538 2020 commentary megathread

[Mr. Morden]

Here’s their latest:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-will-sexual-misconduct-allegations-reshape-the-2020-election/

Incredibly, Micah and Perry still thinks there’s a slim chance of Franken recovering enough to run for president in 2020(!).

They also mention Sherrod Brown’s domestic abuse problem.

A bit of discussion of Gillibrand throwing Bill Clinton under the bus.  Though they seem to not realize that Gillibrand didn’t go into that interview intending to make those Clinton comments.  She didn’t want to be talking about Bill Clinton, but the interviewer pressed her, she took a long pause, and then made what by all appearances was an impromptu decision to say that Bill should have resigned.

[Former Kentuckian]

Interesting that they don't think Bill Clinton will speak (or at least will be given a bad timeslot) at the 2020 Dem Convention:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm fascinated by the reactions of elected Dems toward the Clintons now that the election is over.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Interesting that they don't think Bill Clinton will speak (or at least will be given a bad timeslot) at the 2020 Dem Convention:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm fascinated by the reactions of elected Dems toward the Clintons now that the election is over.

Well, Hillary did manage to lose to Donald Trump, and Bill's past transgressions look especially bad in light of all the recent sexual assault/harassment allegations that have come out against numerous famous people.

[Former Kentuckian]

Interesting that they don't think Bill Clinton will speak (or at least will be given a bad timeslot) at the 2020 Dem Convention:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm fascinated by the reactions of elected Dems toward the Clintons now that the election is over.

Well, Hillary did manage to lose to Donald Trump, and Bill's past transgressions look especially bad in light of all the recent sexual assault/harassment allegations that have come out against numerous famous people.

Oh, I get it and I support it. I think I'm just stunned to finally see Clintonism breathe it's last breath after everyone treating Hillary like the president-elect since 2009.

[Maverick J-Mac]

Should we even have an election now that this is on the internet?

[Mr. Morden]

Nate Silver speaks of “high probability” of a brokered convention:

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/939160679940001792

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/939162977332355074

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think he’s exaggerating by calling it a “high probability” (though I guess it depends on what you call “high”).  But I agree in principle that the DNC’s moves to cut the number of superdelegates + California moving to March + a large field all increase the chances of a contested convention.  Even with all of that, though, I still think the chances of the field winnowing to two pretty quickly remain high.  Not a sure thing though.  If the 2016 GOP race had been fought with the Democrats’ delegate allocation rules, then there would have been a contested convention for sure.

[The Other Castro]

Even if we get a massive number of candidates, I think it's also likely that we get a large number of withdrawals before any primaries take place (and likely a bunch before the end of 2019). Some candidates will know pretty quickly whether they can make it or not.

[Mr. Morden]

This week's podcast is all about the 2020 Democratic primary race:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-which-democrats-will-run-in-2020/

[Mr. Morden]

From that discussion, here is their new draft on who is most likely to win the 2020 Dem. presidential nomination.  (h) = picked by Harry, (c) = picked by Clare, (n) = picked by Nate.

1) Harris (h)
2) Gillibrand (c)
3) Sanders (n)
4) Biden (h)
5) Warren (c)
6) Doug Jones (n)
7) Booker (h)
8 ) Landrieu (c)
9) Brown (n)
10) Inslee (h)
11) Castro (c)
12) Clinton (n)
13) Kander (h)
14) Garcetti (c)
15) The Rock (n)

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

From that discussion, here is their new draft on who is most likely to win the 2020 Dem. presidential nomination.  (h) = picked by Harry, (c) = picked by Clare, (n) = picked by Nate.

1) Harris (h)
2) Gillibrand (c)
3) Sanders (n)
4) Biden (h)
5) Warren (c)
6) Doug Jones (n)
7) Booker (h)
8 ) Landrieu (c)
9) Brown (n)
10) Inslee (h)
11) Castro (c)
12) Clinton (n)
13) Kander (h)
14) Garcetti (c)
15) The Rock (n)

Please oh please

[kyc0705]

From that discussion, here is their new draft on who is most likely to win the 2020 Dem. presidential nomination.  (h) = picked by Harry, (c) = picked by Clare, (n) = picked by Nate.

