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.
(03-02-2020, 01:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2020, 08:08 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]Well Buttcheat's gone *breathing huge sigh of relief*

-- not only is Amy Hoo? out but she has endorsed Groper Joe  Angry Sick Dodgy  so much 4 Gurlll Powah l guess

Joe Biden's victory in South Carolina has cemented his status as the "establishment candidate." The drop outs recently are them rallying around an alternative to Bernie Sanders, and Bloomberg will do the same if his hopes for Super Tuesday don't pan out.

The race is being reduced to what it was in the earliest stages of the primaries, a battle between Biden and Sanders.
(03-02-2020, 03:08 PM)ResidentArtist Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-02-2020, 01:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-01-2020, 08:08 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]Well Buttcheat's gone *breathing huge sigh of relief*

-- not only is Amy Hoo? out but she has endorsed Groper Joe  Angry Sick Dodgy  so much 4 Gurlll Powah l guess

Joe Biden's victory in South Carolina has cemented his status as the "establishment candidate." The drop outs recently are them rallying around an alternative to Bernie Sanders, and Bloomberg will do the same if his hopes for Super Tuesday don't pan out.

The race is being reduced to what it was in the earliest stages of the primaries, a battle between Biden and Sanders.

-- what l meant was 4 the past few weeks Amy & Lizbitch have been giving each other platitudes about girl power & strong women, l guess l 1/2 expected them 2 endorse each other should 1 drop out. Instead this "strong woman" endorses a predator
There seems to be a big movement among the non-socialist establishment Democrats to swing the race from Sanders to Biden.  I hope this does not turn into a try for the establishment to stop listening to the people.
Democratic Presidential Nomination
Sanders27.5
Biden21.3
Bloomberg15.0
Warren14.0
Buttigieg9.8
Klobuchar4.5
Steyer2.0
Gabbard1.0

Sanders +6.2
Biden coming back, and leads in southern states.

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Sanders26.0
Biden24.6
Bloomberg16.2
Warren14.0
Buttigieg9.0
Klobuchar4.7
Steyer2.0
Gabbard1.3

Sanders +1.4
(03-03-2020, 05:54 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Biden coming back, and leads in southern states.

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Sanders26.0
Biden24.6
Bloomberg16.2
Warren14.0
Buttigieg9.0
Klobuchar4.7
Steyer2.0
Gabbard1.3

Sanders +1.4

-- well that sux. Seriously, he's senile af
Reagan and Trump both scare me about superannuated leaders. I've seen them elsewhere, as in most of eastern Europe before the 1989 revolutions (Honecker, Jakes, Kadar, Ceausescu, Zhivkov) with the added peril of ideological rigidity. See also such types as Hosni Mubarak and Robert Mugabe toward the ends of their rule.

Qaddafi wasn't that old, but I have heard rumors of cocaine... drugs can make one senile before one's time.

The best situation is that involving Reagan -- at the least he had good people around him who could turn the Presidency into a largely ceremonial role in which someone else tells him something compatible with his beliefs that is the best choice under the circumstances. People around Reagan could say no to him and convince him.

With the effective departure of Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Warren from relevance in the 2020 election we will be certain to have a President long past prime. To be sure, Trump has been amoral, egoistic, and rigid-thinking for his entire adult life. The VP will be an essential selection due simply to actuarial concerns about the life and mental well-being of the President. Reagan is the best result under the circumstances if one ignores the ideology. Then again, Reagan didn't get his ideas as much from shock jocks as Trump did.

The most likely VP to become President is of course Mike Pence because there are just too many possible nominees for VP in 2020. (That will be settled in the Democratic National Convention!) and because no Democrat is going to be succeeded as President until at least January of next year.
(deleted -- should be in another thread -- obituaries: Bobbie Battista)
Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden27.5
Sanders26.0
Bloomberg16.3
Warren13.5
Buttigieg8.5
Klobuchar3.7
Gabbard1.7

Biden +1.5
It looks as if Joe Biden is going to win the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders didn't expand the left-side base of the Democratic Party, and he really needed about a 40-40-5-5-5-5 to win through a brokered convention. Buttegieg, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Steyer dropped out... and I would not be surprised if Warren does in a few hours.

