Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?

[GuitarStv]

This is interesting.   Trump has to front 7.9M USD if he wants a recount in Wisconsin.   If the recount costs less, they will generously refund the difference.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/16/politics/wisconsin-recount-estimated-cost/index.html

Will Trump put up or shut up?    I'd bet on neither.   No way he's going to spend almost 8M on a losing battle when he has pending financial troubles.    Instead he'll complain about it being unfair and a liberal conspiracy.

Kind of a genius move on their part.

Trump has repeatedly boasted about how much he's personally worth - a pittance like they're asking for to perform an unnecessary recount seems quite reasonable.  Making sure he pays in advance is just good business practice when dealing with an untrustworthy individual with a history of failing to make good on his debts.

[Montecarlo]

Just to make you aware, I flagged your post as baiting and manipulative.  I could really care less about your obvious tactics to inflame some sort of race thing, but I’m not biting.  Sorry.

Sorry that’s your reaction

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Just to make you aware, I flagged your post as baiting and manipulative.  I could really care less about your obvious tactics to inflame some sort of race thing, but I’m not biting.  Sorry.

Sorry that’s your reaction

Meh

[Travis]

Meanwhile, while I argue with some random person on the internet about Trump, Covid cases continue to surge in my locality.  Thanks Trump for being such an awesome President!  You have managed to kill more fellow Americans with your incompetence and narcissism than any actual war against a foreign aggressor.  I can only hope and pray that this Presidency ends before January since all you are doing now is adding to the domestic body count...  I would prefer that less Americans die, but Trump really does not seem to be paying attention anymore.

The governor and Lt. governor seem to be very much behind Trump even now, limited ballot locations, and practically jumped with joy when Biden's bus convoy was attacked.

[FIPurpose]

I can't respond to everything people have written, but we can just say that I disagree with the story some of you are telling.

The counter arguments people have presented are:

1. Biden will be the incumbent
2. He'll fix covid
3. The economy will probably be better
4. The GOP doesn't have anyone

My arguments are:

1. Biden doesn't have a base of strong supporters
2. His election this year was extremely close despite Pop Vote.
3. Biden will be dealing with a split legislature that will slow roll him
4. He'll be old
5. He won't have the anti-Trump vote anymore (given Trump doesn't run again)
6. Based on how he ran his primary campaign and general election, there's no proof he can actually build ground support.

If you feel the pro's outweigh the cons, fine. That's the story you believe. To me, it comes out 50/50 in my mind.

I don't think Doug Jones was ever going to win re-election, not ever from the moment he won the off-cycle. But there is absolutely no reason that Dem's should have lost Maine. And they should have been strong contenders for NC, MT, and IA. There were strategy mistakes pouring tons of money into Kentucky and South Carolina, but also there was a messaging mistake from the top. Biden ran on a message of reconciliation. That works for electing Biden, but voters followed exactly that message. "Trump is the problem, not the GOP Senate". This is not a good start to Biden's ability to pull the right political levers. If the Dem's want to start winning, they need to start investing today. Maybe not in Alabama, but in other states where they can build a coalition like in KS, IA, MT, NC, OH, and FL. Dem's sacrificed everything to win the White House, so they got what they paid for.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I can't respond to everything people have written, but we can just say that I disagree with the story some of you are telling.

The counter arguments people have presented are:

1. Biden will be the incumbent
2. He'll fix covid
3. The economy will probably be better
4. The GOP doesn't have anyone

My arguments are:

1. Biden doesn't have a base of strong supporters
2. His election this year was extremely close despite Pop Vote.
3. Biden will be dealing with a split legislature that will slow roll him
4. He'll be old
5. He won't have the anti-Trump vote anymore (given Trump doesn't run again)
6. Based on how he ran his primary campaign and general election, there's no proof he can actually build ground support.

If you feel the pro's outweigh the cons, fine. That's the story you believe. To me, it comes out 50/50 in my mind.

I don't think Doug Jones was ever going to win re-election, not ever from the moment he won the off-cycle. But there is absolutely no reason that Dem's should have lost Maine. And they should have been strong contenders for NC, MT, and IA. There were strategy mistakes pouring tons of money into Kentucky and South Carolina, but also there was a messaging mistake from the top. Biden ran on a message of reconciliation. That works for electing Biden, but voters followed exactly that message. "Trump is the problem, not the GOP Senate". This is not a good start to Biden's ability to pull the right political levers. If the Dem's want to start winning, they need to start investing today. Maybe not in Alabama, but in other states where they can build a coalition like in KS, IA, MT, NC, OH, and FL. Dem's sacrificed everything to win the White House, so they got what they paid for.

Just a couple of things. One, I think the idea that reconciliation helped Biden but hurt the Democrats overall is an interesting one. What would you have thought the message should be, and who should have presented it?

I also wanted to mention that, to pick on NC for example, the Democrats did put a lot of money in NC as far as I could tell. They lost at least in part because of the bad luck of Cunnigham's affair coming out last minute. I don't know what more they could have done in the circumstances. Other states have a different story, but I do think they tried to win the true battleground states like NC (as opposed to wasted money in SC, which at least in retrospect, it seems pretty obvious it was).

[FIPurpose]

Just a couple of things. One, I think the idea that reconciliation helped Biden but hurt the Democrats overall is an interesting one. What would you have thought the message should be, and who should have presented it?

I think a better message would've been to tie the GOP Senate to Trump's actions. Force the GOP Senators to defend their decisions to stand by and say nothing to everything Trump was doing. Tie Collins to her record of nodding along with Trump and McConnell. The decisions the GOP in the Senate make are pretty unpopular, so tell the electorate what the GOP are doing and what they have done. Tell them how the GOP's choices have stalled legislation and what bills have been prevented from becoming law.

None of that was used. Instead, Biden is playing in the past thinking that these Senators are Statesmen and that apparently a Collins or any of the rest of the GOP are just as good to work with as the rest of them. I don't think I ever heard him mention once the errors of the GOP. It was all squarely on Trump.

[BicycleB]

Tying Senate Dems to Trump makes sense to me. Especially if it means tying them to Trump policies, like attacking health care. Dems have and should strengthen an advantage there.

