2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[gmr548 16681]

8 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah- I’m touting MN as a long term play for the GOP to pick up a previously left voting state

I fundamentally disagree with this because MN is not experiencing the economic and demographic stagnation of a WI, MI, or OH. The state is growing and it is doing well. That growth is driven by the Twin Cities, which already constitutes a majority of the states population - that's not about to change. It's well educated. It's getting less white, not more so. It's not completely hemorrhaging young people. The factors that are driving those other rust belt states towards the GOP don't exist in MN. Long term I think the state probably continues to behave more like Oregon or Washington - Twin Cities keep it a stable blue state even if it's red as fuck outside the metro area.

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

19 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I fundamentally disagree with this because MN is not experiencing the economic and demographic stagnation of a WI, MI, or OH. The state is growing and it is doing well. That growth is driven by the Twin Cities, which already constitutes a majority of the states population - that's not about to change. It's well educated. It's getting less white, not more so. It's not completely hemorrhaging young people. The factors that are driving those other rust belt states towards the GOP don't exist in MN. Long term I think the state probably continues to behave more like Oregon or Washington - Twin Cities keep it a stable blue state even if it's red as fuck outside the metro area.

The less white, not more white, is why I think the GOP has a chance. Basically, there’s research that shows that the more minorities there are in a state the more whites people behave as a monolithic voting bloc. That’s not to say it’s determinative, just a possibility that when whites aren’t overwhelming majority in the state, maybe we see a change. 

Also, I should note- I’m not actually saying MN flips, I’m saying if (and that’s a big if) the GOP has any chance of winning a national election in 28 or 32 or something like that I think MN would have to be a part of a winning coalition for them, along with MI, WI and PA, to make up for certain losses in AZ and likely FL, N.C. and GA. 

So, the GOP would be swapping out WI, MN, MI, IA and PA for AZ, NC, GA snd FL from W’s 04 coalition. I’m not sure if those votes are enough for 270, but something like that. 

Eta- they’d need to keep one of those other states, even if they sweep the upper Midwest/rust belt. Unless TX steals like 4 or 5 electoral votes from Ca and NY

Edited June 2, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[Voldemort86 2259]

Minnesota is not going red this cycle.

 

get the trump dreams of winning Nevada, New Mexico, Minnesota, or Virginia out of your head folks. 
 

trump only came close in those places because people hated hilary. Hilary was so unpopular that states like Oklahoma, Alabama , and Arkansas voted for a socialist in the 2016 primary against her. The same socialist ran in 2020 and got his shit pushed in by a likable moderate candidate.

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

2 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

Minnesota is not going red this cycle.

 

get the trump dreams of winning Nevada, New Mexico, Minnesota, or Virginia out of your head folks. 
 

trump only came close in those places because people hated hilary. Hilary was so unpopular that states like Oklahoma, Alabama , and Arkansas voted for a socialist in the 2016 primary against her. The same socialist ran in 2020 and got his shit pushed in by a likable moderate candidate.

And what about stealing the election?  Or, just as likely, refusing to acknowledge a Biden victory?  Barr and 99% of the Rep senators will back him.  What then?

[Voldemort86 2259]

42 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

And what about stealing the election?  Or, just as likely, refusing to acknowledge a Biden victory?  Barr and 99% of the Rep senators will back him.  What then?

He can’t get away with stealing the election right in front of the entire nations eyes. 
 

trump and his degenerate base is less than 40% of this country. They will be overpowered and back down if they lose and try to start something.

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

7 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

He can’t get away with stealing the election right in front of the entire nations eyes. 
 

trump and his degenerate base is less than 40% of this country. They will be overpowered and back down if they lose and try to start something.

And Hitler only have 35-45% of German support (sound familiar?) when he used the Reichstag fire to seize total control of Germany.  Trump can absolutely do it w/ the support of the DOJ, Senate and SCOTUS....which he has.  We're in for very, very dark times. 

[SubliminalHorn 6995]

6 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

And Hitler only have 35-45% of German support (sound familiar?) when he used the Reichstag fire to seize total control of Germany.  Trump can absolutely do it w/ the support of the DOJ, Senate and SCOTUS....which he has.  We're in for very, very dark times. 

Then we take to the streets. Those riots would make today’s seem like child’s play

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

5 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Then we take to the streets. Those riots would make today’s seem like child’s play

Agree and I will likely be fighting many former friends.  So be it; I'll be ready. 

[SubliminalHorn 6995]

1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Agree and I will likely be fighting many former friends.  So be it; I'll be ready. 

Yep. I told my husband last night that if the worst happens, martial law leading to the election being canceled or “postponed”, we are going to be right there in the streets fighting fascism. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

I'm thinking the economy is not going to hurt Trump that much because of the way the impacts fall.  First, whites aren't as affected as others.  Second, to the extent whites are affected, it is predominantly lower education whites.  Those guys are going to vote for trump no matter what.  I think the only persuadable trump voter is the high education white trump voter, and they are weathering this storm just fine. 

 

[Storm the Field 5360]

Also, I dont' really put stock in the political betting markets, but I guess it's noteworthy that it's now flipped to Biden 52, Trump 47 on PredictIt. 

