Texas will turn Blue by which election year?

[ctuser1]

I appreciate your feedback.  It doesn't seem like there's much appetite for an actual substantive discussion anymore so I'll leave you to your thread.

I'm seriously concerned (even scared) of the world where the sperm or the ovum are conferred "personhood"!!

Capital punishment for ejaculation, and involuntary manslaughter for ovulation!! Holy shit!!!!!

I need to contact the Handmaid's Tale producers. I can get rich off this idea. Thank you!!

[sherr]

ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway.  It's possible they could get there eventually.

I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.

That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.

It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.

I was trying to be politer than I actually feel.

I suppose if you consider "murdering people who disagree with you" and "not murdering people who disagree with you" to be equivalent, these are rational views for you both to hold.

IDK, evangelicals were pretty enthusiastic about the wars against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pretty sure the body count of those adventures in futility exceed Hezbollah and the Taliban put together.

The administration is also running "camps" for people of a certain ethnicity that are rumored to involve disease, rape, and squalid conditions, but we can't know for sure because the press isn't allowed in. These could develop into something. Who knows?

I appreciate your feedback.  It doesn't seem like there's much appetite for an actual substantive discussion anymore so I'll leave you to your thread.

Hmmm. Well I think you kind of started it with the "murder v not murder" comment, and that ChpBstrd was just responding in kind. The war part is a substantive point, I've never met any population of people in this country that are as war-loving as evangelicals are, even when both of the mentioned wars are based on blatant lies. And there have been plenty of abortion-related evangelical murderers in the US, especially in the 90s.

My point was that when 2/3 of a population admit that they are perfectly happy to undermine democracy in order to force their religious ideals on others, when they openly and enthusiastically refer to themselves as "the army of God" and raise their kids with an "us vs them (non-evangelicals or non-Christians)" mentality, when the political issues they get most riled up about are all solely tied to repressing minority groups that they don't like (atheists, gays, transgenders, Muslims, etc), well, that's not a good recipe.

The difference at that point is mostly one of radicalization/desperation. Obviously very few people in one of the wealthiest nations in the world are going to be as radical/desperate as the people in the Middle East are. But the seeds are all there. The moral certainty that "we are right and we should rule everyone else who is obviously wrong, and we are doing God's work in the process" has been responsible for a great many evils in history.

I'm a Christian, but Trump-loving Evangelicals terrify me. They demonstrate none of the politics that I would expect out of either Christians or Patriots. Their god and their sole loyalty is to Republican-Evangelicalism, and they are perfectly happy to sacrifice every moral, every law, and every bit of Truth or Justice for their god.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

Of note https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc

[BicycleB]

^ Superb story!

[ChpBstrd]

Of note https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc

Democrats need about a 5-10% polling lead to generate a 1% election lead because the voting rates are so much lower. Many of the people who answer a poll will not cast a ballot.

Coronavirus is the real wildcard. If the president's supporters are less likely to take precautions and get sick for several weeks around election time, it could cause the electorate to swing Democratic. If it hits urban areas harder than rural areas, it could swing Republican. If religious people crowded into buildings together are hit hardest, it could swing Democratic. If Democrats are more likely to skip in-person voting because of health concerns, it could swing Republican. Then there is the question of which demographic is more likely to be out of work and have time to vote.

[nereo]

Of note https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc

Democrats need about a 5-10% polling lead to generate a 1% election lead because the voting rates are so much lower. Many of the people who answer a poll will not cast a ballot.

this si the difference between polls which measure likely voters, registered voters and all voters (or all adults).

Most of the polls which have shown Biden with a 7-9% lead nationally are among Likely Voters.

[talltexan]

Of note https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc

Democrats need about a 5-10% polling lead to generate a 1% election lead because the voting rates are so much lower. Many of the people who answer a poll will not cast a ballot.

Coronavirus is the real wildcard. If the president's supporters are less likely to take precautions and get sick for several weeks around election time, it could cause the electorate to swing Democratic. If it hits urban areas harder than rural areas, it could swing Republican. If religious people crowded into buildings together are hit hardest, it could swing Democratic. If Democrats are more likely to skip in-person voting because of health concerns, it could swing Republican. Then there is the question of which demographic is more likely to be out of work and have time to vote.

I'm a cynic. Trump's supporters are more often in low-density areas where they open a polling place for fifteen people. Many Biden votes will come from urban areas, where they open a single polling place for thousands, and can make them stand all together while they wait in line.

[Fireball]

Of note https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/polls-suggest-joe-biden-has-a-shot-at-winning-texas-how-he-fares-here-could-reshape-the-states-politics/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4792&fbclid=IwAR1JeXkumU5t8yf-sjxgsFdDMSw5v-pTk11j9IqI8qy1mGJPtq_oRg8R0Oc

Democrats need about a 5-10% polling lead to generate a 1% election lead because the voting rates are so much lower. Many of the people who answer a poll will not cast a ballot.

Coronavirus is the real wildcard. If the president's supporters are less likely to take precautions and get sick for several weeks around election time, it could cause the electorate to swing Democratic. If it hits urban areas harder than rural areas, it could swing Republican. If religious people crowded into buildings together are hit hardest, it could swing Democratic. If Democrats are more likely to skip in-person voting because of health concerns, it could swing Republican. Then there is the question of which demographic is more likely to be out of work and have time to vote.

