2020 Presidential Election

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

If it comes to that, think Hillary tries to get back in the game?

I see no advantage to that for anyone.

Let's have a few primaries before we start going down the brokered convention talk.

I'm a nervous wreck as it is trying to work through feasible possibilities.

[sagegrouse]

Monmouth (538 rates them A+) has Biden leading in South Carolina by 27 points. That primary is 4 days before Super Tuesday, which is especially super next year, and a big win by Biden could affect a lot of votes a few days later. The Ds need to get this primary over sooner rather than later.

In Ohio, Quinnipiac (A- by 538) has Biden beating Trump by 8. No other D is plus against Trump.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

I discussed upthread the idiotic DNC policy of proportional allotment of delegates. You don't play the regular season by one set of rules, and the Super Bowl by another. If Biden comes out of Super Tuesday with about 40%, and Sanders-Warren-Harris are 15% to 20% (this isn't Buttigieg's year, I cap him at 5%), this could drag out and that is not good for the Ds. Sanders won't drop out, obviously. I doubt Warren does. Does Biden strike an early deal with Harris for the VP slot (which usually doesn't come out until close to the convention) to get her to pledge her delegates to him? A brokered convention would be a disaster for the Ds.

If it comes to that, think Hillary tries to get back in the game?

As a spectator of national politics for ages, I long for the days where nominations were decided at the convention -- Republicans in 1952 chose Ike over Mr. Republican, Robert Taft; Dems in '52 and '56 went with Adlai. But most of the action was, in fact, at the convention. Now the calendar has shifted forward; every state seems to have a caucus or a primary and the winnowing out will begin early. I expect it will be over on March 3, Super Tuesday.

Here is the primary and caucus schedule. All are primaries except states marked (C).

Feb 03 IA 41 C
Feb 11 NH 24
Feb 22 NV 36 - C, Sat.
Feb 29 SC 54 - Sat.
Feb Total 155

Mar 03 Super Tuesday:
AL 52
AR 31
CA 416
CO 67
GA 105
MA 91
MN 75
NC 110
OK 37
TN 64
TX 228
UT 29
VT 16
VA 99
Mar 3 Total 1,420

There are 3,768 pledged delegates in total and then 764 automatic delegates -- party and elected officials for the most part. Through March 3, 42 percent of the pledged delegates will have been selected. Momentum seems to play a big role in politics. The four February events should "tee up," at most 3-4 candidates, who would be expected to win the lions' share of the delegates on Super Tuesday, March 3.

I expect Super Tuesday would result in, at most, two viable candidates -- and probably just one. In any event, the Democratic nomination should be resolved in March.

[dudog84]

If it comes to that, think Hillary tries to get back in the game?

Thanks for making me spit up my Post Toasties!

[OldPhiKap]

If it comes to that, think Hillary tries to get back in the game?

“Can I ask a practical question at this point? Are we gonna do Stonehenge tomorrow night?”

[JasonEvans]

As a spectator of national politics for ages, I long for the days where nominations were decided at the convention -- Republicans in 1952 chose Ike over Mr. Republican, Robert Taft; Dems in '52 and '56 went with Adlai. But most of the action was, in fact, at the convention. Now the calendar has shifted forward; every state seems to have a caucus or a primary and the winnowing out will begin early. I expect it will be over on March 3, Super Tuesday.

Here is the primary and caucus schedule. All are primaries except states marked (C).

Feb 03 IA 41 C
Feb 11 NH 24
Feb 22 NV 36 - C, Sat.
Feb 29 SC 54 - Sat.
Feb Total 155

Mar 03 Super Tuesday:
AL 52
AR 31
CA 416
CO 67
GA 105
MA 91
MN 75
NC 110
OK 37
TN 64
TX 228
UT 29
VT 16
VA 99
Mar 3 Total 1,420

There are 3,768 pledged delegates in total and then 764 automatic delegates -- party and elected officials for the most part. Through March 3, 42 percent of the pledged delegates will have been selected. Momentum seems to play a big role in politics. The four February events should "tee up," at most 3-4 candidates, who would be expected to win the lions' share of the delegates on Super Tuesday, March 3.

I expect Super Tuesday would result in, at most, two viable candidates -- and probably just one. In any event, the Democratic nomination should be resolved in March.

So, here is the thing... it seems fairly likely that no candidate has more than maybe 35-40% of the delegates after Super Tuesday. Even that may be an optimistic figure given proportional delegate allocation and the size of the field. And it is not at all hard to see how we could have at least 3 or 4 viable candidates on Super Tuesday.

