Election 2020

[pbrower2a]

For #2, I was awaiting the announcement of anyone with significant achievement in public life (especially being a current or former Governor or US Senator or cabinet secretary, but even a current Congressional representative, big-city mayor, or military hero) who is not preposterously old (let us say Bob Dole). Weld was Governor of a State whose governorship Republicans rarely win.

The point is 'significant'. Thus a joke such as the deceased Harold Stassen as a candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency does not qualify. The current list of serious candidates on the Democratic side includes a mayor of a moderate-sized city (Pete Buttegieg, South Bend); should a Republican mayor of a city of similar size run against Donald Trump I would have to include him. It's hard to think of any war heroes who would run as Republicans.

If the intra-party challenger is some other rich plutocrat, then because that person has the same qualification as Trump before running for President, he would have to be added.

[Eric the Green]

(05-19-2019, 10:23 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: For #2, I was awaiting the announcement of anyone with significant achievement in public life (especially being a current or former Governor or US Senator or cabinet secretary, but even a current Congressional representative, big-city mayor, or military hero) who is not preposterously old (let us say Bob Dole). Weld was Governor of a State whose governorship Republicans rarely win.

The point is 'significant'. Thus a joke such as the deceased Harold Stassen as a candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency does not qualify. The current list of serious candidates on the Democratic side includes a mayor of a moderate-sized city (Pete Buttegieg, South Bend); should a Republican mayor of a city of similar size run against Donald Trump I would have to include him. It's hard to think of any war heroes who would run as Republicans.

If the intra-party challenger is some other rich plutocrat, then because that person has the same qualification as Trump before running for President, he would have to be added.

Possibly, but (s)he or any candidate would have to demonstrate some standing in the polls and in the primaries and caucuses to be considered a factor in the Lichtman Key #2. Lichtman said as much in 2016. So far that hasn't happened, and I see no-one willing or able on the horizon who might fill the bill. I knew about Buttigieg well before he announced, and scored him, so he was no surprise to me. But who knows; someone could appear, and then #2 is subject to change, IMO. It seems unlikely enough now that I can't give the Democrats the key on that one or change it to green.

Trump was an allegedly rich plutocrat, and also a celebrity and a TV star who played the role of an executive, so all that put him in the running.

[Eric the Green]

Real Clear Politics says:
Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden38.3
Sanders18.8
Warren8.5
Harris7.3
Buttigieg7.0
O'Rourke3.8
Booker2.5
Castro1.5
Klobuchar1.3
Gabbard1.0
Yang1.0
Gillibrand1.0
Ryan0.8
Bennet0.8
Inslee0.8
Williamson0.7

Biden +19.5

Glad to see Marianne Williamson moving up. She'd be a good presence in the debates.

[David Horn]

(05-20-2019, 11:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Real Clear Politics says:
Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden38.3
Sanders18.8
Warren8.5
Harris7.3
Buttigieg7.0
O'Rourke3.8
Booker2.5
Castro1.5
Klobuchar1.3
Gabbard1.0
Yang1.0
Gillibrand1.0
Ryan0.8
Bennet0.8
Inslee0.8
Williamson0.7

Biden +19.5

Glad to see Marianne Williamson moving up. She'd be a good presence in the debates.

The problem with Biden is the same problem all safe candidates share: they are safe but a bit boring.  They tend to do well in primaries and lose in the general.  If not, then we would have enjoyed the services of Presidents Kerry and McCain.

[Kinser79]

Kerry wouldn't get out of the then Blue Wall (that Trump broke). That isn't enough to get elected. McCain made a bad bad bad mistake in 2008 in that he picked Palin who proceeded to make an ass of herself nationally. Caribou Barbie would have been less of an issue had the man not been so old.

When the parties run someone who is very old it matters who they pick as VP. Which is why Pence for his flaws was a good pick for Trump. He had Senate Experience and could work the Hill (which is largely what he does for Trump) and wasn't so out there that he scares away most Americans.

[David Horn]

(05-22-2019, 07:52 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Kerry wouldn't get out of the then Blue Wall (that Trump broke).  That isn't enough to get elected.  McCain made a bad bad bad mistake in 2008 in that he picked Palin who proceeded to make an ass of herself nationally.  Caribou Barbie would have been less of an issue had the man not been so old.

