Election 2020 - Here we go again

[Thad]

It's not gonna matter, because the moment one of these guys gets the official runner badge, the newspapers are gonna just SLAM it

just make up the worst possible lies

and the public is gonna eat it all like so many triscuits

it's happened two times already and nobody has a plan on how to avoid it the third time around

I'll say it again: there was plenty to criticize about Beto O'Rourke, and I'm glad he's not going to be the nominee, but it was sure nice to have someone in the race who was willing to just come out and say, "Members of the press, what the fuck?"

[Thad]

I keep thinking about the electoral college, and how slim Trump's win was in 2016.

He won Michigan by 10,704 votes, Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes, and Wisconsin by 22,748 votes.

If half-plus-one of those voters in each of those states had gone Clinton, Trump wouldn't be president.

So when Trump does something like, say, go to Michigan and make a joke about how a popular, recently-deceased Michigan politician is in hell? Stuff like that could, honest to God, decide the 2020 election.

Trump got booed at his own rally. Think about what that means. Yes, every last one of those motherfuckers booing him at his rally is going to vote for him anyway -- they're at a Trump rally, for God's sake -- but outside that rally? Is it possible that there are maybe 5400 voters in Michigan who went Trump last time but might go Democratic next time over a remark like that? Yeah, it's possible.

Obviously it's a lot more complicated than that; 2020 isn't going to be exactly the same voters voting in exactly the same way. And there are other factors that favor Trump -- religious voters who were wary of him in 2016 (yes, there were some; remember McMullin getting 22% of the vote in Utah) have largely come around to supporting him, whereas people who were wary of the effect Trump might have on the economy seem like they're convinced now that he's doing a good job. (That could, of course, change in the next ten months.) I think 2020 is going to be close -- it would be nice if it weren't, it would be nice if it were a thorough repudiation of him, but I don't think that's something we can count on.

But in a close election, any stupid thing Trump does could swing it.

The bad news is, well, we saw what happened in 2016; the media spent the entire race drawing false equivalence between Clinton's mistakes and Trump's. We've got plenty more of that to look forward to.

[Friday]

this election is going to be close as fuck. I really can't see it going any other way. If Trump wins it'll be by an incredibly narrow margin, if he loses it'll be by an incredibly narrow margin.

I mean, I'd really like to believe he'll lose by a wide berth. I don't believe that, at all, but I'd like to.

edit: I should specify that I mean votes. Not popular vote, he'll lose that by several million again. I mean the votes that decide the electoral college. Like the final electoral college vote might look like a landslide either way, but it'll be close state to state votes.

[Mongrel]

[Thad]

this election is going to be close as fuck. I really can't see it going any other way. If Trump wins it'll be by an incredibly narrow margin, if he loses it'll be by an incredibly narrow margin.

I mean, I'd really like to believe he'll lose by a wide berth. I don't believe that, at all, but I'd like to.

edit: I should specify that I mean votes. Not popular vote, he'll lose that by several million again. I mean the votes that decide the electoral college. Like the final electoral college vote might look like a landslide either way, but it'll be close state to state votes.

The thing about the EC is that the difference between a narrow win and a wide one isn't actually that much. Trump keeps calling his 304-227 win a "landslide", but again, it's a victory of about 107,000 votes, in a race with 137 million voters. (It's also significantly less than any of Obama's or Bill Clinton's EC victories.)

A 1-point shift in the popular vote in 2016 would have given Clinton Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida, for an EC victory of 302-229, close to the same margin Trump can't stop bragging about. A 2-point shift would have given her Nebraska 2, Arizona, and North Carolina, for a margin of 329-202; those are Obama 2012 numbers.

Basically, the difference between a small EC win and a big one isn't that many votes.

[Mongrel]

CTV: Trump Adviser Justin Clark not only states that Republicans traditionally rely on voter suppression in WI (and other states), but states that they can "go on the offensive" now that they have a license to field rent-a-cops armed mercenaries at the polls in the guise of "Ballot Security Task Force" officers.