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

 

 

[BradInATX 9208]

13 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

 

 

Yeah. but what does that really tell us? Of the 57% that don't approve of his handling of the protests, what percentage do you think don't approve because they think he hasn't shot enough black people yet? I'd say it's 99%. None of those folks are going to say "Trump has been too easy on the protestors so I'll vote for Biden". 

That said, the overall numbers are encouraging. But it's so early, most of the people that have shifted over will almost certainly be swayed back to Trump's side with a bunch of "omg socialism" and abortion scare tactics between now and then. They just like to occasionally pretend that they're considering voting against him so that that can convince themselves they aren't morally bankrupt.

Edited June 2, 2020 by BradInATX

[Message Board User 12405]

40 minutes ago, Storm the Field said:

Also, I dont' really put stock in the political betting markets, but I guess it's noteworthy that it's now flipped to Biden 52, Trump 47 on PredictIt. 

This election can’t come soon enough.

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

20 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

That said, the overall numbers are encouraging. But it's so early, most of the people that have shifted over will almost certainly be swayed back to Trump's side with a bunch of "omg socialism" and abortion scare tactics between now and then. They just like to occasionally pretend that they're considering voting against him so that that can convince themselves they aren't morally bankrupt.

Nothing is early in this election.  People have made up their minds. Trump has consistently been losing to Biden in head to heads for 18 months. 

Never Trumpers and Dems are voting for Biden.  Trumpkins and most life long GOPers are voting for Trump. If there is an "undecided" group of voters, the majority will not end up voting for Trump IMO. 

COVID and the current protesting didn't have to be bad optics for Dotard. He actually could have gained more voters and favorability just by being the most basic level of competent and compassionate during these difficult times. He chose to be combative and cruel instead. He's done. Let's do our part to make it a blowout. 

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Hank Kingsley

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

15 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Nothing is early in this election.  People have made up their minds. Trump has consistently been losing to Biden in head to heads for 18 months. 

Never Trumpers and Dems are voting for Biden.  Trumpkins and most life long GOPers are voting for Trump. If there is an "undecided" group of voters, the majority will not end up voting for Trump IMO. 

COVID and the current protesting didn't have to be bad optics for Dotard. He actually could have gained more voters and favorability just by being the most basic level of competent and compassionate during these difficult times. He chose to be combative and cruel instead. He's done. Let's do our part to make it a blowout. 

 

There’s a reason Trump wanted the Ukranians to go after Biden in particular.

[Incredulity 11861]

32 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

This election can’t come soon enough.

I saw the "shoot them in the leg" clip.  I honestly didn't believe that it was from yesterday.  WTF.  

I have been on a self imposed TV and politics quarantine, the riots got me looking at more TV and internet political coverage.  Time to go back I guess.  

 

[Chuckie Finster 22978]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I saw the "shoot them in the leg" clip.  I honestly didn't believe that it was from yesterday.  WTF.  

I have been on a self imposed TV and politics quarantine, the riots got me looking at more TV and internet political coverage.  Time to go back I guess.  

 

Feel free to circle back once you get to any clip of Trump from the past three decades.

[SubliminalHorn 6995]

7 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I saw the "shoot them in the leg" clip.  I honestly didn't believe that it was from yesterday.  WTF.  

I have been on a self imposed TV and politics quarantine, the riots got me looking at more TV and internet political coverage.  Time to go back I guess.  

 

Yes, please go back. Thanks in advance. 

[Incredulity 11861]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

Feel free to circle back once you get to any clip of Trump from the past three decades.

oh he is an absolute dumpster fire.

 

 

[Homercles 10206]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

 

Jesus it really does always come down to that same 40%

[Biff Tannen 46061]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

oh he is an absolute dumpster fire.

 

 

So we can count on you to vote against him in November?

[gmr548 16681]

10 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

The less white, not more white, is why I think the GOP has a chance. Basically, there’s research that shows that the more minorities there are in a state the more whites people behave as a monolithic voting bloc.

Link? Because that's true in SECSECSEC and we all know why, but white voters don't seem to behave that way in other diverse states - CA, NY, IL, etc. on down the line. We've seen college educated whites move away from Trump to the point that the wedge between educated and non-educated wrecks any white bloc behavior, at least outside SECSECSEC (and even some examples in it - GA and TX).

That problem with educated voters doesn't bode well for the GOP in MN. And that's just one of their issues there - it just isn't very structurally friendly for them. They're better off trying to push Florida down the Ohio path.

[Patrick Bateman 3966]

If I'm Biden's camp, I don't feel great until I can get the majority in every poll...... don't coast, always be grinding.

I love the concept of disapproving of how Biden's handled the protesting..... smh.

This is interesting as you have to navigate it.... Calling in the national guard to help maintain peaceful protesting is fine conceptually, it's where does it go off the rails.  This question doesn't necessarily have context.

 

[The Dog 44771]

IMHO I don't think national polls are all that relevant. 

There's only about 10 states that matter and those are the ones they should be polling heavily. I also don't think Trump will flip any state that he lost last time unless something changes pretty dramatically between now and November. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

10 minutes ago, The Dog said:

IMHO I don't think national polls are all that relevant. 

