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.
(06-01-2019, 12:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democratic Presidential Nomination, according to real clear politics, with the rest of the field and their horoscope scores 

(I don't claim horoscope scores are the only factor: recognition and status are crucial, and if the candidate's views are considered too wacko and extreme for the party, that may be a factor too in how well a candidate can do in the primary):

Biden34.8.....14-7
Sanders16.4....14-7
Warren9.8....8-7
Harris7.4....4-16
Buttigieg6.0....7-8

O'Rourke3.8....11-26
Booker2.2....6-7
Klobuchar1.8....7-7
Castro1.2....8-12
Yang1.0....8-15

Gabbard0.8....11-6
Ryan0.6....3-12
Williamson0.6....13-14
Gillibrand0.4....7-13
Delaney0.4....7-5

de Blasio0.3....12-15
Moulton0.3....9-10
Hickenlooper0.2....6-13
Bullock0.2....10-7

Swalwell....4-6
Bennet....8-9
Messam....15-8
Inslee....3-7
Gravel....5-10

Donald Trump....9-4
William Weld....8-13

Some scores may be subject to minor change if birth times become known.
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

June 27  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Democratic Presidential Nomination.... poll.... horoscope.... rank change
  • Biden32.0     14-7
  • Sanders16.9    14-7
  • Warren12.8    8-7
  • Harris7.0     4-16
  • Buttigieg6.6   7-8

  • O'Rourke3.3  11-26
  • Booker2.3    6-7
  • Yang1.3      8-15  +2
  • Klobuchar0.9   7-7    -1
  • Gabbard0.8    11-6   +1

  • Castro0.8     8-12   -2
  • Ryan0.6    3-12
  • Bullock0.5    10-7   +6
  • Gillibrand0.5    7-13
  • Bennet0.4     8-9    +6

  • Inslee0.4      3-7    +7
  • Delaney0.4    7-5      -2
  • de Blasio0.4    12-15    -2
  • Hickenlooper0.3   6-13   -1
  • Moulton     9-10      -3
  • Williamson    13-14     -8
  • Swalwell     4-6
  • Messam    15-8
  • Gravel     5-10
  • Sestak     3-10

Real Clear Politics average July 30, with horoscope scores:
Biden32.0 14-7
Sanders16.2 14-7
Warren14.0 8-7
Harris10.5 4-16
Buttigieg5.7 7-8
O'Rourke2.8 11-26
Yang2.0 8-15
Booker1.5 6-7
Klobuchar1.2 7-7
Steyer1.0 11-7
Castro1.0 8-12
Gabbard0.8 11-6
de Blasio0.7 12-15
Delaney0.7 7-5
Hickenlooper0.7 6-13
Gillibrand0.5 7-13
Bullock0.3 10-7
Williamson0.3 13-14
Ryan0.3 3-12
Bennet0.2 8-9
Inslee 3-7
Moulton 9-10
Sestak 3-10
Messam 15-8
Gravel 5-10
Steyer needs to edge out Gabbard in order to get into the debates. I hope he makes it!
Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden32.3
Sanders16.7
Warren14.0
Harris10.2
Buttigieg5.5
O'Rourke3.0
Booker1.7
Yang1.5
Castro1.0
Gabbard0.8
Steyer0.8
Klobuchar0.7
Delaney0.7
Ryan0.7
Bullock0.4
Williamson0.3
Gillibrand0.3
de Blasio0.2
Hickenlooper0.2
Bennet0.0
Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden30.5
Warren17.3
Sanders16.0
Harris8.0
Buttigieg5.2
O'Rourke2.8
Booker2.0
Yang1.5
Klobuchar1.3
Gabbard1.0
Castro1.0
Williamson0.8
Steyer0.7
Gillibrand0.7
Bullock0.5
Delaney0.5
Bennet0.3
Ryan0.3
de Blasio0.3
Inslee0.0
Biden +13.2
[Image: wXgdtT6.png]
(Harry Enten)

Poll of the week: A new national Quinnipiac University poll finds that former Vice President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, California Sen. Kamala Harris and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg all lead President Donald Trump by significant margins in potential 2020 matchups.

