Election 2020

[DMT]

I think their visibility is unprecedented, party splits like this are not. My lifetime has seen more "battles for the soul" of the GOP than Voldemort had horcruxes

Maybe the battle has been for nothing all along.

[onejayhawk]

Admittedly, that is voting age population, rather than voting eligible, so good catch. Of course, whether it's 92 or 112 million who sat out, if you're starting from 220 million eligible voters with your calculations (as OneJ did), that is in error since he does not account for the substantial number of people that simply will not vote. Even with increased enthusiasm, how many people are going to vote in this election? 150M? Of those 12M additional votes, Trump is going to take them on a 2/3-1/3 basis? And this is also granting the premise that he has not lost a single voter from 2016 or that each voter he has lost has been cancelled out by a voter who voted for someone else. I just don't see it. But, I have no quarrel with thee. You actually make sense when you're posting, rather than posting cryptic, mysterious gibberish.

About 13% of the voting age population is not eligible to vote. That's over 30 million taken out of the pool, which is why I said 100 million have never sat out an election.

The enthusiasm gap is exemplified in the 2018 election. This is simply a matter of Republicans doing the same thing Democrats have shown is possible.

Trump won over Evan McMullin? (The answer is no, no he did not.)

I did not say win over (though Trump did defeat McMullin). I said reclaim McMullin's voters. Likewise most of the Libertarian vote.

J

[Sour Masher]

Certainly the base voted in 2016, though how fully is a separate question. However a lot of Republicans were not yet in the base. Reference, yet again, Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin. Trump won them over, eg chancellor.

You actually did say win over, see above. And KS was not misreading that to mean that Trump beat McMullin, but that he convinced him to support him, which his tweets indicate he has not. I assumed you meant McMullin's voters, but even there, there is no evidence presented of that fact, while much evidence has been presented for the opposite. McMullin is a vocal opponent of Trump and many of his followers are likewise. But it is a small group of voters, admittedly. Then again, you brought him up.

Also, I think you are mischaracterizing Chancellor, your libertarian example. I believe he has never been a reluctant Trump supporter that has slowly been won over. He was a supporter from day 1, or at least from the moment Trump was the nominee vs HRC, if my memory serves me correctly. Certainly, he voted for Trump in 2016, so if he is your reference point for 2016 libertarians that voted for Johnson or McMullin and now will vote for Trump, you are mistaken there. If you are looking for a libertarian that did not vote Trump in 2016, that would be nots, but I doubt you can count him in your group of won over libtertarians either.

[Sour Masher]

I did not say win over (though Trump did defeat McMullin). I said reclaim McMullin's voters. Likewise most of the Libertarian vote.

J

See above. You do this repeatedly--make a statement just a few posts above, then without even bothering to edit the first statement to hide it, proclaim you did not in fact make the statement. And you ignore when you are corrected, just as you ignore evidence when it is presented that is contrary to your unsupported claims. It is exacerbating, though perhaps that is your intent. But I will continue to point it out, in case it is not--I can't help it, it is the educator in me.

But taking you at your intended meaning, again, where is the evidence that there is a significant block of libertarian voters that did not vote for Trump in 2016 that will vote for him in 2020? None of the names you have used so far--Johnson, McMullin's, or Chance, fit that bill, and I can find no evidence for your claim, as per usual. If you do have evidence, though, I am open to learning it. That would add actual value to the conversation and my knowledge of the subject, which I always appreciate, even when the knowledge is not what I want it to be.

[onejayhawk]

See above.

Why are you picking nits?

By your own quote you have it wrong, not that it matters. The point is that McMullin will not be getting the votes and Trump will. It's an improvement of about 700K votes. That's not nothing, but it isn't even a quarter of the difference between Johnson 2012 and Johnson 2016. In all it's about 4 million wayward votes that are likely to come back to the Republican incumbent.

J

[Sour Masher]

Why are you picking nits?

By your own quote you have it wrong, not that it matters. The point is that McMullin will not be getting the votes and Trump will. It's an improvement of about 700K votes. That's not nothing, but it isn't even a quarter of the difference between Johnson 2012 and Johnson 2016. In all it's about 4 million wayward votes that are likely to come back to the Republican incumbent.

