I agree, it’ll be close, even if Biden gets the nomination. I think Trump is again being underrated. Trump will benefit watching the primaries and learning new ways to attack and hurt Biden. There’s a very good reason most incumbents have won a second term the last 50 years. Trump’s economy is many levels above Carter’s in 1980 and he will play the game better than Bush did in 1992.
IMO, Biden is the "safe" pick for the Dems. much like Hillary was in 2016. He is experienced, a centrist, has credibility with minorities for his ties to Obama, and I think will show a great deal of fight. I'm not as worried about the "gaffe machine" because Trump commits gaffes that would bury any other politician and his supporters don't seem to care. I think that will largely insulate Biden against his likely gaffes, considering Trump is the alternative. Those who get worked up over gaffes weren't likely to vote for the individual in the first place.
I think the bigger issue for the Dems is the enthusiasm gap, especially with Biden. Will a 70+ year old white candidate motivate young the Dems to work the phones and go to the polls in the same way a 50 year old minority would? Dems tend to do better when their candidate inspires (WJC, Obama) rather than furthers the status quo (Gore, Kerry, HRC). So I think the Dems best bet is to nominate someone who will excite the younger generation and drive them to the polls.
Baby boomers like Biden, Bernie, and Warren are all 70+ and IMO blunt a very potent line of attack for the Dems they offer young faces and ideas. Harris, Booker, Castro, and Buttigieg probably best fit this mold of a young, fresh candidate that would make Trump look very old in comparison. Harris seems to be the frontrunner of this younger group. I think she is currently best positioned to rebuild the Obama coalition of young voters and unprecedented minority support, although Buttegieg is my personal favorite.
"There can BE only one."
There’s a lot of thought people don’t vote based on the economy much anymore.
The GOP had control of every single branch of the government in 2018 and the economy was red hot.
Not sure I’d say that worked for them.
Personally, my money is on making Trump the story. Dems disagree on a lot of things, and are often their own worst enemies. They often don’t show up to vote.
But put Trump up on the screen, their blood is up, and they’re all screaming about the same thing.
And make no mistake, no matter what the strategy is, this election is about Trump.
There’s sort of two ways to look at this. One is the scenario you describe. The other is to say that Trump is historically unpopular despite a strong economy, lost the popular by 3 million despite running against another historically unpopular candidate (HRC), and won 3 states by fewer people than it takes to fill a NFL stadium. That is, Trump is being over-estimated because a strong economy artificially inflates his weak support.
I have no idea which way it will go but it was so close and odd in 2016 that I’m pretty gun shy about predictions. I do believe demographic shifts since 2016 favor Dems but not in the most important states necessarily.
Rich
"Failure is Not a Destination"
Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016
Amen to this! I've always (naively) thought that, at a very minimum the candidates should tell us what they believe in and want to accomplish IF they are elected AND how they will accomplish those goals, IF they do get in office.
Yea, I'm not sure either party came out smelling like roses after yesterday's debacle BUT I especially and truly felt sorry for Bob Mueller (Robert Swann Mueller, III - what a name!). He obviously has lost his fastball, curveball and change-up (to use a baseball analogy). One commentator said afterwards he thought it was "elder abuse" to have him testify before Congress.
I may eat these words in 16 months or so, but I'm predicting (NOW) that DT will win the election easily (with the following two assumptions - the economy (and the stock market) continue to be strong AND he does not do something incredibly stupid - i.e., start lobbing nuclear weapons into North Korea, etc). I still think the Dems' (whomever they nominate) best hope is if the economy begins to tank in the next year or so and people lose faith in what DT and Republicans in Congress have done (see George H.W. Bush in 1992!). Given the low unemployment numbers, the strong stock market and continued GDP growth, I just don't see people voting to change the captain of the ship (and I readily understand that many people in the country DETEST Donald Trump). Again, I wouldn't bet my life savings on this outcome but I'd bet a fair amount of money.
They matter in other states, too, because the identity of the swing states constantly shifts. Trump famously surprised by cracking the blue wall (wiki) in 2016, for example. Nobody was talking about Wisconsin being a swing state prior to that.
I think it's inevitable that Texas turns blue. It probably won't happen for a few more cycles, but shoot, who knows? Maybe it happens much sooner than people expect, and R Texans who don't think their votes matter would help pave the way.
Watch for Minnesota possibly going red for the first time in forever, too, in 2020.
She'll need Trump to lose next year because she's not a nationalist-populist. If Trump wins again, almost all 2024 R candidates will be nationalist-populists, imo.
If all else stays the same, then no. But lots will change in the coming years. Like most of the rest of the world the US will continue to urbanize which, because of our government system, may mean more of 2000 and 2016, not less. Most of that urbanization is occurring in already blue states so...representation in the senate may continue to be imbalanced relative to population majority preference. Our founding fathers were trying to solve a hell of a pickle with the rep/senate approach...I appreciate their genius more and more.
I saw my very first 2020 campaign signage yesterday. It was a very large, professional-looking banner for Trump touting "Keep America Great" (I didn't realize that was his slogan - seriously) -- hanging on a very nice wrought iron fence in a very nice (and heavily Democratic) neighborhood I happened to be traveling through. Before that sign, I had not seen even a bumper sticker for anyone to date.
In past years, a poster provided his/her signage index based on the number of signs in his area. I’m in PA, in a vital part of an already vital state, and I’ve seen 1 Trump, 1 Warren, and 1 Harris sign so far. I’m close enough to DE to know where Jill gets her crab cakes so I SHOULD be seeing nothing but Biden...FWIW.
My guess is that is far too early to see many neighbors promote a candidate other than Trump. I have no doubt you will see those in abundance through election day, but until the Dems whittle things down to two or three final candidates in the heart of primary season, the blue signs will be less visible.
Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."
Well, while there is some genius in the Senate preventing the tyranny of the majority I really wonder about how it will work if the coasts continue to get more and more populous and people flee the middle. At this moment, it is technically possible for 12% of the population to elect 60% of the senate. It is easy to see how that could become increasingly problematic if the priorities of that 12% (or, more realistically 20-25%) got almost equal federal power as the rest of the nation.
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?