2020 Presidential Election

[bundabergdevil]

In the 2016 presidential election, Romney wrote his wife's name in. FWIW.

In fairness, what would you do if you came home and your wife said, "Mitt, there sure as heck better be just one woman in that binder of yours."

[sagegrouse]

So, if Cooper tells Trump to fly a kite over the Charlotte convention issue -- do you think he is on solid ground politically?

He doesn't even have to do that. What's being demanded of him is to tell them, in late May, that an August event will be 100% good to go. He can be reasonable about the absurdity of that demand, with no kite-flying recommendation needed.

He can even throw it back at Trump, by saying that he is following current national guidelines as it is, although he'd have to phrase it delicately so that he doesn't lock himself to CDC standards, which the WH has already shown it is willing to manipulate. Even if he avoids that altogether, Cooper is politically pretty immune on this subject right now, and it is likely that Trump is fully aware of that. Provoke and pounce is a regular Trump strategy, and the threat will likely be forgotten if there is no traction.

The state of NC was in discussions with the RNC, so I understand, and the Trump demand came out of the blue. I suppose they still work it at the lower level, and Cooper will just say he's continuing to work with the RNC on the ground rules for the convention.

[OldPhiKap]

In fairness, what would you do if you came home and your wife said, "Mitt, there sure as heck better be just one woman in that binder of yours."

That’s damn funny.

[BLPOG]

Thanks, I had not seen that.

(Who thought it was a good idea to announce this in the middle of a three-day weekend?)

Saw this on Wikipedia about Spike Cohen -- this cannot be true:

"Cohen, an ally of performance artist and perennial candidate Vermin Supreme, is running on a platform promoting Free Ponies, Mandatory Tooth Brushing, Zombie Power, Killing Baby Hitler, and promoting anarchy.[5] He promises that should these not be achieved within the first 100 days of his vice presidency, he will resign and be replaced with Baby Yoda.[2] "

Curious to see how Jorgensen's sharp criticism of COVID restrictions on individual liberty grounds will play as well. Don't see that drawing away from Biden, for sure.

How did you miss the most DBR-centric portion of the Platform section of Cohen's website?

"going back in time to kill baby Woodrow Wilson, which ultimately makes killing Hitler unnecessary"

If only Olympic Fan were still with us, he could surely tell us how this policy goal will play with voters!


For the record, it appears that Spike Cohen originally intended to be the running mate of satirist Vermin Supreme. However, when Supreme failed to win the nomination (he came in third), Cohen chose to remain in the running for VP and ended up winning the nomination. The Supreme/Cohen ticket advocated for several absurdist, satirical policies which you can check out if you are into that type of humor. However, the "killing baby Wilson" was the only one which seemed directly related to DBR lore.

A couple items for clarity/edification:

It wasn't suddenly "announced" during the weekend. Although the LP has certain primary/caucus/straw poll processes in place in various states, the only thing that matters for determining the ticket is the Libertarian National Convention. It is held as, essentially, a (nearly 30 hour ) parliamentary session under Robert's Rules of Order, not as a grandiose coronation as is typical with the Republican and Democrat conventions (I apologize if this comes off as overly negative but I don't know how else to draw the contrast). It was suppose to be held in Austin, but due to the virus that was cancelled. It was successfully held (technically part 1) virtually this past weekend. For full disclosure, I was a delegate. Both the President and Vice President are selected through run-off voting with the lowest-vote-total candidate eliminated in each round (very low totals are eliminated in the first round but are still eligible as write-ins each round).

Spike Cohen, while primarily running with Vermin Love Supreme, already had semi-endorsements lined up with other candidates (Vermin Supreme is a complex subject that I don't intend to go into here; I will simply state that I have a much higher opinion of him after the convention than I did before). Cohen was endorsed by some of the folks who lost Pres/VP nominations as well, including another VP candidate who has held positions with the UN and NATO, so don't take him to be a performance artist like Vermin Supreme. The guy with the boot on his head (Vermin) believes that by first attracting attention he can later communicate a message (and he has empirical evidence to suggest that he is correct); while that might or might not be the right strategy for the Libertarian Party, many members of the LP see national races like the presidential election as primarily an exercise in outreach, and attracting someone's attention is the first step in outreach. Hopefully that provides some better context regarding Cohen.

