The Joys Of Opening Time Capsules: 2020 Election Predictions


Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to

Related Post Roulette

243 Responses

  1. Jaybird says:

    I’ll kick us off:

    I have no idea how to read anything. Like, anything. Back at this point in 2016, I was amazed at the sheer potential for an October Surprise. Like, I had never seen an election so dry-like-tinder before. Clinton was awful and did her best to alienate the people she wanted to vote for her and Trump was doing stuff that you’d think would have gotten him kicked out of the race months earlier. (I can’t remember the amount of times that I said “okay, that’s it, he’s out of the race now” by, oh, February.)

    I look at the race now and see Biden doing the whole “Slow and Steady” thing and, yep, he picked Harris as his VP and that’s going to win some points… but while I know his position on the Coronavirus and opening up the country (bad, don’t), I’m not certain what his position on the Mostly Peaceful Protests are beyond an educated guess that he supports the Mostly Peaceful Protestors 100%, so long as they stay socially distanced, and opposes the rioters, vandalizers, and agitators 100% in an old school “If By Whiskey” move.

    Trump, on the other hand, is a walking disaster. Everything from Corruption to Incompetence. *BUT*. He has strong opinions about the Coronavirus and opening up the country (not as bad as they’ll have you think, we should) *AND* strong opinions about the Mostly Peaceful Protests and there ain’t no ifs, ands, or buts about that last one.

    Meanwhile, schools are opening and re-closing.
    Meanwhile, Mostly Peaceful Protests continue to set stuff on fire in response to police seemingly unable to have an interaction with anybody without shooting them.

    And arguing that it’s the smarter move to err on the side of taking the boat too closely to Scylla is one of those arguments that it’s difficult to churn up enthusiasm for when you’re one of the guys who’s going to stay in the Captain’s area at the back of the boat. (And arguments to the rowers that ask “what, do you want us to sail right into Charybdis’s mouth?!?!?” ring a little hollow, when you’re a back-of-the-boat kinda guy.)

    There are *SO* many things that will change how voting is done.
    Even more Mostly Peaceful Protests into September and October.
    Even more people getting sick and dying.
    Even more people getting evicted.
    Even more people losing jobs due to the economy being shut down.

    I have no idea beyond “we’re going to have an October Surprise every week”.

    And we won’t even remember last week’s October Surprise by the time next week’s hits.

    Then I thought well… you *HAVE* to guess…

    So I looked at the 2016 map (linked to in the original post) and started flipping.

    Arizona goes blue. Okay.
    Minnesota goes red. Really? Dude. The Mostly Peaceful Protests changed things there.
    Michigan goes blue. Okay.
    Pennsylvania goes blue. Okay.

    That got me here.

    Seems about right.Report

    • North in reply to Jaybird says:

      I live in MN and I disagree with your impression. What the news isn’t advertising is that it’s been mostly quiet in Minneapolis for months now and there hasn’t been much in the way of actual hooliganism at all since the weeks around the Floyd protest.
      Yes, the hooliganism would motivate Trump voters but the fury at the police and over the Floyd motivates Biden voters. I’m going to be generous to the right and say that the two cancel each other out which leaves MN as the historically blue state it is.

      If we look at Trumps performance he’s fished over farmers which hurts him in the south of the state but his policies have been good enough for the iron range in the northeast so that helps him. Again, to be generous to the right, I’ll call that a push.

      Now we have the Dem candidate. If ya wanna try and claim Biden with Harris as Veep will under perform Hillary with Cain as Veep in this state I just can’t go there with you. Even trying to favor the right in the interest of generosity can’t make me find my way to that position- it’s just ludicrous. That deepens Bidens existing advantages. Minnesota goes Blue.

      I offer bonus kudos for predicting a tie in the electoral college though.

      My own predictions, so that I can adhere to the rules:
      Polling suggests that Biden has closed the door in the blue wall states that Hillary egregiously left open. There is no way in God(ess?)’s green earth that the Dems will stop watching their backs in those states like Hillary did in ’16 and the ten times accursed Purity Pony of the left is hibernating with an orange stake through its heart dreaming happy dreams of Nader in ’00 and Bernie in ’16 so I consider that a nonfactor. The race has been very stable so far so I’m handing Biden the states he is polling outside the margin of error in current state polls. Biden is running strongly in Fl and AZ so I’m giving him those states which, obviously, means he wins easily since he’s also polling solidly in the blue wall states. I am leaving NC, GA and TX in the GOP column because 2020 a dumpster fire and we can’t have nice things. That makes this an emphatic Biden victory but not a landslide blowout.

      I’m predicting the Dems slightly deepen their majority in the house.
      The Senate is more squirelly but I went to the gym today so I am rewarding myself. Gardner, Mcsally and Collins go down in defeat as does Jones on the Dem side. The Dems manage to nab at least one of the tossup seats that remain which means they get the Senate with 50-52ish Senators.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to North says:

        2016 had Minnesota at 46.44% to 44.92%.

        I suppose the big dynamics that I’m seeing are the question of dynamism. Does Biden inspire people the way that Hillary did not? Well, I am of the opinion that Clinton actively turned people off and, by comparison, Biden does *NOT* actively turn people off.

        So that *IS* a plus for Biden. When it comes to the big issues of the day, though, does Harris give a boost to Biden? I’m not sure… and “former prosecutor” is kind of a turn-off. (But I don’t think that VPs matter that much.)