Long term, they need to stand for something that most voters respect. Many voters don’t believe Dems are really “for” them, even on issues where Dems are the ones helping ordinary people. Campaigning / organizing in key states a la Stacy Abrams could make a big difference in that. It would also strengthen actual participative democracy!

[nereo]

I can't respond to everything people have written, but we can just say that I disagree with the story some of you are telling.

The counter arguments people have presented are:

1. Biden will be the incumbent
2. He'll fix covid
3. The economy will probably be better
4. The GOP doesn't have anyone

My arguments are:

1. Biden doesn't have a base of strong supporters
2. His election this year was extremely close despite Pop Vote.
3. Biden will be dealing with a split legislature that will slow roll him
4. He'll be old
5. He won't have the anti-Trump vote anymore (given Trump doesn't run again)
6. Based on how he ran his primary campaign and general election, there's no proof he can actually build ground support.

Of course we can view things differently, there I agree with you completely. A few of your arguments I find compelling, while others I find contradict reality and even parrot the false narrative that the Trump Campaign has been using to attack Biden.

2a) I don’t believe Biden will “fix covid”, but I do think he’ll benefit tremendously from the most massive vaccine rollout which will occur in the first 6 months of his presidency.  Meanwhile, cases and deaths are and will likely be at an all time high during the final 60 days of the Trump presidency.  That’s going to be an amazing night-and-day comparison for the public.

1) Biden’s base.  This is perhaps the point I disagree with the most, and seems to simply echo the party/Trump line.  Biden won more votes than anyone else, period, and a larger share of the electorate than anyone in 4 generations, period.  Personally, I see lots of people who I’d classify as his ‘base’ - centrist democrats who are wary of the progressive extremes as well as the GOP of the previous 12 years.  You know... “the middle”.  Polling also shows strong positives for him within the party - not just now but consistently since 2008. 

2) Yes, several states were very close, but I still don’t see how that’s different from most other elections. Unlike Trump or W he convincingly won the popular vote, and remember W won re-election fairly easily.

3) Split legislature (likely, but not certain) will be through 2022.  It’s anyone’s guess what will happen in 2024.  Worth noting that the GOP has a particularly hard senate map for 2022, where they have to defend 20 of the 33 available seats, including two retiring (open).

4) I don’t get the ‘old’ argument. Feinstein and Pelosi and Grassly and about two dozen others are older, and they consistently get re-elected.

5) True, if there’s no Trump he won’t have the anti-Trump backers... but what about the flip-side, that the GOP won’t have the pro-Trump voters either, who are bitter about his loss and often agnostic about other GOP candidates

6) the ‘ground-game’ argument seems weakest to me.  Remember - Biden isn’t some political newbie.  He was in the legislature for 3 decades before running as VP with Obama. He beat out a whole bunch of rivals to become Obama’s running mate for a reason (e.g. popularity within the party, perceived effectiveness as a running-mate). He’s one of the most experienced politicians there is, and he built a deep base of support during his 5 terms as a Senator.  His approach to this campaign was far more disciplined than his detractors expected, and seemed to match the national mood (Covid Lockdown) perfectly.  In other words, his approach was a feature, not a bug - and I see little reason to think he can’t run a traditional campaign.

Re: Maine and Collins - as someone who lives here, I understand perfectly why Collins won.  She was able to effectively localize the race once lockdown hit, and her position in the Senate and her ability to get the PPP passed were huge wins.  That’s the power of the incumbent right there.  Collins was also able to be fairly effective at labeling Gideon “from away” (as we say) since she originated from RI.  That matters a great deal to a lot of people here in this intensely nativist state.

[talltexan]

Uhh Not taking away from Biden's Popular Vote total which is impressive, but in terms of how close this victory was, Biden won by 3 states WI, AZ, and GA. If Biden lost those states, then he would have lost the election: The total difference in votes as of today is about

AZ: +11k
WI: +20k
GA: +14k

So a total of 55k votes separated the Biden win over Trump. In 2016, Trump won with

WI: +22k
MI: +11k
PA: +44k

So a total of about 77k votes.

By the electoral college standards, Trump won with a bigger margin in 2016 than Biden did this time. So unless you want to claim that Trump's 2016 win was by some equally huuuge margin, then you're kidding yourself. This was an extremely close election that could just have easily become our country's biggest popular vote upset. So yes, Biden's position is extremely precarious.

The only way out of this mess is by getting the country to move to a popular vote election. Because Joe Biden winning by an additional +700k in CA over Hillary Clinton means diddly squat if 10k WI decide they don't like Joe that much to back him again.

Couple of points:
- why didn't you include Biden's win in PA? (currently at 67331, I believe)
- the popular count is far from complete. New York just STARTED counting absentee ballots last week.

1. See above, AZ, WI, and GA alone would have had Biden lose the election and they were the closest states. (Those states flipping would have caused an electoral college tie, which I believe 90% chance Trump would've won.)

2. Popular vote doesn't matter when determining who becomes president. That's my whole point here.

I accept that we use the electoral college, and--personally--I'm not even sure I want to change that.

The popular vote still has salience as far as representing a general feeling. Presidents seek to preserve their political capital--basically popularity--and spend it trying to achieve certain goals. Having a President who is deeply unpopular makes other things harder.

[ender]

2a) I don’t believe Biden will “fix covid”, but I do think he’ll benefit tremendously from the most massive vaccine rollout which will occur in the first 6 months of his presidency.  Meanwhile, cases and deaths are and will likely be at an all time high during the final 60 days of the Trump presidency.  That’s going to be an amazing night-and-day comparison for the public.

Many people I know who voted Biden did so, among other reasons, because they believed Trump mishandled the covid response.

It's unclear to me how much this was a contributing factor but for a lot of people I know who voted Trump 2016 who changed in 2020, covid's response was a major factor for that vote switch.

1) Biden’s base.  This is perhaps the point I disagree with the most, and seems to simply echo the party/Trump line.  Biden won more votes than anyone else, period, and a larger share of the electorate than anyone in 4 generations, period.  Personally, I see lots of people who I’d classify as his ‘base’ - centrist democrats who are wary of the progressive extremes as well as the GOP of the previous 12 years.  You know... “the middle”.  Polling also shows strong positives for him within the party - not just now but consistently since 2008.

