Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Election 2020
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(02-12-2020, 04:17 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-12-2020, 12:44 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-11-2020, 10:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]Well Bernie's kicking it 2nite Smile

With Bennett gone will Jim Carville support Bernie now Tongue

Carville and Bernie are both curmudgeons, and they don't like each other very well.  What do you think?

-- l think think l  was making a joke Big Grin

OK.  I guess my humor meter was on the fritz. Rolleyes
Democratic Presidential Nomination
Sanders23.6
Biden19.2
Bloomberg14.2
Warren12.4
Buttigieg10.6
Klobuchar4.6
Yang3.0
Steyer1.8
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/2020/
(02-13-2020, 02:30 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democratic Presidential Nomination
Sanders23.6
Biden19.2
Bloomberg14.2
Warren12.4
Buttigieg10.6
Klobuchar4.6
Yang3.0
Steyer1.8
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/2020/

Anything prior to Super Tuesday is just speculation.  I think NH showed how easy it is to get an electoral shift by something as non-substantive as a debate.  Reason has succumbed to emotion.

The Dems are in a tizzy this year, and they should be.  The one nonnegotiable is a Trump defeat.  It's also the most contentious and least possible to predict.  I've listened to every argument, and none is truly persuasive.  Then again, all are possible.  That's why the electorate is spinning in circles, awaiting the great awakening that brings the magic answer.  More likely: we'll get the last (wo)man standing.  Judging by wallet size, that should be Magic Mike.
Bloomberg is doing well in Florida (first major state in which I have seen him leading a poll). But not so well in Texas.

Friday, February 14
Race Poll Results Spread

Texas Democratic Primary UT/Texas Tribune Biden 22, Sanders 24, Warren 15, Bloomberg 10, Buttigieg 7, Klobuchar 3, Yang 6, Gabbard 2 Sanders +2

Georgia Democratic Primary WSB-TV/Landmark Biden 32, Sanders 14, Bloomberg 14, Buttigieg 5, Warren 4, Klobuchar 3, Steyer 2, Gabbard 1 Biden +18

Florida Democratic Presidential Primary St. Pete Polls Biden 26, Bloomberg 27, Sanders 10, Klobuchar 9, Warren 5, Buttigieg 11, Steyer 1, Gabbard Bloomberg +1

Texas: Trump vs. Sanders UT/Texas Tribune Trump 47, Sanders 45 Trump +2
Texas: Trump vs. Buttigieg UT/Texas Tribune Trump 46, Buttigieg 41 Trump +5
Texas: Trump vs. Bloomberg UT/Texas Tribune Trump 46, Bloomberg 41 Trump +5
Texas: Trump vs. Klobuchar UT/Texas Tribune Trump 46, Klobuchar 41 Trump +5
Texas: Trump vs. Biden UT/Texas Tribune Trump 47, Biden 43 Trump +4
Texas: Trump vs. Warren UT/Texas Tribune Trump 47, Warren 44 Trump +3

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...elections/

Mike has major problems for Democratic primary voters. First, he's a billionaire trying to buy the election, and he uses his money to buy supporters. There's no magic to Mike except the magic of money. Second, his record on labor unions and hiring practices is poor. Third, his stop and frisk policy hurts him with blacks. Fourth, his shut down of Occupy hurts him with liberal youth. Fifth, not all voters like his nanny-state approach to indulgences like soda pop and grass. I'm sure there's more. His major appeal is competence, "Mike will get it done." We know how that fared with that other Mike. And he has no personality, even a complacent 'murican one like Nixon and the Bushes, which is fatal to a USA presidential candidate. In a year when Democrats are choosing who can beat Trump, that is a drawback that some Democratic primary voters might consider.

New polls today:
Nevada Democratic Presidential Caucus Las Vegas Review-Journal Sanders 25, Biden 18, Warren 13, Steyer 11, Buttigieg 10, Klobuchar 10, Gabbard Sanders +7

South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary East Carolina U. Biden 28, Sanders 20, Steyer 14, Warren 7, Buttigieg 8, Klobuchar 7, Gabbard 1 Biden +8
(02-14-2020, 11:36 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]... Mike has major problems for Democratic primary voters. First, he's a billionaire trying to buy the election, and he uses his money to buy supporters. There's no magic to Mike except the magic of money. Second, his record on labor unions and hiring practices is poor. Third, his stop and frisk policy hurts him with blacks. Fourth, his shut down of Occupy hurts him with liberal youth. Fifth, not all voters like his nanny-state approach to indulgences like soda pop and grass. I'm sure there's more. His major appeal is competence, "Mike will get it done." We know how that fared with that other Mike. And he has no personality, even a complacent 'murican one like Nixon and the Bushes, which is fatal to a USA presidential candidate. In a year when Democrats are choosing who can beat Trump, that is a drawback that some Democratic primary voters might consider...