Biden is ahead of Trump by the most (16 points, 54% to 38%), while Buttigeg is up by the least (9 points, 49% to 40%).

What's the point: The Quinnipiac poll was the second probability poll that meets CNN standards and was conducted in August which found Trump down by at least 5 points against all his most likely challengers. In both the Fox News poll out earlier this month and Quinnipiac's latest, he trailed his most likely challenger, Biden, by double-digits. In fact, in an average of all the August polls (those that meet CNN standards and not), Biden was up by a 49% to 39% margin.

Still, it's worth pointing out the historically bad position Trump is in. No incumbent president has ever polled this poorly against his likely challengers at this point in the campaign.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/31/politics/...index.html

Comment: of the two incumbent Presidents who were behind (Obama barely and Carter by what was not then a huge margin) one won and one lost. Carter was about to go into electoral collapse. I see Romney as an unusually-strong challenger to an incumbent President who really was an effective President.
Democratic Presidential Nomination, Real Clear Politics average Sept.4, 2019
Biden30.4
Warren17.1
Sanders16.3
Harris6.6
Buttigieg4.6
Yang2.6
Booker2.4
O'Rourke2.1
Gabbard1.3
Castro0.9
Klobuchar0.8
Bennet0.6
Bullock0.6
Williamson0.5
Ryan0.5
Steyer0.4
Delaney0.4
de Blasio0.4
Messam0.1
Sestak0.0
Biden +13.3

One of the top 3 will be nominated, and they have the highest horoscope scores among those scheduled to be in the next debate. I think only Sanders and Biden have the candidate skills to Beat the Drump.
(09-04-2019, 03:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democratic Presidential Nomination, Real Clear Politics average Sept.4, 2019
Biden30.4
Warren17.1
Sanders16.3
...

One of the top 3 will be nominated, and they have the highest horoscope scores among those scheduled to be in the next debate. I think only Sanders and Biden have the candidate skills to Beat the Drump.

I would pick Elizabeth Warren over both of them any day.  She's been excellent at every outing she's had; her crowds are bigger and more enthusiastic than either Joe or Bernie, and she doesn't make mistakes.  If  you pair her with Pete Buttigieg, the most dynamic speaker of the group, they're unbeatable.  The only caveat: people of color seem to want a "safe" candidate, and another woman so soon on the heels of Hillary  may not fly.  If she gets past that, she's solid.
(09-05-2019, 12:28 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-04-2019, 03:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democratic Presidential Nomination, Real Clear Politics average Sept.4, 2019
Biden30.4
Warren17.1
Sanders16.3
...

One of the top 3 will be nominated, and they have the highest horoscope scores among those scheduled to be in the next debate. I think only Sanders and Biden have the candidate skills to Beat the Drump.

I would pick Elizabeth Warren over both of them any day.  She's been excellent at every outing she's had; her crowds are bigger and more enthusiastic than either Joe or Bernie, and she doesn't make mistakes.  If  you pair her with Pete Buttigieg, the most dynamic speaker of the group, they're unbeatable.  The only caveat: people of color seem to want a "safe" candidate, and another woman so soon on the heels of Hillary  may not fly.  If she gets past that, she's solid.

I don't think they can't beat the Drump. And yes indeed the black voters will pick the nominee.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...41178.html

Bernie remains by far the most dynamic speaker of the group. Little Pete can't take on the big Monster.

