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

Not surprising, left leaners trend towards more taxation so "no new taxes" is a bit of an insult to them. A slight leftward lean is all that differentiates Democrats from Republicans and the "independents" are about as equally divided ideologically as their partisan counterparts.

If the failure to uphold a promise of "no new taxes" was a trigger issue among right leaning independents then they would be pissed off enough to come out in slightly higher numbers against the failing executive.

Won't happen, parties always adjust to huge losses or it might be the party who just had a huge landslide win just gets over confident thinking the people as a whole love them when they just really disliked the other guy.

Goldwater was repudiated to a tune of a 61-39 win for LBJ in 1964, the Republicans were down to just 140 House seats, 295 for the Democrats along with 68 Democratic Senators to 32 for the Republicans. 1966 saw the GOP gain 47 house seats back and in 1968 Nixon had been elected president, the Republicans had gained 10 senate seats to 42 and now had 192 house seats.

That's a long time ago, I know. Different political era without the polarization and without the ultra high partisanship of today. The rejection of a presidential candidate doesn't equate to the destruction of that candidate's political party.

The rejection of Trump in my opinion began the day after he took office which lead to the blue wave of 2018 and unless something changes, something happens drastically, a major unforeseen event or happening, the Republicans are in for another huge defeat in 2020. But the rejection of Trump won't equate to the demise of the Republican Party much like what happened back in 1964 through 1968.

Gallup and Pew Research never asked about political party favorability back then, but they do now. But they did keep track of party affiliation. Party affiliation in 1964 was 51% Democratic, 25% Republican. By 1968 it was 42% Democratic, 27% Republican. In 2016 when Trump won party affiliation was 36% Democratic, 30% Republican and today it's or as of 4 June 2020 31% Democrat, 25% Republican, 40% independent.

The average political party favorable's is Democrats 30% favorable, 52% unfavorable. Republicans 24% favorable, 57% unfavorable. Neither major party is liked or seen in a favorable light. But the Democratic Party at the moment is seen more favorable and disliked less by America as a whole than the GOP which probably will equate into a huge win come November.

One reason for this is most Americans don't think either party represents them anymore. Each party has it's own agenda which isn't seen as America's agenda. It's very hard for the hard core partisans, member of each major party to see this. Voting for the least worst, the lesser of two evils, the party, candidates you want to lose the least, not win, but lose the least have become common place. Trump will be rejected this November, I'm sure of that. But the election results will be just that, a rejection of Trump much like 1964 was a rejection of Goldwater. But the incoming blue wave that I see coming isn't an endorsement of the Democrats or their party. It's a rejection of Trump and the GOP. It's not a mandate for Democratic Party agenda either. It's a rejection of Trump.

This the Democrats will fail to recognize. Hence my prediction about the house in 2022. But time will tell.

Which they did. Back in those days independents weren't broke down into independents lean Democratic, independents lean Republican and pure or true independents with no leans as Gallup does today.

So we'll have to take independents as a whole for 1988 and 1992. Bush won independents 57-43 over Dukakis, but lost them to Bill Clinton in 1992 42-28 with Perot getting 30% of the independent vote. Putting Perot aside, Bush won independents by 14 points in 1988, lost them by 14 points in 1992 a swing of 28 points. That does show you how finicky independents can be. How huge swings among the independent voter can take place in a span of just four years. That can happen in two if we look at 2016 where Trump won independents 46-42 a plus 4 to 2018 when independents voted for the democratic congressional candidates 54-42 over the Republicans. That a plus 4 to a minus 12 or a swing of 16 points in just 2 years. These swings can be huge and they can decide elections.

I think one needs to remember that independents aren't loyal to either party and they don't adopt either party's agenda. If they did, they wouldn't be independents. They can also change their votes on a whim. It doesn't take much.

Someone said Biden should do an ad agreeing to take a cognitive assessment test if Trump will take the SAT.

Polls ar showing that a growing number of Republicans and conservatives and independent-leaning conservatives, who are done with Trump.



Joe Biden is not sexy politically and not enough to be excited about, but 2020 voters are very enthusiastic about voting against Trump.