I'm a cynic. Trump's supporters are more often in low-density areas where they open a polling place for fifteen people. Many Biden votes will come from urban areas, where they open a single polling place for thousands, and can make them stand all together while they wait in line.

True, but a big part of Trump's base is the above 65 crowd, which is exactly the group coronavirus kills at an alarming rate. I wonder if a large portion of them will stay home instead of standing in a voting line. Lots of factors.

[ctuser1]

I appreciate your feedback.  It doesn't seem like there's much appetite for an actual substantive discussion anymore so I'll leave you to your thread.

I'm seriously concerned (even scared) of the world where the sperm or the ovum are conferred "personhood"!!

Capital punishment for ejaculation, and involuntary manslaughter for ovulation!! Holy shit!!!!!

I need to contact the Handmaid's Tale producers. I can get rich off this idea. Thank you!!

Huh. I misread your original post when you talked about "murder". You meant actual political violence committed by Al-Queda. I assumed/read "baby murder" (the favorite stupid phrase that bible-thumpers like to use in the abortion debate).

I just read your post about Daryl Davis, and that did not compute with my earlier misconstrued image of a bigoted bible thumper running around using stupid phrases like "baby murder". So I went back, re-read and figured out my mistake.

I wanted to publicly post this as a "recantation" of my mocking remark, that was not warranted!

[LWYRUP]

I appreciate your feedback.  It doesn't seem like there's much appetite for an actual substantive discussion anymore so I'll leave you to your thread.

I'm seriously concerned (even scared) of the world where the sperm or the ovum are conferred "personhood"!!

Capital punishment for ejaculation, and involuntary manslaughter for ovulation!! Holy shit!!!!!

I need to contact the Handmaid's Tale producers. I can get rich off this idea. Thank you!!

Huh. I misread your original post when you talked about "murder". You meant actual political violence committed by Al-Queda. I assumed/read "baby murder" (the favorite stupid phrase that bible-thumpers like to use in the abortion debate).

I just read your post about Daryl Davis, and that did not compute with my earlier misconstrued image of a bigoted bible thumper running around using stupid phrases like "baby murder". So I went back, re-read and figured out my mistake.

I wanted to publicly post this as a "recantation" of my mocking remark, that was not warranted!

Thanks very much for the clarification!  Communication on the internet is so difficult due to lack of context.  I don't even remember what we were arguing about anymore.  Lol.

[Bateaux]

I actually believe that Texas goes blue 2020.  If not it's within one or two percent.  By 2024 I just don't see Texas red again.  The demographics just don't allow it.

[ChpBstrd]

I actually believe that Texas goes blue 2020.  If not it's within one or two percent.  By 2024 I just don't see Texas red again.  The demographics just don't allow it.

You might be right if
(a) Trump continues with his pandemic denialism, and
(b) Texas gets overrun by COVID-19 cases, as is about to occur, and
(c) State officials do not break with Trump and enact strict protocols even as public opinion turns, and
(d) The timing of this convergence is not too late to affect the election.

But I don't think it's because of demographics unless you mean a trend in the percentage of each demographic who actually votes. In 2016, only 40.5% of "Hispanics" voted, compared to 62% of "whites", a modest improvement from the previous election cycle even in the face of a clearly anti-Hispanic candidate. The "black" vote collapsed by almost 6%.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/11/hispanic-turnout-2016-election/

[Financial.Velociraptor]

I actually believe that Texas goes blue 2020.  If not it's within one or two percent.  By 2024 I just don't see Texas red again.  The demographics just don't allow it.

You might be right if
(a) Trump continues with his pandemic denialism, and
(b) Texas gets overrun by COVID-19 cases, as is about to occur, and
(c) State officials do not break with Trump and enact strict protocols even as public opinion turns, and
(d) The timing of this convergence is not too late to affect the election.

But I don't think it's because of demographics unless you mean a trend in the percentage of each demographic who actually votes. In 2016, only 40.5% of "Hispanics" voted, compared to 62% of "whites", a modest improvement from the previous election cycle even in the face of a clearly anti-Hispanic candidate. The "black" vote collapsed by almost 6%.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/11/hispanic-turnout-2016-election/

I don't think TX goes blue this cycle but I think it will be close.  I can't say much about whether hispanics will vote but I expect record black turnout.  Here in Houston, the street protests are basically non-stop since George Floyd (he was from here - 3rd Ward).  Blacks are currently very politically active here.  If Biden choose a black woman as VP, that seals it.

[BECABECA]

I actually believe that Texas goes blue 2020.  If not it's within one or two percent.  By 2024 I just don't see Texas red again.  The demographics just don't allow it.

You might be right if
(a) Trump continues with his pandemic denialism, and
(b) Texas gets overrun by COVID-19 cases, as is about to occur, and
(c) State officials do not break with Trump and enact strict protocols even as public opinion turns, and
(d) The timing of this convergence is not too late to affect the election.