We don't have the right to expect "perfect"; insisting upon the "perfect" instead of something adequate can stick one with something perfectly awful. If one is too fussy about pay and conditions on the job one ends up unemployed or doing something too easy for one's own good. If one is too fussy about politics one can end up with Donald Trump, whom some few consider perfect despite his serious deficiencies as a person and as a leader.

Perfection is for models in mathematics, science, and engineering.
(03-04-2020, 04:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]It looks as if Joe Biden is going to win the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders didn't expand the left-side base of the Democratic Party, and he really needed about a 40-40-5-5-5-5  to win through a brokered convention. Buttegieg, Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Steyer dropped out... and I would not be surprised if Warren does in a few hours.

We don't have the right to expect "perfect"; insisting upon the "perfect" instead of something adequate can stick one with something perfectly awful.  If one is too fussy about pay and conditions on the job one ends up unemployed or doing something too easy for one's own good. If one is too fussy about politics one can end up with Donald Trump, whom some few consider perfect despite his serious deficiencies as a person and as a leader.

Perfection is for models in mathematics, science, and engineering.

Sorry but a vote for Biden is a Vote for Globalistic/big government capitalistic/intersectionality decadence. No self respecting millennial would vote for that. If the choice is Biden vs trump it would be TRUMP overwhelmingly. Also don't expect either the Right or the Left to support gun control; only globalistic "moderates" like gun control. The rest of us hate it.
The millennials failed to show up on Super Tuesday, Cynic Hero. Your generation is still not civic. If you guys don't want "globalist" corporate Democrats or corporate Trump then you'd better start voting.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...947795002/

We on the Left support gun control.
Democrats may well have made the wrong choice Tuesday. Boomers came out in unprecedented droves, while many millennials stayed home. Boomers lost their nerve and voted out of fear for the safe candidate. Only he may not be so safe. Democrats know how to pick losers who are the safe choice. Have they done it again? Biden has a chance-- better than those other losers according to my horoscope method-- but not if he's senile.

Super Tuesday Was Mainly About Donald Trump, Not Joe Biden

By John Cassidy
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colum...-joe-biden
March 5, 2020

[Image: Cassidy-SuperTuesdayTrump.jpg]
Photograph by Sharon Steinmann / Bloomberg / Getty

In Super Tuesday exit polls, Democratic voters said that getting Donald Trump out of the White House was their top concern.

Like the Ireland that William Butler Yeats wrote about in his poem “Easter, 1916,” the Democratic primary is “changed, changed utterly.” This time last week, Joe Biden looked like a dead man walking. A day after Super Tuesday, he now leads Bernie Sanders, the erstwhile front-runner, in the delegate count, and the online prediction sites are giving him a roughly seventy-five-per-cent chance of getting the nomination.

How did this sudden transformation come about? One theory we can dismiss right away is that Biden himself was responsible. He gave a powerful and emotive speech in South Carolina, on Saturday, after his big victory there. But when he appeared in Los Angeles, on Tuesday night, he was the same unsteady performer we have seen many times before. He shouted rather than spoke; he momentarily mixed up his wife and sister. His speech didn’t really go anywhere.

Another explanation, which has more substance to it, is that the traditional Democratic power structure, aghast at the prospect of a Sanders candidacy, conspired to deny him the knockout victory that he appeared to be heading for on Tuesday. This theory is popular among Sanders supporters, of course, and it also has an adherent in the White House. “The Democrat establishment came together and crushed Bernie Sanders, AGAIN,” Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday morning.

Many established Democratic politicians did line up behind Biden. James Clyburn, the Majority Whip in the House of Representatives, started the process with the endorsement he issued in Charleston, South Carolina, last Wednesday. (Clyburn “literally saved the Democratic Party,” James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, commented on Tuesday night.) In the days before Super Tuesday, when Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar both dropped out of the race and endorsed Biden, their gesture seemed to be timed to give him additional momentum as voters headed to the polls, and to blunt the momentum of Sanders. It looks as if the exits and endorsements had a big impact. Take Biden’s victory in Klobuchar’s home state of Minnesota. Until last weekend, he had been polling in the single digits there.