If Super Tuesday does present us with one clear front-runner who wins all but 1 or 2 states that day and gets over 50% of the vote in several of the states (especially the delegate-rich ones) then I suspect that front-runner will have time to collect 50% of the delegates by the convention.

But there are lots of very reasonable scenarios where the field is still quite divided after Super Tuesday and we have 3 or more candidates getting meaningful delegates for weeks. If no one is getting 605 of the delegates in almost every contest after Super Tuesday, then the Dems are very, very likely headed to a convention where no one gets 50%+1 on the first ballot**.

-Jason "** - unless the party changes the voting rules in some way... and I'm not even sure if they can at this point" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

Not sure which states have winner take all delegates primaries/caucuses, and which are proportional. But after Super Tuesday I could see four folks still standing:

Biden — unless he collapses, there is a lot of institutional backing here.
Warren — been the progressive buzz for months now, raised a lot of money.
Harris — if she wins her home state of California, and makes inroads in places like South Carolina, she will have some chips.
Bernie — like the houseguest that won’t leave, he has shown the habit of staying around way beyond the point of reason.

I just don’t see anyone else making it to that point. Mayor Pete has money and buzz among the intelligentsia but no support beyond that. Corey Booker is just not a very good candidate to date. The rest are just padding their egos.

[JasonEvans]

Not sure which states have winner take all delegates primaries/caucuses, and which are proportional.

There are no Democratic primaries or caucuses that are winner take all... none. Any candidate who gets 15% of the vote gets delegates (in some states you have to get 15% state-wide, but in some you merely need 15% in a particular congressional district).

-Jason "that is why folks are so worried about no one getting 50% of the delegates coming into the convention" Evans

[JasonEvans]

There are no Democratic primaries or caucuses that are winner take all... none. Any candidate who gets 15% of the vote gets delegates (in some states you have to get 15% state-wide, but in some you merely need 15% in a particular congressional district).

-Jason "that is why folks are so worried about no one getting 50% of the delegates coming into the convention" Evans

By the way, I believe that if the GOP had run their 2016 nominating process this way, Donald Trump would not have been the nominee. He used the late winner-take-all contests to get him over the top. Had it been proportional all the way, I suspect Rubio or Jeb might have stuck around longer and the convention would have gone to multiple ballots.

-Jason "folks may forget how many never-Trump Republicans there were back in July/August of 2016" Evans

[sagegrouse]

Not sure which states have winner take all delegates primaries/caucuses, and which are proportional. But after Super Tuesday I could see four folks still standing:

Biden — unless he collapses, there is a lot of institutional backing here.
Warren — been the progressive buzz for months now, raised a lot of money.
Harris — if she wins her home state of California, and makes inroads in places like South Carolina, she will have some chips.
Bernie — like the houseguest that won’t leave, he has shown the habit of staying around way beyond the point of reason.

I just don’t see anyone else making it to that point. Mayor Pete has money and buzz among the intelligentsia but no support beyond that. Corey Booker is just not a very good candidate to date. The rest are just padding their egos.

Democratic Party does not use winner-take-all:

Under the current Democratic Party selection rules, adopted in 2006, pledged delegates are selected under proportional representation, which requires a candidate have a minimum of 15% of a state's popular vote to receive delegates.

I dunno how it works anywhere else, but in 2004 our small Colorado county selected a delegate for the Democratic Convention in Boston only because his Mom lived there.

I don't agree with Jason (which is why Al Gore invented the internet) in that there is almost always a leading candidate who gains unstoppable momentum -- often because the trailing candidates can no longer raise money. Democratic candidates with below 15 percent of the primary vote, it appears, get zip, zilch, nada in terms of delegates.

Wasn't the last race to get to the convention Ford-Reagan in 1976, and Ford had a clear edge? Kennedy's challenge to Carter in 1980 failed, although Ted did make a stink at the convention. The most exciting race, the Dems in 1988, was gonna be something until the Miami Herald decided to spy on Gary Hart -- first time that had ever been done. Then Dukakis ended up winning easily over Jesse Jackson and a late push by Al Gore.

Clinton won easily in 1992 when the leading potential Democratic candidates decided not to run 'cuz George H.W. Bush was supposedly "unbeatable" because of his Gulf War I victory. (Ask Winston Churchill how big a threat was posed by Clement Attlee of Labour in 1946 after the allied victory in World War II.)

W. in 2000, Obama and McCain in 2008, Romney in 2012, Clinton and Trump in 2016 all had their moments but were decided way before the convention. Kerry won the nomination in a walk as a war hero in 2004 (and then allowed his record to be Swift-boated without doing anything to defend himself -- duh).