But I don't think it's because of demographics unless you mean a trend in the percentage of each demographic who actually votes. In 2016, only 40.5% of "Hispanics" voted, compared to 62% of "whites", a modest improvement from the previous election cycle even in the face of a clearly anti-Hispanic candidate. The "black" vote collapsed by almost 6%.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/11/hispanic-turnout-2016-election/

I don't think TX goes blue this cycle but I think it will be close.  I can't say much about whether hispanics will vote but I expect record black turnout.  Here in Houston, the street protests are basically non-stop since George Floyd (he was from here - 3rd Ward).  Blacks are currently very politically active here.  If Biden choose a black woman as VP, that seals it.

The polling of voters and likely voters is currently showing a toss-up:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/texas/

If it’s this close right now, before Biden has chosen a POC woman running mate (he will), and before Texas has started seeing the resulting Covid deaths from their accelerated cases (they will), and before the Main Street pain of mass evictions (coming in the next months, moratoriums currently lifting), well... the probability that the next 5 months tip towards Biden’s favor is much higher than Trump’s.

[ctuser1]

The polling of voters and likely voters is currently showing a toss-up:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/texas/

If it’s this close right now, before Biden has chosen a POC woman running mate (he will), and before Texas has started seeing the resulting Covid deaths from their accelerated cases (they will), and before the Main Street pain of mass evictions (coming in the next months, moratoriums currently lifting), well... the probability that the next 5 months tip towards Biden’s favor is much higher than Trump’s.

I am quite apprehensive that voter suppression will override all these. The pandemic gives the state government(s) a lot more tools of voter suppression in the big cities and relatively dense suburbs, which is where thee Democratic base primarily is.

I don't participate in the election thread. But if you asked me to bet $10 on the outcome, I would predict Trump will win, despite the (in my opinion misguided) overconfidence from democrats in the recent week or two.

[nereo]

If Texas goes Blue, there is no plauseable path for Trump to win re-election. 

I tend to think Texas will remain red for 2020, but that it will be much too close for comfort for the GOP. My guestimate that Trump wins in Texas by 2-3%.

[bacchi]

With the polling that close, the RNC and Trump will have to spend ad money in Texas. Previously, those millions would've been used in Florida or PA or MI.

[nereo]

With the polling that close, the RNC and Trump will have to spend ad money in Texas. Previously, those millions would've been used in Florida or PA or MI.

True - but I think there's two important caveats here:

• Trump and the RNC have an enormous lead over the Dems in money-to-spend*
• How much a campaign spends isn't the determining factor much of the time**

*As of June 20th, 2020, Trump had raised $996MM to Biden's $557MM and had $108MM on hand compared to Biden's $82MM.  In addition, the RNC has $82MM cash-on-hand to the DNC's almost $40MM, and two affiliates, tjhe 'MAGA' ($21MM) and 'Trump Victory' ($47MM) give DJT almost double the cash-on-hand compared to Biden.  In addition, Trump has spent at least double what Biden has spent every month this year (through the June filing).  In 2016 Trump spent $65MM of his own money (of a promised $100MM).  It's unknown whether he can or will do that again this time.
 
This excludes the RNC and DNC totals, much of which will be spent on down-ballot races.

** Consider that HRC outspent DJT nearly 2:1 in 2016 yet lost.  In mdoersn politics it seems you need to have enough cash to stay in the race, but you rapidly hit a point of deminishing returns, and drastically overspending your opponent does not guarantee a deluge of voters.

[bacchi]

With the polling that close, the RNC and Trump will have to spend ad money in Texas. Previously, those millions would've been used in Florida or PA or MI.

True - but I think there's two important caveats here:

• Trump and the RNC have an enormous lead over the Dems in money-to-spend*
• How much a campaign spends isn't the determining factor much of the time**

*As of June 20th, 2020, Trump had raised $996MM to Biden's $557MM and had $108MM on hand compared to Biden's $82MM.  In addition, the RNC has $82MM cash-on-hand to the DNC's almost $40MM, and two affiliates, tjhe 'MAGA' ($21MM) and 'Trump Victory' ($47MM) give DJT almost double the cash-on-hand compared to Biden.  In addition, Trump has spent at least double what Biden has spent every month this year (through the June filing).  In 2016 Trump spent $65MM of his own money (of a promised $100MM).  It's unknown whether he can or will do that again this time.
 
This excludes the RNC and DNC totals, much of which will be spent on down-ballot races.

** Consider that HRC outspent DJT nearly 2:1 in 2016 yet lost.  In mdoersn politics it seems you need to have enough cash to stay in the race, but you rapidly hit a point of deminishing returns, and drastically overspending your opponent does not guarantee a deluge of voters.

I'm hoping that Biden's lower totals is due to the primary and will increase in the future. It doesn't seem to have hurt Biden's polling so far, though most of that is due to Trump working against himself.

[nereo]

If Trump continues to be his own biggest opponent Biden won't need to come out of his basement until January 20th.


Of course, I expect that Trump will find some way of regaining traction and pushing his approval back into the mid-40s - mostly by dragging Biden into some non-existent 'scandal' again.  Which (ironically) is just high enough that he might be able to eek out an EC win even with a large popular vote loss (again). 

[ctuser1]

If Trump continues to be his own biggest opponent Biden won't need to come out of his basement until January 20th.


Of course, I expect that Trump will find some way of regaining traction and pushing his approval back into the mid-40s - mostly by dragging Biden into some non-existent 'scandal' again.  Which (ironically) is just high enough that he might be able to eek out an EC win even with a large popular vote loss (again).

