2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[MDlaxfan76]

https://news.yahoo.com/dr-robert-epstei ... 11657.html

Perhaps the Russians are the least of our worries?

Before any of you resistance warriors roll your eyes and disregard, Epstein is a Clinton-supporting liberal, and not politically motivated.

tech, we've had this discussion before.
Epstein has a personal beef with Google, and his critique is way outside of his own expertise.
His beef showed how ignorant he really is on technology. Discredited.

But it's not as if we shouldn't be concerned about the power these systems could have if manipulated, whether internally or by external forces.

Sure, discredited by you and other political hacks. These days they're a dime a dozen.

Well, not sure what qualifies me as a "political hack" but I simply looked at what his dispute with Google was/is and found him rather preposterously dumb about technology. Plenty of academic credentials but as this is an area I actually know something about, his lack of knowledge of this area surely disqualifies taking him seriously.

The topic, though, is serious.

[ggait]

And Klobuchar would make it easy for many disgusted Republicans to cross party lines and vote for her.

The other Rachel (i.e. Professor Bitecofer) argues this isn't relevant to winning.

Her thesis is that it is primarily about the base and negative partisanship (voting against the other side). Voting for your candidate doesn't matter very much.

R base will turn out against Dems. D base will turn out to vote against Trump. Biden, Warren, or a ham sandwich as the D nominee pretty much all the same. She only sees Bernie as a problem for the Dems chances. D base is bigger, so D's win.

http://cnu.edu/wasoncenter/2019/07/01-2 ... -forecast/

The Doc nailed it in 2018, so I'm keeping an eye on her punditry for 2020. Some of her best lines:

"Trump’s 2016 path to the White House, which was the political equivalent of getting dealt a Royal Flush in poker, is probably not replicable in 2020 with an agitated Democratic electorate."

"The media (and the voting public) has turned Trump’s 2016 win into a mythic legend of invincibility. The complacent electorate of 2016, who were convinced Trump would never be president, has been replaced with the terrified electorate of 2020, who are convinced he’s the Terminator and can’t be stopped. Under my model, that distinction is not only important, it is everything."

It feels reasonable that 2016 Trump got a lot of symbolic protest votes -- nobody thought he would win and nobody thought he would act this way if he did somehow win. Since Hillary was a lock, it was easy to protest vote for Trump, to vote against historically yucky Hillary, to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein (4.7% of Mich, 3.2% of PA, 4.7% of WI), or to stay home.

After 4 years of Trump up close and personal, hard to imagine Trump getting those breaks again in 2020.

[HooDat]

ggait - that sounds like a lot of wishful thinking.

I think Trump supporters knew good and well what they were voting for - although I don't think many then, nor do most now, think he's a racist.

I think Trump will lose some anti-Hillary voters.

I am not sure who from the Dem field other than Bernie will draw better than Trump wrt the anti-establishment voter - and that voter is still out there.

I also think that if the dems keep up with the campaign of: white people are racist, white men suck, and some of the more cutting edge positions with regard to gender and abortion rights, then we are going to get a very upfront and personal view as to whether the 60% who don't bother to vote are left or right leaning. I happen to think the answer is going to turn out to be "right".

[seacoaster]

"I also think that if the dems keep up with the campaign of: white people are racist, white men suck, and some of the more cutting edge positions with regard to gender and abortion rights, then we are going to get a very upfront and personal view as to whether the 60% who don't bother to vote are left or right leaning."

I keep hearing this from the pundits and from folks supposedly listening in. I just don't hear the people running for office saying anything like this. Is there some sort of special translator I need to buy?

"I happen to think the answer is going to turn out to be 'right'."

So what do real Conservatives -- Eisenhower and Goldwater types, if they still exist -- do?

[foreverlax]

"Trump supporters knew good and well what they were voting for "

More like they think they heard what they thought was said, yet what they think they heard was not what Trump meant. Examples -

1. Mexico will pay for a wall that goes along the entire southern border

2. He will get rid of Obamacare and replace it with coverage for all, that is cheaper and better

plenty more examples...

[ggait]

I keep hearing this from the pundits and from folks supposedly listening in. I just don't hear the people running for office saying anything like this. Is there some sort of special translator I need to buy?

You ever watched Hannity?

[Typical Lax Dad]

ggait - that sounds like a lot of wishful thinking.

I think Trump supporters knew good and well what they were voting for - although I don't think many then, nor do most now, think he's a racist.

I think Trump will lose some anti-Hillary voters.

I am not sure who from the Dem field other than Bernie will draw better than Trump wrt the anti-establishment voter - and that voter is still out there.