Marquette poll:

Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden
Biden 51, Trump 42 Biden +9

Wisconsin: Trump vs. Sanders
Sanders 48, Trump 44 Sanders +4

Wisconsin: Trump vs. Warren
Warren 45, Trump 45 Tie

Wisconsin: Trump vs. Harris
Trump 44, Harris 44 Tie

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

I have already predicted here that Wisconsin will decide the election.
(11-12-2018, 09:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democrats are going to have to get radical like the Republicans were in the 1860s to get past this new cold (or hot) civil war, and be just as ruthless as the Republicans have been in such things as shoving two conservatives onto the Court. They will have to suspend the filibuster for some years with a time limit on it, and stack the courts, and then be willing to use that power to change this country.
I don't think it would wise to do a bunch stuff that pisses off/ alienates 60 some million Americans who are as ruthless or more ruthless than the Republicans. The Democrats would be better off sticking to controlling, skewing things more in their own favor and mainly screwing with/ screwing up the lives and messing with/removing the rights of the folks within Democratic areas.
(09-05-2019, 11:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-12-2018, 09:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democrats are going to have to get radical like the Republicans were in the 1860s to get past this new cold (or hot) civil war, and be just as ruthless as the Republicans have been in such things as shoving two conservatives onto the Court. They will have to suspend the filibuster for some years with a time limit on it, and stack the courts, and then be willing to use that power to change this country.
I don't think it would wise to do a bunch stuff that pisses off/ alienates 60 some million Americans who are as ruthless or more ruthless than the Republicans. The Democrats would be better off sticking to controlling, skewing things more in their own favor and mainly screwing with/ screwing up the lives and messing with/removing the rights of the folks within Democratic areas.

The Republicans are the ruthless ones, and they are already turned off by us Democrats and liberals. So be it, if that's their choice.
(09-05-2019, 11:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-12-2018, 09:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democrats are going to have to get radical like the Republicans were in the 1860s to get past this new cold (or hot) civil war, and be just as ruthless as the Republicans have been in such things as shoving two conservatives onto the Court. They will have to suspend the filibuster for some years with a time limit on it, and stack the courts, and then be willing to use that power to change this country.

I don't think it would wise to do a bunch stuff that pisses off/ alienates 60 some million Americans who are as ruthless or more ruthless than the Republicans. The Democrats would be better off sticking to controlling, skewing things more in their own favor and mainly screwing with/ screwing up the lives and messing with/removing the rights of the folks within Democratic areas.

In other words, you're a bit concerned that the GOP has overplayed its hand, and the reckoning is due.  I agree.  The only question: how great the fall?  The Dems are still too disorganized to rise, but the Millennial wave may finally push the handwringers aside.  A huge wave election should do the trick.

No predictions from me about the legislative results that may, or may not, follow.  If it's a mealy-mouthed effort, they'll lose again in 2022 and perhaps 2024 too.
(09-05-2019, 11:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-12-2018, 09:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Democrats are going to have to get radical like the Republicans were in the 1860s to get past this new cold (or hot) civil war, and be just as ruthless as the Republicans have been in such things as shoving two conservatives onto the Court. They will have to suspend the filibuster for some years with a time limit on it, and stack the courts, and then be willing to use that power to change this country.

I don't think it would wise to do a bunch stuff that pisses off/ alienates 60 some million Americans who are as ruthless or more ruthless than the Republicans. The Democrats would be better off sticking to controlling, skewing things more in their own favor and mainly screwing with/ screwing up the lives and messing with/removing the rights of the folks within Democratic areas.

No, it is up to Democrats to try to convince people in places that now seem to vote on autopilot for Republicans that the ideology of the GOP hurts them. Trump has been doing much to inflict pain in places and among constituencies that never supported him to begin with in ways that no other President has done before.

To take from non-supporters what one then gives to supporters as a form of patronage is what the late Robert Mugabe (he just died) did in Zimbabwe -- and by doing so he ravaged the economy of Zimbabwe. 