Bingo.

And voter suppression - that won't reflect in polling numbers.

I don't want it to happen, but I am afraid it will.

[nereo]

Why do people keep saying voter supression isn't reflected in polling numbers?  For quality polls, it absolutely *is*. 

They adjust for the likelihood that each indivdual will actually vote based on their age, ethnicity, geographic location, whether they are currently registered etc.  Polls of "likely voters" already consider that a 30-something person of color is less likely to vote than a 65yo white male, and much of that is due to voter suppression.

[sherr]

Why do people keep saying voter supression isn't reflected in polling numbers?  For quality polls, it absolutely *is*. 

They adjust for the likelihood that each indivdual will actually vote based on their age, ethnicity, geographic location, whether they are currently registered etc.  Polls of "likely voters" already consider that a 30-something person of color is less likely to vote than a 65yo white male, and much of that is due to voter suppression.

But it's a lagging adjustment. They estimate "likelyhood to vote" based on previous elections, which is the only numeric way to do it. If voter suppression is much strong this year, then those numbers will be off.

[nereo]

Why do people keep saying voter supression isn't reflected in polling numbers?  For quality polls, it absolutely *is*. 

They adjust for the likelihood that each indivdual will actually vote based on their age, ethnicity, geographic location, whether they are currently registered etc.  Polls of "likely voters" already consider that a 30-something person of color is less likely to vote than a 65yo white male, and much of that is due to voter suppression.

But it's a lagging adjustment. They estimate "likelyhood to vote" based on previous elections, which is the only numeric way to do it. If voter suppression is much strong this year, then those numbers will be off.

No arguments there, but that's rarely expressed. In the same vein, 'enthusiasm' is also a lagging adjustment; it assumes that young people won't vote in high numbers when there's an incumbent on that ballot. We won't know for certain whether this pattern repeats itself until after the election. 

[ChpBstrd]

Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.

[nereo]

Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.

Or, inexplicably, you could toss your money towards a laundry list of people who have no delegates whatsoever, including Mark Zuckerberg and Tusli Gabbard.  It's kind of bizarre that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (both of whom actually have deligates and were in the primary) are equal to the libertarian Jo Jorgenson and the retired Republican Paul Ryan. 

[BECABECA]

Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.

Or, inexplicably, you could toss your money towards a laundry list of people who have no delegates whatsoever, including Mark Zuckerberg and Tusli Gabbard.  It's kind of bizarre that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (both of whom actually have deligates and were in the primary) are equal to the libertarian Jo Jorgenson and the retired Republican Paul Ryan.

The rationale is that you can become president with no delegates if you’re selected as VP and your running mate dies?

[nereo]

Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.

Or, inexplicably, you could toss your money towards a laundry list of people who have no delegates whatsoever, including Mark Zuckerberg and Tusli Gabbard.  It's kind of bizarre that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (both of whom actually have deligates and were in the primary) are equal to the libertarian Jo Jorgenson and the retired Republican Paul Ryan.

The rationale is that you can become president with no delegates if you’re selected as VP and your running mate dies?

The rationale is that masses are stupid when it comes to placing bets.  I'm trying to come up with a way where Mark Zuckerberg or Jo Jorgenson wind up president, given that (IMO) they will definitely not be the running mate of BIden or Trump.

[BECABECA]

Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.

Or, inexplicably, you could toss your money towards a laundry list of people who have no delegates whatsoever, including Mark Zuckerberg and Tusli Gabbard.  It's kind of bizarre that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (both of whom actually have deligates and were in the primary) are equal to the libertarian Jo Jorgenson and the retired Republican Paul Ryan.

The rationale is that you can become president with no delegates if you’re selected as VP and your running mate dies?

The rationale is that masses are stupid when it comes to placing bets.  I'm trying to come up with a way where Mark Zuckerberg or Jo Jorgenson wind up president, given that (IMO) they will definitely not be the running mate of BIden or Trump.

Well yeah, definitely that. I was just trying to serve you up with a plausible thought process of the type of person who would place that bet: drawn to conspiracy theories and has a hard time understanding the difference between technically possible and 1% probable. It also escaped their notice that the betting site is happy to take bets for those harebrained options but will not take bets against them.

(As for a Trump-Zuckerberg ticket, apparently there’s been billboards advertising exactly this somewhere in Utah!
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-zuckerberg-2020-might-well-says-democrat-upset-false-ads-n1089986 )

[Psychstache]

Trump’s odds in this particular betting market are 44% today.

https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election

Not a bad wager considering the need for travel, apartment deposit, and an emigration lawyer if he wins.

Or, inexplicably, you could toss your money towards a laundry list of people who have no delegates whatsoever, including Mark Zuckerberg and Tusli Gabbard.  It's kind of bizarre that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (both of whom actually have deligates and were in the primary) are equal to the libertarian Jo Jorgenson and the retired Republican Paul Ryan.

The rationale is that you can become president with no delegates if you’re selected as VP and your running mate dies?

The rationale is that masses are stupid when it comes to placing bets. I'm trying to come up with a way where Mark Zuckerberg or Jo Jorgenson wind up president, given that (IMO) they will definitely not be the running mate of BIden or Trump.

