Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 141655 times)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1100 on: October 16, 2019, 11:24:09 AM »
I also had one more thought. Someone (can't remember who) commented about raising capital gains taxes back to 39%. Does anyone think this would legitimately happen? It would make a significant impact in FI for many of us, I'd imagine, if there was a flat 39% capital gains tax (assuming that was what was meant). Of course, there's a lot of play between our current situation where we can, what, get up a decent amount tax free if it's long term and a 39% overall tax rate. Any thoughts?

They are likely talking about 500k and over for that tax rate, it likely wouldn't affect FI that much. CG taxes are 15% for MAGI between 40 and 440k and then go to 20%. I can see the possibility of them raising the lower brackets to match income brackets so that the first 40k is taxed at 10% or something like that. But honestly you'd have to be selling large amounts of stock in retirement to be hitting the standard deduction.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1101 on: October 16, 2019, 12:07:07 PM »
I never thought I'd say this but absent some economic calamity between now and next year I don't see how Trump doesn't just steamroll the democrats.  I'd practically sell my left nut to see someone like Jamie Dimon jump in at this point.  Warren, Bernie, Biden?  That's the best we can do?

I continually see people popping up to express this opinion, that Trump will win and no one else even stands a chance. I see it online and hear it in person. I'm yet to hear an explanation as to why anyone believes this.

Could you give any reasons for why you think this will be the case?

big_owl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1102 on: October 16, 2019, 12:33:58 PM »
I never thought I'd say this but absent some economic calamity between now and next year I don't see how Trump doesn't just steamroll the democrats.  I'd practically sell my left nut to see someone like Jamie Dimon jump in at this point.  Warren, Bernie, Biden?  That's the best we can do?

I continually see people popping up to express this opinion, that Trump will win and no one else even stands a chance. I see it online and hear it in person. I'm yet to hear an explanation as to why anyone believes this.

Could you give any reasons for why you think this will be the case?

Because it's insanely obvious to someone who isn't blinded by their allegiance to one side or the other?  There's Bernie "could be dead by Nov" Sanders, Joe "Creepy, Sleepy - also could be dead by Nov" Biden, and Elizabeth "Give 'em free shit now but gotta walk it all back in time for the general election" Warren.  Everybody already knows Trump by now and after this latest impeachment scandal dries up just like russiagate did then the dems will be hardpressed to come up with another scandal. 


As long as the recession holds off I think Trump has it.  Market chaos and recession would probably doom him though.  Warren excites me most of the dems but that's not saying much.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1103 on: October 16, 2019, 12:59:08 PM »
I never thought I'd say this but absent some economic calamity between now and next year I don't see how Trump doesn't just steamroll the democrats.  I'd practically sell my left nut to see someone like Jamie Dimon jump in at this point.  Warren, Bernie, Biden?  That's the best we can do?

I continually see people popping up to express this opinion, that Trump will win and no one else even stands a chance. I see it online and hear it in person. I'm yet to hear an explanation as to why anyone believes this.

Could you give any reasons for why you think this will be the case?

Because it's insanely obvious to someone who isn't blinded by their allegiance to one side or the other?  There's Bernie "could be dead by Nov" Sanders, Joe "Creepy, Sleepy - also could be dead by Nov" Biden, and Elizabeth "Give 'em free shit now but gotta walk it all back in time for the general election" Warren.  Everybody already knows Trump by now and after this latest impeachment scandal dries up just like russiagate did then the dems will be hardpressed to come up with another scandal. 


As long as the recession holds off I think Trump has it.  Market chaos and recession would probably doom him though.  Warren excites me most of the dems but that's not saying much.

Are you somehow above being blinded by your biases? you basically said Trump will win because the other people are old. What? Trump is in the same age bracket.

2016 has 4 states with a marginal difference of < .75% that determined the president. A flip of 40k voters across those states would have determined a different president. A change of .00000045% change in the vote.

You're saying this is obvious, but present some data or proof that somehow people are more likely to vote for Trump now than in 2016. Or really the true test is, prove that Democratic turnout will be low for some reason. Based on the 2018 turnout, it looks obvious that Trump is not a shoe-in. He won by <.75% in 3 states (2 of which only need to flip for a dem to win.) Dems will be highly motivated to remove Trump, a bump that I would imagine would likely give enough boost to win the election.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1104 on: October 16, 2019, 01:26:54 PM »
Are you somehow above being blinded by your biases? you basically said Trump will win because the other people are old. What? Trump is in the same age bracket.
Comparing Trump's age to the three older Democratic nominees is not really a fair comparison because the Democratic candidate needs to be able to connect with / excite the generally younger Democratic base to get good voter turnout and campaign support in the general election. Trump doesn't need that.

Older non-incumbent Democratic presidential candidates haven't done well in the past 50 or so years. Perhaps this time is different, but I doubt it. In the last 100 years, the oldest non-incumbent Democrat to be elected was Jimmy Carter at 52 years old. That's two years younger than the youngest non-incumbent Republican to be elected since WWII.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1105 on: October 16, 2019, 01:35:52 PM »
Are you somehow above being blinded by your biases? you basically said Trump will win because the other people are old. What? Trump is in the same age bracket.
Comparing Trump's age to the three older Democratic nominees is not really a fair comparison because the Democratic candidate needs to be able to connect with / excite the generally younger Democratic base to get good voter turnout and campaign support in the general election. Trump doesn't need that.

Older non-incumbent Democratic presidential candidates haven't done well in the past 50 or so years. Perhaps this time is different, but I doubt it. In the last 100 years, the oldest non-incumbent Democrat to be elected was Jimmy Carter at 52 years old. That's two years younger than the youngest non-incumbent Republican to be elected since WWII.

Assuming those figures are true (I assume they are based on you posting it, but I didn't vet), that is super interesting. I will say that the oldest of the group, Bernie, seems to be adored by the youngest supporters. I wonder if there have been other examples of that happening in prior elections. After all, the original argument quoted above argued that the candidate herself/himself needed to be young to "connect with/excite the generally younger Democratic base."