One thing to consider is it's impossible to tell votes from the category of:

• Vote for Democrat
• Vote against Trump
• Vote for Biden, specifically

We don't know which of those is the reason Biden got votes.

Biden got more votes, sure. But he was also up against the most polarizing and disliked candidate in... well, perhaps ever.

5) True, if there’s no Trump he won’t have the anti-Trump backers... but what about the flip-side, that the GOP won’t have the pro-Trump voters either, who are bitter about his loss and often agnostic about other GOP candidates

I am curious about what happens to both parties.

Trump, I think, has held the Republican party "together" for some time now but him losing is going to leave a void that I do not quite know what will  happen.

Democrats on the other hand have a split of progressive/moderate that has been easily united by universal dislike of Trump.

[caracarn]

2a) I don’t believe Biden will “fix covid”, but I do think he’ll benefit tremendously from the most massive vaccine rollout which will occur in the first 6 months of his presidency.  Meanwhile, cases and deaths are and will likely be at an all time high during the final 60 days of the Trump presidency.  That’s going to be an amazing night-and-day comparison for the public.

Many people I know who voted Biden did so, among other reasons, because they believed Trump mishandled the covid response.

It's unclear to me how much this was a contributing factor but for a lot of people I know who voted Trump 2016 who changed in 2020, covid's response was a major factor for that vote switch.

1) Biden’s base.  This is perhaps the point I disagree with the most, and seems to simply echo the party/Trump line.  Biden won more votes than anyone else, period, and a larger share of the electorate than anyone in 4 generations, period.  Personally, I see lots of people who I’d classify as his ‘base’ - centrist democrats who are wary of the progressive extremes as well as the GOP of the previous 12 years.  You know... “the middle”.  Polling also shows strong positives for him within the party - not just now but consistently since 2008.

One thing to consider is it's impossible to tell votes from the category of:

• Vote for Democrat
• Vote against Trump
• Vote for Biden, specifically

We don't know which of those is the reason Biden got votes.

Biden got more votes, sure. But he was also up against the most polarizing and disliked candidate in... well, perhaps ever.

And did Trump only win in 2016 becaue he was also up against the 2nd most polarizing and disliked candidate in... well, perhaps ever?

[FIPurpose]

2a) I don’t believe Biden will “fix covid”, but I do think he’ll benefit tremendously from the most massive vaccine rollout which will occur in the first 6 months of his presidency.  Meanwhile, cases and deaths are and will likely be at an all time high during the final 60 days of the Trump presidency.  That’s going to be an amazing night-and-day comparison for the public.

I hope that this is the outcome as well. I imagine though that it will be long forgotten by the time 2024 rolls around. He can use it as proof of his ability, but at the same time people will be onto new problems.

2) Yes, several states were very close, but I still don’t see how that’s different from most other elections. Unlike Trump or W he convincingly won the popular vote, and remember W won re-election fairly easily.

I think too often we remember the popular vote as the story. Which will be the story for Biden going forward. He got a bunch of votes and was really popular. That helps him in 2024. People like voting for winners. But Bush's re-election electorally was even closer. Something like 3 states by a total margin of about 35k votes? There was a lot of speculation at the time that Kerry would win without the popular vote and for good reason, it was an extremely close race.

4) I don’t get the ‘old’ argument. Feinstein and Pelosi and Grassly and about two dozen others are older, and they consistently get re-elected.

I don't think this is comparable. People don't have the same standards for Legislators as they do for President (though maybe they should!) A president being too old is a much bigger deal than a senator or congressman. I remember when I was a kid seeing Robert Byrd from West Virginia on CSPAN one time, coming back to the Senate from a hospital stay. The man was in a wheelchair, on oxygen, the works, and I remember thinking "Dude, retire already!" The voters don't seem to care if a senator isn't able to perform their job because they still have an expectation that the work will continue even without them. The president's job is simply a different beast.

6) the ‘ground-game’ argument seems weakest to me.  Remember - Biden isn’t some political newbie.  He was in the legislature for 3 decades before running as VP with Obama. He beat out a whole bunch of rivals to become Obama’s running mate for a reason (e.g. popularity within the party, perceived effectiveness as a running-mate). He’s one of the most experienced politicians there is, and he built a deep base of support during his 5 terms as a Senator.  His approach to this campaign was far more disciplined than his detractors expected, and seemed to match the national mood (Covid Lockdown) perfectly.  In other words, his approach was a feature, not a bug - and I see little reason to think he can’t run a traditional campaign.

Biden's first election to the Senate in 1972 was him beating the incumbent. After that, he basically won the rest +60%. Biden is from a safe Dem state. I don't think that it takes nothing to win re-election, but I've now lived in both safe-R and safe-D states and can say that politicians who are in safe seats don't really run big campaigns. They run some maintenance work and a little due diligence and glide to victory without a sweat. You're right though, Biden's biggest asset is that he is pretty universally seen as a "good guy". Maybe that'll be enough for him in 2024, or maybe people will just shrug.

Re: Maine and Collins - as someone who lives here, I understand perfectly why Collins won.  She was able to effectively localize the race once lockdown hit, and her position in the Senate and her ability to get the PPP passed were huge wins.  That’s the power of the incumbent right there.  Collins was also able to be fairly effective at labeling Gideon “from away” (as we say) since she originated from RI.  That matters a great deal to a lot of people here in this intensely nativist state.

I lived in Maine for a year a couple years ago. I really understand you when you talk about the Nativist bent that a lot of people have there. It honestly was probably my #1 annoyance living there. I just didn't think that it would work against the state Speaker, since you know, she's basically at the State's #3 spot, if she's not a "True Main-a" then who is? I hear some rumblings about LePage trying to run again. But with the Ranked Choice voting now, I can't imagine him ever winning again.

[nereo]

2) Yes, several states were very close, but I still don’t see how that’s different from most other elections. Unlike Trump or W he convincingly won the popular vote, and remember W won re-election fairly easily.

I think too often we remember the popular vote as the story. Which will be the story for Biden going forward. He got a bunch of votes and was really popular. That helps him in 2024. People like voting for winners. But Bush's re-election electorally was even closer. Something like 3 states by a total margin of about 35k votes? There was a lot of speculation at the time that Kerry would win without the popular vote and for good reason, it was an extremely close race.