I dunno, guys, but most primary campaigns seem to end earlier than expected.

[OldPhiKap]

Wasn't the last race to get to the convention Ford-Reagan in 1976, and Ford had a clear edge? Kennedy's challenge to Carter in 1980 failed, although Ted did make a stink at the convention. The most exciting race, the Dems in 1988, was gonna be something until the Miami Herald decided to spy on Gary Hart -- first time that had ever been done. Then Dukakis ended up winning easily over Jesse Jackson and a late push by Al Gore.

To be fair, Gary dared the press to follow him — and then went over to his side squeeze’s house. Lee Atwater and Roger Stone may have played a role in the “discovery” too.

(I saw Gary in Page Aud. Not long before that happened — there sure seemed to be a lot of potential there before the Monkey Business).

[JasonEvans]

I don't agree with Jason (which is why Al Gore invented the internet) in that there is almost always a leading candidate who gains unstoppable momentum

So, let me explain why this campaign may be different.

Super Tuesday has really grown. Around 1600 of the 3700 delegates who will vote on the first ballot will be picked by the time Super Tuesday is done on March 3rd. In 2016, the number of pledged delegates by Super Tuesday was 1000. So, the Dems will be picking an unprecedented number of delegates really early in the process when the ballot will still be full of viable candidates.

Also, unlike 2016 when Superdelegates could have pushed one candidate over the top, they are not allowed to vote on the first ballot this time. So, let's say Biden has 48% of pledged delegates coming into the convention and is going to be the nominee, the Supers cannot push him over the top and we need to go a second ballot.

It is very possible one front-runner will emerge early by winning Iowa and NH and that person will get around 50% of the delegates on Super Tuesday, allowing him/her to coast to the nomination. I'm not saying that is not going to happen. But, it is also very possible there are 3 or maybe even 4 viable candidates still standing after Super Tuesday (which includes contests in Mass, CA, and VT, the home states of three of the strong contenders) and we go a few more weeks with no one getting more than 40% of pledged delegates. In that scenario, even if one candidate emerges as the clear front-runner by the end of March, there probably will not be enough delegates left to get that person over 50% by the time the convention comes along.

-Jason "I certainly see scenarios where Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris are still around into late March" Evans

[CameronBornAndBred]

I think that Bernie will be a non-factor by the time Super Tuesday rolls around. No explanation given, I just don't think he will be a viable candidate by then.

[dudog84]

Just had a thought, contrarian that I am.

The big field and early (especially super) Super Tuesday might be good for Biden.

There's probably 8, maybe 10 candidates that can survive until Super Tuesday. It's just one month after Iowa. So those lower tier candidates (Buttigieg, Booker, etc.) siphon off enough votes from the Big 4 that some (a significant number in various states) of them don't reach 15%. At the moment, Biden is the only candidate not in danger of this. For demonstration purposes, here's the Ohio poll from a few days ago:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...mary-6873.html

In this scenario, Biden is the only one with over 15% and Ohio becomes winner-take-all. California won't do it because of Harris, but a number of those Super Tuesday states could turn into winner-take-all. Especially if Biden does well in February and slams South Carolina at the end of the month, he could gain that momentum. And acquire the coveted cloak of inevitability.

[dudog84]

I should have included this one, which is more pertinent than Ohio. South Carolina is currently winner-take-all.

Biden 37.5
Sanders 12.5
Harris 11.3
Warren 10.8
Buttigieg 5.8
Booker 3.3
O'Rourke 1.8
Steyer 1.5
Yang 1.3 (he has the money to stay in)
etc.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...mary-6824.html

[dudog84]

Promise this is the last one, but Texas is the other big prize (Harris will split California with Biden) on Super Tuesday:

Biden 26.7
O'Rourke 16.0
Warren 13.7
Sanders 13.0
Harris 7.0
Buttigieg 5.0
Castro 3.7

This will be the only state where O'Rourke gets 15%, and I believe he'll fade below 15 even in Texas by then. Biden goes winner-take-all in Texas.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...mary-6824.html

Another thing I just realized. Sanders and Warren are splitting the hard left so that neither of them will reach 15% consistently and pick up significant delegates in the various states. Because we all know neither of them is going to give in to the other.

Warren entering the race has completely changed the game for Sanders. He will not do what he did in 2016.

[sagegrouse]

To be fair, Gary dared the press to follow him — and then went over to his side squeeze’s house. Lee Atwater and Roger Stone may have played a role in the “discovery” too.

(I saw Gary in Page Aud. Not long before that happened — there sure seemed to be a lot of potential there before the Monkey Business).

