2020 Presidential Election

[Indoor66]

Pence isn't going anywhere. I'm willing to make a pie bet if I have any takers

I have never made a pie bet but I will offer the same bet: Pence isn't going anywhere.

[OldPhiKap]

I have never made a pie bet but I will offer the same bet: Pence isn't going anywhere.

I'm trying to figure the odds I would need to take the bet. As a head's up proposition, I agree with you and matty.

Meanwhile, the Dow and S&P 500 both shed another 4.42% today. Full-on correction territory and not sure where the floor is (hopefully we are there).

[Acymetric]

Perhaps I phrased it poorly. "Someone else" means someone who is not one of the choices already listed. So, that last option is not "someone chosen at the convention" it means "someone other than the previously mentioned folks chosen at the convention." In retrospect, I probably should have left "at the convention" out of it altogether.

I did not want to put "no one gets enough delegates" as an answer because there are a myriad of scenarios where someone comes close but not quite 50% and yet it is clear they will be the nominee. So, that person essentially will have won the nomination via the primary/caucus process, but things just need to be formalized at the convention. I saw no need to parse our responses for a scenario like that. But, I did want there to be a chance for folks to vote on the compromise candidate coming out of the convention. Again, I probably could have phrased things better to make this more clear.

-Jason "18 responses so far... Bernie in a big lead in the 'who will win' question" Evans

I should clarify that I knew that was what you meant by the question, but my options were either to misuse that answer or not vote in the survey.

[Acymetric]

Interesting article from today's NY Times on this very subject - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/u...delegates.html

If Mr Sanders arrives at the convention with any less than a majority of delegates pledged to him, he may find himself with a wave of superdelegates voting against his nomination.

The New York Times reported Thursday that in interviews with 93 superdelegates, only nine said that Mr Sanders arriving at the convention with a plurality was reason enough to support him as nominee.

Wasn't that already known by pretty much everyone?

[Troublemaker]

Wasn't that already known by pretty much everyone?

Before I saw the article (which I also linked above), I thought there was a 40% chance or so that the D establishment would allow plurality Bernie to become the nominee. Now I think it's like 0 to 10%.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Decent line for early voting this afternoon here in Asheville

[JasonEvans]

If Sanders ends up with the plurality AND the DNC is planning on nominating someone else instead, they better have a darn good response to why they think that's fair if they want to consolidate support.

So, is "more than half of the delegates support Biden/Bloomberg/whoever for President but less than half of them support Sanders" a good response? Seems simple, logical, and completely within the rules to me. I would think that pointing out that a majority do not support the plurality leader is something phenomenally easy for people to understand.

What the DNC really needs to avoid is the superdelegates being the deciding vote. Lets say there are 2000 regular delegates and 150 superdelegates (I'm aware that the real numbers are quite different, but I want to make this math simple). The DNC needs to get someone to 1000 of the regular delegates and then let the superdelegates run up the score. Here is the nightmare scenario for the Democrats:

Ballot 1 (superdelegates cannot vote) - Sanders 870, Biden 600, others 530
Ballot 2 (superdelegates can vote) - Sanders 1020 reg + 20 super = 1040, Biden 980 reg + 130 super = 1120

What they need is something like this:

Ballot 1 (superdelegates cannot vote) - Sanders 870, Biden 600, others 530
Ballot 2 (superdelegates can vote) - Sanders 930 reg + 20 super = 950, Biden 1070 reg + 130 super = 1200

Now, I suspect there are some Sanders voters who will never accept him not being the nominee if he has a plurality, but that's just not what the rules say nor is it how the Democats have ever run things... ever. I think that if the plurality winner is not the nominee, the DNC must ensure that the process seems as fair and democratic as possible... a real challenge given the strident nature of many Sanders supporters.

-Jason "I truly think someone needs to get in Bernie's ear and see if they can get him to stop talking so much about the plurality leader... I doubt he will listen but he is killing the party's chance of defeating Trump" Evans

[sagegrouse]

The dropout race will be interesting for sure. I think Klobuchar will be gone either after Saturday or after Super Tuesday. She's an establishment Dem, so she'll play nice with the party. Buttigieg is a tougher guess. His good results in Iowa and NH may make it tough for him to fold on his own, and the less... established place he has with the Dem establishment means he might be less inclined to capitulate to the DNC's wishes. But Warren is the interesting one. I had previously assumed she'd fold after Nevada or SC, per pressure from the party.

The main reasons candidates drop out of races is that they are out of money and can't pay their bills. Obviously, doesn't apply to Bloomberg or Steyer, but it does to Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Warren (and maybe Biden -- but thinking his fund-raising will improve if he wins in SC).

[sagegrouse]

Today's headline: Dow falls 1,191 points -- the most in history -- due primarily to concerns about the corona virus.

Yesterday's headline: Pence appointed by Trump to spearhead US government against the corona virus.

Early test for whatever pie bet emerges?

[PackMan97]

I honestly think at this point it doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate. Trump is going to win or lose on his handling of COVD-19.

I think this will be the defining event since 9/11 and if he handles it badly, I don't think he even gets the Republican nomination. If the US comes out better than most other countries I think he will win it handily even if Obama were running for a third term. I'm accepting all avatar bets and no pie bets

[Troublemaker]

So, is "more than half of the delegates support Biden/Bloomberg/whoever for President but less than half of them support Sanders" a good response? Seems simple, logical, and completely within the rules to me. I would think that pointing out that a majority do not support the plurality leader is something phenomenally easy for people to understand.

"I got the most votes" or "The person you want to nominate received fewer votes than me" is even simpler and more compelling, imo.

-Jason "I truly think someone needs to get in Bernie's ear and see if they can get him to stop talking so much about the plurality leader... I doubt he will listen but he is killing the party's chance of defeating Trump" Evans

Well, he's not going to listen because he wants to become the nominee. "I got the most votes" is his strongest argument, and his disappointed/angry supporters are his leverage.

[CDu]

So, is "more than half of the delegates support Biden/Bloomberg/whoever for President but less than half of them support Sanders" a good response? Seems simple, logical, and completely within the rules to me. I would think that pointing out that a majority do not support the plurality leader is something phenomenally easy for people to understand.

Unfortunately no, it isn’t that simple. Because we don’t know what the voters’ second choice vote would be. While we may think that most moderates would have a second choice that is “not Bernie”, if Sanders is over 40% first-choice, it would take an overwhelming proportion of those other <60% of the voters’ second choice being “not Bernie” for him not to be the majority in a population re-vote. And the larger his lead is over #2, the more likely it is that he is a majority in “top-2” voting.

The problem is in the last sentence: “not first choice” is not the same thing as “do not support.” So the argument is gonna have to be a lot better if they are going to appease the plural candidate’s voters to accept losing.

[CDu]

And just to be clear, I think it is very possible that the DNC would, in fact, choose someone other than Sanders if Sanders fails to reach the majority on his own. I am just saying that the argument of “he failed to get the majority of delegates” isn’t going to be reason enough to give it to someone else who got fewer delegates in the eyes of MANY Sanders voters.

The best case scenario for the DNC is that someone passes Sanders in the delegate count and actually gets a majority. Right now, the most likely shot is Biden, but Biden has about a 1 in 6 chance of that right now. That would go up if Biden wins SC as expected, but probably would still be a less than 30% proposition. This would be the 2016 outcome (Clinton got 55% of the vote), and they would hope that this candidate is less divisive in the general, or at least that he does a little better in FL/PA/WI/MI.

The next best case scenario for the DNC is that someone passes Sanders in the delegate count and gets a plurality. Right now, the most likely shot is Biden, but Biden has about a 1 in 3 chance of topping Bernie right now. That would go up if Biden wins SC as expected, but probably would still be a less than 50/50 proposition. In this scenario, though, the DNC would gladly take the plural candidate. Of course, Bernie would then return to his early 2016 complaining that the plural candidate shouldn’t get the nomination.

The next best is that Bernie gets the outright majority. Then the DNC has to hold their breath through November.

The next-to-worst case for the DNC is that a Bernie gets a very close plurality, but the #2 candidate has all the momentum (winning a bunch of the later contests to almost catch up. Then the DNC would need to be REALLY convincing in their sales pitch as to why they didn’t pick Bernie. And as I said, the argument you presented probably won’t be enough.

The worst case is that Sanders has a comfortable plurality. That becomes their “Sophie’s choice” scenario: go with the plural candidate who is a party outsider, or go AGAINST said candidate and risk alienating a huge chunk of the party.

[cato]

And just to be clear, I think it is very possible that the DNC would, in fact, choose someone other than Sanders if Sanders fails to reach the majority on his own. I am just saying that the argument of “he failed to get the majority of delegates” isn’t going to be reason enough to give it to someone else who got fewer delegates in the eyes of MANY Sanders voters.

The best case scenario for the DNC is that someone passes Sanders in the delegate count and actually gets a majority. Right now, the most likely shot is Biden, but Biden has about a 1 in 6 chance of that right now. That would go up if Biden wins SC as expected, but probably would still be a less than 30% proposition. This would be the 2016 outcome (Clinton got 55% of the vote), and they would hope that this candidate is less divisive in the general, or at least that he does a little better in FL/PA/WI/MI.

The next best case scenario for the DNC is that someone passes Sanders in the delegate count and gets a plurality. Right now, the most likely shot is Biden, but Biden has about a 1 in 3 chance of topping Bernie right now. That would go up if Biden wins SC as expected, but probably would still be a less than 50/50 proposition. In this scenario, though, the DNC would gladly take the plural candidate. Of course, Bernie would then return to his early 2016 complaining that the plural candidate shouldn’t get the nomination.