There's only about 10 states that matter and those are the ones they should be polling heavily. I also don't think Trump will flip any state that he lost last time unless something changes pretty dramatically between now and November. 

there is an overall malaise factor.  people don't want to be associated with a loser.  even though about 70% of the county's votes don't matter because they aren't in swing states, they can message to swing states.

[GopherRock 1773]

Could Minnesota go for a Republican? Sure. Will they have to burn the party down, flush out anything that has to do with Trump, and start over from scratch before they do? Yes. 

Tim Walz has built up a lot of support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Last Monday he was in the upper 60s for approval. I will be very interested to see what happens to that after there riots. 

For a data point, the last Republican statewide win was Tim Pawlenty's second election in 2006. He got 1.028M votes, which was 46.7% of votes cast. There was also a 3rd party candidate in the race that drew 6% and change, mostly from the Dem column. 

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

50 minutes ago, The Dog said:

IMHO I don't think national polls are all that relevant. 

They are not as relevant as individual battleground state polls, but national polls with Biden has the clear leader (5+ point margin) indicate he would very likely win the electoral college if those numbers turned out to be correct. 

 

 

 

[Voldemort86 2259]

One of the first thing we learned as adults is “ take responsibility for your actions”. The orange retard never does that. If it’s something bad, he’s always the first one to say it’s not on him. If it’s something good, he’s always the first one to take credit even tho he usually deserves very little.

Trump and the vast majority of people who support him are low IQ individuals. They’re visibly frustrated right now. They feel like when trump does nothing, people complain. When trump steps in to solve a problem, people complain! Well.....it kind of reminds me of all those degenerates in deep southern states who personally benefited from Obamacare, some people in Kentucky only received breathing treatments because of him, but then their friends would come over, and they’d immediately forget about that while joining in on all of the lynch Obama discussions that undoubtedly happened in their trailers. 
 

they can’t seem to accept the fact that most people hate the guy and his actions ( over 50% disapproval In nearly every single poll of his presidency).

One category that’s very telling is Trump cleaned up with voters who hated both Hilary and trump in 2016. Biden is currently winning that group of voters handily. Biden also will have much stronger black support then Clinton ever did. 
 

Trump is going to have to get very lucky to win folks. He will have to get what amounts to an inside straight for the second election in a row. Trump benefitted from running against the worst Democrat candidate in probably 30 years. Biden won’t be as bad as her, not by a long shot.

[henrygandorf 29219]

national polls also get national attention, as some state polls can be easily dismissed, especially by those who don't live there.

would i rely solely on national polls to predict the election?  of course not.  but polls fuel fundraising and fundraising fuels polls and both fuel reporting.  we need everything moving in the same direction, and we need the gop to get discouraged and scared, so they continue to make shitty moves (cough, church stunt).

biden's polls do not ensure anything.  but i would obviously much rather be in biden's statistical position right now than trump's.  not even close.

[henrygandorf 29219]

2 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

One category that’s very telling is Trump cleaned up with voters who hated both Hilary and trump in 2016. Biden is currently winning that group of voters handily. Biden also will have much stronger black support then Clinton ever did. 

dislike them both?  check.

independents?  check.

women?  huge fucking check.

[Biff Tannen 46061]

3 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

Trump is going to have to get very lucky to win folks. He will have to get what amounts to an inside straight for the second election in a row. Trump benefitted from running against the worst Democrat candidate in probably 30 years. Biden won’t be as bad as her, not by a long shot.

I hope you are right.  I'm going to act like you are not.

[gmr548 16681]

They are not as relevant as individual battleground state polls, but national polls with Biden has the clear leader (5+ point margin) indicate he would very likely win the electoral college if those numbers turned out to be correct.   

 

 

 

This. They're relavent as an indicator of the national environment. If Biden is consistently polling at or better than +4 or so (a threshold he's been consistently above since they started polling this shit basically instantly in 2017) that means it's incredibly difficult for Trump to win.  

He won the rust belt trio by the basically the thinnest margin possible in an election that ended up D +2 (national polls really did fine, the average in the week preceding the election was D +3). If the nation moves two or three points to the left, which equates to millions of votes, those rust belt three almost certainly flip. Florida and NC are legit possibilities. AZ could go all the way to the blue (leaning that way right now tbh). It's pretty much impossible for the dam not to burst on Trump at Biden +4 or 5. The stars really did align for him in 2016. Just because it feels like it was obvious and we should've seen it in hindsight doesn't make it untrue.

 

Now, what it says about our democracy that a party has a structural advantage of being able to win despite getting millions fewer votes is something wise entirely.

 

 

 

[Voldemort86 2259]

13 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

This. They're relavent as an indicator of the national environment. If Biden is consistently polling at or better than +4 or so (a threshold he's been consistently above since they started polling this shit basically instantly in 2017) that means it's incredibly difficult for Trump to win.  

He won the rust belt trio by the basically the thinnest margin possible in an election that ended up D +2 (national polls really did fine, the average in the week preceding the election was D +3). If the nation moves two or three points to the left, which equates to millions of votes, those rust belt three almost certainly flip. Florida and NC are legit possibilities. AZ could go all the way to the blue (leaning that way right now tbh). It's pretty much impossible for the dam not to burst on Trump at Biden +4 or 5. The stars really did align for him in 2016. Just because it feels like it was obvious and we should've seen it in hindsight doesn't make it untrue.