Huh?  W. Increased his margins, both in the EC and the popular vote, winning a majority for the first time in 4 elections. The power of the incumbent. Sure, the Dems had a chance but they fielded one of the most experienced and respected senators (and a boba fide war hero) and it wasn’t enough. He got “swift boated” and couldn’t win against the man who has the most controversial election in over a century.

[EricEng]

Not responding to if you are right or wrong, but the bigger picture is that the EC is totally outdated.  I am exhausted with living in a state where my 'protest vote' is meaningless.

Well if it is any conciliation Texas demographics are changing steadily.  Give it another 10-20 years and Repubs will never win a presidential election again if we are still doing EC instead of popular vote.  Texas will either be solid blue or it will be the only swing state that matters.  38 EC becomes 76 point swing.  It will drown out everything.

Republicans need to move away from EC if they want a future long term.

I would NOT count on this, as if the 2020 election and it's total overestimate of a blue shift in TX didn't tell us we can't count on demographic change to benefit one party.  You can't count on any monolithic Latino vote or younger voters to be or stay liberal, or anything like that.  It's not inevitable.  It will take a lot of successful work, which the Dems aren't really good at.

100% agree with this.  Texas is nowhere near close to flipping or even becoming a consistent swing state (though I could see swing state status becoming a thing in ~20 years....maybe), despite the tiresome talk about it year after year after year by Dem strategists.  Our city (home to a major university) went 2:1 Trump:Biden, and even the traditional 'blue' counties in the Trans Pecos and Rio Grande Valley mostly went red this year.  There are simply too many evangelicals and socially conservative Catholics (including a lot of the LatinX vote) in Texas for it to be in play any time soon.

Simply look at Texas voting history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_Texas
They used to be consistently around 60% for Republican candidate.  Now they are trailing around low 50s with a huge ground game by Repubs and 0 ground game by Dems which is thought to be part of why they lost Latino vote so bad.  They just didn't reach out to them.

http://www.sahcc.org/wp-content/uploads/Texas-Population-Growth-Projections-and-Implications.pdf
The key is they can't keep Texas by simply appeasing to white voters either.  The state is going to be 65% lationo soon (check that graphic to see how dramatic of change) and much of the white demographic will mostly be older and (getting even older).  Yes, Latino voters are not a straight win for Democrats, but it is a lot stronger position than they have with old white voters.  Latino vote also rests on just a couple issues which could make them easier to change than old white voters who are very set in their way.

Doesn't matter if people always say Texas will be in play and you don't believe it because it hasn't happened yet.  Fact is demographics are changing fast and no one knows how that will shake out for certain except that things will change.  At the very least Repubs will have to step lightly to not put off Latino voters, similar issue in Florida.

[FIPurpose]

2) Yes, several states were very close, but I still don’t see how that’s different from most other elections. Unlike Trump or W he convincingly won the popular vote, and remember W won re-election fairly easily.

I think too often we remember the popular vote as the story. Which will be the story for Biden going forward. He got a bunch of votes and was really popular. That helps him in 2024. People like voting for winners. But Bush's re-election electorally was even closer. Something like 3 states by a total margin of about 35k votes? There was a lot of speculation at the time that Kerry would win without the popular vote and for good reason, it was an extremely close race.

Huh?  W. Increased his margins, both in the EC and the popular vote, winning a majority for the first time in 4 elections. The power of the incumbent. Sure, the Dems had a chance but they fielded one of the most experienced and respected senators (and a boba fide war hero) and it wasn’t enough. He got “swift boated” and couldn’t win against the man who has the most controversial election in over a century.

Ok re-looking at it, the 35k vote margin in NV, NM, and IA would only have led to a tie, which I basically always consider a GOP win. But the race still came down to basically Bush's 2% margin in Ohio (Bush only won 286-251, so OH's 20 EV's would have flipped the election). Which is why people were thinking Bush might win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. Bush won by 3MM votes, but Ohio was only carried by about 100k votes.

To some extent Kerry was a bit like Dole. Someone who would probably make a decent president, but doesn't excite people enough to actually get out and vote for them.

[nereo]

2) Yes, several states were very close, but I still don’t see how that’s different from most other elections. Unlike Trump or W he convincingly won the popular vote, and remember W won re-election fairly easily.

I think too often we remember the popular vote as the story. Which will be the story for Biden going forward. He got a bunch of votes and was really popular. That helps him in 2024. People like voting for winners. But Bush's re-election electorally was even closer. Something like 3 states by a total margin of about 35k votes? There was a lot of speculation at the time that Kerry would win without the popular vote and for good reason, it was an extremely close race.

Huh?  W. Increased his margins, both in the EC and the popular vote, winning a majority for the first time in 4 elections. The power of the incumbent. Sure, the Dems had a chance but they fielded one of the most experienced and respected senators (and a boba fide war hero) and it wasn’t enough. He got “swift boated” and couldn’t win against the man who has the most controversial election in over a century.

Ok re-looking at it, the 35k vote margin in NV, NM, and IA would only have led to a tie, which I basically always consider a GOP win. But the race still came down to basically Bush's 2% margin in Ohio (Bush only won 286-251, so OH's 20 EV's would have flipped the election). Which is why people were thinking Bush might win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. Bush won by 3MM votes, but Ohio was only carried by about 100k votes.

To some extent Kerry was a bit like Dole. Someone who would probably make a decent president, but doesn't excite people enough to actually get out and vote for them.

Yes, but your argument seems to be that Biden will do worse in 2024 than he did this year, and you used W as an example. You’re example contradicts your premise as W did substantially better in ‘04 than in ‘00. FWIW the same can be said about Reagan and Clinton as well.

[FIPurpose]

2) Yes, several states were very close, but I still don’t see how that’s different from most other elections. Unlike Trump or W he convincingly won the popular vote, and remember W won re-election fairly easily.

I think too often we remember the popular vote as the story. Which will be the story for Biden going forward. He got a bunch of votes and was really popular. That helps him in 2024. People like voting for winners. But Bush's re-election electorally was even closer. Something like 3 states by a total margin of about 35k votes? There was a lot of speculation at the time that Kerry would win without the popular vote and for good reason, it was an extremely close race.