This comment will probably be my last in this thread, as I don't enjoy the structure of the discussion, despite it being conducted by intelligent, congenial people. I did think it was worth providing that bit of information, though. If the LP puts together a video of the nomination speeches, I might come back to post that, as I think many of you would be intrigued by them.

And on the subject of Woodrow Wilson: Veracruz

[CameronBornAndBred]

He doesn't even have to do that. What's being demanded of him is to tell them, in late May, that an August event will be 100% good to go. He can be reasonable about the absurdity of that demand, with no kite-flying recommendation needed.

He can even throw it back at Trump, by saying that he is following current national guidelines as it is, although he'd have to phrase it delicately so that he doesn't lock himself to CDC standards, which the WH has already shown it is willing to manipulate. Even if he avoids that altogether, Cooper is politically pretty immune on this subject right now, and it is likely that Trump is fully aware of that. Provoke and pounce is a regular Trump strategy, and the threat will likely be forgotten if there is no traction.

NC has tossed it back in the RNC's court. Essentially saying "You have to prove you can do it. Safely."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elect...vxr?li=BBnb7Kz

[CrazyNotCrazie]

As discussed upthread, Florida voters passed a law in 2018 giving ex-felons (other than murder or sex crimes) the right to vote - this gave voting rights to over a million people. The state passed a subsequent law saying that they had to pay all fees due to the state before they could vote. Over the weekend a judge over-ruled the subsequent law, declaring that it was like a poll tax. This ruling will likely be appealed so I will defer to the esteemed legal minds of this thread to determine whether there will be a definitive ruling on this in time for the November election. Turnout is going to be the key for the election this year, so this could have a huge impact.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/24/u...gtype=Homepage

[OldPhiKap]

A couple items for clarity/edification:

It wasn't suddenly "announced" during the weekend. Although the LP has certain primary/caucus/straw poll processes in place in various states, the only thing that matters for determining the ticket is the Libertarian National Convention. It is held as, essentially, a (nearly 30 hour ) parliamentary session under Robert's Rules of Order, not as a grandiose coronation as is typical with the Republican and Democrat conventions (I apologize if this comes off as overly negative but I don't know how else to draw the contrast). It was suppose to be held in Austin, but due to the virus that was cancelled. It was successfully held (technically part 1) virtually this past weekend. For full disclosure, I was a delegate. Both the President and Vice President are selected through run-off voting with the lowest-vote-total candidate eliminated in each round (very low totals are eliminated in the first round but are still eligible as write-ins each round).

Spike Cohen, while primarily running with Vermin Love Supreme, already had semi-endorsements lined up with other candidates (Vermin Supreme is a complex subject that I don't intend to go into here; I will simply state that I have a much higher opinion of him after the convention than I did before). Cohen was endorsed by some of the folks who lost Pres/VP nominations as well, including another VP candidate who has held positions with the UN and NATO, so don't take him to be a performance artist like Vermin Supreme. The guy with the boot on his head (Vermin) believes that by first attracting attention he can later communicate a message (and he has empirical evidence to suggest that he is correct); while that might or might not be the right strategy for the Libertarian Party, many members of the LP see national races like the presidential election as primarily an exercise in outreach, and attracting someone's attention is the first step in outreach. Hopefully that provides some better context regarding Cohen.

This comment will probably be my last in this thread, as I don't enjoy the structure of the discussion, despite it being conducted by intelligent, congenial people. I did think it was worth providing that bit of information, though. If the LP puts together a video of the nomination speeches, I might come back to post that, as I think many of you would be intrigued by them.

And on the subject of Woodrow Wilson: Veracruz

I hope that is not your last post, because what you have added is very informative.