 

Now, what it says about our democracy that a party has a structural advantage of being able to win despite getting millions fewer votes is something wise entirely.

 

 

 

Dems are trending in the right direction in a lot of states. GOP will find it more difficult to win national elections going forward.

[Bateshorn 9989]

Polls asking about using military to supplement police that don't break out national guard vs. the Army/Marines are kinda useless.  Most people are comfortable with the idea of the national guard supplement the local pd to stop looting.  Putting the Marines on the ground is an entirely different issue.

[henrygandorf 29219]

42 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Now, what it says about our democracy that a party has a structural advantage of being able to win despite getting millions fewer votes is something wise entirely.

100%.

that said, it's a census year, so shouldn't there be some shuffling with reps and electoral votes (moving forward, obviously, starting in 22/24)?  i'm not completely familiar with that process but i would assume someone can fill us in.  i'm assuming it becomes slightly more representative with each passing year, but i know the small, rural states will always be a problem.

[Biff Tannen 46061]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

100%.

that said, it's a census year, so shouldn't there be some shuffling with reps and electoral votes (moving forward, obviously, starting in 22/24)?  i'm not completely familiar with that process but i would assume someone can fill us in.  i'm assuming it becomes slightly more representative with each passing year, but i know the small, rural states will always be a problem.

You're assuming the Census is going to be legit and not fucked with by Rs.

Edit:  not to mention it already has been fucked with due to the floating of citizenship questions

Edited June 2, 2020 by Biff Tannen

[The Dog 44771]

48 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

100%.

that said, it's a census year, so shouldn't there be some shuffling with reps and electoral votes (moving forward, obviously, starting in 22/24)?  i'm not completely familiar with that process but i would assume someone can fill us in.  i'm assuming it becomes slightly more representative with each passing year, but i know the small, rural states will always be a problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population#State_rankings

https://www.270towin.com/news/2019/12/30/projected-2024-electoral-map-based-on-new-census-population-data_925.html

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by The Dog
added projected electoral college for 2024

[gmr548 16681]

Dems are trending in the right direction in a lot of states. GOP will find it more difficult to win national elections going forward.

Agree of they remain the white nationalist party. Assuming they pivot post-Trump, and white moderates go home, I don't think so.

2020s have dems caught between a rock and a hard place. Losing grasp on WI, Michigan following behind it, but not close enough to anything in the sunbelt to replace them on a regular basis. Have to really fight and claw for PA and they'll lose that if they don't hold suburban moderates. Though I will say that AZ has really accelerated this cycle to the point where it could be a light blue tint way faster than anyone thought. A sudden and wholesale change like CO or VA looks like it may be happening there.

We're in the midst of the GOP's battle of the bulge. If/when NC, GA, and especially TX (the latter being the one I actually think most likely to flip on a permanent basis because you don't need suburban gen xers, millenials/gen z and latino voters will do it) flip it's over for them nationally except fighting for the Senate. But until then they're actually in a better default position than the democrats, assuming white moderates migrate back to GOP after Trump.

All of this assumes Biden wins of course. If Trump wins nothing matters.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Agree of they remain the white nationalist party. Assuming they pivot post-Trump, and white moderates go home, I don't think so.

2020s have dems caught between a rock and a hard place. Losing grasp on WI, Michigan following behind it, but not close enough to anything in the sunbelt to replace them on a regular basis. Have to really fight and claw for PA and they'll lose that if they don't hold suburban moderates. Though I will say that AZ has really accelerated this cycle to the point where it could be a light blue tint way faster than anyone thought. A sudden and wholesale change like CO or VA looks like it may be happening there.

We're in the midst of the GOP's battle of the bulge. If/when NC, GA, and especially TX (the latter being the one I actually think most likely to flip on a permanent basis because you don't need suburban gen xers, millenials/gen z and latino voters will do it) flip it's over for them nationally except fighting for the Senate. But until then they're actually in a better default position than the democrats, assuming white moderates migrate back to GOP after Trump.

All of this assumes Biden wins of course. If Trump wins nothing matters.

a latino driven flip is slower because they aren't all that much of a monolith and the voting participation rates are so low.  they were 52D-43R in the governor's race we just had, for instance.

[gmr548 16681]

100%.
that said, it's a census year, so shouldn't there be some shuffling with reps and electoral votes (moving forward, obviously, starting in 22/24)?  i'm not completely familiar with that process but i would assume someone can fill us in.  i'm assuming it becomes slightly more representative with each passing year, but i know the small, rural states will always be a problem.

Kind of along the lines of the D predicament I mentioned. FL and TX will pick up five-ish EVs while CA, IL, NY, MN, MI, and PA (the last two probably still slight D leans into the 2020s despite 2016) will also likely lose an EV there are some other +/- 1 shifts that make it something resembling a wash (depends on how you treat some states like NC or AZ) but really the FL/TX pickup is big for the GOP. They benefit slightly from the 2020 census, most likely.

[gmr548 16681]

a latino driven flip is slower because they aren't all that much of a monolith and the voting participation rates are so low.  they were 52D-43R in the governor's race we just had, for instance.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. It's still going a while for TX. TX latinos are not as overwhelmingly democratic as, say, California latinos. But I do think a hypothetical flip here is likely to be more permanent than one in NC or GA because it isn't as dependant on suburban white moderates in the long term. I expect the GOP to fight very dirty here over the coming decade to try to stem that.