        And so the question is over how much churn there’s going to be and whether the less-than-1% that Trump would have needed to beat Clinton will decide to change votes (or whether the more than 1% will find an excuse to not vote).

        I admit, Minneapolis *WAS* me going out on a limb there… but I don’t know how much the voters that weren’t energized by Clinton will be energized by Biden.

        But I spend more time talking to the NYT Editorial Department than the elevator staff and so there are parts of the country cut off from me.Report

        • North in reply to Jaybird says:

          Well Biden also, simply by not being HRC, starts out ahead of her before we even start talking about energizing people. Biden does not energize -opposition- the way HRC did.
          Also, I did mention that this is not an election with a 2 term incumbent Democratic President. That is a huge albatross that HRC had to labor under that Biden does not. The left does not love Biden but they HATE Trump and I am pretty confident that the number of left wing base voters who’ll go third party or sit on their hands because Biden is insufficiently pure is going to be a rounding error. Harris is a former prosecutor, yes, but she’d also be the first woman, AA and Indian Vice President and those are not insignificant factors for motivating the Twin Cities urban voters to turn out. All that said, I applaud your taking a flyer on MN- if it turns out you’re right (please agnostic Jeebus I hope you’re wrong!) I’ll make sure to offer the kudos you’ll be due.

          The reality is that my prediction is a much safer-more cowardly bet.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to North says:

            I’m also adding up 45% to 46.5% in my head and coming up with.
            Carry the one.

            That’s one hell of a 3rd party vote, there.Report

          • George Turner in reply to North says:

            I’m doubting the theory that Biden won’t turn off as many Democrats as Hillary. Just among frequent OT commenters, the count of Hillary voters who’ve decided to bail on Biden is what, at least two or three? Admittedly it’s a narrow sample, yet more broadly, I have yet to see a Trump voter saying they’re giving up on him. They’re more energized than ever.

            And there are other factors to consider on a state-by-state basis. Virginia, for example, is nearly in a state of civil war over the BLM situation, and all the rural, rarely-voting gun owners might show up because of Ralph white-hood and black-face Northram passing all kinds of gun-control legislation. That election may reflect local tribal realignments than anything to do with Trump and Biden.Report

            • North in reply to George Turner says:

              Oh? I don’t recall two or three regulars saying they’re not going to vote, going to vote Trump or vote third party because Biden got the nod. Well, except Aaron but he wasn’t ever really a gettable Democratic vote. Certainly not any left wing voters who voted Hillary in ’16 that I can recall.Report

              • George Turner in reply to North says:

                I think EM Carpenter bailed, as did one other frequent contributor. Those may not be firm decisions that will last through to November, but I also haven’t seen anyone going to the other way.Report

              • Em Carpenter in reply to George Turner says:

                I said I felt I could not vote for Biden because of Tara Reade, for reasons I don’t want to hash out again here in this particular comment section.
                I have the luxury of my conscience because I live in a state that will go to Trump by a huge margin.
                However, if I lived in a state where Biden could win, I would suck it up and vote for him because he is preferable to Trump for me.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Em Carpenter says:

                If you lived in a state where Biden could win, you’d probably be planning a move to West Virginia to avoid the riots, looting, and arson. ^_^

                Living in a calm state is, well, so darn calming these days. Everybody just gets along!

                I think the effects of the violence are hard to predict. The Democrats didn’t mention any of the ongoing chaos at their convention (they also never once mentioned their impeachment debacle). Republicans are putting it front and center. If that’s a top concern for voters, only one party is addressing it. This could potentially create a sweep similar to Nixon in ’72, where judging by social activism, war protests, and media coverage, you might think he’d have been crushed. Instead, the opposite happened.

                Combined with Reagan’s sweeps, this is what caused Democrats to suddenly go all-out as the law-and-order party, with the ’94 crime bill that Joe Biden offered. This creates further complications, because Democrats are boxed in as the party that created the mass-incarceration policies campaigning against police brutality in Democrat-run cities in Democrat-run states, in charge of both law-enforcement and the attacks on law-enforcement. It’s hard to win votes from both sides of a violent conflict.

                A shrewd or brilliant politician could possibly navigate the eye of the needle on that one, but unfortunately Biden is neither. In contrast, all Trump has to do is say “I won’t let the mobs burn down your home and your neighborhood!” and he skates in. He loses no votes from the pro-arson crowd because none of them supported him anyway, and he might sway a lot of Hillary voters who object to having their homes and businesses burned down.

                But will they flip? We won’t know until November, unless we use vote-by-mail, in which case we might find out the actual result sometime in 2021 or 2022.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

      You’re expecting *a lot* of pro-Trump movement in the polls between now and November. What accounts for that? George’s much anticipated Biden Investigation won’t, it seems to me, move the polls very much, and if it’s as ham handed as Ron John is I could see it backfiring and helping Biden.

      Another problem for the Dems: I think Biden needs to be careful about the Hillary Effect, where more exposure produces declining approvals. He needs to stay in the bunker, let Kamala go on the road, let surrogates attack the GOP and Trump. (But I said that in 2016 about Hillary too; she didn’t listen.) Can Biden stay disciplined enough to stay in a self-imposed time out? Depends on his advisors (one of whom will undoubtedly be Obama, who’s a very savvy campaigner).Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

        I’m expecting the “Mostly” in the “Mostly Peaceful Protests” to continue and Trump will address it as being Unequivocally *BAD* and that will be weighed against whatever Biden/Harris says about it.

        And Biden/Harris will try to walk a tightrope and fail.