This. There is a prop bet on the outcome of the coin flip for the Super Bowl for crying out loud.

[talltexan]

I feel like Biden could select Zuckerberg as his running mate and destroy everything. Historians would look back at it the way they look back at Chamberlain caving to Germany to try to win "Peace in our time".

[nereo]

I feel like Biden could select Zuckerberg as his running mate and destroy everything. Historians would look back at it the way they look back at Chamberlain caving to Germany to try to win "Peace in our time".

Maybe?  And then he dies before November?  Seems like a stretch. I hope Biden has advisors that would tell him that wood be a phenomenally bad choice.

[ChpBstrd]

I feel like Biden could select Zuckerberg as his running mate and destroy everything. Historians would look back at it the way they look back at Chamberlain caving to Germany to try to win "Peace in our time".

Maybe?  And then he dies before November?  Seems like a stretch. I hope Biden has advisors that would tell him that wood be a phenomenally bad choice.

Some of these seemingly weird bets may be more rational than they first appear considering that either Biden or Trump could be dead or incapacitated a week from now due to COVID-19. They’re both in their 70s. Trump is the more vulnerable candidate I think due to his behavior. Biden’s campaign from home strategy is clearly an attempt to survive until the election. In truth, both old men probably share physical space with at least 30-50 people per day.

If either candidate was put out of the running, with no time for primaries or party workings, who knows what the ballot could look like in November?! The odds of both candidates being incapacitated used to be very unlikely but have risen dramatically in the pandemic. Sanders vs. Pence? Warren vs. Romney? Can’t rule it out!

[talltexan]

I think you can rule out Romney. Today's Republican party wouldn't nominate him.

It's too bad because I voted against him when I had the chance. In 2012, I truly believed that the central issue was the Affordable Care Act, and I thought it should be given a chance to prove itself. I was living in Ohio at the time, and I cast my pivotal vote for Obama. If you had told me that Obama's second term would put in motion a sequence of events that culminated with Trump being President, of course I would have voted for Romney instead. But how could any of us have predicted?

[sherr]

If you had told me that Obama's second term would put in motion a sequence of events that culminated with Trump being President, of course I would have voted for Romney instead. But how could any of us have predicted?

If you are blaming Obama for Trump's rise to power, then you are not placing the blame where it belongs (on the party / people who voted for him and the institutions that manipulated them into doing so). And if you did know in advance that re-electing Obama would "lead" to Trump, and you voted for Romney because of it, they you would simply be rewarding bad behavior.

[ChpBstrd]

I think you can rule out Romney. Today's Republican party wouldn't nominate him.

The nomination process is over, so the bets are on something else.

Suppose Trump gets the COVID in August and either dies or is incapacitated with a 30% approval rating. Many close allies also disappear for a month. It would be unlikely that someone would not exploit the opening to say, “look the only way we have a chance in this election is a last minute switch to a Romney/Rubio (or choose your own) ticket. We can drop all the baggage of the crippled Trump administration and throw off the Dems’ attack strategy in one strategic swoop.” A two week war ensues inside the party and then the more powerful side prevails. The legal basis is that the nominee was unable to perform so the party switched to another.

[nereo]

Suppose Trump gets the COVID in August and either dies or is incapacitated with a 30% approval rating. Many close allies also disappear for a month. It would be unlikely that someone would not exploit the opening to say, “look the only way we have a chance in this election is a last minute switch to a Romney/Rubio (or choose your own) ticket. We can drop all the baggage of the crippled Trump administration and throw off the Dems’ attack strategy in one strategic swoop.” A two week war ensues inside the party and then the more powerful side prevails. The legal basis is that the nominee was unable to perform so the party switched to another.

What's weird is that this seems like a decent (albeit improbable) scenario rather than some dystopian political nightmare.

[DarkandStormy]

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/06/Fox_June-20-23-2020_Complete_Texas_Topline_June-25-Release.pdf

Fox News poll:
-Biden 45%
-Trump 44%

[talltexan]

I don't have a very good read of the Trump supporters. If something strange keeps him from making it to the November election as a candidate, will they stage protests that are the equivalent of what was happening in Michigan and Wisconsin in early May, claiming that it's a protest against the "Deep State"?

[nereo]

I don't have a very good read of the Trump supporters. If something strange keeps him from making it to the November election as a candidate, will they stage protests that are the equivalent of what was happening in Michigan and Wisconsin in early May, claiming that it's a protest against the "Deep State"?

In other words: “would they vote for Pence”?

[talltexan]

Go to Breitbart every day for a week. One of the remarkable things I learned from when I did (this was in 2017) was how mistrustful Trump's base are of Mike Pence. To them, he's just a few shades better than Paul Ryan.

[nereo]

Go to Breitbart every day for a week. One of the remarkable things I learned from when I did (this was in 2017) was how mistrustful Trump's base are of Mike Pence. To them, he's just a few shades better than Paul Ryan.

Interesting. 
I get that Pence was a strategic choice to lock down the evangelical vote and those who hold "conservative christian values' (to put it euphamistically) in terms of marriage, religion, sex, family and language.... probably necessary since Trump was a thrice-married adulterer with a potty-mouth and questionable devotion to God.