1) Harris (h)
2) Gillibrand (c)
3) Sanders (n)
4) Biden (h)
5) Warren (c)
6) Doug Jones (n)
7) Booker (h)
8 ) Landrieu (c)
9) Brown (n)
10) Inslee (h)
11) Castro (c)
12) Clinton (n)
13) Kander (h)
14) Garcetti (c)
15) The Rock (n)

Please oh please

The best part of the podcast was everyone beating up on that pick instantaneously.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

From that discussion, here is their new draft on who is most likely to win the 2020 Dem. presidential nomination.  (h) = picked by Harry, (c) = picked by Clare, (n) = picked by Nate.

1) Harris (h)
2) Gillibrand (c)
3) Sanders (n)
4) Biden (h)
5) Warren (c)
6) Doug Jones (n)
7) Booker (h)
8 ) Landrieu (c)
9) Brown (n)
10) Inslee (h)
11) Castro (c)
12) Clinton (n)
13) Kander (h)
14) Garcetti (c)
15) The Rock (n)

Please oh please

The best part of the podcast was everyone beating up on that pick instantaneously.

No, that was the worst part

[kyc0705]

From that discussion, here is their new draft on who is most likely to win the 2020 Dem. presidential nomination.  (h) = picked by Harry, (c) = picked by Clare, (n) = picked by Nate.

1) Harris (h)
2) Gillibrand (c)
3) Sanders (n)
4) Biden (h)
5) Warren (c)
6) Doug Jones (n)
7) Booker (h)
8 ) Landrieu (c)
9) Brown (n)
10) Inslee (h)
11) Castro (c)
12) Clinton (n)
13) Kander (h)
14) Garcetti (c)
15) The Rock (n)

Please oh please

The best part of the podcast was everyone beating up on that pick instantaneously.

No, that was the worst part

It just seems like such a hot take, though. The man hasn't even taken his seat yet, and people are already discussing his presidential prospects. It's that kind of overhype that dooms candidates before they can even start thinking about running. I think Jones is more of a VP or attorney general than anything else.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

From that discussion, here is their new draft on who is most likely to win the 2020 Dem. presidential nomination.  (h) = picked by Harry, (c) = picked by Clare, (n) = picked by Nate.

1) Harris (h)
2) Gillibrand (c)
3) Sanders (n)
4) Biden (h)
5) Warren (c)
6) Doug Jones (n)
7) Booker (h)
8 ) Landrieu (c)
9) Brown (n)
10) Inslee (h)
11) Castro (c)
12) Clinton (n)
13) Kander (h)
14) Garcetti (c)
15) The Rock (n)

Please oh please

The best part of the podcast was everyone beating up on that pick instantaneously.

No, that was the worst part

It just seems like such a hot take, though. The man hasn't even taken his seat yet, and people are already discussing his presidential prospects. It's that kind of overhype that dooms candidates before they can even start thinking about running. I think Jones is more of a VP or attorney general than anything else.

Here's the thing, though - what does he have to lose? His seat will be up that year, he'll have no future prospects in the state, and he'll be staring down the prospect of a 20-point loss to Generic R. Even a tidal wave won't likely be able to save him with Republican turnout back to normal in Alabama.

Why not forgo the re-election campaign and see if his common-sense message can gain some traction? There's probably a slot for a centrist amid the progressive scrum, and he's less problematic to the base than Cuomo or Cuban and more likely to run than Biden or Cooper.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

From that discussion, here is their new draft on who is most likely to win the 2020 Dem. presidential nomination.  (h) = picked by Harry, (c) = picked by Clare, (n) = picked by Nate.

1) Harris (h)
2) Gillibrand (c)
3) Sanders (n)
4) Biden (h)
5) Warren (c)
6) Doug Jones (n)
7) Booker (h)
8 ) Landrieu (c)
9) Brown (n)
10) Inslee (h)
11) Castro (c)
12) Clinton (n)
13) Kander (h)
14) Garcetti (c)
15) The Rock (n)

Please oh please

The best part of the podcast was everyone beating up on that pick instantaneously.

No, that was the worst part

It just seems like such a hot take, though. The man hasn't even taken his seat yet, and people are already discussing his presidential prospects. It's that kind of overhype that dooms candidates before they can even start thinking about running. I think Jones is more of a VP or attorney general than anything else.