When Hillary lost the polls said she was going to win! The American voting public are pesky and can change their minds on a dime. All the pro-dem results are comforting but, until the election is called I remain concerned. Given the antics of Trump I won't be happy until a Dem takes the oath and moves into the white house. There is also the pile of things the Republicans have done to suppress the vote as well. Remember, it wasn't a Democrat that got caught messing with the votes. It was a Republican. They have a LOT more experience at this kind of stuff than the Democrats. Hopefully, for instance, the Democratic party is going to have people in every voting place watching stuff like a hawk as well.

Not really. What the national polls showed was Hillary up 3.3 points, she won by 2.1 points. Now remember there's a margin of error here of plus or minus 3 points. Basically all national polls were predicting Hillary winning the popular vote somewhere between 0.3 to 6.3 points. Her 2.1 win was well within that margin of error.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

The polls were predicting a popular vote win which Hillary did.

This was RCP's electoral college scoreboard.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

with 171 electoral in their tossup column, that's far from predicting a Hillary win. Granted, the pundits were predicting a Hillary win, some by exaggerated margins. But where were they getting their information from? Then again, when I see polls that are saying Hillary will win the national popular vote by 3-4 points, I wouldn't take too close a look at each state. It was probably assumptions, but you know what they say about assuming.

Of the late polls in Pennsylvania, Trafalgar had Trump winning by 1, Harper had it tied with Morning Call favoring Clinton by 6. But Morning Call had a margin of error of plus or minus 5.5 points. That gave them a lot of leeway.

Michigan, Trafalgar had Trump winning by 2, Gravis had Hillary by 5, the Detroit free press, Hillary by 4.

Wisconsin, there were no recent polls taken in November, just the latter part of October which made them useless. I can easily understand the pundits and prognosticators forecasting a Hillary win. I did also in my forecast. I went to bed around 10PM because I knew Hillary would win as I had resigned myself to at least 4 years of her. I was in shock when I woke up the next morning I couldn't believe it.

I knew Pennsylvania and Michigan were pure tossups. But I had given them to Hillary based only on those states voting history. The same with Wisconsin as I had nothing new to go on. Just some old polls more than a week old. Iowa also surprised me as Iowa had a long history also of voting Democratic in presidential elections.

I suppose the bottom line is the national polls were predicting Hillary would win the national popular vote. But we, even the pundits forgot the winner is determined in the electoral college. Me, I remembered that, but I placed 4 tossup states in the wrong column.

Remember the little dust up between the New York Times and Nate Silver?

The Times had boldly declared Hillary 20 points or more ahead and was heading for an easy victory. Nate said nope. Trump can still win...

Trump can win this time too.

Hillary never lead by 20 points. Her biggest lead was by 7.1 points on 18 Oct. Although she maintained the lead from 1 Aug on. Trump narrowed that lead from 7.1 to 1.9 points on 1 Nov which Hillary finally won the popular vote by 2.1%.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

Biden's lead today is bigger than any lead Hillary ever had at 8.7 points.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

But I do agree, it is far from over. On 25 July 2016 Hillary had an 0.4 of a point lead in the polls vs. Biden's 8.7. Since 1952 only one presidential candidate with a lead of more than 6 points at the end of July has lost. Micheal Dukakis in 1988. Now if you go back 4 more years to 1948, that is then 2 presidential candidates with Thomas Dewey joining Dukakis. Dewey had an 11 point lead over Truman at the end of July, Dukakis an amazing 17 point lead over Bush. So it can happen. But polling was in its infancy back in 1948, more tuned in in 1988. historical polling only goes back to 1936, so you have 2 since then. Dukakis continued to fall, at the end of August his lead was 7 points, at the end of September Bush had taken a 5 point lead, expanded it to 10 points at the end of October before winning by 8.

If I were a democrat, I'd be feeling pretty good right about now. Biden leads in Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa. Is within one point in Texas and Georgia of all places. All states Trump won in 2016.

But all it takes is one unforeseen event, happening to upset the apple cart, to turn an election on its ear. The thing is Trump was always within easy striking distance. 5 points or less most of the campaign. Within 5 points means the race is very competitive.

James Comey's letter to Congress was October 28, 2016. Coincidence? I think not.