US Presidential Election 2020

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

Ok. You don’t like the way the US votes by State for President. I do. It’s a wash.

But if you want to talk about, as the thread title says, “Beating losing to Trump in 2020”, and strategies for doing so, our personal approval or disapproval of the voting methodology is irrelevant. Your post #1786 above equates more progressive policies with higher turnout and a better chance to win. I do not believe the figures bear this out because of the already high turnout of voters in the swing states.

Well we will indeed agree to disagree. I do not like the way the US votes by state for president and as you say you do. Which I must say is very interesting.

My original post above that you chose to respond to was not directly related to the actual thread title it was a response to another poster eagle eye and clearly was making a general point about the American electorate in general not again directly relating to the tread title but on a tangent to the thread title.

So if you want to talk about the tread title in such a direct fashion your responding to the wrong person because I am not interested. If the US continues as it has done with corporate owned and paid for presidents and parties as it has done then nothing will change economically for the vast majority of Americans at least not in a positive way.

IMHO as I mentioned in the response to eagle eye and have mentioned many times before is that the US is no longer a Democracy but an oligarchy and that its political system is broken and corrupted and one of the consequences of that is roughly half of Americans do not vote at all. It is also my belief as I have mentioned many times that the Republican and Democratic parties are part of the problem and both parties work hard to make sure that they maintain their duopoly on power and keep the status quo in place.

As for my post above it does not equate anything as a fact with certainly. What I say is an opinion. My opinion is that the corrupt corporate bought and paid for Democratic party leadership do not have any interest in policies that would represent the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans. The corporate controlled Democratic party has played its part over the last 40 years in massive rising income and wealth inequality. Just as the Republican's have been even more extreme in that regard especially since Reagan began the process of foisting Friedmanite disaster capitalism on the US as they have done so in their imperialist fashion in the so many countries that the US has installed or supports puppet governments in especially in South and Central America.
It is my opinion that it would be better if the Democrats really put forward supported and stood behind more FDR style polices. It they really showed and proved they actually wanted to represent the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans then I think the US would be a much better place for it and by extension given the US is still the most powerful nation on earth the world would be a better place for it. My point is that roughly half of Americans are checked out because the system is broken and corrupted but that if the Democratic party actually tried to do what is best economically for the vast majority of Americans then I posit they may be able to attract the votes of a large chunk of those of who checked out and through that maybe in a position to enact legislation that would actually be what is best for the vast majority of Americans. Voter turnout is indeed higher is some states but this is voter turnout based on a completely owned and bought for Republican party v a corporate owned and controlled Democratic Party leadership thus a choice between an evil and a lesser evil. Voters certainly do not always vote in their own best economic interests. The Republicans are masters at getting millions of Americans to vote against their own economic interest with the use of hate and fear for example but the Democratic Party as controlled and run for the benefit of their financial backers are just a lesser evil so that makes the Republicans task so much easier. Thus I believe the Democratic party would be more successful if they went all the way towards FDR style policies. But it is not really about success/winning it is about making peoples lives better and that is why I believe they should go towards FDR style policies because that is what is in the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans.

marno21

Quite a plate of food for thought for the Democrats from the UK tonight.

Identity politics, left wing extremism, openly pushing pro-immigration agendas are not going to win elections. Especially when the atmosphere in the north of England can be compared to that of the swing states in the US.

pixelburp

marno21 wrote: »

Quite a plate of food for thought for the Democrats from the UK tonight.

Identity politics, left wing extremism, openly pushing pro-immigration agendas are not going to win elections. Especially when the atmosphere in the north of England can be compared to that of the swing states in the US.

I really don't think you can any draw comparisons, except emotional or narrative biases. Two countries with their own plethora of problems, emphasises and voter demographics. Nevermind the fact that "left wing" means completely different things between the UK-EU & US, and really shouldn't need saying at this stage.