I've been amazed at the degree which Pence has prostrated himself for the good of Trump/POTUS (e.g. being sent out to lie only to be undercut by Trump, being ordered to attend and then walk out on an NFL game).  What I hadn't realized was the low feelings many on Team Trump still harbor towards Pence.

It's sad, really.  I have big problems with Pence's view of the world, but here he's tossed much of that out the window to be Trump's lacky, doormat and defender to a degree I never thought possible, and yet he's still despised by Trump supporters?  Ouch.

[talltexan]

Pence probably had the same insight I did (these people are only luke-warm on him), which is why he's been so obsequious.

I think he saw the role as giving him perhaps a 30% chance of becoming President. He still may get to be one if Trump loses in Nov., immediately resigning so that Pence can pre-empt any legal issues by pardoning him.

[nereo]

Pence probably had the same insight I did (these people are only luke-warm on him), which is why he's been so obsequious.

I think he saw the role as giving him perhaps a 30% chance of becoming President. He still may get to be one if Trump loses in Nov., immediately resigning so that Pence can pre-empt any legal issues by pardoning him.

Would he, though?

I find the scenario unlikely (perhaps we can revisit mid-November.  But imagine Trump *does* lose and then he *does* resign with instructions for Pence to give him an absolute pardon.  With Trump no longer holding power... why would Pence do what he asks?  Maybe extortion (Pence probably has done/heard/known things working for this campaign that he'd like no one to know about).  But beyond that... why cement his legacy in history as a 2-mponth president who  pardoned someone who so obviously refutes all that he says he holds near and dear to his heart?

Maybe, instead of following Trump's orders he decides to screw-Trump/redeem himself Pence decides instead to authorize the release of transcripts, tax records, testimony.

Put another way: Don't be surprised when the dog you've spent your whole life kicking suddenly bites you when you are vulnerable.

[sherr]

Pence probably had the same insight I did (these people are only luke-warm on him), which is why he's been so obsequious.

I think he saw the role as giving him perhaps a 30% chance of becoming President. He still may get to be one if Trump loses in Nov., immediately resigning so that Pence can pre-empt any legal issues by pardoning him.

Would he, though?

I find the scenario unlikely (perhaps we can revisit mid-November.  But imagine Trump *does* lose and then he *does* resign with instructions for Pence to give him an absolute pardon.  With Trump no longer holding power... why would Pence do what he asks?  Maybe extortion (Pence probably has done/heard/known things working for this campaign that he'd like no one to know about).  But beyond that... why cement his legacy in history as a 2-mponth president who  pardoned someone who so obviously refutes all that he says he holds near and dear to his heart?

Maybe, instead of following Trump's orders he decides to screw-Trump/redeem himself Pence decides instead to authorize the release of transcripts, tax records, testimony.

Put another way: Don't be surprised when the dog you've spent your whole life kicking suddenly bites you when you are vulnerable.

Why did Ford pardon Nixon? What about "Trump is vastly popular with Republicans and Pence isn't" makes you think that Pence would betray his entire potential voting base just to suddenly discover a conscience?

[nereo]

Why did Ford pardon Nixon? What about "Trump is vastly popular with Republicans and Pence isn't" makes you think that Pence would betray his entire potential voting base just to suddenly discover a conscience?

When Ford pardoned Nixon he had more than two years to govern as President and was eligible to run for election (which he ultimatrely did).  In this hypothetical Pence would have about two months (or less) before his term was up, and as a post-election lame duck he would not be able to run for election.  In fact, regardless of what he did he would be out of politics entirely on January 20th.

I just don't see the benefit for Pence to issue a pardon.  As Ford learned, issuing a pardon can hurt future campaigns.  And what would his life in politics even be?  He's never been a strong sell for to be the GOP standardbearer.  He could run for his old House seat... but that's currently held by his brother (awkward!). The next Indiana Senator race is in 2022 against a fellow GOP (Braun).  He's no longer eligible to be state Governor, having served his time.

In short - when evaluating whether a politician *will* do something (i.e. "issue a pardon of Trump") I look at how this would benefit him, and how NOT doing it would hurt him.  I don't see how it would help him, and I can see how it could harm him.

[sherr]

Why did Ford pardon Nixon? What about "Trump is vastly popular with Republicans and Pence isn't" makes you think that Pence would betray his entire potential voting base just to suddenly discover a conscience?

When Ford pardoned Nixon he had more than two years to govern as President and was eligible to run for election (which he ultimatrely did).  In this hypothetical Pence would have about two months (or less) before his term was up, and as a post-election lame duck he would not be able to run for election.  In fact, regardless of what he did he would be out of politics entirely on January 20th.

I just don't see the benefit for Pence to issue a pardon.  As Ford learned, issuing a pardon can hurt future campaigns.  And what would his life in politics even be?  He's never been a strong sell for to be the GOP standardbearer.  He could run for his old House seat... but that's currently held by his brother (awkward!). The next Indiana Senator race is in 2022 against a fellow GOP (Braun).  He's no longer eligible to be state Governor, having served his time.

In short - when evaluating whether a politician *will* do something (i.e. "issue a pardon of Trump") I look at how this would benefit him, and how NOT doing it would hurt him.  I don't see how it would help him, and I can see how it could harm him.