Even if Democrats are only +10 or 15 among latinos, as they continue to constitute more of the population and the electorate, that becomes harder and harder for the GOP to overcome. I wouldn't use Abbott as a barometer for GOP performance at the presidential either - he's as much of an outlier as Beto when it comes to partisan vote margin.

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

4 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Link? Because that's true in SECSECSEC and we all know why, but white voters don't seem to behave that way in other diverse states - CA, NY, IL, etc. on down the line. We've seen college educated whites move away from Trump to the point that the wedge between educated and non-educated wrecks any white bloc behavior, at least outside SECSECSEC (and even some examples in it - GA and TX).

That problem with educated voters doesn't bode well for the GOP in MN. And that's just one of their issues there - it just isn't very structurally friendly for them. They're better off trying to push Florida down the Ohio path.

Sure, Trump is a complete wreck with educated whites.  The GOP has no way forward as a national party, in any way, shape or form, if they can't either get that back, or flip minority voters.  The damage to the brand from going with Trump is very very large right now.  How long will that last? I don't know.  But, if they are going to have any chance of winning at all they have to go back to dominating suburban college educated white's. Can they?  I don't know.  But if they are going to win that's the path, and that makes a place like MN winnable with the right candidate far enough down the road for the Trump stink to wear off.  Is that there for 2 cycles?  A generation? I don't honestly know.  

I did a quick google and couldn't find anything expressly speaking about this (I have seen it though- linked on TOS) but if you plot percentage of whites as electorate, and plot percentage of white's voting a certain way they move opposite directions (especially when accounting for strength of candidate/party- 84 and 88 were just shellackings), which is a back of the envelope way of saying the egg heads data and science strikes me as likely to be correct.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2016/02/05/130647/what-about-white-voters/

Yes, they do need to push Florida down the Ohio path.  But that doesn't do anything for them in and of itself.  They also need to push WI down the IA path (and maybe IA is an outlier in 2016- but I sort of think IA is what Missouri was in the 1990's and 2000's- a place that the Dems can win if the right candidate comes along but that has a GOP slant). This showed up when Missouri went GOP even in 2008 and 2012 with the dems winning, and a GOP senator winning in 2018 in a trouncing.  

Texas is obviously the biggest prize (and Florida is almost as important for the Dems) b/c either of those flip and it's just about impossible to see the GOP winning.

I actually don't think Florida is going to be a GOP state in the future. It's been razor thin for so long, and they just restored voting rights down there (similarly to VA a few cycles back) and I just don't see any way that doesn't tilt a state that had been so close to level the way of the Dems.

The 2016 election will be viewed as a combination of an incredibly disliked candidate from the dems and a backlash against minorities (my goodness that feels so disgusting to type- FUCK YOU TRUMP WITH A BARBED WIRE DILDO FOR THAT), but going forward I think the GOP only wins by aligning the religious conservatives with the rural, with the college educated. That's a hard balance to do. W did it and he won in 2000 an election he had no real business winning based upon any kind of fundamentals- it was just personal likeability.  Candidates do matter somewhat, sometimes.   If you can do that, you might be able to drive the percentage of white vote up to 65% or so and peel off just enough minorities to be able to get over the line.  But, you are talking about threading a very very small needle.

Everyone is riled up about Trump b/c he sucks, sure, but it's going to be over very very soon and the Dems will control the nation in the white house for a long time.  There are still enough small states where if the GOP finds the right balance they can control the house, and enough purplish congressional districts that if the dems go too far there will be push back, but man, it's going to be hard work to see any chance at the white house for the foreseeable future. 

Y'all need to chill a little bit.  Your nightmare will be over, soon.  Again, I'd like to thank the POC for making sure we don't have Bernie as a president and hope that Biden restores some respect to the process and has a boring ass 4 years, prioritizing keeping us out of a great depression over spending bills that are lists of one parties priorities. 

I was actually more heartened by the first couple bills that came out of the 'Rona epidemic.  If we could have that kind of divided government that fucks around and does almost nothing unless it's super important, and then moves together to get a rational bill done that doesn't do anything but what can be agreed to by a broad coalition of people I think that's probably about why the founders set up the government the way that they did.  

[Wulaw Horn 19560]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Agree of they remain the white nationalist party. Assuming they pivot post-Trump, and white moderates go home, I don't think so.

2020s have dems caught between a rock and a hard place. Losing grasp on WI, Michigan following behind it, but not close enough to anything in the sunbelt to replace them on a regular basis. Have to really fight and claw for PA and they'll lose that if they don't hold suburban moderates. Though I will say that AZ has really accelerated this cycle to the point where it could be a light blue tint way faster than anyone thought. A sudden and wholesale change like CO or VA looks like it may be happening there.

We're in the midst of the GOP's battle of the bulge. If/when NC, GA, and especially TX (the latter being the one I actually think most likely to flip on a permanent basis because you don't need suburban gen xers, millenials/gen z and latino voters will do it) flip it's over for them nationally except fighting for the Senate. But until then they're actually in a better default position than the democrats, assuming white moderates migrate back to GOP after Trump.

