2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

[oneniltothearsenal]

It wasn't. It was empirically less accurate. You can't post a reply based off of an article about a poll which specifically cites a popular vote prediction, and then claim that your point didn't have anything to do with the popular vote.

You're just strawmanning my post at this point or you really don't understand I am making two separate points. In the case of the latter I will try to explain again.

One is in general about comparing percentages, the other is about flaws in methodology and how to correct that.

The point is the USC/Dornsife polling (different entity than the LA Times so its not "patting itself on the back") that delved into the data to a deeper level revealed more information about the Trump's prospects of winning than the other older methodology's. In other words the information value of each poll is not limited to the single reductive conclusion you keep making out.

 

[Red Dreams]

What advantage does Biden offer with regards to the States Hillary lost as compared to Bernie or Warren?
Any of them would beat Trump in WI, MI and PA.

The key difference though would be policies.

Once again its not about the short term 'win'. Its about the long term 'win'.
The fundamental policy differences will determine who continues to support the democratic party.
If their lives do not improve, Trump or someone like him will become stronger.

 

[Raoul]

What advantage does Biden offer with regards to the States Hillary lost as compared to Bernie or Warren?
Any of them would beat Trump in WI, MI and PA.

The key difference though would be policies.

Once again its not about the short term 'win'. Its about the long term 'win'.
The fundamental policy differences will determine who continues to support the democratic party.
If their lives do not improve, Trump or someone like him will become stronger.

He's going to be very strong in PA since its virtually his home state. And if he wins big there then he will likely do very well in the other states Hillary lost.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

He'd do well in rust belt. Better than Hillary though. Maybe even Florida.

 

[Red Dreams]

He's going to be very strong in PA since its virtually his home state. And if he wins big there then he will likely do very well in the other states Hillary lost.

I know all that.

Read what I wrote.

 

[sport2793]

What advantage does Biden offer with regards to the States Hillary lost as compared to Bernie or Warren?
Any of them would beat Trump in WI, MI and PA.

The key difference though would be policies.

Once again its not about the short term 'win'. Its about the long term 'win'.
The fundamental policy differences will determine who continues to support the democratic party.
If their lives do not improve, Trump or someone like him will become stronger.

Think that is a leftist fantasy. The reality is that a lot of midwestern voters don't think the same way on certain issues. I do think Sanders has a decent chance to get the rust belt due to his populist message but I don't think Warren will be able to carry a winning message to those voters. Of the three, Biden is definitely a near lock to beat Trump in those states.

 

[sport2793]

I know all that.

Read what I wrote.

Everything you wrote and write is only true in a vacuum and not reality. American voters, and voters in general, tend to think emotionally rather than rationally.

 

[Red Dreams]

Think that is a leftist fantasy. The reality is that a lot of midwestern voters don't think the same way on certain issues. I do think Sanders has a decent chance to get the rust belt due to his populist message but I don't think Warren will be able to carry a winning message to those voters. Of the three, Biden is definitely a near lock to beat Trump in those states.

We are in the situation we are with Trump being president because of continued lies by the Democrats.
those three states has pretty much always gone to the Democratic nominee.
Just look it up.

Hillary was a terrible candidate. She had nothing to offer except to attack Trump.
Being the wife of the guy who gave the Rust belt NAFTA was hardly endearing.

Any of the 3 will win handily.

But the point I was making is only Sanders and Warren offer actual solutions.
And that is the key to holding these states through future cycles.

 

[Red Dreams]

Everything you wrote and write is only true in a vacuum and not reality. American voters, and voters in general, tend to think emotionally rather than rationally.

Now what you write is what is in a vacuum.
You have failed to understand the history of why the Democratic party is in its current state.
Why generational Democratic voters have turned away.

 

[sport2793]

We are in the situation we are with Trump being president because of continued lies by the Democrats.
those three states has pretty much always gone to the Democratic nominee.
Just look it up.

Hillary was a terrible candidate. She had nothing to offer except to attack Trump.
Being the wife of the guy who gave the Rust belt NAFTA was hardly endearing.

Any of the 3 will win handily.

But the point I was making is only Sanders and Warren offer actual solutions.
And that is the key to holding these states through future cycles.

Think you are missing my point. Everything you say makes sense on a rational level. I don't know however if midwestern voters are willing to listen to an intellectual woman from New England. Sanders and Biden both have the ability to appeal to blue-collar workers on a more emotional level (where they will be motivated to put in the effort to vote for them). Think a person like Kamala will have a better chance than Warren from that point of view also.

 

[sport2793]

Now what you write is what is in a vacuum.
You have failed to understand the history of why the Democratic party is in its current state.
Why generational Democratic voters have turned away.

The Democratic party is in its current state because Hillary Clinton is one of the most divisive people in the US and many people who voted against her dislike her on a personal level. Furthermore, US voters like to vote for change, even when the change offered doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The main reason is because they feel that government will not get too powerful and oppress their lives if it keeps changing. There are a lot of people in the midwest who are likely against free college but will likely support Medicare-for-all or a close variant.

 

[Red Dreams]

Think you are missing my point. Everything you say makes sense on a rational level. I don't know however if midwestern voters are willing to listen to an intellectual woman from New England. Sanders and Biden both have the ability to appeal to blue-collar workers on a more emotional level (where they will be motivated to put in the effort to vote for them). Think a person like Kamala will have a better chance than Warren from that point of view also.

You Can call those Trump supporters racists. But the fact is they have bought the lies of a demagogue.
Don't blame Trump.
Blame several decades of Democratic candidates who not only gave lip service but like Clinton actually acted to hurt Blue Collar voters.
These same people gave Obama a chance...twice.

Why should they turn to a turd like Trump.
Its always policies that help people.

Warren does not have the appeal of the others true. But in the months ahead its pocket book issues that will matter.

In the end a candidate needs to be honest. Biden has already shown where his loyalties are.
he is a solid Corporate candidate and his baggage will come out.

 

[sport2793]

You Can call those Trump supporters racists. But the fact is they have bought the lies of a demagogue.
Don't blame Trump.
Blame several decades of Democratic candidates who not only gave lip service but like Clinton actually acted to hurt Blue Collar voters.
These same people gave Obama a chance...twice.

Why should they turn to a turd like Trump.
Its always policies that help people.

Warren does not have the appeal of the others true. But in the months ahead its pocket book issues that will matter.

In the end a candidate needs to be honest. Biden has already shown where his loyalties are.
he is a solid Corporate candidate and his baggage will come out.

Again, midwestern voters, and voters in general, don't think to the depth that you lay out. Obama voters who swung to Trump did not vote for Obama because they are solid Dems. It is because they disliked what the Bush administration did for 8 years and they gravitated towards Obama's rhetorical prowess. This was a quote I heard from people from the midwest: "Trump will shock the system". They don't cite specific policies that Trump would favor, they just felt that he is such an outsider and is authentic enough that he will bring change to the current system, which is the central objective of these voters. That's why talking about policies alone isn't going to be enough to change many people's minds. I believe that Sanders has a good chance in my opinion as he can switch between policy wonk and rabble rouser as required.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

 

[Red Dreams]

Again, midwestern voters, and voters in general, don't think to the depth that you lay out. Obama voters who swung to Trump did not vote for Obama because they are solid Dems. It is because they disliked what the Bush administration did for 8 years and they gravitated towards Obama's rhetorical prowess. This was a quote I heard from people from the midwest: "Trump will shock the system". They don't cite specific policies that Trump would favor, they just felt that he is such an outsider and is authentic enough that he will bring change to the current system, which is the central objective of these voters. That's why talking about policies alone isn't going to be enough to change many people's minds. I believe that Sanders has a good chance in my opinion as he can switch between policy wonk and rabble rouser as required.

The Dems took back WI in 2018 because of health care.

Obama clearly explained that.
Health Care will once again be front and center.
People are going to demand real Health Care. That can only be Medicare for All.
Bernie explained that so clearly many times.
That resonates.
Trump is the opposite. He wants to gut the ACA, which is pretty bad in itself.
Even Republicans are running away from his proposal.
Just watch what happens.

 

[berbatrick]

We Asked All Of The 2020 Presidential Candidates Their Thoughts On Vaccines. Here's What They Said.

Trump addressed the measles outbreaks for the first time last week while speaking to reporters outside the White House.

"They have to get the shots," he said. "The vaccinations are so important.”

That's a departure from what he's said about vaccines for years on Twitter. In dozens of tweets, Trump has said vaccines cause autism — which multiple studies have shown is not true.

The former vice president did not respond to questions. Biden has been an advocate for medical research, however, and has promoted the use of vaccines against cancer.

"Bernie believes that vaccinations work and are crucial to overall public health. Instances of serious but preventable diseases have been significantly reduced and many have been eliminated altogether as a result of vaccines," a spokesperson told BuzzFeed News.

Vaccines go through rigorous clinical trials as well as oversight by the Food and Drug Administration, and there isn't evidence they cause autism, the campaign added. Exemptions should be rare.

"Bernie believes opting out can create deadly risks for children suffering from illnesses who may not be able to receive a vaccination and are then exposed to children who are not vaccinated. Any exemptions should be rare and consistent with public health needs," the spokesperson said.

A spokesperson for Harris kept it simple: "She thinks people should get vaccines."

Harris declined to answer additional questions.

"The law of the land for more than a century has been that states may enforce mandatory vaccination for public safety to prevent the spread of a dangerous disease. Pete does support some exceptions, except during a public health emergency to prevent an outbreak," a spokesperson for the South Bend, Indiana, mayor told BuzzFeed News.

In particular, Buttigieg believes exemptions are appropriate for people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. Personal belief and religious exemptions should only be allowed in states that aren't facing a public health crisis and where herd immunity rates of vaccination are maintained.

Warren did not respond to questions, but in the past has spoken in support of the CDC's recommendations on vaccines and the importance of funding disease prevention.

"I know just about as much as any parent. All three of my kids are vaccinated," O'Rourke said in a video posted by the group. "I know that this is an issue that some people have a difference of opinion on. I’m not as informed as I should be to give you a thoughtful answer."

Booker added that there is no scientific link between vaccines and autism.

"We should limit the number of exemptions from vaccinations to a small number of medical circumstances," he said.

Wtf is wrong with Pete and Beto.

 

[Eboue]

This is the fundamental split in the party and in this thread. People who live in privilege care only about beating trump and no longer claiming to be Canadian on their next visit to Paris. People whose lives have been ruined by neoliberal policies want policies to help make their lives better

 

[Eboue]

We Asked All Of The 2020 Presidential Candidates Their Thoughts On Vaccines. Here's What They Said.
















Wtf is wrong with Pete and Beto.

Beto's base is upper middle class wine moms. He cant risk alienating them and they are the biggest group of anti vaccine people

 

[Red Dreams]

This is the fundamental split in the party and in this thread. People who live in privilege care only about beating trump and no longer claiming to be Canadian on their next visit to Paris. People whose lives have been ruined by neoliberal policies want policies to help make their lives better

We are pretty comfortable.
But the only people who live in privilege must be the Super Rich, which I doubt any here are.

But I want policies that benefit all. It is simply unjust for anyone to be left behind when there is no need.

 

[nimic]

We Asked All Of The 2020 Presidential Candidates Their Thoughts On Vaccines. Here's What They Said.

Wtf is wrong with Pete and Beto.

Buttigieg's response isn't ideal, but it's not terrible either. I assume there are actually people out there who can't take certain vaccines, so that's fair. Ideally vaccines would be mandatory for all who can safely take them, of course, but at least he's not disputing the science. Though he might be underestimating how few unvaccinated people it takes to ruin herd immunity.

Beto's response is shit, though.

You're just strawmanning my post at this point or you really don't understand I am making two separate points. In the case of the latter I will try to explain again.

One is in general about comparing percentages, the other is about flaws in methodology and how to correct that.

The point is the USC/Dornsife polling (different entity than the LA Times so its not "patting itself on the back") that delved into the data to a deeper level revealed more information about the Trump's prospects of winning than the other older methodology's. In other words the information value of each poll is not limited to the single reductive conclusion you keep making out.

This discussion is getting nowhere fast, so I reckon we'll just have to agree to disagree.

He's going to be very strong in PA since its virtually his home state. And if he wins big there then he will likely do very well in the other states Hillary lost.

Do we have any data on how strong the homestate-effect actually is? It feels like it should be significant, but I realize I don't actually have anything to back that up. I guess Clinton winning Arizona in 96 is a tell, since the South was already well on its way to being lost to Democrats.

 

[Raoul]

Do we have any data on how strong the homestate-effect actually is? It feels like it should be significant, but I realize I don't actually have anything to back that up. I guess Clinton winning Arizona in 96 is a tell, since the South was already well on its way to being lost to Democrats.