Last nights elections was the investment in a simple thought line - "Get Brexit Done" - from a populous tired and impatient to have the thing in the rear view mirror (I mean, it won't be 'cos it hasn't even started yet, but there's a thread for that already). The 2020 Presidential election is going to mean a lot of different things.

eagle eye

I think it was a two way thing. Get Brexit done and get rid of Corbyn.
I think Corbyn is the most disliked political party leader in the UK in a long, long time.
Imagine being so disliked that Boris Johnson gets an overall majority. That says a lot.

The Democrats are not making themselves unpopular like Corbyn had made Labour. Their problem is the candidates lack charisma. B
Joe Biden certainly had charisma but he has got very old looking in the last couple of years and I don't think he can take Trump because of that.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

I think it was a two way thing. Get Brexit done and get rid of Corbyn.
I think Corbyn is the most disliked political party leader in the UK in a long, long time.
Imagine being so disliked that Boris Johnson gets an overall majority. That says a lot.

The Democrats are not making themselves unpopular like Corbyn had made Labour. Their problem is the candidates lack charisma. B
Joe Biden certainly had charisma but he has got very old looking in the last couple of years and I don't think he can take Trump because of that.

I dont get your point about age, Biden is only a couple of years older than Trump

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote:

I dont get your point about age, Biden is only a couple of years older than Trump

It's how he is acting, very forgetful like somebody in the early throws of dementia.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

It's how he is acting, very forgetful like somebody in the early throws of dementia.

COVFEFE

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote:

COVFEFE

You are seriously comparing a texting error to somebody being forgetful and looking like they are in the early throws of dementia?
Do you think I'm a Trump supporter or something? I want a Democrat in and I'm critical of anybody who won't win an election. I want a strong candidate who can go toe to toe with Trump and beat him.
My first choice didn't even enter the race, that was Martin Heinrich. I believe he could have united the whole party behind him, he has charisma and his handling of Jeff Sessions was what put him up there for me.
Sadly the best candidate, in my opinion, didn't put himself forward. What we've got at the front of the queue for the nomination does not include a candidate capable of winning imo.
Democratic voters are a funny lot. If you don't interest them they will stay at home even with a maniac like Trump as the opposition.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

You are seriously comparing a texting error to somebody being forgetful and looking like they are in the early throws of dementia?
Do you think I'm a Trump supporter or something? I want a Democrat in and I'm critical of anybody who won't win an election. I want a strong candidate who can go toe to toe with Trump and beat him.
My first choice didn't even enter the race, that was Martin Heinrich. I believe he could have united the whole party behind him, he has charisma and his handling of Jeff Sessions was what put him up there for me.
Sadly the best candidate, in my opinion, didn't put himself forward. What we've got at the front of the queue for the nomination does not include a candidate capable of winning imo.
Democratic voters are a funny lot. If you don't interest them they will stay at home even with a maniac like Trump as the opposition.

Sorry, I think you missed the oranges of my joke

Manic Moran

California's Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that the law California passed in July requiring Trump to disclose tax statements in order to appear on the California ballot was unconstitutional.

Not many lawyers are surprised. Per CNN CA court ruled primarily on the State Constitution, but it is believed the Federal constitution also prohibits it.

Itssoeasy

So I see that correy Booker is asking the DNC to change the rules to allow him onto the stage of the upcoming debate which he isn’t on. I hope the DNC hold firm as the field was too big to begin with and they have to narrow the field and I assume these rules were set out in advance ?

I hope he’ll do the right thing and drop out. It will leave the democratic field with no African American candidate and two people of colour and while that’s regrettable, if he was connecting with the voters he’d be higher in the polls and would have raised more money which he has done neiher. Surely booker wants to be on the stage on Merit and having fulfilled the criteria and not as a token candidate. At least you’d hope that’s his thinking.

4068ac1elhodqr

FWIW just noticed DT is at perhaps the lowest odds across teh board to win the thing again
1.8 average, only one single shop dares to offer evens for fear of loosing monies.