Huh?  W. Increased his margins, both in the EC and the popular vote, winning a majority for the first time in 4 elections. The power of the incumbent. Sure, the Dems had a chance but they fielded one of the most experienced and respected senators (and a boba fide war hero) and it wasn’t enough. He got “swift boated” and couldn’t win against the man who has the most controversial election in over a century.

Ok re-looking at it, the 35k vote margin in NV, NM, and IA would only have led to a tie, which I basically always consider a GOP win. But the race still came down to basically Bush's 2% margin in Ohio (Bush only won 286-251, so OH's 20 EV's would have flipped the election). Which is why people were thinking Bush might win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. Bush won by 3MM votes, but Ohio was only carried by about 100k votes.

To some extent Kerry was a bit like Dole. Someone who would probably make a decent president, but doesn't excite people enough to actually get out and vote for them.

Yes, but your argument seems to be that Biden will do worse in 2024 than he did this year, and you used W as an example. You’re example contradicts your premise as W did substantially better in ‘04 than in ‘00. FWIW the same can be said about Reagan and Clinton as well.

Err no.

My argument is that the popular vote only tells a piece of the story. And even Bush's win, electorally, was close. There was a very real possibility that Bush could have lost but still won the popular vote. And we also have the examples of Trump, Obama, HW, and Carter who all did worse their 2nd time around. So I'm not sure that there's a strong case that incumbents tend to do better than their first run.

[nereo]

Either Biden will do worse in 2024, or he will be re-elected.  To me it’s just as straightfoward as that.  Sure it’s possible he could win a majority of votes and beat his opponent by 3% and still lose the EC, but that seems unlikely. 

Bush improved in every metric during his re-election - hence why it’s a strange example to use.  Carter and HW (and Hoover) were victims of recessions, among other things. 

As for Trump - the fact that he lost given all his inherent tailwinds suggests that either Biden was an abnormally strong opponent or that Trump was an abnormally weak president.  If it’s the former - why would that change? If it’s the latter - what does that say about the GOP, and how can they avoid it in 2024?

[wenchsenior]

Not responding to if you are right or wrong, but the bigger picture is that the EC is totally outdated.  I am exhausted with living in a state where my 'protest vote' is meaningless.

Well if it is any conciliation Texas demographics are changing steadily.  Give it another 10-20 years and Repubs will never win a presidential election again if we are still doing EC instead of popular vote.  Texas will either be solid blue or it will be the only swing state that matters.  38 EC becomes 76 point swing.  It will drown out everything.

Republicans need to move away from EC if they want a future long term.

I would NOT count on this, as if the 2020 election and it's total overestimate of a blue shift in TX didn't tell us we can't count on demographic change to benefit one party.  You can't count on any monolithic Latino vote or younger voters to be or stay liberal, or anything like that.  It's not inevitable.  It will take a lot of successful work, which the Dems aren't really good at.

100% agree with this.  Texas is nowhere near close to flipping or even becoming a consistent swing state (though I could see swing state status becoming a thing in ~20 years....maybe), despite the tiresome talk about it year after year after year by Dem strategists.  Our city (home to a major university) went 2:1 Trump:Biden, and even the traditional 'blue' counties in the Trans Pecos and Rio Grande Valley mostly went red this year.  There are simply too many evangelicals and socially conservative Catholics (including a lot of the LatinX vote) in Texas for it to be in play any time soon.

Simply look at Texas voting history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_Texas
They used to be consistently around 60% for Republican candidate.  Now they are trailing around low 50s with a huge ground game by Repubs and 0 ground game by Dems which is thought to be part of why they lost Latino vote so bad.  They just didn't reach out to them.

http://www.sahcc.org/wp-content/uploads/Texas-Population-Growth-Projections-and-Implications.pdf
The key is they can't keep Texas by simply appeasing to white voters either.  The state is going to be 65% lationo soon (check that graphic to see how dramatic of change) and much of the white demographic will mostly be older and (getting even older).  Yes, Latino voters are not a straight win for Democrats, but it is a lot stronger position than they have with old white voters.  Latino vote also rests on just a couple issues which could make them easier to change than old white voters who are very set in their way.

Doesn't matter if people always say Texas will be in play and you don't believe it because it hasn't happened yet.  Fact is demographics are changing fast and no one knows how that will shake out for certain except that things will change.  At the very least Repubs will have to step lightly to not put off Latino voters, similar issue in Florida.

I sincerely hope that swing state status happens much sooner than the 20 or more years out that I'm predicting.  I hope you are correct.  I also hope to be long gone from this state by then, but time will tell.

[scottish]

Either Biden will do worse in 2024, or he will be re-elected.  To me it’s just as straightfoward as that.  Sure it’s possible he could win a majority of votes and beat his opponent by 3% and still lose the EC, but that seems unlikely. 

Bush improved in every metric during his re-election - hence why it’s a strange example to use.  Carter and HW (and Hoover) were victims of recessions, among other things. 

As for Trump - the fact that he lost given all his inherent tailwinds suggests that either Biden was an abnormally strong opponent or that Trump was an abnormally weak president.  If it’s the former - why would that change? If it’s the latter - what does that say about the GOP, and how can they avoid it in 2024?

Biden will turn 82 in 2024.     He and Mitch Mcconnell will both be long overdue for retirement.

[nereo]

Biden will turn 82 in 2024.     He and Mitch Mcconnell will both be long overdue for retirement.

Still younger than the pope is today.  Just sayin’...

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Biden decide to be a one-term president (I.e. not run for re-election)- particularly if the 2022 election goes in Dem’s favor.  But I think it would be a mistake to assume an octogenarian can’t be head of state in this day and age.

[middo]

Either Biden will do worse in 2024, or he will be re-elected.  To me it’s just as straightfoward as that.  Sure it’s possible he could win a majority of votes and beat his opponent by 3% and still lose the EC, but that seems unlikely. 

Bush improved in every metric during his re-election - hence why it’s a strange example to use.  Carter and HW (and Hoover) were victims of recessions, among other things. 

As for Trump - the fact that he lost given all his inherent tailwinds suggests that either Biden was an abnormally strong opponent or that Trump was an abnormally weak president.  If it’s the former - why would that change? If it’s the latter - what does that say about the GOP, and how can they avoid it in 2024?

Biden will turn 82 in 2024.     He and Mitch Mcconnell will both be long overdue for retirement.

