2020 Congressional Elections

[AustinDevil]

The Electoral College is all that matters. Do you expect a blowout there? Large margins in CA and NY mean nothing. Now, if Biden can turn TX we can talk.

Yes, thanks; I'm aware of the Electoral College.

Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1%. Biden has been leading Trump in some recent polls by five times or more that margin. I'm not saying that Biden will stay that far ahead, but if he does, he will win in a popular-vote *and* Electoral College landslide. All I have to do in this exchange is disprove your assertion that "nobody" thinks Trump will lose in a landslide. And that's easily done. For example, here's one good disproof:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/20/busin...obs/index.html

[dudog84]

Yes, thanks; I'm aware of the Electoral College.

Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1%. Biden has been leading Trump in some recent polls by five times or more that margin. I'm not saying that Biden will stay that far ahead, but if he does, he will win in a popular-vote *and* Electoral College landslide. All I have to do in this exchange is disprove your assertion that "nobody" thinks Trump will lose in a landslide. And that's easily done. For example, here's one good disproof:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/20/busin...obs/index.html

Geez, you slip in one wrong word and they never let you live it down!

Edit: Y'know, I'm basically talking general consensus. As in "Nobody thinks Hitler was a good guy" or "Nobody thinks Cats was a great film" or "Nobody thinks uNC didn't cheat for over 20 years". Sure, you'll find a few people, but you've got to look pretty hard for them, and even then most won't admit it publicly without some shame.

[dudog84]

Depends on the definition of a blow out.

If the result is never really in doubt (Biden wins Florida, Penn, Wiscy, Michigan, NC and Az, giving Biden 334 or so EVs) and the Dems also flip 5 or more senate seats then I think that could be considered a blow out. That could happen pretty easily in an election that Biden wins like 51-44. Does it need to be more like 350 EVs (meaning Biden also takes Georgia or Texas or some other surprise state) and 7+ senate seats with Biden winning the popular vote by 9 or 10 points for it to really be a blow out?

Yes.

I'm thinking Reaganesque (489 EVs, probably never happen again) or even Clintonesque (370 EVs), and I don't remember anyone thinking Clinton blew out HW Bush (could be my faulty memory). The popular vote margins were 9.7% and 5.6%. Perot complicated the latter, but he did not come close to picking up any EVs. Maine was the only state where he got over 30% (30.44) and Clinton won Maine easily with 38.77%.

These were the only 2 times since Herbert Hoover an elected President has not won a 2nd term. Note I said 'elected' before anyone argues with me. So it seems that if Biden wins nationwide by over 7%, he has a chance at TX and GA (heck, a weekend poll has Joe -2 in Arkansas!) and could push towards 400. If there are no viable 3rd party drains and he wins by 10% nationally, I'm not sure what the Electoral Map will look like.

Re 3rd party, by this time in 2016 both the Libertarian and Green Party candidates had some name recognition. I couldn't give you the first letter of a last name for either at the moment. So I don't think they're going to have much affect this year. It's all about Trump.

[budwom]

Yes.

I'm thinking Reaganesque (489 EVs, probably never happen again) or even Clintonesque (370 EVs), and I don't remember anyone thinking Clinton blew out HW Bush (could be my faulty memory). The popular vote margins were 9.7% and 5.6%. Perot complicated the latter, but he did not come close to picking up any EVs. Maine was the only state where he got over 30% (30.44) and Clinton won Maine easily with 38.77%.

These were the only 2 times since Herbert Hoover an elected President has not won a 2nd term. Note I said 'elected' before anyone argues with me. So it seems that if Biden wins nationwide by over 7%, he has a chance at TX and GA (heck, a weekend poll has Joe -2 in Arkansas!) and could push towards 400. If there are no viable 3rd party drains and he wins by 10% nationally, I'm not sure what the Electoral Map will look like.

Re 3rd party, by this time in 2016 both the Libertarian and Green Party candidates had some name recognition. I couldn't give you the first letter of a last name for either at the moment. So I don't think they're going to have much affect this year. It's all about Trump.

Indeed, I would not use the word "blowout" to describe the 1992 election...few people recall that Clinton won a whopping 370 electoral votes, but he did it with only 43.0% of the popular vote...H Ross Perot's 18.9% of the vote made it a uniquely odd election...Clinton won handily, but largely because Perot siphoned off a lot of GOP votes...

[JasonEvans]

Indeed, I would not use the word "blowout" to describe the 1992 election...few people recall that Clinton won a whopping 370 electoral votes, but he did it with only 43.0% of the popular vote...H Ross Perot's 18.9% of the vote made it a uniquely odd election...Clinton won handily, but largely because Perot siphoned off a lot of GOP votes...

Let's see how we get Biden to 370+ EVs.

Start with the relatively safe states for Biden: New England (minus one of the Maine districts), the mid-Atlantic states, Illinois, Colorado, NM, Nevada, and the west coast. That comes to 232 EVs.

Now, lets give him the toss up states: Penn, Mich, Wiscy, Fla, NC, Ariz, and one of the swingy Nebraska districts. That gets you to 334.

Texas and Georgia are big prizes and get Biden to 388. If you want 400+ EVs, Ohio's 18 EVs gets you there. If you take the other "lean GOP states" (Iowa and the Maine swingy district) then you put Biden at 413. Hard to see much more than that being possible, even if polls show things kinda close in Arkansas or Alaska.

[dudog84]

Just noticed, how did this conversation end up in the Congressional thread and not the Presidential thread?