I also think that if the dems keep up with the campaign of: white people are racist, white men suck, and some of the more cutting edge positions with regard to gender and abortion rights, then we are going to get a very upfront and personal view as to whether the 60% who don't bother to vote are left or right leaning. I happen to think the answer is going to turn out to be "right".

I am not sure if the Russian arm of the campaign will be as effective this go around. Resulted in the slimmest of victories the last time. Time will tell if there is another unseen arm of the campaign that moves the needle.

[youthathletics]

I keep hearing this from the pundits and from folks supposedly listening in. I just don't hear the people running for office saying anything like this. Is there some sort of special translator I need to buy?

You ever watched Hannity?

Hannity...

Just listen to the first 1:30. ....Hannity.

[ggait]

I think Trump supporters knew good and well what they were voting for - although I don't think many then, nor do most now, think he's a racist.

Bitecofer's analysis mostly focuses on the complacent 2016 Dem base rather than Trump voters (which is the more conventional analysis -- like those Obama-Trump voters). Since Hill was a lock and Trump wasn't going to win, Dems stayed home or voted for a third party candidate. In 2018, Dems crawled over broken glass to vote against Trump.

Who knows, but it seems like 2020 is going to be more like 2018 than 2016. Trump rallies his base, but he also really rallies the Dem base. If both bases turn out, Dems win because the Dem base is bigger.

[HooDat]

If both bases turn out, Dems win because the Dem base is bigger.

my point is that I don't think that is actually true. Yes in terms of "likely voters" the Dem base is bigger. But the likely voters are only what about 40% of potential voters?

One of the things Trump did was increase the number of Rep voters - it was more than turn-out, it was getting people into the polls who had never voted before. And I think there is a chance that the Dem campaign positions could also serve to shift more Rep non-voters into voters.

To take it a step further in demonstrating my point - if voting were mandatory, I think the GOP wins every election. Of course the party platforms would change if that were the case, but my point remains

[Typical Lax Dad]

If both bases turn out, Dems win because the Dem base is bigger.

my point is that I don't think that is actually true. Yes in terms of "likely voters" the Dem base is bigger. But the likely voters are only what about 40% of potential voters?

One of the things Trump did was increase the number of Rep voters - it was more than turn-out, it was getting people into the polls who had never voted before. And I think there is a chance that the Dem campaign positions could also serve to shift more Rep non-voters into voters.

To take it a step further in demonstrating my point - if voting were mandatory, I think the GOP wins every election. Of course the party platforms would change if that were the case, but my point remains

I don't believe that is empirically true. Unless most studies are lying it seems that lower voter turnover favors Republicans. Voter suppression efforts are largely a one party activity also.

[ggait]

2018 midterm turnout was historic. On BOTH sides, not just the Dem side.

Bitecofer notes that she was surprised by how much GOP turnout surged in 2018. So her model expects Trump's 2020 turnout to be even higher than 2016.

But the GOP got hammered in 2018 because the Dems also really turned out. Which is especially rare for Dems in midterm elections. The bigger base won. She thinks 2020 will be more like 2018 (motivated GOP and motivated Dems) rather than 2016 (motivated GOP and complacent Dems). We'll see.

It is an interesting model/analysis for two reasons. First, it is pretty different than the conventional takes (i.e. swing voters). Second, it was the most accurate call in 2018 by far.

[HooDat]

If both bases turn out, Dems win because the Dem base is bigger.

my point is that I don't think that is actually true. Yes in terms of "likely voters" the Dem base is bigger. But the likely voters are only what about 40% of potential voters?

One of the things Trump did was increase the number of Rep voters - it was more than turn-out, it was getting people into the polls who had never voted before. And I think there is a chance that the Dem campaign positions could also serve to shift more Rep non-voters into voters.

To take it a step further in demonstrating my point - if voting were mandatory, I think the GOP wins every election. Of course the party platforms would change if that were the case, but my point remains

I don't believe that is empirically true. Unless most studies are lying it seems that lower voter turnover favors Republicans. Voter suppression efforts are largely a one party activity also.

Lower turnout favors Reps because the likely Rep voters are less likely to stay home when turnout is low. But they are still talking about likely voters. I am talking about all eligible voters. I have no data to support my assertion, I am just saying that I believe that IF every single eligible US voter voted in an election - it would tilt to the GOP.

Voter suppression works against poor people plain and simple. The fact that minorities are disproportionately poor is a whole different topic. Minorities are also disproportionately Dems as well, so yes ultimately voter suppression works against Dems - but again, whole different topic.

[ggait]

I am just saying that I believe that IF every single eligible US voter voted in an election - it would tilt to the GOP.

