them are cemented in already for either Biden or President Toxic. Again, this poll shows 44 % of Independents for President Toxic, 34 % for Biden. But a few months ago another poll showed Biden with a slight lead with Independents. And either way, Biden is winning among all voters - by 7 points now, by 10 points in early Summer when he was winning the Independent vote. So this poll says 42 % of Independents think Biden does not have the mental ability to do the job. 41 % say he would make America less safe. Again, right now 44 % of independents say they are for President Toxic. So I think it's a good guess that 4 in 10 Independents are a waste of time for Biden. That's not bad. Most Independents lean toward one party. And this is after several years of lots of Republicans rebranding themselves as Independents. So it is no surprise to me that a significant minority of Independents may not like President Toxic, but they still will go with these Republican messages. These are no doubt the Independents who Team Toxic is hoping will hold their nose and walk back into the tent. 47 % of Independents say President Toxic does not have the mental ability to do the job. That's 5 % more than say the same thing about Biden. 43 % say Trump would make America less safe - 2 % more than said the same about Biden. And as I said above, in this poll Biden has only 34 % of the Independent vote right now, although a few months ago it may have been in the 40's. So it seems to me that Biden actually has more room to grow among Independents than President Toxic. There's one other question about chaos that goes toward this same point. The fact that they're now polling on chaos, and whether our President is causing chaos, is itself a measure of just how horrible things are right now. I've never seen a question like this on a poll before. Right now 78 % of all Americans say America is "out of control". A follow up question explores why people think that. Of all Americans, 46 % say "Trump is the source of the chaos", 27 % say "Trump will protect us from the chaos", 10 % say things are in control, and the rest don't know. Because there are more Democrats than Republicans or Independents, and Democrats feel strongly that President Toxic = chaos, they are over-weighting those numbers. When you only ask Independents, President Toxic does slightly better. 39 % say Trump is causing the chaos, and 29 % say Trump will protect us from the chaos. So now that I did a big number dump out of a humongous poll, here's my point. These horse race polls have been very stable. So have President Toxic's approval ratings, for years. So it seems like even among Independents, about 40 % simply will not vote for Biden. My guess is they likely will vote for President Toxic. If they say Biden is not mentally fit, and will make America less safe, he's not an option. Likewise, at least 40 % and probably more will not vote for Trump. Up to 47 % say he is mentally unfit, and just about 40 % say he's the source of the chaos. That's probably disqualifying. So probably both President Toxic and Biden ought to be able to get about 40 % of the Independent vote. There is this other very fluid 20 %. My guess is Biden has a better shot at winning the majority of that slice. Unless Biden somehow fucks things up really badly, anyone who was willing to buy the "Senile Joe" or "Destroyer Joe" tropes has probably already bought them. But this other 20 % or so slice is in play. Like in 2016, they don't particularly like either guy. I'm guessing that these people are also the 25 % who say they care very little, or not at all, who wins. In 2016, this slice of voters broke heavily for Trump, because they wanted change. If they felt worse off than in 2012, they were even more likely to vote for Trump. Lichtman would argue they were basically casting a thumbs down vote on the party in power. So my strong hunch is that this group of Independents, which is a single digit of the electorate, is probably more likely to hold their nose and vote for Biden than President Toxic - if they vote at all. At the end of the day, they will probably agree that things are out of control, and so therefore change is better than more of the same. My other guess is that Team Toxic knows this. Which is why they are making this a choice between 1) a bad person (because they can't make President Toxic look like a good person, even to 1 in 3 Republicans), and 2) Black Armageddon. They are calculating they can get their own people to vote, even if they are surrounded by plague, locusts, and the fires of Satan. And they are probably trying to make it unappealing or just difficult for everyone else to vote. I'm guessing that includes this 20 % or so of Independents, which is maybe 5 % or so of the entire electorate. That cohort is at best a gamble, and at worst a group that would be most likely to break against the party and leader that got us into this mess. At least so far, they have not bought the message that Biden is unfit, or will make America less safe. Again, all of this is happening in a frame where Biden is winning the popular vote by 7 to 10 %, and ahead in almost every swing state - even if by a thin margin. This is why I think it's all about GOTV and mobilization at this point. 80 % of Independents are probably already locked in cement for either Biden or President Toxic. The best thing that President Toxic has going for him is that he's got a rabid base. Most of whom will walk through the fires of hell to vote for President Toxic. So I think the smart Democrats are right to say the incessant chorus for the next two months has to boil down to one four letter word: V-O-T-E! In a situation like this, I think that anyone who votes who does not already know who they are for is more likely than not to break for change and ending the chaos. That's means Biden. Even if it's another "hold your noser" like in 2016. I could throw around more numbers, but to make my closing point I won't bother. Because I think most people who accept that facts are facts will agree. By almost any objective economic standard, we are worse off than in 1980, 1992, 2008, and 2016. Those were all "it's the economy, stupid" elections where these truly on the fence Independents all tipped the election in the final days against an incumbent, or an incumbent party. Some years, like 2008, the outcome was pretty clear already. Other years, like 2016, it really was the last minute "shift happens" that changed the outcome. It could work out better for President Toxic in 2020. But I really can't see why. Outside the rat's nest, pretty much everyone agrees that he's not a good person. And that either he's created the chaos himself, or at least he does not know how to end it. Edited August 30, 2020 by stevenkesslar Quote
Members tassojunior Posted August 30, 2020 Members Posted August 30, 2020 @stevenkesslar you realize now many registered Democrats, especially in the south, vote Trump and how many registered Republicans vote Democratic. Reagan Democrats, Trump Democrats, and now genius Rahm wants to ride a wave of Biden Republicans. Political parties, like the Electoral College, are anachronisms. It's surprising how many states don't register by party anymore and how many that do have pluralities of independents now. Yes, if we had an economics-based party system, like most countries, the party vote would be maybe 80% Democratic. But we don't. We have a political division based on emotional issues memes and narratives. (Ironically perpetuated by the Democratic press). Maybe a woman wouldn't need an abortion if she could afford a child. Maybe gays wouldn't need to get married if they otherwise had health insurance. Maybe rural kids wouldn't want to go kill overseas if they had free college or jobs otherwise. In truth economics is often behind what we consider social issues. Quote
Members Buddy2 Posted August 30, 2020 Members Posted August 30, 2020 As colleges/universities open for the Fall, the battle against covid, such as it is, may lose. The University of Alabama alone has approximately 1000 to 1200 new cases. At the same time, the president is visiting Kenosha on Tuesday to view the scene. Really trying to tie the Democrats to Black Lives Matter and anarchists. Comment I assume the professor will update his predictions. A very important prediction. Quote
Members tassojunior Posted August 30, 2020 Members Posted August 30, 2020 (edited) uncaptionable photo of the day I could have gone all election without seeing this. lol Edited August 30, 2020 by tassojunior stevenkesslar 1 Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted August 30, 2020 Author Members Posted August 30, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, JKane said: Everyone here is just being so unfair, and jumping to conclusions. There's a lot of good reasons he might not want to release his DNA. For example, in this massive You Gov poll I've been citing, only 29 % of voters think President Toxic is a good person. What if they aren't saying Trump is bad? What if they are saying he actually isn't a person? Bill Maher actually out on front on this issue. Sadly, he didn't have the DNA to prove it. Maybe this explains everything. Edited August 30, 2020 by stevenkesslar AdamSmith 1 Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted August 30, 2020 Author Members Posted August 30, 2020 (edited) So it seems like it's "break the glass" weekend. Michael Moore is the smartest guy in the room saying, "Oh my God, this could be 2016 all over again". There are several others I admire less saying the same thing. Mostly I'm glad. Because for the next two months Democrats should be in an endless cycle of vote, donate, volunteer, repeat. Just don't vote more than once, okay? This is leading to some people saying fairly dumb shit. There's an Atlantic article I won't bother posting that is titled "This Is How Biden Loses" which runs out the Kenosha Theory. The author's idea is that Biden should go to Kenosha as a sort of shadow President and pronounce something about peace, calm, nonviolence, or something. I guess the idea is that now that he's proven he can give a good convention speech, let's try making Biden look like Jesus, Moses, and Gandhi rolled into one. It's a bad idea. A better idea is what Cedric Richmond, Biden's co-chair said, "This is Trump's America. He needs to own this moment." I think most people get that. I've been spending the weekend poring through that 273 page You Gov poll. I think there's a treasure trove of "sticky" data about how voters, especially Independents, view this election. I'll get to that. But I don' buy the idea that Biden loses because of this kind of violence. Race relations is actually his BEST issue, according to these polls. 51 % of Americans say President Toxic is a racist, including 78 % of Blacks. Independents see Biden as being better than President Toxic on "race relations" by a 16 point margin. So I get the idea that this plays to the "law and order" fears. But it also plays to the idea, which almost half of America agrees with, that President Toxic is the cause of this national chaos. Portland is kind of my political home time. I've never cared for the anti-fa people. Or the conservative people who mostly don't live in Portland who come in to push back. This has been happening all through President Toxic's Presidency. So in the last few days there's all these people waving MAGA flags. And one of them gets shot in the head twice and killed by someone who says "We have a Trumper right here." First, every Black and every Democrat needs to speak like Jacob Blake's Mom. Which is do say, we need to condemn any type of violence as a way to create change. Like Jacob's Mom, we need to keep saying what makes America great is our ability to unify around common values. Second, you don't have to guess about some of the passions driving this. It's branded. MAGA flags. "We have a Trumper right here." I'm not arguing President Toxic caused this. But his name and branding is right in the middle of it. The idea of killing anyone because they are a "Trumper" is repugnant and wrong. But how did we get to where we are? No one is doing this in the name of Joe Biden. Or going out with Biden buttons on and Biden stickers on their guns and killing people. As President Toxic would say, "It is what it is." I think people see what it is. Everything Jacob's Mom said above - every word in every sentence - is exactly what Biden has been saying. I'll pull a Lichtman and argue that much of this - especially the horse race polls - is just noise that has no impact on the outcome. His theory says, correctly I think, that social disorder is one of 13 fundamentals that suggest a political earthquake is coming that will turn out the party in power. He would argue that chaos hurts the incumbent party. 