When the parties run someone who is very old it matters who they pick as VP.  Which is why Pence for his flaws was a good pick for Trump.  He had Senate Experience and could work the Hill (which is largely what he does for Trump) and wasn't so out there that he scares away most Americans.

Back in the day, Kerry took the hot seat in DC for the Winter Soldier investigations, which put him squarely in the sights of one Richard Milhouse Nixon.  I was a VVAW member at the time, and remember that it was the only antiwar movement that had traction, and that pissed-off a lot of powerful people.  How that made him a bland and safe candidate 3 decades later is a mystery.

[Kinser79]

(05-22-2019, 03:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-22-2019, 07:52 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Kerry wouldn't get out of the then Blue Wall (that Trump broke).  That isn't enough to get elected.  McCain made a bad bad bad mistake in 2008 in that he picked Palin who proceeded to make an ass of herself nationally.  Caribou Barbie would have been less of an issue had the man not been so old.

When the parties run someone who is very old it matters who they pick as VP.  Which is why Pence for his flaws was a good pick for Trump.  He had Senate Experience and could work the Hill (which is largely what he does for Trump) and wasn't so out there that he scares away most Americans.

Back in the day, Kerry took the hot seat in DC for the Winter Soldier investigations, which put him squarely in the sights of one Richard Milhouse Nixon.  I was a VVAW member at the time, and remember that it was the only antiwar movement that had traction, and that pissed-off a lot of powerful people.  How that made him a bland and safe candidate 3 decades later is a mystery.

Not my point.  He didn't get out of the Blue Wall, and that isn't enough to get 270 votes.

I would say Kerry became "safe" after spending over a decade in the Senate.  It is hardly a mystery to anyone who pays attention to those who occasionally sit in either chamber of Congress.

[Eric the Green]

(05-22-2019, 03:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-22-2019, 07:52 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Kerry wouldn't get out of the then Blue Wall (that Trump broke).  That isn't enough to get elected.  McCain made a bad bad bad mistake in 2008 in that he picked Palin who proceeded to make an ass of herself nationally.  Caribou Barbie would have been less of an issue had the man not been so old.

When the parties run someone who is very old it matters who they pick as VP.  Which is why Pence for his flaws was a good pick for Trump.  He had Senate Experience and could work the Hill (which is largely what he does for Trump) and wasn't so out there that he scares away most Americans.

Back in the day, Kerry took the hot seat in DC for the Winter Soldier investigations, which put him squarely in the sights of one Richard Milhouse Nixon.  I was a VVAW member at the time, and remember that it was the only antiwar movement that had traction, and that pissed-off a lot of powerful people.  How that made him a bland and safe candidate 3 decades later is a mystery.

Well, not to me. I too thought for many years he had a strong rhetorical ability. But the blandness was there too all along. If I had developed the horoscope scores that I have now in earlier years to guide me, I would have seen it more clearly.

Here are the scores for recent nominees:

Elections from 1932 to 2016: 
1932: Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) 21-4 U, Herbert Hoover 11-11* 
1936: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U*, Alf Landon 10-16 
1940: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U*, Wendell Wilkie 8-9 
1944: Franklin D Roosevelt 21-4 U, Thomas Dewey 8-6 SN 
1948: Harry Truman 14-0, Thomas Dewey 8-6 SN 
1952: Dwight Eisenhower 17-8, Adlai Stevenson 5-21 
1956: Dwight Eisenhower 17-8, Adlai Stevenson 5-21* 
1960: John F Kennedy (JFK) 13-6, Richard Nixon 18-7 
1964: Lyndon B Johnson (LBJ) 8-6 J*, Barry Goldwater 20-11** (he had Mars in Scorpio rising, with inharmonious aspects: the perfect symbol of his stubborn "extremism") 
1968: Richard Nixon 18-7*, Hubert Humphrey 9-5**, George Wallace 2-7 J (+ Mars rising) 
1972: Richard Nixon 18-7*, George McGovern 9-10 
1976: Jimmy Carter 12-4, Gerald Ford 12-8 
1980: Ronald Reagan 21-6, Jimmy Carter 12-4*, John Anderson 14-8 J* 
1984: Ronald Reagan 21-6, Walter Mondale 12-12 J/U* 
1988: George H W Bush 14-6, Michael Dukakis 2-10* 
1992: Bill Clinton 21-3 J, George H W Bush 14-6, Ross Perot 7-10 (his Jupiter rising is evident, but it was 10 degrees above his ascendant, so I didn't count it officially) 
1996: Bill Clinton 21-3 J, Bob Dole 12-19, Ross Perot 7-10 
2000: George W Bush 17-2*, Al Gore 10-9 (Mars rising) 
2004: George W Bush 17-2*, John Kerry 8-12 (his score was much weaker in the revised system) 
2008: Barack Obama 19-2, John McCain 15-13 
2012: Barack Obama 19-2, Mitt Romney 4-10 U, SN 
2016: Donald Trump 9-4 (Mars rising), Hillary Rodham Clinton 9-11 J

