Election 2020

[Judge Jude]

for those who think the Supreme Court justices are partisan robots:


SCOTUSblog
Verified account @SCOTUSblog
23m23 minutes ago

So far this term, #SCOTUS has produced seven different 5-justice majorities across 11 cases decided 5-4 (including one that was 5-3). More stats here: https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

[Bernie Brewer]

Just curious to hear from all sides on this, if we took politics out of it do you think DC and Puerto Rico deserve statehood? I know DC would be a very reliable Democratic state so getting it passed would likely require Democrats to gain control of all 3 chambers, but do you think they deserve to be states?

DC has over 700,000 people which gives it a population larger than Vermont and Wyoming.

Puerto Rico is more interesting as it may be more purple than blue. They have a population of over 3 million.

Five Thirty Eighty had this article up and it got me thinking...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-democrats-win-the-senate-by-adding-states-its-been-done-before/

So ignoring the fall out politically do they deserve statehood? If you are a moderate/independent or a Republican would you endorse either or both for statehood?

PR yes. DC no. PR desperately needs statehood to solve its many problems, the local and government is a mess, the utilities are corrupt, and it has long been treated as second class citizens by the Federal Government, all of which were was completely exacerbated by the Hurricane two years ago.

DC was designed to be an independent federal district governed by no state and for no particular reason i think it should stay that way.

[revo]

Another state poll, another whoa! Biden holds a 4 pt lead over Dopey in Texas:

Texas: Trump vs. Biden	Quinnipiac	Biden 48, Trump 44	[B]Biden +4[/B]
Texas: Trump vs. Sanders	Quinnipiac	Trump 47, Sanders 44	Trump +3
Texas: Trump vs. Warren	Quinnipiac	Trump 46, Warren 45	Trump +1
Texas: Trump vs. Harris	Quinnipiac	Trump 47, Harris 43	Trump +4
Texas: Trump vs. Buttigieg	Quinnipiac	Trump 46, Buttigieg 44	Trump +2
Texas: Trump vs. O'Rourke	Quinnipiac	Trump 48, O'Rourke 45	Trump +3
Texas: Trump vs. Castro	Quinnipiac	Trump 46, Castro 43	Trump +3

[Sour Masher]

Another state poll, another whoa! Biden holds a 4 pt lead over Dopey in Texas:

Texas: Trump vs. Biden	Quinnipiac	Biden 48, Trump 44	[B]Biden +4[/B]
Texas: Trump vs. Sanders	Quinnipiac	Trump 47, Sanders 44	Trump +3
Texas: Trump vs. Warren	Quinnipiac	Trump 46, Warren 45	Trump +1
Texas: Trump vs. Harris	Quinnipiac	Trump 47, Harris 43	Trump +4
Texas: Trump vs. Buttigieg	Quinnipiac	Trump 46, Buttigieg 44	Trump +2
Texas: Trump vs. O'Rourke	Quinnipiac	Trump 48, O'Rourke 45	Trump +3
Texas: Trump vs. Castro	Quinnipiac	Trump 46, Castro 43	Trump +3

I'm really amazed at these polls. It is really hard for me to believe Biden or any Dem could take Texas. If a Dem wins Texas, that all but seals a Dem victory over Trump, no?

[Sour Masher]

Just curious to hear from all sides on this, if we took politics out of it do you think DC and Puerto Rico deserve statehood? I know DC would be a very reliable Democratic state so getting it passed would likely require Democrats to gain control of all 3 chambers, but do you think they deserve to be states?

DC has over 700,000 people which gives it a population larger than Vermont and Wyoming.

Puerto Rico is more interesting as it may be more purple than blue. They have a population of over 3 million.

Five Thirty Eighty had this article up and it got me thinking...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-democrats-win-the-senate-by-adding-states-its-been-done-before/

So ignoring the fall out politically do they deserve statehood? If you are a moderate/independent or a Republican would you endorse either or both for statehood?

PR is a no brainer to me. Long overdue. I understand the argument against DC to an extent, but I firmly believe all citizens should have representation, especially since they are certainly taxed. To me, given the tax issue, despite the arguments against statehood for DC, if statehood is the way to give these tax paying citizens fair representation and voting rights, then it should happen. But probably never will.

[TranaGreg]

PR is a no brainer to me. Long overdue. I understand the argument against DC to an extent, but I firmly believe all citizens should have representation, especially since they are certainly taxed. To me, given the tax issue, despite the arguments against statehood for DC, if statehood is the way to give these tax paying citizens fair representation and voting rights, then it should happen. But probably never will.

The article actually addresses the DC issue directly ...

... The House and Senate bills seek to circumvent thorny constitutional questions about D.C. statehood — the Constitution gives Congress authority over the seat of government — by shrinking the federal district to encompass just the areas around the U.S. Capitol, the White House and the National Mall. The rest would become a new state called “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,” in honor of Frederick Douglass. And Washingtonians definitely want statehood: 86 percent voted for it in a 2016 referendum. (As anyone who has seen a D.C. license plate knows, many residents aren’t happy about “taxation without representation.”)

[Judge Jude]

"As anyone who has seen a D.C. license plate knows, many residents aren’t happy about “taxation without representation.”

wouldn't it be easier to just change the law that forces them to live in the district?

[gcstomp]

I just do not believe these polls re: Trump. His base, a bunch are stealth, they verbally may say they are moderates that need to weigh issues, or will just say undecided. But a good number, know to not be proud and out loud. They know this is a shameful vile person who is manifestation of all the dirty little verbal outbursts, societal ethnic outlooks, disregarding science and facts for what they want to hear. May as well poll a rehab center for if they will use drugs again.

[revo]

I just do not believe these polls re: Trump. His base, a bunch are stealth, they verbally may say they are moderates that need to weigh issues, or will just say undecided. But a good number, know to not be proud and out loud. They know this is a shameful vile person who is manifestation of all the dirty little verbal outbursts, societal ethnic outlooks, disregarding science and facts for what they want to hear. May as well poll a rehab center for if they will use drugs again.

Hey, it's all we got. I've read other predictors that say Trump will ride off to an easy victory, but if these key battleground states like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin & North Carolina appear to be going our way, we have a shot. And if Texas is turning blue, then wow, maybe we are underestimating the level of hatred for this madman and the level of motivation to remove him -- and overestimating this "silent majority" that is both uneducated yet are cunningly manipulating polls to give the Dems a false sense of security.

The keys to the election are the Independents and the African American vote. If the Independents swing the Dems way, and that's the way the trend is going, and if the African American vote gets mobilized, it will be a tough re-election because there's no where else for the GOP to turn. Trump's popularity numbers have been locked in for a couple of years, so we know how he's going to poll. 2016 was a surprise. 2020 better not be.

[TranaGreg]

I just do not believe these polls re: Trump. ... May as well poll a rehab center for if they will use drugs again.

completely agree ... and great line.

[Teenwolf]

Ouch. Biden campaign comes out as the only Democratic primary challenger not in support of repealing the Hyde amendment, an anti-choice measure that disallows federal funds being spent on abortions (it also works as an attack on poor people, no wonder Biden loves it).

Presenting yourself as anti-choice in the primary sure takes some balls (or incredible lack of awareness, you decide). He must really think he's got the primary in the bag to be already supporting Republican positions.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...on-rule-report

He appears to be the only Democratic White House hopeful who has come out in support of the 43-year-old ban, NBC News noted.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas.) have released proposals to protect abortion access that call for an end to the Hyde Amendment. Warren has also joined with the other Senate women running for the Democratic nomination — Sens. Kamala Harris (Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) — to co-sponsor legislation overturning the ban.

Planned Parenthood slammed Biden’s continued support for the Hyde Amendment in a statement to NBC.

“The unfair Hyde Amendment makes it so that those who have the least end up having to pay the most to access abortion, and those who are service members or live on reservations are often left with no coverage for abortion care,” Kelly Robinson, Planned Parenthood Action Fund's executive director, said.

“We encourage any candidate who doesn't recognize Hyde's impact to speak to the women it hurts most — particularly on women of color and women with low incomes — to learn more about the harmful impacts of this discriminatory policy," Robinson said.

Biden told supporters in New Hampshire as recently as Tuesday that he supports the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

[Judge Jude]

Biden's handlers say he "misunderstood the question" - fwiw, which...