78 % of Americans say the country is out of control. 46 % of Americans say President Toxic "is the cause of the chaos". Only 27 % say Trump "will protect us from the chaos". These are bad numbers for President Toxic. It is not clear to me that this will end up being somehow blamed on Biden, or Democrats. People are much more likely to say President Toxic is causing this chaos. Or at least throwing fuel on the fire. I'm with Cedric Richmond. This is President Toxic's America. He needs to own it. A few historical notes that are relevant, I think. Like many, I worried that some White whack job would assassinate Obama. Thankfully, that didn't happen. But most people did not associate Obama, or Obama's America, with throwing fuel on fires. That said, I've known a number of White conservatives who think Obama was a racist. When you probed why, they cited things that I viewed as attempts at calming, and reconciliation. My perception is that Obama would go to Dallas after a cop was killed, or speak up about Ferguson, and say things like, "We are not as far apart as we think." He would speak up for the core values and ideas of both cops, and protesters. Some White people perceived that as anti-cop. Meanwhile, it's apparently an open secret that Michelle Obama feels that President Toxic's birther nonsense could have gotten her husband killed. All it takes is one nut with one gun. This week proved there are plenty of nuts and guns out there. My point is that President Toxic is more symptom than cause. I think all this racist bile, which includes the idea that Obama was a racist for trying to get people to meet in the middle, started to well up from the conservative or Tea Party base long before Trump came along. I know this for a fact, because I ate, slept, traveled, and talked with these people. President Toxic simply articulated - or bellowed - how they felt. I can't divorce my perceptions from my political views. But the polls I'm reading suggest most Americans perceive reality as I do. They are far more likely to associate the racism and the chaos and the violence with President Toxic. I think Democrats need to make him own it. Another historical reference. It's a well kept secret, but in 1968 the name of the President was LBJ. Nixon was challenging an incumbent party. Back to Lichtman, he suggests that social disorder signals problems for the incumbent party. So the people who cite Nixon and 1968 have to remember that the Nixon of 2020 is Joe Biden. He's the one who, like Nixon, can and is arguing that he can clean up this mess. The polls say America is inclined to believe that President Toxic is a racist. And that Joe Biden is simply better suited to calm down race relations and deal with the underlying issues causing the violence. So this is a complicated issue that could go either way. But the notion that this automatically helps President Toxic is nonsense. Nixon had a very easy case to make, because the symbol of the chaos in 1968 was all the violence associated with the Democratic National Convention. That certainly does not describe what happened at the 2020 DNC. The 2020 DNC was about "Empathy Joe," The polls suggest it worked. It mostly reinforced an image of decency among people who saw Biden that way already. It may have persuaded a single digit percentage of Independents that Joe is a really decent guy. That's not what happened in 1968. About half of America see Biden as a good person, and they see empathy and decency as his strong suits. Again, only 29 % of Americans see President Toxic as a good person. Even many Republican agree that he lacks empathy and decency. I think Biden's bigger problem is issues. More than anything, it's still the economy, stupid. There's a trove of poll data that suggests this, that I'll get into below. My point here is that I think Biden has won the "decency debate". It's probably a reason for more Independents to support Biden. Because most people don't even think President Toxic is a good person. Biden's problems probably have to do with Independents fearing he'll go too far - open borders and socialism are probably the two biggest hot buttons. This whole trope about Blacks abolishing or ruining the suburbs is mostly just inflaming Blacks who already think President Toxic is racist to the bone, I think. In my eyes, there is no question at all that President Toxic is a racist. And that he is fueling the fire. In part because he is what he is. And in part because polarizing and dividing is his sole path to win re-election. I am clear that not everyone agrees with me. But the polls suggest that Americans, including Independents, tend to view it more my way than President Toxic's way. I'll post more of this poll data below. It makes what I think are some very interesting points about underlying drivers in this election. But this post I wanted to focus mostly on the questions of race and violence. And on what I view as the mistaken idea that this will somehow lead to Biden's undoing. If anything, I think it helps Biden at the margin, for the reasons I said above. People see Biden, not President Toxic, as the guy better suited to deal with this issue. Edited August 30, 2020 by stevenkesslar Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted August 31, 2020 Author Members Posted August 31, 2020 My intellectual masturbation marathon this weekend has involved wondering what Independents think about Biden and President Toxic. If there's anybody who actually is still undecided, which is itself questionable, they are probably Independents. So this long ass post is my masturbation about what Independents seem to be saying that actually matters. Let's start with this: US election 2020: Trump handed huge boost as Biden makes major mistake - Exclusive poll There's people online saying this is a fake poll based on crappy assumptions. Trafalgar is out with a poll saying President Toxic has a slight lead in Michigan. So I see no reason to dismiss the idea that President Toxic may win. I'd rather break the glass and act as if these polls are right on the money. There is one specific point I'd like to make about this poll. This is what the clearly pro-Trump people who put it out said: Quote "In any political campaign, there’s a moment that tells you which way the electoral wind is blowing. In this year’s American presidential campaign, that moment arrived on Wednesday. Joe Biden restated his support for peaceful protests but, crucially, condemned the violence that has come to dominate the months-long nationwide protest movement. When a candidate changes his tune three quarters of the way through a race, it is not because he knows he holds a winning hand. He does so because the electoral ground is shifting beneath his feet. What I predicted is that Team Toxic will say Biden is full of shit about violence unless and until he takes up arms and, much like a vigilante, go kills some Black looter. And then they will condemn him for it. This comes close. They are trying to portray Biden's denunciation of violence - and call for President Toxic to do the same - as a sort of flip flopping. My category for this is simple. It goes in the "desperate people do desperate things" file. John Kerry did flip flop oh his vote for war in Iraq. Biden, and Jacob's Mom, are actually articulating how the vast majority of Americans think and feel. At least according to the polls I'm reading. On the polling trend itself, I already pointed out that Rasmussen, a Republican poll that is an outlier compared to most polls, said that Trump's approval rating increased during the DNC, decreased during the RNC, and after two weeks of conventions his - 6 % net approval was one point worse than before either convention. Again, this is a Republican poll which in 2020 is an outlier showing much more approval for President Toxic than most polls. They are not arguing that President Toxic won the election this week. Or even that he gained any ground. I'd tend to go with Rasmussen on the trend. All this data about Independents reinforces the point I just made. At least in 2020, they seem to NOT like most of what either Biden or President Toxic say. At least the small group of Independents that aren't mostly Republicans or Democrats. When Democrats talk, Independents like President Toxic just a little more. When he talks, they like him a little less. I think part of it, based on years of relationships with Independent clients, is they just kind of disdain the whole sausage making process. So anyone who makes sausages is someone they are skeptical about, and in some cases just look down on. Out of curiosity, I tried to find data about how Independents viewed Obama during the 2008 campaign. This is an interesting but tangential point: Independents abandoned Obama quickly after the 2008 election, and were a big part of the 2010 Democratic wipeout. This resonates with my lived experience. The good part of it is that these people held Obama accountable to his campaign rhetoric about unity. That said, I know several of the ones I've known have been involved in lobbying and writing federal regs on business matters that affected them. So I've always felt they tend to hold all politicians up to a higher standard than they hold themselves to. Beyond that, I think some of the messages at the DNC reinforced specific economic fears Independents have about Biden. And some of the messages at the RNC - like around racism - reinforced things they don't like about the whole President Toxic experience. I'll get into specific poll data on that below. But it would explain what Rasmussen's data suggests: that the Democratic convention gave Trump some points, and the Republican convention took them back. That said, there's some slightly contradictory data in this huge YouGov poll that could explain any convention bounce President Toxic had. When asked whether the RNC made them more likely or less likely to vote for Trump, 47 % of Independents said more likely and 25 % said less likely. That right there would be sufficient to explain a possible bounce of a few points. Particularly because a few months ago, Biden was winning a slightly higher percentage of the Independent vote. So if Independents shifted a little more toward President Toxic, is that .... the economy? the looting or violence? the choice of Harris? the RNC being a good show? We can't really know. But the RNC itself is a good enough explanation to me. If you are worried about some new poll that says President Toxic will win, here's a blast from the past. In early September, a few days after the RNC, USA today put out a poll showing that John McCain had a 10 point lead over Barack Obama. In the early September averages, McCain led. The last poll showing McCain with a lead came out in later September 2008. I think in a month we'll have a much better picture of whether this is going to be a nail biter. Alan, welcome to the conversation. Professor Lichtman would point out that the Republicans had so many fundamentals working against them in 2008 that there was basically no way either Barack or Hillary could have lost that election, regardless of which one was nominated. He'd say most of this campaign stuff is just noise. This Gallup report says if you look at who was ahead BEFORE the conventions, the leader BEFORE THE CONVENTION won 12 out of the 15 Presidential races. This of course suggests Biden is way more likely to win. The objective fact I come back to is that it's been almost exactly one year since RCP started measuring a Biden/Trump horse race. Of those 365 days, President Toxic has been in the lead for exactly 0 of 365 days. The closest he's gotten to Biden, so far, is about 4 % in the national popular vote. If Biden wins by 4 % (as opposed to 2 % like Hillary) it's very hard to slice and dice the math so that he loses the electoral college. From here on out in this post, I'm going to focus on what this YouGov poll says Independents are thinking. My assumption is that most voters still in play are Independents. And their thinking offers insights into the underlying trends. My related assumption is that Lichtman is right. So what's really of interest is data about underlying voter trends about fundamentals. Therefore, the most useless question is the horse race poll question. But some of these other questions paint a picture that is less "sticky", and in many cases seems to already be hardened into concrete. I said already several posts up that I think about 40 % of Independents are a lost cause to Biden. I'd put that number in the low 40's. 42 % of Independents say Biden is not mentally fit to be President. 41 % say America would be less safe under Biden. It seems like somewhere around 4 in 10 "Independents" are basically conservative Republicans who will end up voting for President Toxic, or perhaps just not vote. Biden is disqualified for them, I think. I don't think that's about race of BLM or Kenosha or violence. Here's an example. Nikki Haley said her party is not racist. But 52 % of Independents say race relations are generally bad. 50 % say the US suffers from systemic racism. That is obviously NOT the Republican position. I think race may be an issue that is drawing people away from the Republicans. Perhaps just for appearance's sake, because they don't want to be seen as racists. Or more likely because they simply don't agree with Haley, and they do believe America has a real and big race problem. I also said several posts up that another 40 % of Independents are a lost cause to President Toxic. I'd put the number in the mid- to high 40's. Here's examples. 45 % of Independents say President Toxic is not a good person. 47 % say he does not have the mental ability to be President. 39 % say he is the source of the current chaos. To me at least, these are all disqualifying statements. You're a bad person, you're mentally unfit, and you're causing chaos. But I'll vote for you? Uh .................... probably not! I think this poll, which shows President Toxic winning 44 % of Independents, is probably getting close to as good as it gets for him with Independents. Meanwhile, Biden has 34 % of Independents in this poll. I'm guessing that's about as bad as it gets for him. Party because this poll comes right after an RNC that almost half of Independents said made them more likely to vote for President Toxic. And partly because close to half of Independents have really toxic views of President Toxic, as both a person and a leader. Finally, in most polls this year, and especially this Summer, I think Biden had a slight leads with Independents. Here's another one of Lichtman's underlying factors that I think is probably sticky, if not cemented in. 60 % of Independents say "thing have generally gotten worse" in the US over the last four years. I put the exact wording because there are variations of this question. But in general, if you think the economy is worse off, or if you are personally worse off, your chances of voting for the incumbent plummet. So, in theory, a little more than 40 % of Independents are a lost cause for Biden. But the 60 % who say the US is in worse shape would pretty much all be candidates for ending up as Biden voters, I think. If they actually vote, that is. About 20 % of these Independents care little or not at all who wins. That's why GOTV matters so much. These were some of the biggest nails in Hillary's coffin when she ran against Trump. In the 2016 exit polls, 72 % of voters said their financial situation was either better off or about the same as four years ago. Hillary won those two groups handily. But the 27 % who said they were worse off voted against her, 77 to 19. On the overall economy, about 1 in 3 voters said the economy was excellent or good. Hillary won over 3 in 4 of those votes. The 41 % who said the economy was "not good" voted for President Toxic 53/40. The 21 % who said the economy was "poor" voted for President Toxic 79/15. Cue up Jim Carville, please ... My sense is that last week was a mostly well choreographed effort by Team Toxic to convince anyone persuadable that you're better off than you were before me. And other than these few little Corona-glitches, things will be just fine. So we know from this poll almost half of Independents said, "Okay. I'm open to think about that. Maybe." But 60 % of them still feel the US is worse off. Lichtman's point is that voters are not fundamentally stupid. And the economic fundamentals, which are quite ugly, will manifest themselves in the final vote. If it's a fair vote. If that's true, what could possibly go wrong for Biden? On leadership traits, over half of all voters, including half of Independents, aren't particularly impressed with either man. Is anyone surprised? Biden does best on decency and empathy. Even there, only 4 in 10 voters say he has that quality. As opposed to only 2 in 10 who say the same about President Toxic. With strength, it's the opposite. One of President Toxic's favorite four letter words this Fall will be "weak". Because 4 in 10 voters see him as strong, as opposed to 2 in 10 for Biden. Either way, that's hardly flattering. As far as closing the deal with Independents that can still be persuaded goes, the polls suggest Harris met the "do no harm" rule. Among Independents, she has a 36 % favorable/ 52 % unfavorable rating. That may sound bad. But Biden is 39 % favorable/54 % unfavorable. So Harris did not harm. Meanwhile, President Toxic is 41 % favorable/55 % unfavorable. Again, he may be maxxed out with Independents already. If I'm right that maybe at most 20 % of Independents are in play, they are probably almost all voters who don't particularly admire either man. I doubt these perceptions will change. The good news to me is that slightly more Independents agree with what I view as the disqualifying statements for President Toxic - like that he's mentally unfit - than with Biden. So combine that with the latent fact that a majority of them thinks the country is worse off, and there's a good chance that a majority of Independents will ultimately vote for change, and Biden. Here's how Independents view which candidate who would do a better job on key issues, ranked from ones where Biden has a lead to those where President Toxic has a lead: Dealing with race relations: Biden 42, Trump 26, Biden has + 16 % advantage Dealing with Coronavirus: Biden 40, Trump 33, Biden has + 7 % advantage Foreign policy: Biden 36, Trump 40, Trump has + 4 % advantage Crime: Biden 33, Trump 37, Trump has + 4 % advantage Immigration: Biden 35, Trump 42, Trump has + 7 % advantage The economy: Biden 28, Trump 43, Trump has + 15 % advantage. I think some of the conventional wisdom may be wrong. If "law and order" means "crime", President Toxic may have a slight advantage. But it's slight. Once it gets into race, Biden has the advantage. I think it's probably in cement that Biden is viewed as more likely to be able to bring us back together. And President Toxic is more likely to create chaos and pull us apart. 50 to 52 % of Independents believe that race relations are bad, and there is systemic racism in the US. Biden is getting the votes of 34 % if Independents in this poll. That suggests either people are lying, or Biden has room to grow support on this issue. President Toxic, right after the RNC that half of Independents say persuaded them, is actually outperforming right now. He has 44 % of the Independent vote in this poll, even though there's no issue on which 44 % of Independents think he'd actually do a better job than Biden. The other obvious thing is that it's the economy, stupid. That's where Independents say President Toxic looks the best, and Biden looks the worst. And we should add in the cohort that is basically with President Toxic on The Wall and the borders. That's 42 to 43 %. Again, there's a whole bunch of poll results that suggest for some percentage of voters in the low 40's Biden is just a bridge too far. And President Toxic already has all those people in this poll, in which he's still losing by six points. I don't think Kenosha is preventing Biden from closing the deal. When a Black mother of a guy who just got shot 7 times speaks out about violence and healing, that helps Biden. Honestly, watching how Biden is doing this, I'm pretty impressed. I'd guess that he personally encouraged Jacob's mother to do that. I actually think it inoculates him if some crazy anti-fa people kill someone. he's unequivocally against it, and saying it nonstop. President Toxic isn't inoculated in the same way. Because he says things that either explicitly or at least implicitly seem to provoke the hot heads. That's part of what I read into the poll results. if there's a way "Kenosha" hurts Biden, it's by President Toxic backing Biden into a cul de sac. There's a question that deals with that. Asked which is a bigger problem, systemic racism or a breakdown of law and order, the country is split 49/51, right down the middle. But with Independent voters, 43 % say systemic racism. 57 % say that the breakdown of law and order is a bigger problem. You could argue if Biden is the racism guy, and President Toxic is the law and order guy, that hurts Biden. Especially if you argue that Biden is somehow causing this breakdown of law and order. Which is of course what Republicans, including surrogates like Black conservative, are selling. I think it's a hard sell. The polls suggest it's not working, other than with those already coverted. Brewer can discredit BLM as socialist or against the nuclear family, but it's a lie and it's not cutting for the people who aren't like the McCloskeys. Meanwhile, Democrats - including many who are Black - will keep arguing that if you want law and order, you need to dump Trump. That almost 4 in 10 Independents say the President of the United States is very strong language - really it should be shocking. If you watered it down to "throwing fuel on the fire" more than 4 in 10 Independents would agree. Which is precisely why only 1 in 4 Independents think President Toxic would do a better job on race than Biden. As long as Democrats keep shouting that this is Trump's America, and President Toxic is making this worse, I don't see this hurting Biden. More likely, it helps him. I think what's really Biden from closing the deal is .......... the economy, stupid. And I'm not sure why. Again, 60 % of Independents say the US is worse off than four years ago. That syncs with the fact that 44 % are already voting for President Toxic. And that 43 % say he will do a better job than Biden on the economy. My guess is President Toxic is getting an overwhelming majority of the 40 % who DO NOT think that we're worse off. And a thin slice of the 60 % who do feel we're worse off, but don't blame it on him or are willing to give him more time. But there's a big gap between the 34 % support Biden has in this poll, and the 60 % who say America is in worse shape under President Toxic. I can only speculate about what that 's about. My guess is that this "socialism" thing has bite. Nobody thinks Biden is a socialist. But the "Trojan horse" argument is a slippery slope argument. Let Biden in the door, and you just can't trust who he'll bring with him (Elizabeth Warren! AOC! Bernie! Black Marxists!) or what they'll think up next. My strong hunch is that some Independents who watched the DNC had some buttons pushed, and told Rasmussen that week (but not the following week) that maybe I like President Toxic after all. Another theory is that Biden has all these word bubbles hanging over his head like "NAFTA" and "Job Destroyer" and "Green New Deal" and "tax hike". This is where maybe Axelrod and Brownstein were right. As they said, maybe the DNC should have presented a more explicit economic agenda to persuade these Independents. I think it was implicit in the choreography that both conventions were focused less on persuading Independents, and more on ginning up the base to vote, and donate, and volunteer. Biden has two months and several debates to deal with these economic questions and reservations and close the deal, if economic policy or any policy is the hurdle to be jumped. Again, the good news to me is that, at least in theory, most of the 60 % of Independents that feel that the US is worse off under President Toxic are targets to vote for Biden. he's lost the other 40 % because they think he's senile and they buyt the "Destroyer Joe" trope. But he only has a bit over half of the other 60 % in this poll. Meanwhile, President Toxic has 100 % + of the Independents who feel he's doing a better job on any issue. It that sense, this is like 1992. Biden has to close the deal. And he has the time and voters to do so. My read is that the key phrase is what we all know it is ............ it's the economy, stupid. Reinforcing President Toxic's incompetence on COVID-19 will also help. 40 % already say Biden would do a better job on that. So they should be voting for him, but for the fact that they probably haven't been sold on the economy yet. Michael Steele, former RNC Chair, asked a good question this week about Republicans: "How do they stop the slide?" The context of his statement was that his former party has probably lost 4 Senate seats irreversibly, and if the slide continues it could be 7. He's no dummy. The Republicans had their week of reality TV to present their alternative universe. So is this is what they've got, and most polls still show they're down maybe seven points, this is not good news for them. Steele sure knows that. This is another area where President Toxic may be pulling a Carter. He set expectations for Biden so low that Biden has already outperformed them. At least at the DNC. He's doing the same thing with his talk about socialists, Marxists, and Trojan horses. The policy fear with Reagan was that he'd go way too far. Reagan had to calm people down. The killer line from the one and only debate right before the election was ... "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Biden has it better and worse than Reagan. If you see Biden as a socialist, or even very liberal, that means you are a conservative Republican, and you'll be voting for President Toxic. So he doesn't have to explain that he's not radical. The bigger problem may be that he does have to explain how he was a Senator and a Vice President for half a century. And yet, to quote President Toxic, "it is what it is." How does the guy who spent half a century in power getting us into this mess now get us out of it? I've never been a student of Joe Biden before. I had no reason to be. Now I do. I'd bet he'll pass this test with flying colors, just like he did with his convention. I can think of arguments and zingers. But Biden's people will (hopefully) impress me with much better ones they think up. Quote