Candidates almost always win their home states, the notable recent exceptions being Gore losing TN in 2000 and Drumpf getting clobbered in NY in 2016 (somewhat predictable given Hillary’s prior Senate status there). Even Walter Mondale, who managed to lose 49 out of 50 states to Reagan in 84, still a managed to carry his home state of MN. Biden was born in Scranton PA and seems to have pretty good union support, which suggests he will be hard to beat in PA if it comes down to a battle between him and Trump, and if he does well in PA he will probably do well in the other rust belt states Hillary lost, which is not coincidentally why Trump may be getting a bit nervous each time he sees Biden gathering union supporters in PA.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Do we have any data on how strong the homestate-effect actually is? It feels like it should be significant, but I realize I don't actually have anything to back that up. I guess Clinton winning Arizona in 96 is a tell, since the South was already well on its way to being lost to Democrats.

The traditional swing states are where the battle is decided. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and even Florida is where Biden will have more success than any of the other Dem candidates. If he can get a VP who appeals to younger voters, I reckon, he's the best bet to win next election.

 

[ErranMorad]

If Warren can't get the nomination (which she likely won't) and it's a choice between Biden and Bernie, then I would definitely go with Biden. Like the above two have said, he'll have a great chance to pull of the swing states in the mid-test and Florida. And for me it's important that the Dems wrest control of the presidency in 2020. The progressive agenda will have its time. If enough people want it, then the president will move towards it.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Candidates almost always win their home states, the notable recent exceptions being Gore losing TN in 2000 and Drumpf getting clobbered in NY in 2016 (somewhat predictable given Hillary’s prior Senate status there). Even Walter Mondale, who managed to lose 49 out of 50 states to Reagan in 84, still a managed to carry his home state of MN. Biden was born in Scranton PA and seems to have pretty good union support, which suggests he will be hard to beat in PA if it comes down to a battle between him and Trump, and if he does well in PA he will probably do well in the other rust belt states Hillary lost, which is not coincidentally why Trump may be getting a bit nervous each time he sees Biden gathering union supporters in PA.

You seem to be saying Biden benefits in Pennsylvania because its his "home state" but then say if Biden does well in PA he will do well in other rust belt states. That doesn't follow. You just said he will do well in PA because its his "home state" so that isn't going to map over to other rust belt states.

Some additional facts are that Biden has represented Delaware since 1973 so calling Pennsylvania his "home state" is not comparable to other Pres candidates like Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Mondale that were elected representatives of their home state recent to their election very much unlike Biden.
Also unions are only 13% of employees in PA anyway so its really not clear how much that even matters.

Calling PA Biden's "home state" is like calling Connecticut Dubya's home state.

 

[Sweet Square]

They are doing it again

 

[Raoul]

You seem to be saying Biden benefits in Pennsylvania because its his "home state" but then say if Biden does well in PA he will do well in other rust belt states. That doesn't follow. You just said he will do well in PA because its his "home state" so that isn't going to map over to other rust belt states.

Some additional facts are that Biden has represented Delaware since 1973 so calling Pennsylvania his "home state" is not comparable to other Pres candidates like Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Mondale that were elected representatives of their home state recent to their election very much unlike Biden.
Also unions are only 13% of employees in PA anyway so its really not clear how much that even matters.

Calling PA Biden's "home state" is like calling Connecticut Dubya's home state.

I said it’s “virtually” his home state and given his general demeanor and blue collar and union friendly rhetoric, he should do well there, and if he does then chances are he will in other rust belt type states as well since they have very similar constituencies.

 

[Raoul]

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I said it’s “virtually” his home state and given his general demeanor and blue collar and union friendly rhetoric, he should do well there, and if he does then chances are he will in other rust belt type states as well since they have very similar constituencies.

Its possible his rhetoric plays well across the rust belt but I don't think he has any comparable "home state" advantage in PA as candidates that were Senators of their home state like Mondale or Governors of their home/adopted home state like Reagan/Dubya/Clinton.

I fully expect Biden to have home state advantage in Delaware where he was a Senator since 1973 but I don't see why he would have any special home state advantage in Pa (like Dubya in Connecticut).

 

[Raoul]

Its possible his rhetoric plays well across the rust belt but I don't think he has any comparable "home state" advantage in PA as candidates that were Senators of their home state like Mondale or Governors of their home/adopted home state like Reagan/Dubya/Clinton.