        Which is why I see the pro-Trump movement.

        I’m also assuming that the 3rd Party vote last time will not show up and vote 3rd party this time. They’re going to vote for a real candidate.

        Well, outside of a handful of nutballs who will still vote 3rd party, of course. But it won’t be near the huge numbers of 2016.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

          Hmmm. You could be right, of course, but I just don’t see any more movement in Trump’s direction on that front than has already happened. I mean, he’s already signaling that he’s going to campaign, in part, on how a Biden victory will lead to (literally!) entire cities being burned to the ground. If that message has any more bite left in it, it’s because of what already happened. Or to put it another way: Trump’s messaging on the issue has *already* outrun reality, so the role reality plays can be discounted.

          My own guess is that once the general really heats up, the Hillary Effect will come into play regardless of Joe’s best intentions to stay in the bunker. In swingy states the polls will slowly begin to level out.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:


                (It strikes me as optimistic as heck. My joke to Andrew when I told him I had this post in the hopper was “if either one of these guys gets 240, I’ll eat a bug.” I think that, whomever wins, the only thing that people will be able to call landslide-worthy is the popular vote. The EVs will be close.)Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                Thank you!

                Here’s my prediction justifying the prediction: Biden *mostly* holds his leads in the “likely Dem* states, which solidifies his lead in the “leans Dem” states.

                Kamala will play the role of Robin very well (locking in high african american and latino turnout), Biden dances between moderate progressivism and progressive moderation without losing either; and someone (not the DNC lord knows) informs The Olds that Trump is killing them with Covid right before taking their SS and Medicare away (I think this line will be advanced by the Lincoln Project).Report

              • George Turner in reply to Stillwater says:

                another map

                Hillary barely squeaked out a win in Minnesota and New Hampshire, and I’m thinking a bit of arson and looting will tip the balance for some people.

                There were armies of people determined to vote for Hillary like she was their savior, whereas I haven’t seen anyone particularly enthused about Biden. He’s like the coleslaw that you get with your dinner. Nobody is really enthused by Kamala Harris, either, considering she dropped out prior to Iowa, polling at around 2%.

                I’ll go back to the adage that Canadian conservatives used after Trudeau’s last victory. “You can’t defeat a somebody with nobody, and we ran nobody.”

                I’m giving Trump Virginia over the whole BLM/gun dustup that may drive rural voters to the polls in record numbers (and possibly alienated many gun-owning Democrats).

                Biden is consistently up by four in Pennsylvania, but at this point in 2016 Hillary was consistently up by 9 to 11 there.Report

  2. Aaron David says:

    Trump by 274 to 314 EC. I can see AZ and PA going red, but otherwise, I like Nate’s map. I hedged in ’16 as I felt Trump would win, but thought Hildog would put it out in the 9th.

    I have zero interest in “popular vote.”Report

  3. Chip Daniels says:

    The only prediction I can make is that the race will be close and could go either way.

    Which itself is a prediction, that win or lose, the Republican party will continue its descent into a cultlike authoritarian insurgency. Whether they win or lose the Presidency, they now are signalling that they are implacably opposed to majority rule.

    What will it take to break this? I honestly don’t know. Since they reject the legitimacy of a majority, electoral defeats won’t change their minds.
    What also seems likely is that the Reagan vision of Republicanism, that of a coalition between Main Street and Wall Street is as dead as Francisco Franco and likely to remain so.Report

  4. Michael Cain says:

    The big story when the data is sliced and diced afterwards will be, 2020 was the year Latino voters turned out. Biden holds the states Clinton won and flips AZ and FL. Maybe more, but AZ and FL are enough for the win. In hindsight, pundits will say things like, “Gee, maybe we should have paid more attention to the fact that Harris won two state-wide races in a heavily Latino state.”Report

    • North in reply to Michael Cain says:

      I get ya, but I don’t see any universe where Trump keeps MI. Wi makes me nervous but I’m very confident that MI is back in the fold. I’m much more confident MI goes blue than FL.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain says:

      I’m thinking that this is the Dark Horse prediction here.

      The main question is the extent to which the Latinx Community is on board with BLM.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

        I dunno. Nate Silver has Biden up +9 in AZ and +4 in Florida right now. Given how Trump’s behaving over the last couple weeks and projecting out from that, I could see Biden’s lead in both states, but certainly in Florida, actually grow.

        I don’t think there are any Trump-shy voters out there (I *do* think there are Biden-shy voters). I also think Trump is panicking, which makes him look even more erratic, unhinged, unfit, and that probably won’t turn around.Report

  5. George Turner says:

    This will be a hard one to call because some groups are lining up contrary to many people’s expectations. The “fine people” of Charlottesville that Biden derides, like white supremacist leader Richard Spencer, are backing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. A ticket draws both BLM and the “segregation now and forever” vote is something to be reckoned with, making it hard to map out the results.

