2020 Presidential Election

[CrazyNotCrazie]

For those who haven't seen the news:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrews.../#1020ed9c80db

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...there-n1240896

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...rid-of-ballots

After a long day negotiating with my ridiculously stubborn six year old to get him to do remote schooling, this all sounds very familiar...

[CameronBlue]

After a long day negotiating with my ridiculously stubborn six year old to get him to do remote schooling, this all sounds very familiar...

I promise you that your 6 year old behaves better on his/her worst day. Yeah, low-bar and all that , but still...

[Lord Ash]

For those who haven't seen the news:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrews.../#1020ed9c80db

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...there-n1240896

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...rid-of-ballots

Really incredible stuff.

What baffles me is that this is the sort of behavior, weeks before an election, you would think right wing militias, who have warned of a government takeover/dictator, and who have spoken of the need for 2a to prevent such a thing, would literally be up in arms.

I mean, telling them to wear a mask got them literally up in arms.

But they seem oddly silent about this.

More proof, btw, of Trumps genius, when he said that he could shoot someone on 5th ave and not lose a vote... that is looking more and more accurate by the day, barring polls showing these statements having serious impact on his numbers.

Oddest, and most unsettling, election of my lifetime, and likely of many lifetimes.

[bundabergdevil]

i will say, Trump is drawing massive tremendous crowds, and his base is very excited. I never believe polls anyway. But I tell you again, if the congress does not move on stimulus, and Trump does nothing he will lose the election.. Take it to the bank. Also any congressman or senator will go down with him if they vote against it. People are hurting out there..

If this sentiment is correct then Republicans may be in trouble. The level of effort to get a SC justice confirmed before the election will, I assume, suck up all the time and energy. It is hard to imagine the Senate at least having time for much else and that's squarely a choice on McConnell and the GOP's shoulders. Most Americans understand and disagree with the political play but if your observation is correct it will be a double whammy because they're consciously choosing politics over the "people that are hurting out there".

From what I understand, the rush is to get the justice on before the ACA healthcare arguments, which occur not long after November 4th election. So, if the GOP's calculus is correct, they'll get their justice in time to strike down the ACA and take away healthcare protections for tens of millions of Americans at the same time job losses (and therefore lost healthcare) is piling up.

That seems like a HUGE political miscalculation to me --- and not at all what most Americans want to see happen. As you say, times are tough, the GOP should be helping life better, not worse if they want to win in November.

[OldPhiKap]

If this sentiment is correct then Republicans may be in trouble. The level of effort to get a SC justice confirmed before the election will, I assume, suck up all the time and energy. It is hard to imagine the Senate at least having time for much else and that's squarely a choice on McConnell and the GOP's shoulders. Most Americans understand and disagree with the political play but if your observation is correct it will be a double whammy because they're consciously choosing politics over the "people that are hurting out there".

From what I understand, the rush is to get the justice on before the ACA healthcare arguments, which occur not long after November 4th election. So, if the GOP's calculus is correct, they'll get their justice in time to strike down the ACA and take away healthcare protections for tens of millions of Americans at the same time job losses (and therefore lost healthcare) is piling up.

That seems like a HUGE political miscalculation to me --- and not at all what most Americans want to see happen. As you say, times are tough, the GOP should be helping life better, not worse if they want to win in November.

I doubt any of that plays into Trump’s calculation FWIW. All he wants is another potentially loyal justice for the eventual election litigation in the Supreme Court.

[bundabergdevil]

I doubt any of that plays into Trump’s calculation FWIW. All he wants is another potentially loyal justice for the eventual election litigation in the Supreme Court.

Right but if DW’s observation is correct it will factor into voters’ calculations - even, if I’m understanding him, voters that would otherwise go Trump.


I will say that I’ve heard grumbling ms from folks about the second direct payment or not having received the first one but no polling.


Edited to add: 870,000 new jobless aid claims announced today.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

If this sentiment is correct then Republicans may be in trouble. The level of effort to get a SC justice confirmed before the election will, I assume, suck up all the time and energy. It is hard to imagine the Senate at least having time for much else and that's squarely a choice on McConnell and the GOP's shoulders. Most Americans understand and disagree with the political play but if your observation is correct it will be a double whammy because they're consciously choosing politics over the "people that are hurting out there".

From what I understand, the rush is to get the justice on before the ACA healthcare arguments, which occur not long after November 4th election. So, if the GOP's calculus is correct, they'll get their justice in time to strike down the ACA and take away healthcare protections for tens of millions of Americans at the same time job losses (and therefore lost healthcare) is piling up.

That seems like a HUGE political miscalculation to me --- and not at all what most Americans want to see happen. As you say, times are tough, the GOP should be helping life better, not worse if they want to win in November.

ACA is an issue that Biden should be all over. First of all, Trump campaigned on getting rid of it and has not come up with an alternate plan after almost four years - he periodically says that he has something that will be "the best" or "the greatest" but has done nothing. Of those who want to get rid of ACA, I think a decent percentage wants there to be some alternative in place, not nothing.

Secondly, COVID could be considered a pre-existing condition. In addition to the 200,000+ dead from it, there are many people who have been infected and are fortunate not to have had a bad case. Tell these people that if the ACA is gone, they will be at risk of not being insurable because of this pre-existing condition and see how they feel. And, as you noted, this risk is even greater given how many people are currently unemployed.

Letting Trump blow himself up is on so successful as a campaign strategy - Biden really needs to take more control of the narrative. The debate next week is going to be fascinating.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

ACA is an issue that Biden should be all over. First of all, Trump campaigned on getting rid of it and has not come up with an alternate plan after almost four years - he periodically says that he has something that will be "the best" or "the greatest" but has done nothing. Of those who want to get rid of ACA, I think a decent percentage wants there to be some alternative in place, not nothing.

Secondly, COVID could be considered a pre-existing condition. In addition to the 200,000+ dead from it, there are many people who have been infected and are fortunate not to have had a bad case. Tell these people that if the ACA is gone, they will be at risk of not being insurable because of this pre-existing condition and see how they feel. And, as you noted, this risk is even greater given how many people are currently unemployed.

Letting Trump blow himself up is on so successful as a campaign strategy - Biden really needs to take more control of the narrative. The debate next week is going to be fascinating.

Look - an issue post!

Isn't it bizarre how little of this election has to do with issues?

[Lord Ash]

Look - an issue post!

Isn't it bizarre how little of this election has to do with issues?

Yeah... it is. But if you think about it, issues simply aren't being pushed by both candidates themselves! I mean, part of that is the limitations we've had with interviews and all of that... there is a limited platform to hear the candidates... now I could be wrong and have missed something, but there hasn't been any continuous, serious policy discussion coming from the White House about police reform (I believe Biden has spoken about it)... there haven't been any detailed health care proposals from the President (I believe Biden has put stuff out there)... I haven't really seen any deep foreign policy discussion coming from the White House (I think the Biden campaign has put out some things...?) (And sorry if this seems partisan, but it just feels more "realistic" than "partisan"... but I may have missed stuff, so please feel free to correct me!)

Honestly, I think that the President and his campaign team have decided that issues simply don't matter to the upcoming election as much as emotion does. I am not sure if they are right or not... I suppose we will see?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yeah... it is. But if you think about it, issues simply aren't being pushed by both candidates themselves! I mean, part of that is the limitations we've had with interviews and all of that... there is a limited platform to hear the candidates... now I could be wrong and have missed something, but there hasn't been any continuous, serious policy discussion coming from the White House about police reform (I believe Biden has spoken about it)... there haven't been any detailed health care proposals from the President (I believe Biden has put stuff out there)... I haven't really seen any deep foreign policy discussion coming from the White House (I think the Biden campaign has put out some things...?) (And sorry if this seems partisan, but it just feels more "realistic" than "partisan"... but I may have missed stuff, so please feel free to correct me!)

Honestly, I think that the President and his campaign team have decided that issues simply don't matter to the upcoming election as much as emotion does. I am not sure if they are right or not... I suppose we will see?

I assume (maybe) that "issues" will be discussed at the debates? Which are when?

Is this crazy late to not have had a debate yet?

[mph]

I assume (maybe) that "issues" will be discussed at the debates? Which are when?

Is this crazy late to not have had a debate yet?

September 29, October 15, October 22.

VP debate is October 7

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Yeah... it is. But if you think about it, issues simply aren't being pushed by both candidates themselves! I mean, part of that is the limitations we've had with interviews and all of that... there is a limited platform to hear the candidates... now I could be wrong and have missed something, but there hasn't been any continuous, serious policy discussion coming from the White House about police reform (I believe Biden has spoken about it)... there haven't been any detailed health care proposals from the President (I believe Biden has put stuff out there)... I haven't really seen any deep foreign policy discussion coming from the White House (I think the Biden campaign has put out some things...?) (And sorry if this seems partisan, but it just feels more "realistic" than "partisan"... but I may have missed stuff, so please feel free to correct me!)

Honestly, I think that the President and his campaign team have decided that issues simply don't matter to the upcoming election as much as emotion does. I am not sure if they are right or not... I suppose we will see?

I agree, though I think there are some underlying issues being discussed by Trump - by focusing a lot of air time on the courts, he is basically saying that he will load the courts up so that his agenda (whatever that may be) will get approved. Of particular interest to his base is abortion - there are a lot of voters for whom this is the one and only issue, and they hope that Trump will appoint a judge who agrees with them on this. And Trump's statement about an orderly transition speaks to his policy plans regarding the upholding of the basic principles of the constitution. I agree that Biden has been making some efforts to put forth policy ideas, but he is getting completely drowned out. Because the reality show is too much fun and draws great ratings.

I really hope the debate focuses on issues. And that the moderators really keep it focused on issues and policy and real solutions rather than platitudes and anecdotes about Joe the plumber. And focus on the truth, whatever that may be.

[JasonEvans]

I assume (maybe) that "issues" will be discussed at the debates? Which are when?

Is this crazy late to not have had a debate yet?

The 2016 debates were Sept 26, Oct 4 (VP), Oct 9, and Oct 19.
This year they will be Sept 29, Oct 7 (VP), Oct 15, and Oct 22.

So, a few days later, but nothing too dramatic.

-Jason "worth noting that election day is Nov 3 this time and was No 8 in 2016 so these debates are about a week closer to election day than last election" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Some really interest state poll results today.

The A+ rated NYTimes/Sienna poll, run by Nate Cohen who has made a major effort to ensure his polls find the kind of Trump voters who were missed by some pollsters in 2016, has three results that cannot be seen as good news for Trump.

Iowa - Biden +3 (45-42)
Georgia - tie (45-45)
Texas - Trump +2 (46-43)

Georgia is tied?!?!! Iowa is Biden +3?!?!?!

Those would seem to be nearly disastrous results for Trump. I mean if those three reliably red states are blue or even purple, Trump has to be sunk, right?

Not exactly. In an election where Iowa had Biden leading, an election where Georgia is a tie, I would expect Biden to be up 8 or more points in Pennsylvania and at least 5 points in Florida. But, the polls in those two hugely important tipping point states consistently show Trump within striking range. The reality is that certain states, certain regions of the country, are moving while others are not.

The result of all this is that there is a very realistic scenario where Trump manages to win by taking a series of very narrow victories in like 6 or 7 states. Biden comes close but loses by maybe less than a point in Fl, Pa, Az, Ga, Io, NC, and so on. It would be the ultimate threading of the needle, but it looks possible. Not likely, but possible.

Meanwhile, on the national poll level, after dipping down into the mid-6s, Biden's lead in 538s national polling average is back into the mid-7s. Hard to say if this is just a normal ebb and flow or perhaps some reaction to the death of RBG and the move to quickly confirm a new justice. We've had enough time at this point that most polls will include post-RBG respondents.

-Jason "Biden is up to 78% in the 538 model, his highest mark since Trump gassed the protestors in front of the White House" Evans

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The 2016 debates were Sept 26, Oct 4 (VP), Oct 9, and Oct 19.
This year they will be Sept 29, Oct 7 (VP), Oct 15, and Oct 22.

So, a few days later, but nothing too dramatic.

-Jason "worth noting that election day is Nov 3 this time and was No 8 in 2016 so these debates are about a week closer to election day than last election" Evans

Maybe this year just feels like forever.

[JasonEvans]

ACA is an issue that Biden should be all over. First of all, Trump campaigned on getting rid of it and has not come up with an alternate plan after almost four years - he periodically says that he has something that will be "the best" or "the greatest" but has done nothing. Of those who want to get rid of ACA, I think a decent percentage wants there to be some alternative in place, not nothing.

Secondly, COVID could be considered a pre-existing condition. In addition to the 200,000+ dead from it, there are many people who have been infected and are fortunate not to have had a bad case. Tell these people that if the ACA is gone, they will be at risk of not being insurable because of this pre-existing condition and see how they feel. And, as you noted, this risk is even greater given how many people are currently unemployed.

Letting Trump blow himself up is on so successful as a campaign strategy - Biden really needs to take more control of the narrative. The debate next week is going to be fascinating.

I agree that Biden has a real angle on the ACA and health care. I am not sure how much we will hear about it at the debate -- which is gonna be SCOTUS and Covid centric -- but I could see something like this happen:

Trump - "We are going to have the best health care plan ever to replace the ACA"
Biden - "You said the exact same thing 4 years ago and we are yet to see anything about this plan. I know you've been busy golfing and watching Fox news for 8 hours a day but I think at some point in 4 years you could find the time to actually explain a little bit about how you plan to deal with health care after your hand picked supreme court takes away Obamacare and allows insurance companies to again discriminate against Americans with pre-existing conditions."

I'm betting Biden debate prep team has his head swimming with zingers like this. They better because you know Trump is going to bring it.

[Nepos]

Yeah... it is. But if you think about it, issues simply aren't being pushed by both candidates themselves! I mean, part of that is the limitations we've had with interviews and all of that... there is a limited platform to hear the candidates... now I could be wrong and have missed something, but there hasn't been any continuous, serious policy discussion coming from the White House about police reform (I believe Biden has spoken about it)... there haven't been any detailed health care proposals from the President (I believe Biden has put stuff out there)... I haven't really seen any deep foreign policy discussion coming from the White House (I think the Biden campaign has put out some things...?) (And sorry if this seems partisan, but it just feels more "realistic" than "partisan"... but I may have missed stuff, so please feel free to correct me!)

Honestly, I think that the President and his campaign team have decided that issues simply don't matter to the upcoming election as much as emotion does. I am not sure if they are right or not... I suppose we will see?

Perhaps issues are important to most people, and because of that they are firmly in the "always vote for the candidate in X party or the more cons/lib candidate" camp (this describes me and most of the people I interact with).

Perhaps all elections in the US come down to the votes (or non votes) of about 15% of the eligible voting public who are less concerned with issues and political ideology, and more concerned about how they feel about the candidates at the time they make up their mind whether to vote and who to vote for.

Perhaps for US President this group of voters is only relevant in the handful of states that will be relevant to deciding the electoral college outcome.

Perhaps the majority of the 15% non-issue eligible voters in the handful of key states have firmly made up their minds about who they like/trust/feel will lead to the best outcomes for them, so the political game at the moment is to sway a relatively tiny number of eligible voters to behave the way you want, and issues have very little to do with how these people make choices.

[freshmanjs]

Some really interest state poll results today.

The A+ rated NYTimes/Sienna poll, run by Nate Cohen who has made a major effort to ensure his polls find the kind of Trump voters who were missed by some pollsters in 2016, has three results that cannot be seen as good news for Trump.

Iowa - Biden +3 (45-42)
Georgia - tie (45-45)
Texas - Trump +2 (46-43)

Georgia is tied?!?!! Iowa is Biden +3?!?!?!

Those would seem to be nearly disastrous results for Trump. I mean if those three reliably red states are blue or even purple, Trump has to be sunk, right?

Not exactly. In an election where Iowa had Biden leading, an election where Georgia is a tie, I would expect Biden to be up 8 or more points in Pennsylvania and at least 5 points in Florida. But, the polls in those two hugely important tipping point states consistently show Trump within striking range. The reality is that certain states, certain regions of the country, are moving while others are not.

The result of all this is that there is a very realistic scenario where Trump manages to win by taking a series of very narrow victories in like 6 or 7 states. Biden comes close but loses by maybe less than a point in Fl, Pa, Az, Ga, Io, NC, and so on. It would be the ultimate threading of the needle, but it looks possible. Not likely, but possible.

Meanwhile, on the national poll level, after dipping down into the mid-6s, Biden's lead in 538s national polling average is back into the mid-7s. Hard to say if this is just a normal ebb and flow or perhaps some reaction to the death of RBG and the move to quickly confirm a new justice. We've had enough time at this point that most polls will include post-RBG respondents.

-Jason "Biden is up to 78% in the 538 model, his highest mark since Trump gassed the protestors in front of the White House" Evans

Iowa has gone blue in 4 of last 7 presidential elections and 2 of the last 3. How is that reliably red?

[Rich]

Some really interest state poll results today.

The A+ rated NYTimes/Sienna poll, run by Nate Cohen who has made a major effort to ensure his polls find the kind of Trump voters who were missed by some pollsters in 2016, has three results that cannot be seen as good news for Trump.

Iowa - Biden +3 (45-42)
Georgia - tie (45-45)
Texas - Trump +2 (46-43)

Georgia is tied?!?!! Iowa is Biden +3?!?!?!

Those would seem to be nearly disastrous results for Trump. I mean if those three reliably red states are blue or even purple, Trump has to be sunk, right?

Not exactly. In an election where Iowa had Biden leading, an election where Georgia is a tie, I would expect Biden to be up 8 or more points in Pennsylvania and at least 5 points in Florida. But, the polls in those two hugely important tipping point states consistently show Trump within striking range. The reality is that certain states, certain regions of the country, are moving while others are not.

The result of all this is that there is a very realistic scenario where Trump manages to win by taking a series of very narrow victories in like 6 or 7 states. Biden comes close but loses by maybe less than a point in Fl, Pa, Az, Ga, Io, NC, and so on. It would be the ultimate threading of the needle, but it looks possible. Not likely, but possible.

Meanwhile, on the national poll level, after dipping down into the mid-6s, Biden's lead in 538s national polling average is back into the mid-7s. Hard to say if this is just a normal ebb and flow or perhaps some reaction to the death of RBG and the move to quickly confirm a new justice. We've had enough time at this point that most polls will include post-RBG respondents.

-Jason "Biden is up to 78% in the 538 model, his highest mark since Trump gassed the protestors in front of the White House" Evans

More than anything else, this election will come down to the timing of the voting, and that's how Trump wants it. If Biden has sufficient EC delegates on Election Night, Trump will have no choice but to concede. But if Trump has a majority of EC delegates on Election Night, only to be overturned once the mail-in ballots are counted, we're in for extensive pain as a country divided.

This will be drawn out to the Supreme Court where Trump is counting on having his conservative majority declare him the winner. That includes that little detail in The Atlantic where Trump's team is reaching out to Republican State Legislatures in swing states so as replace delegates with those whom support Trump who will claim the mail-in ballots are not reliable and that he gets their votes. Really scary stuff!

As Americans, Democrats and Republicans, we have to have faith that every court at any level will be non-partisan and demand proof that mail-in ballots are unreliable. So far I do not believe anyone has been able to prove this, but if we get to this point I wouldn't put it past Trump to find a way to muddy this issue.

[bundabergdevil]

Iowa has gone blue in 4 of last 7 presidential elections and 2 of the last 3. How is that reliably red?

As discussed months ago, it’s also been a rough few years for farmers. They’ll still go overwhelmingly for Trump but not quite as overwhelmingly is good news for Biden given Iowa’s history as you note.