I fully expect Biden to have home state advantage in Delaware where he was a Senator since 1973 but I don't see why he would have any special home state advantage in Pa (like Dubya in Connecticut).

The comparisons with Dubya don’t work because he was from Texas, which obviously doesn’t border his birth state. In Biden’s case he served as US Senator of a state for 26 years that is about 30 minutes away from PA’s biggest population center, which will give him a massive advantage in terms of name recognition and perceived electability in that area. He will therefore have a clear advantage over Trump or someone like Sanders, who was smoked there by Hillary by about 12 points in 2016.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Its possible his rhetoric plays well across the rust belt but I don't think he has any comparable "home state" advantage in PA as candidates that were Senators of their home state like Mondale or Governors of their home/adopted home state like Reagan/Dubya/Clinton.

I fully expect Biden to have home state advantage in Delaware where he was a Senator since 1973 but I don't see why he would have any special home state advantage in Pa (like Dubya in Connecticut).

Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida...places where Obama won and Hillary lost. Biden is more likely to win all of them. Ohio is another place that may favour Biden.

 

[Redplane]

As soon as Biden entered you just had to assume he d be the frontrunner and probably will continue to be so the question again is how the DNC will feck it up this time with the far left. Will they shoot themselves in the foot again? There is no way a Biden/Bernie ticket would work imho. Like Edgar basically said.. Biden will do well in the Midwest where Bernie imho is still seen as (way) too radical for the swing voters.

 

[Raoul]

Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida...places where Obama won and Hillary lost. Biden is more likely to win all of them. Ohio is another place that may favour Biden.

Yep. I'd imagine Biden will be stronger than Hillary in each of these states, although not necessarily stronger in others.

 

[Raoul]

From Drumpf's favorite pollster....

 

[Eboue]

I'd love to meet a Hickenlooper supporter

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Yep. I'd imagine Biden will be stronger than Hillary in each of these states, although not necessarily stronger in others.

I don't think Biden will lose any state that Hillary won. He'll just add to the total. I don't recall Hillary winning any state narrowly...where she won, she won big. And those will go to Biden too. Add in swing states. Wouldn't even discount the likes of Texas and Arizona going blue narrowly.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

He will therefore have a clear advantage over Trump or someone like Sanders, who was smoked there by Hillary by about 12 points in 2016.

This is an important point since there's no safe route to electoral victory for the Dems without PA, so it might be the most important state in the election. They can lose Ohio and Florida again, but not Pennsylvania.

It is a blue lean based on midterms, but maybe not completely safe. The O&G industry is huge in much of the state due to importance of Marcellus shale gas, and will push hard for Donald.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Wouldn't even discount the likes of Texas and Arizona going blue narrowly.

Only with Beto on board, and even then I don't like the odds.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

The progressive agenda will have its time. If enough people want it, then the president will move towards it.

I think they are linked. If a Dem wins presidency then we'll see US back in Climate Change agreement, reduction in offshore drilling, more focus on environment friendly measures etc.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

The comparisons with Dubya don’t work because he was from Texas, which obviously doesn’t border his birth state. In Biden’s case he served as US Senator of a state for 26 years that is about 30 minutes away from PA’s biggest population center, which will give him a massive advantage in terms of name recognition and perceived electability in that area. He will therefore have a clear advantage over Trump or someone like Sanders, who was smoked there by Hillary by about 12 points in 2016.

Serving as a Senator in a neighboring state isn't exactly the home state advantage of Mondale in MN or Clinton in AR either though. Biden has always come off more as an Northeast seaboard patrician than a blue collar Midwesterner. Let's see how Biden handles Pete in the debates before we give him Pennsylvania.

Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida...places where Obama won and Hillary lost. Biden is more likely to win all of them. Ohio is another place that may favour Biden.

We really need to see the candidates debate before we know how it will shake down. Beto or Pete or even Bernie if he catches the right wind at his back could steal the rust states from Biden.

I'd love to meet a Hickenlooper supporter

Yeah. This is why I think some of these early polls are spiked and next to meaningless. The idea that there are over a million people out there that support Hickenlooper as their first choice beggars belief.

 

[Ubik]

I don't think Biden will lose any state that Hillary won. He'll just add to the total. I don't recall Hillary winning any state narrowly...where she won, she won big. And those will go to Biden too. Add in swing states. Wouldn't even discount the likes of Texas and Arizona going blue narrowly.

Minnesota and New Hampshire were both tight.