Good, wise politics is not a matter of turning the screws on the 'right people' for the supposed benefit of others. God, wise politics is the diametrical opposite of such.
Real Clear Politics Average Sept.13, 2019
Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden26.8
Sanders17.3
Warren16.8
Harris6.5
Buttigieg4.8
Yang3.0
O'Rourke2.8
Booker2.3
Gabbard1.3
Klobuchar1.2
Castro1.0
Steyer0.8
Bennet0.7
Williamson0.5
Ryan0.5
de Blasio0.5
Delaney0.4
Bullock0.3
Sestak0.3
Messam0.0
Biden +9.5
A post that I made in Leip's Election Atlas. The respondent's name (that person apparently does not post here) is of course excised. In response to this article, someone posted some sarcastic critique, which I sought to shred:

Quote:Here's what I took away from this:

1. Only a woman can defeat Trump.

2. We don't need another Trump (presumably the author means male nominee).

From this, it seems to me that the author believes all men are Trump, even if he's a Democrat. But wait, does this mean Hillary isn't a woman?

Most men are not Trump. Maybe some have a secret admiration for rogues who get away what they dream of doing but can't get away with. Trump admitted to saying that he grabbed women by their... which I as a juror would treat as criminal sexual conduct if the facts so stated in a criminal trial in Michigan.    

Quote:All joking aside, the reason you were all so surprised with the 2016 results is because you were too busy drowning each other out with your hate-filled rhetoric and your defending of cop killers and city burners that you didn't notice everyone else quietly rolling their eyes at you.


Which of us so-called Leftists used hateful rhetoric? Which of us defended cop-killers and city-burners? We kept our language clean until Trump debased everything precious in America. I have never used so many censorable four-letter words in my life before Trump became President. 

Quote:Spoiler alert: Warren will be the nominee. Not because she's the best, but because she's a woman. You see, the Democrats have this strange notion in their heads that they NEED a woman to run so she can play the female card, as Miss "I'm With Her" did so successfully in 2016. They don't want to leave any votes on the table, right? What they fail to realize is that they're not even gaining any votes by doing that because anyone who would vote for a candidate simply because she's a woman wouldn't vote for Trump even if he went against a man. You gain nothing. I hope she gets the nomination. All you Never-Trumpers can high five each other over the incredible awesomeness of having another female candidate. Everyone else will scratch their heads while she explains how she's going to take away their private health insurance, and later vote for Trump.

Let me reduce the 2020 Presidential election to the basics as apply to every Presidential election as  those basics have applied to every re-election bid by an incumbent President. Those Presidents who have convinced us through legitimate achievements who successfully convince the People that a second or later term is a good thing have typically been re-elected. It is hardly surprising that Presidents reasonably similar in achievement and temperament get re-elected. Example:


Quote:When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS. 

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

[Image: genusmap.php?year=2008&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=2;1;7]
 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once 

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.

The electric eel is loose! What?  Republican Eisenhower and Democrat Obama? They did win much the same states in their elections (Obama not getting the High Plains states or the Intermountain West aside from Colorado and New Mexico). OK, the political culture of America in 2008 and 2012 is far closer to that of the 1950s -- it is just that the partisan match to the political cultures of the states are mostly opposite in partisan identity. 

So what changed in in American politics between 1952 and 2012? Let's start by saying what did not change. Eisenhower cultivated the Mormon vote for the GOP to get it to start identifying with conservative politics. Trump has some chance of blowing that. Ranch country is as strongly R now as it was in 1952, I do not want to go into the details on how ranch-area and farm-area politics differ; Iowa has voted D in all but two Presidential elections beginning in 1988, and Kansas has voted R in every Presidential election since 1968. Demographic realities have given California, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico large Hispanic minorities, and such now favors Democrats in statewide elections.

But note well: Eisenhower and Obama did very well with well-educated people, winning decisive majorities among both. Stevenson, McCain, and Romney did well with not-so-well-educated people -- and such makes a big difference. People with much trust in formal education as a necessity for the Good Life voted for Ike -- and Obama -- at least as the states suggest. The states with the lowest standards of formal education went for Stevenson (D) but against Obama (D). Ike won three states usually tough for Republicans even in good or great years, winning the states (Massachusetts and Minnesota) that were the sole states that hapless McGovern and Mondale won in 49-state landslides for a Republican, and Rhode Island, the only Northern state other than Massachusetts to vote against Herbert Hoover in 1928. Ike won all three twice, and no Republican has won all three once in any other election since 1924.     

OK, what about the Hispanics? Sure, many are poor, and recent immigrants might be ill-educated people who hold onto cr@ppy jobs. They insist that their kids do well in school so that they don't become a permanent under-class in America. In the 1950's such people would have gone for Ike. Today they hold Trump in contempt for an anti-intellectualism that reaches far beyond the usual wayward professor to the K-12 teacher. Note well that the Catholic Church has no use for the young-earth creationism that so many Protestant fundamentalists endorse. "Believe it or burn!"

...Donald Trump has done nothing to change the core beliefs of anyone. If you thought that unions  are the workers' best friend, formal education is a necessary key to personal success, rational thought is a good thing, women are equals of men, the environment needs protection, tax cuts for the super-rich aid only the super-rich, science is more trustworthy than superstition and corporate propaganda, and that ethnic divides are peril back in 2016... it is highly unlikely that Trump has convinced you otherwise. If Trump told you something that sounded good in 2016 but proved to be something not so desirable, then you are likely to vote against him in 2020.

Trump has thrown away the usual advantages of an incumbent President and gotten no new ones. How does that look on the map?    

    [Image: genusmap.php?year=2008&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...&NE3=2;1;7]
 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice, the Democrat in 2020
deep blue -- Republican all four five elections
medium blue -- Republican in all elections except 2020
pale blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never, Trump 2020
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never, Trump 2020
medium red -- Stevenson twice, Obama once, the Democrat in 2020 
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama never, the Democrat in 2020
orange -- Stevenson once, Obama never, the Democrat in 2020

No state is in deep red because every state has voted for a Republican at least once. If things go really bad between now and November 2020, then there could be more states going from deep blue to medium-blue... This is what I see with Trump being held to 100 electoral votes or so. That is just short of how Ike beat Stevenson. America's political culture is more like that of 2008 or even 1952 than what the Presidential election of 2016 showed. Yes, I see Trump as a failure as a person, a politician, and a leader.  

Quote:Also, when Warren closes her speeches with how expensive tuition is, remember how she takes a six digit salary to teach a single course, and also remember that she has mentioned no plan to lower the actual cost of college. She only offers bribes. Take it, if that's the kind of person you are.

She must be one highly-valuable professor. But I could tell tales of why college education is so expensive, and it has nothing to do with quality of the teaching. It ain't the college teachers. Colleges now hire large numbers of 'assistant' and 'adjunct' professors to teach such courses as survey courses, especially in the Humanities, and can never get tenure. They are paid less than K-12 teachers despite being better educated. College administration was once full of college professors who had tenure but could not teach because they had failed to keep up with the subject or they were simply incompetent lecturers. Nobody wanted to be such. Now the college administrators are paid far more than the college professors and have roles much like those of corporate executives. 

I will say this: the traditional purpose of college was to take a promising kid with some intellectual promise and good character and make him better. A good liberal-arts school refined a kid's intellect and taught him that there was more to life than sex, mass culture, material gain and indulgence, and bureaucratic power. Such was not so exorbitant as it is today. 

................................

Oh by the way -- has there ever been a successful politician who hasn't made glowing promises of  better lives for voters so long as he gets elected (or re-elected)? At that Donald Trump is no exception. Nobody succeeds by promising that things will be worse for most people. Nobody says that he will raise your taxes, cut expenditures on public services, and give the public sector away to profiteers -- or take away basic freedoms -- and gets anywhere near winning an election. OK, maybe one makes promises to do horrible things to social pariahs who have gotten a raw deal for a long time. That is not to say that there have not been electoral disappointments who took away liberty, gutted public expenditures, robbed people blind, and started disastrous wars.  Heck, even Hitler promised peace, freedom, prosperity, and national pride... obviously we need take care to avoid electing demagogues with mean streaks or barely-hidden rage. 

