Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 23, 2017, 01:20:28 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1251
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Harvard-Harris national poll: Sanders 20% M. Obama 17% Warren 15% Clinton 10% on: Today at 09:36:54 am
Here’s the full poll:

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/HCAPS-Harris-Poll-March-Wave-Limited-Top-Line_03.17.2017.pdf

It includes favorability #s (among all voters) for Sanders, Warren, Trump, and various foreign leaders.  Here are the fav/unfav % #s:

Pope Francis 71/19% for +52%
Justin Trudeau 64/17% for +47%
Theresa May 54/13% for +41%
Shinzo Abe 46/11% for +35%
Angela Merkel 51/18% for +33%
Bernie Sanders 56/33% for +23%
Benjamin Netanyahu 46/25% for +21%
Narendra Modi 25/13% for +12%
Enrique Pena Nieto 36/31% for +5%
Elizabeth Warren 37/34% for +3%
Donald Trump 44/51% for -7%
Xi Jinping 17/42% for -25%
Hassan Rouhani 8/50% for -42%
Vladimir Putin 17/70% for -53%
Kim Jong-un 5/83% for -78%

Note that for all of the foreign heads of government, the pollster tells the respondent which country they lead.  E.g., Trudeau is described as “Justin Trudeau, the leader of Canada”.

I wonder what a Pope Francis vs. Kim Jong-un electoral map would look like.  Tongue
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Trump 1.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: Today at 09:12:23 am
Harvard-Harris national poll, conducted Mar. 14-16 (registered voters):

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/harris-harvard-27335

approve 49%
disapprove 51%

favorable 44%
unfavorable 51%
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which potential candidates have a “Rand Paul problem”? on: Today at 08:55:45 am
The Portland Tribune says that Merkley can’t legally run for both president and Senate at the same time (he’s up in 2020):

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/350992-230088-sources-trump-spurs-democratic-fundraising

Quote
But it overlooked one major obstacle to Merkley running for president, or even vice president, in 2020. He would have to give up his seat. Merkley is up for re-election then and the Oregon Constitution prohibits him from running for two lucrative offices in the same election.

Of course, Merkley is in a Booker-like situation, in that, like New Jersey, Oregon has a relatively late presidential primary (May).  And the filing deadline is in early March:

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_Oregon

So like Booker, if Merkley wanted to run for president, he could at least stay in the race through Super Tuesday before making a judgment call about whether to continue on, or drop out and run for Senate again.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2 years ago today... on: Today at 08:52:26 am
Cool, so I guess that means we're less than two years away from announcements of candidacy for the 2020 race.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Who suggested Trump choose Paul Manafort as Campaign Manager? on: Today at 08:13:05 am
Manafort has worked with Roger Stone from as far back as 1980, when they set up the lobbying firm Black, Manafort, Stone, & Kelly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black,_Manafort,_Stone_and_Kelly
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: March 22, 2017, 04:52:25 pm
Keith Ellison is doing an event in New Hampshire on Saturday:

https://www.facebook.com/NHDems/photos/a.10150541483732785.460841.205826147784/10155887206582785/?type=3&theater

And speaking of New Hampshire, the annual McIntyre-Shaheen fundraising dinner is now scheduled for April 30th:

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/mcintyreshaheen2017?mc_cid=815014d106&mc_eid=

In past years, it’s drawn Democratic presidential candidates, though no national headliners are being mentioned for it this time.  But maybe they’ll be able to snag one of the prospective 2020ers.  It’s still more than a month away, so there’s plenty of time for them to find someone.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Western candidate on: March 22, 2017, 03:11:16 pm
Is there any particular reason why Inslee isn't ever seriously considered on this board or by prognosticators? Is it a low profile? A natural preference of the modern Democratic Party for Senate candidates? Bullock is a good candidate for a GE, don't get me wrong. But why doesn't Inslee get the same level of recognition?

“Presidential buzz” usually doesn’t materialize out of thin air.  (In most cases anyway) it’s not something that’s imposed on the candidate from the outside.  Rather, a candidate’s name gets dropped because he/she wants it to be dropped.  In Bullock’s case, he attended that David Brock-hosted event for big $ fundraisers in Florida earlier this year, and he’s also on the schedule for CAP’s Ideas Conference in May, which’ll feature a bunch of other people positioning themselves for 2020 (e.g., Booker, Gillibrand, Warren…).  The latter event in particular sounds like an indication of interest.  Not sure that Inslee has done anything comparable yet, though if he ends up going to the Ideas Conference as well, that would certainly count as an indication of interest.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: So Booker is less black than Obama? on: March 22, 2017, 02:59:17 pm
Why is this even a thread?

Identity is not a simplistic matter of some random DNA test...

Yes, and I'm waiting to learn the connection this has to the 2020 presidential election...

Any interesting factoid about the background of likely 2020 candidates is worthy of discussion here IMHO.  Hence, why I also had a thread recently about Gillibrand knowing Chinese.  These are things that the media will presumably spend time talking about in two years, so of course we’re going to talk about it here first, since we’re paying attention to these candidates more closely than the MSM is.
9  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlas forum leaderboard on: March 22, 2017, 01:51:28 pm
Fun fact: Like any good WoSo fan, I know all about using archive.org to find lost stats that nobody cares about but me on the internet.  The Atlas forum stats page has been saved 86 times since 2006, so you can actually compare it all through the years if you really want to! 

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=stats

Yes, I mentioned that a few pages ago in this thread.  As I said then, you can use that to narrow down the timeframe for when BRTD took the #1 spot.  It was some time in either late 2007 or early 2008, when he surpassed Gabu to take the lead:

link

Funnily enough, Gabu left the forum forever shortly after that happened.
10  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Trump 1.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: March 22, 2017, 12:55:22 pm
Marquette Poll of WI:

41% Approve
47% Disapprove

So the question is was Hillary just a bad fit for the state?

Well, keep in mind that the exit poll on election day showed Trump with terrible favorability #s in Wisconsin.  It was:

favorable 35%
unfavorable 64%

So 29 points underwater on favorability, while Clinton was 14 points underwater.  Trump won quite a few states where he was heavily underwater on favorability, and with lower ratings than Clinton.
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: AHCA Whip Count on: March 22, 2017, 12:51:36 pm
There is no way that Ryan is going to allow a vote on something that is going to fail, unless enough arms can be twisted.

They might just want to have it fail and say "Well, we tried", and then move on to other things.  It's easier to do that if you actually go through with the vote.

12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Cuomo & O’Malley:Who has a better chance of winning the nomination(if they run)? on: March 22, 2017, 12:47:31 pm
Both Cuomo and O’Malley are near the top of the list in terms of likelihood of running (based on public hints, like O’Malley making repeated visits to Iowa and Cuomo hiring a bunch of Obama and Clinton aides).  However, the consensus seems to be that both would struggle to gain enough traction in the primaries to actually win the nomination.  If both of them run, which of the two would actually have a better chance of winning the nomination?  And how would they do it?  The other ~8 or 9 candidates are all taken down by heart attacks and sex scandals?

Bonus question: Are there any other potential candidates with a reasonable chance of running who would be less likely to win than either of them?
13  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Russ Feingold Planning a "Big Announcement" Tomorrow on: March 22, 2017, 10:00:56 am
Damn I wish he won last year. He'd be a favorite for 2020. Now he'll be ten years out of elected office when the time comes.

He should just run for president anyway.  Santorum and Gingrich had been out of office for years, and Santorum had lost badly in his attempt at reelection, yet the two of them came in 2nd and 3rd place in the 2012 GOP primaries.  And of course the 2016 GOP primaries were won by someone who'd never held office in the first place.  Not sure why the Democratic Party is so incredibly different that this wouldn't work on that side.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: March 22, 2017, 09:55:59 am
Biden on Capitol Hill, speaking at rally to save Obamacare:

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/844558875403730945
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/844559274500116480
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/844560099083464706
https://twitter.com/deirdrewalshcnn/status/844561367394865152

Quote
Biden framing AHCA as a wealth transfer to rich. "Nothing's changed about Republicans, except they've got a president who's... colorful"

After Pelosi thanks Biden for showing up, he leans back into mic: "I ain't goin' anywhere. This is not gonna pass."

Biden, asked if the Obama WH wiretapped Trump: "Yeah, five or six times. Are you serious, man?"