J = Jupiter rising, additional positive factor, if known
U = Uranus rising, a weak positive factor
* Saturn Return in upcoming term, a negative factor
** Saturn Return before the other candidate; negative factor that takes precedence
(candidates can still win if the Saturn Return occurs in an election year, but the term is a disaster)
SN = chart shows Saturn at the Nadir, a negative factor
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentia...ScoredWhat

[Kinser79]

I think I'll just leave this here.  It should be noted that CBS polls regularly skew left.

[pbrower2a]

First of all, your spokesman says that Trump could win a 20-point landslide. That is the historical extreme, one requiring a President who has achieved much facing a very weak opponent. Even Reagan beat Mondale by 'only' 18% in 1984.

[Kinser79]

(05-26-2019, 02:21 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: First of all, your spokesman says that Trump could win a 20-point landslide. That is the historical extreme, one requiring a President who has achieved much facing a very weak opponent. Even Reagan beat Mondale by 'only' 18% in 1984.

The real question is who do the Dims have that is better than Mondale. 

It doesn't really matter to me if it is 15 points, or 25 points.  Everything looks like once Daddy gets to go head to head against something besides an amorphous ideology-free blob he will crush them.  He will crush Biden, he will definitely crush Sanders.  He will crush any of the left-wingers running.

I'd argue the only hope the Dimocraps have is to run a dark horse but I don't see that happening.

[pbrower2a]

(05-30-2019, 11:18 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-26-2019, 02:21 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: First of all, your spokesman says that Trump could win a 20-point landslide. That is the historical extreme, one requiring a President who has achieved much facing a very weak opponent. Even Reagan beat Mondale by 'only' 18% in 1984.

The real question is who do the Dims have that is better than Mondale. 

It doesn't really matter to me if it is 15 points, or 25 points.  Everything looks like once Daddy gets to go head to head against something besides an amorphous ideology-free blob he will crush them.  He will crush Biden, he will definitely crush Sanders.  He will crush any of the left-wingers running.

I'd argue the only hope the Dimocraps have is to run a dark horse but I don't see that happening.

Trump's ideology is absolute plutocracy, and his style is despotism. His regime is fantastically corrupt.

I remember the 1980 election in which one troubled incumbent President was delighted to find that 'unelectable' Ronald Reagan had been nominated for President as his opponent.

I'll say this about Reagan -- he may have been a piece of work, but one never had any question of where is national loyalty was.

[David Horn]

(05-30-2019, 11:18 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-26-2019, 02:21 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: First of all, your spokesman says that Trump could win a 20-point landslide. That is the historical extreme, one requiring a President who has achieved much facing a very weak opponent. Even Reagan beat Mondale by 'only' 18% in 1984.

The real question is who do the Dims have that is better than Mondale. 

It doesn't really matter to me if it is 15 points, or 25 points.  Everything looks like once Daddy gets to go head to head against something besides an amorphous ideology-free blob he will crush them.  He will crush Biden, he will definitely crush Sanders.  He will crush any of the left-wingers running.

I'd argue the only hope the Dimocraps have is to run a dark horse but I don't see that happening.

Are you good for a $1,000 wager?

