2020 Presidential Election

[OldPhiKap]

It may be hard to see who “won” Iowa anyway:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-change-099519

[dudog84]

It may be hard to see who “won” Iowa anyway:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-change-099519

“The caucuses are not supposed to be about the raw vote totals. They’re supposed to be about delegate equivalency,” Hessburg said. “It is a test of organizing strength precinct-by-precinct. There is a conceptual issue that I worry that gets bungled together — and when you try to compare the two or pull one away from the other, the beauty of the process gets misaligned.”

L...O...L

[Jeffrey]

Nate's odds to take the Dem nomination as of this morning:

Biden 5:2
Bernie 4:1
Warren 7:1
Pete 12:1
Field 100:1+


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo

Do you agree with those current odds?

[-jk]

Do you agree with those current odds?

Do you?

-jk

[OldPhiKap]

Do you agree with those current odds?

Hard to say. Biden is certainly out front -- he has held the top spot pretty much since announcing last spring, and has a ton of institutional support. No one has really eaten into his support amongst African-Americans either, which is a huge demographic in the Dem party. (And Pete's poor showing amongst that group is why he is still a long-shot). So that seems like a good bet on Biden to me and Pete's odds are probably a bit higher than I think he should get. (Closer to 16:1 sounds right to me).

Bernie and Warren -- I am not in touch with that wing of the party really so hard to tell, but they seem to cancel each other out to some degree. They ain't from Georgia, and they're not going to play well here outside of the Atlanta Metro area. They probably wash more or less in Iowa and New Hampshire, then get smoked in SC. I don't see mainstream Dems thinking that turning that far left is good electoral politics, and the fever to beat Trump is redlining. So I wouldn't bet either.

As for the field, no one has really tried to do it the way Bloomberg has so there is no historical marker to test. I think he has a better shot than Pete frankly -- more money, more leadership experience, and a broad network of African-American mayors who are supporting him. (That is a whole interesting story in itself -- Mike invested heavily in fellow mayors' races and interests over the last decade and has built up some significant chits there). But he has significant hurdles too on a number of fronts. Steyer or Amy I don't see getting far even though Amy is my favorite out of the whole group. If I could get 100:1 on the whole field against the top four, I might throw out a small wager just because.

How about you?

[Jeffrey]

Do you?

-jk

Hard to say. Biden is certainly out front -- he has held the top spot pretty much since announcing last spring, and has a ton of institutional support. No one has really eaten into his support amongst African-Americans either, which is a huge demographic in the Dem party. (And Pete's poor showing amongst that group is why he is still a long-shot). So that seems like a good bet on Biden to me and Pete's odds are probably a bit higher than I think he should get. (Closer to 16:1 sounds right to me).

Bernie and Warren -- I am not in touch with that wing of the party really so hard to tell, but they seem to cancel each other out to some degree. They ain't from Georgia, and they're not going to play well here outside of the Atlanta Metro area. They probably wash more or less in Iowa and New Hampshire, then get smoked in SC. I don't see mainstream Dems thinking that turning that far left is good electoral politics, and the fever to beat Trump is redlining. So I wouldn't bet either.

As for the field, no one has really tried to do it the way Bloomberg has so there is no historical marker to test. I think he has a better shot than Pete frankly -- more money, more leadership experience, and a broad network of African-American mayors who are supporting him. (That is a whole interesting story in itself -- Mike invested heavily in fellow mayors' races and interests over the last decade and has built up some significant chits there). But he has significant hurdles too on a number of fronts. Steyer or Amy I don't see getting far even though Amy is my favorite out of the whole group. If I could get 100:1 on the whole field against the top four, I might throw out a small wager just because.

How about you?

At those current odds, I'd bet on Biden and against Sanders and Warren.

I'd like to think the Dems will learn from their 2016 mistake and not run the wrong candidate against Trump again. I'm starting to think Trump wins again and it really needs to be Biden for the Dems to have a reasonable chance. Clearly, Trump believes that (he is not looking hard for dirt on Sanders and Warren) and Trump has proven he has a better current read than almost anyone.

The stock market usually knows ('16 a definite exception) and the smart money is definitely on Trump (especially against Warren or Sanders). I'm even more certain now, than I was during the short-term August inversion, the economy will support Trump. IMO, Trump will be hard to beat and the Dems need to control their emotions and make the logical choice.

[dudog84]

Trump took 61% of the military vote. Will reporting such as this affect that?

Headline: ‘You’re a bunch of dopes and babies’: Inside Trump’s stunning tirade against generals

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...qsx?li=BBnb7Kz

Or does the rank-and-file agree with him?

Also, you don't have to be a veteran to respect the military so it could affect other votes as well. The military is probably the one institution unscathed in this day and age.

[bundabergdevil]

Trump took 61% of the military vote. Will reporting such as this affect that?

Headline: ‘You’re a bunch of dopes and babies’: Inside Trump’s stunning tirade against generals

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...qsx?li=BBnb7Kz

Or does the rank-and-file agree with him?

Also, you don't have to be a veteran to respect the military so it could affect other votes as well. The military is probably the one institution unscathed in this day and age.

I’ll repeat and summarize the most common political insight on this thread: nobody cares, nothing matters.

In all seriousness, Republicans have shown plenty of willingness to go after veterans that are perceived as in their way. See John Kerry, Max Cleland, and John McCain. Their various sacrifices have generated little respect when political push has come to shove. There’s a strong section of the Republican base for whom liberals are the greatest threat to America, not any external enemy.