Here's the thing, though - what does he have to lose? His seat will be up that year, he'll have no future prospects in the state, and he'll be staring down the prospect of a 20-point loss to Generic R. Even a tidal wave won't likely be able to save him with Republican turnout back to normal in Alabama.

Why not forgo the re-election campaign and see if his common-sense message can gain some traction? There's probably a slot for a centrist amid the progressive scrum, and he's less problematic to the base than Cuomo or Cuban and more likely to run than Biden or Cooper.

I agree with this comment mostly, but Jones is not a centrist - he just knows how to talk like one.

[Sherrod Brown Shill]

*IN MY OPINION*, Brown outperformed Obama in 2012 despite the domestic abuse issue, so I think he'd be fine. Even the worst Democratic candidate would never swoop to Josh Mandel levels is vitriol.

Lol I'm pretty sure the majority of my posts on this forum have been about Sherrod Brown.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

From that discussion, here is their new draft on who is most likely to win the 2020 Dem. presidential nomination.  (h) = picked by Harry, (c) = picked by Clare, (n) = picked by Nate.

1) Harris (h)
2) Gillibrand (c)
3) Sanders (n)
4) Biden (h)
5) Warren (c)
6) Doug Jones (n)
7) Booker (h)
8 ) Landrieu (c)
9) Brown (n)
10) Inslee (h)
11) Castro (c)
12) Clinton (n)
13) Kander (h)
14) Garcetti (c)
15) The Rock (n)

Please oh please

The best part of the podcast was everyone beating up on that pick instantaneously.

No, that was the worst part

It just seems like such a hot take, though. The man hasn't even taken his seat yet, and people are already discussing his presidential prospects. It's that kind of overhype that dooms candidates before they can even start thinking about running. I think Jones is more of a VP or attorney general than anything else.

Here's the thing, though - what does he have to lose? His seat will be up that year, he'll have no future prospects in the state, and he'll be staring down the prospect of a 20-point loss to Generic R. Even a tidal wave won't likely be able to save him with Republican turnout back to normal in Alabama.

Why not forgo the re-election campaign and see if his common-sense message can gain some traction? There's probably a slot for a centrist amid the progressive scrum, and he's less problematic to the base than Cuomo or Cuban and more likely to run than Biden or Cooper.

I agree with this comment mostly, but Jones is not a centrist - he just knows how to talk like one.

He seems very much in the Biden mold, yeah. But I suspect that with the direction of the party, they'll be de facto centrists soon enough.

[kyc0705]

From that discussion, here is their new draft on who is most likely to win the 2020 Dem. presidential nomination.  (h) = picked by Harry, (c) = picked by Clare, (n) = picked by Nate.

1) Harris (h)
2) Gillibrand (c)
3) Sanders (n)
4) Biden (h)
5) Warren (c)
6) Doug Jones (n)
7) Booker (h)
8 ) Landrieu (c)
9) Brown (n)
10) Inslee (h)
11) Castro (c)
12) Clinton (n)
13) Kander (h)
14) Garcetti (c)
15) The Rock (n)

Please oh please

The best part of the podcast was everyone beating up on that pick instantaneously.

No, that was the worst part

It just seems like such a hot take, though. The man hasn't even taken his seat yet, and people are already discussing his presidential prospects. It's that kind of overhype that dooms candidates before they can even start thinking about running. I think Jones is more of a VP or attorney general than anything else.

Here's the thing, though - what does he have to lose? His seat will be up that year, he'll have no future prospects in the state, and he'll be staring down the prospect of a 20-point loss to Generic R. Even a tidal wave won't likely be able to save him with Republican turnout back to normal in Alabama.

Why not forgo the re-election campaign and see if his common-sense message can gain some traction? There's probably a slot for a centrist amid the progressive scrum, and he's less problematic to the base than Cuomo or Cuban and more likely to run than Biden or Cooper.

I suppose. I just dislike the excessive narrative-forming that happens this far out. It seems to serve no one except the people manufacturing it, and comes off as detrimental to the actual prospects of the candidates themselves.