The problem with the party-establishment theory isn’t that it lacks factual basis. It’s that it robs Democratic voters of agency and understates the overarching factor in this year’s primary—fear of Trump getting a second term. In my experience, most ordinary Democrats are so eager (desperate might be a better word) to get Trump out of the White House that they would vote for practically anybody whom they adjudge to have the best chance of beating him. For months, Democrats had been anguishing that the primary had turned into a circular firing squad. When the choice before them was finally reduced to manageable proportions, a plurality of Super Tuesday voters plumped for Biden over Sanders, Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard. That decision was theirs: it wasn’t made for them by Nancy Pelosi or Tom Perez or CNN.

The influence that Trump exerted was evident in the answers that Democratic voters gave in exit polls and in the day’s turnout, which was high practically everywhere. In North Carolina, where Biden got forty-three per cent of the vote and finished nineteen points ahead of Sanders, voters said by almost two to one that they would rather nominate a candidate who could defeat Trump than a candidate who agreed with them on the major issues. In liberal Massachusetts, where Biden came from nowhere to win by almost seven points, the exit-poll findings were virtually identical.

In South Carolina, more people voted than in the epic 2008 primary that featured Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. On Tuesday, the same thing happened in Virginia, where 1.3 million people voted. In both of these states, the exit polls showed Biden getting more than sixty per cent of the African-American votes, a pattern replicated in Alabama and Tennessee. He also did very well in suburban areas. In the fast-growing counties of northern Virginia, he received about half the vote, defeating Sanders by more than twenty-five points. Did white-collar Democrats in Fairfax County, Loudoun County, and Prince William County wake up on Tuesday and decide en masse that there was a new Biden, or that they had better vote for him because Harry Reid, the former Senate Majority Leader, had just endorsed him? It seems far more likely they concluded that Biden, for all his shortcomings, had a better chance than Sanders of defeating Trump.

This pragmatic assessment could turn out to be wrong; if Biden is the nominee, it will be tested in the general election. The encouraging news for the Biden camp is that putting together a coalition of minority voters, highly educated voters, and suburban voters was something that Obama and Bill Clinton did in their electoral victories. It was also key to the Democratic Party’s success in the 2018 midterms. Less encouraging: Biden once again struggled to attract younger voters, his policy positions are somewhat uninspiring, and Tuesday’s results leave the Democrats divided. On Wednesday, the anger among Sanders voters was palpable. Another cautionary note is provided by the recent history of the Democratic Party selecting candidates who were supposed to be the safe choice: Al Gore (2000), John Kerry (2004), and Hillary Clinton (2016) all fell into this category.

Before we get to the general election, though, there is still a long way to go in the primary. Thirty-two states have yet to vote, and almost two-thirds of the pledged delegates are yet to be awarded. With Bloomberg out, Warren considering her options, and Tulsi Gabbard a marginal figure, it will be Biden versus Sanders, with Trump hovering. The President’s name won’t be on the ballots, of course. But his malign presence in the White House will continue to shape the race.

Biden's older voters are showing up. Sanders' young voters aren't

Washington (CNN) Super Tuesday was not so super for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. He lost most of the states up for grabs, and it's quite possible that he'll end up with fewer delegates on the evening than chief rival former Vice President Joe Biden.

Sanders' struggles reflect an inability to connect with older voters, while at the same time failing to generate large youth turnout.

We saw a very familiar age gap across the Super Tuesday states. Sanders crushed it with younger voters. Looking across all the contests with an exit poll, Sanders won an astounding 61% to Biden's 17% among voters under 30 years old. He even beat Biden by 20 points (43% to 23%) among those between 30 years old and 44 years old.

Sanders, however, struggled mightily with older voters. Biden won by 22 points (42% to 20%) with voters 45 years old to 64 years old. With senior citizens (those 65 years and older), Sanders managed to come in third with 15% (behind Biden's 48% and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg's 19%).

Now you might be tempted to look at those numbers and see that Sanders won those under 45 years old by more than he lost those 45 years and older. The problem for Sanders is the under 45 group make up a smaller piece of the pie. In no Super Tuesday state with an exit poll did those under 45 years old make up more than 42% of voters. Those under 45 years old were just 35% of the electorate in the median state.

see:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/politics/...index.html
Elizabeth Warren dropped out. It's down to two.