And speaking of youth, Mayor Pete raked in over $1M just since the end of the debate. He already has 2.5 times Biden's war chest, and unless Biden somehow managed to bring in $1M from his uh...uninspiring...performance, since 11PM last night, Pete's cash on hand advantage has increased. 

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4103
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1106 on: October 16, 2019, 01:44:50 PM »
I think it would be very dangerous to assume Trump will lose.  We all assumed he would lose in 2016 too.  If "grab em by the pussy" didn't cost him an election, I don't think Ukraine/Mueller/anything else will really tip the scales either.

Polls show that Bernie and Yang have the best shot against Trump in the general election, and that really should be near the top of the list of qualities the Dems need for their nominee.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1107 on: October 16, 2019, 01:57:29 PM »
I never thought I'd say this but absent some economic calamity between now and next year I don't see how Trump doesn't just steamroll the democrats.  I'd practically sell my left nut to see someone like Jamie Dimon jump in at this point.  Warren, Bernie, Biden?  That's the best we can do?

I continually see people popping up to express this opinion, that Trump will win and no one else even stands a chance. I see it online and hear it in person. I'm yet to hear an explanation as to why anyone believes this.

Could you give any reasons for why you think this will be the case?

Because it's insanely obvious to someone who isn't blinded by their allegiance to one side or the other?  There's Bernie "could be dead by Nov" Sanders, Joe "Creepy, Sleepy - also could be dead by Nov" Biden, and Elizabeth "Give 'em free shit now but gotta walk it all back in time for the general election" Warren.  Everybody already knows Trump by now and after this latest impeachment scandal dries up just like russiagate did then the dems will be hardpressed to come up with another scandal. 


As long as the recession holds off I think Trump has it.  Market chaos and recession would probably doom him though.  Warren excites me most of the dems but that's not saying much.

Are you somehow above being blinded by your biases? you basically said Trump will win because the other people are old. What? Trump is in the same age bracket.

2016 has 4 states with a marginal difference of < .75% that determined the president. A flip of 40k voters across those states would have determined a different president. A change of .00000045% change in the vote.

You're saying this is obvious, but present some data or proof that somehow people are more likely to vote for Trump now than in 2016. Or really the true test is, prove that Democratic turnout will be low for some reason. Based on the 2018 turnout, it looks obvious that Trump is not a shoe-in. He won by <.75% in 3 states (2 of which only need to flip for a dem to win.) Dems will be highly motivated to remove Trump, a bump that I would imagine would likely give enough boost to win the election.

Yes, this is more like what I was looking for, actual data.

All of the reasons big_owl has given are based on feelings and probably some combination of the feelings of friends/family/social media bubble/chosen media source. This is consistent with other people I've talked to who claim that Trump will obviously win.

What I'm looking for is any sort of data that suggests Trump will lose/gain votes from group X or democrats will lose/gain votes from group Y. As a baseline, we can assume that the majority of voters who voted for Trump will do so again and the majority of Hillary voters will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate. Considering the 2016 election was extremely close* and voter turnout was low, there really doesn't need to be much of a shift to change the results.

*Between Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin Trump won by a collective 77,744 votes. These states have a total of 46 electoral votes which would have been enough to change the result. With ~15 million eligible voters in those states that means ~0.5% of them need to make a different decision, to vote D instead of 3rd party/no vote. Even less if they change their vote from R to D.

big_owl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1108 on: October 16, 2019, 02:12:26 PM »
I never thought I'd say this but absent some economic calamity between now and next year I don't see how Trump doesn't just steamroll the democrats.  I'd practically sell my left nut to see someone like Jamie Dimon jump in at this point.  Warren, Bernie, Biden?  That's the best we can do?

I continually see people popping up to express this opinion, that Trump will win and no one else even stands a chance. I see it online and hear it in person. I'm yet to hear an explanation as to why anyone believes this.

Could you give any reasons for why you think this will be the case?

Because it's insanely obvious to someone who isn't blinded by their allegiance to one side or the other?  There's Bernie "could be dead by Nov" Sanders, Joe "Creepy, Sleepy - also could be dead by Nov" Biden, and Elizabeth "Give 'em free shit now but gotta walk it all back in time for the general election" Warren.  Everybody already knows Trump by now and after this latest impeachment scandal dries up just like russiagate did then the dems will be hardpressed to come up with another scandal. 


As long as the recession holds off I think Trump has it.  Market chaos and recession would probably doom him though.  Warren excites me most of the dems but that's not saying much.

Are you somehow above being blinded by your biases? you basically said Trump will win because the other people are old. What? Trump is in the same age bracket.

2016 has 4 states with a marginal difference of < .75% that determined the president. A flip of 40k voters across those states would have determined a different president. A change of .00000045% change in the vote.

You're saying this is obvious, but present some data or proof that somehow people are more likely to vote for Trump now than in 2016. Or really the true test is, prove that Democratic turnout will be low for some reason. Based on the 2018 turnout, it looks obvious that Trump is not a shoe-in. He won by <.75% in 3 states (2 of which only need to flip for a dem to win.) Dems will be highly motivated to remove Trump, a bump that I would imagine would likely give enough boost to win the election.

Yeah there's one big difference, Trump IS the president already so age isn't an issue for him, and frankly he seems in better health than Biden and Sanders which is also pretty sad.  The dems need to inspire on why they are a better alternative and at least as of today this is one pretty pathetic group they've put forward.  Maybe if Bernie wins the nomination and picks some super awesome VP candidate under the assumption that he'll be dead soon anyway then that might be enough to get excited about. 

You can pull a nate silver and cut stats six ways to sunday showing how the dems are guaranteed to win, didn't work out so well for him last time though.


YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1109 on: October 16, 2019, 02:16:55 PM »
Yes, this is more like what I was looking for, actual data.
All of the reasons big_owl has given are based on feelings and probably some combination of the feelings of friends/family/social media bubble/chosen media source. This is consistent with other people I've talked to who claim that Trump will obviously win.