We should be at the end of a half-cycle, where the more progressive views begin to take hold in earnest.  I would prefer it that way; I hope it's true.  If the Dems select Bloomberg out of fear, and that's what it would be, then we're still awaiting the regeneracy that's out there somewhere.  You're right.  Mike Bloomberg cannot and will not be the one to reign in the excesses and point to a new way.  If he's the candidate, Dems will have to back him to the hilt, because the alternative is four more years of Trump literally tearing the guts out of the country.  It's questionable whether recovery would be possible in the aftermath.  Then again, a Bloomberg victory would forestall the arrival of the ne paradigm, yet again.  I'm not sure pushing a regeneracy out much further is possible, so we may fail this cycle.  If so, I would hope to live to an unreasonable age to see the next iteration finally fix things.
(02-14-2020, 01:49 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2020, 11:36 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]... Mike has major problems for Democratic primary voters. First, he's a billionaire trying to buy the election, and he uses his money to buy supporters. There's no magic to Mike except the magic of money. Second, his record on labor unions and hiring practices is poor. Third, his stop and frisk policy hurts him with blacks. Fourth, his shut down of Occupy hurts him with liberal youth. Fifth, not all voters like his nanny-state approach to indulgences like soda pop and grass. I'm sure there's more. His major appeal is competence, "Mike will get it done." We know how that fared with that other Mike. And he has no personality, even a complacent 'murican one like Nixon and the Bushes, which is fatal to a USA presidential candidate. In a year when Democrats are choosing who can beat Trump, that is a drawback that some Democratic primary voters might consider...

We should be at the end of a half-cycle, where the more progressive views begin to take hold in earnest.  I would prefer it that way; I hope it's true.  If the Dems select Bloomberg out of fear, and that's what it would be, then we're still awaiting the regeneracy that's out there somewhere.  You're right.  Mike Bloomberg cannot and will not be the one to reign in the excesses and point to a new way.  If he's the candidate, Dems will have to back him to the hilt, because the alternative is four more years of Trump literally tearing the guts out of the country.  It's questionable whether recovery would be possible in the aftermath.  Then again, a Bloomberg victory would forestall the arrival of the ne paradigm, yet again.  I'm not sure pushing a regeneracy out much further is possible, so we may fail this cycle.  If so, I would hope to live to an unreasonable age to see the next iteration finally fix things.

You are still assuming the Industrial Age sequence.  The new values were manifested in a crises war.  Democracy was not trusted to implement a transformation.  Without nukes, there used to be crisis wars.  Now?  The idealist generation of boomers was divided, so they blocked transformation and a crisis regeneracy. While September 11 echoed Pearl Harbor and Fort Sumpter, it did not trigger a mobilization. Whlle a new set of values was thrown out to implement Neo colonialism, they were conservative values running under a conservative president. Cut and run won over stay the course. The US was unwilling to commit the boots on the ground necessary to make the proposed values win. The economy tanked into the Great Recession. The crisis, if potential crisis it was, failed to transition into shifting values into the new neo colonial pattern.  

There are lots of reasons to not take the Industrial Age pattern seriously during the recent crisis turning.

It is still early to predict an Information Age pattern.  Yes, the crisis era is about past without transformation.  When might we see a values shift?

Could the high configuration result in transformation?  This should be a time of lockstep, of rejection of the old way of thinking, of just plain walking over any remnants of the old values that get in the way.  McCarthyism and its rejection of communism and liberalism is an example from the 1950s.  Does the OK Boomer meme stand a chance, a contempt for the old values?   Would a rebirth of democracy and rejection of authoritarianism and all things Republican fit.  Does the rededication to infrastructure fit with building renewable resources and paying attention to decaying bridges?  Can the new ideals be accepted in a high without being preceded by a crisis trial and error period by just saying no?

Or do we have to wait for the awakening?  The Civill Rights movement, the Women’s Rights movement, the shift in the Domino Effect policy every time the authoritarians try to expand, a wave of environmentalism, all occurred with the GIs dominant in power and through the passage of major congressional legislation.  Thus, arguably, the last awakening was transformational, and the next one would repeat the pattern.  The awakening might be the transformational turning for the Information Age, not the crisis.

I am not sure where to put my bets.  It could be a combination of all three, or it could be none of the above.  There might not even be four repeating generations or turnings in the Information Age.  It may be too soon to tell with certainty.
(02-14-2020, 01:49 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2020, 11:36 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]... Mike has major problems for Democratic primary voters. First, he's a billionaire trying to buy the election, and he uses his money to buy supporters. There's no magic to Mike except the magic of money. Second, his record on labor unions and hiring practices is poor. Third, his stop and frisk policy hurts him with blacks. Fourth, his shut down of Occupy hurts him with liberal youth. Fifth, not all voters like his nanny-state approach to indulgences like soda pop and grass. I'm sure there's more. His major appeal is competence, "Mike will get it done." We know how that fared with that other Mike. And he has no personality, even a complacent 'murican one like Nixon and the Bushes, which is fatal to a USA presidential candidate. In a year when Democrats are choosing who can beat Trump, that is a drawback that some Democratic primary voters might consider...

We should be at the end of a half-cycle, where the more progressive views begin to take hold in earnest.  I would prefer it that way; I hope it's true.  If the Dems select Bloomberg out of fear, and that's what it would be, then we're still awaiting the regeneracy that's out there somewhere.  You're right.  Mike Bloomberg cannot and will not be the one to reign in the excesses and point to a new way.  If he's the candidate, Dems will have to back him to the hilt, because the alternative is four more years of Trump literally tearing the guts out of the country.  It's questionable whether recovery would be possible in the aftermath.  Then again, a Bloomberg victory would forestall the arrival of the new paradigm, yet again.  I'm not sure pushing a regeneracy out much further is possible, so we may fail this cycle.  If so, I would hope to live to an unreasonable age to see the next iteration finally fix things.

I'd rather see it that the regeneracy is in process in the last couple of years, and it's a question of how far it will move the ship of state, and how soon. Who the president is, is important, but the leadership toward the new paradigm comes from the people too. I don't think Democrats will choose Bloomberg, for the reasons above. Right now it all seems to depend on whether the regeneracy among the people has gone far enough for them to be willing to choose Sanders, or whether they will be scared of his political label. If Biden revives, then he is an alternative that would move the ship of state to the new course more slowly. I don't think any other Democrats have a chance. The Democrats could certainly nominate Buttigieg or another loser, but I don't think he can sustain his current success either.
(02-15-2020, 12:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I'd rather see it that the regeneracy is in process in the last couple of years, and it's a question of how far it will move the ship of state, and how soon. Who the president is, is important, but the leadership toward the new paradigm comes from the people too. I don't think Democrats will choose Bloomberg, for the reasons above. Right now it all seems to depend on whether the regeneracy among the people has gone far enough for them to be willing to choose Sanders, or whether they will be scared of his political label. If Biden revives, then he is an alternative that would move the ship of state to the new course more slowly. I don't think any other Democrats have a chance. The Democrats could certainly nominate Buttigieg or another loser, but I don't think he can sustain his current success either.

There's a great comment in the NYT from Paul Krugman. He's really pissed at Bernie Sanders, not for his policy positions which he tends to favor, but from a total frustration with his apparent need to sell himself as a socialist when he clearly is not one. I even wrote about that myself months ago.

If he had adopted the more accurate label of social democrat, he would have much broader support than he does. But using the magic work 'socialist' is, to many people -- especially older people, like labeling himself as a pedophile. It's unacceptable on a visceral level … and he's doing it for no reason at all. He cites Denmark, but Denmark has few if any true socialists; plenty of social democrats though. Why not be who you are instead of starting an unnecessary fight that costs dearly and gains nothing?
(02-14-2020, 01:49 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2020, 11:36 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]... Mike has major problems for Democratic primary voters. First, he's a billionaire trying to buy the election, and he uses his money to buy supporters. There's no magic to Mike except the magic of money. Second, his record on labor unions and hiring practices is poor. Third, his stop and frisk policy hurts him with blacks. Fourth, his shut down of Occupy hurts him with liberal youth. Fifth, not all voters like his nanny-state approach to indulgences like soda pop and grass. I'm sure there's more. His major appeal is competence, "Mike will get it done." We know how that fared with that other Mike. And he has no personality, even a complacent 'murican one like Nixon and the Bushes, which is fatal to a USA presidential candidate. In a year when Democrats are choosing who can beat Trump, that is a drawback that some Democratic primary voters might consider...

We should be at the end of a half-cycle, where the more progressive views begin to take hold in earnest.  I would prefer it that way; I hope it's true.  If the Dems select Bloomberg out of fear, and that's what it would be, then we're still awaiting the regeneracy that's out there somewhere.  You're right.  Mike Bloomberg cannot and will not be the one to reign in the excesses and point to a new way.  If he's the candidate, Dems will have to back him to the hilt, because the alternative is four more years of Trump literally tearing the guts out of the country.  It's questionable whether recovery would be possible in the aftermath.  Then again, a Bloomberg victory would forestall the arrival of the ne paradigm, yet again.  I'm not sure pushing a regeneracy out much further is possible, so we may fail this cycle.  If so, I would hope to live to an unreasonable age to see the next iteration finally fix things.

We are seeing the breakdown of the dehumanized individualism that took its baby steps with Reagan only to become the gallop of Donald Trump. People wanted expression of individuality, and not a conformity of suffering on behalf of rapacious, unprincipled elites like Donald Trump. Nobody wanted a grim contest to determine who would get survival by accepting the worst, but with the most theatrical expression of delight, on behalf of greedy people loyal only to themselves and their self-esteem.

We hit bottom with Trump. After a bad binge we are beaten, disoriented, and broke. We bought drinks for everyone on what was intended to be the down-payment on a new car and gave a 30% tip to the bartender. We got rolled for what was left in our pockets, including the car keys, and someone used the car on a joyride that totaled the car. We do get to ride on a more expensive vehicle now -- the bus for which we have a 30-minute wait in the climate of Kansas City, with arctic winters at the start of a winter day and tropical summers at the end of the day's work -- in line for the bus. (I am picking on Kansas City for its fire-and-ice climate, and nothing else). If we do get a car it will be a car older than the usual lifespan of a dog -- from a tote-the-note lot at which one makes "convenient weekly payments" largely of an interest rate of 40% per year (basically a lease because the car will not last five years. The tote-the-note lot will replace your clunker with another jalopy in a profitable transaction. Because of our irresponsibility, the insurance rate has just tripled.

It all makes us want to drop out, doesn't it? Well, there is no place in which to drop out. 

The good thing about the whole mess is that we have quit drinking because we can't even afford mass-market beer. Our liver thanks us as it gets to recover some. Unfortunately we get to feel reality harshest in an unforgiving economic order that punishes simple bad luck as if it were a crime.  

Well, at least the bartender got a down-payment on a new car. For that we get to feel cheer.
(11-12-2018, 10:18 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The Lichtman test, as you may recall, consists of thirteen keys for predicting who wins result of the next Presidential election.

(update, 15 February 2020)

The Keys are statements that favor victory (in the popular vote count) for the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win the popular vote.

Code: red -- favors Democrats without ambiguity.
blue -- favors the Republican (Trump, or in case something happens to him, Pence)
green -- yet to be decided
-- ambiguous and subject to interpretation.

1.    Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2.    Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.    Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4.    Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5.    Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.    Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7.    Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8.    Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.    Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.    Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

11.    Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.   Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.   Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.


1. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE. We now have a definitive and irreversible answer as of November 6, 2018. The GOP not only lost seats in the House of Representatives, but also its majority. This is usually a negative for practically any administration. This was green (pending) until a the 2018 election.