[Eric the Green]

Democratic Presidential Nomination, according to real clear politics:
Biden34.8
Sanders16.4
Warren9.8
Harris7.4
Buttigieg6.0
O'Rourke3.8
Booker2.2
Klobuchar1.8
Castro1.2
Yang1.0
Gabbard0.8
Ryan0.6
Williamson0.6
Gillibrand0.4
Delaney0.4
de Blasio0.3
Moulton0.3
Hickenlooper0.2
Bullock0.2

[Eric the Green]

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

[pbrower2a]

A state that Trump barely lost in 2016 (Maine), seems to be spiraling away from him. Sure, the state has only four electoral votes, and the only effect of such a collapse in Maine is one electoral vote (MR-02 did go for Trump), but 34% approval and 58% disapproval suggests that the sate is off the table in 2020.

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/f4eda1_fd...fac763.pdf

(Yeah, yeah -I expect kinser to tell us that the only poll that matters is the electoral result and that until then anything is possible, and that I lack the imagination to see how so wonderful a leader as President Trump will not only get re-elected, but will get re-elected in a landslide of historical proportions). Right -- and I see no chance for the Baltimore Orioles making it to the World Series this year.

Because the 2016 Presidential election was so close, President Trump must induce the close states of 2020 to remain close, ideally giving him some gains. His barest losses of 2016 (Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and perhaps Virginia) have mostly been going into the zone of disapproval that one associates with such states as California, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Sure, he loses the election if he loses any three of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin... or one of those and Florida. He can forget all of his bare losses of 2016 as prospects for a re-election. (Iowa does not figure in this calculation, as it can decide nothing this time except for a Senate seat).

OK. It is possible for one to win re-election if one loses two states that one won in the previous election and gains nothing, one of those states going wildly against the President. Obama picked up nothing from 2008 to 2012, but he could get away with losing Indiana and North Carolina. He had a cushion of 95 electoral votes from 2008 and lost 34 of them in 2012 -- and would have still won had he lost another 29 (Florida).

But the state is Maine, which has but four electoral votes. So what? Trump might lose ME-02, which won't make a difference?    

It's the Senate seat. Susan Collins has been coasting on a reputation as a moderate, the most liberal Republican since Jim Jeffords went Independent. Her approvals used to be in the high 50s, which is well into the safe zone for an incumbent. This poll shows her underwater at 41-42, which is a huge drop. She has voted the Party Line a few times too many, and 'having concerns'  is not the same as voting one's conscience or voting as constituents might wish.

Political collapses often begin with sudden reductions of approval ratings.  (Slow erosion is also possible). Although her disapproval is not up much her approval rating has gone down from 57 (safe) to 41 (shaky at best). At this point any incumbent Republican Senator with an approval where that of Susan Collins has been is not going to go into the zone of loss as the result of 'slow erosion'. Much of the fall of approval of Susan Collins is into 'undecided' territory. Approval seems to erode into 'undecided' territory before it becomes disapproval.

The nomination of Bart "I like beer!" Kavanaugh as a Justice of the US Supreme Court may have doomed the Senate majority of the GOP in the 2020 election.

[Eric the Green]

Wisconsin will decide the election.

http://insideelections.com/ratings/spect...esidential

Inside Elections
Presidential Ratings
APRIL 19, 2019 · 2:24 PM EDT

Outlook

Total Electoral Votes
270 Needed to Win
Democrat: 269 Toss-up: 54 Republican: 215

TOSS-UP
Total: 54
Florida 29
North Carolina 15
Wisconsin 10
TILT DEMOCRATIC
Total: 36
Michigan 16
Pennsylvania 20
LEAN DEMOCRATIC
Total: 14
Maine 4
New Hampshire 4
Nevada 6
LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
Total: 10
Minnesota 10
SOLID DEMOCRATIC
Total: 209
California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Washington, DC 3
Delaware 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 20
Massachusetts 11
Maryland 10
New Jersey 14
New Mexico 5
New York 29
Oregon 7
Rhode Island 4
Virginia 13
Vermont 3
Washington 12
TILT REPUBLICAN
Total: 11
Arizona 11
LEAN REPUBLICAN
Total: 6
Iowa 6
LIKELY REPUBLICAN
Total: 34
Georgia 16
Ohio 18
SOLID REPUBLICAN
Total: 164
Alaska 3
Alabama 9
Arkansas 6
Idaho 4
Indiana 11
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 8
Missouri 10
Mississippi 6
Montana 3
North Dakota 3
Nebraska 5
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 9
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 38
Utah 6
West Virginia 5
Wyoming 3