Regarding Big_owl's point regarding the economy, in the last 80 years, no sitting US president has lost their bid for reelection when the unemployment rate was below 7%. Some have been reelected when unemployment was above that threshold, but none have lost below it. Of course, the sample size is small, so the confidence level is not fantastic.

Unemployment data can be found here: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Information on age of president at inauguration can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age
« Last Edit: October 16, 2019, 02:19:13 PM by YttriumNitrate »

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1110 on: October 16, 2019, 02:36:04 PM »
When national polls come out I expect that Trump will be polling at about 40% to 60% odds to win nationally. Because he is going to lose the popular vote again. And no it wont be because of illegals. Conservatives simply are a slight minority when you factor out the ridiculous electoral college.

However like Obama, I expect Trumps turnout will improve. And also the national poll wont really matter. I think the "swing" states he won will also likely show a bump in his odds to win those states. So I would expect him to be slightly favored to win when looking at swing state polls. Which is a big shift from last time when no poll show him as a favorite.

Centrists and conservatives may love to hate Bernie and Warren but I think the reality says their added disdain for their socialist policy is irrelevant. The democratic base will vote blue just like the Repubs voted red when they got Trump. The fact outside of that is Bernie and Warren have more enthusiastic niche followings that can spur uncommon voters to turn out, which like Trump, could cause swings in unexpected purple states. I think conservatives are making the same mistakes liberals made if they assume one of these "outsider" socialist politicians will do worse than someone like Biden.

I personally think Bernie, before his health scare, was probably an even a stronger candidate than Warren in a general election. I think he has some untested credibility among the working class as someone who cares about more protectionist policies when it comes to trade and manufacturing. You can see that in the states he won from Hillary in the primary. He has the potential to to dig into working class support that Trump took more aggressively. I am not so sure Warren has that same appeal, at least not right now. Democrats need those voters much more than unreliable youth vote that will turn out in states they have in the basket like California.

People can argue that Biden should have the working class vote better than Hillary too, but I would consider his numbers likely to be a watered down version of Obama. I think Biden is a strong speaker, hate him or love him, but he just lacks the charismatic appeal the Obama pulled off with his age and freshness factor. Which I don't think will be good enough to beat Trump.

Trump isn't going to steam roll most of these candidates. Its probably going to be one of closer coin toss elections we have seen in awhile. But we wont know more until polls come out.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1111 on: October 16, 2019, 02:47:15 PM »
I never thought I'd say this but absent some economic calamity between now and next year I don't see how Trump doesn't just steamroll the democrats.  I'd practically sell my left nut to see someone like Jamie Dimon jump in at this point.  Warren, Bernie, Biden?  That's the best we can do?

I continually see people popping up to express this opinion, that Trump will win and no one else even stands a chance. I see it online and hear it in person. I'm yet to hear an explanation as to why anyone believes this.

Could you give any reasons for why you think this will be the case?

Because it's insanely obvious to someone who isn't blinded by their allegiance to one side or the other?  There's Bernie "could be dead by Nov" Sanders, Joe "Creepy, Sleepy - also could be dead by Nov" Biden, and Elizabeth "Give 'em free shit now but gotta walk it all back in time for the general election" Warren.  Everybody already knows Trump by now and after this latest impeachment scandal dries up just like russiagate did then the dems will be hardpressed to come up with another scandal. 


As long as the recession holds off I think Trump has it.  Market chaos and recession would probably doom him though.  Warren excites me most of the dems but that's not saying much.

Are you somehow above being blinded by your biases? you basically said Trump will win because the other people are old. What? Trump is in the same age bracket.

2016 has 4 states with a marginal difference of < .75% that determined the president. A flip of 40k voters across those states would have determined a different president. A change of .00000045% change in the vote.

You're saying this is obvious, but present some data or proof that somehow people are more likely to vote for Trump now than in 2016. Or really the true test is, prove that Democratic turnout will be low for some reason. Based on the 2018 turnout, it looks obvious that Trump is not a shoe-in. He won by <.75% in 3 states (2 of which only need to flip for a dem to win.) Dems will be highly motivated to remove Trump, a bump that I would imagine would likely give enough boost to win the election.

Yeah there's one big difference, Trump IS the president already so age isn't an issue for him, and frankly he seems in better health than Biden and Sanders which is also pretty sad.  The dems need to inspire on why they are a better alternative and at least as of today this is one pretty pathetic group they've put forward.  Maybe if Bernie wins the nomination and picks some super awesome VP candidate under the assumption that he'll be dead soon anyway then that might be enough to get excited about. 

You can pull a nate silver and cut stats six ways to sunday showing how the dems are guaranteed to win, didn't work out so well for him last time though.

538 showing Trump at a 70/30 disadvantage before the election is not proven incorrect by his win. 30% odds to win are pretty good. And even all their analysis admits, that if the polls are off by a few points one direction or another, that correction will likely swing in one direction for multiple states. Trump won states that were one the fence by slim margins which were not grossly off individual state polling numbers.

The 538 forecast was drastically more balanced than some aggregate polling sites that had Trump at a 5% chance to win. At the national level it just obfuscated the fact that support for Hillary was weaker than Obama in major rust belt states. And Trumps numbers were stronger than Romney's. But I think the state level polling captured that as best as random polling can.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1112 on: October 16, 2019, 02:54:44 PM »
Yes, this is more like what I was looking for, actual data.
All of the reasons big_owl has given are based on feelings and probably some combination of the feelings of friends/family/social media bubble/chosen media source. This is consistent with other people I've talked to who claim that Trump will obviously win.

Regarding Big_owl's point regarding the economy, in the last 80 years, no sitting US president has lost their bid for reelection when the unemployment rate was below 7%. Some have been reelected when unemployment was above that threshold, but none have lost below it. Of course, the sample size is small, so the confidence level is not fantastic.

Unemployment data can be found here: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Information on age of president at inauguration can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age

Numbers like that, while interesting, are statistically pretty meaningless. We simply don't have enough presidential elections to make sweeping conclusions about patterns likely to lead to re-election. We've only had 45 presidents. So what we have a sample of maybe 22 re-election campaigns? Not a great starting point for establishing major patterns. This is a general weakness of predicating patterns in presidential elections based on past data often discussed on sites like 538.