Members tassojunior Posted August 31, 2020 Members Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) @stevenkesslar Saw this and knew you'd like. I spent half the summer in Pinellas County, FL, The flip county for Florida. The reason polls show Biden up in FL, Charlie Crist's FL 13 is in it, May be America's oldest age county. FL 13=old people. IDK as I saw zero Dem support and Trumpsters everywhere you look. They had the 2000-boat Trump flotilla. Maybe old people never come out? IF Pinellas really is +10 Biden, then Florida is blue and the election's over. Cue Biden to hit Social Security, Medicare and healthcare hard nationally. I'm dubious about Biden and Macomb County, MI or Pinellas but this is where he wins: (there's a similar old flip district in AZ). and don't miss this comment: Edited August 31, 2020 by tassojunior stevenkesslar 1 Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted August 31, 2020 Author Members Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, tassojunior said: IF Pinellas really is +10 Biden, then Florida is blue and the election's over. I agree. If there's one thing I would point to where I keep feeling, "This can't be true. It's too good to be true. It's bullshit." that would be the polls in Florida. Florida is always close. And as you say, if Biden wins there it is game over. So I have a hard time believing he is running away with it. Unlike the national polls, President Toxic was tied to or slightly ahead of Biden in Florida this Spring. So what goes up can come down. But if the primary driver is COVID-19, its not going to be easy for President Toxic to reverse the perception that he just botched it. So an apology and a question. I just reread my last post above. There's like half a dozen typos and some words left out. Sorry about that. It's probably transparent, but I use these posts when I want to learn something to process my thoughts. My project this weekend was to learn what I could about where swing voters are at. On the other website my habit was to post, then edit. Here I've now figured out that shortly after you post, you can no longer edit. In this case, I was starving and ran out to get a pizza and by the time I got back I couldn't edit anymore. Here's the question. With Independents, as I posted above, the issue that Biden is doing the worst on relative to Trump is the economy. 44 % of Independents say they are for Trump, 34 % for Biden right now in this YouGov poll. In terms of who would do a better job on the economy, 43 % say President Toxic and 28 % Biden. My strong gut feeling, based on this data, is that what's holding Biden back with Independents is this stuff on the economy ..... not COVID-19,. not race, not anything else. Why? I don't quite get it. I understand that until March anyone for President Toxic could argue, and also genuinely believed, that the economy was the best ever. But now it's the worst ever. Lichtman has incorporated this in his analysis. Before COVID-19 he was saying it's too early to tell, but at this point it looks like Trump. The three things that changed were the short term economy, the long term economy, and the social unrest - which I actually believe is not just race, but also all these young people of every race who feel they've been left behind by the economy, and now stand on common ground. Independents don't see it this way. At least not right now. I'm not sure if it's fear that Biden will go too far left, a lack of faith in Biden because he represents the Establishment that has failed, something else, or some combo of all the above. The most salient number to me is 60 %. As I said above 60 % of Independents say we're worse off than four years ago. Based on past election cycles, like the exit poll data from 2016, Biden should be winning like 75 % to 80 % of these "thing are worse" Independent voters. It seems like he SHOULD be able to get up to the high 40's of all Independents, as opposed to the mid-30's where he's at right now. Ideas? Edited August 31, 2020 by stevenkesslar Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted August 31, 2020 Author Members Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) Biden Beats Trump on Economy in New Poll This Newsweek article is from mid-July. After I asked my question above I Googled "Why is Trump beating Biden on the economy?" I got this and several other articles saying he isn't. Quote Pollsters identified Independents as a key factor behind Biden's new lead. The voting block now supports the presumptive Democratic nominee 51 to 37 percent. Quinnipiac University's previous June 18 national poll found a more even split, with 43 percent for Biden and 40 percent for Trump. Fewer Republicans are also in favor of a second term for the Trump administration. GOP support for the president has fallen to 84 percent from 92 percent in June. There has been relatively little change among Democrats. When asked about other key issues, the majority of participants thought Biden would be better than Trump at handling a crisis, health care, the coronavirus response and racial inequality. If it's true that 60 % or so of Independents feel that we're worse off than four years ago, it seems like Biden should be able to end up where that July poll shows with them. Like with Biden getting up to half the Independent vote or a bit more, and President Toxic maybe low 40's. If that happens, and Democrats (who outnumber Republicans) turn out at similarly high rates as Republicans, it's a wipe out. Edited August 31, 2020 by stevenkesslar Quote
Members tassojunior Posted August 31, 2020 Members Posted August 31, 2020 Besides the Pinellas county shocker the other shocker for Biden is a new active-duty military poll. While Trump beat Hillary 2 to 1, and Obama had a 36 percent favorable rating and a 52 percent unfavorable rating in a January 2017 Military Times poll, Biden leads Trump by a good margin. Military is a big voting block in NC and FL (as well as GA and VA). An interesting paragraph is how this younger segment of the population views themselves by "party": ""Another 13 percent said they plan to vote for a third-party candidate, and nearly 9 percent said they plan on skipping the election altogether. About 40 percent of troops surveyed identified as Republican or Libertarian, 16 percent Democrats, and 44 percent independent or another party."" https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/08/31/as-trumps-popularity-slips-in-latest-military-times-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/ stevenkesslar 1 Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted August 31, 2020 Author Members Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, tassojunior said: ""Another 13 percent said they plan to vote for a third-party candidate, and nearly 9 percent said they plan on skipping the election altogether. About 40 percent of troops surveyed identified as Republican or Libertarian, 16 percent Democrats, and 44 percent independent or another party."" This whole word "Independent" is a catch all for all kinds of things. There's the conservative Never Trumpers, the Black progressives who unlike their parents don't want to identify as a Democrat even though they vote that way, and then the people in the middle who truly go back and forth between each party. The military slants hard Republican, but when you add in that they are Millennials or Gen Z that may offset it. It's a tragedy with Hillary that for whatever reason she seemed to be good at playing to the worst stereotypes about her. You'd have to know her to understand that, I think. People who know her and admire her have written that all the decades of scars led her to build up an emotional wall around herself that comes down in private. I know that even though she was labelled as a phony, I always felt that Elizabeth always came through as authentic in a way Hillary often didn't. I can't explain it, and now it's history. Joe comes through as authentic. I'm just loving what I read. The minimum needed is what he said: rioting and looting is NOT protesting. But these other lines are great: “Ask yourself: Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioting? Really?” “Does anyone believe there will be less violence in America if Donald Trump is reelected?” Biden is clearly reading the polls. I did try to select the most important questions from that massive trove of YouGov poll data. But here's a few more that may help explain this. Among Independents, 46 % say there will be "more violence" if President Toxic is re-elected. 33 % say the same, and only 23 % say "less violence." So by saying that President Toxic will just fuel the violence, Biden has no votes to lose, and probably many Independent votes to gain. 72 % of Independents say "racism" is either the most important factor or an important one in explaining the unrest. 65 % say "lack of economic opportunity" is either the "most important" (21 %) or "an important" factor in explaining the unrest. So Biden has the vast majority on his side on things President Toxic won't even talk about. The danger for Biden is that 59 % of Independents say "liberal policies" are the most important or an important factor in explaining the unrest. The 29 % who say liberalism is the "most important" factor are no doubt part of the 40 % of Independents that I think are a lost cause for Biden, anyway. But this is where progressives should probably be happy now, even though we may pay a steep price for it in the future. The idea that Biden is soft on crime and Harris is too weak to throw Black men who are bad in jail just won't sell. The pattern on COVID-19 is essentially similar. Most Independents think Biden would have done a better job (42 %) than President Toxic, or the same (17 %). Only 30 % think he'd have done worse. Biden ought to be able to win the Independent vote, perhaps handily. Like he was in some polls this Summer. I think closing the deal is all about the economy, stupid. The only sad thing about President Toxic maybe being the new President Carter is that he almost certainly will not be one of the most admired ex-Presidents. Poor Donald just can't catch a break, can he? Edited August 31, 2020 by stevenkesslar Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted August 31, 2020 Author Members Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) I have a hangover from my intellectual masturbation marathon this weekend. And yet there's still a few other interesting pieces of data that I'm going to post because I think they may determine the outcome. I already mentioned the "better or worse than four years ago" thing above. There is another question in the YouGov poll where you can do a direct apples to apples with exit polls from 2016. So the CNN exit