You are absolutely correct on 1 and 2.
However, on 3 the GOP should be scared. Yes, the youngsters have never turned out like they should (though I believe that is changing somewhat). But every day there are more of them turning 18, and every day there are fewer old white men.
It's also true that every day some young voters become middle-aged voters and some middle-aged voters become senior voters. A person who votes with one party in their youth may or may not vote the same way as they age. There's some reason to believe that voters become more conservative over time (this is a study of voting patterns in the UK, but the psychological process of aging would explain a similar pattern in American politics).
By taking the average of seven different groups of several thousand people each over time – covering most periods between general elections since the 1960s – we found that the maximum possible ageing effect averages out at a 0.38% increase in Conservative voters per year. The minimum possible ageing effect was only somewhat lower, at 0.32% per year.
This may not sound like a massive effect, but over the course of a lifetime these increments do add up. Even if only the minimum estimate is correct, the difference between 20- and 80-year-olds is nearly 20 percentage points...
Our evidence suggests that this is probably not due to “social ageing” (getting married, having children or an increasing income), but rather to the direct psychological processes of ageing that tend to make people more resistant to change. This, in turn, makes people gravitate towards parties that defend the status quo.
CNBC article on the impact the trade war with China is having on farmers, to put some meat to our recent discussion on the topic:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/10/trum...----china.html
This would be of more importance if there were a 1:1 exchange and population proportions remained static and all voted at the same rates. That's not the case. In the last few years the younger generations' turnout rates are beginning to catch up to their recent eligible voter share dominance. Gen X, Millennials, and Post-Millennials became the majority of total eligible voters in 2010 but in 2014 were still casting fewer total votes than older eligible voters. That is, their turnout sucked while the older folks' rate stayed in the 65%-ish range.
The younger generation turnout rate skyrocketed in the 2018 mid-terms though and partially explains the Democrats' success. For the first time in a while, their total vote roughly matched the older generations' total vote. All that being said, due to life expectancy increases and hitting the crest of boomers, the 2020 old fogie proportion of eligible voters is expected to increase slightly. Here's Pew on some additional 2020 electorate trends.
Last edited by bundabergdevil; 08-12-2019 at 06:26 PM.
Per Nate Silver, the trade war is likely lowering Trump’s re-election chances by 5% to 10%. Significant for a candidate who has rarely tried to expand his base.
https://twitter.com/natesilver538/st...491345925?s=21
With 2 weeks to qualify, here's where the current Dem candidates stand in terms of who's in and who's out. Copying the list of to-date qualifiers below. I'm pretty surprised by how poorly a couple of the Democratic governors running have fared...just no momentum or interest despite some solid experience bona fides.
Apologize for formatting. First 2 checks indicate they've qualified. Next numbers are qualifying polls and number donors
CANDIDATE POLL DONORS POLLS DONORS
Joe Biden ✓ ✓ 13 >130k
Pete Buttigieg ✓ ✓ 13 >130
Kamala Harris ✓ ✓ 13 >130
Bernie Sanders ✓ ✓ 13 >130
Elizabeth Warren✓ ✓ 13 >130
Cory Booker ✓ ✓ 10 >130
Beto O’Rourke ✓ ✓ 8 >130
Amy Klobuchar ✓ ✓ 6 >130
Andrew Yang ✓ ✓ 4 >130
definite progress to the extent that I have a pretty good idea of who these people are...
I honestly cannot see any end to the Hong Kong crisis that does not involve either a) China capitulating and severing Hong Kong's leadership from Beijing's control or b) a brutal, armed crackdown that will likely make Tiananmen Square seem tame by comparison.
I suspect you can guess which of those is way way way more likely.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the distraction... back to Presidential politics. Here is a look at news coverage of the candidates last week that shows Beto had a very, very good week (because his hometown had a very, very bad week) and Kamala Harris' star continues to fade.
-Jason "if Beto surges in polling, it will be strange to reflect on how his campaign may have been saved by a terrible, random tragedy" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
In the category of "It will not go this way on election day," NY Magazine has taken a look at Trump's approval rating on all 50 states and used that to extrapolate how the electoral college would go if the election were to be held today. They have the democratic nominee winning in a squeaker, 419 electoral votes to 119 for Trump.
It is worth noting that this thing is badly flawed in that folks can disapprove of a candidate and still vote for that candidate. I am sure there are a lot of folks who did not particularly like Trump in 2016 but liked Hillary a lot less and so they voted for Donald. Approval ratings are a lot lot lot different from "who would you vote for?" The notion that Utah is trending blue is patently absurd.
-Jason "until we actually knnow the Dem nominee, head-to-head polls are sorta not meaningful, IMO" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
I think this bears repeating because people tend to forget (or not realize this). Just because I support policy X doesn't mean I am going to vote for the candidate who is loudest about X or has the strongest stance on X. Quite possibly I'm voting primarily based on issue Y, so long as my chosen candidate has some bare minimum level of support for X (I may even vote solely based on Y without regard for X, even though I ostensibly support X as well).
That would have been much easier with real issues but I was worried it would run afoul of neutrality even if I intentionally picked policies that aren't mine as examples.
Yes and no. Yes, in that Utah will almost certainly go red in 2020, even if it is Trump. No, in that it does not surprise me in the least to see President Trump's approval rating in the dirt there. In fact, Utah is only one of 3 states (along with AZ and NM) where his approval rating has dropped from majority approve to majority disapprove.
Two reasons for that --- 1) While Utah is very socially conservative, to say that Trump's personal style contrasts with the Mormon cultural norms, would be a rather big understatement, and; 2) Unlike other socially conservative Republicans, Mormons embrace and encourage progressive, humane immigration policies. Mormonism is one of the fastest growing religions in the world and, in the US, part of that is on the back immigrants. Here's one article from SL Tribune with some quotes from the Mormon church. Plenty of others out there but many of there stances fall more under the Dem's umbrella than Trump's...
I think it's fascinating that Texas might turn blue. There are a few reason for the democratic optimism. Following a national trend, those with college degrees are shifting to voting democrat over republican. Texas has had a large increase in college educated population over the years. To a lesser extent, the demographics of Texas have changed with more Hispanics. Hispanic voting is not as linear as many think (see Florida Hispanic/Latino Republicans) but Texas has a lot of Mexican-Americans and surprisingly, a lot of the Puerto Ricans displaced by the hurricane have made their way to Texas. Because they are U.S. Citizens, those Puerto Ricans living in Texas are immediately eligible to vote. It is safe to say they will vote Dem (or more accurately, vote against Trump). With NY and California solidly blue; Texas voting blue would be bad news for any republican looking to win a national election.
It makes you wonder if Dems are willing to put in the resources necessary to turn Texas. Those resources could be used in Florida and the Midwest. What if you allocate resources to Texas and still lose the state? That could be a HUGE mistake.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/08/polit...020/index.html
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/0...s-permanently/