2. NOW NEGATIVE. Bill Weld got 9.1% of the vote in the supposedly-uncontested Republican primary in New Hampshire. I do not see President Trump anywhere close to losing the nomination, but the vote for Weld indicates that some Republicans have cold feet about the nearly-certain nominee of their Party for President. Those cold feet could go either to the Democrat  (a 0.5% even swing which would likely be concentrated in states close in 2016 would be enough to defeat Trump) or to a conservative Third Party, a right-wing equivalent of the Green Party. Even if Bill Weld has the relevance of Harold Stassen as a perennial nominee (is he still a candidate even if now deceased?) in multiple years, a President who barely got elected and then under flukish circumstances and who has apparently gained no significant support, such bodes ill for a re-election campaign that can afford no significant hemorrhage of support in any direction. This is much more severe than the meaningless opposition to Barack Obama from a crank like Lyndon LaRouche in 2012.

Obama could afford to lose a little support from 2008 and win. Even a slight loss of popular support for Donald Trump is enough to defeat him in the general election. Lichtman was ambiguous in saying how much support for an intra-party challenge was. It takes much less to defeat someone who barely got elected (think of Jimmy Carter) than someone who won in a binary near-landslide (Obama). If people are writing in "Santa Claus" or "Mickey Mouse", then who cares?  If people are voting for a former State governor (Weld, Kasich)  instead of the incumbent within the primary, then such protest votes will be relevant in what can at most be a close win for the incumbent.

Effective Presidents rarely get elected the first time by unimpressive margins, and those that face challenges from ideological purists or ethical dissidents have troubled Presidencies. Trump had little room for any reduction of support from 2016, and demographics of the vote aren't going his way. William Weld may not be quite the same sort of internal challenge to Trump that Teddy Kennedy was to Jimmy Carter in 1980, but the election of Donald Trump wasn't impressive to begin with.  

I do not see this as Democrats doing mischief to the Republicans; Democrats themselves have a contested process of nomination.    

3. A Republican will be President in 2020 and the incumbent will be running even if something happens to President Trump. Pence would run for re-election.

4. I think that there will be, but that is too far into the future for any discussion yet (although time is clearly running out). Still, the Libertarian, Reform, and Constitution Parties have their conventions yet to come... and if either one of them can field someone attractive enough to take more votes from the Republicans than from the Democrats, then this goes negative. 
 
5. Still too early to tell. Ask again in August or September 2020. Because the only bubble is valuation of stocks, I see no pervasive meltdown likely. Real-estate valuations are in bubbles where the economy is strong (let us say Boston), but terribly depressed where the economy is in the tank (Cleveland).

6. The Obama economy had a growth rate unusually high, as it was a recovery from a nasty recession. This will be impossible to meet. I treat this as a negative even if Trump is not at fault.

7. NOW NEGATIVE. He hasn't yet. The tax bill is it. I expect more efforts at deregulation of industry, union-cracking, and privatization even if those prove unpopular. This is a positive key even if the changes are widely unpopular. Time is running out, and he must achieve something significant for such to happen. 

8. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  Sure, the President did not directly inspire one of his supporters to send bombs to Democratic politicians and celebrities, but he consider himself lucky that none of those bombs blew up a target. Donald Trump may be no antisemite, but the creep who mowed down eleven Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue did so out of a concern that the  specific Jews had been  supporting immigration of non-white people. Worse, he has bumbled in his response. The frequent polite demonstrations from the Women's March on have not been unrest, but they can certainly call attention to his awfulness and aid in organizing an electoral opposition. 

President Trump's political image is being hit by both polite and civilized opposition (which is more effective) and by politically-charged violence *which is not so effective in forcing change, but is effective in discrediting the President.. He has offended thoughtful people who are organizing against him while his supporters and people that he has stirred up with his vituperation against immigrants and Islam. The polite and civilized opposition is far stronger than was the Tea Party against Obama, and politically-charged violence of any kind that people can trace to his rhetoric disgusts average people. Lichtman dismissed Tea Party protests, and Women's marches, marches for science, Black Lives Matter, and anti-gun protests get similar treatment from me. When one of the President's  loud supporters mails pipe bombs to Democratic politicians and to celebrities, or someone mows down Jews in a synagogue service in response to the President's rhetoric against a different group of people, then we have more dangerous unrest than the usual detraction that every President faces. This has gone from 'ambiguous' to 'solid negative' against the President. Worse, the President has bungled his response which solidifies the negative. To predict further unrest or political violence is irresponsible; for the sake of this country and innocent people I wish that there is no further more activity of the sort.

I can say this, though: brotherly love will not suddenly break out in America with this President unless it makes him the goat. 
 
9. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  This is the most systematically and severely corrupt Administration in American history. The legal problems keep piling up. The acquittal of the President in the impeachment is a blatant, almost-strictly-partisan, whitewash that convinces only the President's base. Governors, Senators, and Representatives with scandals of any kind tend to go down to defeat because Americans traditionally show little tolerance for such. 
  
10. (now) GIGANTIC NEGATIVE. I do not trust the deal with North Korea, and this President is insulting so many of America's traditional allies that something will go bad. The tariff is a disaster waiting to happen. He even bungled the memorials of the centennial of the end of World War I. If Trump had been wise, he would have deputized Barack Obama to do the job. Then again, this President knows about as much about scuba diving, which is nothing.  Worse, the impeachment was over an attempt to push a corrupt deal with a foreign government (Ukraine) that refused. This dovetails with "scandal" as Key 8... 