The next best is that Bernie gets the outright majority. Then the DNC has to hold their breath through November.

The next-to-worst case for the DNC is that a Bernie gets a very close plurality, but the #2 candidate has all the momentum (winning a bunch of the later contests to almost catch up. Then the DNC would need to be REALLY convincing in their sales pitch as to why they didn’t pick Bernie. And as I said, the argument you presented probably won’t be enough.

The worst case is that Sanders has a comfortable plurality. That becomes their “Sophie’s choice” scenario: go with the plural candidate who is a party outsider, or go AGAINST said candidate and risk alienating a huge chunk of the party.

Minor point to an interesting breakdown, but I would consolidate points 1 and 3 to say that the best case scenario for DNC is that someone gets a majority and wins the nomination outright. The DNC might not want Bernie, but will eventually embrace him as candidate if he commands enough votes. See, e.g., Trump v. RNC (2016).

[CDu]

Minor point to an interesting breakdown, but I would consolidate points 1 and 3 to say that the best case scenario for DNC is that someone gets a majority and wins the nomination outright. The DNC might not want Bernie, but will eventually embrace him as candidate if he commands enough votes. See, e.g., Trump v. RNC (2016).

Yeah, the reason I split those up is based on the preferences of the DNC. They would (perhaps begrudgingly) coalesce around Sanders, but it isn’t their preferred outcome. I think they would be happiest with a true Dem, even if that was a plural candidate. But the first three outcomes are clearly preferred to the ones after.

[CDu]

Interesting week. A week ago, Sanders was favored to win SC according to fivethirtyeight’s model, with a 46% chance to Biden’s 40% chance. As of today? Biden has a 94% chance of winning the state. It has been a dramatic turnaround. Perhaps the Bloomberg debate flop and the candidates (and media) turning up the heat on Sanders has made a difference. Or maybe it is just noise. Still, this has been the largest shift since the Iowa caucus bumped Sanders to the lead (in fact, this is the closest the two have been since the day of the Iowa caucus. Which is especially interesting since Sanders won Nevada handily.

Now, obviously, it still remains to be seen if Biden wins SC. But if the results follow the polling, that would suggest this is a real race moving forward.

[sagegrouse]

And just to be clear, I think it is very possible that the DNC would, in fact, choose someone other than Sanders if Sanders fails to reach the majority on his own. I am just saying that the argument of “he failed to get the majority of delegates” isn’t going to be reason enough to give it to someone else who got fewer delegates in the eyes of MANY Sanders voters.

.

No problem with your analysis, CDu. But every quadrennial election, it seems, the press and pundits raise the possibility of a multi-ballot convention. Back in the day, even before my time on earth, the political conventions came together to choose the candidates -- and many, many ballots frequently occurred.

For the last several decades, it has been different, with delegates selected well in advance and -- typically -- a lot of momentum propelling one candidate to the front and settling the nomination well before the convention. Maybe it will be different this year, but it's been a long time since the conventions decided anything.

Does anyone know when was the last multi-balloted contest at any Republican or Democratic convention?















Well, it was 1956 for vice president -- when Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson threw the nomination for V-P open to the convention to decide. It was an exciting three ballots, which I remember watching with my Mom. For a time it looked like the youthful JFK (age 39) would win. But in the end it went to Estes Kefauver of Tennessee. But the race for V-P put Kennedy in the public eye and helped launch his 1960 campaign.

The last multi-ballot presidential contest was in 1952, when Adlai Stevenson, who several times had declined to run, finally agreed to let his name be put forward. A "draft" they called it -- hah! Stevenson won on the third ballot. Kefauver, who had won several primaries, was leading after the first ballot.

[Troublemaker]

Coronavirus Election Impact, Non-Trump Edition.

Bernie is possibly underrated to become the D nominee and ultimately President. The people around the world who have died from Covid-19 appear to be largely the elderly, and so old folks will be reluctant to leave the house to get into crowded primary lines if/when widespread outbreaks occur. Who benefits? Candidates with a youthful base who are additionally very enthusiastic about their candidate such that they are willing to brave the risks of Covid-19 to get into line to vote.

[bundabergdevil]

I have never made a pie bet but I will offer the same bet: Pence isn't going anywhere.

Disinclined to accept since corona's impact on U.S. is still so unclear but I stand by my earlier post that if the coronavirus becomes significant in the U.S. and the prevailing narrative (whether warranted or not) becomes the administration's mishandling of the situation, I could see Pence getting the boot. He's outlived his original purpose. His selection was to be an ambassador to the evangelical base for a rough-around-the-edges Trump but Trump has fully won that constituency over. And, Trump's managerial MO is "you're fired".

[bundabergdevil]

On cue with what many of us have been saying regarding age demographics --- 538 with an analysis that argues age could be the fault line for the Democratic primary. And, in particular, that Biden could lose because he's not appealing to the younger gen.