J

I don't have it wrong, and I am picking nits, because after all this time, I still am not certain if you are purposefully abstruse, or accidently so. If the latter, I want to continue to press upon you the need for precision and clarity in your communication, because it matters. You represent a viewpoint few hold here, so I want to be able to engage your ideas, but so very often, they are obfuscated by poor wording. If that is not purposeful trolling, I implore you to be more mindful with your wording, so we can all understand your arguments without having to tease them out.

Here now, finally, with this post, your initial meaning is clear, and a potentially good point is found underneath the fog. Your claim seems to be that since those candidates will not run in 2020, their votes will all go to Trump. I understand the assumption--after all, those that voted for those two would naturally throw in with the Republican, given no other option. However, that is just an assumption, not a supported claim in this case, and there is evidence that suggests that while most of those voters would vote Republican, if no right of center 3rd party candidate is running, they will not do so when that candidate is Donald Trump (it also dismisses the possibility that JoJo will pull a good amount of voters for the Libertarian ticket). Do you have any evidence, beyond your assumption, that supports those voters will all vote for Trump in 2020?

[Sour Masher]

And on the same subject, you assume every single vote from McMullin and Johnson from 2016 will go to Trump, but say nothing of the 1.5 million votes Jill Stein got in 2016. Where will they go? Surely not Trump, or do you contend he will get her voters too? Or is it Harry Hawkins who well get them? Well, then, what about Jo Jorgensen, then, soaking up some of those libertarian votes? Jorgenson is on the ballot in all 50 states, I believe, which is more than Hawkins.

Hell, in my area, I've seen a few Jo2020 bumper stickers, and I gotta say, it looks too much like Biden's stickers. Whoever designed them should have thought of that. I haven't seen a Hawkins supporter yet.

[Teenwolf]

My biggest concerns right now are Florida and Michigan. Florida is going to Trump because Biden isn't appealing enough to Latinos. He's well behind HRC with Latinos across the board, and Florida is where it will hurt the most. The one area Bernie Sanders destroyed Biden was with Latinos. The Latino outreach strategy laid out by Chuck Rocha was awesome. Biden's teams arrogance in ignoring Sanders' best assets is a concern. Latinos value immigration as their 4th-7th biggest issue, according to various polls, yet Biden continues to talk about Latinos almost entirely from the immigration aspect. It's a losing strategy.

Michigan is insane to me. How the hell does Biden have zero field offices in Michigan? I know Biden visited recently, but the lack of a campaign presence seems like a bad sign. Polling in Michigan has dipped, which caused Michael Moore to ring the alarm bells.

I'm not saying Trump will definitely win, but those 2 states are my biggest concern right now. Also, knowing so many states Supreme courts are filled with Republicans, and the SC is conservative majority, several states could be stolen through cherry picking the votes. Terrifying.

[Teenwolf]

CBC News put up a new interactive election game. Pick the winner in each battleground state to find the winner. I played 3 likely scenarios, and Trump won 2 of 3.

Looking at the math is terrifying. I consider some states locks for Trump: North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Georgia, and Texas. Under this scenario, Trump only needs to win Florida, and any one other state from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona. That seems quite possible to me. If Biden needs Florida it will be 2000 re-run, Brooks Brothers riots 2.0 (this time with guns!) and the Dems will fold again.

Edit: here's the link if you want to play out a couple scenarios.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elec...battlegrounds/

[chancellor]

Looking at the math is terrifying. I consider some states locks for Trump: North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Georgia, and Texas. Under this scenario, Trump only needs to win Florida, and any one other state from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona. That seems quite possible to me. If Biden needs Florida it will be 2000 re-run, Brooks Brothers riots 2.0 (this time with guns!) and the Dems will fold again.

Hmmm...I'm not considering NC or Iowa locks. Your point about Michigan in the earlier post is stunning - while Biden has shown in Michigan and Wisconsin, his lack of field offices in Michigan is a huge error.

[chancellor]

I don't have it wrong, and I am picking nits, because after all this time, I still am not certain if you are purposefully abstruse, or accidently so.