The more general pattern that any political incumbent is generally favored to win in a re-election campaign though is probably more applicable.

All I am saying is even another recession kicking off between now and the next election probably wouldn't hurt Trumps odds. He has a more general boost over his baseline from simply holding the office, and not much more.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 326
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1113 on: October 16, 2019, 02:58:09 PM »
I also had one more thought. Someone (can't remember who) commented about raising capital gains taxes back to 39%. Does anyone think this would legitimately happen? It would make a significant impact in FI for many of us, I'd imagine, if there was a flat 39% capital gains tax (assuming that was what was meant). Of course, there's a lot of play between our current situation where we can, what, get up a decent amount tax free if it's long term and a 39% overall tax rate. Any thoughts?

They are likely talking about 500k and over for that tax rate, it likely wouldn't affect FI that much. CG taxes are 15% for MAGI between 40 and 440k and then go to 20%. I can see the possibility of them raising the lower brackets to match income brackets so that the first 40k is taxed at 10% or something like that. But honestly you'd have to be selling large amounts of stock in retirement to be hitting the standard deduction.

Ah, that makes sense (and the previous post about Roth/etc. is a fair point). My initial thought was that a blanket 39% would be charged on all capital gains. I may not agree with or like taxing it if it were to go up to, for instance on the high end, the level of direct income (if they were to propose that), but upping everything to 39% would be really, really bad. I guess I've been reading too many memes from people I know on Facebook who are legitimately anti-capitalism and thought they were taking the perspective that any income gained through the stock market should be taxed highly because the stock market is for rich people, or something ridiculous like that.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1114 on: October 16, 2019, 03:16:14 PM »
Numbers like that, while interesting, are statistically pretty meaningless. ... The more general pattern that any political incumbent is generally favored to win in a re-election campaign though is probably more applicable.
I don't think anyone is arguing that we have a rigid cause and effect correlation with above a two standard deviation confidence level based on single data set. It does, however, give some insight into how much of an advantage Trump has as long as the economy stays healthy.

If you change your statement to "The more general pattern that any political incumbent is generally favored to win in a re-election campaign, and more so when times are good" then I would agree with that.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1115 on: October 16, 2019, 05:09:33 PM »
I also had one more thought. Someone (can't remember who) commented about raising capital gains taxes back to 39%. Does anyone think this would legitimately happen? It would make a significant impact in FI for many of us, I'd imagine, if there was a flat 39% capital gains tax (assuming that was what was meant). Of course, there's a lot of play between our current situation where we can, what, get up a decent amount tax free if it's long term and a 39% overall tax rate. Any thoughts?

I didn't listen to the whole debate, but at one point I did hear Biden say that he wanted to get rid of the capital gains tax.  He pretty quickly clarified (at least I understood him to mean) that he didn't mean 0% capital gains tax, but to tax capital gains the same as income, with the intent that "workers" would be treated equally with "investors" and therefore restore us valuing work, or something to that effect.

I don't think he mentioned 39% in that part of the debate, so maybe someone else said something and that's what you're referring to.  Anyways.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1116 on: October 16, 2019, 05:12:55 PM »
Numbers like that, while interesting, are statistically pretty meaningless. ... The more general pattern that any political incumbent is generally favored to win in a re-election campaign though is probably more applicable.
I don't think anyone is arguing that we have a rigid cause and effect correlation with above a two standard deviation confidence level based on single data set. It does, however, give some insight into how much of an advantage Trump has as long as the economy stays healthy.

If you change your statement to "The more general pattern that any political incumbent is generally favored to win in a re-election campaign, and more so when times are good" then I would agree with that.

We don't have to look much farther than 2016. Nationally, unemployment peaked in 2010 around 10% and fell to 5% by the 2016 election. Despite that, voters did not reward democrats with a win. Even the rust belt followed the same trend. Unemployment was cut in half over Obama's second term.

Here's a list of unemployment by state: https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
If there's a pattern or a trend in there, I don't see it.

This paper from 2012 claims that high unemployment is good for democrats:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23357704?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Quote
This article calls into question the conventional wisdom that incumbent parties are rewarded when unemployment is low and punished when it is high. Using county-level data on unemployment and election returns for 175 midterm gubernatorial elections and 4 presidential elections from 1994 to 2010, the analysis finds that unemployment and the Democratic vote for president and governor move together. Other things being equal, higher unemployment increases the vote shares of Democratic candidates. The effect is greatest when Republicans are the incumbent party, but Democrats benefit from unemployment even when they are in control. The explanation for these findings is that unemployment is a partisan issue for voters, not a valence issue, and that the Democratic Party "owns" unemployment. When unemployment is high or rising, Democratic candidates can successfully convince voters that they are the party best able to solve the problem.

I'm sure though we could find a number of conflicting papers on this topic.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1117 on: October 16, 2019, 06:01:50 PM »
Unemployment was cut in half over Obama's second term.

That's why Republicans are always thanking Obama.

YttriumNitrate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1118 on: October 16, 2019, 08:38:54 PM »
I'm sure though we could find a number of conflicting papers on this topic.

This paper is from the perspective of incumbent parties rather than actual incumbents. The author looked at four presidential elections between 1994 and 2010, but in half of those there wasn't an incumbent running. Also, this perspective leads to some interesting statements like this one on page 686:
Quote
Incumbent presidents were reelected in 1964, 1988, and 1996 ...

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1119 on: October 16, 2019, 10:08:51 PM »
I'm sure though we could find a number of conflicting papers on this topic.

This paper is from the perspective of incumbent parties rather than actual incumbents. The author looked at four presidential elections between 1994 and 2010, but in half of those there wasn't an incumbent running. Also, this perspective leads to some interesting statements like this one on page 686:
Quote
Incumbent presidents were reelected in 1964, 1988, and 1996 ...
Vice presidential incumbency. Pence will be pleased.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1120 on: October 17, 2019, 04:55:55 PM »
I watched the Democratic Debate the other night and one thing really stood out to me that I am hoping someone can explain.  Why is it that Warren won't say 'yes' or 'no' as to whether middle class taxes will go up, even though she is running on Bernie's Medicare for All proposal, and Bernie himself says they will?  Why can't she just say that taxes will go up, but overall out of pocket costs for the middle class will go down?  Or is that not true?  Does she not know?

Even after the debate she was even more dodgy of the question (see video below), seemingly repeating a stump speech over and over.  What's going on here?  It's painful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=188stKSdsE4

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1121 on: October 17, 2019, 05:02:02 PM »
I watched the Democratic Debate the other night and one thing really stood out to me that I am hoping someone can explain.  Why is it that Warren won't say 'yes' or 'no' as to whether middle class taxes will go up, even though she is running on Bernie's Medicare for All proposal, and Bernie himself says they will?  Why can't she just say that taxes will go up, but overall out of pocket costs for the middle class will go down?  Or is that not true?  Does she not know?

Even after the debate she was even more dodgy of the question (see video below), seemingly repeating a stump speech over and over.  What's going on here?  It's painful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=188stKSdsE4

It's not really an answer, but presumably Warren and her advisors think it is the best political strategy to respond that way to that question.  I have heard others surmise that she is avoiding creating video of her saying taxes will go up so that the Republicans cannot use it against her in the general campaign, assuming she gets the nomination.  But I do not know if that is her thinking.

I agree with you that it's painful.  I think she does know the approximate numbers.  The more I think about it, the more I think she would be well served to just adopt Sanders' answer whole cloth.  But I'm not a member of her campaign staff, so my opinion on the matter is probably of very little interest.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4103
  • Age: 28
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1122 on: October 18, 2019, 10:42:45 AM »
I watched the Democratic Debate the other night and one thing really stood out to me that I am hoping someone can explain.  Why is it that Warren won't say 'yes' or 'no' as to whether middle class taxes will go up, even though she is running on Bernie's Medicare for All proposal, and Bernie himself says they will?  Why can't she just say that taxes will go up, but overall out of pocket costs for the middle class will go down?  Or is that not true?  Does she not know?
I too found that extremely off-putting.  I appreciated Bernie's frank explanation.  It seems like a no-brainer and an easy way to shut down that argument.  Just like "but xxx million people will lose their coverage!" ... but they will also all get new coverage so that's not exactly a problem in and of itself. 

It really feels like they're emphasizing the wrong details in the healthcare questions.  Both issues have a one sentence straightforward answer, and we should be able to move on to other more complicated topics within healthcare.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1123 on: October 18, 2019, 10:59:14 AM »
It just seems like anyone should be able to understand that YES, they are proposing a tax increase, but it will be to PROVIDE you with healthcare.  As long as the net is a reduction in yearly expenses for most people, why is that so hard to say?  I do understand that this might not be true for all, however.  And I can understand why some people would not want their current insurance ripped away.  But from what I understand, Medicare for All makes the most sense when you have a large population of people (both sick and healthy) contributing, and it would also help with negotiating prescription prices... so just say that too?

I personally lean conservative in my political views (voted 3rd party last year, because I just could not vote for Trump) but I really would like to get behind a nominee who I sincerely believe can make a national health care program work this coming election... but at this point the front runner (Warren) seems super disingenuous... which is weird because she is usually quite frank.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2019, 11:00:54 AM by v8rx7guy »

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1124 on: October 18, 2019, 11:21:03 AM »
I watched the Democratic Debate the other night and one thing really stood out to me that I am hoping someone can explain.  Why is it that Warren won't say 'yes' or 'no' as to whether middle class taxes will go up, even though she is running on Bernie's Medicare for All proposal, and Bernie himself says they will?  Why can't she just say that taxes will go up, but overall out of pocket costs for the middle class will go down?  Or is that not true?  Does she not know?

Even after the debate she was even more dodgy of the question (see video below), seemingly repeating a stump speech over and over.  What's going on here?  It's painful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=188stKSdsE4

It's not really an answer, but presumably Warren and her advisors think it is the best political strategy to respond that way to that question.  I have heard others surmise that she is avoiding creating video of her saying taxes will go up so that the Republicans cannot use it against her in the general campaign, assuming she gets the nomination.  But I do not know if that is her thinking.

I agree with you that it's painful.  I think she does know the approximate numbers.  The more I think about it, the more I think she would be well served to just adopt Sanders' answer whole cloth.  But I'm not a member of her campaign staff, so my opinion on the matter is probably of very little interest.

I'll second this explanation. It's incredibly frustrating for people like us who want to have an open and honest discussion about the pros and cons of a given policy, but as someone who relies on the votes of the general public to get into office, she must consider how all voters will behave. Even the ones who make their decisions based on sound bites.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1125 on: October 18, 2019, 11:26:58 AM »
It just seems like anyone should be able to understand that YES, they are proposing a tax increase, but it will be to PROVIDE you with healthcare.  As long as the net is a reduction in yearly expenses for most people, why is that so hard to say?

Another thought:  Saying things this way raises the point that the health care would be government paid for and thus government would have more say and control.

For some people, this may not matter.  For those with private health care (~150 million depending on who's talking) and especially those who have union-negotiated "Cadillac" health care plans, the thought may not appeal to them.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1126 on: October 18, 2019, 11:39:20 AM »
Of course you all realize that Medicare for All is highly unlikely to pass, even with a President Warren.  I would say if you get a Democratic President and if you get a Democratic Senate and if you get filibuster reform, you might get the public option.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1127 on: October 18, 2019, 11:40:02 AM »
I watched the Democratic Debate the other night and one thing really stood out to me that I am hoping someone can explain.  Why is it that Warren won't say 'yes' or 'no' as to whether middle class taxes will go up, even though she is running on Bernie's Medicare for All proposal, and Bernie himself says they will?  Why can't she just say that taxes will go up, but overall out of pocket costs for the middle class will go down?  Or is that not true?  Does she not know?
I too found that extremely off-putting.  I appreciated Bernie's frank explanation.  It seems like a no-brainer and an easy way to shut down that argument.  Just like "but xxx million people will lose their coverage!" ... but they will also all get new coverage so that's not exactly a problem in and of itself. 

It really feels like they're emphasizing the wrong details in the healthcare questions.  Both issues have a one sentence straightforward answer, and we should be able to move on to other more complicated topics within healthcare.

I actually really appreciate her not giving up on that line. Plenty of people out there have an amygdala response to the word 'taxes'. It doesn't even matter if people's total costs will go down. As soon as she says "yeah taxes are going to go up, but total cost will go down." You have a complete promise from Fox News to CNN will be stating Medicare for all as a "tax increase".

In fact, since this seems to be one of the favorite questions of debate moderators so far, it means Warren gets to say over and over again "Medicare for all saves you money". If she admitted to raising taxes, the question would disappear and it would be relabelled as increased tax burden.

There was a town out in rural Oregon that voted away their library because a lot of people have it beat into their head that "all taxes are bad". I don't blame Warren for holding this line. It's already obvious to every moderator and rich people that their taxes would go up, so getting her to say it in those words is nothing more than to get the headline "Warren wants to Raise Taxes"

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1128 on: October 18, 2019, 11:57:59 AM »
Of course you all realize that Medicare for All is highly unlikely to pass, even with a President Warren.  I would say if you get a Democratic President and if you get a Democratic Senate and if you get filibuster reform, you might get the public option.

Great point, Matt Yglesias makes it all the time on his twitter feed. With the filibuster, Republicans will retain the ability to block just about any legislation, even in the worst case scenarios for them for the 2020 elections. With ending the filibuster, the median Senator in any scenario will still be either one of the most moderate Democrats or most moderate Republicans, which will again make sweeping legislation unlikely, at least not without significant compromise. Regardless of the filibuster, the latter also applies to appointments. I personally get excited about many of the proposals from many of the Democratic primary candidates, but the reality is twofold in my opinion: 1) the presidential election must be about preventing Trump or Pence from achieving (notice I didn't say winning ;) ) another term and righting the massive damage those two have wrought on the executive branch, and 2) real policy change will not be dependent on who's president, but rather on who controls Congress as well as many of the state legislatures and governors. It's that latter part that so many people miss; I wish people like Steyer and Bloomberg would stop spending their money on presidential elections and start focusing on reversing the damage that's been done at the state level, and that trickles up to Congress and President.

Poundwise

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1129 on: October 18, 2019, 09:23:24 PM »
I watched the Democratic Debate the other night and one thing really stood out to me that I am hoping someone can explain.  Why is it that Warren won't say 'yes' or 'no' as to whether middle class taxes will go up, even though she is running on Bernie's Medicare for All proposal, and Bernie himself says they will?  Why can't she just say that taxes will go up, but overall out of pocket costs for the middle class will go down?  Or is that not true?  Does she not know?
I too found that extremely off-putting.  I appreciated Bernie's frank explanation.  It seems like a no-brainer and an easy way to shut down that argument.  Just like "but xxx million people will lose their coverage!" ... but they will also all get new coverage so that's not exactly a problem in and of itself. 

It really feels like they're emphasizing the wrong details in the healthcare questions.  Both issues have a one sentence straightforward answer, and we should be able to move on to other more complicated topics within healthcare.

Medicare for All is, after all, Bernie's plan and should have been his question to answer. As it was, he gave a very short, clear explanation:
Quote
Well, as somebody who wrote the damn bill, as I said, let's be clear. Under the Medicare for all bill that I wrote, premiums are gone. Co-payments are gone. Deductibles are gone. All out-of-pocket expenses are gone. We're going to do better than the Canadians do, and that is what they have managed to do.

At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their health care bills. But I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up. They're going to go up significantly for the wealthy. And for virtually everybody, the tax increase they pay will be substantially less -- substantially less than what they were paying for premiums and out-of-pocket expansions.

"The overwhelming majority of people will save money on their health care bills": this should have been easy for the press to digest.

And yet I read the headlines the next day: "Read Bernie Sanders' Lips: Elizabeth Warren Will Raise Taxes".  "Are Democrats Willing to Pay More in Taxes for Medicare for All?"  and so on.  They wanted this quote from her, but Warren was very disciplined and did not fall into the trap. We're just not going to get an answer from her that will fit into a headline or a meme. And that is fine, because an honest answer about how M4A will be paid for won't fit into a short sentence. There will have be a huge number of different sources, and the results will be universal coverage and a whole lot less paperwork for all.

 We have to remember that Warren's big deal is fighting corruption, fixing capitalism, and protecting democracy. If elected, she'll be happy to sign Bernie's M4A bill, support an Inslee-type climate change plan, maybe a Castro immigration reform plan, etc.  if they can make it to her desk. But her first priority would be to make sure Trump 2.0 could not happen.  Part of fixing democracy would involve leveling the playing field and making sure that the rich can't buy political influence and interfere with the media as they have been. Once the will of the people can be determined without interference, this might mean that we're willing to invest in  short-term-expensive-but-long-term-saving things like stopping climate change or universal healthcare. 
« Last Edit: October 19, 2019, 09:32:52 AM by Poundwise »

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1353
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1130 on: October 19, 2019, 06:58:56 PM »
Those news media folks who are sort of emphasizing the raising of taxes while ignoring the loss of premiums happen to work for those rich folks whose taxes will go up.  I guess these people know where their bread is buttered and realize the need for some obfuscation.  If a little obfuscation will help one remain steadily employed, it is probably an easy decision to arrive at.

If that health care change goes through or a similar variation, it will help a lot of people.

OzzieandHarriet

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1131 on: October 21, 2019, 07:31:03 PM »

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1132 on: October 21, 2019, 07:34:35 PM »
Anyone think Romney is thinking about primarying Trump?

Seems like I didn't hear much about him since he won his Senate seat two years ago, and now he's showing up in the news as very critical of Trump on multiple items.

He's got more name recognition than the other two Republicans running.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1133 on: October 21, 2019, 07:53:40 PM »
Anyone think Romney is thinking about primarying Trump?

Seems like I didn't hear much about him since he won his Senate seat two years ago, and now he's showing up in the news as very critical of Trump on multiple items.

He's got more name recognition than the other two Republicans running.

The only hope of Romney winning would only be if Biden was his opponent. And even then I think Romney would be at the disadvantage. The GOP senate as a whole is concerned about 1 thing: maintaining GOP majority. If it becomes obvious that Trump threatens to hurt down ticket senators more than if Bill Weld ran, then you would see them all flip soon. Right now, I think since there's very limited polling happening, most senators don't really know what to do right now. Even though Mitch is in a safe seat, his status as Majority Leader is in jeopardy. So the only polls and outcomes Mitch cares about are the senate races for: CO, ME, NC, AZ, IA, and AL. Right now he only has to win 2-3 (depending on 2020 VP) to maintain his position. If polls show a threat to senators in TX, MT, KS, and GA. You can bet that they would abandon Trump and try to make this as boring of an election as possible.

All of this goes for Mitt too. His power as a Senator changes greatly between whether he gets to chair a committee or just be a minority voice. It's just that Mitt and Mitch might not see the polls the same way at the moment.

Also, I don't think the Senate wants Pence to be president. Or if he is, they don't want him there long. Pence would be a 100% Bob Dole level loser. So Pence can't be president long enough to be seen as the de facto nominee.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1134 on: October 21, 2019, 07:55:51 PM »
Anyone think Romney is thinking about primarying Trump?

Seems like I didn't hear much about him since he won his Senate seat two years ago, and now he's showing up in the news as very critical of Trump on multiple items.

He's got more name recognition than the other two Republicans running.

He lost to Obama in  2012 and it's usually hard to recover from that.  Though I would love anyone to give Trump a run for his position in 2020 so another shot by Romney would be welcomed by me and many others.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1135 on: October 21, 2019, 07:58:28 PM »
Tulsi Gabbard fans, maybe read this and reconsider:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-2020-democratic-primary
I think what's disappointing (but unsurprising) about the Gabbard criticisms is that they rarely address her actual policy positions directly, though that article is better than many others making the rounds. Increasingly, politics is becoming about establishing blemish-free optics (though maybe Trump was a reaction against that trend). The aversion to guilt-by-association precludes adopting any heterodox positions, since we now know the grave risk that RT will notice and favorably unpack your policies like a set of nesting dolls on TV.

Anyone think Romney is thinking about primarying Trump?

Seems like I didn't hear much about him since he won his Senate seat two years ago, and now he's showing up in the news as very critical of Trump on multiple items.

He's got more name recognition than the other two Republicans running.
I hope Romney kept his "binders full of women" all these years so he can admit to Billy Bush how he likes to "grab them by the dossier".

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1136 on: October 22, 2019, 11:32:01 AM »
Though I would love anyone to give Trump a run for his position in 2020 so another shot by Romney would be welcomed by me and many others.

Eh on Romney, but I'd certainly give Pierre Delecto a serious look.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1137 on: October 22, 2019, 12:13:18 PM »
Though I would love anyone to give Trump a run for his position in 2020 so another shot by Romney would be welcomed by me and many others.

Eh on Romney, but I'd certainly give Pierre Delecto a serious look.

Not going to lie... had to google, "Who is Pierre Delecto"

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1138 on: October 22, 2019, 02:13:14 PM »
I get the sense that someday soon the Democratic Party will split, probably by the end of the 20s.  I also get the sense that post-Trump, the Republican Party will be permanently weakened.  What I think we will end up with is a new left-wing socialist party a la AOC, a rump social conservative / religious right Republican party, and a centrist Democratic party that will include what is left of the business Republicans.  These three parties would roughly correspond to urban, rural, and suburban voters.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1139 on: October 22, 2019, 02:26:47 PM »
I get the sense that someday soon the Democratic Party will split, probably by the end of the 20s.  I also get the sense that post-Trump, the Republican Party will be permanently weakened.  What I think we will end up with is a new left-wing socialist party a la AOC, a rump social conservative / religious right Republican party, and a centrist Democratic party that will include what is left of the business Republicans.  These three parties would roughly correspond to urban, rural, and suburban voters.

 If our government were a Parliamentary system, I could see that happening. Since our current system requires consolidation in order to have effective governance, there won't be any sort of split. What you'll instead see is a weakened GOP forced to change its position when the current cast of leaders resign and is forced to return closer to the political center. This may siphon off some of the disaffected centrist Dems. But I agree none of this will happen until closer to 2024 or 2028. Old GOP will have to retire before the party politics are allowed to shift.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1140 on: October 23, 2019, 10:49:23 AM »
Interesting idea. I'd push back a little, and point out to a number of successes in recent years in pulling the Democratic party and many of its supporters towards the left. It feels like the party is shifting mostly as a whole, though there are obvious dissenters, and those dissenters obviously feel left behind.

I think that at least a part of the behavior of national Republicans towards Trump can be explained by the more real (to me) possibility that Trump rips the Republicans into two parties. Which is kind of what you said in your second part, but I'd put the action point more as Republicans splitting, and the more moderate wing maybe peeling a portion of the moderate Democrats away, and not the other way around.

Nick_Miller

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
  • Location: A sprawling estate with one of those cool circular driveways in the front!
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1141 on: October 23, 2019, 10:56:34 AM »
I don't see any evidence of Trump ripping the party apart. Like at all.

The GOP politicians push back only on rare occasion, and then only in the most tepid possible ways. About 98% of the time, they rally around him and use the same talking points to spin everything he says and does, no matter how ridiculous, and no matter how clearly untruthful. So they are either liars or cowards or they legit support him.

Gallup's newest polls showed Trump with an 87% approval rating among GOP voters nationwide.

