POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Hooahguy]

They said it was similar odds in 2016 too, though of course things are different now.

[ReluctantSamurai]

though of course things are different now.

Not the least of which is that Fearless Leader is now the incumbent. The 'what have you done for me lately' mentality tends to prevail when voters go to the polls to elect a new prez. Folks who study that sort of thing repeatedly point this out. Not sayin' that it's an automatic for Biden. People at either end of the voter spectrum aren't going to change their opinion much, so it comes down to those in the center. SARS-2 is still going to be running rampant come November, and the economy will still be in the toilet if not headed straight for the sewer. So who's to blame? And just as important, who can fix it?

[edyzmedieval]

They said it was similar odds in 2016 too, though of course things are different now.

There is however one significant difference, and it showed in the primary when Sanders lost so many votes he won back in 2016 - Hillary Clinton was really, really disliked by the general public.

Biden on the other hand has a significant boost of appeal especially with moderates and with many Republicans as well.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

270towin.com has it too close to call. While Trump would have to get more of the 86 votes they list as toss-ups than does Biden, the task is not impossible. Trump's disapproval rating is NOT at the lowest ebb of his Presidency and was, until the riots, actually rebounding positively during the Coronavirus re-opening phase efforts.

FL, NC, PA, WI are still too close to call and while MI is leaning Biden narrowly, Ohio is leaning Trump by a narrow margin. As a FL resident, I will tell you that a repeat of the Santoris victory margin by Trump in the upcoming general is a distinct possibility. Florida has been decided into the "red" column by a very few thousand votes on numerous occasions.

[Hooahguy]

I think Wisconsin and Arizona are going blue this year but as for the rest, its anybody's game. I do however think that PA is looking more favorably than that map suggests since the polling average has been steady with Biden +5.6. An upset is always possible but its different this time around: Trump is the incumbent, Covid isnt going away any time soon, and the Sunbelt has seen a huge increase across the board, so the "botching the response" narrative is an easy one to push. Ive heard some people cautioning against becoming complacent, but Ive literally seen nobody being so.

Edit: I also wonder how Florida being ravaged by Covid will impact things. A backlash against the GOP for closing too slow/pushing reopening too soon? Drive turnout down? Fall into the sea finally? All three? Its 4.5 months to election so a lot can happen between now and then.

[Montmorency]

The RNC has announced its intent to recycle the 2016 Republican platform and Donald Trump's campaign site has no policy information. The precipitate of grievance has been achieved.

At his rally, an applause line.

President Trump on coronavirus testing: “I said to my people, slow the testing down, please."

The crowd goes wild.

Trump can never win less than 40% of the vote, but there just haven't been many indicators that there are quite enough degenerates to turn out for him. As I've continually reiterated, Trump mustn't lose any supporters on net merely in order to repeat a break-even Electoral College victory. It's unclear that there have been enough Republican "Never-Trump" converts over 3 years to make up for the documented drain of suburban support and among white and older demographics, and the reciprocal consolidation on the Democratic coalition. If there have not been, then a Trump reelection would be a mathematical improbability.

As to the point that Biden's leads in the swing states are statistically marginal, this is true. Yet at the same time the consistency of his polling leads to date puts Biden ahead of every other challenger since, ever? The only other incumbent presidents to mirror Trump's approval level around this time were Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush, to my knowledge. Will Trump be closing the gap soon?

The September polling during the official campaign season, post-conventions, will be the most probative. The government has ostensibly chosen death with regard to the pandemic and economic crisis, so we'll have to see the effects of that over the summer.

270towin.com has it too close to call. While Trump would have to get more of the 86 votes they list as toss-ups than does Biden, the task is not impossible. Trump's disapproval rating is NOT at the lowest ebb of his Presidency and was, until the riots, actually rebounding positively during the Coronavirus re-opening phase efforts.

Just to be pedantic, his all-term peak was at the beginning of April. If you're referring to the most recent high, that was a week before the Floyd killing.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The Dems have a lot of work to do. Just choosing an African American woman as a running mate isn't going to be enough, if this discussion is any indication:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...e-woods-325641

Most of my audience was Black—save for a few white men with their collared shirts tucked into khakis—but this wasn’t the target demographic I had imagined for this article. These were professional, affluent Black people. These were Black people who spent Sunday afternoons sipping Mimosas and playing spades. These were Black people who were going to vote.

Griffith will vote this November. But she isn’t excited about it. And truth be told, she doesn’t know anyone who is. “I bet our numbers come up, because nobody liked Hillary Clinton, but I don’t think they come up much. And I know they don’t get back to those record numbers from Obama,” Griffith said of Black voter turnout. “We look at Joe Biden and see more of the same. It’s about the era he came up. It’s about his identity—he’s a rich, old white man. What are his credentials to us, other than Obama picking him? It’s nice that he worked with Obama. But let’s keep it real: That was a political calculation. Obama thought he needed a white man to get elected, just like Biden thinks he needs a Black woman to get elected. We can see through that.”

These sentiments resurfaced in almost every conversation I had. First, that Biden choosing a woman of color might actually irritate, not appease, Black voters. Second, that the inferno of June would flicker by summer’s end and fade entirely by November. And third, that Biden does little to inspire a wary Black electorate that views him as the status quo personified. It was thoroughly convincing. Here were high-information voters, giving their personal opinions while also analyzing the feeling of their community, all making the same points in separate conversations.

“There’s no excitement for Biden,” Moore said. “Trump can get his people riled up. Biden can’t. That’s why there’s all this talk of putting a Black woman on the ticket. But that’s not going to help him win.” Sitting in a chair nearby, ERIC BENJAMIN snickered. “He’s just the lesser of two evils.”

“Biden’s a politician, same as the rest of them, same as Trump. But at least with Trump you know where he stands,” he said. “If we were sitting here, me and you, and you’re pretending we’re friends, but then behind my back, you act like you don’t even know me, that’s the worst. I’d much rather you just tell me to my face that we’re not friends. That’s Trump. I respect that. The Democrats always be acting like we’re friends.”

“Now, the Democratic Party takes us for granted. But it has always taken us for granted. So, it is what it is. But I’ll be for whoever is against Trump. Am I excited about Joe Biden? Is he going to make my life better? No. But I need to send a message that Trump is unacceptable.”

If you talk to younger people, they’re not going to automatically look past his history just because he was Obama’s VP. And the party had better realize that. He had better realize that. You know, that stuff on ‘The Breakfast Club,’ suggesting we’ve got to vote for him because we’re Black—young people do not respond to that.” “Exactly,” Yancey said. “It’s not a question of them voting for Trump. It’s a question of them not voting at all.”

The cross-section of those at that gathering was interesting: an ex-cop, a couple of local magistrates, a retired school teacher, a couple of real-estate agents, and an ex-convict. Sleepy Joe better pay attention...

[Hooahguy]

In the article they state that Biden should not have committed to picking a woman VP. I actually agree with that. This sounds harsh, but I dont think we are ready as a country for a woman on the ticket. The average American voter has too much unconscious sexism for that to happen. Like how people still ask if a woman is too emotional to lead which isnt only a dumb question since men get just as emotional, its also sexist as hell. And its sad.

Anyways, the most recent VP poll has the two front runners, Harris and Warren, with high unfavorables as they have favorables. And the rest of the people on the list are mostly unknowns with many of them having ~50% of respondents having no idea who they are. I really like Harris, I think shes very well spoken and very accomplished, Im just skeptical of her in the VP spot due to her record as DA/AG which has been overall good and progressive, but some dark spots that cloud her record and I think unfairly gives her a bad name. Plus as the article clearly states, probably not the best choice if you want to boost turnout in the Black community. To clarify though, I do think theres a lot of misinformation about her record but as we saw in 2016, it might be too much and hobble Biden's campaign. As the saying goes, "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on."

Personally I am rooting for Congresswoman Karen Bass who recently made the list as being vetted. Shes a great congresswoman, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, sits on Judiciary and Foreign Affairs, just a really great record all around. And none of the baggage that Harris or Val Demmings have in terms of law enforcement.

Anyways, the latest poll out from Siena College/The New York Times (A+ rating from 538) looks pretty good for the swing states, but not good enough:

FLORIDA:
Biden 47% (+6)
Trump 41%

ARIZONA:
Biden 48% (+7)
Trump 41%

NORTH CAROLINA:
Biden 49% (+9)
Trump 40%

PENNSYLVANIA:
Biden 50% (+10)
Trump 40%

MICHIGAN:
Biden 47% (+11)
Trump 36%

WISCONSIN:
Biden 49% (+11)
Trump 38%

[Beskar]

In the article they state that Biden should not have committed to picking a woman VP. I actually agree with that. This sounds harsh, but I dont think we are ready as a country for a woman on the ticket.

I disagree. Even Republicans are willing, remember Palin ?

[Montmorency]

Wow, it's been a year-and-a-half but someone has decided Trump's was being excessively-naughty with the impoundment on another occasion.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...190949915.html

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against the administration of United States President Donald Trump in its transfer of $2.5bn from military construction projects to build sections of the US border wall with Mexico, ruling it illegally sidestepped Congress, which gets to decide how to use the funds.

The Dems have a lot of work to do. Just choosing an African American woman as a running mate isn't going to be enough, if this discussion is any indication:

That's a very pessimistic slice of the Black upper-middle class. As a focus group I'm not sure what it really tells us. In the end - correct me if I missed something - but every person the author interviewed there affirmed their vote for Biden in November.

In the 2018 midterms black turnout was higher than it had been in perhaps generations. It's hard to imagine that relative enthusiasm would suddenly evaporate in a few months. And in the latest Siena/NYT poll (see also Hooah's post), the results are about as grim for Trump as they've ever been. In that poll, only 10% of black respondents - registered voters engaged enough to respond to a major poller, so comparable to the Politico piece's subjects - offered disapproval of Biden, compared to half of white respondents.
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/up...0_84731937.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/u...legrounds.html

It's not just that poll either. Polls for the past month have been overwhelmingly favorable to Biden, to the point of opening the possibility of a Democratic EC landslide.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-is-slipping/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...uld-disappear/






As Alex Burns puts it, "Biden isn’t ahead by double digits because of his own runaway popularity. It’s because he’s broadly acceptable as an alternative to a strongly disliked incumbent." It's the economy, stupid. And the pandemic, and the civil unrest, and all the crimes and scandals and failures piled atop each other like a chain of tortoises. Now, if all that shit costs Trump 5 percentage points off his baseline it's still a horrifying sign for our country, but as far as the election itself goes it's better news than most would have allowed one to contemplate as of a year ago.


[Interesting tangent: In the NYT poll above the disapproval for BLM is roughly the same - similarly low - as that for the police.]

Anyways, the most recent VP poll has the two front runners, Harris and Warren, with high unfavorables as they have favorables. And the rest of the people on the list are mostly unknowns with many of them having ~50% of respondents having no idea who they are. I really like Harris, I think shes very well spoken and very accomplished, Im just skeptical of her in the VP spot due to her record as DA/AG which has been overall good and progressive, but some dark spots that cloud her record and I think unfairly gives her a bad name.

All that I read suggested she prioritized adopting a more conservative law-and-order persona (and we know what that means) than was justified electorally, as may have been discussed here. One can weight different factors, or emphasize aspects of her more recent career trajectory, but overall I wouldn't call her LE record progressive.

[Hooahguy]

I disagree. Even Republicans are willing, remember Palin ?

Just because they too are willing doesnt mean it was a great idea electorally. Palin was a terrible terrible choice as we all know. But what I am trying to say is that woman candidates are largely still unfairly treated compared to male candidates.

All that I read suggested she prioritized adopting a more conservative law-and-order persona (and we know what that means) than was justified electorally, as may have been discussed here. One can weight different factors, or emphasize aspects of her more recent career trajectory, but overall I wouldn't call her LE record progressive.

I think this take is missing major context of what was going on at the time and a "tough on crime" stance was electorally justified. In 2004 when she first took office as DA of San Francisco, they were in the middle of a major crime wave with a homicide rate of 11.57. By her last year in office, 2010, the homicide rate was 5.86. So basically cutting it in half. Her predecessor Terence Hallinan (who was regarded as super progressive) had a terrible conviction rate of just 50% which frankly means that he was pretty bad at his job. Harris on the other hand had a conviction rate of the mid to high 80 percentage range. But I digress. I can list you 40 different actions she's taken as either DA or AG that were pretty significant progressive initiatives. Things like the country's first Back on Track program that reduced recidivism and was later adopted by other jurisdictions across the country. As DA she created the LGBT Hate crimes unit, the environmental justice unit, and the child sexual assault unit. As AG, Harris created the Bureau of Children’s Justice; Division of Recidivism Reduction and Re-Entry; Mortgage Fraud Strike Force; Human Trafficking Work Group; Racial & Identity Profiling Advisory Board; eCrime Unit; Privacy Enforcement & Protection Unit. The list goes on and on if you want me to expand on this.

Of course there will be missteps. Nobody in the DA or AG position has a spotless record. I think it comes with the territory. For example, progressive Keith Ellison is the current AG of Minnesota and we all know whats been going on there. Where I think Harris tends to trip up on is explaining some of the actions shes taken. Like let's take the whole truancy thing. Despite being on the books as a law since the 70's, shes still being criticized for it even though a lot of those criticisms are being made with incorrect or missing information. But the thing is, studies show that fighting truancy helps kids stay in school which then helps prevent them from ending up in prison or worse. In SF, 94% of homicide victims under the age of 25 were dropouts. Where Harris was involved was refining the current law to make it so the school district could better identify at-risk children and find the best times to intervene to make sure they stayed in school. It wasnt about throwing parents in jail, it was about making sure that schools, students, and parents had the resources to fix the truancy issue with harsher penalties only being used as a last resort. But the narrative is already past this sort of explanation and I think a big part of it is Harris' inability to effectively counter these sorts of misconceptions. That being said, I do think she is the frontrunner for the VP spot (its clear she really wants it despite being the best at hiding it *cough cough Stacey Abrams*) since shes the only one who seems to be doing events with not only Joe, but his wife and top advisors too. So I guess we will see in the next month who gets picked in the end but my money is on Harris.