Rjd2

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

FWIW just noticed DT is at perhaps the lowest odds across teh board to win the thing again
1.8 average, only one single shop dares to offer evens for fear of loosing monies.

He's a lay now I think. I could be wrong but in the vast majority of polls v the 2 dem front runners biden and bernie isn't he behind in the battleground states?

pixelburp

How on earth can the bookies be seen as indicators when we still don't have a democrat candidate? The only thing the odds point to is that there was a rush on people putting bets one way or another. It's weird in 2019 to still see the bookies as some form of truth-teller; any system that basically would let you put money on Leo Varadkar being the next US President ain't scientific

Nody

pixelburp wrote: »

How on earth can the bookies be seen as indicators when we still don't have a democrat candidate? The only thing the odds point to is that there was a rush on people putting bets one way or another. It's weird in 2019 to still see the bookies as some form of truth-teller; any system that basically would let you put money on Leo Varadkar being the next US President ain't scientific

I don't think anyone claims it as scientific system with exact controls and peer review in place but it has been more accurate overall compared to the polls viewing it over time. Hence it's the closest gauge available as it's action driven (who puts their money were their mouth is on who's going to win) rather then interview based.

pixelburp

Nody wrote: »

I don't think anyone claims it as scientific system with exact controls and peer review in place but it has been more accurate overall compared to the polls viewing it over time. Hence it's the closest gauge available as it's action driven (who puts their money were their mouth is on who's going to win) rather then interview based.

Can you give examples? Because if it's not scientific, and can be manipulated as easily as simply having enough people place bets on Candidate X, then what value can it possibly bring in terms of accuracy? Feels more like an exercise in reinforcing a bias or preference, or maybe just a fun little distraction, but IMO can't tell us anything except how fluctuating peoples' moods can be (heck, isn't gambling illegal in some/many states anyway? Limiting the pool)

Nody

pixelburp wrote: »

Can you give examples? Because if it's not scientific, and can be manipulated as easily as simply having enough people place bets on Candidate X, then what value can it possibly bring in terms of accuracy? Feels more like an exercise in reinforcing a bias or preference, or maybe just a fun little distraction, but IMO can't tell us anything except how fluctuating peoples' moods can be (heck, isn't gambling illegal in some/many states anyway? Limiting the pool)

Of course it can be manipulated; same way that polls are manipulated by making assumptions based on the people who answered but in general if people are putting money on something they don't tend to do it for the fun of it to throw it away.

But to give you an example I'm using Don's election:

With only two weeks left in the campaign, Clinton was a -550 favorite to Donald Trump's +350 odds. After the new email news broke, the former Secretary of State is now listed at -300 with Trump's odds increasing to +200.

In terms of probability, -300 means the books give Clinton a 75% chance of becoming president compared with an 85% chance at -550. For Trump, the change increases the implied probability from 23.5% to a 33% chance that he'll win the election on November 8.

The full articles with historical data are here. Now comparing this with the polls at the same time frame located on Wikipedia (which I'll assume are true because there's no reason to fake information at this stage) every poll with the odd exception has Hillary winning even if you deduct their margin of error. Comparing this to the betting site which had a 25% to 33% chance of Don winning vs. all polls claiming Hillary would win it even within margin of error on the polls.

Does this make the poll or betting scientifically accurate? Of course not; all I'm saying is that the betting firms appear to end up closer to the truth than polling does these days and that betting firms tend to react faster to what happens on the ground so to speak. Neither should be taken as scientifically proven data but rather use as to gauge a general direction on a topic by the public. It is open for manipulation, it is open for failing if one side would be against gambling/secluded community etc. but for large topics such as major elections it provides a gauge how things appear to lean.

is_that_so

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So I see that correy Booker is asking the DNC to change the rules to allow him onto the stage of the upcoming debate which he isn’t on. I hope the DNC hold firm as the field was too big to begin with and they have to narrow the field and I assume these rules were set out in advance ?

