US PoliEra 2019 |OT7| "May God Ruin Him"

Oct 25, 2017
2,395
If I were to place a bet on the Primary, that information would have me place a sizable bet on her winning.
Biden has increasing liabilities, probably due to his age, making him look inept whether it would effect his ability to do the job or not.

Warren's tactical nuke, in hindsight, was actually a tactical nuke, and fizzled out the only 'negative' story about her that seemed to get any traction. She is in a really good position to win the primary.
I was thinking the same thing. I'm just trying not to jump to conclusions here, since I've come to realize that a lot of my attempts at reading the winds in politics aren't particularly as polished as I'd have liked.

Hoping Warren wins this.
 

Chaos Legion

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,894
I think so, yes.

So, here's what happened in 2004:






So, the first issue with Trump narrowly losing in 2020 would be the SoS and governors of the swing states. Thankfully, we have the SoS positions in NC, AZ, WI, MI, PA, and AZ, and the governorship in all of those states minus AZ. So even if Trump is up, by say, 5k in Wisconsin, you'd expect that would hold and the recounts would be done with integrity. A Florida2000 like scenario is certainly possible, though very very unlikely. Either way, be glad we won these, especially Wisconsin. Trump probably doesn't have many recourses to challenge the results unless they were exceedingly close, even accounting for a 5-4 GOP majority on the Supreme Court (they only really had the power to do what they were doing because the vote total was in a large pop state with the vote total under 1000 votes where a recount could matter). So those would be most likely be certified.

Your next issue would be faithless electors. This is the biggest fear. It's likely that forcing your electors to vote for a candidate they don't want to could be struck down (this happened in Washington state, I believe), so you'd really have to double/triple/quadruple check when getting your slate of electors. Honestly, the nominees' team should handle this.

So then let's assume that Dems keep the house, GOP keeps the Senate (likely). GOP does not certify the result because it was too close in Wisconsin. So there's no president-elect or vice president-elect. What happens then? According to Wikipedia:



So at that point, it would seem the Speaker (Pelosi) would become the president. Complicated but... I think that's right?
I'll never understand why the Speaker comes before the Senate President, but I'd live a President Pelosi.
 

Fork

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,111
Lima, Peru
Sadly, Buttigieg and Harris supporters liking Warren is only going to matter if Warren is able to win any of the first 4 states. Otherwise the race is going to move further away from her, if there is a race at all.
 

Tamanon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,912
Second choice is still super weird, when Biden is one of the top second choices of Sanders voters. It makes no sense. And I know it's still a lot of name recognition.

Or people just really want old white guys, and don't care much about which one.
 

OmniOne

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,818

Warren & Biden tied in poll of the 2020 Dem primary from The Economist and YouGov.

% support (likely voters):
Warren: 24
Biden: 24
Sanders: 17
Harris: 6
Buttigieg: 5
Yang: 2
Booker: 2
Castro: 2
Gabbard: 1
O'Rourke: 1

Among likely voters (IE: people who say they're going to vote in the primary) who are also registered to vote:

Warren: 26
Biden: 26
Sanders: 16
Harris: 6
Buttigieg: 6
Yang: 2
Booker: 2
O'Rourke: 1
Klobuchar: 1
Gabbard: 1
Castro: 1
Bennet: 1
Bullock: 1
Williamson: 1
 
Last edited:

RailWays

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,036
The "second choice" polling from Morning Consult from 9/9:
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/ (hovering over each face in that section)

The second choice of:
Biden supporters = 26% Sanders, 24% Warren, 12% Harris
Sanders supporters = 29% Biden, 27% Warren, 7% Harris
Warren supporters = 24% Sanders, 21% Biden, 19% Harris
Harris supporters = 27% Warren, 23% Biden, 12% Sanders
Buttigieg supporters = 25% Warren, 21% Biden, 16% Harris
Promising for Warren
 

Ernest

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,414
So.Cal.
I'm all for Warren, but I'm afraid that the Obama voters who voted for trump because of Hilary hate will see Warren as Hilary 2.0.
And those are who we need to beat trump.
 

Diablos

has a title.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,644
Why?