While oft-repeated, it is actually not true. The published Gary Hart quote was two days after the Miami Herald stakeout.

The WaPo magazine had a thorough reporting on the events last year, but here is the Wikipedia version:

When Lois Romano, a reporter for The Washington Post, asked Hart to respond to rumors spread by other campaigns that he was a "womanizer", Hart said such candidates were "not going to win that way, because you don't get to the top by tearing someone else down."[39] The New York Post reported that comment on its front page with the headline lead in "Straight from the Hart", followed below with big, black block letters: "Gary: I'm No Womanizer.'", and then a summary of the story: "Dem blasts rivals over sex life rumors".[39][40]:86

In late April 1987, The Miami Herald claimed that an anonymous informant[A] contacted the paper to relate that Hart was having an affair with a friend, claimed it was the equivalent of the Iran-Contra scandal, provided details about the affair, and told the Herald that Hart was going to meet this person at his Washington, D.C., townhouse on May 1.[41][43]:28 As a result, a team of Herald reporters followed Donna Rice on a flight from Miami to Washington, D.C., then staked out Hart's townhouse that evening and the next Saturday, and observed a young woman and Hart together.[44] The Herald reporters confronted Hart on Saturday evening in an alley about his relationship with Rice.[41][44] Hart replied, "I'm not involved in any relationship," and alleged that he had been set up.[44][B]

The Herald published a story on May 3 that Hart had spent Friday night and most of Saturday with a young woman in his Washington, D.C. townhouse. On that same day, in an interview with E. J. Dionne that appeared in the New York Times, Hart, responding to the rumors of his womanizing, said: "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored."[45] At some point the reporters for the Herald learned that the New York Times was planning to feature the quote in their article on Sunday. When the two articles appeared on the same day a political firestorm was ignited.[41] On Sunday, Hart's campaign denied any scandal and condemned the Herald's reporters for intrusive reporting.[46] Hart later noted that his "follow me around" comment was not "challenging the press with a taunt", but, made in frustration, was only intended to invite the media to observe his public behavior, and never intended to invite reporters to be "skulking around in the shadows" of his home.[47] '"He did not think of it as a challenge," Dionne would recall many years later. "And at the time, I did not think of it as a challenge."'[41] Nor did Hart's comment influence the Miami Herald to pursue the story.[48]

Anyway, the press had never before snooped on the private lives of politicians, despite lots of rumors -- JFK, LBJ, ete., etc. That seems like a quaint time, doesn't it?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

When Lois Romano, a reporter for The Washington Post, asked Hart to respond to rumors spread by other campaigns that he was a "womanizer", Hart said such candidates were "not going to win that way, because you don't get to the top by tearing someone else down."

Oh how times have changed.

[OldPhiKap]

Anyway, the press had never before snooped on the private lives of politicians, despite lots of rumors -- JFK, LBJ, ete., etc. That seems like a quaint time, doesn't it?

Remember when folks were shocked to hear on the Nixon tapes that the President of the United States actually used the “F word” in the Oval Office? We sure have come a long way from then — and not in a good way.

[JasonEvans]

dudog84,

There is a significant thing missing when you post those polls that seem to show Biden as the only candidate above 15%. In most of those polls, there is about 12-15% of the electorate who are undecided and not registering for any candidate. One primary/caucus day everyone who votes will have to chose someone (except in some quirky states that allow you to vote for uncommitted, which is only done very rarely). What's more, as we approach actual voting, the candidates who are getting 1-3% are going to see their support dry up even more as voters flock to more viable candidates. As a result, those candidates who are currently getting 12-14% in the polls are very likely to find their way to that 15% threshold.

Biden would really have to thread a needle to get something like 34% and then see Harris, Sander, Warren, and Mayor Pete each get 14%, with Booker, Beto, Castro, Klobuchar, and the also rans totaling the remaining 10%. That would be some perfect storm kinda stuff that just seems really unlikely to me. Sure, there will likely be states where one or even two candidates get 14% and pout about being unfairly shut out of getting any delegates but I don't know if there will be any state where it becomes winner-take-all**.

-Jason "**-unless someone is running away with the state, getting like 50+% of the vote in a crowded field, but given where things are today, that seems unlikely" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

^^ I’m guessing that the field is down to less than eight by the time Iowa is done. Real costs have not even started yet, and people sending you a buck to make a debate stage will only take you so far.

I think folks start dropping when they don’t make the September debate, and certainly before the wall of cost that a national Super Tuesday represents.

(Did see DeBlasio’s adds running during CNN this afternoon in my market, not sure if they were national sales spots or not. SC is part of our media market).