2020 Presidential Election

[bundabergdevil]

Moving away from the immigration debate --- the NYT has an article today predicting that voter turnout in 2020 will be the highest in a century. It's behind a firewall but this slightly older article from The Atlantic covers much of the same ground.

Of note:

- 2020 voter turnout could increase by 15M+ over 2016 and reach 2/3rds voter participation rate, the highest in a century.
- May be the most demographically diverse voter base ever seen. As noted upthread, Latin Americans are expected to overtake African Americans as the largest minority voting bloc.
- 2020 is expected to be a generational tipping point year. The millennial and post-millenial voting bloc will roughly equal that of the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation for the first time, a trend that will obviously continue to shift in favor of younger generations moving forward.
- In 2018, minorities and college-educated whites increased their voter participation rates at slightly higher levels than did whites w/o a college education. That participation rate and how it extrapolates to 2020 clearly has profound implications for Trump's re-election bid.
- HOWEVER, the voting base in PA, WI, and MI are not diversifying as fast as the nation at large so their status as MUST WIN states for both parties remains.

Interesting stuff. Lots to think about in those projections.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Moving away from the immigration debate --- the NYT has an article today predicting that voter turnout in 2020 will be the highest in a century. It's behind a firewall but this slightly older article from The Atlantic covers much of the same ground.

Of note:

- 2020 voter turnout could increase by 15M+ over 2016 and reach 2/3rds voter participation rate, the highest in a century.
- May be the most demographically diverse voter base ever seen. As noted upthread, Latin Americans are expected to overtake African Americans as the largest minority voting bloc.
- 2020 is expected to be a generational tipping point year. The millennial and post-millenial voting bloc will roughly equal that of the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation for the first time, a trend that will obviously continue to shift in favor of younger generations moving forward.
- In 2018, minorities and college-educated whites increased their voter participation rates at slightly higher levels than did whites w/o a college education. That participation rate and how it extrapolates to 2020 clearly has profound implications for Trump's re-election bid.
- HOWEVER, the voting base in PA, WI, and MI are not diversifying as fast as the nation at large so their status as MUST WIN states for both parties remains.

Interesting stuff. Lots to think about in those projections.

Very interesting information - thanks.

I think the election process is going to be a huge, huge issue in 2020. Vote counting, disenfranchisement/fraudulent voting (depending on your perspective on things), suspected hacking, etc. could all be big issues. Trump made it pretty clear last time around that unless he loses in a landslide (unlikely to happen) he will question the validity of the results, and that is a lot easier to do when he is already in office. I have an acquaintance who is a law professor and a prominent voting rights expert and I think he is already clearing his calendar for late 2020.

Plus this is all compounded by the recent ruling about gerrymandering, making the incentive to win a majority in a state even greater as it gives redistricting powers which often makes it a lot easier for that party to stay in office should they choose to exercise these powers in a self-interested way.

[Jeffrey]

Whataboutism is perhaps the lamest attack there is.

Nah, I'm not trying to do the impossible and change the subject. Trump bashing is an absolute and perpetual certainty at DBR. IMO, Trump makes it very easy!

I'm merely making the rare DBR post that the other side is also far from perfect. I never served in the military but think it's somewhat disrespectful of those who did.

[Jeffrey]

Full out culture war, which is his sweet spot.

Do you believe Trump is alone in that approach?

[OldPhiKap]

Do you believe Trump is alone in that approach?

No. I think Hillary engaged in a similar thing both in 2016 ("deplorables") and in 2008 against Obama in the primary. She just did it more deftly, and it was not her front-and-center approach. And there are plenty of examples from both parties.

Where Trump is unique, though, is his bludgeoning and unapologetic approach to it. I guess his supporters would say that it is "being honest." But it certainly is divisive and incendiary, whether one agrees with what he says or not.

[Jeffrey]

No. I think Hillary engaged in a similar thing both in 2016 ("deplorables") and in 2008 against Obama in the primary. She just did it more deftly, and it was not her front-and-center approach. And there are plenty of examples from both parties.

Where Trump is unique, though, is his bludgeoning and unapologetic approach to it. I guess his supporters would say that it is "being honest." But it certainly is divisive and incendiary, whether one agrees with what he says or not.

I fully agree, many current politicians play the same game. IMO, the big difference is Trump makes absolutely no effort to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

In your opinion, has the USA been this divided since Nixon was POTUS?

[CrazyNotCrazie]

No. I think Hillary engaged in a similar thing both in 2016 ("deplorables") and in 2008 against Obama in the primary. She just did it more deftly, and it was not her front-and-center approach. And there are plenty of examples from both parties.

Where Trump is unique, though, is his bludgeoning and unapologetic approach to it. I guess his supporters would say that it is "being honest." But it certainly is divisive and incendiary, whether one agrees with what he says or not.

Not sure if we want to open this can of worms but the deplorables comment was very different. It was a reaction to hateful speech, saying that anyone who supports hateful, divisive behavior is deplorable. I would like to think that the vast majority of Americans support the core value that hating other people because of color, gender, sexual preference, education level, or anything else of the like is "deplorable" but unfortunately I'm not sure if this is the case.

As I said many posts back, the Democrats would do very well to emphasize repeatedly that they are the party of "high tide raises all ships" and contrast that with Trump's divisiveness. So far they have not done this too well in their apparent race to the left.

[OldPhiKap]

Not sure if we want to open this can of worms but the deplorables comment was very different. It was a reaction to hateful speech, saying that anyone who supports hateful, divisive behavior is deplorable. I would like to think that the vast majority of Americans support the core value that hating other people because of color, gender, sexual preference, education level, or anything else of the like is "deplorable" but unfortunately I'm not sure if this is the case.

As I said many posts back, the Democrats would do very well to emphasize repeatedly that they are the party of "high tide raises all ships" and contrast that with Trump's divisiveness. So far they have not done this too well in their apparent race to the left.

Agree that it is a can of worms, so I am moving on from the topic.

[Bob Green]

I encourage all active participants in this thread to revisit Post #1:

For those of you who have not read the previous political threads on the DBR, I feel some explanation is necessary. Under most circumstances, political talk is illegal on the DBR and will result in infractions. However, we do allow it here with one very, very important caveat.

You posts cannot be partisan in nature. This is a thread for dispassionate analysis and discussion. Ideally, no one should be able to tell from your posts if you are a D or an R; if you are Red or Blue or Green; if you are liberal or conservative.

If that sounds like a challenge for you, my advice is simple... stay away!! Infractions are handed out swiftly in this thread and they are typically much harsher than in other threads. I often bypass the "Warning" stage and get right to putting people in time out if they cross the partisan line.

Thanks in advance!

[Jeffrey]

Agree that it is a can of worms, so I am moving on from the topic.

Sorry, did not mean to put you in a tough spot! I think it's a timely and important conversation but, upon reflection, it's not possible here.

Sorry, Bob, I posted this before seeing your post.

[Nick]

Are the President's unambiguously racist tweets...

I'm sure you didn't intend it as such but this is an extremely partisan statement. To my right-wing, Trump-loving ears, this sounds about the way it would sound to you if someone said "Looks like that commie libtard Obama is up to his old tricks again! Why does he hate America so much?"

We can do better, DBR.

[bundabergdevil]

Can't run if you don't have or aren't raising enough money.

The article has a run down of each Dem candidates raise and spend to-date. Overview in italics below. In the big horse race figures, the article notes the Democratic field is on pace to exceed the record-breaking $105 million brought in by President Trump and the Republican National Committee in the second quarter — a sign of enthusiasm among Democratic primary voters. This jives with The Atlantic article I posted above outlining the unprecedented voter engagement expected for 2020.

The top raisers so far, based on self-reported figures, posted more than $10 million each in the second quarter: South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg ($24.8 million); former vice president Joe Biden ($21.5 million); Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts ($19.1 million); Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (about $18 million); Sen. Kamala D. Harris of California (nearly $12 million).

[Nick]

I'd like to analyze Trump's controversial tweets and explain how they relate to his 2020 election strategy. If you're a Trump detractor, you can assume his tweets were racist; if you're a supporter, you can assume they weren't. Either way it has little bearing on what I think are his strategic reasons for tweeting what he did.