[budwom]

The Prez has shown himself to be politically savvy much of the time, but I'm not sure he has a handle on how concerned people in their 60s, 70s and beyond are about the virus...the fact that elder Floridians are now concerned about his approach is not going to help him. Older people tend to vote, and Trump is (at least currently) digging himself a hole. As he's been known to say, let's see what happens.

[jv001]

The Prez has shown himself to be politically savvy much of the time, but I'm not sure he has a handle on how concerned people in their 60s, 70s and beyond are about the virus...the fact that elder Floridians are now concerned about his approach is not going to help him. Older people tend to vote, and Trump is (at least currently) digging himself a hole. As he's been known to say, let's see what happens.

I agree with your entire post. I also believe his mouth will eventually cost him the election. He is what he is.

GoDuke!

[ArkieDukie]

Jumping in late to say how much I appreciate the intelligent, rational discussion on this thread. I live in a fairly blue city (St. Louis) in a red state (MO) and am originally from an area that is now VERY red (AR). Rational discussion is often somewhat difficult to find. I should’ve thought to look here earlier.

Biden’s VP pick is going to be very interesting indeed. The question is, how much does his VP choice impact voters’ decision regarding the best person to vote for? The more progressive wing of the Democratic Party wants a progressive candidate; however, would a progressive candidate make Biden more or less likely to win over more moderate or conservative voters? Or, more correctly, is it possible that he could pick someone who compels those voters to vote for Trump? For example, I know people who are embarrassed by Trump but heartily dislike Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. This group would likely vote for Trump but might otherwise vote for Biden. They would likely find Klobuchar to be more palatable. But then, as mentioned, Klobuchar is problematic with other groups of voters. All in all, I guess the VP choice is a bit of a tightrope in many ways. You’re going to make one group of voters happy while alienating another one. There’s a lot of “strategery” involved.

Overall, strategy will be interesting to watch. I have long thought that Trump feared Biden as a candidate most of all. With Bernie, he could’ve scared people by talking about socialism. That’s the race he wanted; he was actively encouraging his supporters to vote in Democratic primaries and vote for Bernie. But, now he has Biden. He cannot push nepotism too much because, hello, Jared, Ivanka and Don Jr. Sexual harassment? Too many to even count. Thanks to Covid-19, he cannot tout the economy or low unemployment. So, what route do you go if you’re Trump? You do things like open churches to appeal to evangelicals, even though choral and congregational singing have been shown to lead to high viral transmission. Will a more progressive VP candidate make him brush off the socialism fearmongering that he had queued up for Sanders? Time will reveal.

[ArkieDukie]

The Prez has shown himself to be politically savvy much of the time, but I'm not sure he has a handle on how concerned people in their 60s, 70s and beyond are about the virus...the fact that elder Floridians are now concerned about his approach is not going to help him. Older people tend to vote, and Trump is (at least currently) digging himself a hole. As he's been known to say, let's see what happens.

Agreed. With that being said, I think that much of the conspiracy theory garbage that is being put out there now comes from 45’s surrogates. As a scientist who works in an immunology department, I’ve rebutted, or attempted to rebut, some pretty crazy stuff. I had FITS with the video of the 2 doctors from Bakersfield (their immunology was horrific) and let’s not even talk about Plandemic. Note that the full Plandemic movie is scheduled to drop this summer, which, unless my memory is off, matches the timing of the Clinton Cash “documentary.” I’m not sure how long Plandemic has been in the works, but if the full version is anything like the Mikovits clip, it has the goal of painting the pandemic to be a deep state conspiracy that was created to hurt Trump.

ETA: Steve Bannon provided the funding for Clinton Cash. I would not be at all surprised to learn that he’s also behind Plandemic.

[JasonEvans]

I almost feel foolish coming here and telling folks to read something at 538 because my bet is that most of you already read 538 pretty thoroughly. Still, I feel like this conversation about the swing states is pretty compelling and worth some extra attention: Are Arizona, Georgia, and Texas really in play?

Georgia was 7 points to the right of the nation in 2016, and Texas was 11 points to the right. Given long-term trends, they have both probably moved a little to the left, but they have further to go than Arizona.