It does make my idea of a compulsory retirement age for SCOTUS judges seem irrelevant.   In Australia they must retire at the age of 70.

[Travis]

Graham is still playing this twisted little game of his. He donates a crazy amount to Trump's legal team, repeats the 'stolen election' memes, plays nice with Harris, then calls up all the secretaries of state trolling them to find holes in their voting procedures for 'research.' Cut the shit and just admit you're using your position to do some fishing for Trump's lawsuits.

[former player]

Graham is still playing this twisted little game of his. He donates a crazy amount to Trump's legal team, repeats the 'stolen election' memes, plays nice with Harris, then calls up all the secretaries of state trolling them to find holes in their voting procedures for 'research.' Cut the shit and just admit you're using your position to do some fishing for Trump's lawsuits.

Graham is now on record as having lied about talking to the Secretaries of State in Arizona and Nevada and a third person who heard the call to Georgia's Secretary of State backs up his version not Graham's.  I wonder how the people of South Carolina are feeling now about having this person representing them in the Senate for another 6 years.

[OtherJen]

Graham is still playing this twisted little game of his. He donates a crazy amount to Trump's legal team, repeats the 'stolen election' memes, plays nice with Harris, then calls up all the secretaries of state trolling them to find holes in their voting procedures for 'research.' Cut the shit and just admit you're using your position to do some fishing for Trump's lawsuits.

Graham is now on record as having lied about talking to the Secretaries of State in Arizona and Nevada and a third person who heard the call to Georgia's Secretary of State backs up his version not Graham's.  I wonder how the people of South Carolina are feeling now about having this person representing them in the Senate for another 6 years.

One wonders if the SC election should be investigated. Graham certainly seems to be projecting rather emphatically.

[Travis]

Graham is still playing this twisted little game of his. He donates a crazy amount to Trump's legal team, repeats the 'stolen election' memes, plays nice with Harris, then calls up all the secretaries of state trolling them to find holes in their voting procedures for 'research.' Cut the shit and just admit you're using your position to do some fishing for Trump's lawsuits.

Graham is now on record as having lied about talking to the Secretaries of State in Arizona and Nevada and a third person who heard the call to Georgia's Secretary of State backs up his version not Graham's.  I wonder how the people of South Carolina are feeling now about having this person representing them in the Senate for another 6 years.

One wonders if the SC election should be investigated. Graham certainly seems to be projecting rather emphatically.

As long as they think he'll take care of the state they don't give a damn what he does on the national stage. McConnell has been the biggest impediment to the proper functioning of Congress for the last 10 years and Kentucky swept him in again.

[frugalnacho]

Trump still won't concede, so Jimmy Fallon cut together a concession speech for him.  This had me and my wife cracking up pretty good last night.  Starts at the 5:45 mark in case the link doesn't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8pGE1V1sI&t=5m45s

[sui generis]

Love that!

Also in the news yesterday, the Wayne county board of elections very nearly refused to certify the election by the deadline because of irregularities in Detroit. Fewer irregularities, mind you, than in the primaries in August, which they certified, and in other cities/precincts in the general, but this was apparently a last ditch effort to throw the state into chaos, allowing the republican legislature to humbly declare that they would just have to pick the electors. Under enormous pressure, the two Republicans gave in and they finally certified.

Also, my lawyer groups are all abuzz about two stories about Giuliani which I can hardly believe are true, but are apparently from observers to a court hearing, where he was asked about the level of scrutiny he was requesting and he said "the normal one" and also asked the judge if the definition of opacity is the exact opposite of what it actually is. For all his antics lately, the guy was at one time an accomplished lawyer... His mental health does not seem good. And the Trump team lawsuits are increasingly embarrassing. Of course, it continues to give Trump followers an excuse to believe the election was stolen so the real loser, as has been the case ever since Trump dipped his toes into politics, is America.

[OtherJen]

Love that!

Also in the news yesterday, the Wayne county board of elections very nearly refused to certify the election by the deadline because of irregularities in Detroit. Fewer irregularities, mind you, than in the primaries in August, which they certified, and in other cities/precincts in the general, but this was apparently a last ditch effort to throw the state into chaos, allowing the republican legislature to humbly declare that they would just have to pick the electors. Under enormous pressure, the two Republicans gave in and they finally certified.

Yep. Wayne County is where I live and vote and serve as a poll worker. The partisan and racist nature of the initial decision was incredibly offensive. I say racist because no one ever expected Detroit/Wayne County not to vote heavily for Biden. Trump actually picked up a couple of percentage points in Detroit this year, relative to 2016. However, no one is claiming voter fraud or seeking to block certification of the election in Kent County, on the other side of Michigan, which is heavily GOP but flipped in favor of Biden this year. The difference between the two locales? Detroit is 80% black. Grand Rapids, the seat of Kent County, is nearly 70% white. Also, one of the GOP canvassers (the one currently under investigation by the county for ethics violations) claimed that she would be happy to certify all of the precincts except those in Detroit.

I know that Trump has a big grudge against our state and its governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, as well as the reps in my district (Rashida Tlaib) and the next (Debbie Dingell), as he doesn't particularly like strong women who don't take his bullshit. That grudge is now manifesting in really absurd and damaging ways. It's amazing how many cult followers are still playing along.

[caracarn]

Love that!

Also in the news yesterday, the Wayne county board of elections very nearly refused to certify the election by the deadline because of irregularities in Detroit. Fewer irregularities, mind you, than in the primaries in August, which they certified, and in other cities/precincts in the general, but this was apparently a last ditch effort to throw the state into chaos, allowing the republican legislature to humbly declare that they would just have to pick the electors. Under enormous pressure, the two Republicans gave in and they finally certified.

Yep. Wayne County is where I live and vote and serve as a poll worker. The partisan and racist nature of the initial decision was incredibly offensive. I say racist because no one ever expected Detroit/Wayne County not to vote heavily for Biden. Trump actually picked up a couple of percentage points in Detroit this year, relative to 2016. However, no one is claiming voter fraud or seeking to block certification of the election in Kent County, on the other side of Michigan, which is heavily GOP but flipped in favor of Biden this year. The difference between the two locales? Detroit is 80% black. Grand Rapids, the seat of Kent County, is nearly 70% white. Also, one of the GOP canvassers (the one currently under investigation by the county for ethics violations) claimed that she would be happy to certify all of the precincts except those in Detroit.