Asked fmr VP Biden if Trump owes Obama an apology on wiretapping charge and he replied "any gentleman would"


15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Harvard-Harris national poll: Sanders 20% M. Obama 17% Warren 15% Clinton 10% on: March 22, 2017, 09:47:54 am
I honestly don't know who the Dems can field right now that would be acceptable to all wings of the party.

Presumably Sherrod Brown, though it's not clear to me that he's interested in running.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Trump 1.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: March 22, 2017, 08:55:40 am
Morning Consult national poll on Trump job approval, conducted Mar. 16-19:

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-f30d-d373-a17b-ffbf89cd0000
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015a-f30c-dc62-a1db-f3ff026b0001

approve 50%
disapprove 44%

Trump job approval margin by region:
Midwest: +10
Northeast: -12
South: +15
West: +/-0

Trump job approval margin by race:
whites: +15
blacks: -48
Hispanics: +4

Trump job approval margin by income:
under $50k: +8
$50-100k: +4
over $100k: +1

7% of Trump voters disapprove of Trump’s job performance.  13% of Clinton voters approve of Trump’s job performance.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: March 22, 2017, 08:41:50 am
Warren to give keynote address at Emily’s List gala:

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-22/warren-to-speak-at-emily-s-list-gala-as-she-considers-campaigns

Quote
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren will raise her profile as a leader among President Donald Trump’s opposition -- and a potential re-election opponent -- with a major speech at the Democratic women’s group Emily’s List’s annual gala in May.
.
.
.
Warren’s role at the “We Are EMILY” gala is the latest sign that she seeks to claim Hillary Clinton’s mantle as the most powerful Democratic woman in the U.S., complete with her own White House aspirations. Clinton was the keynote speaker at the 2015 gala, just a month before she launched her second presidential campaign.

In 2013, Emily’s List started a “Madam President” project to work toward putting a woman in the White House in 2016. Though it was not officially tied to any one candidate, the project was seen as an attempt to shape public attitudes before Clinton entered the race.
18  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Will there be protests in U.K. during Trump's state visit? on: March 21, 2017, 10:49:35 pm
Trump confirms that he'll be in Brussels for the NATO summit in May:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-nato-idUSKBN16T07W

So that'll presumably be his first trip to Europe during his presidency.  I presume he'll then go directly from Belgium to Italy for the G7 summit, which starts the very next day.
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Clinton: 'I'm ready to come out of the woods' on: March 21, 2017, 10:23:56 pm
She could very well see herself as Ronald Reagan in that the third time's the charm.

But Reagan's first two times involved him not winning the nomination.  If you fail to win the nomination, then you can keep trying again.  But if you win the nomination and blow it in the general election, that's seen as a bigger failure.  Because the party gave you your chance and you blew it.

Quote
I have never seen anybody in my lifetime who's had a stronger desire to be President than her.

What makes you think that though?  Gore, Kerry, Romney, etc.  All of them seemed pretty desperate to be president to me.  I'm not sure what sets Hillary Clinton apart, that makes you think she wants the presidency more than they do.

Quote
She does have a base of 25-30% of primary voters and that could be enough to win in a strongly divided field.

She is already below 20% in the primary polls we've had so far:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=258636.0
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261065.0

I don't think it's obvious that she'd get more than 25% in the primaries, nor is that necessarily enough to win.  Nor is it clear that she'd be favored in the general election, were she to win the nomination.  Al Gore looked to be in better shape for winning re-nomination as of 2002, yet he opted not to try again, so not sure why we should assume that Clinton will want to try again.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Western candidate on: March 21, 2017, 07:34:27 pm
A related thing that is kind of remarkable is how few of the prospective Democratic candidates (and there are, what?  25 or 30 of them now?) have won major statewide office in any states won by Trump in this past election.  I guess Bullock is the most likely candidate who's won statewide in a Trump state.  Then you've got Sherrod Brown, who, despite probably being a reasonably strong candidate, actually has done next to nothing to indicate that he's interested (though it's possible he's just biding his time until his 2018 reelection).