Since we're picking nits, the correct term is "obtuse".

Yeah, and if I were the Trump campaign, I'd find about $5-6 mil and dump it into ads for Hawkins in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[Sour Masher]

Since we're picking nits, the correct term is "obtuse".

Yeah, and if I were the Trump campaign, I'd find about $5-6 mil and dump it into ads for Hawkins in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Sooo, you wanna nit battle, eh? No, I meant abstruse. My frustration wasn't him being "annoyingly insensitive and slow to understand" it was him being "difficult to understand, obscure," which is what caused KS to get confused about his intended meaning. Though, I concede it is a flattering term to use, if you get down to its Latin roots, as it most often suggests something is obscure because it is deep or difficult, and refers to concealed or hidden meaning. But I was trying to be kind in suggesting that perhaps 1jay does have deeper meanings to share, but maybe chooses to hide them, because it is more fun for him to make the claims vaguely enough for the validity of them to be missed by those who disagree with him, which, of course, leads them to be dismissed or challenged, and then he can come back and say "but clearly I meant x, you just missed it, because you are all obtuse". Once his point was made clear, it became an interesting one to discuss. We have not talked at all about the impact of the 3rd party candidates in this race. But part of me thinks he purposefully does not make his points clear to begin with for the reason above.

Your second point is some interesting "outside the box" strategy. Are you being tongue-in-cheek? Because I actually think it would not be a bad idea, but has it ever been done before? I think the embarrassment factor would be high if Biden's campaign was caught funding a 3rd party candidate's ads.

[Teenwolf]

Here's the article from Time magazine from a week ago regarding Biden's zero field offices in Michigan, in case folks missed it.

https://time.com/5889093/joe-biden-michigan-campaign/

Four years ago, Don Sabbe made what he calls a “devastating” mistake. Determined only to cast a vote for a candidate he believed in, he left the top of his ballot blank in the 2016 presidential election. This year, the 83-year old former Chrysler employee says he’ll definitely vote for Joe Biden, but he’s getting concerned about Biden’s campaign here in Michigan.

“I can’t even find a sign,” Sabbe says outside a Kroger’s in Sterling Heights, where surrounding cars fly massive Donald Trump flags that say “No More Bullsh-t” and fellow shoppers wear Trump T-shirts for their weekend grocery runs. “I’m looking for one of those storefronts. I’m looking for a campaign office for Biden. And I’m not finding one.”

The reason Sabbe can’t find a dedicated Biden campaign field office is because there aren’t any around here. Not in Macomb County, the swing region where Sabbe lives. It’s not even clear Biden has opened any new dedicated field offices in the state; because of the pandemic, they’ve moved their field organizing effort online. The Biden campaign in Michigan refused to confirm the location of any physical field offices despite repeated requests; they say they have “supply centers” for handing out signs, but would not confirm those locations. The campaign also declined to say how many of their Michigan staff were physically located here. Biden’s field operation in this all-important state is being run through the Michigan Democratic Party’s One Campaign, which is also not doing physical canvassing or events at the moment. When I ask Biden campaign staffers and Democratic Party officials how many people they have on the ground in Michigan, one reply stuck out: “What do you mean by ‘on the ground?'"

[Teenwolf]

Hmmm...I'm not considering NC or Iowa locks. Your point about Michigan in the earlier post is stunning - while Biden has shown in Michigan and Wisconsin, his lack of field offices in Michigan is a huge error.

He also addressed his lack of diversity on Latino issues when he came out as a fan of Despacito, so he should have Florida locked up now.

[Sour Masher]

Not defending Biden here, but is the criticism of Biden's lack of ground game in Michigan really a criticism of his larger pandemic campaigning strategy to shift away from boots on the ground, knocking on doors campaigning? My understanding is that he has moved away from that across everywhere.

And it would frighten me, but I recall how very, very little he actually did in South Carolina. At the time, I thought that would be his Alamo. But it ended up being his Normandy. So, I just don't know. Logically, obviously, it does not make sense to ignore Michigan. It is scary if he is doing so, unless he knows something we do not, or his campaign does, rather.