11. The nuke deal with North Korea? There is no enforcement in place. The President would need China and ideally also Russia as an enforcer, and ignored both. It turns out that the North Korean leader has dismantled some obsolete nukes while building more effective ones. Maybe the situation does not implode in the next two years. Let us all hope that this key does not turn negative. I prefer that South Korea fit the description "I have seen the future -- and it works" rather than be largely uninhabited, radioactive moonscape.   

12. NOW NEGATIVE. Trump already seems much less charismatic now than in 2016. He still has as solid support as ever from his cult. In the event that the Grim Reaper takes President Trump, Mike Pence has the charisma of a smelly cat box -- and he is clearly not a war hero.

13. We have no idea who the Democratic nominee will be.

One clear blue, eight red, three green (has not happened yet but still can), one purple (ambiguous). He must turn back two of the keys and prevent others from turning against him if he is to be re-elected.
(02-15-2020, 08:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2020, 12:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I'd rather see it that the regeneracy is in process in the last couple of years, and it's a question of how far it will move the ship of state, and how soon. Who the president is, is important, but the leadership toward the new paradigm comes from the people too. I don't think Democrats will choose Bloomberg, for the reasons above. Right now it all seems to depend on whether the regeneracy among the people has gone far enough for them to be willing to choose Sanders, or whether they will be scared of his political label. If Biden revives, then he is an alternative that would move the ship of state to the new course more slowly. I don't think any other Democrats have a chance. The Democrats could certainly nominate Buttigieg or another loser, but I don't think he can sustain his current success either.

There's a great comment in the NYT from Paul Krugman.  He's really pissed at Bernie Sanders, not for his policy positions which he tends to favor, but from a total frustration with his apparent need to sell himself as a socialist when he clearly is not one.  I even wrote about that myself months ago.  

If he had adopted the more accurate label of social democrat, he would have much broader support than he does.  But using the magic work 'socialist' is, to many people -- especially older people, like labeling himself as a pedophile.  It's unacceptable on a visceral level … and he's doing it for no reason at all.  He cites Denmark, but Denmark has few if any true socialists; plenty of social democrats though.  Why not be who you are instead of starting an unnecessary fight that costs dearly and gains nothing?

-- good article David & nice pic. I dunno y Bernie insists on selfidentifying as a "democratic socialist". I've been following him 4 years. He's an old school Dem, like the Dems back in the 60s & 70s. When u explain that 2 ppl, then they're cool with him. He should just say it from the start.
(02-15-2020, 08:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2020, 12:54 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I'd rather see it that the regeneracy is in process in the last couple of years, and it's a question of how far it will move the ship of state, and how soon. Who the president is, is important, but the leadership toward the new paradigm comes from the people too. I don't think Democrats will choose Bloomberg, for the reasons above. Right now it all seems to depend on whether the regeneracy among the people has gone far enough for them to be willing to choose Sanders, or whether they will be scared of his political label. If Biden revives, then he is an alternative that would move the ship of state to the new course more slowly. I don't think any other Democrats have a chance. The Democrats could certainly nominate Buttigieg or another loser, but I don't think he can sustain his current success either.

There's a great comment in the NYT from Paul Krugman.  He's really pissed at Bernie Sanders, not for his policy positions which he tends to favor, but from a total frustration with his apparent need to sell himself as a socialist when he clearly is not one.  I even wrote about that myself months ago.  

If he had adopted the more accurate label of social democrat, he would have much broader support than he does.  But using the magic work 'socialist' is, to many people -- especially older people, like labeling himself as a pedophile.  It's unacceptable on a visceral level … and he's doing it for no reason at all.  He cites Denmark, but Denmark has few if any true socialists; plenty of social democrats though.  Why not be who you are instead of starting an unnecessary fight that costs dearly and gains nothing?

Agreed. I don't think he would lose credibility if he reversed those two words. He does stress his interest in reviving what the Democrats used to be, but he needs to make clear that he is not going to overthrow capitalism or confiscate/nationalize ownership of all businesses, etc. which is what "socialism" means.
(02-15-2020, 10:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-12-2018, 10:18 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The Lichtman test, as you may recall, consists of thirteen keys for predicting who wins result of the next Presidential election.

(update, 15 February 2020)

The Keys are statements that favor victory (in the popular vote count) for the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win the popular vote.

Code: red -- favors Democrats without ambiguity.
blue -- favors the Republican (Trump, or in case something happens to him, Pence)
green -- yet to be decided
-- ambiguous and subject to interpretation.

1.    Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2.    Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.    Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4.    Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5.    Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.    Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7.    Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8.    Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.    Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.    Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

11.    Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.   Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.   Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.


1. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE. We now have a definitive and irreversible answer as of November 6, 2018. The GOP not only lost seats in the House of Representatives, but also its majority. This is usually a negative for practically any administration. This was green (pending) until a the 2018 election.

2. NOW NEGATIVE. Bill Weld got 9.1% of the vote in the supposedly-uncontested Republican primary in New Hampshire. I do not see President Trump anywhere close to losing the nomination, but the vote for Weld indicates that some Republicans have cold feet about the nearly-certain nominee of their Party for President. Those cold feet could go either to the Democrat  (a 0.5% even swing which would likely be concentrated in states close in 2016 would be enough to defeat Trump) or to a conservative Third Party, a right-wing equivalent of the Green Party. Even if Bill Weld has the relevance of Harold Stassen as a perennial nominee (is he still a candidate even if now deceased?) in multiple years, a President who barely got elected and then under flukish circumstances and who has apparently gained no significant support, such bodes ill for a re-election campaign that can afford no significant hemorrhage of support in any direction. This is much more severe than the meaningless opposition to Barack Obama from a crank like Lyndon LaRouche in 2012.