How could that be?

2008 was the biggest prez turnout in recent memory -- solid Obama win. 2018 broke records for mid-term turnout -- very big Dem win. GOP has lost the pop vote in 4 out of the last 5 prez elections. GOP has recently won the EC twice while losing the PV.

Older whiter folks are more likely to vote and trend GOP. Younger and browner people less likely to vote and trend Dem.

"The nature of the population eligible to vote is evolving in a way that should indeed help Democrats. McDonald estimates that the number of eligible voters increases by about 5 million each year, or about 20 million from one presidential election to the next. That increase predominantly flows from two sources: young people who turn 18 and immigrants who become citizens. Since people of color are now approaching a majority of the under-18 population—and also constitute most immigrants—McDonald and other experts believe it’s likely that minorities represent a majority of the people who have become eligible to vote since 2016."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ng/591607/

But we'll find out in 2020. Turnout is forecast to break all records.

[Typical Lax Dad]

If both bases turn out, Dems win because the Dem base is bigger.

my point is that I don't think that is actually true. Yes in terms of "likely voters" the Dem base is bigger. But the likely voters are only what about 40% of potential voters?

One of the things Trump did was increase the number of Rep voters - it was more than turn-out, it was getting people into the polls who had never voted before. And I think there is a chance that the Dem campaign positions could also serve to shift more Rep non-voters into voters.

To take it a step further in demonstrating my point - if voting were mandatory, I think the GOP wins every election. Of course the party platforms would change if that were the case, but my point remains

I don't believe that is empirically true. Unless most studies are lying it seems that lower voter turnover favors Republicans. Voter suppression efforts are largely a one party activity also.

Lower turnout favors Reps because the likely Rep voters are less likely to stay home when turnout is low. But they are still talking about likely voters. I am talking about all eligible voters. I have no data to support my assertion, I am just saying that I believe that IF every single eligible US voter voted in an election - it would tilt to the GOP.

Voter suppression works against poor people plain and simple. The fact that minorities are disproportionately poor is a whole different topic. Minorities are also disproportionately Dems as well, so yes ultimately voter suppression works against Dems - but again, whole different topic.

I can’t refute a belief.

[HooDat]

But we'll find out in 2020. Turnout is forecast to break all records.

indeed, and the election hinges on this point.

[ggait]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/upsh ... lysis.html

This analysis generally says Dems do better as you go from actual voters to registered voters to unregistered eligible voters to all adults. But also says that the distribution of non-voters and unregistered voters may give Trump an even stronger advantage in the EC in 2020 than he had in 2016. Because the larger numbers of Dem-leaning younger/browner non-voters and unregistered voters aren't located in the strategic rust belt states.

While Trump might lose more than he gains in the overall PV from high 2020 turnout, he might gain more white/no college types in the critical rust belt states. Some estimates think that Trump could still win the EC at -5% PV in 2020. 2016 was -2.1%.

While this analysis generally disagrees with you, it does say this. The demo of people who don't vote because they are unregistered does tend to be more white and less educated. The younger/browner demos (i) are more often registered but just don't turn out to vote or (ii) include non-citizens who are not eligible to vote.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I just watched 5 minutes of Trump’s rally. Holy Crap. He was struggling...Tucker and a bootlicker trying to put Lipstick on a pig now. He had no energy and was flat.

[HooDat]

The demo of people who don't vote because they are unregistered does tend to be more white and less educated. The younger/browner demos (i) are more often registered but just don't turn out to vote or (ii) include non-citizens who are not eligible to vote.

^^^^^^^this is what my gut was/is telling me.

[MDlaxfan76]

The demo of people who don't vote because they are unregistered does tend to be more white and less educated. The younger/browner demos (i) are more often registered but just don't turn out to vote or (ii) include non-citizens who are not eligible to vote.

^^^^^^^this is what my gut was/is telling me.

Trying to decipher this back and forth.

Sounds like the primary reason whites don't vote is that they never registered to do so.
Those who do register have a higher turnout than minorities.

Minorities register at higher rate, but turnout at a lower rate.

Poor folks, both minorities and white, turnout less than more affluent folks.

I didn't see this stat, but older folks tend to be more likely to be R than are younger folks, who are disproportionately D.
So death and coming of voting age dynamic currently tilts D heavily.

So that doesn't mean there are more potential GOP votes to be had country-wide.
The demographics suggest that those more likely to be Dem (in the current alignment) are growing in number faster than those likely to vote R.

But the distribution of this demographic shift is very uneven, with some states having very little appeal for younger folks and/or minorities. So, increased turnout in these areas may well favor R's. For now.