poll from 2016 asked voters to describe their "financial condition compared to four years ago". The 31 % who said "better today" voted Clinton 72/23. The 41 % who said "about the same" voted Clinton 47/45. The 27 % who said "worse today" voted for President Toxic 77/19. We now know that Hillary knew all this as it was happening. Stan Greenberg in particular wrote a lot about how she was trying to both run on the Obama/Biden legacy, but also speak to the fact that a lot of people didn't feel any better off. Biden will of course have the same challenge. Here's the thing, though. Today only 17 % of voters say they are "better off financially than they were one year ago", whereas 27 % say they are worse off. 51 % say they are the same financially as a year ago. It's not quite apples to apples, since the 2016 exit survey compares it to four years ago, and this current survey compares it to last year. But if Hillary had a weight around her neck in 2016, President Toxic has the same one in 2020. Except it's much heavier. And unlike Hillary, President Toxic was President. Biden will, and should, keep hammering the shit out of President Toxic for never really wanting to take responsibility for anything that happened while he's been in charge. Other than the great reality TV shows. All of this suggests Lichtman will likely be 10 out of 10 when the votes are counted. And it will be the economy, stupid. One other little tidbit. Hillary was up in Florida about three points right around now in 2016. In Florida Biden is doing a little better than Clinton, but a little worse in the Rust Belt states, compared to the same time in 2016. We should take nothing for granted. The comparisons to Hillary will probably make Biden look good by mid-Sept., since that was when she was actually in the worst polling shape. (Deplorables, walking pneumonia.) In the Florida polls President Toxic had a small lead in Sept. Then in mid-Oct. during the debates Hillary was way out front. So this is why I think every day in Sept. and Oct. all we should be talking about is "Did you vote?" and "Did you make sure your ballot was received?" I actually got an email from the California Secretary of State today saying they now have a "track your ballot" system up. We need that in every state. Edited August 31, 2020 by stevenkesslar Quote
Members tassojunior Posted August 31, 2020 Members Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said: All of this suggests Lichtman will likely be 10 out of 10 when the votes are counted. And it will be the economy, stupid. I actually got an email from the California Secretary of State today saying they now have a "track your ballot" system up. We need that in every state. oops, Emerson just threw a damper on. 2% Biden lead (ie losing EC badly). https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/august-2020-presidential-race-tightens-after-party-conventions Even with that they note Trump is still declining in over-65 voters. and Vegas just tanked: Edited September 1, 2020 by tassojunior Quote
Members tassojunior Posted September 1, 2020 Members Posted September 1, 2020 (edited) And now this: JPMorgan Says Investors Should Prepare for Rising Odds of Trump Win https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-01/jpmorgan-says-prepare-for-rising-chance-trump-wins-second-term Biden had to come out. Edited September 1, 2020 by tassojunior Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted September 1, 2020 Author Members Posted September 1, 2020 (edited) We're of course being bad boys, and ignoring Prof. Lichtman's advice to not follow the noise of the polls. But, hell. I doubt he'd be against a little more intellectual masturbation. Let's just make sure not to get any goo, or hot air, on the pages of his books. The story says Emerson had Biden 4 points ahead of President Toxic in July. Now it's 2. So the trend is the same. Emerson is calling it closer than the national polling average, which has moved from as high as 10 to about 6 today. Most of these national polls have margins of error in the ballpark of 2 - 3 %. With the state polls it's usually a bit bigger. Axelrod has said field work/GOTV can be worth 2 - 3 %. Another way to think of that is a different electorate can be worth 2 - 3 %. None of these pollsters know what future turnout will be, and whether Democrats will stay home (2010) or Republicans will (2006). And then there's the issue that these days a Democrat can win the popular vote by millions and still lose. So the national polls would have to be in the high single digits a day or two before the election to feel pretty secure. And this year will be different, too, because of all the early voting. As we know, it would have been worse for Bernie on Super Tuesday, because the early mail-in voting was more favorable to him. So, basically: anything can happen. And guess what? I just told everybody something they already know. This headline speaks for itself: Don't get too excited about Biden's lead in the polls: a close election is dangerous Biden is leading in the polls now, but bigger leads than his have been blown so the only way to get Trump out of office will be to have an overwhelming win. This paragraph is worth quoting: Quote In other words, the Biden lead is very vulnerable — especially because in none of those previously cited elections, was there an incumbent who was so committed to cheating in order to win the election. Trump has already shown that he would do anything to win including breaking the law. That is why he is trying to make it impossible for the postal service to do their job with the delivery of mail ballots. He even admitted ON TELEVISION his intent to withhold funding from the post office to gain an electoral edge. I think this paragraph from that Emerson poll article you posted is worth quoting, too. Quote Voters planning to vote early in person are breaking for Trump 50% to 49% while those who plan to vote in person on election day break for the President 57% to 37%. Voters who said they plan to vote by mail break for Biden 67% to 28%. The reason that jumped out at me is that what's clearly the most dangerous form of voting - in person on Election Day - is what Republicans will do the most. People should of course vote however they want. My reading of what the Democrats are saying is people should be able to have multiple choices to vote safely - by mail, in person and early, and in person and on Election Day. President Toxic is clearly saying people should vote in person - except perhaps in states like Florida where he thinks voting by mail might help him. To me it's just another example of President Toxic's reckless disregard for human life. And of the Republican bullshit machine. Herman Cain was diagnosed with COVID-19 less than two weeks after he went to President Toxic's Oklahoma rally. It's pushing the limit to say that President Toxic was responsible for Herman Cain's death. Cain can, and did, choose to do what he wanted. But President Toxic did a whole hell of a lot to create the toxic and unsafe environment that Cain died in. So to me, this is another example of where he just doesn't give a shit if more people die - including former Republican Presidential candidates. Dem’s Blaming Violence in American Cities on Trump Is Despicable I wasn't able to read that story from the right-wing Epoch Times because it's behind a pay wall. But the headline says it all, I suspect. So Biden comes out and unequivocally and passionately denounces violence and looting. His message was clearly directed to both sides. While I doubt Biden scripted Jacob Blake's Mom, he has been speaking with her. He clearly listened to her. And I'd bet money there is some choreography between her eloquent statement about national unity and his comments in Philly, which quoted her extensively. It wasn't Gandhi or MLK. But I thought he did really well. Meanwhile, the right wing will slam him and Democrats as in the headline above. And they will cheer when the vile, racist, and deplorable words keep coming out of President Toxic's mouth. On either mail-in voting or President Toxic's goading people to hate and be violent, all you have to do is listen to the words coming out of President Toxic's mouth. Or the exact words of the key people around him. Biden was smart to quote a few of those statements, verbatim, during his speech. There's an endless sewer of bile to choose from that came out of President Toxic's evil mouth. I give Biden extra points for actually calling President Toxic .......................................... wait for it ..................................................................... "toxic". He's right. This is a very easy one to defend rationally .... not that reason, facts, or logic matter. Forget about what Democrats says about President Toxic. 40 % of Independents say he is the "cause of the chaos". That's actually radical to me. When the people who are NOT Democrats and slightly right-of-center on almost every poll question say the President is the cause of national chaos, that's deeply fucked up. Worse, as I said above, just about half of Independents - not Democrats, but Independents - say that re-electing President Toxic will result in "more violence". Their words, not mine. And the weak, morally timid Republicans who support President Toxic just shut up when their leader spews more bile and hate and lies. i should qualify that. They shut up, and clap loudly. Or worse, they shout in support without masks on. This election is a little bit like therapy fro me. Especially now that the gloves are off, and people are saying what they really think. Of course, President Toxic himself does that about 99 % of the time, anyway, which is a big part of the problem. When I read things like that quote above - that Democrats are "despicable" for saying President Toxic is causing violence (and also for denouncing violence ourselves, of course) it triggers lots of memories. Years and years and years and years and years of conversations with Republicans I was very close to. If I had to date this I would date it to the early Tea Party days, like 2010. And it wasn't that people said things they'd never thought or believed before. I think it's that The Tea Party movement and the culmination of it - Trumpism - made it okay to say it. My go-to example is White conservatives i knew saying they're not racist, but Barack and Michelle Obama are. They were convinced that the Obamas believed that anyone White who disagrees with them on anything is automatically a racist. Like the birther bullshit, it became an entrenched emotional lollipop that both explained away conservative racism, and fueled it. One of the enduring mysteries to me in the latter years of Obama is that "respectable" Republicans I knew very well, who were close to high profile "respectable" Republicans like Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush, would say they hated the Tea Party. And yet they kept saying things that sounded exactly like I was reading in the most inflammatory Tea Party rags. Including, of course, that Obama himself is the biggest racist around. I think I've made clear with poll data above that if I had to explain why I think Hillary lost in 2016 in a bumper sticker, I would say, "It was the economy, stupid." The poll data undeniably states that many people who voted against were feeling economic pain. That said, there's a big minority of other people who that does not describe. I know this for a fact, because these conversations I had happened in Italy, and France, and Mexico, and in very expensive restaurants or hotels. So this had nothing to do with economic pain. This had to do with racism and hate. Or, to put the polite bumper sticker on it, "cultural anxiety". I don't like the idea of cancel culture at all. That said, I cancelled these people from my life. On an individual and interpersonal level, I feel I have the right to do that. I'll never feel good about that. My guess is these feelings will just gradually dissolve away over years as sadness, and tragedy. But revisiting all this in the heat of a campaign when these words and attacks trigger the memories and feelings, I do feel it's fair to believe these Republicans disqualified themselves from conversations. Because my experience of conversation was that they'd say shit like this. When Hillary denounced violence, it just proved what a bitch or a liar she was. When President Toxic said punch em in the face and he'd pay the legal bills after they were carried away in stretchers, they popped little chubs over that. The experience was consistent and unpleasant to the point where conversation and relationships no longer made sense to me. When I told them why to their face, like I was tired of the racism or the attacks on Republicans like Kasich as RINOs, and the total antipathy to compromise, and the ever deepening support for President Toxic's ever shallower leadership, it did not go well. No surprise. I'm quite sure my decision to speak so bluntly reflected the fact that I'd already decided the relationships just weren't worth it any longer. This is also why I feel that it's very important, especially as a Democrat, to honor and defend Republicans like Kasich, and the Lincoln Project types. Even if I disagree with most of their ideology. To me, they are vessels of light in a time when the nation is led by a vessel of darkness. Of course, I'm not God. I don't get to decide who is the light, and who is evil. But I do think historian John Meacham called it right. This is not a difficult choice. Leaders (and their followers) are making who they are and what they stand for very clear. Biden tried to change the tone today. I hope he keeps doing it. And I hope it sticks. Some of this will be a debate about tax plans or deficits or complicated health care funding schemes or trade deals. But Biden invoked MLK and John Lewis, and made this into a kind of moral crusade. Biden explicitly and implicitly claimed the high ground of hope. I give President Toxic's most devoted followers credit for at least feeling the same way. This rhetoric about evil hordes rampaging or cancelling the suburbs and the end of America as we knew it resonates to them because they do see this as a moral crusade. That is actually how and why we got to where we are today. Ideological disputes and political conflicts end in compromise, ideally. Moral crusades are like civil wars. None of this should be surprising. Back in the 1980's, when Donald Trump was publicly promoting killing Black thugs, he said "maybe hate is what we need if we're going to get something done". Same hate, different decade. They knew what they were voting for. Biden in particular has to relentlessly speak the language of unity and hope. And on a political level, I think that is exactly where people like Stuart Stevens and John Kasich and a lot of Republican Governors are. I'm also quite sure if President Toxic loses, some Republican MOCs will feel like it's a nightmare that ended. And now we can get back to normal. Back in the days of the Reagan Revolution, which was my political coming of age, I read conservative opinion leader George Will a lot. He was usually eloquent and interesting, even if I mostly disagreed with him. If he was writing about Reagan or like-minded Republicans winning elections, or winning conservative policies, he was right a lot more than he was wrong. So it says a lot to me that he's a Never Trumper. And that he just said on MSNBC that after the election some factions are going to be purged from the Republican Party. His words, not mine. I hope he's right about that one , as well. My reason for skepticism is that he's not even talking about his party anymore. He left it when President Toxic was elected. Some Never Trumper Republicans say they want to burn the party down. Because if President Toxic loses he will then just become a true cult leader, in effect, and gradually guide a constantly diminishing party to its end. If this is a battle between ex-President Toxic and people like George Will, I kind of feel sorry for George Will. Either way, the toxicity preceded President Toxic. And I'm pretty sure it will survive his Presidency. The good news about this to me is that if Biden wins, that is not primarily our problem. The massive challenge for Democrats will be to try to effectively govern our way out of the deep hole we're in. Edited September 1, 2020 by stevenkesslar Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted September 1, 2020 Author Members Posted September 1, 2020 (edited) 51 minutes ago, tassojunior said: And now this: JPMorgan Says Investors Should Prepare for Rising Odds of Trump Win https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-01/jpmorgan-says-prepare-for-rising-chance-trump-wins-second-term Biden had to come out. As much as I'm a Lichtman guy, I have to admit that Wall Street and JP Morgan had a perfect track record in 2016: Wall Street reacts: Here’s what the markets will do after the election PUBLISHED MON, NOV 7 2016 9:41 AM Quote As the historic 2016 U.S. presidential election approaches, major Wall Street analysts agree that the S&P 500 will likely sell off if Donald Trump wins, and at least hold gains if Hillary Clinton wins. The consensus view is that Clinton does prevail, but analysts are concerned that the final election result may drag beyond Tuesday night in a tight or contested race. And there is always the possibility that the Street gets the election wrong, just as traders did not expect the U.K. to vote to leave the European Union in June. JPMorgan If Clinton wins, the S&P 500 should recover about 3 percent to 2,150 and European and emerging market stocks should rise 3 to 4 percent, Mislav Matejka and other JPMorgan analysts said in a Monday note. They agreed with the consensus view that a Clinton victory remains more likely than a Trump win. “We believe that if Trump wins, markets are likely to fall further — one should not use the Brexit template where stocks bounced quickly,” the note said, referring to the rebound shares made shortly after the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. This is good news. If Biden wins, they'll be 3 for 3. Edited September 1, 2020 by stevenkesslar tassojunior 1 Quote
Members tassojunior Posted September 1, 2020 Members Posted September 1, 2020 (edited) This is what staged "Campaign Rallies" look like now and what people see. They used to put a few heads in front of the podium and a few in back and there used to be 100 camera people.This actually was the case in much of 2016 and most of the primaries too (before covid). But sometimes the teleprompter scrolls too damn fast: Edited September 1, 2020 by tassojunior Quote
Members tassojunior Posted September 2, 2020 Members Posted September 2, 2020 20 hours ago, stevenkesslar said: This is good news. If Biden wins, they'll be 3 for 3. You're right. Wall Street has had a dismal record predicting elections. Just today I saw another Wall Street piece that says you need to look to the states controlled by Republicans in the legislatures and governors mansions to see there is a "hidden" Republican base that carries over into presidential politics. A reverse coattails, especially in the midwest and Florida. IDK. As opposed to the snake oil salesmen on Wall Street the Vegas guys do have $ on the line. Even then I check with them more for trends than exact numbers. Like 538 they had Hillary an 80% favorite on election night 2016. But as far as independents, you're wrong. In the old days independents were thought of as "Republican lite". They usually went 2/3 GOP then. But with anti-war sentiment, anti-corruption, pro-free speech, abortion rights, gay rights, etc taking over the young, "independent" really means independent of party label voting strictly on issues. I have a number of young millennials I deal with a lot and they refuse to register as Democrats in DC even though they realize that means they have almost no say in elections in a 90% Democratic city. They don't care. Not acknowledging either of the corrupt dying political parties is that important to them. There's a 100% devotion to what makes sense, what works, what is right, what is moral. (there is a tinge of libertarianism , but that's ok because it's a value of personal, not corporate, liberties.) Bernie, Tulsi, Yang, and Amash were the leaders of the young independents this year. The Democratic party trying to win with Republican votes instead of young independents is a very poor strategy IMO. Quote
Members Pete1111 Posted September 2, 2020 Members Posted September 2, 2020 (edited) I believe in his methods about as much as I believe that Jamaican fortune teller, Miss Cleo. For now, I predict Wisconsin and Ohio will vote for Trump, and possibly Michigan. Some predict Arizona and Florida will swing Blue. Seems like Biden needs that. Edited September 2, 2020 by Pete1111 fix tassojunior 1 Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted September 2, 2020 Author Members Posted September 2, 2020 On 8/31/2020 at 3:37 PM, stevenkesslar said: This whole word "Independent" is a catch all for all kinds of things. There's the conservative Never Trumpers, the Black progressives who unlike their parents don't want to identify as a Democrat even though they vote that way, and then the people in the middle who truly go back and forth between each party. 28 minutes ago, tassojunior said: But as far as independents, you're wrong. In the old days independents were thought of as "Republican lite" ... The Democratic party trying to win with Republican votes instead of young independents is a very poor strategy IMO. I never said Independents were "Republican Lite". I think you actually just agreed with me. Some Indepedents are "Republican Lite". But other are young Independents who are progressives and increasingly don't identify themselves with either political party. Even though if they vote they tend to vote Democratic. So it is all over the map. In my posts about Independents relating to the YouGov poll, I did say about 40 % of Independents appear to basically be conservatives Republicans. They don't think Biden is mentally fit, and they think he'll make America less safe ... blah blah blah. Since we know that many Republicans have shifted to Independent precisely because of their antipathy to President Toxic, it makes sense that there's a big chunk of Independents - maybe larger than before President Toxic - who basically think like Republicans. Because for much of their life they have been Republicans. My read of both conventions is that they mostly played to the base and mobilization - not persuasion. Biden had Kasich. President Toxic had Black conservatives. But mostly it was ginning up the known base. I've written a lot about Independents the last few days. Obviously, I believe that persuading Independents matters. But mostly I think this election will be determined by who gets their base to vote. Relating to Independents and persuasion, I'll restate what I think are the most important things I see in the polls. If anybody is going to benefit from persuasion, given where we are right now, I think it's Biden. In the poll I kept citing, President Toxic has 44 % of the Independents. That's more than percentage of Independents who think he'd do a better job than Biden on anything. Or that identify him as a good leader in any number of questions. Again, this is right after the RNC. Other polls I cited from July showed Biden in the lead with Independents then. But now he has 34 % of Independents in this one poll. So I think we can conclude two things that seem like facts. One, there are some Independents changing their mind. So persuasion does matter. Two, right now Biden has the most to gain, and President Toxic the most to lose, by persuading Independents. When you look at where Independents are at both on policies and the personal leadership qualities, it favors Biden a lot more than President Toxic. If it's true that they've been sliding toward President Toxic in the last month, that also means they can slide back to Biden. There's two extremes I cited above that may define the range either candidate can go with Independents. Only 28 % of voters in the poll I cited say Biden would be better than President Toxic on the economy. This is a reversal from another poll I cited from mid-July that showed Biden leading with Independents on the economy. Meanwhile, Biden is perceived as way better than President Toxic on race. So while this "law and order" stuff could hurt Biden in theory, there's no evidence of that in reality as of now. Including in Wisconsin, where a Morning Consult poll out today give Biden a 9 % lead. The 538 average of polls shows Biden up 6 % in Wisconsin. That 28 % figure strongly suggests to me that Biden closing the deal is all about the economy, stupid. Flip side, 60 % of Independents say the nation is worse off than four years ago. If past patterns hold, that suggests Biden has a huge number of Independent voters he should be capable of closing the deal with, grounded around the reality that the economy is not in good shape - in general, or for them personally. Some of these polls suggest before either convention Biden was on the way to doing just that. My own view is sort of "Lichtman Lite". His key insights are that historical forces matter. And that voters judge based on the fundamentals of governing, not political games. So I do really think that President Toxic is predisposed to lose in 2020 because of all these voters who feel worse off. Then add the corruption, and COVID, and racial chaos. But I think Biden does need to close the deal, which he hasn't. That is the part Lichtman seems to dismiss. He's basically saying Biden, Bernie, Elizabeth, Tulsi ..... any of them would have won if nominated. That said, he did put in the caveat in 2016 that even though Trump should win, he is so far outside the box that he may manage to lose. So Lichtman is not a purist. I think we are in agreement that the phrase "Independent" covers people who are all over the ideological map. In addition, ideology may not be the most important factor, or even an important factor, to many of them. about 20 % of them says they care very little, or not at all, who wins. So it could be that what matters most are these questions about whether they are better or worse off. Or whether they believe this or that candidate will really make them less safe. If this is an accurate picture, it also may matter who the last person to speak with them before they vote is. They are very fluid, and may not know themselves who they'll vote for until they vote. I checked the last three elections that seem most similar to what Lichtman thinks will happen. Meaning elections where the incumbent or incumbent party lost, and it seemed to be in large part because of the economy, stupid. They are 1980, 1992, and 2016. In none of those cases was the winner clear around Labor Day. If there's an example where a candidate had to close the deal to win, and did, 1980 is it. The sole debate was about a week before the election. There were polls in mid-October that showed Carter with a healthy lead. Then again, Reagan had opened up a lead over Carter in the Summer. So it was fluid. The one thing that is clear is that Carter's final polling slide started right after that debate, and could not be stopped. It's relevant to 2020 that the question that cut is: are you better off than you were four years ago? I'd argue the last person Independents listened to in that election was Reagan. And it was decisive. In 1992 Clinton had a healthy lead through most of the Fall. It's another one where you can argue he closed the deal in the second, town-hall style debate. That's the one where he felt your pain, and Poppy looked at his watch. Clinton opened up a 20 point lead in mid-October. That said, there's a few Gallup polls in late October where Clinton only had a one or two point lead. There's zero consensus on whether any of these debates really matter, with the possible exception of that 1980 debate. We all know what happened in 2016. There's two points I'll reinforce. First, Hillary's loss is not a great example of its the economy stupid. Slightly more people said they were better of (31 %) than worse off (27 %) than four years ago. But the overwhelming vote against Hillary by the 27 % who felt worse off was probably the single biggest nail in her coffin. And I'd argue that the last person a lot of voters listened to was Jim Comey, which of course didn't help. My "Lichtman Lite" interpretation of this is that in all three cases the incumbent party was predisposed to lose. And in all three cases they did lose. But that wasn't clear until they actually won. That's what I'd bet on in 2020. Biden is more likely to win than not. But if it happens, we won't know it until Election Day. Part of the reason is these Independents who may be predisposed to fire President Toxic but won't do that - if they do it - until the last minute. And given the mail-in ballot situation, in 2020 we may not know until well after Election Day. Which is a perfect lead in to yet another long rant, This post was all about persuading and Independents. The follow-up on is about getting the base to vote. tassojunior 1 Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted September 2, 2020 Author Members Posted September 2, 2020 (edited) Exclusive: Dem group warns of apparent Trump Election Day landslide Quote A top Democratic data and analytics firm told "Axios on HBO" it's highly likely that President Trump will appear to have won — potentially in a landslide — on election night, even if he ultimately loses when all the votes are counted. By the numbers: Under one of the group's modeling scenarios, Trump could hold a projected lead of 408-130 electoral votes on election night, if only 15% of the vote by mail (VBM) ballots had been counted. Once 75% of mail ballots were counted, perhaps four days later, the lead could flip to Biden's favor. This particular modeling scenario portrays Biden as ultimately winning a massive victory, 334-204. So this post goes the exact opposite direction of the one above. This one is about GOTV and getting the base to vote. While both matter in pretty much every election, my own view is that getting the base to vote is the single most important thing. The one sentence explanation of why Democrats got shellacked in 2010 is a lot of Democrats did not vote. I buy the idea that turnout in 2020 will be off the charts on both sides. Which, if true, is good news for Democrats. Since there are a lot more of us. (News flash: Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 by millions of votes.) Arguably, the biggest challenge in 2020 won't be whether Democrats vote. It will be how they vote. And how they know their vote is counted. And what happens if President Toxic appears to be "winning" in a landslide on Election Night. Maybe I'm too optimistic. But the thing I worry about least is President Toxic declaring he won, and there's no need to count ballots. Even if you forget mail-in voting, it's not like we're not used to elections that go one way, until they go another. If I remember right, Andy Gillum was ahead in the early counting, and then it was all downhill from there. Doug Jones I think was behind most of the night in Alabama, until city votes came in and put him over the top. Granted, that took four hours. Not four days. But the principle is the same. Everybody who cast a legal vote deserves to have it counted. What that article describes is basically what happened in California in 2018. Here's an article about how Paul Ryan whined about possible voter fraud. It went nowhere, because they had no argument. Ryan's position was basically that "it defies all logic to me" that it takes more time, but is cheaper, to have a system that actually makes it easier for more people to vote. It also defied logic to him that when you do that, Republicans got their asses kick. Poor Paul! Out of curiosity I Googled "California Election Fraud" and got this page from The Heritage Foundation which i'm guessing is every vote fraud case going back to the 1990's. If I'm reading that correctly there was one conviction in 2018 and three in 2019. Hardly the thing stolen elections are made of. President Toxic may whine and rant. But the value of putting out the warning now is that we all just need to be prepared for it. My bigger fear is those other issues, about the actual movement of ballots, efforts to prevent them from being cast, and efforts to invalidate them after being cast. I haven't followed it closely, but I think Biden (like President Toxic) is staffing up an army of lawyers all over the potential swing states. One worst case scenario is that it's like 2000 again. But we have five Floridas, not one. And whether mail in ballots are invalidated could impact the outcome in states where it's close. That said, Florida 2000 was all about ballots cast in person. So it's not clear that votes cast in person in 2020 could not be an issue, too. Another worst case scenario is that Team Putin hacks the actual state voter files. People who aren't real could vote in person. Or people who are real may find their registrations disappeared. My way of dealing with this is to send money to Biden and Senate candidates who can win in swing states. My assumption is that Biden and the statewide candidates are the ones who will be coordinating state-level GOTV and also ballot tracking systems based on the laws of each state to get the base out to vote. This voting environment is probably more curse than blessing for Democrats. But it could be both. My assumption is that Republicans will march through the fires of hell to vote in person for President Toxic. This article from The Nation about down-ballot voting is both good news and bad news for Democrats. The good news is that of the roughly 1000 state-level seats Democrats lost in the Obama Era, we've now won about half back. In a blue wave, we could get the rest back in 2020, just in time for redistricting. The bad news is that Democrats could be hurt more than Republicans due to the lack of human person to person contact in COVID-19 America. Like door knocking. GOTV and ballots could be a complete nightmare for Democrats this year. The article anecdotally quotes several Black women running for State Assembly seats who came surprisingly close to winning in 2018, and could win in 2020. @tassojunior should like this. Because they are intentionally targeting "low propensity" voters. Especially "low propensity" voters of color. But I think it says three different times in the article that human contact at their door or somewhere else (Bernie used picnics a lot in Nevada) is the single best way to get people who don't usually vote, or never vote, to vote. So there's volunteer efforts to phone or text people instead. But I'm not sure that does the anything close to the same thing. Meanwhile, I keep reading these articles like this one from Ohio that reinforce Michael Moore's point. Enthusiasm for President Toxic in Trumpland is through the roof. And it shows up in grassroots organizing efforts, like people going door to door despite COVID, or texting people they know or maybe who are on some target list. I think the blessing here is that Democrats with the brains and resources (money, staff, volunteers) have a built in reason to get people to vote early, if that is a legal option in their state. My experience as a volunteer doing phone or door to door GOTV on elections is that the single best excuse is always, "Stop bugging me. I'll vote on Election Day." COVID and President Toxic's antagonism to mail-in ballots changes that completely. I'm hoping lots of Blacks and Millennials, among others, get the message that if you don't vote early President Toxic's lawyers will do everything they can to make sure you can't vote. Or that your vote won't be counted. Rep. Clyburn is talking about October being "Election Month". He talked in an interview about Colorado's system for early voting as a model to adopt in other states. If I understood him right, the idea is to vote absentee, but in person. Like by having ballot drop boxes rather than mailing them back. I know I plan to vote as soon as I get my ballot in the mail. And then I'll track it or probably just drop it off in person. I have to imagine lots of people are thinking this way. If a lot of Democrats do this, it could also confound the expectation that President Toxic will be way ahead on Election Night. We've never had an election like this before. Many Californians, including me, waited until the last minute to vote in the 2020 primary to see what happened in earlier states. So while it's likely that President Toxic will be ahead in swing states on Election Night based on people who vote in person on Election Day, that's not necessarily true if a lot of Democrats vote early. I think those mail-in ballots that come in and are counted early are pretty much the first ones to be reported, at least in some states. So it's clear, the top chart is midterm elections. The second chart is the last three Presidential elections. What I worry about the most in terms of GOTV is that because of COVID-19 it's just going to be particularly hard to get the people Democrats need to vote to do so. On the face of it, the fact that you can't go door to door or have community or church picnics or voter registration tables is going to hurt. What might help the most is the environment of panic and frenzy we are already in. The message is already out that if you don't vote, it's the end of democracy. And maybe civilization. Or, your suburbs will be cancelled. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from it. But in the Wisconsin election and with the members of The Squad, like Rep. Omar, people turned out in droves the Democrats did well. Including Democrats who were supposed to be vulnerable. Unlike 2016, this already feels like an "all hands on deck" election. If I had to guess, we're not headed to a repeat of 2016 in terms of turnout. Rule # 1 for Democrats seems to be DO NOT REPEAT 2016. So while there will be huge challenges with the nitty gritty work of GOTV and ballots at the grassroots level, my guess is that 2020 will be most like 2008 and 2018. Turnout for both parties were at record highs. Note that Republicans turned out at higher rates in 2008 than in 2012 and 2016. My subjective sense is that the intensity we're feeling now is felt by vote sides. And it plays off each other. If anything like this actually happens, President Toxic will be toast. Republicans even beat Democrats on turnout in 2008, narrowly. But Obama and Democrats romped simply because there are so many more of us. Obama also won more Independents than McCain 52/44, according to Wikipedia. As I argued above, Biden ought to be able to do that in 2020. Obama 2012 might be the textbook example of the relative importance of turning out the base, compared to persuading Independents. Wikipedia says that Romney won the Independent vote over Obama by five points in 2012, 50/45. Obama won handily regardless, and Democrats carried pretty much every close Senate race in states like Missouri and Indiana and North Dakota - which set up losing those ones in 2018. Edited September 2, 2020 by stevenkesslar Quote
Members tassojunior Posted September 2, 2020 Members Posted September 2, 2020 (edited) On 9/1/2020 at 1:43 AM, stevenkesslar said: This is good news. If Biden wins, they'll be 3 for 3. Going back to Clinton is really going back to old "independents". Yes, back then, and yes now with very old Republicans (like the Lincoln Project NeoCons), independents were often wavering Republicans.That is simply not true with millennial independents. As obnoxious as Trump is they won't jump on a bandwagon for a ticket that includes Biden who was the biggest cheerleader for the genocide, horrible sadistic genocide of a million innocent people in Iraq, who was on the team that is responsible for 100,000 dead by drones in Yemen and Somalia (ie: war criminals), who assassinated a 16-yr old American American citizen, who has made a career of grafting public office into family wealth, Harris who is the most AIPAC-controlled candidate in memory (equal with Trump), who's husband is the voice of the corporate media and Silicon Valley with all it's surveillance, censorship, and mind control, and made her reputation closing down Backpage and co-authoring SESTA. I'm not making these arguments, I'm simply observing that these type independents aren't coming onboard without major concessions or recognition by the winning establishment wing of the Democratic party. The normal way would have been a VP of Bernie or a lieutenant. Absent that an endorsement of Medicare 4 All (supported by 75% of the US and a majority of Republicans), or withdrawal from the Middle East, or Universal Basic Income, or something important. Instead there was a huge Fuck You to that part of the Democratic voting coalition, Get Out of Our Party... From Kyle, to Crystal, to Tulsi to Bianna to Dore all the "progressive" Bernie team was harassed during the DNC on Twitter and they made clear they knew it was coming from the party. 2016 all over again. "Get out and stay away from our party, we'll win with Republicans." A horrible strategy. You can't depend on Trump staying as personally obnoxious an imbecile that masses of people vote just to turn him out. You have to have a positive message to attract independent young people who really have no use for either party. And you have to be a gracious "winner" and reach out to the "other side" of a party's voters for a general. "We're not named Trump" alone might win. But it's not a sure thing. Edited September 2, 2020 by tassojunior Quote
Members stevenkesslar Posted September 2, 2020 Author Members Posted September 2, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Pete1111 said: For now, I predict Wisconsin and Ohio will vote for Trump, and possibly Michigan. Some predict Arizona and Florida will swing Blue. Seems like Biden needs that. I'm not really responding to your post @Pete1111. But the specific states you cited dovetail with something I was going to post, anyway. I thought this was a really good analysis relating to Lichtman's ideas about fundamental drivers. It's a counterpoint to, "it's the economy, stupid." Why Has Minnesota Been Slow to Realign? The author makes a great argument that, at least in the Midwest, it's the geography, stupid. Iowa, for example, had the biggest Democratic lean of these seven Midwestern states he looks at back in 1988. By 2016 it had the second biggest Republican lean. (Indiana was # 1.) Why? Here's what the author says: Quote What distinguishes Iowa is the complete absence of a mega city or a large city; 26% of Iowa is located outside a metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area. The easiest way to make his point is to just list the percentage of voters in these states that live in large cities: Illinois: 69 % Minnesota 63 % Michigan 55 % Ohio 51 % Indiana 48 % In the article he doesn't give a specific number for Wisconsin or Iowa. And it's not 100 % clear how he defines "large cities". But it is clear that he's including suburbs and exurbs. To me, this dovetails with Rahm Emanuel's idea of "metropolitan alliances". So you won't like this much, @tassojunior. I'm throwing Rahm and suburban women into the melting pot together. Watch out! The whole article is detailed and thorough. His point about Minnesota is that the Republicans might be waiting a while. Because despite being called The Land Of 10,000 Lakes, Minnesota is kind of The Land Of Twin Cities And Suburbs. Mike Pence put on a good show up in The Iron Range. But if The Iron Range becomes redder, and the suburbs become bluer, that's not good math for Republicans. The 538 poll averages today show Biden with a 6 point lead in Minnesota, and President Toxic with a 2 point lead in Ohio. As the author argues, the pattern is clear. In 2016, Michigan was the cutting edge between winning and losing. So far, at least, it looks like the pendulum is swinging to blue, not red. But it's too early to tell. This other article from 538 covers a lot of the same ground as the article above, and presents a somewhat more optimistic picture for Republicans who want to take Minnesota. I'm including it because the thing it adds is one possible driver: the concentration of non-Hispanic Whites without bachelor's degrees. This graphic from the 538 article sums it up nicely: Arguably, you could also say "It's the education, stupid." Having gone to a liberal arts college in Minnesota, this all makes sense to me. Paul Wellstone won in 1990 because he could go up to the Iron Range and preach left-wing populism, and it worked. As long as he went easy on the gun stuff. Now there's more guns, and fewer jobs in the Iron Range. So where the educated people are - the cities and suburbs - that where Democrats do well. And it's about the only place they do really well these days. 2020 will be a test of whether, and how, economic fundamentals matter. If Lichtman is right, President Toxic can't survive an election in which the economy and jobs have tanked. Not to mention COVID-19 and all the other stuff. That said, Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 on the backs of Blacks, who turned out at an even higher rate than 2008. Despite the fact that the Black economy in particular was the slowest to recover from The Great Recession. So will Team Toxic not only turn out their base, but add to it with new voters that didn't vote in 2016? Given what happened with Obama and Blacks in 2012, it's possible. But Blacks knew that Obama did not cause The Great Recession. So far it looks like Trump's America doesn't think he's to blame for anything going on in America in 2020. I'll be fascinated to see how that plays out when people vote. And to see which people vote. Ohio county tells story of the seismic shift of working-class voters toward GOP I'm including that article mostly for the headline. If you read the whole story, the headline sounds better for Republicans than it is. So in the county around Youngstown, Ohio, enthusiasm for President Toxic is high. But the article also states that in suburban Columbus, Ohio, in 2018 a Democrat came within 4 points of tossing out a Republican in a district that was supposed to be totally safe for the GOP. For me, it all keeps coming back to the bumper sticker "metropolitan alliances". One question I have that 2020 will maybe help answer is whether there is anything that "The Establishment" can do that will make things right for these places like Youngstown. I say "The Establishment" because one way of looking at it is that whether it's Jeb! or Hillary or good ole' Destroyer Joe, some Trumpians seem to be convinced they are all at best blood sucking swamp creatures, and at worst pedophiles who eat babies. The other question is whether President Toxic can do anything that will convince his supporters that we're not really on the fast track to Greatness in 2020. I'm going to close with a summary of all manufacturing jobs in Ohio and the trend going back to the 1990's. I picked January of certain years because that's the month new Presidents were inaugurated. So the assumption is that Presidents are somehow judged based on what actually happens while they have power. Again, if Lichtman is right, and voters make judgments about how well incumbents governed, President Toxic should have real problems in Ohio. And at least some polls show him behind. All Employees: Manufacturing in Ohio January 2001 992,900 manufacturing jobs January 2009 671,000 manufacturing jobs July 2009 609,700 manufacturing jobs January 2013 655,100 manufacturing jobs January 2017 689,900 manufacturing jobs January 2020 697,000 manufacturing jobs July 2020 657,200 manufacturing jobs The best way to get the picture of factory jobs in Ohio is to look at that long-term chart. It's bleak. Ohio lost about 300,000 factory jobs under W. "Recovery" didn't get close to getting back to the 1 million + factory jobs Ohio had under Bill Clinton. They never even got back to the 767,000 jobs they had in December 2007, when the Great Recession started. You can look at Obama/Biden a few ways. If you start counting from July 2009, at the bottom of The Great Recession, Ohio gained about 80,000 jobs. Again, that didn't even get them back to December 2007, let alone December 1999. If you count the 61,300 jobs lost in the first six months of Obama/Biden, that works out to a new gain of 20,000 manufacturing jobs after eight years of Obama/Biden. I don't think Ohio factory workers look at this FRED data every month. But I do think what the numbers speak to - stagnation, crappy paying jobs, addiction - is what we keep reading about that led them to gamble on President Toxic. On an objective level, President Toxic has made it worse. There's over 30,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in Ohio than when he took office. Even if you count from January 2017 to January 2020, pre-COVID-19, the "best economy ever" produced a net gain of about 7,000 factory jobs in three years. If the question is whether President Toxic brought jobs back, the answer is no. If the question is whether those rich "job creators" took their tax cuts and created factory jobs, the answer is no. President Toxic will replay 2016 and blame all this on NAFTA and Destroyer Joe. But there is a difference. Trump speaks as if he isn't really President. And he never really made promises. But he is President. And he did makes promises. And people are not better off. Biden can at least say in 7 1/2 out of 8 years the recovery created tens of thousands of jobs, without having to fill the trough of the greedy millionaires and billionaires. Even if you count before the plague, President Toxic just couldn't do that. Jobs and the economy are not the only issue driving this election. But to the degree people in Ohio vote on the reality of their jobs and lives, as opposed to the Trump Reality TV Show, it's not clear to me that President Toxic can pull this off. I don't believe he can simply make the same promises that Smartest Business Genius Ever Donald Trump did in 2016. Edited September 2, 2020 by stevenkesslar Quote