I know that Trump has a big grudge against our state and its governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, as well as the reps in my district (Rashida Tlaib) and the next (Debbie Dingell), as he doesn't particularly like strong women who don't take his bullshit. That grudge is now manifesting in really absurd and damaging ways. It's amazing how many cult followers are still playing along.

Really sorry.  It had to be incredibly frustrating when it hits close to home like that trying to get your actual votes tossed or not included.  It is bad enough as we all grapple with this from afar in hypothetical "how would I feel" scenarios, but this has to be a whole new level.  Glad they came to their senses and you are past this but sorry you even had to experience it.

[OtherJen]

Love that!

Also in the news yesterday, the Wayne county board of elections very nearly refused to certify the election by the deadline because of irregularities in Detroit. Fewer irregularities, mind you, than in the primaries in August, which they certified, and in other cities/precincts in the general, but this was apparently a last ditch effort to throw the state into chaos, allowing the republican legislature to humbly declare that they would just have to pick the electors. Under enormous pressure, the two Republicans gave in and they finally certified.

Yep. Wayne County is where I live and vote and serve as a poll worker. The partisan and racist nature of the initial decision was incredibly offensive. I say racist because no one ever expected Detroit/Wayne County not to vote heavily for Biden. Trump actually picked up a couple of percentage points in Detroit this year, relative to 2016. However, no one is claiming voter fraud or seeking to block certification of the election in Kent County, on the other side of Michigan, which is heavily GOP but flipped in favor of Biden this year. The difference between the two locales? Detroit is 80% black. Grand Rapids, the seat of Kent County, is nearly 70% white. Also, one of the GOP canvassers (the one currently under investigation by the county for ethics violations) claimed that she would be happy to certify all of the precincts except those in Detroit.

I know that Trump has a big grudge against our state and its governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, as well as the reps in my district (Rashida Tlaib) and the next (Debbie Dingell), as he doesn't particularly like strong women who don't take his bullshit. That grudge is now manifesting in really absurd and damaging ways. It's amazing how many cult followers are still playing along.

Really sorry.  It had to be incredibly frustrating when it hits close to home like that trying to get your actual votes tossed or not included.  It is bad enough as we all grapple with this from afar in hypothetical "how would I feel" scenarios, but this has to be a whole new level.  Glad they came to their senses and you are past this but sorry you even had to experience it.

It was so frustrating. I do a lot of voter registration and education work locally. If the GOP had won last night's county battle, I couldn't imagine how my org would face the next classroom of high school seniors to convince them that their votes would count. Public officials were literally trying to make our ballots not count. I'm glad that this round of attempted voter disenfranchisement made the national news.

[talltexan]

Graham is still playing this twisted little game of his. He donates a crazy amount to Trump's legal team, repeats the 'stolen election' memes, plays nice with Harris, then calls up all the secretaries of state trolling them to find holes in their voting procedures for 'research.' Cut the shit and just admit you're using your position to do some fishing for Trump's lawsuits.

Graham is now on record as having lied about talking to the Secretaries of State in Arizona and Nevada and a third person who heard the call to Georgia's Secretary of State backs up his version not Graham's.  I wonder how the people of South Carolina are feeling now about having this person representing them in the Senate for another 6 years.

They're relieved they don't have the socialist. How could they ever have survived that?

[Travis]

Rudy to Judge: still not calling it fraud.
Judge to Rudy: then why are you still in my courtroom?
Rudy to Judge: to ask you to simply declare the election for Trump. Or get the legislature to do it.
Legislatures of three states: go home Rudy.

[sui generis]

And now the Republicans on that Wayne county board are trying to rescind their votes and decertify the election results. Is there no bottom for these people and this party?

[OtherJen]

And now the Republicans on that Wayne county board are trying to rescind their votes and decertify the election results. Is there no bottom for these people and this party?

No. They and the GOP are irredeemable in the present form. As a voter and election worker in Wayne County, I remain furious. This is entirely partisan and completely without merit. From the AP:

In Wayne County, the two Republican canvassers at first balked at certifying the vote, winning praise from Trump, and then reversed course after widespread condemnation. A person familiar with the matter said Trump reached out to the canvassers, Monica Palmer and William Hartmann, on Tuesday evening after the revised vote to express gratitude for their support. Then, on Wednesday, Palmer and Hartmann signed affidavits saying they believe the county vote “should not be certified.”

(Source: AP: Trump targets vote certification in late bid to block Biden

[JetBlast]

Also, my lawyer groups are all abuzz about two stories about Giuliani which I can hardly believe are true, but are apparently from observers to a court hearing, where he was asked about the level of scrutiny he was requesting and he said "the normal one" and also asked the judge if the definition of opacity is the exact opposite of what it actually is.

I’m not a lawyer nor have I ever taken any law classes, but I do frequently read scotusblog. Even I know when a judge asks about levels of scrutiny, “the normal one” is a catastrophic and hilariously poor answer.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Also, my lawyer groups are all abuzz about two stories about Giuliani which I can hardly believe are true, but are apparently from observers to a court hearing, where he was asked about the level of scrutiny he was requesting and he said "the normal one" and also asked the judge if the definition of opacity is the exact opposite of what it actually is.

I’m not a lawyer nor have I ever taken any law classes, but I do frequently read scotusblog. Even I know when a judge asks about levels of scrutiny, “the normal one” is a catastrophically and hilariously poor answer.

Guiliani was probably too busy tucking in his shirt to come up with a coherent answer.

[GuitarStv]

Lol . . . "tucking in his shirt".


:P

[JetBlast]

Also, my lawyer groups are all abuzz about two stories about Giuliani which I can hardly believe are true, but are apparently from observers to a court hearing, where he was asked about the level of scrutiny he was requesting and he said "the normal one" and also asked the judge if the definition of opacity is the exact opposite of what it actually is.

I’m not a lawyer nor have I ever taken any law classes, but I do frequently read scotusblog. Even I know when a judge asks about levels of scrutiny, “the normal one” is a catastrophically and hilariously poor answer.

Guiliani was probably too busy tucking in his shirt to come up with a coherent answer.