[cato]

At those current odds, I'd bet on Biden and against Sanders and Warren.

I'd like to think the Dems will learn from their 2016 mistake and not run the wrong candidate against Trump again. I'm starting to think Trump wins again and it really needs to be Biden for the Dems to have a reasonable chance. Clearly, Trump believes that (he is not looking hard for dirt on Sanders and Warren) and Trump has proven he has a better current read than almost anyone.

The stock market usually knows ('16 a definite exception) and the smart money is definitely on Trump (especially against Warren or Sanders). I'm even more certain now, than I was during the short-term August inversion, the economy will support Trump. IMO, Trump will be hard to beat and the Dems need to control their emotions and make the logical choice.

FWIW (much less than the kind I get paid to give), this is my current take. I think Biden is most likely to win the nomination and I’ll take Trump in a coin flip in the general.

[SouthernDukie]

FWIW (much less than the kind I get paid to give), this is my current take. I think Biden is most likely to win the nomination and I’ll take Trump in a coin flip in the general.

That's my gut at this point as well, with the caveat that black swan events can always change the equation. As of right now I think the Dems will need one to beat Trump.

[budwom]

Biden has to be the favorite, but I think he's also the favorite in terms of making some inexplicably bizarre comment that could sink his chances. He needs to be kept on script in the worst kind of way. No freelancing, Joe!

[Jeffrey]

Biden has to be the favorite, but I think he's also the favorite in terms of making some inexplicably bizarre comment that could sink his chances. He needs to be kept on script in the worst kind of way. No freelancing, Joe!

Trump inspires freelancing and will keep his finger on the "Hunter" button.

[Bob Green]

Trump took 61% of the military vote. Will reporting such as this affect that?

Headline: ‘You’re a bunch of dopes and babies’: Inside Trump’s stunning tirade against generals

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...qsx?li=BBnb7Kz

Or does the rank-and-file agree with him?

Also, you don't have to be a veteran to respect the military so it could affect other votes as well. The military is probably the one institution unscathed in this day and age.

It will have no affect.

The majority of military voters are enlisted who also think admirals and generals are “dopes and babies” along with a couple more adjectives.

[OldPhiKap]

Trump attacked Gold Star parents. And got 61% of the military vote apparently.

[dudog84]

I’ll repeat and summarize the most common political insight on this thread: nobody cares, nothing matters.

In all seriousness, Republicans have shown plenty of willingness to go after veterans that are perceived as in their way. See John Kerry, Max Cleland, and John McCain. Their various sacrifices have generated little respect when political push has come to shove. There’s a strong section of the Republican base for whom liberals are the greatest threat to America, not any external enemy.

Good point. I had forgotten about those men and circumstances.

It will have no affect.

The majority of military voters are enlisted who also think admirals and generals are “dopes and babies” along with a couple more adjectives.

So no respect for command anymore? I had wondered about that. Fragging everyone.

[Phredd3]

Bernie and Warren -- I am not in touch with that wing of the party really so hard to tell, but they seem to cancel each other out to some degree. ... I don't see mainstream Dems thinking that turning that far left is good electoral politics

The question is whether or not most of the Democratic Party is actually "mainstream" (which in this context I take as meaning "moderate"). The fact that Sanders and Warren cancel each other out tends to make me think that the left/progressive wing of the party is actually the Democratic majority at this point. The fact that Warren and Sanders are both still in the race, and are both showing signs of staying in the race for the relatively long haul (likely at least until Super Tuesday for both) is very, very good news for Biden. If the race were Biden against the exact same field except only one of Sanders or Warren, this race would be really, really different.

[OldPhiKap]

The question is whether or not most of the Democratic Party is actually "mainstream" (which in this context I take as meaning "moderate"). The fact that Sanders and Warren cancel each other out tends to make me think that the left/progressive wing of the party is actually the Democratic majority at this point. The fact that Warren and Sanders are both still in the race, and are both showing signs of staying in the race for the relatively long haul (likely at least until Super Tuesday for both) is very, very good news for Biden. If the race were Biden against the exact same field except only one of Sanders or Warren, this race would be really, really different.

Could be, Trump benefitted greatly by having several flavors of mainstream Reps staying in and splitting the vote until it was too late to catch up to the plurality-getting Trump. Progressives could stay split and allow the one strong moderate to build a big lead.

Bloomberg could theoretically change that on Super Tuesday though. Long shot, but it’s possible.

Meanwhile, Yang is on Bill Maher right now — an entertaining guy but not sure of his path now.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

If the race were Biden against the exact same field except only one of Sanders or Warren, this race would be really, really different.

This is an excellent point and might speak to the tension between the two. Assuming that those two are both on the same end of the spectrum, either of them bowing out would change the race immensely. Assuming they don't get up in each other's faces regularly, I would eager 2/3rds of their supporters will default to the remaining candidate when/if their primary choice steps out of the race. This would spell big trouble for Biden, if it happens early on.

[PackMan97]

Could be, Trump benefitted greatly by having several flavors of mainstream Reps staying in and splitting the vote until it was too late to catch up to the plurality-getting Trump. Progressives could stay split and allow the one strong moderate to build a big lead.

Right, trump didn't win his first majority in a Primary until the race was all but over.

[bundabergdevil]

Run down of post-debate polls with some discussion of polling places with candidate leans. Take home: the recent polls are all over the place.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-pretty-weird/