U.S. overall sentiment on abortion polls I think it a little bit behind what the actual laws are (Europe is seen as a beacon on the left re health care, but their abortion laws lean slightly more restrictive).

[B-Fly]

So as a guy who has always tried to balance my idealism with realism and practicality for execution, and someone who believes in data-informed decision making, I'm really torn. As revo notes, the polls, while clearly imperfect, are still the best data we've got regarding each Democratic contender's strength head-to-head against Trump. And the utility of replacing Trump with any of the Democrats is higher for me than the utility of seeing any individual Democrat win over any other individual Democrat. In other words, if I plotted my ranking of any particular presidential outcome on a line from -10 to +10, the re-election of Trump is pretty much my -10. If we just focus on the top-polling Democratic contenders for now (Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg), I'd probably rate them Warren +9, Harris +6, Buttigieg +6, Sanders +4, Biden +2. But Biden, across several different pollsters, in both national polls and swing-state polls, is most handily defeating Trump. Sanders and Buttigieg are also doing better than Warren or Harris in most of those head-to-head polls. Obviously the data will continue to come in on a regular basis and may alter the percentage chance I'd ascribe to a Democratic victory as we get closer and closer to November 20, and some of the current top five may drop out and some folks outside the top five may rise. But if the data suggests that Biden has a 60% chance of defeating Trump, Sanders a 55% chance, Buttigieg a 52% chance, Harris a 50% chance and Warren a 48% chance, what's the optimal choice to maximize the outcome along my -10 to +10 continuum?

(Do any of the rest of y'all think about the race in something akin to these terms? Am I too steeped in the Nate Silver analytic mindset?)

[umjewman]

So as a guy who has always tried to balance my idealism with realism and practicality for execution, and someone who believes in data-informed decision making, I'm really torn. As revo notes, the polls, while clearly imperfect, are still the best data we've got regarding each Democratic contender's strength head-to-head against Trump. And the utility of replacing Trump with any of the Democrats is higher for me than the utility of seeing any individual Democrat win over any other individual Democrat. In other words, if I plotted my ranking of any particular presidential outcome on a line from -10 to +10, the re-election of Trump is pretty much my -10. If we just focus on the top-polling Democratic contenders for now (Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg), I'd probably rate them Warren +9, Harris +6, Buttigieg +6, Sanders +4, Biden +2. But Biden, across several different pollsters, in both national polls and swing-state polls, is most handily defeating Trump. Sanders and Buttigieg are also doing better than Warren or Harris in most of those head-to-head polls. Obviously the data will continue to come in on a regular basis and may alter the percentage chance I'd ascribe to a Democratic victory as we get closer and closer to November 20, and some of the current top five may drop out and some folks outside the top five may rise. But if the data suggests that Biden has a 60% chance of defeating Trump, Sanders a 55% chance, Buttigieg a 52% chance, Harris a 50% chance and Warren a 48% chance, what's the optimal choice to maximize the outcome along my -10 to +10 continuum?

(Do any of the rest of y'all think about the race in something akin to these terms? Am I too steeped in the Nate Silver analytic mindset?)

I think Trump's election may have been the perfect storm that is unlikely to repeat itself, so I am not calculating my primary vote in those terms. I could be wrong, and he may win again, but there were so many things that it took to get him elected. So, I will probably vote for my favorite candidate in the primary, whoever that may be. And I will then just fall into line and get behind whoever is the D candidate in the election. Of course, in New Jersey, as you know, we are about as blue as it gets so our overall impact on the election is pretty minimal. Maybe on second thought I will look at whoever is more likely to win PA, MI, WI, FL and vote for that person in the primary.

[B-Fly]

I think Trump's election may have been the perfect storm that is unlikely to repeat itself, so I am not calculating my primary vote in those terms. I could be wrong, and he may win again, but there were so many things that it took to get him elected. So, I will probably vote for my favorite candidate in the primary, whoever that may be. And I will then just fall into line and get behind whoever is the D candidate in the election. Of course, in New Jersey, as you know, we are about as blue as it gets so our overall impact on the election is pretty minimal. Maybe on second thought I will look at whoever is more likely to win PA, MI, WI, FL and vote for that person in the primary.

LOL. So you totally flipped the script there at the end. Sounds like you're as torn as I am about the right way to choose whom to back.