Two-person races do not lead to brokered conventions.
Bloomberg, Buttegieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, and Warren having abandoned their bids for the Presidency, the possibilities of the 2020 Presidential election are down to Biden or Sanders against Trump (barring something not fit for mention). 

 
Biden vs. Trump



[Image: genusmap.php?year=1964&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]


Trump 55% or higher
Trump 50% to 54.9%
Trump leading but with less than50%

exact tie (white)
Biden leading with less than 50%
Biden with 50% to 54.9%
Biden with 55% or more


Sanders vs. Trump:


[Image: genusmap.php?year=1964&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]



Trump 55% or higher
Trump 50% to 54.9%
Trump leading but with less than 50%

exact tie (white)
Sanders leading with less than 50%
Sanders with 50% to 54.9%
Sanders with 55% or more




The site from which I have taken these  two maps (I used the site's mapping paradigm) uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. I do not make waves on that site about that choice of colors.
(03-04-2020, 05:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The millennials failed to show up on Super Tuesday, Cynic Hero. Your generation is still not civic. If you guys don't want "globalist" corporate Democrats or corporate Trump then you'd better start voting.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...947795002/

What happened was an incredibly well orchestrated move by the Democratic establishment - which is to say, Obama.  Biden had his first adequate debate, perhaps because he was drugged up.  Buttigieg dropped out and endorsed Biden, despite having plenty of money to continue his campaign.  Klobuchar dropped out and endorsed Biden, despite having plenty of money to continue her campaign.  Bloomberg didn't drop out - his endorsement would have been worthless - but he switched from running ads for himself to running ads attacking Sanders.  In a campaign with no earlier negative advertising, those ads were very effective at shaking Sanders supporters up, and at scaring Sanders opponents into turning out.

The globalists win again.  Sanders could go negative on Biden but he's too nice - plus small dollar donations just can't hold their own against the multibillionaire now backing Biden's campaign.
(03-05-2020, 05:26 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democrats may well have made the wrong choice Tuesday. Boomers came out in unprecedented droves, while many millennials stayed home. Boomers lost their nerve and voted out of fear for the safe candidate. Only he may not be so safe. Democrats know how to pick losers who are the safe choice. Have they done it again? Biden has a chance-- better than those other losers according to my horoscope method-- but not if he's senile.

Super Tuesday Was Mainly About Donald Trump, Not Joe Biden

By John Cassidy
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colum...-joe-biden
March 5, 2020

[Image: Cassidy-SuperTuesdayTrump.jpg]
Photograph by Sharon Steinmann / Bloomberg / Getty

In Super Tuesday exit polls, Democratic voters said that getting Donald Trump out of the White House was their top concern.

Like the Ireland that William Butler Yeats wrote about in his poem “Easter, 1916,” the Democratic primary is “changed, changed utterly.” This time last week, Joe Biden looked like a dead man walking. A day after Super Tuesday, he now leads Bernie Sanders, the erstwhile front-runner, in the delegate count, and the online prediction sites are giving him a roughly seventy-five-per-cent chance of getting the nomination.

How did this sudden transformation come about? One theory we can dismiss right away is that Biden himself was responsible. He gave a powerful and emotive speech in South Carolina, on Saturday, after his big victory there. But when he appeared in Los Angeles, on Tuesday night, he was the same unsteady performer we have seen many times before. He shouted rather than spoke; he momentarily mixed up his wife and sister. His speech didn’t really go anywhere.

Another explanation, which has more substance to it, is that the traditional Democratic power structure, aghast at the prospect of a Sanders candidacy, conspired to deny him the knockout victory that he appeared to be heading for on Tuesday. This theory is popular among Sanders supporters, of course, and it also has an adherent in the White House. “The Democrat establishment came together and crushed Bernie Sanders, AGAIN,” Donald Trump tweeted on Wednesday morning.

Many established Democratic politicians did line up behind Biden. James Clyburn, the Majority Whip in the House of Representatives, started the process with the endorsement he issued in Charleston, South Carolina, last Wednesday. (Clyburn “literally saved the Democratic Party,” James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, commented on Tuesday night.) In the days before Super Tuesday, when Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar both dropped out of the race and endorsed Biden, their gesture seemed to be timed to give him additional momentum as voters headed to the polls, and to blunt the momentum of Sanders. It looks as if the exits and endorsements had a big impact. Take Biden’s victory in Klobuchar’s home state of Minnesota. Until last weekend, he had been polling in the single digits there.