I hope he’ll do the right thing and drop out. It will leave the democratic field with no African American candidate and two people of colour and while that’s regrettable, if he was connecting with the voters he’d be higher in the polls and would have raised more money which he has done neiher. Surely booker wants to be on the stage on Merit and having fulfilled the criteria and not as a token candidate. At least you’d hope that’s his thinking.

Dems really need to stay away from the race card minefield in this election. There's a pretty vile white man in office and they need someone to beat him. Booker clearly isn't that man and nor was Harris. He should let it go and come back in four years.

Water John

The key for the Dems is the right person and getting the Dem voters to the polling stations. The Dems will win if they get there supporters to vote.

4068ac1elhodqr

Rjd2 wrote: »

He's a lay now I think. I could be wrong but in the vast majority of polls v the 2 dem front runners biden and bernie isn't he behind in the battleground states?

Has just gone even shorter from yesterday's shortening. 1.72with PP today (evens aren't available anywhere), that is perhaps the most likely DT has ever been to winning again in 2020.

Perhaps what has just occured has rallied every Rep supporter to get out and vote (like kicking a bees nest) in rain, wind, storm or tornado.

4068ac1elhodqr

Water John wrote: »

The key for the Dems is the right person and getting the Dem voters to the polling stations. The Dems will win if they get there supporters to vote.

Vice-versa, Dems will actually loose if they don't get everyone out, as after this week you can be assured anyone one the fence of Rep, will be considering jumping in.

rossie1977

Paddy power still makes Dems favourite to win 2020 @ 10/11, Republicans are 5/6 https://www.paddypower.com/politics/2020-us-presidential-election

4068ac1elhodqr

rossie1977 wrote: »

Paddy power still makes Dems favourite to win 2020 @ 10/11, Republicans are 5/6 https://www.paddypower.com/politics/2020-us-presidential-election

They still have x5 potential runners (risk diversion), whereas DT is somewhat irreplaceable for the Reps. With just one candidate there are more risks with health and so on.

1.72 is super low/short:

osarusan

rossie1977 wrote: »

Paddy power still makes Dems favourite to win 2020 @ 10/11, Republicans are 5/6 https://www.paddypower.com/politics/2020-us-presidential-election

Those odds make Republicans favourites, if they're correct.


5/6 is shorter than 10/11.

4068ac1elhodqr

osarusan wrote: »

Those odds make Republicans favourites, if they're correct.
5/6 is shorter than 10/11.

Another reason to use 'decimal based pricing' and up to date odds.
Market: Winning party:

Rep 1.83
Dem 1.9

So, yes Rep (even with 1 candidate) are actually shorter than any Dem (with larger pool) to win.

Incumbent is always favourite.

Buttigieg is a scumbag. Corporate democrat hoodwinking poor people into thinking he cares about them.

4068ac1elhodqr

Deleted User wrote: »

Incumbent is always favourite.

Wasn't the across-the-board favourite (market below 2.0) until this week.
Like it or not, it looks like he was give a 'peach' of a head start.

eire4

Deleted User wrote: »

Buttigieg is a scumbag. Corporate democrat hoodwinking poor people into thinking he cares about them.

He is what the Democrat leadership is a corporate owned entity who will do their bidding and other then some crumbs and nice sound bites could care less about what is in the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans. As I have said before the economic difference between the parties is the Republicans work for and at the behest of the richest 1% and major corporations. The Democrats maybe the richest 20% and Buttigieg is very much part and parcel of that Corporate Democrat party. The lesser evil sure but still nonetheless someone who does not care about the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans.

peddlelies

Deleted User wrote: »

Buttigieg is a scumbag. Corporate democrat hoodwinking poor people into thinking he cares about them.

Felt that about O'Rourke and Harris, never Buttigieg though. He's a vet and comes across, at least to me, as genuine and a decent person.