All of this assumes Biden wins of course. If Trump wins nothing matters.

Yeah, I think you and I are sort of in agreement, if the GOP can drive white moderates home post trump. I don't see that happening prior to 2 or 3 more cycles though, as that stench man, it's going to last for a long time.  And AZ is blue and blue forever more. Color it in in crayon now and forever more. 

Texas might not flip as quickly as you think. There are a lot of lazy GOP, and our hispanic population isn't near as liberal as the hispanic population in CA, AZ, NV etc.  

Get ready for George P Bush to be a thing, I would think.  And my guess is he can probably kill it here. 

[Bone3421 716]

So can we get everybody on board to vote dems straight-ticket

[Message Board User 12405]

 

[gmr548 16681]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah, I think you and I are sort of in agreement, if the GOP can drive white moderates home post trump. I don't see that happening prior to 2 or 3 more cycles though, as that stench man, it's going to last for a long time.  And AZ is blue and blue forever more. Color it in in crayon now and forever more. 

Texas might not flip as quickly as you think. There are a lot of lazy GOP, and our hispanic population isn't near as liberal as the hispanic population in CA, AZ, NV etc.  

Get ready for George P Bush to be a thing, I would think.  And my guess is he can probably kill it here. 

I don't think it's even within the realm of possible for statewide Democrats for another decade. It could theoretically be sooner if there's a Trump 2 but who fucking cares at that point.

I don't think anything is changing any time soon, I just think the foundation is there for it to be a lot more of a solid Democratic state than other potential SEC flips. Structurally, Texas resembles California way more than it does NC or Georgia.The latino population here doesn't need to be as liberal as it is in AZ or NV (I'm aware of the difference between TX and CA latino voters, honestly no idea on AZ or NV), because unlike those two states, there's a black population in line with the national average; there are also a shitload of millennial/gen Z, which are, without hyperbole, a lost generation for the GOP. Especially in Texas, where whites are a definite minority in that group. I think there's also the case to be made that the latino community here is just under-engaged relative to CA, and that if they voted at the same rates, the margin would be a lot more similar. But that's a different conversation.

Democrats should be investing in the ground game here to chip away at it over the next few cycles, then start going for the killshot in the late 2020s. GOP will fight and cheat like its their Alamo, no pun intended, because it is. But if you're Democrats, it's priceless. And note that I am not at all confident the Democratic party will actually pull this off. They've been boogalooing TX for a generation, why stop now?

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Sure, Trump is a complete wreck with educated whites.  The GOP has no way forward as a national party, in any way, shape or form, if they can't either get that back, or flip minority voters.  The damage to the brand from going with Trump is very very large right now.  How long will that last? I don't know.  But, if they are going to have any chance of winning at all they have to go back to dominating suburban college educated white's. Can they?  I don't know.  But if they are going to win that's the path, and that makes a place like MN winnable with the right candidate far enough down the road for the Trump stink to wear off.  Is that there for 2 cycles?  A generation? I don't honestly know.  

I did a quick google and couldn't find anything expressly speaking about this (I have seen it though- linked on TOS) but if you plot percentage of whites as electorate, and plot percentage of white's voting a certain way they move opposite directions (especially when accounting for strength of candidate/party- 84 and 88 were just shellackings), which is a back of the envelope way of saying the egg heads data and science strikes me as likely to be correct.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2016/02/05/130647/what-about-white-voters/

Yes, they do need to push Florida down the Ohio path.  But that doesn't do anything for them in and of itself.  They also need to push WI down the IA path (and maybe IA is an outlier in 2016- but I sort of think IA is what Missouri was in the 1990's and 2000's- a place that the Dems can win if the right candidate comes along but that has a GOP slant). This showed up when Missouri went GOP even in 2008 and 2012 with the dems winning, and a GOP senator winning in 2018 in a trouncing.  

Texas is obviously the biggest prize (and Florida is almost as important for the Dems) b/c either of those flip and it's just about impossible to see the GOP winning.

I actually don't think Florida is going to be a GOP state in the future. It's been razor thin for so long, and they just restored voting rights down there (similarly to VA a few cycles back) and I just don't see any way that doesn't tilt a state that had been so close to level the way of the Dems.

The 2016 election will be viewed as a combination of an incredibly disliked candidate from the dems and a backlash against minorities (my goodness that feels so disgusting to type- FUCK YOU TRUMP WITH A BARBED WIRE DILDO FOR THAT), but going forward I think the GOP only wins by aligning the religious conservatives with the rural, with the college educated. That's a hard balance to do. W did it and he won in 2000 an election he had no real business winning based upon any kind of fundamentals- it was just personal likeability.  Candidates do matter somewhat, sometimes.   If you can do that, you might be able to drive the percentage of white vote up to 65% or so and peel off just enough minorities to be able to get over the line.  But, you are talking about threading a very very small needle.

Everyone is riled up about Trump b/c he sucks, sure, but it's going to be over very very soon and the Dems will control the nation in the white house for a long time.  There are still enough small states where if the GOP finds the right balance they can control the house, and enough purplish congressional districts that if the dems go too far there will be push back, but man, it's going to be hard work to see any chance at the white house for the foreseeable future. 

