Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

I see the Wisconsin legislature, in all it's collective Republican wisdom, has refused to let the governor delay their primary. He's been after them change to mail ballots for months, but now they are criticizing him for waiting until the last minute. They also claim sending out mail ballots to all registered voters would be an impossible task, although several other states have done exactly that.

Wisconsin Fiasco

The funny thing is that the state can't even find poll workers. Everybody is ordered to stay home and not gather. The five locations for polls in the Milwaukee expect 10,000 people each. Republicans have effectively made voting illegal in Wisconsin! I think people may need to start the tar boiling and get the chicken feathers ready.

The only saving grace is that the courts extended the deadline for receiving absentee ballots a bit.

From your numbers guy, a comparison of 2016 vs 2020. Biden has a slight lead in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona and surprisingly trails Trump by just 2 points in Texas. They are also tied in Florida, all states Trump won in 2016. The only state that Clinton won that Trump leads in is New Hampshire. A whole 3 electoral votes.

There is a huge difference between the early polls of 2016 and those of today. The first major polls of head to head action between Trump and Clinton in 2016 were taken in June, we had 7 of them to average out between 1-7 June 2016 between Trump and Hillary. Their average was a 5-point lead for Hillary 42-37 with 13% stating they would vote third party and 8% undecided.

Today, 11 Apr 2020, Biden leads Trump 49-43 with 4% stating they'll vote third party and 4% undecided. The huge difference is back in 2016 there was a pool of voters 21% of the remaining electorate where Trump could improve himself, Clinton could too among those who hadn't decided between the two. Today, that pool is down to 8%, not 21%. To really improve, Trump must take some votes away from Biden this year along with winning most of the undecided and convincing some third-party voters to vote for him. In 2016, Trump didn't need to take any voters away from Clinton, he had that huge pool of 21% of the electorate to play with, not just 8%.

In the end Trump managed to take 9 of that 21%, Clinton gained 6 and the rest stuck with third party candidates, 6%. In short, Biden is in a much stronger position this year, today than Hillary Clinton was in June 2016. Trump must convince some of those who have decided to vote for Biden this year to instead vote for him. This is something Trump didn’t need to do in 2016. He didn’t need to convince a single voter who had decided to vote for Clinton to change their minds and vote for him. He had that large pool of 21% of the electorate to play with. Not so this year.

Final results of the Alaska Democratic Primary held on 10 Apr, Biden 55.3%, Sanders 44.7%. Biden 11 Delegates, Sanders 4. Still no results from Wisconsin which held theirs on 7 Apr.

Wyoming is next on 17 Apr. I haven't heard anything about Wyoming cancelling their caucus or not. I have also read it will be probably another week before Wisconsin's results are in. Not that it makes any difference now that Sanders has withdrawn.

Nothing has made much difference since Super Tuesday.

Biden is the anointed one and may god have mercy on our souls.

It's probably a good idea for god to always have mercy on our souls. It's here our politics diverge, with Biden as the nominee, I'll vote for him. If it was Sanders, I would have voted third party again like I did in 2016. If I don't like either major party candidate, I don't vote for evil even if the evil is the lesser of the two or the least worst candidate or the candidate I want least to lose between the two major parties. I always vote against evil as I see it.

There too we probably disagree. Sanders isn't the nominee, so I'm very comfortable with Biden. I wouldn't have been with Sanders. I like to stay within my comfort zone if it is at all possible.

I was always going to vote democrat no matter who won.

I mean, aside from Gabbard and Williams.

Bernie, Biden, Harris, Warren, doesn't matter.

2016, my vote was against both Trump and Hillary. As for 2020, I knew I wasn't going to vote for Trump. But that didn't mean an automatic vote for the Democrats. I said many, many times that depended on who they nominated. I started out backing John Hickenlooper, when he dropped out, I went with Tom Steyer. I really wasn't given time for choose another as the day after Steyer dropped out, it became a two man race. Biden is fine with me, he'll have my support.

Now, I thought about Gabbard after Steyer. I like her along with Klobuchar and Buttigieg. All would have had my support. The only two that wouldn't have were Sanders and Warren. Those two would have caused me to vote third party once again.

Ideological wise, I'm definitely a middle of the roader. Probably half way between the two major parties. I always thought of Sanders and Warren as being outside of the democratic party, left of it.

I support the Democrats on some issues and the GOP on others. It all depends on the issue and how much I care about it. Many are irrelevant to me that seem to get both sides riled up. I'm probably your ultimate swing voter. I'm the type that would vote third party for president, republican for senator and democratic for my congressman and split the rest of the ballot going back and forth depending on my view of the candidates for various offices.

My first vote was back in 1968 when you had to be 21 to vote. I can't remember a year when I ever voted a straight party line ticket. I probably did a time or two, most likely in a midterm.

This year, I know Biden for president, David Scott, my Democratic congressman for the House are sure things. I'll vote for whoever are the two Republicans for Georgia's two senate seats up this year. I love divided government. I like the check on the party in power or the party that has the white house. It's very dangerous in my opinion to have a single party in full control of the presidency, senate and the house. Not so much in the past due to the 60 vote cloture rule, the filibuster. But with the nuclear option doing away with the filibuster, it is a must to have the opposing party in control of either the house or the senate be it a Republican or a democrat as president.

Wisconsin, Democratic Primary, 62% of the precincts reporting Biden 363,000, 64% 20 delegates, Sanders 176,000, 31%, 0 delegates so far.

1. Gabbard is a MAGA swine.

2. Hickenlooper was okay. He never had a chance, but I liked him.

3. Twenty years ago, I would have agreed that having all three branches in one party's hands was dangerous. Only now, the GOP is more dangerous in ANY capacity.

If we stipulate that the country has 20 years left, in 20 years the parties will be the DNC and the progressive wing. And I am guessing that in 30 years, the DNC will be in fact what the progressives say it is today: The next GOP.

Parties adjust. I remember after the Goldwater debacle in 1964, everyone was saying the Republican Party was dead. It would be at least 20 years, if not more before they became competitive in elections. I think the pundits and those saying that remembered Hoover and FDR being elected for four terms with Truman making it five in a row in 1948.

That was a bad election, LBJ won 61-39, The democrats had a 295-140 advantage in the house and a 68-32 advantage in the senate. But come 1968, Nixon won the presidency, The GOP had picked up 40 house seats and 10 senate seats.

Then came Watergate, Carter elected president in 1976, he was given 292-143 advantage in the House and a 62-38 advantage in the senate. Again, everyone was saying it would be 20-30 years before the GOP won an election.

Then came 1980, Reagan won, 49 house seats switched and the Republicans won the senate. Now everyone was talking about the Republican lock on the presidency. Several books were written about that. But in comes Bill Clinton in 1992. So I heard all of this before and seen the results.

I think you're missing something here. In 2006 only 30% of the electorate were independents with the Democrats having a 37-33 advantage over the Republicans. Today, 40% of the electorate have become independents as the two parties have shrunk. Gallup as of 22 Mar 2020, list both those who affiliate or identify with Republicans and Democratic Parties at 30% each.

As the two parties move further and further left and right, more moderates are leaving both parties. The Democratic Party averaged between 45-50% of the electorate from the end of WWII until Reagan, then 35% until Obama and now are at 30%. The GOP average around 25% of the electorate since Eisenhower through today. The high for the Democratic Party was 51% in both 1961 and 1964, Their low is 30% as of 22 Mar 2020. The GOP had their high of 38% in 1942, their low of 21% in 1975, but have slowly climbed back to 30% as of 22 Mar 2020.