That said, Biden may well win those states, but if he does, he will probably already have clinched the Electoral College in the Midwest, Arizona or Florida.

The Biden campaign would be foolish to invest significantly in Texas. If Texas votes Democratic, Biden will already have won virtually every other swing state and, therefore, the election. It’s simply not a part of his path to 270 electoral votes — more like a part of his path to 400.

If Biden wants to be an effective president, he’ll need a Democratic Senate. IMO, that means he should give extra credit to Georgia and Iowa when deciding where to allocate his resources.

-Jason "if I had to rank swing states in order of likely to flip from Trump to Biden I would rank them in this order: Michigan, Penn, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa, Texas" Evans

[El_Diablo]

-Jason "if I had to rank swing states in order of likely to flip from Trump to Biden I would rank them in this order: Michigan, Penn, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa, Texas" Evans

Don't forget Ohio.

[sagegrouse]

I almost feel foolish coming here and telling folks to read something at 538 because my bet is that most of you already read 538 pretty thoroughly. Still, I feel like this conversation about the swing states is pretty compelling and worth some extra attention: Are Arizona, Georgia, and Texas really in play?

-Jason "if I had to rank swing states in order of likely to flip from Trump to Biden I would rank them in this order: Michigan, Penn, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa, Texas" Evans

Obama won five of these in 2012, plus Ohio. Romney won AZ, TX, GA, NC. To aid my -- uh -- research, I had the identical electoral map for 2012 and 2016 in adjacent tabs. The immediate visual impression -- which was true -- is that the results were the same west of the Mississippi in 2012 and 2016.

[cato]

Don't forget Ohio.

I would be shocked if Biden wins Ohio. That is Trump country.

[rsvman]

In the 2016 presidential election, Romney wrote his wife's name in. FWIW.

To be fair, a better choice than either of the candidates on the main party tickets, IMO. If I'd have known she was running, she would've had TWO votes.

[duke79]

Jumping in late to say how much I appreciate the intelligent, rational discussion on this thread. I live in a fairly blue city (St. Louis) in a red state (MO) and am originally from an area that is now VERY red (AR). Rational discussion is often somewhat difficult to find. I should’ve thought to look here earlier.

Biden’s VP pick is going to be very interesting indeed. The question is, how much does his VP choice impact voters’ decision regarding the best person to vote for? The more progressive wing of the Democratic Party wants a progressive candidate; however, would a progressive candidate make Biden more or less likely to win over more moderate or conservative voters? Or, more correctly, is it possible that he could pick someone who compels those voters to vote for Trump? For example, I know people who are embarrassed by Trump but heartily dislike Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. This group would likely vote for Trump but might otherwise vote for Biden. They would likely find Klobuchar to be more palatable. But then, as mentioned, Klobuchar is problematic with other groups of voters. All in all, I guess the VP choice is a bit of a tightrope in many ways. You’re going to make one group of voters happy while alienating another one. There’s a lot of “strategery” involved.

Overall, strategy will be interesting to watch. I have long thought that Trump feared Biden as a candidate most of all. With Bernie, he could’ve scared people by talking about socialism. That’s the race he wanted; he was actively encouraging his supporters to vote in Democratic primaries and vote for Bernie. But, now he has Biden. He cannot push nepotism too much because, hello, Jared, Ivanka and Don Jr. Sexual harassment? Too many to even count. Thanks to Covid-19, he cannot tout the economy or low unemployment. So, what route do you go if you’re Trump? You do things like open churches to appeal to evangelicals, even though choral and congregational singing have been shown to lead to high viral transmission. Will a more progressive VP candidate make him brush off the socialism fearmongering that he had queued up for Sanders? Time will reveal.