[Eric the Green]

Cook Political Report

https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/natio...al-college

Jan 9, 2019

SOLID DEMOCRATIC
TOTAL: 188
CA (55)
CT (7)
DE (3)
DC (3)
HI (4)
IL (20)
ME-01 (1)
MD (10)
MA (11)
NJ (14)
NM (5)
NY (29)
OR (7)
RI (4)
VT (3)
WA (12)

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
TOTAL: 22
CO (9)
VA (13)

LEAN DEMOCRATIC
TOTAL: 22
ME (2)
MN (10)
NH (4)
NV (6)

TOSS UP
TOTAL: 86
AZ (11)
FL (29)
MI (16)
PA (20)
WI (10)

LEAN REPUBLICAN
TOTAL: 39
GA (16)
IA (6)
ME-02 (1)
NE-02 (1)
NC (15)

LIKELY REPUBLICAN
TOTAL: 56
OH (18)
TX (38)

SOLID REPUBLICAN
TOTAL: 125
AL (9)
AK (3)
AR (6)
ID (4)
IN (11)
KS (6)
KY (8)
LA (8)
MS (6)
MO (10)
MT (3)
NE (2)
NE-01 (1)
NE-03 (1)
ND (3)
OK (7)
SC (9)
SD (3)
TN (11)
UT (6)
WV (5)
WY (3)

[Eric the Green]

Ohio is seen as leaning strongly Republican by recent pundits. But this is based on how Ohio voted in 2018 congressional elections. But Ohio is strongly gerrymandered, and in the next election, it may be less gerrymandered. And the election results in statewide voting for congress there were close, and trending less Republican. Plus, Sherrod Brown was re-elected to the senate.

Partisan Gerrymandering Boosted Ohio Republicans During 2018 Election
By JULIE CARR SMYTH • MAR 21, 2019
https://radio.wosu.org/post/partisan-ger...n#stream/0


A political mapmaking process controlled by Ohio Republicans proved nearly impenetrable to Democrats' efforts during the 2018 elections, an Associated Press analysis has found, delivering results that allowed the GOP to retain sizable majorities even in the face of an upswing in Democratic votes.

The analysis found that Ohio Republicans won at least three more U.S. House seats and seven more state House seats than would have been expected based on the average share of the votes that Republicans received. Both gaps grew compared with 2016, when the same analysis showed Republicans winning nearly two more U.S. House seats and five more Ohio House seats than expected based on their share of the votes.

The AP used a mathematical formula for calculating partisan advantages that is designed to flag potential cases of political gerrymandering, a practice where the party in power alters voting districts to its advantage in federal and state legislative races. The 2018 analysis again placed Ohio's "efficiency gap" near the top for both state and federal legislative races.

The 2018 analysis found Republicans won 52 percent of the votes in Ohio House races yet 62 percent of the seats. Republican candidates for Ohio's U.S. House seats won 52 percent of the votes but 75 percent of the state's 16 congressional seats. Republican support was down nearly 4 percentage points from 2016 for state House races and almost 6 percentage points in U.S. House races, the analysis showed.

The finding comes as a federal court panel weighs its decision in a lawsuit by Democrats alleging that unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering has disadvantaged Democratic voters in Ohio congressional districts. After arguments earlier this month, the panel has not yet ruled. Ohio's current map was enacted in 2011 by a Republican governor and Republican-led Legislature.

Since then, Ohioans have voted to change the redistricting process and make it less partisan.

Voters overwhelmingly approved new rules for drawing state legislative districts in 2015 and changed the method for drawing congressional districts during last May's primary. The redistricting reforms have had bipartisan support.

(unquote, article)

Latest polls show Biden up by 4 points and Sanders by 1 point in Ohio
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls.../Ohio.html

[Eric the Green]

(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