Make no mistake, the vast vast vast majority of Republicans are buying what Trump is selling and they will certainly double down in 2020. Will a few moderate Republicans peel away? ....maybe? But as the numbers show, it would be a sliver, not some sort of mass exodus.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2019, 10:59:09 AM by Nick_Miller »

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1142 on: October 23, 2019, 11:17:25 AM »
I'm not saying there is a schism or immediate threat, I'm saying that's where I think the action will be should there be one, and not from the Democratic party. Republican identification is down slightly, Democratic and independent affiliations are up slightly, there appears to be a historic exodus of incumbent Republican Congresspeople who will not seek reelection in 2020. Republican media appears to be showing cracks between Fox News/traditional sources versus Breitbart/other more fringe and upcoming sources. The GOP called itself a big tent party many decades ago, but since the 70s/80s there has been a slow crackdown on dissent, whereas you are seeing the opposite on the Democratic side; nothing real dramatic, but I'm talking overall trends, so I think the Democratic party is less cohesive, less focused, but more flexible, and the GOP has become more brittle. So for those reasons, I'd look for the break to start on the Republican side.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14572
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1143 on: October 23, 2019, 02:30:50 PM »
I don't see any evidence of Trump ripping the party apart. Like at all.

The GOP politicians push back only on rare occasion, and then only in the most tepid possible ways. About 98% of the time, they rally around him and use the same talking points to spin everything he says and does, no matter how ridiculous, and no matter how clearly untruthful. So they are either liars or cowards or they legit support him.

Gallup's newest polls showed Trump with an 87% approval rating among GOP voters nationwide.

Make no mistake, the vast vast vast majority of Republicans are buying what Trump is selling and they will certainly double down in 2020. Will a few moderate Republicans peel away? ....maybe? But as the numbers show, it would be a sliver, not some sort of mass exodus.

The GOP is completely behind Trump.  The people who vote Republican are overwhelmingly behind Trump.  He's not splitting the party apart . . . he is the party.  He embodies everything the party has come to stand for.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1144 on: October 23, 2019, 03:42:20 PM »
I don't see any evidence of Trump ripping the party apart. Like at all.

The GOP politicians push back only on rare occasion, and then only in the most tepid possible ways. About 98% of the time, they rally around him and use the same talking points to spin everything he says and does, no matter how ridiculous, and no matter how clearly untruthful. So they are either liars or cowards or they legit support him.

Gallup's newest polls showed Trump with an 87% approval rating among GOP voters nationwide.

Make no mistake, the vast vast vast majority of Republicans are buying what Trump is selling and they will certainly double down in 2020. Will a few moderate Republicans peel away? ....maybe? But as the numbers show, it would be a sliver, not some sort of mass exodus.

The GOP is completely behind Trump.  The people who vote Republican are overwhelmingly behind Trump.  He's not splitting the party apart . . . he is the party.  He embodies everything the party has come to stand for.

If we were looking for random patterns in polling to know whether he'll win re-election, he's had some of the worst presidential approval ratings out of any president since they started doing those polls.

Basically the absolute worst it can get is around 25%. That's the bottom. If Trump started hitting that number, the GOP would absolutely flip on him.

The only president's to go that low were:

Truman when unemployment doubled and the rising unpopularity of the Korean War
Nixon near his resignation
End of Bush W. near the peak of the 2008 financial crisis.

It looks to me that generally presidents stay if they are above the 45-50% range, and lost if they were below that.
Trump has hovered around 40% his entire presidency. He has never polled above 50%

The only one to buck that trend was Ford. He lost despite having a pretty good approval rating right around 45% Though from what I can read on the election it looks like it was kind of a Trump v. Clinton election. 2 highly unliked candidates. Which I think continues to be Trump's best bet at reelection: find the most blasé candidate, not going to bring out any first time voters, won't fire anyone up. (ie Biden, Klobuchar)

Trump is fighting a 60% disapproval. He just needs to keep 20% of those home to win.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1145 on: October 23, 2019, 04:09:06 PM »
The thing everyone is missing and what could be a shock is that people can disapprove of someone and still vote for them out of fear of the unknown or fear of change.

It is how someone with only a 40% approval rating could get re-elected.

secondcor521

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2540
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Big cattle, no hat.
    • Age of Eon - Overwatch player videos
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1146 on: October 23, 2019, 04:43:27 PM »
On day 981 of their respective Presidencies, it is interesting to compare the approval ratings of Trump and Obama.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

(We're somewhere between day 1001 and 1007 of this term, so day 981 was a bit less than a month ago.)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1147 on: October 23, 2019, 06:22:08 PM »
The thing everyone is missing and what could be a shock is that people can disapprove of someone and still vote for them out of fear of the unknown or fear of change.

It is how someone with only a 40% approval rating could get re-elected.

No I think everyone knows that. But historically, 40% wasn't enough. So there will have to be more nose-holding votes than what has happened before. Not impossible, but not good for Trump either.

On day 981 of their respective Presidencies, it is interesting to compare the approval ratings of Trump and Obama.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

(We're somewhere between day 1001 and 1007 of this term, so day 981 was a bit less than a month ago.)

I think that was somewhere right around the passage of Obamacare?  So he suffered a blip in approval rating for about 9 months for that bill then went back to hovering around 50% by January. Not sure what comparing a single day does though. The important timeframe for this will be how they compare in October 2020.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1148 on: October 23, 2019, 08:15:33 PM »
Trump will need a good war in 2020 or a big terrorist act that diverts attention from smaller things like the Ukraine scandal and makes people reluctant to put a woman in the White House (assuming Warren gets the nomination).

Right now I think that is his only chance...now are we into conspiracy enough to think he could arrange such a thing or is that just in the movies?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4680
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #1149 on: October 23, 2019, 09:14:41 PM »
Trump will need a good war in 2020 or a big terrorist act that diverts attention from smaller things like the Ukraine scandal and makes people reluctant to put a woman in the White House (assuming Warren gets the nomination).

Right now I think that is his only chance...now are we into conspiracy enough to think he could arrange such a thing or is that just in the movies?

Given everything it’s pretty clear he has already done or tried to do, I’m not sure that actually falls into ‘conspiracy’ territory. And given that most people around him who have any integrity at all have jumped ship... we might be in the position of just having to hope the people around him are too dumb to pull it off.