[bacchi]

The Guiliani press conference was comical. Even a "Daily Caller" reporter asked about the massive evidence and whether they were going to drag out the release.

The Trump campaign insists that it withdrew a MI lawsuit when they "won" in Wayne County. I guess that line works for those Trumpists who only read the first news story?

Non-lawyer followers: this litigation (in all the states) is truly blowing my mind.  It's as if you're playing chess and your opponent lets off a whoopie cushion, throws a Zebra Cake on the board, and then runs off without pants and says they won.  I don't know what else to say.

[nereo]

The Guiliani press conference was comical. Even a "Daily Caller" reporter asked about the massive evidence and whether they were going to drag out the release.

The Trump campaign insists that it withdrew a MI lawsuit when they "won" in Wayne County. I guess that line works for those Trumpists who only read the first news story?

Non-lawyer followers: this litigation (in all the states) is truly blowing my mind.  It's as if you're playing chess and your opponent lets off a whoopie cushion, throws a Zebra Cake on the board, and then runs off without pants and says they won.  I don't know what else to say.

Guilliani also said they won MI if people ignored the densely populated Wayne county.

I wonder how many elections would be flipped if the loser could choose one county to ignore? Certainly Gore and S Abrams. Probably HRC too.

[bacchi]

The Guiliani press conference was comical. Even a "Daily Caller" reporter asked about the massive evidence and whether they were going to drag out the release.

The Trump campaign insists that it withdrew a MI lawsuit when they "won" in Wayne County. I guess that line works for those Trumpists who only read the first news story?

Non-lawyer followers: this litigation (in all the states) is truly blowing my mind.  It's as if you're playing chess and your opponent lets off a whoopie cushion, throws a Zebra Cake on the board, and then runs off without pants and says they won.  I don't know what else to say.

Guilliani also said they won MI if people ignored the densely populated Wayne county.

I wonder how many elections would be flipped if the loser could choose one county to ignore? Certainly Gore and S Abrams. Probably HRC too.

Maybe the "throw shit on the wall" approach is an attempt to get one, just one, Q/based/red pilled Judge (per state) to agree with them?

There's certainly a media circus part of it, which sets up Trump for 2024 or TrumpTV, but surely the lawyers are flirting with Rule 11 sanctions.

[OtherJen]

The Guiliani press conference was comical. Even a "Daily Caller" reporter asked about the massive evidence and whether they were going to drag out the release.

The Trump campaign insists that it withdrew a MI lawsuit when they "won" in Wayne County. I guess that line works for those Trumpists who only read the first news story?

Non-lawyer followers: this litigation (in all the states) is truly blowing my mind.  It's as if you're playing chess and your opponent lets off a whoopie cushion, throws a Zebra Cake on the board, and then runs off without pants and says they won.  I don't know what else to say.

Guilliani also said they won MI if people ignored the densely populated Wayne county.

I wonder how many elections would be flipped if the loser could choose one county to ignore? Certainly Gore and S Abrams. Probably HRC too.

Maybe the "throw shit on the wall" approach is an attempt to get one, just one, Q/based/red pilled Judge (per state) to agree with them?

There's certainly a media circus part of it, which sets up Trump for 2024 or TrumpTV, but surely the lawyers are flirting with Rule 11 sanctions.

I'd think we reached that point at least a week ago.

[sui generis]

And ugh, Lara Trump says she's gonna run for senate in NC in 2022. We'll never be rid of this horrible family will we?

[nereo]

And ugh, Lara Trump says she's gonna run for senate in NC in 2022. We'll never be rid of this horrible family will we?

Depends on whether any of them win.   If a few run and fail this could all be a wannabe dynasty.  If the Trump name proves to be valueable (something DJT has been selling his entire life) then we’ll have many decades of this.

[desk_jockey]

And ugh, Lara Trump says she's gonna run for senate in NC in 2022. We'll never be rid of this horrible family will we?

Depends on whether any of them win.   If a few run and fail this could all be a wannabe dynasty.  If the Trump name proves to be valueable (something DJT has been selling his entire life) then we’ll have many decades of this.

Also depends on the results of any prosecution in the State of New York. 

[LaineyAZ]

The Arizona conservative talk radio spin on this post-election activity is basically, Well, if the situation was reversed the Democrats would be acting the same way.

And unfortunately I can see a lot of Republican voters nodding their heads with that suggestion.  I'd love it if someone would outline all of the ways that this is so very different than, e.g., the pushback in 2004 from the Democrats, but alas I think it would be another exercise in futility because facts just interfere with their  siege mentality that allows them to be constantly aggrieved. 

[JLee]

The Arizona conservative talk radio spin on this post-election activity is basically, Well, if the situation was reversed the Democrats would be acting the same way.

And unfortunately I can see a lot of Republican voters nodding their heads with that suggestion.  I'd love it if someone would outline all of the ways that this is so very different than, e.g., the pushback in 2004 from the Democrats, but alas I think it would be another exercise in futility because facts just interfere with their  siege mentality that allows them to be constantly aggrieved.

I had an extended family member share something on social media complaining about how the same people who spent four years refusing to accept the results of an election are now telling people to accept the results of the election. I pointed out that Clinton's concession speech was the morning after election day.  Shockingly, I did not get a response.

[LaineyAZ]

The Arizona conservative talk radio spin on this post-election activity is basically, Well, if the situation was reversed the Democrats would be acting the same way.

And unfortunately I can see a lot of Republican voters nodding their heads with that suggestion.  I'd love it if someone would outline all of the ways that this is so very different than, e.g., the pushback in 2004 from the Democrats, but alas I think it would be another exercise in futility because facts just interfere with their  siege mentality that allows them to be constantly aggrieved.

I had an extended family member share something on social media complaining about how the same people who spent four years refusing to accept the results of an election are now telling people to accept the results of the election. I pointed out that Clinton's concession speech was the morning after election day.  Shockingly, I did not get a response.

I have a friend whose hobby in retirement is to frequent the conservative forums and blogs just to refute these types of statements with the facts.

Earlier this year she mentioned the impeachment in something she typed, and immediately there were several right-wingers who claimed Trump was not impeached (!)    Turns out they think Impeached = Removed from office. 
It's an uphill slog but occasionally she gets someone who acknowledges what she said is true, so she's hoping that there's a few that she can rescue from the cult.