Okay, so then let me lay this possible situation down.

1) Pence pardons Trump, and he and all Republican leaders double down even harder on the "witch hunt" "fake news" "most unfairly treated president ever" "deep state" narrative.

2) Biden has obviously already won 2020 in this scenario, but he has already said that he will be a 1-term president, and he spends the next 4 years trying to undo some of the damage that COVID-19, the Republican tax-cut deficit, and the Fed helicopter money have done. So they're not 4 "great" years. Republicans in congress rest easy as they can now revert back to their default mode of obstruct-everything and scream about the deficit that they created (instead of actually, you know, governing), generally making it hard for anything of substance to be done.

3) Trump meanwhile goes on to found the Trump News Corp now that he no longer has to be president, which is really what he wanted to do from the start. He keeps on Trumpin', and all the other right-wing news orgs are forced to match his tone and rhetoric or else he'll steal all their customers.

4) 2024 rolls around, and Trump is still the most popular president amongst the Republican base in history, and as such still controls the voting base and as such still has a completely stranglehold on every single Republican politician. Trump, having no desire to actually be president again, actually keeps his back-room promise to Pence (I know, this is probably the most unrealistic part) and sets him to be the R nominee. Queue the normal "judges" and "tax cuts" and "family values" rhetoric and the Republican EC advantage, and he stands a decent chance against whoever the D nominee is once he wins the nomination.

Is that really that unrealistic? That seems to me to be his one chance at actually being a real president. On the other hand, how would betraying Trump benefit Pence?

[nereo]

Why did Ford pardon Nixon? What about "Trump is vastly popular with Republicans and Pence isn't" makes you think that Pence would betray his entire potential voting base just to suddenly discover a conscience?

When Ford pardoned Nixon he had more than two years to govern as President and was eligible to run for election (which he ultimatrely did).  In this hypothetical Pence would have about two months (or less) before his term was up, and as a post-election lame duck he would not be able to run for election.  In fact, regardless of what he did he would be out of politics entirely on January 20th.

I just don't see the benefit for Pence to issue a pardon.  As Ford learned, issuing a pardon can hurt future campaigns.  And what would his life in politics even be?  He's never been a strong sell for to be the GOP standardbearer.  He could run for his old House seat... but that's currently held by his brother (awkward!). The next Indiana Senator race is in 2022 against a fellow GOP (Braun).  He's no longer eligible to be state Governor, having served his time.

In short - when evaluating whether a politician *will* do something (i.e. "issue a pardon of Trump") I look at how this would benefit him, and how NOT doing it would hurt him.  I don't see how it would help him, and I can see how it could harm him.

Okay, so then let me lay this possible situation down.

1) Pence pardons Trump, and he and all Republican leaders double down even harder on the "witch hunt" "fake news" "most unfairly treated president ever" "deep state" narrative.

2) Biden has obviously already won 2020 in this scenario, but he has already said that he will be a 1-term president, and he spends the next 4 years trying to undo some of the damage that COVID-19, the Republican tax-cut deficit, and the Fed helicopter money have done. So they're not 4 "great" years. Republicans in congress rest easy as they can now revert back to their default mode of obstruct-everything and scream about the deficit that they created (instead of actually, you know, governing), generally making it hard for anything of substance to be done.

3) Trump meanwhile goes on to found the Trump News Corp now that he no longer has to be president, which is really what he wanted to do from the start. He keeps on Trumpin', and all the other right-wing news orgs are forced to match his tone and rhetoric or else he'll steal all their customers.

4) 2024 rolls around, and Trump is still the most popular president amongst the Republican base in history, and as such still controls the voting base and as such still has a completely stranglehold on every single Republican politician. Trump, having no desire to actually be president again, actually keeps his back-room promise to Pence (I know, this is probably the most unrealistic part) and sets him to be the R nominee. Queue the normal "judges" and "tax cuts" and "family values" rhetoric and the Republican EC advantage, and he stands a decent chance against whoever the D nominee is once he wins the nomination.

Is that really that unrealistic? That seems to me to be his one chance at actually being a real president. On the other hand, how would betraying Trump benefit Pence?

I think the bolded portion of #4 is what I find least likely.  IF Trump loses, he will have been a one-term president who squandered 2 years of complete governmental control and he will be blamed for downballot races from formerly strong GOP members.  As the saying goes, Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan. Additionally, many of Trump's supporters do so because he has this image of being a winner, and being invulnerable.  He says and does whatever he wants, and all the attacks on him don't matter because he's "Teflon Don."   The second he loses that image is shattered.  He's now a loser - the absolute worst thing he can be according to him.  Pence will have similar problems - after an absolute pardon of Trump he'll be seen by a majority of the electorate negatively.  With Dems controlling the WH and House and (very possibly with a Trump lost) the Senate there will be a level of scrutiny on the previous administration which we haven't had yet.  They're going to use it to make Trump/Pence look bad *even though Trump will be immune*.  They want to make sure that every sitting GOP senator is forever tied to Trump's misdeeds, and to a large extent that will extend to Pence.

I also see no reason why Trump would honor a back-door pledge to Pence, given how many times he's publicly burned even loyal supporters when they cease to become useful to him. As former president Pence is called to testify and confirms all these negative things about Trump, he'll do what he always does, and go ballistic on him.  See Cohen or Tillerson or Sessions or Ryan or Mattis or...