One thing is certain: Donald Trump has given us all a hard lesson in civics that some of us slept through in high school... and one that many of us wish that we could sleep through if we got it right the first time.
The Grim Reaper has something to say about the 2020 election:

In the three closest states of the  2016 election that Trump actually won, Democrats so far have a huge edge in new voters.  

[Image: SLG3AGVVQFDFPPAOCJHY4ZQK7I.jpg]

You will also notice that Democrats have edges in Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Hampshire, which Hillary Clinton barely won. If you are looking for a Trump rebound in Colorado or Virginia,  then think again: it is not happening based on the affiliations of new voters.  The black circles represent deaths of 2016 voters, and in West Virginia, the black circle is larger than the number of new voters. Trump still wins West Virginia

Some other states? I can dispense with Indiana (not likely a swing state, and the sort that is close only in a D landslide), Ohio, and Georgia by saying

(1) that partisan identification is unlikely for new voters, perhaps there is no political benefit from such
(2) that those three states will not decide the election.

Florida? I cannot see the partisan edge, so I expect Florida to be really close in 2020. My cynical view of Florida as a deciding state is that it does not decide how it goes until it either no longer matters or that the Republican state officials decide it for the Republican when the state makes the difference. Gore would have won Florida had some other state made Florida irrelevant by voting D instead of R. Arizona is in about the same position... Eyeballing Iowa gives much the same result.  Neither of those three states will decide the election fir Trump, but any one of those three indicates that the Trump campaign is cooked as thoroughly as someone who dawdled in Pompeii on a certain day in AD 79.

The D edges in Colorado and Virginia are so big that Trump can write those states off early. Between Colorado and Maine I expect to see two fairly-easy R-to-D flips in the Senate.  Norrh Carolina doesn't look great for Trump -- indeed, worse than Arizona, Florida, or Iowa.

Based on the 2016 result as a base for change, Trump will find great barriers to holding onto any one of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

[Image: VDRD7LFYIFHANBPUHJNPMG7OGA.jpg]


Trump is not going to win any state that he lost in 2016; not one of those states will be close.  Texas? Except for California, no state will have so many new voters. The advantage in new voters in Texas is strong D.  New voters in  Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and South Carolina are surprisingly, strongly D... if there are any huge D surprises in those states that Trump won by 10% or more, it will be in one of those four states.   Neither of those four states was close to being close in 2016...

Graphs from the Washington Post

Remember: not one vote cast in 2016 matters in 2020. All that we have at this point is patterns from earlier elections, the 2016 results, demographics, and the voter registration.
Real Clear Politics
Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden28.7
Warren22.1
Sanders16.7
Buttigieg6.4
Harris5.4
Yang2.6
O'Rourke2.4
Booker2.1
Klobuchar1.9
Gabbard1.1
Steyer1.1
Bennet0.8
Castro0.7
Ryan0.7
Williamson0.3
Bullock0.2
Biden +6.6
Looks good for the Democrats... unless all the newbies are the kind of radicals who scare off ten centrist voters for every radical vote they win.
(10-29-2019, 08:57 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]Looks good for the Democrats... unless all the newbies are the kind of radicals who scare off ten centrist voters for every radical vote they win.

...and that is demographics alone. To be sure, some of the new voters in some states have simply moved... and people take their old voting habits with them. But all in all, such partisan edges as there are favor Democrats decisively. 

This is before anyone can start discussing what a horrible person Donald Trump is.
(10-29-2019, 08:57 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: [ -> ]Looks good for the Democrats... unless all the newbies are the kind of radicals who scare off ten centrist voters for every radical vote they win.

The same was said in reverse when Ronald Unelectable Reagan got the nod in 1980.  When it's time for a change, the voters will make one.  RWR was change that took; DJT was a change that went bad.  The desire for change is still there.