Wisconsin state Gov. Tony Evers is like, "Say what?"

[Thad]

Castro is out.

It's a shame he never really gained any traction; I think he was (and is) an important voice. I still think he'd be an excellent candidate for VP.

[Thad]

Silver's got a primary forecast up, and a breakdown of what it says right now.

Seeing as nobody has actually voted yet, I don't think it's any more valuable than an educated guess -- specifically, my educated guess from last month, which was pretty much the same thing (tl;dr if Biden, Sanders, or Warren wins Iowa they probably win the nomination; if anyone else does, they still probably don't). And I'm the dumbass who repeatedly proclaimed that there was no way Trump would win the primary, let alone the general, so that's what my guesses are worth.

Silver can't resist getting all Silvery down at the bottom and saying "oh hey maybe Bloomberg could win on a second ballot if there's a contested convention"; as usual, he's got a lot of interesting insights when he sticks to the numbers but descends into foolishness as soon as he goes into pundit mode.

Really what this says is it's still anybody's ballgame (not Bloomberg's; shut up about Bloomberg). And while Iowa continues to loom way larger on the primary season than it should, it's not really the be-all, end-all. Everybody make sure to vote in the primary no matter what happens. Even if Silver's right and Biden has an 80% chance to get the nomination if he wins Iowa, that means there's still a 20% chance that he won't.

[Thad]

Booker's out.

He's another of those guys who I wouldn't have voted for but who I think played a valuable role in the race, and it's frustrating to see Steyer continuing to qualify for the debates while more qualified candidates like Castro and Booker can't.

Meanwhile, the latest Iowa polls have shifted 538's forecast to show Sanders essentially tied with Biden, with Sanders currently forecast at a 28% chance of winning the caucus to Biden's 29%.

Usual caveats apply; polls are still volatile, caucuses are harder to predict than primaries (which are harder to predict than the general), and any of the top four candidates have a plausible chance of winning Iowa. But we're hitting the point in the race where an upward trend for Sanders, and a downward trend for Biden, could be a significant sign.

Tomorrow's debate is the last one before the primaries start. Given how close the race is right now, and what an outsized influence the early primaries have, there's a reasonable possibility that tomorrow's debate could determine who gets the nomination.

All of which, sigh, sounds horse-race-y AF, and I kind of hate that, but I think it's an accurate assessment of how this shit works. I hate the horse-race coverage, but I can't just pretend it doesn't exist. The media narrative plays a significant role in shaping how people vote in the primaries; Iowa shouldn't be important, but it is. And even if what we end up getting is effectively a tie, the media will treat a narrow win as if it's a big deal.

[Thad]

Vermin Supreme has won the New Hampshire Libertarian primary.

However, the primary is nonbinding, and delegates are free to vote for whoever they want, which is just about the most Libertarian thing I can think of.

Also, just to be clear, I am not making any of this up.

[Mongrel]

There's a friend of mine who only half-jokingly advocates for Vermin Supreme every election.

*runs to see reaction*

[Brantly B.]

It took me a while before I realized that's a guy's name. It's a title that could be held by literally anybody on a ballot these days.

[Mongrel]

I love it and all, but this has to be a setup, right?

[Grath]

[Thad]

Yeah, the main takeaway from last night's debate is that CNN really doesn't want Sanders or Warren to be the nominee.

[Friday]

I'm not clear on why that is.

My theory is "rich people own the news, Warren and Sanders are anti-rich and want to tax us" but is it really that simple?

I mean, I'm not saying it's not. Just curious.

[Mongrel]

I think it's just the age old stupid "Leftists will lose us the election!" bullshit.

[beatbandito]

I think it's because they're sexist and antisemitic.

[Upthorn]

Duh. That's why we need to nominate them so they can steal from Trump's base in the general.

[Brantly B.]

The DNC and its affiliates are more interested in maintaining coronation powers than winning elections.