[AustinDevil]

Indeed, I would not use the word "blowout" to describe the 1992 election...few people recall that Clinton won a whopping 370 electoral votes, but he did it with only 43.0% of the popular vote...H Ross Perot's 18.9% of the vote made it a uniquely odd election...Clinton won handily, but largely because Perot siphoned off a lot of GOP votes...

That Perot siphoned GOP votes and was the cause of Clinton's victory is oft-repeated but not supported by the available data. (I realize that you are only saying that Clinton won "handily" because of Perot, but the same criticism applies.)

Perot voters broke heavily for D gubernatorial candidates, and only very slightly voted more for R Senate and U.S. House candidates than their D opponents. It is not true that Perot's voters were a GOP cohort.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

[CameronBornAndBred]

Watched an ad today asking for monetary support to help Jaime Harrison defeat Lindsey Graham in the SC Senate race.

I live in very red Eastern NC, 3 hours from the SC border.

[Wander]

Since I didn't get a chance to pick a 14+ seed winning a game in March Madness this season, my crazy upset pick of the year is Harrison over Graham in South Carolina. There's just something a little off about the speed and extremity with which Graham turned his opinion around on Trump, even by politician's standards, that could be ripe for effective messaging if the opposition is competent enough to take advantage.

[AustinDevil]

Geez, you slip in one wrong word and they never let you live it down!

Edit: Y'know, I'm basically talking general consensus. As in "Nobody thinks Hitler was a good guy" or "Nobody thinks Cats was a great film" or "Nobody thinks uNC didn't cheat for over 20 years". Sure, you'll find a few people, but you've got to look pretty hard for them, and even then most won't admit it publicly without some shame.

Well, when the one word is an absolute ... yes, it's easily attackable. But no, I would not say that your view is even a general consensus. Oxford Economics is not some rando outlier. Their model has correctly predicted the popular vote* in every presidential election since 1948. They also run a state-by-state analysis that predicts Biden 328, Trump 210.

Much of Trump's Aura of Invincibility is due to just how unexpected his win was in 2016. But here's another metric: both candidates were disliked in 2016, but Hillary was far more disliked. Both candidates are disliked in 2020, but Trump is far more disliked.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/u...ump-biden.html

*As we have been discussing, this is not the same as the Electoral College.

[sagegrouse]

Indeed, I would not use the word "blowout" to describe the 1992 election...few people recall that Clinton won a whopping 370 electoral votes, but he did it with only 43.0% of the popular vote...H Ross Perot's 18.9% of the vote made it a uniquely odd election...Clinton won handily, but largely because Perot siphoned off a lot of GOP votes...

Not necessarily true. There was a time, as you remember, when Perot dropped out. Clinton led the polls then as well. Bush never led Clinton in any poll, I've been told, but I'm not gonna look it up.

[dudog84]

Well, when the one word is an absolute ... yes, it's easily attackable. But no, I would not say that your view is even a general consensus. Oxford Economics is not some rando outlier. Their model has correctly predicted the popular vote* in every presidential election since 1948. They also run a state-by-state analysis that predicts Biden 328, Trump 210.

Much of Trump's Aura of Invincibility is due to just how unexpected his win was in 2016. But here's another metric: both candidates were disliked in 2016, but Hillary was far more disliked. Both candidates are disliked in 2020, but Trump is far more disliked.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/u...ump-biden.html

*As we have been discussing, this is not the same as the Electoral College.

Not according to Lindsey Graham.

[luvdahops]

That Perot siphoned GOP votes and was the cause of Clinton's victory is oft-repeated but not supported by the available data. (I realize that you are only saying that Clinton won "handily" because of Perot, but the same criticism applies.)

Perot voters broke heavily for D gubernatorial candidates, and only very slightly voted more for R Senate and U.S. House candidates than their D opponents. It is not true that Perot's voters were a GOP cohort.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

I also recall that exit polls had Perot voters favoring Clinton by a nearly 2:1 margin. Clinton also got a bigger boost in the polls when Perot dropped out, and dipped more after he re-entered.

[budwom]

Not necessarily true. There was a time, as you remember, when Perot dropped out. Clinton led the polls then as well. Bush never led Clinton in any poll, I've been told, but I'm not gonna look it up.

I get that, Sage, but I still maintain the election was not the "blowout" the EV totals would indicate, that's all...

As for this time around, I'm encouraged that we're close to getting Jason to call GA for Joe, I'll keep enticing him.

[OldPhiKap]

I get that, Sage, but I still maintain the election was not the "blowout" the EV totals would indicate, that's all...

As for this time around, I'm encouraged that we're close to getting Jason to call GA for Joe, I'll keep enticing him.

I think many on this board would be more likely to start an anti-jinx thread.

[Tripping William]

I think many on this board would be more likely to start an anti-jinx thread.

You rang?

[budwom]

I think many on this board would be more likely to start an anti-jinx thread.

There is absolutely no way Joe can win Georgia.

[dudog84]

There is absolutely no way Joe can win Georgia.

Joe +2 in new GA poll.

This is pretty simple 2-page poll data (some run 20 pages or more), and I found the methodology interesting. Start off with straight questions. Then they ask some very leading questions, so they plant the seed. Sneaky? Maybe, but this is 'war'. So all's fair, I guess.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...Results1-1.pdf

[Tripping William]

there is absolutely no way joe can win georgia.

iswydt

[CameronBornAndBred]

To get this thread back on actual Congressional races, and not Presidential, I didn't realize that Amy McGrath actually had a valid challenger. The primary is a week away, and Charles Booker is apparently making some real headway in his quest to be the Dem nominee to run against Mitch McConnell.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-senate-316201