    And we have Obama’s warning not to underestimate Biden’s ability to “f*** this up.”Report

  6. InMD says:

    I predict narrow Biden win, 280-258 based on retaking Michigan and a win so narrow in PA it ends up litigated. As a side prediction I expect chaos in parts of the South, primarily GA. Trump wins and would have won but the local GOP can’t help but try to put fingers on the scale.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to InMD says:

      VBM thoughts… In the 13-state West, >90% of ballots will be distributed by mail (this is already a given, assuming New Mexico voters request mail ballots at their normal ~65% rate). There will be no problems beyond AZ and CA taking their usual two weeks to count. Elsewhere, two states will screw VBM up badly by trying to scale up their existing (archiac) absentee ballot systems.Report

      • InMD in reply to Michael Cain says:

        I think this is quite likely as well, but like you said it will be somewhere east of the Mississippi where VBM is non-existent outside of active duty military.Report

      • George Turner in reply to Michael Cain says:

        A victory attributed to VBM might result in a revote, given the problems with massive voter fraud and invalid ballots in prior VBM experiences in both the US and in Europe. The Russians and Chinese would certainly push heavily for the resulting fracture and potential US civil war. Top Democrats (the Podestas, etc) have already gamed out a scenario where Biden’s move in a contested election is to encourage the Western states to secede.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to George Turner says:

          Well, given the way the current fire season is going, I’ll be modestly surprised if neither side offers $100B and thousands of jobs for fire mitigation on federal land.Report

          • George Turner in reply to Michael Cain says:

            One of the problems facing California is that they were about 800 convicts short on their fire crews. Apparently having Kamala in the Senate instead of maintaining a sufficient prison workforce has really hurt the state’s ability to respond to wildfires. However, another issue might be that California released many inmates because of Covid. Now those felons are busy looting and starting urban fires instead of combating rural fires.

            But I’m not sure how that plays out in the polling booth. Biden and Harris will restock our prisons, restoring the ability to contain wildfires, but they’ll also keep encouraging massive urban fires. Trump wants to reduce or eliminate the Biden/Bill Clinton prison industry, which will make it harder to combat wildfires, but he wants to eliminate the urban arson.

            How will that impact urban vs rural voting? The effects are all too complicated to predict.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner says:

              Gee, why doesn’t California have a “sufficient prison workforce”? Does anybody know?

              And how does a state go about “maintaining a sufficient prison workforce”?Report

              • George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Well, in times past they just had Kamala Harris throw thousands of pot smokers in jail, while blocking the release of evidence that would free innocent blacks. But the thing is, who wants to be out working a fire line with actual felons, as opposed to having a crew of nice, normal minority people who were only railroaded into prison because of the color of their skin? I know which fire crew I’d feel safer with.Report

  7. Saul Degraw says:

    The only way Trump wins is with another lightening strike where he loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college. It seems plausible but not necessarily great that such a thing can happen twice in a row. I suspect that if it does happen Biden’s popular vote tally will be much higher than HRC’s.

    I predict Biden wins AZ and McSally loses her Senate seat. Other flips will be Collins in Maine and Gardener in Colorado. I also predict Biden takes Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin back. Trump keeps Iowa and maybe Ohio. North Carolina and Georgia will be squeakers. If Biden wins both seats, the Democrats get two extra Senate seats.Report

  8. Marchmaine says:

    Ok, in a reverse Pauline Kael I’m calling Biden – not even close – even though everyone I know is voting for Trump. Except this time, there’s a significant minority who won’t vote. As bad as Team Blue might be; Trump’s ghastly inability to rise to the moment has exposed how unfit he is such that what might have been possible to ignore in a humming economy with peace abroad and at home simply cannot be ignored under the current circumstances.

    Dem: 345
    Rep: 180
    ASP: 13 (shocking win in VA by American Solidarity Party)

    I think the Blue wall goes Blue.

    Edge picks: FL for Dems (signals game over) and Iowa
    Hunch: NC goes Blue

    This is Biden’s election to lose. He’s plenty capable of losing it… but the real danger isn’t Biden, it’s the rest of Team Blue. The less you do, the more likely Trump’s term ends.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine says:

      Hunch: NC goes Blue

      I agree, but I also think NC is a bellweather. If Dems win NC, they start picking up the chips.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine says:

      What’s your argument for Ohio going blue? I puzzled over that one for a bit and decided that while Biden certainly could cut into Trump’s lead and flip it to likely Dem, DeWine was the Trump-travesty GOP equalizer. Or maybe I’m wrong about that? One recent poll has DeWine’s approvals higher among Dem voters than GOP voters.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Stillwater says:

        Biden’s Delaware vibe plays well in OH. Delaware is an odd state… not quite NJ, not quite MD… small ‘big city’ and once you get out of Wilmington, not overly Philly/PA. Biden feels Mid-West-ish in that OH rather than IA way.

        Right now it’s neck/neck at 46% each – which is a lot of undecideds… so could easily go either way. Talking to my Red Team folks… undecideds this time aren’t ‘shy Trump’ voters, they are demoralized voters. Biden can win if he leaves them alone.

        Still comes down to execution… Biden can beat Trump on the class warfare stuff and Trump is vulnerable for having over-promised and under-delivered – if the message is right.

        But if the message is “ha, ha, you suck, Hilary told you your jobs and towns were doomed but you listened to a huckster instead” well, then, yeah… probably gonna stay red when the demoralized voters come back.

        Foolproof reasoning… so I’ll probably be researching the most edible bugs to eat.Report

    • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

      Interesting. I think it’s the right analysis but just not sure it gets us to that kind of EC landslide. As you note and as Still alluded to above Movement Progressivism (can’t believe that’s becoming a thing) is not popular. They’re a drag on the ability of team D to run the table, and worse yet they look way more influential than they actually are by saturation of the national media. Generic Democrat on the other hand can still win as long as everyone keeps a lid on those who see the CHOP CHAP as a raging success. But there’s still a lot to vote against in team blue even if team red provides almost nothing to vote for.

      Of course now that I’ve said this in a prediction thread something crazy like Texas turning blue is going to happen.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to InMD says:

        One thing to keep in mind, at least from my perspective, is that while some people voted against Dems in 2016 because of Obama/Biden policies, *most* of the ant- voters were voting against Hillary. She was, as we’ve discussed, just phenomenally disliked. Biden doesn’t have that problem and my suspicion is that even though Kamala has the potential to be divisive, I think she’s gonna find her political stride as a running mate.Report

        • InMD in reply to Stillwater says:

          Kamala isn’t who I would have picked but I stand by my belief that she will have no material impact in either direction. Also agree generally that HRC is probably the high water mark for what negative partisanship can do, even within the party itself. However I think this is going to be all about the virus and the economy. Trump’s failure to lead in time of crisis speaks for itself but if the economy were still humming along with no other external threats my bet would be firmly on him winning a second term.Report

          • Stillwater in reply to InMD says:

            I think Kamala helps deliver Arizona and North Carolina, so that ain’t nothin.

            BTW, the idea that a VP pick doesn’t help the nominee win is pretty bizarre. Eg., Pence most certainly helped deliver the evangelical vote to Trump in 2016.Report

            • InMD in reply to Stillwater says:

              I didn’t say she hurts him I just don’t think she turns anything Biden wasn’t going to win anyway. If the idea is to turn out the black vote I believe Biden’s service as Obama’s VP means a lot more.

              Trump/Pence is different because Trump never held elected office before. Pence was a reassurance pick for people who took one look at Trump’s lifestyle and know he wasn’t one of them. Everyone knows who Joe Biden is. Strangely for a perennial also ran I’d say it’s his biggest strength.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to InMD says:

                Maybe. Personally, I think Pence was a GOTEvangelicalVote pick. Trump was pro-choice at the beginning of his campaign…Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Stillwater says:

                Referring to Trump as ‘prochoice’ is kind of odd. I doubt he put much thought into it beyond thinking it is better to pay for an abortion than defend a paternity suit.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Referring to Trump as ‘prochoice’ is kind of odd.

                I can’t tell if you don’t understand politics, or are pretending to not understand politics.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to InMD says:

                I think “Kamala is a cop” people vastly overestimate the power of the charge because they spend all their time on twitter talking to each other.Report

              • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                I don’t think her biggest problem is that she’s a cop. I think it’s that she’s a lightweight from a coast with no retail chops or experience in a real contest.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to InMD says:

                I don’t think she is a light weight. Her general questioning in Senate hearings has been good to excellent and I think she can rip Pence to shreds more than Tim Kaine.

                In general, VP picks do not move the ball at all but we like to act like they do because we need something to talk about. In terms of margins, I think she helps more than she hurts because “Kamala is a kop” people were always looking for an excuse not to vote Democratic. If Biden picked Warren, the excuse would be out of touch Harvard professor. If it was Whitmer, it would have been Governor Strict Mom no fun. And so on.

                It is interesting to me how much anti-anti Trump is still a thing. You have all these people whose real animating force is that they hate hate hate the Democratic Party and Democrats but do not want to admit that they kind of like Trump and Trumpism for all its own the libs stuff.

                At least George, for all his absurdity, is open with his Trumpism and not a coward about it.Report

              • InMD in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Saul, I can’t tell if that quip about secretly liking Trump is a shot at me or just a general assertion but in either case my response is the same. People have different perceptions of the world, but they mostly come by their views honestly. The Dems right now are a de facto national unity party. It’s a very big tent with a lot of voters and fellow travelers a center left party might not include in a better functioning democracy.

                I understand that sticks in the craw of a lot of more partisan people with stronger loyalty to the party. But is it too much to ask that you address your disagreements honestly and on the merits? Because this unfalsifiable schtick about anyone who doesn’t toe the party line being a secret Trumpist is not only sad, it hurts the cause of getting rid of him and dealing the GOP the defeat that it sorely needs. Indeed our system depends on it.

                When someone says they don’t love the Democratic party, or see it as at best the lesser of two evils, take that as an opportunity to explain why they should vote for it anyway. You won’t win everyone but it will go a lot further than assuming that person is some kind of 5th column. The latter is exactly the kind of thing that’s turned the GOP into its festering zombie state and if it happens to the other major party then we really will be up the creek without a paddle.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                It is interesting to me how much anti-anti Trump is still a thing. You have all these people whose real animating force is that they hate hate hate the Democratic Party and Democrats but do not want to admit that they kind of like Trump and Trumpism for all its own the libs stuff.

                Let’s say this is true. Why, do you think, people who are sympathetic to Democratic party policies would get off on Trumpers “owning the libs”?Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

              I’ve been thinking about this and, yes, a year ago, I would have said that Kamala Harris is the best VP option on paper.

              In person, in a world where there are riots against not only the police but the justice system at large… I’m not sure that she gets anything.

              I mean, a year ago, my take on Kamala was that she should respond to “Kamala is a Cop” with “There’s a criminal in the White House! A COP IS WHAT YOU NEED!”

              But that dynamic doesn’t work when there are mostly peaceful protests in the street.

              I’m not sure what she brings to the table at this point that wouldn’t be brought by, say, Stacey Abrams (yes, I know why she wasn’t picked).Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                I can understand that, given your belief that the riots are gonna deliver Trump between 6-8% points nationally. I just don’t see that happening. I have a hard time seeing it moving the needle at all (since they’re already priced in).Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                Not Nationally. (And not necessarily 6-8% points either.)

                But, yes, in the swing states that are Mostly Peaceful.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

        Sure… a super safe bet would be 278-260 where Biden has “outs” with NC or OH or AZ if one or two of PA/WI/MI fail to flip.

        Its just that I don’t see Trump holding his gains… he’s leaking support and the opposition is motivated. Team Red isn’t going away and will win large chunks of States and EC’s… But there’s some praxis to the theory that if he’s winning WI, MI, and PA, he’s very likely also winning some other states (maybe FL/NC/IA)… while you have to win each state independently, the “break” isn’t confined to geographic entities. There’s probably some Political Science/Polling term for it that I’ve long forgotten… but Will probably knows.Report

        • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

          To go that way I would expect to see more of a repudiation by the GOP than we have. He’s still polling well with Republicans and the right wing media machine isn’t going to turn on him. The people who don’t like him now on the right are the ones who never have. I think enough people will show up for Trump that even a repeat result of 2012 is out of Biden’s reach.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

            Yep… 70 odd days will tell. I expect things to tighten, but the EC swings according to logic that is not strictly national.

            I’m comparing Red voter sentiments between ’16 and ’20 and making some inferences and generalizations… so yeah, my bubble may be too idiosyncratic and/or my intuitions way off… but it definitely feels different than ’16.Report

            • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

              My bubble includes a bunch of life-long blue state, non-culture warrior Republicans. By any rational analysis they would turn D or #NeverTrump. None have, and while I don’t think any particularly like him, they’re all going to vote for him in spite of all manner of cultural pressure not to. I can only imagine that in places where the pressure is the other way or at least not so aggressively anti-Trump folks will still come out. Just not quite in the numbers or in the places he will need to win.Report

  9. This is fun. For discussion purposes only, of course. Biden increases HRC vote total, wins the popular vote by 3.5 million, and Trump eeks out a 272 EC victory.

    The map:

  10. Stillwater says:

    Biden 306-232.

    The Map.Report

    • North in reply to Stillwater says:

      Interesting map, I feel like it’s daring in that you’re bucking the polls by givine Biden NC but giving Trump FL when the polling is reverse of that (Biden has a decent edge in FL polling wise, he’s within the margin of error in NC). I actually don’t think it’s out there to concede FL to team red- it’s broken Democratic hearts a lot in this new millenium so far so to hell with the poll numbers and Lord (Lady?) knows they could change. Do you have a feeling , hunch or insight on NC?Report

      • Stillwater in reply to North says:

        About Florida …. With DeSantis as Gov, and Trump relocating his residence, I just see too much Really Big Money flooding in to Trump’s campign there. Just too much potential upside to buying the state for him.

        My hunch on NC is that the Biden/Harris ticket will get out the Dem vote coupled with the absence of voter shenanigans due to having a Dem governor.Report

      • George Turner in reply to North says:

        Here’s a legal / election question. Gazillions of wealthy and moderately wealthy people have fled to Florida from New York, New Jersey, and other apocalyptic Democrat disaster areas. Where are these Covid/BLM riot refuges registered to vote? How many have written New York off forever and changed their primary residence to Florida?Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to George Turner says:

          Florida is now more Latino than African-American and Latinos are the fastest growing demographic. Trump and the Republicans greatest fear has to be Latino voters coming out at the same rate that AA voters do.Report

        • North in reply to George Turner says:

          Oddly a handful of rich nuts only have a handful of votes while large numbers of less rich people have large numbers of votes. If only dollars were votes then the GOP would be in power forever no doubt. Like the electoral college, though, those are the rules and they’re not changing.Report

          • George Turner in reply to North says:

            The opposite would be true. The DNC is an alliance of the ultra-wealthy and government employees and dependents who perpetuate the status and privilege of the ultra-wealthy.

            Statistical breakdowns bear this out, and it seems that the Democrat’s decision to abandon workers’ issues to rake in Wall Street and corporate money was highly successful.Report

            • InMD in reply to George Turner says:

              I think snow birds who eventually transplant bring their political leanings with them. It’s rare for people to move somewhere for truly ideological reasons. They just want the retiree tax breaks.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to InMD says:

                I was having a reapportionment discussion the other day. NY State is on pace to lose two House seats. The other person asserted this would cost liberals because of all the headlines about people fleeing NYC. I pointed out that when you look a bit deeper, the out-migration from NYC is quite small compared to the out-migration from the rural parts of the state. Starting from that, both seats lost to reapportionment might be Republicans.

                To your point, if the NY/NJ migration to Florida is oldsters and rurals, their political leanings are likely Republican.Report

              • George Turner in reply to InMD says:

                I wonder if that will always keep Florida wavering? If they get an new influx of Democrat retirees, such as perhaps now, the state would shift left, but as those retirees die off, the state would swing back. Since their kids aren’t necessarily moving down with them, the demographic shifts would necessarily be transient.

                However, another factor this time might be the nightly looting and burning of Northern and Western cities. Older folks do not, do not, like the sight of mobs of violent young people with torches threatening businesses and homeowners.

                Tim Pool, who does Timcast on Youtube, says the violence has now turned him into a single issue voter, and for the first time he’s decided he must vote for Trump. He’s a Democrat and former Occupy Wall Street guy, who went an occupied Wall Street back when that was going on.

                If indeed this entire election gets decided on a single-issue vote, over an issue that didn’t even exist until the end of May, will the election really mean anything other than that most people don’t like looting, arson, and murder, or perhaps support looting, arson, and murder? Would the losing party conveniently avoid any retrospection about policy when policy took a back seat to the graphic images filling their social media feeds?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner says:

                “mobs of violent young people with torches”

                Come now, there must certainly be good people on both sides.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                The mainstream press assures us that they are peaceful protests. That kind of gaslighting is what’s got Tim Pool and his audience so upset.

                So far 30 people have been murdered during the peaceful protests, and hundreds of millions in property have been destroyed.

                As I’ve said, the last time this kind of thing was going on, with the nation evenly divided, opposed to the Vietnam War, and the press all in for the new revolution, Nixon won 520 to 17 in the electoral college.

                Words fail to convey how much people really don’t like seeing their cities on fire due angry, torch-wielding mobs. As another reference check, the support for police reforms after the George Floyd video went viral was about 99.99%. Now the “defund police” is only getting 16% support, and only 20% support within the black community. A shift in public opinion that large can’t but have a major impact on an upcoming election. It is perhaps the only thing that will actually matter.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to George Turner says:

                “people really don’t like seeing their cities on fire ”

                I think this is true; but I also think it’s possible to overplay that hand.

                ‘People’ are concerned about ‘their’ cities… they are less concerned about the other people’s cities…

                What I’m on the look-out for are not ‘national’ lessons, but what impact riots might have in the state in which they are occurring.

                I’ll stipulate that there’s a generic ‘net cost’ that’s born primarily by Team Blue on this issue and that’s a ‘global’ cost.

                But, if I’m correct, the ‘global cost’ is relatively low, especially the further one gets from, say, Portland.

                Now, the ‘local cost’? That could be significant indeed… but, returning to Portland, are we anticipating an EC flip? No. So the higher ‘local cost’ is easily absorbed (or more accurately dealt with by local winners/losers).

                MN is interesting, and here I think JB might be on to something… to the extent MPLS burning has a local cost, it’s possible it could impact some EC votes (possible as a factor, that is).

                But still, MPLS burning doesn’t really impact, say, Ohio.

                That said, there is, seems to me, an escalator factor where the more cities where Rioting occurs simultaneously can suggest a larger ‘global cost’ could be in play.

                But until Scranton, Grand Rapids, Green Bay, Duluth, etc. are Riot hotspots, I think the effects will be relatively underwhelming from what one might expect. Chalk this up to the universal indifference to suffering far away.

                This is exacerbated, compared to 1968, by the big Sort… we’re even ‘less’ invested in ‘These other places like ours’ than ever before.

                So I get the intuition that there should be an “issue” here… but absent a real sense that these things are “contagious” and growing and coming to a place near you… then it won’t play.

                The part I’m watching is not whether Team Red tries to maximize this, but whether Team Blue accelerates.

                The effect of the former? Minimal. The effect of the latter? Could be significant.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

                When evaluating the effect of riots, it would seem logical to evaluate what sort of factors might be creating them.

                Unless you want to assume that in a period of prosperity and tranquility, suddenly millions of people suddenly sat bolt upright, and for no reason at all rushed out of doors in a crazed frenzy of arson and looting.

                But this is where our perspectives become blinkered.The day before we saw the George Floyd video, most of the people here at OT WERE operating in a world of [relative] prosperity and tranquility.

                Certainly, no one here was living with chronic fear and anxiety every time we drove or walked down the street.No one here has intimate acquaintance with being beaten or tazed.

                The Floyd video was for most of us an eye-opening event, something freakish and strange that we view through a lens.

                For a lot of other people, who aren’t here to comment, saw their daily lived experience in that video.

                Their opinions and how the protests and riots affect their vote, are largely invisible to us here.

                For every video of burning buildings, how many videos are there of cops beating helpless protesters?

                Speaking for myself, the irritation over the riots is overwhelmed by the cold rage over the police murders.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Electoral ramifications/costs will still be Local to the Riots.

                Team Blue is welcome to make the underlying issue a political issue and campaign on it.

                If you’d like to accelerate the Riots into other more National areas where you feel the message is not being received and handled as well as it is in places like Portland, Minneapolis, Chicago and New York… then accelerate away. I think it will pay big dividends.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Why should we think so?
                The riots themselves were not local; They were very much a part of a larger national issue.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Eye opening event? These things have been going viral since Obama’s second term, including sparking a few major episodes of unrest. It isn’t a new issue, just a new scale, probably more attributable to the pandemic than anything else.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                Well, ever since 1965, in the Watts riots.
                But after each outrageous police shooting, white people tend to forget very, very quickly.

                So its like we have to have our eyes opened, repeatedly.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Marchmaine says:

                That local vs national analysis sounds logical, but it wouldn’t explain why crazy goings-on in Haight-Ashbury or Woodstock in the 60’s would result in Nixon winning the EC 502 to 17.

                It’s possible that Joe Six Pack watching surfing Twitter in Pleasantville is watching rioters in Portland every day, and rethinking his entire political world view, looking and the violence and carnage and realizing that the miscreants want to spread their chaos everywhere. It’s possible that every Joe and Jane Six Pack is doing that, too.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to George Turner says:

                I don’t think we have the same National/Cultural allegiances that we had in the 60’s.

                So appeals that might have worked in ’68 won’t have the same impact in 2020… or so I surmise.

                If the plan is ‘merely’ to re-do 1968 I expect it will under perform… or worse… adhere too closely to the ’68 script and Chip will have a better point to make.