The backdrop to the tweets is the Democratic party in-fighting between the leadership (primarily Pelosi, AFAIK) and the young upstarts such as Ocasio-Cortez and Omar. It has been pretty ugly in the past few weeks, with the upstarts accusing Pelosi of racism--see here, plus AOC's own chief of staff was just called out by another member of Congress for being racially insensitive. A WaPo opinion editor even joined in against Pelosi, accusing her and NYT columnist Maureen Dowd of racism.

Now say what you will about Pelosi but she strikes me as a politician, not an ideologue. Which is to say, you can do business with her even if you're on the other side of the aisle. I would guess that Trump feels the same way. But AOC and Omar on the other hand--the public perception, at least, is that they're more extreme. Frank Luntz today tweeted out an internal Dem poll of white swing state voters without a college degree (the same people, some believe, who flipped the election to Trump in the Midwest and who made up 45% of the electorate in 2016). The results:

@AOC
• Known by 74% of voters
• 22% have favorable view

@IlhanMN
• 53% known
• 9% favorable

Trump has been enjoying the in-fighting, and you may recall he even jumped in last week and defended Pelosi against accusations of racism. Pelosi has got to hate what Trump is doing here, because it puts Pelosi in a no-win situation and Trump in a win-win situation. If she sides with Trump, she enrages the base. If she says Trump is wrong, she ties herself to a couple of high-visibility, unpopular loose cannons.

Let's not forget Alinsky rule #13:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Trump is masterful at this, and Omar and AOC are a couple of good targets. He's perfectly happy to have people call him a racist or crass or a boor or whatever over his tweets. He counts on it happening--it's part of his strategy. He wants to connect Pelosi at the hip to unpopular politicians who are a fair amount to the left of the mainstream and let 45% of the electorate know that he's on their side. What better way to create the narrative he wants to create (Trump vs America-hating leftists) than with provocative, polarizing tweets that will get people talking? Accusations of racism, insensitivity, etc aren't a bug--they're a feature. They create a clear distinction between Trump and his opponents and provide a favorable narrative. The whole controversy is exactly what Trump wants. He's been doing this for 4+ years now and the same people continue to fall into the trap again and again.

TLDR: Twitter is Trump's laser pointer, and the entire world is a bunch of cats.

[OldPhiKap]

I hope we have folks of all persuasions posting here.

I try to present multiple sides, hopefully in a somewhat neutral manner. And as I said in the 2016 thread, I voted Libertarian and am an independent.

Having said all of that, I do believe there are objective truths. Stating those truths is not taking sides — it’s stating the damn objective truth. Not everything is relative, and it is harmful IMHO to pretend that they are.

Anyway, go Braves!

[Rich]

I hope we have folks of all persuasions posting here.

I try to present multiple sides, hopefully in a somewhat neutral manner. And as I said in the 2016 thread, I voted Libertarian and am an independent.

Having said all of that, I do believe there are objective truths. Stating those truths is not taking sides — it’s stating the damn objective truth. Not everything is relative, and it is harmful IMHO to pretend that they are.

Anyway, go Braves!

Well, there may be "objective truths" but there are also alternative facts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts) and truth that isn't truth (https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.fa0a05ce0658)

[OldPhiKap]

Well, there may be "objective truths" but there are also alternative facts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts) and truth that isn't truth (https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.fa0a05ce0658)

Not in my world, and I’ll fight to keep it that way!

[Reilly]

... Full out culture war, which is his sweet spot ...

Culture includes law/policy. One forms the other and vice versa. In other words, what Trump is being culture war-ish about -- immigration law and the rule of law -- is a serious, substantive topic worthy of attention. Many may bemoan how the president draws attention to it. The underlying topic is important. To my mind, we've had demagogues in American history like McCarthy who rabble-rouse about topics where there may not be much 'there there' (were Communists really taking over?).