[Shadows]

Interesting -

perry: Gillibrand, who has flip-flopped on basically every issue from her time as a more conservative member of Congress to a very liberal member of the Senate, has accepted all kinds of support from the Clintons for basically her entire career. There was a way to criticize Bill Clinton’s conduct without becoming, I would argue, a leader of the “Bill Clinton should have resigned movement,” a role she doesn’t have a great deal of credibility for …

But as I was typing the above and reading what Clare wrote … I think I’m convinced. Most people don’t know Gillibrand’s history. Younger people won’t care. The Clintons are done.

perry: Yeah, Gillibrand is very establishment, but this makes her less so. Clare is right.

perry: Massive flip-flops are generally bad. But Gillibrand is moving in the right direction and taking a stand that will matter. It also fixes what I thought people would see as her biggest problem: She’s Hillary-Clinton-esque, a blond female senator from New York who is tight with Bill Clinton.

[Mr. Morden]

Here’s the 538 crew on Oprah 2020:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/oprah-2020/

Excerpt:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I wouldn’t rule out this happening, it seems like neither the 538 crew nor basically anyone in the entire media is aware of the Harvard-Harris poll from last year:

Harvard-Harris national poll for the 2020 Democratic primary, conducted Mar. 14-16:

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/324903-for-democrats-no-clear-leader

Sanders 20%
M. Obama 17%
Warren 15%
Clinton 10%
Booker 4%
Cuomo 4%
Winfrey 3%
Cuban 2%
None Of The Above 25%

Maybe she will go way up in the polls, but the one poll we have so far (which is now rather old, but I doubt all *that* much has changed since March) isn’t that promising.  At least as of last year, she had nearly 100% name recognition, yet only 3% of Dems had her as their first choice for president.  Favorable opinion of someone does not automatically translate into wanting them to be president.

[Jeppe]

Well, I don’t remember Trump leading the polls before his campaign announcement, because people just didn’t think it was an actual option at the time. Once Oprah declares, she’ll immediately jump to the front a la Trump.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Well, I don’t remember Trump leading the polls before his campaign announcement, because people just didn’t think it was an actual option at the time. Once Oprah declares, she’ll immediately jump to the front a la Trump.

Only if everyone is in the race (eg. Warren, Harris, Biden, Gillibrand, Brown, Cuomo, Merkley, Sanders, Murphy, Booker, Garcetti, etc.), like the GOP in 2016.

[Mr. Morden]

Well, I don’t remember Trump leading the polls before his campaign announcement, because people just didn’t think it was an actual option at the time. Once Oprah declares, she’ll immediately jump to the front a la Trump.

That's possible, but I don't think it's a given.  I'm not sure why everyone assumes that because it worked that way for Trump, the same will apply to Winfrey.  (Also, as a historical clarification, Trump jumping out to the head of the line in polling actually took a couple of weeks after he announced his candidacy.  The first few polls after he declared mostly still had Bush in the lead.)

Trump had other things going for him, e.g., staking out a maximalist position on immigration, being anti-free trade, etc.  He was filling an ideological niche that wasn't being catered to by the rest of the field.  Winfrey, OTOH, will probably be saying the same things as the rest of the field.  I can very easily imagine her not automatically becoming the first choice of voters who are already hearing the same things from the other candidates.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm *guessing* that many people who are now bullish on Oprah simply don't know that that poll with her at 3% exists, and would be surprised if they saw it.  They just assume that because she's personally popular, that that automatically translates into her being people's #1 choice for president, which is extremely misguided IMHO.

[Jeppe]

Coincidentally, the very first poll that included Trump also had him pegged at 3%. The link is now dead, but RCP has it listed here.

I think Oprah will take up so much oxygen from the room, especially in terms of media attention, it would be hard for an opponent to compete. Nobody will tune in to hear an empty suit like Booker or O'Malley talk about sexual harassment, but they'll tune in for Oprah and to hear what she has to stay.

[Mr. Morden]

Another way in which the Trump/Winfrey comparison breaks down is that Trump's favorability #s among Republicans were actually pretty poor at the time that he was in single digits in the polls, so he had a lot of room to grow.  Winfrey both has ~100% name recognition *and* has sky high favorability #s among Dems.  So if that's not already translating into support for president, then it's not a good sign.