2020 Democratic Nomination Process Mega-thread

[houndawg]

Anyone catch earlier in the week when Biden called AOC “brilliant” Lawl, he’s truly lost it if he believes she’s brilliant..

She just looks brilliant because of the competition, and they only look smart because the Republicans exist.

[houndawg]

What's interesting about that is that Trump does not have a "clear advantage" over any of the Democrat choices offered.

The last one is the interesting one.

Right now, the candidates are simply “not Trump”

But if the Dems nominate anyone other than Biden, the gap is going to close within the margin of error, and Trump will win the rust belt states again

Because the socialist label will stick easily to any of them except Biden


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're lazy deadbeat scum and they better to piss in a cup before they get one single cent in handouts from my hard-earned taxes.

[bluehenbillk]

Surfs up Dude's

Tulsi 2020

I could get behind her.

[AZGrizFan]

The last one is the interesting one.

Right now, the candidates are simply “not Trump”

But if the Dems nominate anyone other than Biden, the gap is going to close within the margin of error, and Trump will win the rust belt states again

Because the socialist label will stick easily to any of them except Biden


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're lazy deadbeat scum and they better to piss in a cup before they get one single cent in handouts from my hard-earned taxes.

Welcome, brother.

[CID1990]

The last one is the interesting one.

Right now, the candidates are simply “not Trump”

But if the Dems nominate anyone other than Biden, the gap is going to close within the margin of error, and Trump will win the rust belt states again

Because the socialist label will stick easily to any of them except Biden


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're lazy deadbeat scum and they better to piss in a cup before they get one single cent in handouts from my hard-earned taxes.

Oh yes

Gonna spread your paltry wealth all over the place


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Biden is still chugging along:

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrisse ... ps-keepin/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

You've been posting a metric fuckton of HotAir articles

[CID1990]

You've been posting a metric **** of HotAir articles

And you posted a metric ton of conspiracy theory, Reek

HotAir does very good poll analysis


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

You've been posting a metric **** of HotAir articles

And you posted a metric ton of conspiracy theory, Reek

HotAir does very good poll analysis


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did jellybelly really just question someone for posting questionable sources? Bwahahahaah

[houndawg]

They're lazy deadbeat scum and they better to piss in a cup before they get one single cent in handouts from my hard-earned taxes.

Oh yes

Gonna spread your paltry wealth all over the place


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It may look paltry from up on the gubmint gravy train but its a lifetime of hard work to me.

[houndawg]

Biden is still chugging along:

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrisse ... ps-keepin/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's Trump's chance to keep turnout down.

[JohnStOnge]

Just for fun I used the series of Economist YouGov polls to get an idea as to which of the issues the poll addresses are good for Trump and the Republicans and which are good for the Democrats. You can access the series of polls by going to https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6179.html and scrolling down.

I used the most recent 6 polls because 6 is the minimum number I needed to potentially develop "statistical significance." I also applied a trend test to check and see if it was reasonable to treat it as a static situation. It was. Very little suggestion of Trump doing better or worse over the time frame covered with respect to any issue. Maybe something there with the economy. But if the situation improved there for him it wasn't by much. He was 10 points up in the Approval minus Disapproval number (53% Approve minus 43% Disapprove) among registered voter respondents to the June 9 - 11 poll and 11 points up (52% Approve minus 41% Disapprove) among registered voter respondents to the July 14 - 16 poll.

The table below shows how it worked out. Issues are ranked in order of how well Trump did with respect to each. Black numbers mean he was in positive territory and red numbers means he was in negative territory. Blue shading indicates a "statistically significant" result. If it's blue shaded and black you can be more than 95% confident he's in positive territory with the population of registered voters. If it's blue shaded and red you can be more than 95% confident he's in negative territory with respect to that population.



As an aside: The Democrats appear to enjoy an intensity advantage in that, with respect to every issue, looking at Trump's position is worse among those who feel strongly about his performance than it is among all registered voters. Take the Gun Control issue numbers in the last poll in the series (July 14 - 16). Trump was in the red by only 4 percentage points on the Gun Control issue among all registered voter respondents (43 minus 47). But he was in the red by 12 percentage points among those who either "Strongly Approve" or "Strongly Disapprove" of his handling of the issue (27 minus 39). It's like that with every issue. There are notably more people who feel strongly about Trump in a negative way than there are those who feel strongly about him in a positive way.

You can also see it in the overall Job Approval. Like in the last poll of the series he was 5 in the red among all registered voter respondents but 12 points in the red among registered voter respondents who felt "Strongly" about his performance.

[AZGrizFan]

National polls don’t mean shit.

[Chizzang]

National polls don’t mean shit.

Considering that you don't have to win the popular election - they sure as hell don't

[JohnStOnge]

National polls don’t mean ****.

Considering that you don't have to win the popular election - they sure as hell don't

Guys, the first election in which the popular vote was recorded was 1824. That was a weird one. Nobody won a majority of the popular vote and nobody won a majority of the electoral college. After that we've had 48 elections. There have been four instances in which someone won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. So in 44 of 48 instances, the person who won the popular vote also won the electoral college. That's 92% of the time.

Also, there has only been one instance in which a candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. That was in 1876.

I understand that it is not 100% predictive. But if you win the majority of the popular vote nationally you are probably going to win the electoral vote.

[AZGrizFan]

Considering that you don't have to win the popular election - they sure as hell don't

Guys, the first election in which the popular vote was recorded was 1824. That was a weird one. Nobody won a majority of the popular vote and nobody won a majority of the electoral college. After that we've had 48 elections. There have been four instances in which someone won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. So in 44 of 48 instances, the person who won the popular vote also won the electoral college. That's 92% of the time.

Also, there has only been one instance in which a candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. That was in 1876.