Y'all need to chill a little bit.  Your nightmare will be over, soon.  Again, I'd like to thank the POC for making sure we don't have Bernie as a president and hope that Biden restores some respect to the process and has a boring ass 4 years, prioritizing keeping us out of a great depression over spending bills that are lists of one parties priorities. 

I was actually more heartened by the first couple bills that came out of the 'Rona epidemic.  If we could have that kind of divided government that fucks around and does almost nothing unless it's super important, and then moves together to get a rational bill done that doesn't do anything but what can be agreed to by a broad coalition of people I think that's probably about why the founders set up the government the way that they did.  

I'm quoting your posts in reverse order, sorry for that, it's the order I saw them in.

I'm of the opinion that we'll see educated whites actually go back to the GOP pretty quickly as long they do a good job on projecting the image that Trump has been powerwashed from the party. Yeah, white moderates don't care for the on the nose racism, but you know what suburban whites really hate? Spending money on poor people and minorities. The current GOP platform isn't all that different from the one that bloc consistently rubber stamped for the GOP to the point that they structured entire gerrymanders around it. I think they're going to go home once Trump is gone and the GOP starts howling about fiscal responsibility (lol), because Democrats are going to take control of the government and want to spend money on social programs.

That's why I think the GOP actually still has an EC advantage in the 2020s. Essentially, I think the rust belt starts leaning Republican before the Democrats find a place that can reliably compensate for that. Any number of things could change that - namely them doubling down on Trumpism and keeping moderates in the Democratic court, Democrats being competent enough to run strong enough candidates and/or successfully engage enough low-participation voters to overperform in swing states ala Obama (lol again). And of course, the nation still indisputably leans Democratic. Just because the EC gives the GOP a better chance that a straight popular vote (basically zero chance) would, doesn't mean their chances are particularly strong. But dead at the presidential level is a stretch until (if) TX flips.

I actually think Democrats are going to sit on the House for a while. The GOP appears to think this too based on their actions. That's the branch of government where their overall nationwide advantage means the most. The gerrymanders of the 2020s will not be as GOP friendly as the gerrymanders of the 2010s. Democrats still cluster geographically so the GOP chances will still be disproportionately high there, but Democrats pretty much have baked in generic ballot lead of a few percentage points just based on pure national partisanship. Ease the gerrymander penalty and it becomes pretty hard for the GOP to win it back, certainly for any meaningful period of time.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by gmr548

[StassneyHorn 6755]

Old but good read on changing demographics in Texas. 

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/20/texas-hispanic-population-pace-surpass-white-residents/

 

[Voldemort86 2259]

24 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I don't think it's even within the realm of possible for statewide Democrats for another decade. It could theoretically be sooner if there's a Trump 2 but who fucking cares at that point.

I don't think anything is changing any time soon, I just think the foundation is there for it to be a lot more of a solid Democratic state than other potential SEC flips. Structurally, Texas resembles California way more than it does NC or Georgia.The latino population here doesn't need to be as liberal as it is in AZ or NV (I'm aware of the difference between TX and CA latino voters, honestly no idea on AZ or NV), because unlike those two states, there's a black population in line with the national average; there are also a shitload of millennial/gen Z, which are, without hyperbole, a lost generation for the GOP. Especially in Texas, where whites are a definite minority in that group. I think there's also the case to be made that the latino community here is just under-engaged relative to CA, and that if they voted at the same rates, the margin would be a lot more similar. But that's a different conversation.

Democrats should be investing in the ground game here to chip away at it over the next few cycles, then start going for the killshot in the late 2020s. GOP will fight and cheat like its their Alamo, no pun intended, because it is. But if you're Democrats, it's priceless. And note that I am not at all confident the Democratic party will actually pull this off. They've been boogalooing TX for a generation, why stop now?

I'm quoting your posts in reverse order, sorry for that, it's the order I saw them in.

I'm of the opinion that we'll see educated whites actually go back to the GOP pretty quickly as long they do a good job on projecting the image that Trump has been powerwashed from the party. Yeah, white moderates don't care for the on the nose racism, but you know what suburban whites really hate? Spending money on poor people and minorities. The current GOP platform isn't all that different from the one that bloc consistently rubber stamped for the GOP to the point that they structured entire gerrymanders around it. I think they're going to go home once Trump is gone and the GOP starts howling about fiscal responsibility (lol), because Democrats are going to take control of the government and want to spend money on social programs.

That's why I think the GOP actually still has an EC advantage in the 2020s. Essentially, I think the rust belt starts leaning Republican before the Democrats find a place that can reliably compensate for that. Any number of things could change that - namely them doubling down on Trumpism and keeping moderates in the Democratic court, Democrats being competent enough to run strong enough candidates and/or successfully engage enough low-participation voters to overperform in swing states ala Obama (lol again). And of course, the nation still indisputably leans Democratic. Just because the EC gives the GOP a better chance that a straight popular vote (basically zero chance) would, doesn't mean their chances are particularly strong. But dead at the presidential level is a stretch until (if) TX flips.

I actually think Democrats are going to sit on the House for a while. The GOP appears to think this too based on their actions. That's the branch of government where their overall nationwide advantage means the most. The gerrymanders of the 2020s will not be as GOP friendly as the gerrymanders of the 2010s. Democrats still cluster geographically so the GOP chances will still be disproportionately high there, but Democrats pretty much have baked in generic ballot lead of a few percentage points just based on pure national partisanship. Ease the gerrymander penalty and it becomes pretty hard for the GOP to win it back, certainly for any meaningful period of time.

 

 

 

 

Agree on the house. The 2010 tea party wave was a wet dream for republicans and they gerrymandered the fuck out of that map. They are bound to take a step back in the next redistributing cycle. It couldn’t possibly go any better for them then 2010.

[Ghost of LL 15664]

47 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I don't think it's even within the realm of possible for statewide Democrats for another decade. It could theoretically be sooner if there's a Trump 2 but who fucking cares at that point.

Forgive me for shortening your post, but I just want to highlight one point on which I really disagree.

Texas has never been a two-party state.  Going back to the time of annexation, this has been a one-party state.  And certainly in the modern era, it's a one-party state.

Now, for a lot of that time, there have been two wings within that one party vying for supremacy.  In the 50's and 60's it was the liberal Yarborough wing of the Democratic Party against the conservative Connelly wing.  In the 90's and 00's, it was the business-friendly Bush win against the cultural-conservative Patrick/Paxton wing of the Republican Party.

But there's only ever one party.

And there's good reason for that.  For all of the talk about how business-friendly Texas is, much of the Texas economy runs on very highly regulated industries (e.g., oil & gas).  And it's much easier for those businesses' lobbyists to only have to work one party.  And that's what they do.  They're not Republicans because they're ideological.  They're Republicans because that's who holds power.

But everybody knows what's coming.  The lobbyists certainly do.  That's why they're now at least talking to Democrats.  And as soon as one Democrat wins in a statewide race--and it could happen this year in some downballot race--fucking look out.  Texas Association of Business, Texas Oil & Gas Association, and all the rest will start giving to Democrats.  And once that happens, it's all over.  Money's important in politics.  Votes follow the money.  And with all that money that'll flow into Democratic coffers, this thing'll flip in a hurry.

It took really just about 8 years for this state to flip from Democratic to Republican (i.e., 1978, when Bill Clements was first elected, to 1986, when Clements was elected again).*  It won't even take that long this go-around.  

 

 

* I don't think Ann Richards counts, because she only got elected because her opponent made a rape joke (how quaint that making a joke about rape was seen as disqualifying).  But you could arguably push that date of the final defeat of the Texas Democratic Party back to the mid-90's, when it lost SCOTX.

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Sure, Trump is a complete wreck with educated whites.  The GOP has no way forward as a national party, in any way, shape or form, if they can't either get that back, or flip minority voters.  The damage to the brand from going with Trump is very very large right now.  How long will that last? I don't know.  But, if they are going to have any chance of winning at all they have to go back to dominating suburban college educated white's. Can they?  I don't know.  But if they are going to win that's the path, and that makes a place like MN winnable with the right candidate far enough down the road for the Trump stink to wear off.  Is that there for 2 cycles?  A generation? I don't honestly know. 

How're they going to do that, exactly?  It's not like Trump goes away.  He's the leader of a cult of personality, and he'll still have access to his twitter machine.

This is going to be the Party of Trump until Trump dies (and probably long afterwards).  

After Hoover, the GOP was in the wilderness for 20 years (and they needed a war hero from the greatest cataclysm in world history to pull them back into power).  Now imagine Hoover had a twitter machine.  And was a fucking narcissistic lunatic.  How long would the GOP have been out of power then?

Let's be real realistic about the GOP's future prospects: it has none.  It's the Whig Party.

 

 

Getting back to the topic of the thread: You know why I'm really sanguine about all these polls?  Because I don't need to look at the polls to even know what they say.  All I have to do is look at the Trump campaign.

Incumbents usually win.  That's because they won the first time.  And you expect that the people who voted for them the first time are going to vote for them again.  So they can concentrate on attracting additional supporters.  And they spend four years doing that.

Sometimes they get a real late start doing that (as I would argue Obama did in his first term).  But still--by June of the election year, an incumbent should have his base of support nailed down so that he can pursue additional supporters.

Does Trump think he has his base of support nailed down?

Fuck no.  That stunt last night tells you all you need to know about that.  Trump is worried that he's not holding on to evangelicals, who are a critical part of his base.  Not that they're going to vote for Biden.  But he can't just win 51% or 61% or even 71% of evangelicals.  He needs to win 81%.  That's what he won in 2016, in an election in which he won by 77K votes across three states.  81%.  75% doesn't get it done.  He needs >80%.

And right now, his internals show him dropping below that.  That's why he goes out and stands there like a doofus in front of a church with a Bible.  It's to secure the evangelicals.

Everything he has done in his presidency and throughout this campaign to date has been geared to his base.  Scarborough is a murderer?  Base.  Obamagate?  Base.  Chinese virus?  Base.  It's all base plays, and that tells you he isn't comfortable that he has secured his base.

An incumbent who hasn't secured his base by June of the election year is a fucking dead man.  That's George Bush.  That's Lyndon Johnson.  If you're still trying to secure your base, you don't have the chance to reach out and expand your appeal.  And you know who's expanding his appeal by doing nothing more than sitting in his fucking basement while Donald Trump tries to keep his base onboard?

The next president of the United States, that's who.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Ghost of LL