Election 2020

[Marypoza]

Well Dave looks like u were wrong about Beto. Not gloating, just saying. It's impossible 2 tell any more who will catch on & who won't. I never thought Mayor Butthead would make it this far. & Amy what's her face? Who is she & how is she being propped up?

[Eric the Green]

Some polls are already showing the race tightening in the key upper east-midwest states that Trump won, and they show that Biden and Sanders have a better chance than Warren. That coincides with what my scoring system says. It's going to be too close for comfort. Of course, Trump could still blow it, or maybe already has. But Trump has the persuasive skills, and the red-state and red-county people are still horribly deluded, and the voting system is still rigged, so Trump could still win.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/2020/

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden29.1
Warren20.6
Sanders16.6
Buttigieg7.1
Harris3.6
Yang2.8
Klobuchar2.6
Booker1.9
Gabbard1.8
O'Rourke1.6
Steyer0.9
Bennet0.6
Castro0.6
Williamson0.5
Delaney0.3
Bullock0.0

Biden +8.5

[Eric the Green]

(11-03-2019, 09:17 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Well Dave looks like u were wrong about Beto. Not gloating, just saying. It's impossible 2 tell any more who will catch on & who won't. I never thought Mayor Butthead would make it this far. & Amy what's her face? Who is she & how is she being propped up?

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota senator, is running in the "moderate lane." She is an effective lawmaker. She has one of the better scores among the losers, 7-7. She does well in red districts, so she still has some support. But below the top 3 or 4 candidates, the others are not getting much traction. The worst-scoring candidate running is Kamala Harris (4-16), who also faces a Saturn Return. She got some strong support from establishment backers and people who appreciated her forthright approach in senate hearings and such. And people in the Party liked the demographic she comes from. But she doesn't have the talent as a candidate, and she is constantly fading.

Mayor Butthead, ha ha, can come across as smart and competent. But his status is too low to run for president on. His score is one of the higher ones among those who score well enough in polls to make all the debates so far, 7-8. Andrew Yang has a bad score (8-15), but is doing better than many others anyway. He has good ideas. But he too will fade; he is not much of a leader and he has no qualifications.

Many of the candidates with low scores have already dropped out: Beto (11-26), Gilllibrand (7-13), Hickenlooper (6-12), De Blasio (12-17), Swalwell (4-6), Inslee (3-7), Tim Ryan (3-12), and Moulton (9-10); and Sestak (3-10) is being dropped from lists because he consistently gets zero in polls.

Among the losers, your favorite (and my worst choice) Tulsi Gabbard has the best score (11-6), and she is hanging in there. Tom Steyer entered late but has some native talent and lots of money, if little qualification (11-7). Steve Bullock (10-7) and Michael Bennet (9-9) entered late and have not gotten traction. Cory Booker's score is mediocre and he is losing ground (6-7). Williamson (13-14) is not getting very far. Castro (8-13) has a poor score and is fading fast. 

Hillary is reputedly considering a run, but should not run (9-11 J = Jupiter rising, can give a candidate a boost, but this is uncertain). Delaney has been running a long time and getting nowhere (7-5). His score is one of the better mediocre ones, but his qualifications are minor. 

Wayne Messam (15-8) has some native talent, but he is running as a very-small town mayor, and no-one has ever heard of him. Perhaps he's someone to reckon with in the future if he can get elected governor or something. He has been dropped from poll lists for consistently scoring zero.

Hillary Clinton, 9-11 J
Bernie Sanders, 14-7
Joe Biden, 14-7
Elizabeth Warren, 8-7
Kamala Harris, 4-16*
Beto O'Rourke, 11-26
Pete Buttigieg, 7-8
Cory Booker, 6-7
Amy Klobuchar, 7-7
Kirsten Gillibrand, 7-13 ("Mrs. Firebrand" would score 9-11 if born before 6 AM)
Joe & Julian Castro, 8-13
Tulsi Gabbard, 11-6
Steve Bullock, 10-7
Marianne Williamson, 13-14
Andrew Yang, 8-15
John Delaney, 7-5*
John Hickenlooper, 6-12
Bill DeBlasio, 12-17*
Eric Swalwell, 4-6
Jay Inslee, 3-7
Michael Bennet, 9-9*
Seth Moulton, 9-10
Tom Steyer, 11-7
Tim Ryan, 3-12
Joe Sestak, 3-10

* = Saturn Return due for this candidate. If this happens in the first 3 years of the term sought, the candidate loses (or in one historical case was soon killed in office).

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentia...ScoredWhat

[Eric the Green]

New York Times/Siena poll



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upsho...Aw94DRdt-8

[Marypoza]

(11-04-2019, 04:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-03-2019, 09:17 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Well Dave looks like u were wrong about Beto. Not gloating, just saying. It's impossible 2 tell any more who will catch on & who won't. I never thought Mayor Butthead would make it this far. & Amy what's her face? Who is she & how is she being propped up?

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota senator, is running in the "moderate lane." She is an effective lawmaker. She has one of the better scores among the losers, 7-7. She does well in red districts, so she still has some support. But below the top 3 or 4 candidates, the others are not getting much traction. The worst-scoring candidate running is Kamala Harris (4-16), who also faces a Saturn Return. She got some strong support from establishment backers and people who appreciated her forthright approach in senate hearings and such. And people in the Party liked the demographic she comes from. But she doesn't have the talent as a candidate, and she is constantly fading.

Mayor Butthead, ha ha, can come across as smart and competent. But his status is too low to run for president on. His score is one of the higher ones among those who score well enough in polls to make all the debates so far, 7-8. Andrew Yang has a bad score (8-15), but is doing better than many others anyway. He has good ideas. But he too will fade; he is not much of a leader and he has no qualifications.

Many of the candidates with low scores have already dropped out: Beto (11-26), Gilllibrand (7-13), Hickenlooper (6-12), De Blasio (12-17), Swalwell (4-6), Inslee (3-7), Tim Ryan (3-12), and Moulton (9-10); and Sestak (3-10) is being dropped from lists because he consistently gets zero in polls.

Among the losers, your favorite (and my worst choice) Tulsi Gabbard has the best score (11-6), and she is hanging in there. Tom Steyer entered late but has some native talent and lots of money, if little qualification (11-7). Steve Bullock (10-7) and Michael Bennet (9-9) entered late and have not gotten traction. Cory Booker's score is mediocre and he is losing ground (6-7). Williamson (13-14) is not getting very far. Castro (8-13) has a poor score and is fading fast. 

Hillary is reputedly considering a run, but should not run (9-11 J = Jupiter rising, can give a candidate a boost, but this is uncertain). Delaney has been running a long time and getting nowhere (7-5). His score is one of the better mediocre ones, but his qualifications are minor. 

Wayne Messam (15-8) has some native talent, but he is running as a very-small town mayor, and no-one has ever heard of him. Perhaps he's someone to reckon with in the future if he can get elected governor or something. He has been dropped from poll lists for consistently scoring zero.

Hillary Clinton, 9-11 J
Bernie Sanders, 14-7
Joe Biden, 14-7
Elizabeth Warren, 8-7
Kamala Harris, 4-16*
Beto O'Rourke, 11-26
Pete Buttigieg, 7-8
Cory Booker, 6-7
Amy Klobuchar, 7-7
Kirsten Gillibrand, 7-13 ("Mrs. Firebrand" would score 9-11 if born before 6 AM)
Joe & Julian Castro, 8-13
Tulsi Gabbard, 11-6
Steve Bullock, 10-7
Marianne Williamson, 13-14
Andrew Yang, 8-15
John Delaney, 7-5*
John Hickenlooper, 6-12
Bill DeBlasio, 12-17*
Eric Swalwell, 4-6
Jay Inslee, 3-7
Michael Bennet, 9-9*
Seth Moulton, 9-10
Tom Steyer, 11-7
Tim Ryan, 3-12
Joe Sestak, 3-10

* = Saturn Return due for this candidate. If this happens in the first 3 years of the term sought, the candidate loses (or in one historical case was soon killed in office).

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentia...ScoredWhat

-- thanx 4 your analysis Eric. Looks like the Dems need 2 get behind Bernie or be stuck with 4 more years of the Donald

[Eric the Green]

Your welcome Marypoza.

So far, all the candidates who have dropped out have negative scores. Most of the few remaining candidates with negative scores are declining. Only Buttigieg, Harris and Yang have negative scores but are still in the top 10, although O'Rourke is still listed below, but he has dropped out. Castro believes he can pick up some of his voters, but he won't get many. Klobuchar has passed Yang in the latest count.

Today's numbers from real clear politics show that Bernie is continuing to recover, and Warren's boom has lapsed at least for now:

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden28.6
Warren21.4
Sanders18.1
Buttigieg7.1
Harris4.3
Klobuchar2.6
Yang2.4
Booker2.3
Gabbard1.6
O'Rourke1.5
Steyer0.9
Castro0.9
Bennet0.5
Williamson0.4
Delaney0.4
Bullock0.3

Biden +7.2

[pbrower2a]

Well, there were few elections that draw the attention of a midterm, let alone a Presidential election this year -- but:

Despite campaign appearances by you-know-who, incumbent Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin went down to defeat.

Both houses of the Virginia state legislature went from R to D.

[Eric the Green]

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Biden28.3
Warren20.6
Sanders17.6
Buttigieg7.0
Harris4.5
Klobuchar2.6
Booker2.3
Yang2.3
Gabbard1.5
O'Rourke1.5
Castro1.0
Steyer0.9
Bennet0.6
Williamson0.5
Delaney0.5
Bullock0.4

Biden +7.7

I hope Steyer can get back ahead of Castro. Steyer was a late entry, but he has a much better chance according to my scores. Meanwhile, Yang has fallen to 8th place, and O'Rourke has dropped out. Sanders continues to creep up on Warren, and Biden is holding steady. Good news from an electability viewpoint.

Debate qualifiers for Nov and Dec so far:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/46...ry-debates

(quote)

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) qualified for the next Democratic presidential primary debate scheduled in November, while Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) qualified to appear in the December debate stage.

Gabbard made the debate slated for Nov. 20 in Atlanta after receiving 3 percent support in a Quinnipiac University poll focused on Iowa that was released on Wednesday.

To make the debate stage this month, candidates have to amass support from at least 165,000 unique donors and register at least 3 percent in four qualifying polls or 5 percent in two early-state polls by Nov. 13 at 11:59 p.m.

Gabbard becomes the 10th Democratic presidential candidate to make the debate stage. She will join former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kamala Harris (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), as well as South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang and businessman Tom Steyer.

Klobuchar has also already qualified for the November debate.

Gabbard has in the past accused the Democratic National Committee (DNC) of "rigging” the primary contest against outsider candidates such as herself, while attacking the qualification requirements as “arbitrary” and nontransparent.

Gabbard, who has attracted scrutiny over her foreign policy stances, has made three of the previous four debates, including the one last month.

Meanwhile, Klobuchar got 5 percent support in the same Quinnipiac poll on Iowa, qualifying her for the December stage under toughened criteria by the DNC.

To make the December debate, candidates have to amass the support of at least 200,000 unique donors and register support of 4 percent or more in four qualifying polls or 6 percent in two approved early voting state polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada or South Carolina.

Klobuchar’s campaign confirmed to The Hill that the Minnesota lawmaker qualified for the debate, which is set to take place in Los Angeles on Dec. 19.

She is the sixth Democrat to qualify for the event, joining Biden, Warren, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg.

"Today, Senator Klobuchar qualified for the December debate. Amy looks forward to sharing her optimistic agenda on stage and showing once again how she will be the President for not half of America, but all of America,” Klobuchar’s campaign manager Justin Buoen said in a statement

[pbrower2a]

Kaiser Family Foundation "Blue Wall Voices" project, Sep. 23-Oct. 15, 3222 RV in four states.


Michigan (n=767):

Approve 41 (strongly 24)
Disapprove 58 (strongly 49)


Minnesota (n=958):

Approve 42 (strongly 24)
Disapprove 58 (strongly 48)


Pennsylvania (n=752):

Approve 39 (strongly 26)
Disapprove 61 (strongly 51)


Wisconsin (n=745):

Approve 42 (strongly 26)
Disapprove 57 (strongly 49)




Trump re-election bid, 2020: dead in the water with a swarm of voracious tiger sharks.

[Hintergrund]

LOL, astrological analysis of politicians.

[Eric the Green]

(11-08-2019, 08:11 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: LOL, astrological analysis of politicians.

That's the secret formula

And I made a correction to the score for Michael Bennet; he now has a negative score of 8-9. So he may drop out soon. Of course the critics of astrology ignore that, when well applied, astrology makes correct predictions. The proof is in the pudding, not in outdated scientism worldviews. So far, for example, ALL the candidates who have dropped out have negative scores.

So, who will be the next to drop out? Will it be Bennet? Of course Sestak and Messam are already off the radar. But those who are consistently failing to make it to the debate stage will consider dropping out. And Booker already said that he might.  Williamson is in it to be the new age candidate and make points, so she won't drop out for a while, I don't think.

And who will be the first candidate with a positive score to drop out? Steve Bullock isn't catching on very well, so it might be him. Delaney might be too determined to drop out.

Meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg is talking about running in the Alabama primary. He has a positive score, but only 7-5. He is not any better, and in fact not as good as Biden and Sanders, and just as old too. So he isn't the savior that he claims to be. We don't need a billionaire centrist to save us by spending lots of money. And since this primary has virtually no significance, and since CA is coming up soon, if he's not in that one it will be too late.

Pete Buttigieg is doing well, but his barely-negative score indicates that he will not be the gay Obama (19-2), and that he will not win in Iowa and catapult into the lead. And being a mid-sized town mayor is not a high enough platform to run on. But he is getting lots of money, though Bernie Sanders leads the pack in that regard.

[Marypoza]

(11-08-2019, 11:42 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 08:11 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: LOL, astrological analysis of politicians.

That's the secret formula

And I made a correction to the score for Michael Bennet; he now has a negative score of 8-9. So he may drop out soon. Of course the critics of astrology ignore that, when well applied, astrology makes correct predictions. The proof is in the pudding, not in outdated scientism worldviews. So far, for example, ALL the candidates who have dropped out have negative scores.

So, who will be the next to drop out? Will it be Bennet? Of course Sestak and Messam are already off the radar. But those who are consistently failing to make it to the debate stage will consider dropping out. And Booker already said that he might.  Williamson is in it to be the new age candidate and make points, so she won't drop out for a while, I don't think.

And who will be the first candidate with a positive score to drop out? Steve Bullock isn't catching on very well, so it might be him. Delaney might be too determined to drop out.

Meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg is talking about running in the Alabama primary. He has a positive score, but only 7-5. He is not any better, and in fact not as good as Biden and Sanders, and just as old too. So he isn't the savior that he claims to be. We don't need a billionaire centrist to save us by spending lots of money. And since this primary has virtually no significance, and since CA is coming up soon, if he's not in that one it will be too late.

Pete Buttigieg is doing well, but his barely-negative score indicates that he will not be the gay Obama (19-2), and that he will not win in Iowa and catapult into the lead. And being a mid-sized town mayor is not a high enough platform to run on. But he is getting lots of money, though Bernie Sanders leads the pack in that regard.

--- I'm gonna stick my neck out & say Bernie's gonna take IA

[Anthony '58]

(11-08-2019, 12:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- I'm gonna stick my neck out & say Bernie's gonna take IA

I'll keep my cards close to the vest and say that Biden is gonna finish a distant third in New Hampshire, which is a neighboring state for both Comrade Bernie and Pocahontas.

[David Horn]

(11-08-2019, 12:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- I'm gonna stick my neck out & say Bernie's gonna take IA

Loyalty is admirable, but misplaced in this incidence. Bernie's heart attack has doomed him among all but his most ardent supporters. It's time to look around for choice #2.

[David Horn]

(11-09-2019, 05:29 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 12:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- I'm gonna stick my neck out & say Bernie's gonna take IA

I'll keep my cards close to the vest and say that Biden is gonna finish a distant third in New Hampshire, which is a neighboring state for both Comrade Bernie and Pocahontas.

Biden's toast.  Bernie's toast as well.  Regardless of the NH results, there needs to be another player, or this gets boring fast.  I love Mayor Pete as the next, but better, Eisenhower.  It's too early for that.  Klobuchar and Harris are fighters, so maybe one of them in the center lane, and Warren in the left lane.

[Eric the Green]

(11-09-2019, 06:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 12:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- I'm gonna stick my neck out & say Bernie's gonna take IA

Loyalty is admirable, but misplaced in this incidence.  Bernie's heart attack has doomed him among all but his most ardent supporters.  It's time to look around for choice #2.

Bernie has already recovered all his poll numbers, and they are inching up, while Warren has suffered a big decline. They are 3 points apart now, and Bernie has the most money and enthusiasm behind him. There will be no choice #2. The top 3 will remain so. I don't see why Harris (who is declining in the polls) or Klobuchar (who has never caught on) would have any chance to break out. Neither of them have the slightest charisma or likability and they do not give the impression of being leaders.

Bernie is the only hope for a progressive president this time around. Warren and the others either can't win, or aren't progressive, or both. So, although Bernie may indeed not win, for those with hopes for a progressive president elected in 2020, loyalty is not misplaced.

As to who will take Iowa, I have no idea. Food for more thought and research, perhaps! I have already stated that it will not be Mayor Pete, so I am stuck with that prediction! My neck is stuck out

[Eric the Green]

(11-09-2019, 05:29 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 12:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- I'm gonna stick my neck out & say Bernie's gonna take IA

I'll keep my cards close to the vest and say that Biden is gonna finish a distant third in New Hampshire, which is a neighboring state for both Comrade Bernie and Pocahontas.

That does seem logical, but I don't think Biden's finish will be distant.

[Anthony '58]

(11-09-2019, 06:36 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-09-2019, 05:29 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 12:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- I'm gonna stick my neck out & say Bernie's gonna take IA

I'll keep my cards close to the vest and say that Biden is gonna finish a distant third in New Hampshire, which is a neighboring state for both Comrade Bernie and Pocahontas.

Biden's toast.  Bernie's toast as well.  Regardless of the NH results, there needs to be another player, or this gets boring fast.  I love Mayor Pete as the next, but better, Eisenhower.  It's too early for that.  Klobuchar and Harris are fighters, so maybe one of them in the center lane, and Warren in the left lane.

If Biden doesn't get it, I will be voting independent.  What difference does it make if I vote for a candidate that finishes second (or maybe even third, if the Libertarians put up a sane candidate like John Kasich, whose union-busting credentials are right up their alley - see the results of the 1912 election) - or, say, eighth?

[David Horn]

(11-09-2019, 08:18 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-09-2019, 06:36 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-09-2019, 05:29 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 12:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- I'm gonna stick my neck out & say Bernie's gonna take IA

I'll keep my cards close to the vest and say that Biden is gonna finish a distant third in New Hampshire, which is a neighboring state for both Comrade Bernie and Pocahontas.

Biden's toast.  Bernie's toast as well.  Regardless of the NH results, there needs to be another player, or this gets boring fast.  I love Mayor Pete as the next, but better, Eisenhower.  It's too early for that.  Klobuchar and Harris are fighters, so maybe one of them in the center lane, and Warren in the left lane.

If Biden doesn't get it, I will be voting independent.  What difference does it make if I vote for a candidate that finishes second (or maybe even third, if the Libertarians put up a sane candidate like John Kasich, whose union-busting credentials are right up their alley - see the results of the 1912 election) - or, say, eighth?

I always liked Uncle Joe, but this is not an election that can focus on a return to a safe past.  That doesn't exist, and hasn't for quite a while.  In fact, we've moved the political center post so far right, even modest liberalism looks extreme to some people.  Not-Trump is going to be called socialism, but anything modest in scope needs to be forward looking too.  Both Harris and Klobuchar fall into that descriptive basket.  

I suspect that we'll get EW, and that she'll squeak out a win in the general.  After that, it's hard to say.  The neo-left is pissed.  Standby for some radical demands.

[pbrower2a]

(11-10-2019, 11:00 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-09-2019, 08:18 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-09-2019, 06:36 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-09-2019, 05:29 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-08-2019, 12:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote: --- I'm gonna stick my neck out & say Bernie's gonna take IA

I'll keep my cards close to the vest and say that Biden is gonna finish a distant third in New Hampshire, which is a neighboring state for both Comrade Bernie and Pocahontas.

Biden's toast.  Bernie's toast as well.  Regardless of the NH results, there needs to be another player, or this gets boring fast.  I love Mayor Pete as the next, but better, Eisenhower.  It's too early for that.  Klobuchar and Harris are fighters, so maybe one of them in the center lane, and Warren in the left lane.

If Biden doesn't get it, I will be voting independent.  What difference does it make if I vote for a candidate that finishes second (or maybe even third, if the Libertarians put up a sane candidate like John Kasich, whose union-busting credentials are right up their alley - see the results of the 1912 election) - or, say, eighth?

I always liked Uncle Joe, but this is not an election that can focus on a return to a safe past.  That doesn't exist, and hasn't for quite a while.  In fact, we've moved the political center post so far right, even modest liberalism looks extreme to some people.  Not-Trump is going to be called socialism, but anything modest in scope needs to be forward looking too.  Both Harris and Klobuchar fall into that descriptive basket.  

I suspect that we'll get EW, and that she'll squeak out a win in the general.  After that, it's hard to say.  The neo-left is pissed.  Standby for some radical demands.

Yes -- we are in a Crisis Era, and even an Obama-style Presidency might be utterly inadequate. We will need major reforms of the political system to prevent  another play-for-pay system even more blatant than what Trump has shown us. That is even before I discuss changes in economic norms.