I understand that it is not 100% predictive. But if you win the majority of the popular vote nationally you are probably going to win the electoral vote.

I’ll give you one thing...you’re consistent.

When libs are SO concentrated in 2-3 states, it’s meaning less and less, John. Look at how Hildabeast did in CA and NY, then look at the other 48 states, DC and PR. Here’s a hint: She LOST the popular vote, by quite a bit, in the other 50 combined....

It’s not a NATIONAL election. It’s 52 individual elections. There’s a reason Donks want to abolish the electoral college. They all live in about 7 or 8 states.

[Chizzang]

Guys, the first election in which the popular vote was recorded was 1824. That was a weird one. Nobody won a majority of the popular vote and nobody won a majority of the electoral college. After that we've had 48 elections. There have been four instances in which someone won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. So in 44 of 48 instances, the person who won the popular vote also won the electoral college. That's 92% of the time.

Also, there has only been one instance in which a candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. That was in 1876.

I understand that it is not 100% predictive. But if you win the majority of the popular vote nationally you are probably going to win the electoral vote.

I’ll give you one thing...you’re consistent.

When libs are SO concentrated in 2-3 states, it’s meaning less and less, John. Look at how Hildabeast did in CA and NY, then look at the other 48 states, DC and PR. Here’s a hint: She LOST the popular vote, by quite a bit, in the other 50 combined....

It’s not a NATIONAL election. It’s 52 individual elections. There’s a reason Donks want to abolish the electoral college. They all live in about 7 or 8 states.

True... it is indeed 52 individual elections

[css75]

Guys, the first election in which the popular vote was recorded was 1824. That was a weird one. Nobody won a majority of the popular vote and nobody won a majority of the electoral college. After that we've had 48 elections. There have been four instances in which someone won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. So in 44 of 48 instances, the person who won the popular vote also won the electoral college. That's 92% of the time.

Also, there has only been one instance in which a candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. That was in 1876.

I understand that it is not 100% predictive. But if you win the majority of the popular vote nationally you are probably going to win the electoral vote.

I’ll give you one thing...you’re consistent.

When libs are SO concentrated in 2-3 states, it’s meaning less and less, John. Look at how Hildabeast did in CA and NY, then look at the other 48 states, DC and PR. Here’s a hint: She LOST the popular vote, by quite a bit, in the other 50 combined....

It’s not a NATIONAL election. It’s 52 individual elections. There’s a reason Donks want to abolish the electoral college. They all live in about 7 or 8 states.

The founding fathers installing this was a total work of genius,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

I also love Marianne Williamson and hope she stays in the race as long as possible -

https://hotair.com/archives/karen-towns ... -buzz-off/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mainejeff2]

Guys, the first election in which the popular vote was recorded was 1824. That was a weird one. Nobody won a majority of the popular vote and nobody won a majority of the electoral college. After that we've had 48 elections. There have been four instances in which someone won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. So in 44 of 48 instances, the person who won the popular vote also won the electoral college. That's 92% of the time.

Also, there has only been one instance in which a candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. That was in 1876.

I understand that it is not 100% predictive. But if you win the majority of the popular vote nationally you are probably going to win the electoral vote.

I’ll give you one thing...you’re consistent.

When libs are SO concentrated in 2-3 states, it’s meaning less and less, John. Look at how Hildabeast did in CA and NY, then look at the other 48 states, DC and PR. Here’s a hint: She LOST the popular vote, by quite a bit, in the other 50 combined....

It’s not a NATIONAL election. It’s 52 individual elections. There’s a reason Donks want to abolish the electoral college. They all live in about 7 or 8 states.

#FakeNews

Hillary won in 22 states.

[CID1990]

I’ll give you one thing...you’re consistent.

When libs are SO concentrated in 2-3 states, it’s meaning less and less, John. Look at how Hildabeast did in CA and NY, then look at the other 48 states, DC and PR. Here’s a hint: She LOST the popular vote, by quite a bit, in the other 50 combined....

It’s not a NATIONAL election. It’s 52 individual elections. There’s a reason Donks want to abolish the electoral college. They all live in about 7 or 8 states.

#FakeNews

Hillary won in 22 states.

You aren’t good at that readin stuff are ya?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Look at how Hildabeast did in CA and NY, then look at the other 48 states, DC and PR. Here’s a hint: She LOST the popular vote, by quite a bit, in the other 50 combined....

Oh wow. If you remove California and New York, Democrats lost the popular vote. Wooooow! Unbelievable!

Kinda like how if you magically flip Trump's 2 biggest states for electoral college votes... she wins quite easily.

[JohnStOnge]

But if the Dems nominate anyone other than Biden, the gap is going to close within the margin of error, and Trump will win the rust belt states again

Could happen but I don't think it's a given at all. 2016 involved a very unique set of circumstances including the Democrat candidate being under FBI investigation then having Comey drop his late bomb along with resentment among Sanders supporters over perceptions of unfairness. I've posted the details before but the changes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin from the previous election were much more the Democrat getting less support than the Republican getting more. More people in those States voted third Party. It was much more a matter of Clinton getting less than Obama than it was Trump getting more than Romney. Also declines in minority turnout.

Even with all that Trump's margins in those States were very narrow. He did not win a majority in any of the three States.

I can never know but I think Clinton would've won all three States if she had never created her private server issue. Almost certainly she'd have won all three without that as well as without the Sanders supporter resentment factor. The next Democrat candidate isn't going to have either of those problems.

[mainejeff2]

#FakeNews

Hillary won in 22 states.

You aren’t good at that readin stuff are ya?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7 or 8 = 22? Huh.

[CID1990]

You aren’t good at that readin stuff are ya?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7 or 8 = 22? Huh.

You may want to go back and read carefully, Pythagoras

Even Reek got it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk