The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[TGHusker]

15 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Boomers are likely to be the last conservative-leaning generation for a while.

I've heard others say the latest generation is trending more conservative - in lifestyle if not in politics - kind of revolting from the excesses of the boomer generation.

[Fru]

55 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

To the first bolded part, I 100% agree.  I think Bernie does a terrible job at promoting his medicare for all policy.  I thought his fox news town hall discussion for medicare for all was his best so far.  He redirected the conversation from right wing lies back to no premiums, no deductibles, no co-pays.  But it still wasn't enough in my view.  I was sitting there watching thinking to myself, for the love of god say this or say that Bernie, but he never said them.  He needs to do a better job informing the lay person who just feels like they will lose their insurance all together and their taxes will be raised at the same time.

 

To the second bolded part, I also 100% agree.

 

Couldn't have said it better. I think Dems need to craft their message so the lowest common denominator can understand it. Instead, they often don't seem to take that into consideration, which I think is where the "elitist" moniker comes from. Makes me think of this bit from The Onion.

 

 

[TGHusker]

2 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

I believe the GOP knows this and why they are becoming corrupt as s#!t to try and hold power.

I think this is true but I also think it has to do with demographics as a whole - not just generational issues.  We are becoming more 'brown' as a country also. 

The Hispanic population is growing and will have greater voting power as a block.  As a culture, Hispanics are very family centered and you would think they would vote for the 'family values party' as the GOP liked to think of themselves as. But they were faux family value.  Just lip service.  I believe Hispanics are typically pro-life which would be a fit for the GOP but the GOP again does lip service on the national level and are not so family friendly in so many other areas - areas where the Dems have exerted leadership.   So, I see over time, that either the GOP re-brands and remolds itself or it will shrink into a continual minority party.  That seems far fetch knowing the GOP holds the majority of state houses, state legislatures and the Senate and the WH - but within all of that are deep, deep issues.  Unfortunately the national party has re-branded itself as the party of Trump. That cannot be good long term.  

[Fru]

39 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

To use a well know phrase "Are You Talking to Me!".   Actually this last election in Oklahoma - I voted for several Dems. Since I won't be voting for Trump, the Dem candidate will be very important to me - along with any libertarian candidate that might come forward.   I'm no fan of old guard Biden.   I could see myself voting for Warren - yes she is removed from my normal political bent but I think she has the political maturity to make changes wisely (not to be compared to Trump's immaturity in all areas).  There are a few others I'd consider - Mayor Pete is interesting but I want to hear more specifics.  Sen Harris is interesting.   The former Colo gov may be an option also - I like people with executive experience. 

 

agree wt this 100%

 

Vaguely. I think it's fair to say that you and a handful of others have asserted yourselves as former GOPers (in my head I refer to that group as "Recovering Republicans"). It seems I often see users that fall into that category will disparage or cast aside new liberal/left candidates as radical and unrealistic, and say "the Dems need moderate candidates" or "candidates that aren't crazy." Then in another thread they're calling for the Dems to have new ideas and faces.   

 

I'm glad to see hear that you've voted across the aisle. I hope others follow that lead. 

[NM11046]

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Absolutely. Only folks who pay a very high degree of attention to politics are engaged right now, which is a small sliver of the country, so that speaks to the "polls are mainly name recognition" argument.  

 

The generational thing means we should see a fairly strong leftward shift of U.S. politics moving forward. I just read yesterday that in the midterms Gen X/Millennials/Gen Z combined accounted for more votes than Boomers. Boomers are likely to be the last conservative-leaning generation for a while.

 

 

Absolutely. I do think a lot of it is cultural and how people perceive their identities. Progressive policies do have fairly good public support across different demographics, but as soon as you start putting labels on things scares a lot of people away. The question is how to desitgmatize the label for people who have a negative connotation of it.

I was just going to say that as well.  Stigma in words without really understanding what they mean is a huge problem.  Feminism is ine that jumps out - 20 Years ago Id cringe if someone asked me if I was “one” similar to how “progressive” and  “liberal” are today.  And don't get me started on the misunderstanding and weaponizing of the word socialism ....

[NM11046]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

I think this is true but I also think it has to do with demographics as a whole - not just generational issues.  We are becoming more 'brown' as a country also. 

The Hispanic population is growing and will have greater voting power as a block.  As a culture, Hispanics are very family centered and you would think they would vote for the 'family values party' as the GOP liked to think of themselves as. But they were faux family value.  Just lip service.  I believe Hispanics are typically pro-life which would be a fit for the GOP but the GOP again does lip service on the national level and are not so family friendly in so many other areas - areas where the Dems have exerted leadership.   So, I see over time, that either the GOP re-brands and remolds itself or it will shrink into a continual minority party.  That seems far fetch knowing the GOP holds the majority of state houses, state legislatures and the Senate and the WH - but within all of that are deep, deep issues.  Unfortunately the national party has re-branded itself as the party of Trump. That cannot be good long term.  

I thought Dems had more states than Rs now after midterms.  Maybe just governors?

 

And btw we have a Republican governor and I voted for him - so not blue 100% of the time!

[RedDenver]

An interesting take on Biden being vulnerable to Trump attacks from the left, like Trump did successfully to Hillary:

 

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, NM11046 said:

I thought Dems had more states than Rs now after midterms.  Maybe just governors?

 

And btw we have a Republican governor and I voted for him - so not blue 100% of the time!

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/partisan-composition.aspx

 

Quote

 

Current Composition

As of April 1st, 2019, the following information is correct:

Legislators: There are 7,383 total legislative seats throughout the states.

Chamber control: While there are 99 total chambers in states because Nebraska is unicameral, we do not include Nebraska’s legislature in this chart because members are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Therefore, this represents partisan control in 98 chambers.

Legislative Control: When the same party holds both chambers, that party has legislative control. When the chambers are held by different parties, it is divided. Nebraska is not included.

State Control: When the same party holds both legislative chambers and the governorship, that party has state control. When any of those three points of power is held by another party, state control is divided. This is based on the number of members of each party, and does not take into account coalitions that might change effective control. Nebraska is not included.

Current Composition

	Republicans	Democrats	Other
Legislators (7,383 total)	3,830 / 52%	3,446 / 47%	107 (Independent, Other or Undecided)
Chambers (98 total)	61 / 62%	37 / 38%
Legislatures (49 total)	30 / 61%	18 / 37%	1 divided legislature
State Control (49 total)	22 / 45%	14 / 29%	13 divided states

 

 

[TGHusker]

If you want to consider the 'bottom' nine out of the 100 Dems running for president, here is some info from Vox

 

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/31/18645805/inslee-bullock-moulton-ryan-bennet

 

[knapplc]

the last line of this:

 

 

 

[TGHusker]

Warren slowly getting more support - appears at Bernie's expense. 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446812-warren-support-breaks-double-digits-poll

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Warren slowly getting more support - appears at Bernie's expense. 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446812-warren-support-breaks-double-digits-poll

Biden's numbers have also come down about 8 points from their high right after he announced. Take a look at the average of polls and you'll see that Biden and Bernie have both been volatile recently while Warren is slowly trending upwards. Can't really say Warren's 1 point change in the last couple weeks is at Bernie's expense when Biden has lost 3 points, Bernie 2, and Buttigieg 1 over that same period.

 

(I can't figure out how to show their poll average graph as an image, so I'm just linking the webpage.)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

Biden's numbers have also come down about 8 points from their high right after he announced. Take a look at the average of polls and you'll see that Biden and Bernie have both been volatile recently while Warren is slowly trending upwards. Can't really say Warren's 1 point change in the last couple weeks is at Bernie's expense when Biden has lost 3 points, Bernie 2, and Buttigieg 1 over that same period.

 

(I can't figure out how to show their poll average graph as an image, so I'm just linking the webpage.)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Let me try.  I couldn't get the sliding graph to copy over at all but got this:

Quote

 

 

 

2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination

 

 

 

Polling Data

Poll	Date	Biden	Sanders	Warren	Harris	Buttigieg	O'Rourke	Booker	Klobuchar	Castro	Yang	Gabbard	Ryan	Inslee	Spread
RCP Average	5/11 - 6/2	34.9	16.9	8.4	7.3	6.0	3.9	2.7	1.6	1.1	0.9	0.7	0.6	0.6	Biden +18.0
CNN	5/28 - 5/31	32	18	7	8	5	5	3	2	2	1	1	1	1	Biden +14
The Hill/HarrisX	6/1 - 6/2	35	16	5	4	8	4	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	Biden +19
Morning Consult	5/27 - 6/2	38	19	10	7	7	4	3	1	1	1	1	1	1	Biden +19
Harvard-Harris	5/29 - 5/30	36	17	5	8	5	4	3	0	1	1	0	1	1	Biden +19
Quinnipiac	5/16 - 5/20	35	16	13	8	5	2	3	2	1	1	1	0	0	Biden +19
Monmouth	5/16 - 5/20	33	15	10	11	6	4	1	3	1	1	1	0	0	Biden +18
FOX News	5/11 - 5/14	35	17	9	5	6	4	3	2	2	1	1	1	1	Biden +18

 

 

[RedDenver]

4 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Let me try.  I couldn't get the sliding graph to copy over at all but got this:

 

Thanks. I was mostly trying to point out the laziness of the writing that attributed a Warren 1 point gain with a Bernie 1 point loss in a single poll without looking at the rest of the numbers or showing anything that would tie Warren's and Bernie's changes to each other.

[Danny Bateman]

I saw this poll earlier and thought it was interesting. North Carolina looks like it's got a real shot at flipping blue next year and the Republican Senator Thom Tillis is up for re-election but is one of best Senate pickup opportunities for Democrats, especially with numbers like these. Anything to get the Senate out of Mitch McConnell's employ, eh?

 

Most surprised by Harris's numbers in this one. I know she's spent a good deal of time in SC trying to build support for the primary. I'd have thought she'd be stronger there.