Obama could afford to lose a little support from 2008 and win. Even a slight loss of popular support for Donald Trump is enough to defeat him in the general election. Lichtman was ambiguous in saying how much support for an intra-party challenge was. It takes much less to defeat someone who barely got elected (think of Jimmy Carter) than someone who won in a binary near-landslide (Obama). If people are writing in "Santa Claus" or "Mickey Mouse", then who cares?  If people are voting for a former State governor (Weld, Kasich)  instead of the incumbent within the primary, then such protest votes will be relevant in what can at most be a close win for the incumbent.

Effective Presidents rarely get elected the first time by unimpressive margins, and those that face challenges from ideological purists or ethical dissidents have troubled Presidencies. Trump had little room for any reduction of support from 2016, and demographics of the vote aren't going his way. William Weld may not be quite the same sort of internal challenge to Trump that Teddy Kennedy was to Jimmy Carter in 1980, but the election of Donald Trump wasn't impressive to begin with.  

I do not see this as Democrats doing mischief to the Republicans; Democrats themselves have a contested process of nomination.    

3. A Republican will be President in 2020 and the incumbent will be running even if something happens to President Trump. Pence would run for re-election.

4. I think that there will be, but that is too far into the future for any discussion yet (although time is clearly running out). Still, the Libertarian, Reform, and Constitution Parties have their conventions yet to come... and if either one of them can field someone attractive enough to take more votes from the Republicans than from the Democrats, then this goes negative. 
 
5. Still too early to tell. Ask again in August or September 2020. Because the only bubble is valuation of stocks, I see no pervasive meltdown likely. Real-estate valuations are in bubbles where the economy is strong (let us say Boston), but terribly depressed where the economy is in the tank (Cleveland).

6. The Obama economy had a growth rate unusually high, as it was a recovery from a nasty recession. This will be impossible to meet. I treat this as a negative even if Trump is not at fault.

7. NOW NEGATIVE. He hasn't yet. The tax bill is it. I expect more efforts at deregulation of industry, union-cracking, and privatization even if those prove unpopular. This is a positive key even if the changes are widely unpopular. Time is running out, and he must achieve something significant for such to happen. 

8. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  Sure, the President did not directly inspire one of his supporters to send bombs to Democratic politicians and celebrities, but he consider himself lucky that none of those bombs blew up a target. Donald Trump may be no antisemite, but the creep who mowed down eleven Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue did so out of a concern that the  specific Jews had been  supporting immigration of non-white people. Worse, he has bumbled in his response. The frequent polite demonstrations from the Women's March on have not been unrest, but they can certainly call attention to his awfulness and aid in organizing an electoral opposition. 

President Trump's political image is being hit by both polite and civilized opposition (which is more effective) and by politically-charged violence *which is not so effective in forcing change, but is effective in discrediting the President.. He has offended thoughtful people who are organizing against him while his supporters and people that he has stirred up with his vituperation against immigrants and Islam. The polite and civilized opposition is far stronger than was the Tea Party against Obama, and politically-charged violence of any kind that people can trace to his rhetoric disgusts average people. Lichtman dismissed Tea Party protests, and Women's marches, marches for science, Black Lives Matter, and anti-gun protests get similar treatment from me. When one of the President's  loud supporters mails pipe bombs to Democratic politicians and to celebrities, or someone mows down Jews in a synagogue service in response to the President's rhetoric against a different group of people, then we have more dangerous unrest than the usual detraction that every President faces. This has gone from 'ambiguous' to 'solid negative' against the President. Worse, the President has bungled his response which solidifies the negative. To predict further unrest or political violence is irresponsible; for the sake of this country and innocent people I wish that there is no further more activity of the sort.

I can say this, though: brotherly love will not suddenly break out in America with this President unless it makes him the goat. 
 
9. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  This is the most systematically and severely corrupt Administration in American history. The legal problems keep piling up. The acquittal of the President in the impeachment is a blatant, almost-strictly-partisan, whitewash that convinces only the President's base. Governors, Senators, and Representatives with scandals of any kind tend to go down to defeat because Americans traditionally show little tolerance for such. 
  
10. (now) GIGANTIC NEGATIVE. I do not trust the deal with North Korea, and this President is insulting so many of America's traditional allies that something will go bad. The tariff is a disaster waiting to happen. He even bungled the memorials of the centennial of the end of World War I. If Trump had been wise, he would have deputized Barack Obama to do the job. Then again, this President knows about as much about scuba diving, which is nothing.  Worse, the impeachment was over an attempt to push a corrupt deal with a foreign government (Ukraine) that refused. This dovetails with "scandal" as Key 8... 

11. The nuke deal with North Korea? There is no enforcement in place. The President would need China and ideally also Russia as an enforcer, and ignored both. It turns out that the North Korean leader has dismantled some obsolete nukes while building more effective ones. Maybe the situation does not implode in the next two years. Let us all hope that this key does not turn negative. I prefer that South Korea fit the description "I have seen the future -- and it works" rather than be largely uninhabited, radioactive moonscape.   

12. NOW NEGATIVE. Trump already seems much less charismatic now than in 2016. He still has as solid support as ever from his cult. In the event that the Grim Reaper takes President Trump, Mike Pence has the charisma of a smelly cat box -- and he is clearly not a war hero.

13. We have no idea who the Democratic nominee will be.

One clear blue, eight red, three green (has not happened yet but still can), one purple (ambiguous). He must turn back two of the keys and prevent others from turning against him if he is to be re-elected.

I sure hope you're right. I don't think Lichtman would agree yet though. 

I don't think the Democrats have turned Key 2 yet. Weld is not a serious enough challenger yet.

Key 6 probably hasn't been turned, because the Trump economy is better than the first Obama term, if I remember correctly.

I'm not sure about Key 10. Trump's foreign policy is abysmal, but I'm not sure any one mistake has been serious enough to be considered a failure yet.

Trump could be turning Key 11 if the deal in Afghanistan goes through.

He still has the power to inspire and deceive his base. His demagogic talents are formidible. But Trump is not "charismatic" enough to turn that key #12, if that's the standard for this key.

If Bernie is nominated, Lichtman might give the Democrats Key 13, but I'm not sure.
(02-15-2020, 06:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-15-2020, 10:23 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-12-2018, 10:18 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]The Lichtman test, as you may recall, consists of thirteen keys for predicting who wins result of the next Presidential election.

(update, 15 February 2020)

The Keys are statements that favor victory (in the popular vote count) for the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party is predicted to win the popular vote; when six or more are false, the challenging party is predicted to win the popular vote.

Code: red -- favors Democrats without ambiguity.
blue -- favors the Republican (Trump, or in case something happens to him, Pence)
green -- yet to be decided
-- ambiguous and subject to interpretation.

1.    Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2.    Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.    Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4.    Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5.    Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.    Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7.    Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8.    Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.    Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.    Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

11.    Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.   Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.   Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.


One clear blue, eight red, three green (has not happened yet but still can), one purple (ambiguous). He must turn back two of the keys and prevent others from turning against him if he is to be re-elected.

I sure hope you're right. I don't think Lichtman would agree yet though.

Lichtman may overstate the chances for Trump. 


Quote:I don't think the Democrats have turned Key 2 yet. Weld is not a serious enough challenger yet.

Weld is not as strong an intra-Party challenger as was Reagan against Ford or Ted Kennedy against Carter. Still, any challenge that suggests dissent with the incumbent is trouble if the incumbent has little room for political error (meaning loss of support). It would take about a 0.5 swing from R to D (and this would be heavily concentrated in states that were within 10% for or against Trump in 2016, as the others are far too polarized to be movable. A 1% shift from Trump to a right-leaning alternative would also defeat him Trump disapproval nationwide is enough that a significant part of the conservative vote has cause to vote against him. 

Is this the result of Democrats doing mischief to Trump? Not likely as the Democratic nomination is still up in the air. Democrats can influence the general election far more by voting in Democratic primaries and caucuses than by messing with a Republican nomination that is a sure thing. 

I see the Weld vote as mostly a protest vote, and at that New Hampshire may not be characteristic of America. Weld is from the neighboring state. If I can see William Weld far preferable to Donald Trump, I am sure that many Republicans can. #2 could shift to #4, and we will not know how that works until later, perhaps when we see polls that show something like

"Ohio --  Sanders 45, Trump 42, Kasich 8"... or
"Arizona -- Sanders 47, Trump 41, McMullen 10".

Trump cannot afford to lose either state.
 
Quote:Key 6 probably hasn't been turned, because the Trump economy is better than the first Obama term, if I remember correctly.

Better -- but Lichtman refers to the growth rate and not to other metrics. America grew its way out of the 2007-2009 meltdown just as it grew its way out of the even worse 1929-1932 meltdown.  


Quote:I'm not sure about Key 10. Trump's foreign policy is abysmal, but I'm not sure any one mistake has been serious enough to be considered a failure yet.

The call to Ukraine is a catastrophic blunder, although it dovetails with overall corruption. He got impeached for it, and I count on Democrats hammering Trump for that. Vindication? No, partisan whitewash. 
  

Quote:Trump could be turning Key 11 if the deal in Afghanistan goes through.

Maybe... maybe... maybe. 


Quote:He still has the power to inspire and deceive his base. His demagogic talents are formidible. But Trump is not "charismatic" enough to turn that key #12, if that's the standard for this key.

It is not enough to win over the base. That is like offering meat to the family dog and expecting him to grab it. The pooch will use his tongue instead of his horrid fangs, but he will get it. Offering meat to a pet rabbit isn't so likely to get the same result. Goldwater, McGovern, and Mondale got their partisan bases, but little else. 

Quote:If Bernie is nominated, Lichtman might give the Democrats Key 13, but I'm not sure.

In 1980, Carter's people were elated that Ronald Reagan, supposedly too extreme for America, got the nomination. The circumstances are not quite the same, and by no means can I see Trump getting fewer than 120 electoral votes. To be sure, there was John Anderson that year, and I can't see anyone winning 4-6% of the popular vote as a moderate. Sanders can appeal to the visceral appeal of "Your life will be better if you elect me" -- just as did Donald Trump or Barack Obama.
Democratic Presidential Nomination, Real Clear Politics Feb 21, 2020
Sanders28.7
Biden17.3
Bloomberg15.2
Warren12.7
Buttigieg10.0
Klobuchar6.7
Steyer2.2
Gabbard1.6

Sanders +11.4

Friday, February 21
Race/Topic Poll Results Spread
Nevada Democratic Presidential Caucus KLAS-TV/Emerson Sanders 30, Biden 16, Buttigieg 17, Warren 12, Klobuchar 11, Steyer 10, Gabbard 2 Sanders +13
Nevada Democratic Presidential Caucus Data for Progress (D) Sanders 35, Biden 16, Buttigieg 15, Warren 16, Klobuchar 8, Steyer 8, Gabbard 2 Sanders +19
Massachusetts Democratic Presidential Primary UMass Lowell Sanders 21, Warren 20, Buttigieg 15, Biden 14, Bloomberg 12, Klobuchar 9, Gabbard 3, Steyer 2 Sanders +1

Thursday, February 20
Race/Topic Poll Results Spread
South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary Winthrop Biden 24, Sanders 19, Steyer 15, Buttigieg 7, Warren 6, Klobuchar 5, Gabbard 1 Biden +5
California Democratic Primary Monmouth Sanders 24, Biden 17, Bloomberg 13, Buttigieg 9, Warren 10, Klobuchar 4, Steyer 5, Gabbard 2 Sanders +7
Minnesota Democratic Primary UMass Lowell Klobuchar 27, Sanders 21, Warren 16, Buttigieg 10, Biden 9, Bloomberg 9, Gabbard 4 Klobuchar +6
North Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary UMass Lowell Sanders 23, Biden 16, Bloomberg 19, Warren 13, Buttigieg 10, Klobuchar 7, Steyer 3, Gabbard 3 Sanders +4
Texas Democratic Primary UMass Lowell Sanders 23, Biden 20, Warren 14, Bloomberg 18, Buttigieg 7, Klobuchar 9, Gabbard 4 Sanders +3
Florida Democratic Presidential Primary St. Pete Polls Biden 27, Bloomberg 32, Sanders 11, Warren 5, Klobuchar 7, Buttigieg 8, Steyer 2, Gabbard Bloomberg +5
Illinois Democratic Primary The Simon Poll/SIU Sanders 22, Bloomberg 17, Biden 14, Buttigieg 13, Klobuchar 8, Warren 6, Steyer 1 Sanders +5
Big Grin Bernie's kicking it Big Grin
(02-22-2020, 08:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]Big Grin Bernie's kicking it Big Grin

I have been a little wary of Sanders. I long thought the Democratic Party was behind the Republicans in rejecting their Establishment, but it is looking less so. If the current trend follows through, it sets up a general election between the extremes. I doubt either core will be able to stand the other’s candidate. There is the risk that Trump might get four more years to mess up the country as a result.

But I think Trump has already blown it. The middle of the road has already got sick of their protest vote, and the see saw has been flipped. In 2016 neither party was allowed to put an establishment candidate in. They got the wrong pretend-to-be-an-outsider, the world’s biggest alligator tasked to drain the swamp. This ought to be fairly obvious at this point.

The question remains whether Sanders is the right pretend-to-be-an-outsider.
2020 United States presidential primary election results
Nevada
LiveUpdated at 9:13 PM PST
DEMOCRATIC

41% reporting
Votes displayed are county convention delegates. County convention delegates determine how many national pledged delegates each candidate will receive.

Candidate
Delegates
Percent
Count

Bernie Sanders
7 47.5% 3,112

Joe Biden
0 21.2% 1,392

Pete Buttigieg
0 14.5% 951

Elizabeth Warren
0 9.4% 616

Amy Klobuchar
0 3.7% 242

Tom Steyer
0 3.5% 230

Tulsi Gabbard
0 0.1% 4

AP via google
(02-22-2020, 09:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-22-2020, 08:09 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]Big Grin Bernie's kicking it Big Grin

I have been a little wary of Sanders.  I long thought the Democratic Party was behind the Republicans in rejecting their Establishment, but it is looking less so.  If the current trend follows through, it sets up a general election between the extremes.  I doubt either core will be able to stand the other’s candidate.  There is the risk that Trump might get four more years to mess up the country as a result.

But I think Trump has already blown it.  The middle of the road has already got sick of their protest vote, and the see saw has been flipped.  In 2016 neither party was allowed to put an establishment candidate in.  They got the wrong pretend-to-be-an-outsider, the world’s biggest alligator tasked to drain the swamp.  This ought to be fairly obvious at this point.

The question remains whether Sanders is the right pretend-to-be-an-outsider.

He is the only Democratic outsider in the race.

I suppose Trump can pretend to be an outsider, but billionaires really aren't.

The middle of the road voters are diminishing. The country must choose between regression to the past or forward to the future; that's what a 4T is about. Compromise is over. It's time to choose. There's no substitute for victory now. The blue must defeat the red, and it's a clear choice. Banana republic dictatorship or neo-socialist democratic utopia!

If trends hold, with Sanders leading in the first 3 states and nationally, and Biden 2nd in Nevada going into some states where he has an advantage, one of the two Democratic candidates most capable of winning in November is most likely to get nominated. That's good news for Democrats. The horoscope scores have, and will, prove themselves again to indicate what kind of candidate can win. Cold, wonky, ponderous, stiff candidates like Bloomberg, crusader rabbits like Warren, and charming little unqualified weaklings and empty suits like Buttigieg, do not win the USA presidency. Sanders is strong and energetic, articulate, inspiring, honest and likable. He has a chance.

It still doesn't mean Democrats will win. They will have to unite behind Sanders or Biden in enough passion, energy and numbers to defeat the Trump cult.

I hope Gabbard continues to bomb, so Bernie won't make the mistake of choosing her as VP.
Bernie Sanders has won the popular vote in three contests consecutively now. Bloomberg got pummeled in the debate. Joseph Biden has yet to win a SINGLE primary or caucus (even including his failed runs for the presidency in 1988 and 2008). Pete’s nonwhite support is about as impressive as Trump’s. And Sanders right now is absolutely crushing it in Nevada. He’s winning Latinos by a landslide and is behind Biden with African Americans by only 8 points. The South Carolina RCP average is now down to just a 2.3 point lead for Biden against Sanders.


Bernie Sanders is going to be the nominee barring death.