NC, GA and TX are important (this cycle, mainly for winning their Senate seats) but AZ is far more crucial to our Electoral College chances. It could essentially replace Wisconsin in the company of PA and MI.
I just wish NC/GA/TX would move faster. Ohio seems like a lost cause and FL is too razor thin for comfort. Plus there’s WI which hopefully snaps back to blue but who knows.

It’s nice to know AZ is looking good for sure. But it’s taking forever for desperately needed voting shifts to appear in other future blue states. But yes it’s nice to know AZ could negate a WI Trump win.
 

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,039
I'm all for Warren, but I'm afraid that the Obama voters who voted for trump because of Hilary hate will see Warren as Hilary 2.0.
And those are who we need to beat trump.
She doesnt have Hillary's baggage or demeanor and clearly is putting double the effort in her campaign

Hillary was treated unfairly and any and all weapons were used against her

I just feel like the weapons against Warren wont be as effective on top of her ability to respond and navigate said attacks

But we will see. Its still a damn wall to climb for any democratic candidate... Yes even Joe Biden
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,819
I'm all for Warren, but I'm afraid that the Obama voters who voted for trump because of Hilary hate will see Warren as Hilary 2.0.
And those are who we need to beat trump.
2016 being as close as it was means any number of things would give the Democratic nominee the win over Trump.

If Warren can coalesce the third party protest vote behind her, she wins.

If Warren can boost black turnout, she wins.

If Warren can run better among white suburban moderates, she wins.

etc. Our only option is hardly winning back Obama->Trump voters. I'm sure there will be some Trump->Warren (or whoever) voters, but they'll come along on their own - we don't need to cater the campaign to them.
 

Fork

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,111
Lima, Peru
I'm all for Warren, but I'm afraid that the Obama voters who voted for trump because of Hilary hate will see Warren as Hilary 2.0.
And those are who we need to beat trump.
Warren has infinitely less baggage and shes a lot better at handling criticism than Hillary ever was, no need to worry in that front. The biggest bullet against Warren (the DNA shit) was wasted too early and other things that progressives care about (voting for the military budget, for instance) are not big enough to hurt her in the general. She has a fairly good shot.
 

Ithil

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,647
I'm all for Warren, but I'm afraid that the Obama voters who voted for trump because of Hilary hate will see Warren as Hilary 2.0.
And those are who we need to beat trump.
I feel like if everyone with this hypothetical fear that while they like Warren others won't, just voted for Warren because they like her, Warren would win.
 

Anoregon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,326
When it comes to just straight bigotry-related voting, I wonder what the breakdown of people is who would/did vote for a black man but would not vote for a woman of any race. Because clearly there is still a pretty distressing trend of "there's just something I don't like about her" that applies to pretty much all women candidates (although Hillary probably had the maximum version of that).
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,819

Tonight's #NC09 margin looking a lot like 2018 suggests the GOP isn't really making all that much improvement from November 2018 which is consistent with Trump's national approval remaining fairly stable.

2016 #NC03 + #NC09 popular votes for President was
Trump 57.39% - Clinton 39.89%

Tonight's NC03 + NC09 popular vote (sans 2 NC09 precincts plus uncounted provisional and extra absentees which will skew towards dems) was
GOP 54.94% - DEM 44.39%

Trump doing 2.4% worse in 2016 and Clinton doing 4.5% better would let Clinton win with more than 50%, just fyi.
 
Last edited:

Chaos Legion

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,894
I'm all for Warren, but I'm afraid that the Obama voters who voted for trump because of Hilary hate will see Warren as Hilary 2.0.
And those are who we need to beat trump.
Also we are still a pretty sexist country.

This whole "the DNA thing doesn't matter" is nascent because she's not the nominee at the moment. If the media can make the emails into a huge issue for months, I fundamentally doubt that this will be swept under the rug.

If she's the nominee, it's going to be close. This time I just won't go in to it as a foregone conclusion, because I underestimated the stupidity of the electorate.

It's because the VP is the president of the Senate, surely?
I meant the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
 

Wonderment

Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
9,795
Of course his remembrance of 9/11 includes TV and Jack Welch.

Yes he ran to help...

Wow this is even worse than the Bari Weiss interview MSNBC had before.
 

Arm Van Dam

Member
Mar 30, 2019
1,759
Illinois

To catch everyone up on this breaking news: -@NC_Governor vetoed the (GOP-written) budget and Dems appeared to back him -The House voted to override the veto today, while many Democrats were absent -That means the override is half complete. NC senate still needs to vote #ncpol
Democrats are saying they were told there would be no budget votes. Republicans say they made no such promise. If anyone in #ncpol or #ncga land has an email about today’s session - showing whether or not there would be a vote - you should probably share it with the media.
NC GOP continues to be the worst, with state house passing a budget veto override while most house Dems were absent for 9/11 related activities being told no votes today.
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,819
Also we are still a pretty sexist country.

This whole "the DNA thing doesn't matter" is nascent because she's not the nominee at the moment. If the media can make the emails into a huge issue for months, I fundamentally doubt that this will be swept under the rug.

If she's the nominee, it's going to be close. This time I just won't go in to it as a foregone conclusion, because I underestimated the stupidity of the electorate.
What made the email story so sexy to the media in 2016 was that there was an FBI investigation that let it keep coming back up. It would have laid dormant if Comey didn't send out that fucking letter.

I don't think the DNA test has similar legs - if they uncover proof that she used her claim to Native American heritage to get a leg up in her career, or that she pushed out false documents relating to it, or almost anything else, then sure, it might keep coming up. Right now though, there's not much else to say about it. She's made amends with Native American communities who spoke out against her actions, even Trump is tiring of the "Pocahontas" insult. Like someone said, nuking her campaign with it at the beginning of the cycle was tactical - it got it out of the way early. Can you imagine if the DNA test results waited until October 2020 to drop?

The latent sexism is a problem, but what encourages me about Warren is that compared to Clinton, her numbers are actually improving. Clinton started the 2016 cycle with high approval ratings (hovering around 60% favorable) that sharply declined as soon as she was campaigning. Like she said - people liked her when she had the job, they hated her when she was trying to get it. Warren, thus far does not seem to have that problem, though I acknowledge that anything can change.


NC GOP continues to be the worst, with state house passing a budget veto override while most house Dems were absent for 9/11 related activities being told no votes today.
That's some shit.

I can't wait for the new maps to come in and for Democrats to win both chambers - and then gerrymander the shit out of the new maps going into 2022. I don't know what it is about North Carolina Republicans that makes them particularly insidious, but this has to stop.
 

DTC

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,539
Don’t worry too much about electability until February 2020. There’s a lot of time for things to change and the campaigns are fairly young.

I think it becomes fair game to start seriously looking at polls once Jan and Feb come around, though
 

Wonderment

Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
9,795
Its amazing how effective and powerful brainwashing and racism is

Ihan Ohmar will never get the benefit of the doubt as these people will never take the time to apply context to her words or understanding

Its a sickness in this country
You can tell which tv channel he watches by the "judeo-christian values" callout.

At one of these memorials, your opportunity to speak is to remember your specific loved one, not this.
 
Last edited:

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,989
The fact he goes out of his way to attack the rest of the Squad shows how brazenly political that attack was. What a joke to let that guy speak.
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,819
Good summary from First Read on the NC-9 race:

The bad news: They barely won a district that both Donald Trump and Mitt Romney carried by 12 points, suggesting — at least for this one special — that the overall political environment hasn’t changed much since 2018.

Indeed, the Cook Political Report identifies more than 30 GOP-held House seats that are less friendly to Republicans than NC-9, per NBC’s Ed Demaria.

They include TX-23 (the open Will Hurd seat), PA-1 (Brian Fitzpatrick), MI-6 (Fred Upton), NE-2 (Don Bacon), IL-12 (Mike Bost), OH-1 (Steve Chabot) and FL-16 (Vern Buchanan).
So calm down, Chicken Littles. We didn't need this one and there is more fertile territory where Democrats could even see gains next year.

Of those seats they mention, here were the GOP's winning margins in 2018:

TX-23: .5%
PA-1: 2.6%
MI-6: 4.5%
NE-2: 2%
IL-12: 6.2% (lol a Green Party candidate got 3% here)
OH-1: 4.4%
FL-16: 9.2%

So yeah, definitely some opportunity there.