Conservatives might say the Obama administration was being culture war-ish in having the Little Sisters of the Poor pay for contraceptives. I personally thought that was bad politics by the Obama administration in terms of scaring off voters -- why even go there -- and maybe that was a bit of rabble-rousing policy to signal to a base. And yet, the underlying substantive topics -- health care and reproductive issues -- are important, life/death issues about which folks on all sides care deeply.

Folks criticized GW Bush for being culture war-ish ahead of the 2004 election in calling for a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage -- and maybe that did seem a bit of a manufactured crisis at that moment to motivate voters -- but then look at the sea change in the law 11 years later.

All of which is to say that many of these hot-button 'culture war' issues are indeed substantive law/policy issues deserving of attention and debate and they stir strong passions on all sides. And I think each side will criticize the other side on two things: (1) the other side's substantive policy/legal position being pushed; and (2) how the other side talks about these important passion-stirring issues -- the very terminology and language used.

Here's a column I saw today about how there's no separating culture/law/moral issues: https://www.thecatholicthing.org/201...2d1b-244050469

[JasonEvans]

the President's unambiguously racist tweets

I'm sure you didn't intend it as such but this is an extremely partisan statement. To my right-wing, Trump-loving ears, this sounds about the way it would sound to you if someone said "Looks like that commie libtard Obama is up to his old tricks again! Why does he hate America so much?"

We can do better, DBR.

Nick,

I wanted you and others to know that I was all set to take action on the "racist tweets" comment and then I noted the reaction from other politicians, including a number of folks who are allied with the President, and I paused. There seems to be near universal condemnation (along with some silence from folks who just want this to go away) of what the President said. I mean, even Lindsay Graham says he thinks Trump should "aim higher" than this. One can find numerous mainstream media outlets who are calling the tweets racist, so it is not exactly a partisan position to note that about them.

While we need to strive for non-partisan analysis, and I know the folks on the left are often the ones who fail the most in this regard (partially because they make up the majority in this thread), I do think that when it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, we are allowed to call it a duck. In this case, the "go back to your home country" comment directed at four people of color is so clearly racist that I believe it is ok to allow it.

I want to be very clear that this is a somewhat unique case and folks should not think it is open season on Trump bashing. As I said, I came darn close to issuing an infraction and deleting the post in question. I also want to note that we must discuss issues like this in the context of how they impact the election and electoral strategy, not in the context of whether we agree or disagree with them.

-Jason "thanks to everyone for doing their bet to remain dispassionate here" Evans

[bundabergdevil]

I'd like to analyze Trump's controversial tweets and explain how they relate to his 2020 election strategy.

...

...

-Jason "thanks to everyone for doing their bet to remain dispassionate here" Evans

All that said, Nick isn't wrong that the Trump campaign would like to elevate certain of the young progressives and tie the Dem candidates and party to the "radical left" and socialism/communism. That's pretty well-trod Republican gamesmanship. However, if we're going to attempt to discuss some of the highly inflammatory rhetoric, I'd argue that Trump undermined this strategy with the tweet because it diverted from the core narrative --- not added to it. You'll notice he back-tracked considerably in the days that followed. According to this Politico article, his campaign staff agree with this assessment but are learning what all of his staff before him have learned, Trump is going to do Trump.

The FiveThirtyEight crew also discusses the tweet and related strategy (or not) in a recent podcast. They do talk about the racial implications but also hit at the various possible strategies surrounding it, including Trump's possible desire to recreate certain 2015/2016 conditions...which is something I hadn't considered.

I figure if FiveThirtyEight attempts to dissect this, considering their orientation, it's fair game.

I also suspect the political views and experience of posters on this thread are more diverse than anonymous posting might indicate, if on balance center and left-of-center. For example, if anyone else posting once accidentally worked for Jeff Sessions, that'd make two of us.

[OldPhiKap]

I also suspect the political views and experience of posters on this thread are more diverse than anonymous posting might indicate, if on balance center and left-of-center. For example, if anyone else posting once accidentally worked for Jeff Sessions, that'd make two of us.

I worked for Libby Dole one summer. Go Duke!

(I guess that means I really indirectly worked for Bush Sr., but that would be a s-t-r-e-t-c-h of the highest order. His portrait did hang in our office though, thanks to the GSA.)