I think your analysis (bolded above) is what Joe and his advisors have to consider when choosing his VP running mate. I've always thought that, for the most part, people don't vote for the VP candidate (see, e.g., 1988 - Lloyd Bentson vs. Dan Quayle). But I think this year may be different. Given his advanced age and (what many people perceive to be) his declining mental acumen, I think people ARE going to focus more on who Joe chooses to be his VP candidate, with the thought that that person stands a fairly good chance of becoming president. I think many voters will be asking themselves - can I see this person being the President of the country? And I do think that some of the names being bandied about for VP would scare off some moderate and right-of-center voters who would otherwise be leaning towards Joe. This is where Joe needs to be careful. If I were advising him, I would emphasize that fact - that he needs to choose someone who has the stature and experience to be the President (in moderate voters' minds), even if that person might not be the first choice of the progressives and far lefties in the Democratic party. Yea, it's possible some of those on the far left might not vote at all but I live in one of the most liberal regions of the country and I can promise you that EVERYONE I know will be voting for Joe no matter who he chooses to be his VP (I mean, he could choose the second incarnation of Atilla the Hun and they would still vote for Joe).

[CameronBornAndBred]

-Jason "if I had to rank swing states in order of likely to flip from Trump to Biden I would rank them in this order: Michigan, Penn, Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa, Texas" Evans

Biden isn't losing his home (birth) state. I'd put that first.

[sagegrouse]

I think your analysis (bolded above) is what Joe and his advisors have to consider when choosing his VP running mate. I've always thought that, for the most part, people don't vote for the VP candidate (see, e.g., 1988 - Lloyd Bentson vs. Dan Quayle). But I think this year may be different. Given his advanced age and (what many people perceive to be) his declining mental acumen, I think people ARE going to focus more on who Joe chooses to be his VP candidate, with the thought that that person stands a fairly good chance of becoming president. I think many voters will be asking themselves - can I see this person being the President of the country? And I do think that some of the names being bandied about for VP would scare off some moderate and right-of-center voters who would otherwise be leaning towards Joe. This is where Joe needs to be careful. If I were advising him, I would emphasize that fact - that he needs to choose someone who has the stature and experience to be the President (in moderate voters' minds), even if that person might not be the first choice of the progressives and far lefties in the Democratic party. Yea, it's possible some of those on the far left might not vote at all but I live in one of the most liberal regions of the country and I can promise you that EVERYONE I know will be voting for Joe no matter who he chooses to be his VP (I mean, he could choose the second incarnation of Atilla the Hun and they would still vote for Joe).

And Biden also has to pick an experienced campaigner who will not make Sarah Palin-type blunders. This is much more important in 2020 because of Biden's age.

[elvis14]

I think your analysis (bolded above) is what Joe and his advisors have to consider when choosing his VP running mate. I've always thought that, for the most part, people don't vote for the VP candidate (see, e.g., 1988 - Lloyd Bentson vs. Dan Quayle). But I think this year may be different. Given his advanced age and (what many people perceive to be) his declining mental acumen, I think people ARE going to focus more on who Joe chooses to be his VP candidate, with the thought that that person stands a fairly good chance of becoming president. I think many voters will be asking themselves - can I see this person being the President of the country? And I do think that some of the names being bandied about for VP would scare off some moderate and right-of-center voters who would otherwise be leaning towards Joe. This is where Joe needs to be careful. If I were advising him, I would emphasize that fact - that he needs to choose someone who has the stature and experience to be the President (in moderate voters' minds), even if that person might not be the first choice of the progressives and far lefties in the Democratic party. Yea, it's possible some of those on the far left might not vote at all but I live in one of the most liberal regions of the country and I can promise you that EVERYONE I know will be voting for Joe no matter who he chooses to be his VP (I mean, he could choose the second incarnation of Atilla the Hun and they would still vote for Joe).

This is my exact thinking about Biden's VP. At his age, I wouldn't assume two terms and 8 years. As such, the VP position should be used to groom the Dem's next presidential candidate. I think that this rules out some names. For example, I think Abrams will be perceived as not ready to be President based on her background. Warren, who many think won't be chosen because she holds a senate seat, is someone that I wouldn't consider a good choice based on performance in this year's election.

I still see Amy K...

Of course, given 3 years since the last election there are quite a few people that think the Dems didn't do a great job of grooming anyone for this election.