The problem with the party-establishment theory isn’t that it lacks factual basis. It’s that it robs Democratic voters of agency and understates the overarching factor in this year’s primary—fear of Trump getting a second term. In my experience, most ordinary Democrats are so eager (desperate might be a better word) to get Trump out of the White House that they would vote for practically anybody whom they adjudge to have the best chance of beating him. For months, Democrats had been anguishing that the primary had turned into a circular firing squad. When the choice before them was finally reduced to manageable proportions, a plurality of Super Tuesday voters plumped for Biden over Sanders, Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard. That decision was theirs: it wasn’t made for them by Nancy Pelosi or Tom Perez or CNN.

The influence that Trump exerted was evident in the answers that Democratic voters gave in exit polls and in the day’s turnout, which was high practically everywhere. In North Carolina, where Biden got forty-three per cent of the vote and finished nineteen points ahead of Sanders, voters said by almost two to one that they would rather nominate a candidate who could defeat Trump than a candidate who agreed with them on the major issues. In liberal Massachusetts, where Biden came from nowhere to win by almost seven points, the exit-poll findings were virtually identical.

In South Carolina, more people voted than in the epic 2008 primary that featured Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. On Tuesday, the same thing happened in Virginia, where 1.3 million people voted. In both of these states, the exit polls showed Biden getting more than sixty per cent of the African-American votes, a pattern replicated in Alabama and Tennessee. He also did very well in suburban areas. In the fast-growing counties of northern Virginia, he received about half the vote, defeating Sanders by more than twenty-five points. Did white-collar Democrats in Fairfax County, Loudoun County, and Prince William County wake up on Tuesday and decide en masse that there was a new Biden, or that they had better vote for him because Harry Reid, the former Senate Majority Leader, had just endorsed him? It seems far more likely they concluded that Biden, for all his shortcomings, had a better chance than Sanders of defeating Trump.

This pragmatic assessment could turn out to be wrong; if Biden is the nominee, it will be tested in the general election. The encouraging news for the Biden camp is that putting together a coalition of minority voters, highly educated voters, and suburban voters was something that Obama and Bill Clinton did in their electoral victories. It was also key to the Democratic Party’s success in the 2018 midterms. Less encouraging: Biden once again struggled to attract younger voters, his policy positions are somewhat uninspiring, and Tuesday’s results leave the Democrats divided. On Wednesday, the anger among Sanders voters was palpable. Another cautionary note is provided by the recent history of the Democratic Party selecting candidates who were supposed to be the safe choice: Al Gore (2000), John Kerry (2004), and Hillary Clinton (2016) all fell into this category.

Before we get to the general election, though, there is still a long way to go in the primary. Thirty-two states have yet to vote, and almost two-thirds of the pledged delegates are yet to be awarded. With Bloomberg out, Warren considering her options, and Tulsi Gabbard a marginal figure, it will be Biden versus Sanders, with Trump hovering. The President’s name won’t be on the ballots, of course. But his malign presence in the White House will continue to shape the race.

Biden's older voters are showing up. Sanders' young voters aren't

Washington (CNN) Super Tuesday was not so super for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. He lost most of the states up for grabs, and it's quite possible that he'll end up with fewer delegates on the evening than chief rival former Vice President Joe Biden.

Sanders' struggles reflect an inability to connect with older voters, while at the same time failing to generate large youth turnout.

We saw a very familiar age gap across the Super Tuesday states. Sanders crushed it with younger voters. Looking across all the contests with an exit poll, Sanders won an astounding 61% to Biden's 17% among voters under 30 years old. He even beat Biden by 20 points (43% to 23%) among those between 30 years old and 44 years old.

Sanders, however, struggled mightily with older voters. Biden won by 22 points (42% to 20%) with voters 45 years old to 64 years old. With senior citizens (those 65 years and older), Sanders managed to come in third with 15% (behind Biden's 48% and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg's 19%).