And that's pretty much it.  Castro is from Texas, but he hasn't won statewide.  Those who have won statewide, and who've done something to indicate interest in 2020, come from states such as Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Virginia, etc.
21  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of Sam Spade on: March 21, 2017, 07:20:55 pm
I never post things in the so called "Good Post Gallery", in protest of the fact that it's named after Sam Spade rather than Mr. Morden.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: DNC “Unity Commission” to look at reforms to nomination process for 2020 on: March 21, 2017, 07:09:36 pm
Abolish caucuses or this whole thing is pointless.

Or at least change them to be like the Iowa Republican caucus where you just show up, privately cast your vote, and leave. No one should be forced to sit through hours of blathering, nor should anyone be forced to publicly announce their vote.

Yes, the latter would be an option.  You can't abolish caucuses, because some state governments (often controlled by the other party) just won't ever agree to fund a primary, but you could make the caucuses more primary-like.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: March 21, 2017, 04:52:22 pm
Klobuchar, in questioning Gorsuch says “It’s pretty important to me” that it’s constitutional for a woman to be president of the United States.  Video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to13izMf5rE&t=1m16s

I guess she just wants to be sure that if she’s elected president, the Roberts Court won’t rule her ineligible.  Tongue
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: March 21, 2017, 04:23:19 pm
The worst thing about a Cuomo run is it will probably dissuade Gillibrand from running.

That's what everyone said about Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.  Tongue
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Harvard-Harris national poll: Sanders 20% M. Obama 17% Warren 15% Clinton 10% on: March 21, 2017, 03:37:55 pm
Voters will be sorely disappointed when their top four choices don't run.

I don’t think most voters think that way.  The people responding to this poll picked these names because they’re the familiar names.  The voters aren’t even thinking about 2020 yet.  It’s just that they were asked to make a choice in this poll, so they did.  Most of the candidates who will actually end up running for president are currently unknown to voters.  But once the campaign starts, the primary voters will most likely be cool with whoever it is who ends up running, and won’t be bummed that Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton aren’t in the race.

Anyway, I'm surprised that Sanders isn't higher. His age is a problem, but almost nobody mentioned it in 2016 and it's not like the other candidates are that young.

I’m not surprised Sanders isn’t higher, simply because this is in line with other polls.  The only other national 2020 primary polls to include Sanders so far are PPP and Rasmussen, and both of them also had Sanders in the 20-25% range.  The lesson is “favorability isn’t the same as support”.  Sanders’s favorability #s among Dems are sky high, but it’s not clear to me that the primary electorate has its heart set on giving him the nomination.

If Sanders runs, he wins. Only Biden could make it a tossup.

If Sanders runs he'll clear the progressive field.

Sanders is just so popular with such a high name recognition it's gonna be impossible to stop him if he runs.

I disagree with all of the above.  Tongue  As I said to mvd10 above, Sanders is very popular, with high favorability ratings, but favorability isn’t the same as support to be president.  The fact that Sanders is only getting ~20-25% support in all these polls suggests that this is not a Clinton 2016-type situation, where the early polls had her 50 points ahead of everyone else, and she was able to (mostly) clear the field.  A “frontrunner” who is only polling at 20% is not going to clear the field.  I don’t see why, for example, Warren would automatically defer to Sanders, seeing as how she’s not actually that far behind him in these polls.

And not sure why Sanders having high name recognition right now is a point in his favor.  The fact that the other candidates have such low name recognition right now argues all the more for them having room to grow.  They could gain a lot of support once they actually start campaigning.  Now maybe most of them aren’t going to be very good candidates, and thus will be stuck in single digits forever.  But there’s no reason for them to rule themselves out, when they’re still unknown and their ultimate trajectories as candidates remain a question mark.

I do actually think that, in the event that Sanders decides to run, he’ll be a reasonably strong frontrunner, with a pretty strong chance to win (though not as strong as Clinton going into 2016).  But the causality doesn’t work the way some of you seem to think.  *If* Sanders is both in good health and *if* he surveys the landscape and sees a clear path to victory, then he’ll get in.  So if it looks like he’s already in a strong position, then he runs, and has a good chance of winning.  But it’s not obvious that he’ll have such a clear path.

I’m also wondering how long he (and maybe Biden) might stretch out a decision timeline.  Will it be like Biden 2016, where we’ll still be waiting in August 2019 to see if the guy’s going to get in the race?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1251


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines