Election 2020

[pbrower2a]

Apparently Trump has more flunkies (a nasty way of looking at it, but the GOP is an authoritarian cadre party; cadre parties have flunkies and not independent actors) in the Senate, but he has lost the House. A bunch of states have ditched Republican governors from the Tea Party era.

Effects on the presidential election: Republicans will have no help from Democratic Governors in some states that Trump won in 2016. Trump will have to win fair and square, and if his approval levels result in poor electoral numbers, he will not win.

Only eleven Democrats will be up for re-election in 2020 in the Senate, and only two will be in a state that Donald Trump won in 2016. Doug Jones, the incumbent Senator from Alabama, won under freakish circumstances unlikely to be repeated. The other incumbent Senator running for re-election in a state that Trump won in 2016 will be Gary Peters in Michigan -- and he won against the 2014 Republican wave, which says more about Michigan. On the other side, Susan Collins (R, Maine) has probably doomed her Senate career in a state that looks hostile to Trump, and Corey Gardner (R, Colorado) is in a state hostile to Trump after having barely won in a wave year. Also, Arizona has an appointed Senator... appointed incumbents tend to have trouble.

There will be relatively few gubernatorial races -- eleven.

The Presidential election will be all up to Donald Trump. Will he moderate? Will he compromise? I doubt it. We know his personality, and basic personalities  rarely change at his age except as the result of dementia. I have never seen dementia make any person more pleasant to be around.

[Eric the Green]

(11-06-2018, 11:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Apparently Trump has more flunkies (a nasty way of looking at it, but the GOP is an authoritarian cadre party; cadre parties have flunkies and not independent actors) in the Senate, but he has lost the House. A bunch of states have ditched Republican governors from the Tea Party era.

Effects on the presidential election: Republicans will have no help from Democratic Governors in some states that Trump won in 2016. Trump will have to win fair and square, and if his approval levels result in poor electoral numbers, he will not win.

Only eleven Democrats will be up for re-election in 2020 in the Senate, and only two will be in a state that Donald Trump won in 2016. Doug Jones, the incumbent Senator from Alabama, won under freakish circumstances unlikely to be repeated. The other incumbent Senator running for re-election in a state that Trump won in 2016 will be Gary Peters in Michigan -- and he won against the 2014 Republican wave, which says more about Michigan. On the other side, Susan Collins (R, Maine) has probably doomed her Senate career in a state that looks hostile to Trump, and Corey Booker (R, Colorado) is in a state hostile to Trump after having barely won in a wave year. Also, Arizona has an appointed Senator... appointed incumbents tend to have trouble.  

There will be relatively few gubernatorial races -- eleven.

The Presidential election will be all up to Donald Trump. Will he moderate? Will he compromise? I doubt it. We know his personality, and basic personalities  rarely change at his age except as the result of dementia. I have never seen dementia make any person more pleasant to be around.

That's Corey Gardner of Colorado

Cory Booker is the Democratic senator from New Jersey.

Democratic senators will be largely safe, but how many Republicans can be flipped?

Unfortunately, Republicans are fanatics who vote for whatever Trump wants and against anyone who defies or votes against his reactionary court picks. Republican fanatics understand the meaning of their vote; Democrats often do not. The two sides are segregated now into the vast heartland of red states and counties and the blue urban patches, and the constitution favors the former, especially in the Senate and also the electoral college. At this point I don't know what fixes that. All I have is astrological indications of progress in the 2020s. But how far can you make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

America is a horrible country. And looking around the world, I see few places any better, unless you want to live in the cold and the dark.

[Eric the Green]

Michael Moore is on the right track. Although I don't think his choices can win either, those he mentions as losers I agree; they cannot win.

Quote:By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 7, 2018
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201...er-kamala/

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore said Wednesday that Democrats need to put forth a “beloved American” like Michelle Obama to run against President Trump in 2020, and that potential candidates such as Sens. Kamala Harris and Cory Booker would undoubtedly result in an election defeat.

Mr. Moore, who correctly predicted Mr. Trump’s shocking 2016 presidential victory, said he didn’t see a viable contender for Mr. Trump in the current lineup of Democrats who have signaled an interest in running.

He pushed back against “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski, who suggested Ms. Harris could beat the president in 2020.

“Love her, no. No!” Mr. Moore exclaimed. “No, not going to happen. Cory, love him, no. We cannot run a politician against [Mr. Trump], we will lose.”

“We have to run a beloved American,” he said. “It’s gotta be like a Michelle Obama or it’s gotta be a ‘Sully’ Sullenberger. Why aren’t we thinking along the lines of who can defeat him? We will lose in 2020.”

[pbrower2a]

The cumulative House vote for all states except Florida as a predictor of the Presidency. ME-02 is still undecided, so I am treating it as a tossup. Republicans won all three House seats in Nebraska, so I am going with those as percentages.

I'm going to give a wild guess that the District of Columbia votes strongly against Trump.

Quote:Alabama

Republican: 972,927 (58.8%) (1 uncontested race)
Democrats: 675,269 (40.8%)

Alaska

Republican: 128,516 (53.7%)
Democrats: 109,615 (45.8%)

Arizona

Democrats: 999,328 (49.8%)
Republicans: 989,802 (49.3%) (1 uncontested race)

Arkansas

Republicans: 553,536 (62.6%)
Democrats: 310,572 (35.1%)

California

Democrats: 5,041,566 (63.7%) (1 race with no candidate)
Republicans: 2,747,904 (34.7%) (8 races with no candidate)

Colorado

Democrats: 1,252,603 (52.4%)
Republicans: 1,050,938 (44.0%)

Connecticut

Democrats: 811,194 (61.0%)
Republicans: 508,669 (38.3%)

Delaware

Democrats: 227,353 (64.5%)
Republicans: 125,384 (35.5%)

(Florida -- votes are still being found and discovered, so no count. I am treating it as a tossup).

Georgia

Republicans: 1,981,713 (52.4%) (1 uncontested race)
Democrats: 1,802,475 (47.6%) (1 uncontested race)

Hawaii

Democrats: 287,735 (75.3%)
Republicans: 87,296 (22.8%)

Idaho

Republicans: 366,054 (62.0%)
Democrats: 204,020 (34.6%)

Illinois

Democrats: 2,651,012 (60.4%)
Republicans: 1,714,804 (39.1%)

Indiana

Republicans: 1,178,371 (56.6%)
Democrats: 897,632 (43.1%)

Iowa

Democrats: 656,986 (50.4%)
Republicans: 607,827 (46.6%)

Kansas

Republicans: 549,563 (53.9%)
Democrats: 447,134 (43.9%)

Kentucky

Republicans: 935,565 (59.6%)
Democrats: 613,070 (39.0%)

Louisiana

Republicans: 835,603 (57.2%) (1 uncontested race)
Democrats: 553,008 (37.9%)

Maine

Democrats: 328,409 (52.7%)
Republicans: 241,180 (38.7%)

Maryland

Democrats: 1,414,473 (64.9%)
Republicans: 717,945 (32.9%)

Massachusetts

Democrats: 1,529,641 (74.9%)
Republicans: 486,192 (23.8%) (4 uncontested races)

Michigan

Democrats: 2,108,119 (52.0%)
Republicans: 1,826,335 (45.1%) (1 uncontested race)

Minnesota

Democrats: 1,420,669 (55.2%)
Republicans: 1,125,569 (43.7%)

Mississippi

Republicans: 444,092 (50.6%) (1 uncontested race)
Democrats: 369,782 (42.1%)

Missouri

Republicans: 1,318,481 (55.1%)
Democrats: 1,016,096 (42.5%)

Montana

Republicans: 251,611 (51.1%)
Democrats: 227,036 (46.1%)

Nebraska

Republicans: 424,682 (62.5%)
Democrats: 255,053 (37.5%)

Nevada

Democrats: 491,004 (51.1%)
Republicans: 439,401 (45.8%)

New Hampshire

Democrats: 310,320 (54.4%)
Republicans: 249,714 (43.8%)

New Jersey

Democrats: 1,731,037 (59.6%)
Republicans: 1,139,101 (39.2%)

New Mexico

Democrats: 398,753 (58.2%)
Republicans: 262,138 (38.3%)

New York

Democrats: 3,664,970 (66.6%)
Republicans: 1,751,620 (31.8%) (6 uncontested races)

North Carolina

Republicans: 1,830,219 (50.5%)
Democrats: 1,748,018 (48.2%) (1 uncontested race)

North Dakota

Republicans: 192,733 (60.3%)
Democrats: 113,891 (35.6%)

Ohio

Republicans: 2,245,403 (52.3%)
Democrats: 2,019,120 (47.0%)

Oklahoma

Republicans: 730,531 (62.0%)
Democrats: 428,452 (36.3%)

Oregon

Democrats: 1,034,344 (57.4%)
Republicans: 686,952 (38.1%)

Pennsylvania

Democrats: 2,669,469 (54.9%)
Republicans: 2,179,246 (44.8%) (1 uncontested race)

Rhode Island

Democrats: 239,694 (65.0%)
Republicans: 128,831 (35.0%)

South Carolina

Republicans: 927,504 (54.3%)
Democrats: 757,499 (44.3%)

South Dakota

Republicans: 202,673 (60.3%)
Democrats: 121,002 (36.0%)

Tennessee

Republicans: 1,276,040 (59.2%)
Democrats: 843,658 (39.2%)

Texas

Republicans: 4,104,555 (50.4%) (4 uncontested races)
Democrats: 3,824,300 (47.0%)

Utah

Republicans: 510,244 (58.7%)
Democrats: 307,151 (35.4%)

Vermont

Democrats: 188,547 (69.2%)
Republicans: 70,705 (26.0%)

Virginia

Democrats: 1,864,483 (56.3%)
Republicans: 1,407,791 (42.5%) (1 uncontested race)

Washington

Democrats: 1,734,775 (62.8%)
Republicans: 947,374 (34.3%) (2 races with no candidate)

West Virginia

Republicans: 335,791 (58.4%)
Democrats: 232,856 (40.5%)

Wisconsin

Democrats: 1,358,156 (53.1%)
Republicans: 1,171,456 (45.8%) (1 uncontested race)

Wyoming

Republicans: 127,882 (63.7%)
Democrats: 59,929 (29.8%)

Maine 1 is in the southwestern part of the state and Maine 2 is all else.
Nebraska districts are shown 1, 2, and 3 left to right even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2.


Trump edge:

dark blue 10% or more (really dark for 40% or more -- Massachusetts and DC)
middle blue 5-9%
pale blue under 5%
effective tie (1% either way, both approval and disapproval under 50%)
pink under 5%, but disapproval 50% or higher or at least 1%
red 5-10%
dark red 10% or more (really dark for 40% or more 3rd Congressional district of Nebraska)

In this case Florida is treated as a tie because the votes are not all in, and the results of both a gubernatorial and a senatorial election are under dispute.

[Eric the Green]

You put Illinois in blue when it should be red in your color scheme.

I believe that's 284 electoral votes for the Democrat running in 2020, which agrees with Meet the Press on NBC today which made a similar count.

Not only Florida but North Carolina is problematic because of the uncontested races that would boost the party not leading otherwise. So although NC shows Republicans leading, the vote in the district uncontested would probably change those results, if no votes were counted in that district Tuesday.

What is striking is how limited the blue wave was (using the usual reversed color scheme from your map). It washed up mainly in blue states, and the country remains strongly divided.

[Eric the Green]

Which party's elections were uncontested in each state (corrected list) [quote='pbrower2a' pid='39932' dateline='1541974198']


Alabama

Republican: 972,927 (58.8%)
Democrats: 675,269 (40.8%) (1 uncontested race)

Alaska

Republican: 128,516 (53.7%)
Democrats: 109,615 (45.8%)

Arizona

Democrats: 999,328 (49.8%) (1 uncontested race)
Republicans: 989,802 (49.3%)

Arkansas

Republicans: 553,536 (62.6%)
Democrats: 310,572 (35.1%)

California

Democrats: 5,041,566 (63.7%) (8 races with no Republican candidate)
Republicans: 2,747,904 (34.7%) (1 race with no Democratic candidate)

Colorado

Democrats: 1,252,603 (52.4%)
Republicans: 1,050,938 (44.0%)

Connecticut

Democrats: 811,194 (61.0%)
Republicans: 508,669 (38.3%)

Delaware

Democrats: 227,353 (64.5%)
Republicans: 125,384 (35.5%)

(Florida -- votes are still being found and discovered, so no count. I am treating it as a tossup).

Georgia

Republicans: 1,981,713 (52.4%) (1 uncontested race)
Democrats: 1,802,475 (47.6%) (1 uncontested race)

Hawaii

Democrats: 287,735 (75.3%)
Republicans: 87,296 (22.8%)

Idaho

Republicans: 366,054 (62.0%)
Democrats: 204,020 (34.6%)

Illinois

Democrats: 2,651,012 (60.4%)
Republicans: 1,714,804 (39.1%)

Indiana

Republicans: 1,178,371 (56.6%)
Democrats: 897,632 (43.1%)

Iowa

Democrats: 656,986 (50.4%)
Republicans: 607,827 (46.6%)

Kansas

Republicans: 549,563 (53.9%)
Democrats: 447,134 (43.9%)

Kentucky

Republicans: 935,565 (59.6%)
Democrats: 613,070 (39.0%)

Louisiana

Republicans: 835,603 (57.2%)
Democrats: 553,008 (37.9%) (1 uncontested race)

Maine

Democrats: 328,409 (52.7%)
Republicans: 241,180 (38.7%)

Maryland

Democrats: 1,414,473 (64.9%)
Republicans: 717,945 (32.9%)

Massachusetts

Democrats: 1,529,641 (74.9%) (4 uncontested races)
Republicans: 486,192 (23.8%)

Michigan

Democrats: 2,108,119 (52.0%) (1 uncontested race)
Republicans: 1,826,335 (45.1%)
Minnesota

Democrats: 1,420,669 (55.2%)
Republicans: 1,125,569 (43.7%)

Mississippi

Republicans: 444,092 (50.6%)
Democrats: 369,782 (42.1%) (1 uncontested race)

Missouri

Republicans: 1,318,481 (55.1%)
Democrats: 1,016,096 (42.5%)

Montana

Republicans: 251,611 (51.1%)
Democrats: 227,036 (46.1%)

Nebraska

Republicans: 424,682 (62.5%)
Democrats: 255,053 (37.5%)

Nevada

Democrats: 491,004 (51.1%)
Republicans: 439,401 (45.8%)

New Hampshire

Democrats: 310,320 (54.4%)
Republicans: 249,714 (43.8%)

New Jersey

Democrats: 1,731,037 (59.6%)
Republicans: 1,139,101 (39.2%)

New Mexico

Democrats: 398,753 (58.2%)
Republicans: 262,138 (38.3%)

New York

Democrats: 3,664,970 (66.6%) (6 uncontested races)
Republicans: 1,751,620 (31.8%)

North Carolina

Republicans: 1,830,219 (50.5%) (1 uncontested race)
Democrats: 1,748,018 (48.2%)

North Dakota

Republicans: 192,733 (60.3%)
Democrats: 113,891 (35.6%)

Ohio

Republicans: 2,245,403 (52.3%)
Democrats: 2,019,120 (47.0%)

Oklahoma

Republicans: 730,531 (62.0%)
Democrats: 428,452 (36.3%)

Oregon

Democrats: 1,034,344 (57.4%)
Republicans: 686,952 (38.1%)

Pennsylvania

Democrats: 2,669,469 (54.9%) (1 uncontested race)
Republicans: 2,179,246 (44.8%)

Rhode Island

Democrats: 239,694 (65.0%)
Republicans: 128,831 (35.0%)

South Carolina

Republicans: 927,504 (54.3%)
Democrats: 757,499 (44.3%)

South Dakota

Republicans: 202,673 (60.3%)
Democrats: 121,002 (36.0%)

Tennessee

Republicans: 1,276,040 (59.2%)
Democrats: 843,658 (39.2%)

Texas

Republicans: 4,104,555 (50.4%)
Democrats: 3,824,300 (47.0%) (4 uncontested races)

Utah

Republicans: 510,244 (58.7%)
Democrats: 307,151 (35.4%)

Vermont

Democrats: 188,547 (69.2%)
Republicans: 70,705 (26.0%)

Virginia

Democrats: 1,864,483 (56.3%) (1 uncontested race)
Republicans: 1,407,791 (42.5%)

Washington

Democrats: 1,734,775 (62.8%) (2 races with no candidate)
Republicans: 947,374 (34.3%)

West Virginia

Republicans: 335,791 (58.4%)
Democrats: 232,856 (40.5%)

Wisconsin

Democrats: 1,358,156 (53.1%) (1 uncontested race)
Republicans: 1,171,456 (45.8%)

Wyoming

Republicans: 127,882 (63.7%)
Democrats: 59,929 (29.8%)



33 races had no Republican opponent
3 races with no Democratic opponent

If no votes were part of the total counted for the parties in these races, then this undercounts the Democratic vote total nationally and in most of the states affected. The national margin might be a bit more than the 6% reported.

One can assume that many of these races where Democrats were unopposed were gerrymandered. In CA, it was the result of the top tier voting system, where two candidates from the same party can run in the general election if they got the most votes in the primary. In that case, the Republican vote in CA was under-reported in those districts.

[pbrower2a]

(11-12-2018, 01:46 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: You put Illinois in blue when it should be red in your color scheme.

Correction made. Thank you.

Quote:I believe that's 284 electoral votes for the Democrat running in 2020, which agrees with Meet the Press on NBC today which made a similar count.

I show ME-02 still contested due to a runoff. So far the Republican won the first round, but most expect the current, incumbent Republican to lose to the Democrat.

Quote:Not only Florida but North Carolina is problematic because of the uncontested races that would boost the party not leading otherwise. So although NC shows Republicans leading, the vote in the district uncontested would probably change those results, if no votes were counted in that district Tuesday.

Failure to count the uncontested seats under-counts the number of people in such districts who know that their vote for a  nominee of their Party for a House seat is meaningless, whichever way that goes.  Figure that in practically all districts, the opposition Party that does not contest a seat (campaigning is expensive, and losing badly does not add to one's prospects in later elections) might get 15-20% of the vote. Add those votes into a Presidential race, and those could aid the Party that can't find someone to contest the seat in an underfunded campaign.

Another fault is that a current Representative may be more personable and better at constituent service than not only a challenger, but also less offensive than the current President or his eventual challenger.

So what do I have? You will notice that I have some Democrats winning Senate seats in states that Donald Trump won, but in which the Republicans got the majority of the vote for the House -- Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia, of course... highly-likely Arizona, and possibly (although I expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor the Florida GOP --shades of 2000!) Florida.

Note also that the 2018 election is a midterm election. 78.6 million people voted in Senate elections for someone having a meaningful chance of getting elected, 44.8 million people voting for either the Democrat or for an independent nominee expected to caucus with the Republicans. The 4.4 million who voted for others includes 3.2 million who voted for the 'second' Democrat in basically a runoff following a jungle primary in California, the runoff part of the general election. Draw your own conclusion about what that means. It is California, which hardly anyone thinks is in range of Donald Trump in 2020.

The total number of people participating in the Senate election of 2014 is up -- way up! -- from roughly 42 million people making meaningful (not wasted) votes for Senators. In 2014, Republicans won 24 of 36 Senate seats up for grabs; in 2018 Democrats won 22 of 32.  More Democrats were vulnerable in 2018 than were Republicans.

Midterms do not get the attention of Presidential elections. In 2016, 128.8 million voted for the Democrat or the Republican with 137.1 million voting altogether (which includes Johnson, Stein, McMullen, "none of the above", ineligible people like Barack Obama and George W. Bush, and such political luminaries as "Mickey Mouse" and "Bugs Bunny"). Roughly 90 million made meaningful votes for Senators in 2016 (there will always be fewer Senatorial votes than Presidential votes in a Presidential election because, typically, roughly 2/3 of states have Senate elections).

Quote:What is striking is how limited the blue wave was (using the usual reversed color scheme from your map). It washed up mainly in blue states, and the country remains strongly divided.

The 2018 election had unusually-heavy participation for a midterm election. People who had not voted before did vote, far offsetting people who no longer voted (deceased, incarcerated, incapable of voting due to senility, or emigrated). I'm guessing that late-wave X (who lean much more liberal than first-wave X) and Millennial voters voted in greater numbers. So did many who got their citizenship.

The Republican Party did not lose many of its once-reliable voters; they have found everyone who can vote for the current Republican ideology in 2018, and they are unlikely to find more. I expect the increase in participation in 2020 from 2016 to be roughly the difference between the 2014 and 2018 midterm elections. Younger voters do not like what the current GOP has to offer, and even older voters are approaching an even split. Maybe those older voters are finding that the Republican Party is badly serving their kids (and sons-in-laws and daughters-in-law) and grandchildren badly.

If the general election of 2020 has the same demographics as 2018 among voters, then the Democrats will get 284 electoral votes at the least no matter whom they nominate based on House elections alone. That is every (Hillary) Clinton state, the three states that Trump most barely won (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), and Iowa. Republicans will lose Senate seats in Colorado, Iowa, and Maine at a minimum. With a Democrat winning the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency (the VP becoming the President of the Senate and casting the deciding vote during even splits of the vote), such will give a Senate majority.

The projection that I offer here is quite conservative.

Yes, America remains badly polarized, and Donald Trump has done nothing to reduce that. He is also preaching to the choir, so to speak.

[pbrower2a]

The Lichtman test, as you may recall, consists of thirteen keys for predicting who wins result of the next Presidential election.

Update due to three recent events: the fanatical Trump supporter who sent bombs to Democratic politicians and celebrities, the murder of eleven people in a synagogue  (one key covers those two), and of course the huge number of Republican seats in the House of Representatives (one key!).  

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

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

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

1. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE. We now have a definitive answer on November 6, 2018. The GOP not only lost seats in the House of Representatives, but also its majority. This is usually a negative for practically any administration. This was green (pending) until a week ago.
2. There could be, but that is yet well enough into the future that we can't say anything. Talk and speculation are not enough to establish such. If a significant Republican starts setting up a campaign apparatus, we may have something. Let there be so much as a contest in an early primary, and this goes negative. We are a year and a half away from knowing this.
3. A Republican will be President in 2020 and the incumbent will be running even if something happens to President Trump. Pence would run for re-election.
4. I think that there will be, but that is too far into the future for any discussion yet.
5. Way too early to tell. Ask again in August or September 2020. Because the only bubble is valuation of stocks, I see no pervasive meltdown likely.
6. The Obama economy had a growth rate unusually high, as it was a recovery from a nasty recession. This will be impossible to meet.
7. He hasn't yet. The tax bill is it. I expect more efforts at deregulation of industry, union-cracking, and privatization even if those prove unpopular. This is a positive key even if the changes are widely unpopular.
8. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  Sure, the President did not directly inspire one of his supporters to send bombs to Democratic politicians and celebrities, but he consider himself lucky that none of those bombs blew up a target. Donald Trump may be no antisemite, but the creep who mowed down eleven Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue did so out of a concern that the  specific Jews had been  supporting immigration of non-white people. Worse, he has bumbled in his response. The frequent polite demonstrations from the Women's March on have not been unrest, but they can certainly call attention to his awfulness and aid in organizing an electoral opposition. 

President Trump's political image is being hit by both polite and civilized opposition (which is more effective) and by politically-charged violence *which is not so effective in forcing change, but is effective in discrediting the President.. He has offended thoughtful people who are organizing against him while his supporters and people that he has stirred up with his vituperation against immigrants and Islam. The polite and civilized opposition is far stronger than was the Tea Party against Obama, and politically-charged violence of any kind that people can trace to his rhetoric disgusts average people. Lichtman dismissed Tea Party protests, and Women's marches, marches for science, Black Lives Matter, and anti-gun protests get similar treatment from me. When one of the President's  loud supporters mails pipe bombs to Democratic politicians and to celebrities, or someone mows down Jews in a synagogue service in response to the President's rhetoric against a different group of people, then we have more dangerous unrest than the usual detraction that every President faces. This has gone from 'ambiguous' to 'solid negative' against the President. Worse, the President has bungled his response which solidifies the negative.

Brotherly love will not suddenly break out with this President. 

9. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  This is the most systematically and severely corrupt Administration in American history. The legal problems keep piling up.
10. Likely but it has yet to happen. I do not trust the deal with North Korea, and this President is insulting so many of America's traditional allies that something will go bad. The tariff is a disaster waiting to happen. He even bungled the memorials of the centennial of the end of World War I. If Trump had been wise, he would have deputized Barack Obama to do the job. Then again, this President knows about as much about scuba diving, which is nothing.
11. The nuke deal with North Korea? There is no enforcement in place. The President would need China and ideally also Russia as an enforcer, and ignored both. It turns out that the North Korean leader has dismantled some obsolete nukes while building more effective ones. Maybe the situation does not implode in the next two years. Let us all hope that this key does not turn negative. I prefer that South Korea fit the description "I have seen the future -- and it works".
12. Trump already seems much less charismatic now than in 2016. He still has as solid support as ever from his cult.
13. We have no idea who the Democratic nominee will be.

One clear blue, four red, seven green (has not happened yet but still can), one purple (ambiguous). He has room for only one going red.

[Eric the Green]

(11-06-2018, 11:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Apparently Trump has more flunkies (a nasty way of looking at it, but the GOP is an authoritarian cadre party; cadre parties have flunkies and not independent actors) in the Senate, but he has lost the House. A bunch of states have ditched Republican governors from the Tea Party era.

Effects on the presidential election: Republicans will have no help from Democratic Governors in some states that Trump won in 2016. Trump will have to win fair and square, and if his approval levels result in poor electoral numbers, he will not win.

Only eleven Democrats will be up for re-election in 2020 in the Senate, and only two will be in a state that Donald Trump won in 2016. Doug Jones, the incumbent Senator from Alabama, won under freakish circumstances unlikely to be repeated. The other incumbent Senator running for re-election in a state that Trump won in 2016 will be Gary Peters in Michigan -- and he won against the 2014 Republican wave, which says more about Michigan. On the other side, Susan Collins (R, Maine) has probably doomed her Senate career in a state that looks hostile to Trump, and Corey Gardner (R, Colorado) is in a state hostile to Trump after having barely won in a wave year. Also, Arizona has an appointed Senator... appointed incumbents tend to have trouble.  

There will be relatively few gubernatorial races -- eleven.

The Presidential election will be all up to Donald Trump. Will he moderate? Will he compromise? I doubt it. We know his personality, and basic personalities  rarely change at his age except as the result of dementia. I have never seen dementia make any person more pleasant to be around.

The 2020 senate election will not feature a whole lot of Republicans who represent Democratic leaning states. So it will probably take some red states voting for a Democrat to get a decisive majority.

Quote:The Republicans regained the majority of the Senate in the 114th Congress, which started in January 2015; the Republicans had not controlled the Senate since January 2007. They had needed a net gain of at least six seats to obtain a majority. They held all of their seats, and gained nine Democratic-held seats. Republicans defeated five Democratic incumbents: Mark Begich of Alaska lost to Dan Sullivan, Mark Pryor of Arkansas lost to Tom Cotton, Mark Udall of Colorado lost to Cory Gardner, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana lost to Bill Cassidy and Kay Hagan of North Carolina lost to Thom Tillis.

The Republicans also picked up another 4 open seats in Iowa, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...ions,_2014

In 2014 Republicans in a wave midterm election took back seats from Democrats in a lot of conservative states. Colorado is the only exception, and it is only lean Democratic. North Carolina and Iowa are purple states, so their seats could go Democratic again if the national Democratic tide is strong enough.

Sen. Collins will be in trouble in Maine, although her ouster is not guaranteed by any means. She may also choose not to run again. Long ago, she had promised to retire in 2008. The only other possibility I see is Texas, where Beto O'Rourke almost unseated Ted Cruz in 2018. Beto could run again against Cornyn.

Democrats must stop flirting with candidates who can't win the presidency. Only Mitch Landrieu, Terry McAuliffe and Sherrod Brown stand a good chance to beat Donald Trump, no matter how bad his presidency is. If one of those three is at the top of the ticket, the Democrats might pick up 5 senate seats (more if a miracle happens and conservative states vote for a Democrat again like they had before 2014). If Bernie or Biden are nominated, it's a crap shoot, but the odds favor Trump slightly. If any other candidate is nominated, the Democrats will lose, and probably won't pick up more than 1 or 2 senate seats. And Doug Jones will probably lose his seat too.

The likes of Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Eric Garcetti don't have the communication skills needed to beat the reality TV star. It's a matter of articulate intelligence, but also of personality and leadership ability. Candidates who win are likable, poised, confident and dominant with an imposing presence. Wonks and eggheads do not win unless they have the other qualities too.

I imagine if the senate is ever to get anything constructive or progressive done, it will have to eliminate or reduce the filibuster, which is very risky. With our nation so divided between red and blue for the foreseeable future, the constitution does not allow a filibuster-proof Democratic senate majority. And something will likely have to be done to stack the supreme court with liberals, and that will likely take a senate majority that might not exist. It's going to continue to be tough. Drastic changes to our system might be in the offing by 2025 as the crisis drags on. The Classic Xers of America have a lot of tools to keep us in the dark ages. And with such stagnation, I can see the people just giving up and giving in to the new banana republic that Classic Xer wants.

[Ragnarök_62]

(11-12-2018, 09:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-06-2018, 11:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: <snip>

There will be relatively few gubernatorial races -- eleven.

The Presidential election will be all up to Donald Trump. Will he moderate? Will he compromise? I doubt it. We know his personality, and basic personalities  rarely change at his age except as the result of dementia. I have never seen dementia make any person more pleasant to be around.

The 2020 senate election will not feature a whole lot of Republicans who represent Democratic leaning states. So it will probably take some red states voting for a Democrat to get a decisive majority.

Quote:The Republicans regained the majority of the Senate in the 114th Congress, which started in January 2015; the Republicans had not controlled the Senate since January 2007. They had needed a net gain of at least six seats to obtain a majority. They held all of their seats, and gained nine Democratic-held seats. Republicans defeated five Democratic incumbents: Mark Begich of Alaska lost to Dan Sullivan, Mark Pryor of Arkansas lost to Tom Cotton, Mark Udall of Colorado lost to Cory Gardner, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana lost to Bill Cassidy and Kay Hagan of North Carolina lost to Thom Tillis.

The Republicans also picked up another 4 open seats in Iowa, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...ions,_2014



Democrats must stop flirting with candidates who can't win the presidency. Only Mitch Landrieu, Terry McAuliffe and Sherrod Brown stand a good chance to beat Donald Trump, no matter how bad his presidency is. If one of those three is at the top of the ticket, the Democrats might pick up 5 senate seats (more if a miracle happens and conservative states vote for a Democrat again like they had before 2014). If Bernie or Biden are nominated, it's a crap shoot, but the odds favor Trump slightly. If any other candidate is nominated, the Democrats will lose, and probably won't pick up more than 1 or 2 senate seats. And Doug Jones will probably lose his seat too.

Why yes, I agree that Democrats need to stop that flirting. Yes, there could well be some losing  in the cards. The dawning has never arrived for her. I be she still thinks the Ruskies, Comey, and low information voters conspired to make her lose.   The light of early morning's dawn of "it's my fault" is no where to be seen in her Psyche .

[Eric the Green]

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.

[pbrower2a]

Sinema has apparently won the US Senate seat contested in Arizona.

[pbrower2a]

Trump approval, adults?

38 approve
58 disapprove

(Gallup).

Still horrid.

November 4-10. 2018. Two days before the election, Election Day, and four days after it. That may be the last approval poll of the President that includes any time before the 2018 election.

Republicans did better than Trump approval for this week. Their only good news, and that they flipped Senate seats in Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and probably Florida. Democrats flipped seats in Arizona and Nevada.

With this level of approval and Donald Trump on the top of the ballot, the Republicans look from this perspective to have a bad night on November 3, 2000. Democrats led Republicans in total votes for the House and the Senate (but the House total is more reliable because all states had House elections).

Active as voters were in a midterm election, they still fall short of the numbers of a Presidential campaign. No midterm has ever had so many first-time voters in a midterm, and they skewed heavily Democratic. The Millennial vote came out this time, and we can expect it to keep coming out to vote.

Rumor has it that Robert Mueller has restarted the investigation-and-indictment machine. People have started to go to prison for corruption related to the Trump campaign. Rumor also is that Democrats in the House will be looking at hush money that Donald Trump paid to women with whom he had sordid relationships out of either campaign funds or quasi-campaign funds. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Americans do not like corruption. Among the most notable pols to go down as Republicans is Dana Donaldovich Rohrabacher... well, he might as well have that patronymic middle name as one of the strongest supporters of Vladimir Putin in the House of Representatives.

At least three Republican incumbent Senators look to be sure defeats in 2020 -- Susan Collins (R-ME), Joni Ernst (R-IA), and Cory Gardner (R-CO) who have Hard Right voting records in moderate-to-liberal states whose House totals had a decisive Democratic advantage. Yes, Democrats have one moderate in a not-so-moderate state (Dough Jones, D-AL) who Republicans should clobber so long as they don't nominate Roy Moore again.

Several Senators who came in the 2014 wave will be up for re-election in what will probably be a Democratic wave. I expect the Millennial generation to vote at least as heavily as they did in 2018. It's hard to imagine Republicans having any reserve of new or returning voters to offset the Millennial wave as voters.

I cannot name names, but I can believe that Millennial politicians will come into play. Millennial voters will relate to them. Americans will find their rationality and their promises of teamwork a refreshing alternative to Donald Trump and a raft of right-wing pols.

Sure. Democrats do not have as strong a majority in 2018 (227 to 237) in the House as Republicans did in 2014 (247 House seats)... but gerrymandering loses its effectiveness with time. Things will get harder, and not easier, for Republicans in 2020.

[pbrower2a]

Analysis of the 2016 election from Bloomberg:

Quote:The midterm elections reshaped the 2020 presidential campaign landscape by taking some longstanding battlegrounds off the map while adding new swing states, presenting challenges for President Donald Trump and the crowd of Democrats eager to run against him.

Perhaps the most significant shift in 2018 came in upscale, highly educated suburban areas that had voted Republican for generations and broke for Democrats this year.

College-educated whites favored Democrats by eight percentage points after preferring Trump by three points in 2016, according to national exit poll data for the 2018 election that was published by CNN. That was driven by a 20-point Democratic advantage among white women with college degrees, raising concern among Republicans about an eroding base.

.......

Exit polls show strengths and weaknesses for both parties beyond the geography.

The GOP’s strongest support came from whites without a college degree -- particularly men, who they won by 34 points nationally. That enabled the party to run up the score in rural areas across the country, leading to the defeats of Democratic incumbent senators in North Dakota, Missouri and Indiana.

Education and Voting

In Missouri and Indiana, about two-thirds of the voters lacked college degrees, according to exit polls. Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill’s 9-point lead among college-educated voters was swamped by her 13-point deficit among voters without degrees. Indiana Democrat Joe Donnelly won college graduates by 7 points, but lost non-college voters by 17 points.

Now we know. Demographics explain far more than does quality of the candidate unless the opponent is offensive. McCaskill and Donnelly won in 2012 by defeating crazy Republican opponents. Their opponents in 2018 did not talk about such absurdities as "legitimate rape" this time.

Ohio is reasonably good for Democrats except in its southeast, its southeast  politically much like overflows from Kentucky or West Virginia. But its urban areas, aside perhaps from Greater Columbus, are no-growth zones. Youngstown and Lima are dying. Cleveland is reputedly an urban wreck almost as bad as Detroit. Cincinnati and Dayton quite growing  as urban areas years ago. Toledo? One good thing about Toledo is that it is about as easy to get around as a hick town  by car. Toledo is not a hick town, but economically-vibrant areas (Detroit is no dream, but its northern and northwestern suburbs have heavy traffic on the freeways) have traffic jams. I know Toledo much better than any other city in Ohio.

The pathology of American politics relates heavily to the ill-educated part of the electorate that has an increasingly-difficult time coping with social and economic change: the "low-information voters" that Donald Trump professed to love. Such people fail to recognize that the tabloid rags at the supermarket are mind-rot, and they are full of resentment at 'urban elites'. They are under-educated and atomized. They are gullible. They used to fall for left-wing populists, but they now vote for right-wing populists. They are more likely to be fundamentalist Protestants. Have they truly changed? 

Probably not. They are where they were seventy years ago. But political reality outside of their world has changed, but they have not.

Midterm elections typically have lower participation than the impending Presidential election. As I recall, the only time the Republicans did better in the Presidential election than in the preceding midterm election was 1984... but in 1982. Republicans paid an electoral price for the pain that Reagan inflicted in lowering expectations. Stagflation ended, and Reagan did spectacularly well against one of the weakest nominees for President that there ever was who was not utterly crazy.

[Eric the Green]

I would say those rural low information voters have changed, because there is no such thing as a right-wing populist; never was and never can be. They are voting against their own power and interests, whereas populism is about the power of the people and putting the government back in peoples' hands instead of the wealthy and powerful elite. They were more informed in past years, because their community informed them, especially labor unions, the grange, clubs, non-fundie churches, etc. That enabled them to know who really represented their interests. That infrastructure has been replaced by talk radio, the tabloids, Fox News, fundie churches and TV shows, and social media groups; IOW the right-wing echo chamber. Despite the information age, there is less information, and more bubbles.

So now the right-wing of today, though composed of classes that used to be populist (remember WJ Bryan came from Nebraska and got his votes mostly from today's red states) is no longer populist. The rural low-info voters vote for the corporate elites without really knowing it. They support the trickle-down ideology because they have been brainwashed to resent welfare handouts, and they vote their religious and racial prejudices, but in practice this translates into deregulation and lower taxes for the wealthy instituted by the Republicans they vote for. Trump is exhibit A, promising to help the working class but socking it to them by enabling their bosses instead.

[Eric the Green]

Weak nominees for president put up by Democrats are not uncommon, and sometimes Republicans put up weak nominees too.

The horoscope scores correspond to and reveal/confirm weak nominees. Strong nominees who win have high scores. Scores are like a baseball teams's score in the standings, and their win-loss record.

Weak Democratic candidates:
Hillary R. Clinton 9-11
John Kerry 8-12
Al Gore 10-9 (positive barely, but not enough)
Michael Dukakis 2-10
Walter Mondale 12-12
George McGovern 9-10
Adlai Stevenson 5-21
Al Smith 4-16

Strong Democratic candidates:
Barack Obama 19-2
Bill Clinton 21-3
Jimmy Carter 12-4
Hubert Humphrey 9-5 (not good enough to beat Tricky Dicky)
Lyndon Johnson 8-6 (not a likable candidate, but his unique Jupiter rising with 4 other planets rising made him larger than life)
John F Kennedy 13-6
Harry Truman 14-0
Franklin Roosevelt 21-4

Weak Republican candidates:
Mitt Romney 4-10
John McCain 15-13 (OK, but not good enough to beat Barack)
Bob Dole 12-19
Gerald Ford 12-8 (OK, but Carter's score was better)
Thomas Dewey 8-6 (OK, but not good enough to beat FDR or Truman)
Wendell Willkie 8-9
Alf Landon 10-16
Herbert Hoover 11-11

Strong Republican candidates:
Donald Trump 9-4
George W Bush 17-2
George H W Bush 14-6
Ronald Reagan 21-6
Richard Nixon 18-7
Barry Goldwater 20-11
Dwight Eisenhower 17-8

If the Democrats want to win, they must nominate a candidate with a better score than Trump. Only 3 politicians qualify:
Mitch Landrieu 16-2
Terry McAuliffe 11-2 (higher if born in the morning; don't know yet)
Sherrod Brown 19-8
(Gavin Newsom has 7-1, but can't be re-elected if elected in 2020 because of his personal Saturn Return in only the 3 years after the 2024 election; that cycle also knocked out Mondale, Carter, Humphrey, Goldwater, Stevenson and Hoover. This time in 2020 it would knock out Kamala Harris and Jeff Flake).

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[Marypoza]

(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.

-- l agree but.. good luck with that Eric

[Marypoza]

(11-12-2018, 09:29 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(11-12-2018, 09:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-06-2018, 11:02 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: <snip>

There will be relatively few gubernatorial races -- eleven.

The Presidential election will be all up to Donald Trump. Will he moderate? Will he compromise? I doubt it. We know his personality, and basic personalities  rarely change at his age except as the result of dementia. I have never seen dementia make any person more pleasant to be around.

The 2020 senate election will not feature a whole lot of Republicans who represent Democratic leaning states. So it will probably take some red states voting for a Democrat to get a decisive majority.

Quote:The Republicans regained the majority of the Senate in the 114th Congress, which started in January 2015; the Republicans had not controlled the Senate since January 2007. They had needed a net gain of at least six seats to obtain a majority. They held all of their seats, and gained nine Democratic-held seats. Republicans defeated five Democratic incumbents: Mark Begich of Alaska lost to Dan Sullivan, Mark Pryor of Arkansas lost to Tom Cotton, Mark Udall of Colorado lost to Cory Gardner, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana lost to Bill Cassidy and Kay Hagan of North Carolina lost to Thom Tillis.

The Republicans also picked up another 4 open seats in Iowa, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...ions,_2014



Democrats must stop flirting with candidates who can't win the presidency. Only Mitch Landrieu, Terry McAuliffe and Sherrod Brown stand a good chance to beat Donald Trump, no matter how bad his presidency is. If one of those three is at the top of the ticket, the Democrats might pick up 5 senate seats (more if a miracle happens and conservative states vote for a Democrat again like they had before 2014). If Bernie or Biden are nominated, it's a crap shoot, but the odds favor Trump slightly. If any other candidate is nominated, the Democrats will lose, and probably won't pick up more than 1 or 2 senate seats. And Doug Jones will probably lose his seat too.

Why yes, I agree that Democrats need to stop that flirting. Yes, there could well be some losing  in the cards. The dawning has never arrived for her. I be she still thinks the Ruskies, Comey, and low information voters conspired to make her lose.   The light of early morning's dawn of "it's my fault" is no where to be seen in her Psyche  .

-- so Rags what r u smokin?

[Eric the Green]

(11-13-2018, 08:27 PM)Marypoza 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.

-- l agree but.. good luck with that Eric

We'll need it, won't we

[pbrower2a]

Approval and disapproval ratings of Donald Trump:




With cumulative electoral vote totals in each category.

55% and higher 8
50-54% 9
49% or less and positive 38
tie (white)
44-49% and negative 76
40-43% 51
under 40%  144

An asterisk will be applied to any state in which the President's approval rating is above 43% for which the disapproval rating is 50% or higher.

No segregation of districts in Maine and Nebraska -- yet.

27 more states, and 193 electoral votes to go!    

To Trump or not to Trump, as I put it:



8% or higher margin against Trump -- maroon
4-7.9% against Trump -- medium red
under 4% margin against Trump -- pink

I have yet to see exact ties or 'better' for Trump.