Now you might be tempted to look at those numbers and see that Sanders won those under 45 years old by more than he lost those 45 years and older. The problem for Sanders is the under 45 group make up a smaller piece of the pie. In no Super Tuesday state with an exit poll did those under 45 years old make up more than 42% of voters. Those under 45 years old were just 35% of the electorate in the median state.

see:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/politics/...index.html

-- l don't get these older folx. Y would anybody vote 4 somebody who wants 2 mess w/their $? They're more senile than Groper Joe
(03-05-2020, 11:04 PM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]-- l don't get these older folx. Y would anybody vote 4 somebody who wants 2 mess w/their $? They're more senile than Groper Joe

Much of it is the language. Sanders seems to prefer west European definitions of what is going on, especially in terms of socialism. If you accept his definitions, he is speaking truly. Many in the US use the communist definitions, so they misunderstand and react very poorly. The insistence on using the west European language and grasp on events thus remains a problem. But his insistence that his plans are not radical, that they have been implemented and work well in many parts of the world, is correct.

What may be different here? We spend a lot on the ability to use force abroad. This is expensive. This also leaves less dollars available to use on the people. If we want to meddle in international affairs, fight wars in the Middle East, guarantee the independence of Taiwan, play Domino Effect games against autocratic governments world wide, the dollars have to be allocated differently. One has to harden one’s heart.

We also spend a lot on the elite, directing a lot of wealth there. This is not unique. The autocratic countries too have the oligarchs and inefficiency.

Even China recently decided not to build its 5th and 6th carrier.
[quote pid='49973' dateline='1583431167']
It is a state from which no Democrat is going to win electoral votes for a long time, and it does not have many electoral votes. The state is Utah, an arch-conservative state on family values. The Mormons take those seriously

Sanders - 33

Trump - 50

Biden - 33
Trump - 50

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/3/4/21164798/donald-trump-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-election-president-democratic-poll-deseret-news-super-tuesday



[Image: genusmap.php?year=1964&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]


Trump 55% or higher
Trump 50% to 54.9%
Trump leading but with less than50%

exact tie (white)
Biden leading with less than 50%
Biden with 50% to 54.9%
Biden with 55% or more


Sanders vs. Trump:


[Image: genusmap.php?year=1964&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]



Trump 55% or higher
Trump 50% to 54.9%
Trump leading but with less than 50%

exact tie (white)
Sanders leading with less than 50%
Sanders with 50% to 54.9%
Sanders with 55% or more




The site from which I have taken these  two maps (I used the site's mapping paradigm) uses the very old red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. I do not make waves on that site about that choice of colors.
[/quote]
UTAH:

Sanders - 33
Trump - 50

Biden - 33
Trump - 50

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/3/4/21...er-tuesday

Rather weak for a Republican -- in Utah. I'm guessing that a third-party nominee could easily cut a Trump win in Utah to a mere plurality. But it is still Utah, and we know nothing about third-Party and independent campaigns yet.

Mormons are the definitive family-values conservatives. Donald Trump is still the worst fit for a Republican Presidential nominee for Utah since Thomas E. Dewey... who lost it in 1948. (Goldwater lost Utah in 1964, but he got a higher share of the total vote in 1964 than Trump got in Utah in 2016.

A third-Party independent or conservative nominee could take some votes away from Trump. That Trump barely scrapes 50 (50 does win, of course) means that he will win the state unless the President is rash enough to "triple-dog-dare" Mitt Romney to run against him.

I can't imagine any Democrat winning Utah until the state has demographics like those of neighboring Arizona, Colorado, or Nevada. In a way it would be cute to see a patch of Atlas green indicating that someone not in one of the two main Parties winning Utah without being a racist secession from the Democratic Party -- since 1924.  


[Image: genusmap.php?year=1964&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]


Trump 55% or higher
Trump 50% to 54.9%
Trump leading but with less than50%

exact tie (white)
Biden leading with less than 50%
Biden with 50% to 54.9%
Biden with 55% or more






[Image: genusmap.php?year=1964&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=0;1;6]



Trump 55% or higher
Trump 50% to 54.9%
Trump leading but with less than 50%

exact tie (white)
Sanders leading with less than 50%
Sanders with 50% to 54.9%
Sanders with 55% or more