[sherr]

I think the bolded portion of #4 is what I find least likely.  IF Trump loses, he will have been a one-term president who squandered 2 years of complete governmental control and he will be blamed for downballot races from formerly strong GOP members.  As the saying goes, Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan. Additionally, many of Trump's supporters do so because he has this image of being a winner, and being invulnerable.  He says and does whatever he wants, and all the attacks on him don't matter because he's "Teflon Don."   The second he loses that image is shattered.  He's now a loser - the absolute worst thing he can be according to him.  Pence will have similar problems - after an absolute pardon of Trump he'll be seen by a majority of the electorate negatively. 

This argument I'm sympathetic to, as I think it could indeed go that way. But Trump is very actively laying the groundwork for disbelieving the results of the election, because "millions of illegals mailed in ballots" or something. The fact that it has absolutely no basis in reality hasn't mattered yet, so why would it start? And further I don't think they love him because he's "Teflon Don", I think they love him because he acts the way they wish that they could act. The fact that he's "Teflon Don" and gets away with it is part of that, but not necessarily a foundational piece. If he experiences zero real consequences for his actions then he still is getting away with it, despite haven lost a "fake election".

With Dems controlling the WH and House and (very possibly with a Trump lost) the Senate there will be a level of scrutiny on the previous administration which we haven't had yet.  They're going to use it to make Trump/Pence look bad *even though Trump will be immune*.  They want to make sure that every sitting GOP senator is forever tied to Trump's misdeeds, and to a large extent that will extend to Pence.

Will they? Or will Biden try to "help the nation heal" by "looking forward and not back"? And anyway Fox News / Trump News Corp will keep on saying that it's all a fake witch hunt by the deep state to discredit the best president ever. Who are Republicans going to believe?

I also see no reason why Trump would honor a back-door pledge to Pence, given how many times he's publicly burned even loyal supporters when they cease to become useful to him. As former president Pence is called to testify and confirms all these negative things about Trump, he'll do what he always does, and go ballistic on him.  See Cohen or Tillerson or Sessions or Ryan or Mattis or...

See here I flat-out disagree. Trump turns on his loyal supporters the instant they tell him "no" on even the smallest thing, not when they are no longer useful.

Cohen when faced with jail time for his own misdeeds decided to cooperate with the investigation. Tillerson disagreed about pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. Sessions recused himself from the Mueller investigation. Ryan spoke out against Trumps rhetoric. Mattis resigned in protest over the abandonment of our Kurdish allies. Etc for every other example.

It's not that they're no longer useful, it's that they disagree with Trump about something, which in Trump's mind makes them no longer loyal. As long as Pence stays whipped-dog boot-licking loyal he has nothing to fear.

And you didn't answer my question (or I missed it). What benefit does Pence gain in betraying Trump? I don't think "history" is going to look too kindly on him either way, so it has to be something more than that.

[nereo]

I think the bolded portion of #4 is what I find least likely.  IF Trump loses, he will have been a one-term president who squandered 2 years of complete governmental control and he will be blamed for downballot races from formerly strong GOP members.  As the saying goes, Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan. Additionally, many of Trump's supporters do so because he has this image of being a winner, and being invulnerable.  He says and does whatever he wants, and all the attacks on him don't matter because he's "Teflon Don."   The second he loses that image is shattered.  He's now a loser - the absolute worst thing he can be according to him.  Pence will have similar problems - after an absolute pardon of Trump he'll be seen by a majority of the electorate negatively. 

This argument I'm sympathetic to, as I think it could indeed go that way. But Trump is very actively laying the groundwork for disbelieving the results of the election, because "millions of illegals mailed in ballots" or something. The fact that it has absolutely no basis in reality hasn't mattered yet, so why would it start? And further I don't think they love him because he's "Teflon Don", I think they love him because he acts the way they wish that they could act. The fact that he's "Teflon Don" and gets away with it is part of that, but not necessarily a foundational piece. If he experiences zero real consequences for his actions then he still is getting away with it, despite haven lost a "fake election".

Well there's a non-zero chance we'll get to see how this plays out after November.  My prediction is that Trump won't resign.  If he does I still find it doubtful Pence will issue him a pardon.  Perhaps we'll see in 5-6 months.

As for why people stick with him - I think his popularity is largely based on his brand, which is (to a large degree) his public image.  People may love him because he acts the way they wish they could act, but if he loses re-election (i.e. "He's Fired!") that IS the real consequence.  That and almost certain continued public investigations, court losses, more unflattering accounts of him as a leader. Oh, and his businesses are floundering in large part because of his presidency.

Also, I wouldn't count the Murdochs out and assume TrumpNews® will suddenly dominate the conservative mediasphere.  There might be a bidding war for talent and eyeballs, but FoxNews has been at this for a long time and is well positioned to keep their marketshare. They've also got very deep pockets, and it's unclear how much capital Trump really has to start his own large-scale media corp.  Trump hasn't managed to

Yes, Trump turns on his most loyal supporters the moment they say 'no' - but you still haven't answered the question of why President Pence should continue to do Trump's bidding when there's no clear political motive for him to do so.