                That’s also implied in the ‘overplaying’ part.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Marchmaine says:

                There is no “plan”. There wasn’t a plan in ’68 or ’72, either. That’s one of the many aspects of leftist anarchy that politicians have to deal with.

                And during times of massive unrest, rioting, violence, and a loss of confidence in local leaders, what does a public tend to do? They go for the dynamic leader, the strongman, quite often they go for a brutal thug who will crack heads.

                Biden is not that man, just as Mondale wasn’t. I’ll bet that virtually nobody really thinks Biden is going to be able to effectively deal with what’s going on. Nobody.

                Many probably feel Biden is not even really aware of what’s going on, or he’d have mentioned it and confronted it during his convention, laying down some markers and charting a clear strategy or set of principles. Having a staff of speechwriters string together 20 minutes of platitudes isn’t going to cut it. Saying “racist police are bad” isn’t going to change anything. Cutting police funding is only going to make the problems worse.

                At least Nixon would deploy the National Guard and shoot some students, restoring law and order. Conventional wisdom might say that a President who only won in ’68 by a 0.7% margin, with just 43% of the vote, wouldn’t have a prayer in ’72, just two years after Kent State. Conventional wisdom would say that the country had shifted far left, on the war, Civil Rights, sexual liberation, and a hot of issues. But people kept throwing bottles at cops, and Nixon was re-elected by a 23.2% margin.

                Throwing bottles at cops apparently swamps all other things.Report

              • InMD in reply to George Turner says:

                I think March is talking about replaying the strategy from the right in ’68, not the left.Report

              • George Turner in reply to InMD says:

                Nixon barely won in ’68, getting only 43.4% of the vote. That wouldn’t be a good model.

                In ’72 he didn’t even need a strategy. Even though he utterly failed at bugging the Watergate Hotel, he still won in an epic landslide. He won in California, New York, Washington State, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey, and even Hawaii. McGovern only won Massachusetts, but he did crush Nixon 78-22 in Washington DC.

                So my point is that if looters are setting fire to business districts and throwing bricks at cops, and one party is egging it on and not stopping it, does the hard-case, law-and-order candidate that the protesters decry as a fascist totalitarian dictator even need a strategy? He can just say “Yeah, I am. Vote for me and I’ll stop this violent nonsense cold.”Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to George Turner says:

                As I’ve said, but maybe not clearly enough… escalating and violence and increasing numbers of riots throughout the US could and would be a ‘global cost’ that would benefit Team Red. With particular spikes in, say, Wisconsin/Kenosha that could have Electoral impact.

                I think a competent Team Red could make political gains by talking about some of the issues broad Police Reform that have high voter salience while emphasizing order over riots.

                In my estimation, Trump’s Team Red doesn’t have the political competence/savvy to exploit that gap and runs the risk overplaying the ‘order’ card into violent disorder that is the sort of escalation that loses more support than it garners.

                So to the extent riots happen, happen more, happen worse and Trump barks and barks… sure – could be a net gain for Trump. However, I’m less confident Trump taking direct action would have the effect you think it would. Here’s why:

                The odd thing about the incumbent President Barking rather than a challenger without presidential power barking… is that one begins to wonder why the President barks but does nothing… and so precipitates the poorly conceived actions that cost him the gains doing nothing but barking would have net. A luxury enjoyed only by a challenger.

                The moment he acts, he now ‘owns’ the problem… and there’s a better than even chance the actions don’t stop the ‘nonsense cold’ but cause different reactions that are now tagged to him rather than the Blue Mayors (and their directly managed Police Depts.), Governors and Citizens whence the riots originate.

                So… bluster exposes him for the blustering do-nothing he is… while action gives him ownership of the thing that was hurting his opponents. There’s a really small window through which a tight plan of execution that could make him a hero… but I obviously don’t think he has the wherewithal to pull it off.

                Take whatever lessons you want from ’68 or ’72… it only matters how the players act in ’20 that matters.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Marchmaine says:

                He is pulling it off. ^_^

                Sometimes a leader is blessed by having really stupid enemies. Such is the case with Trump. The Democrat governors and mayors refuse all federal help, even though Trump has repeatedly said that it’s available the moment they ask for it. But they won’t ask.

                And that’s let Republicans continue to make ads like this (courtesy James Woods).Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to George Turner says:

                Whelp, I won’t rule out that you may have a much better read of the country than I do. ^-^

                We’ll see what happens come Nov.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Note to future self, that this is pre-Rittenhouse… as of 9/1 trending on riots is escalating and going more national… Biden is trying to get in front of it… but as of today, not successfully. Trump is benefiting from nationalizing the riots, but so far by virtue of inaction and staying out the Dems path. Still Biden’s to lose.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

                And September will be more of the same.

                And October will be more of the same.

                There was a post from 2016 that had comments in which I posted one news event from the day. That’s all. Throughout October.

                And I remember it as being exhausting.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

                Yeah, this is where I’m starting to get the 2016 vibe a bit… the weird overconfidence… the notion that everyone else is doing politics wrong… and worse than everything else? Nate Silver is where I’m going to to reassure myself that the polls are right – and he’s actively attempting to reassure everyone. That’s just a path to bug-eating.

                Still wouldn’t put it past the tipping point… butReport

              • Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Down below I said that the hard part about predicting the outcome in November is figuring out how many unarmed black men will be shot by cops between now and then. To me, that’s the craziest thing about the politics of this moment. If not for Sheskey shooting Blake, the RNC convention passes without a Trump bump, and we’re not talking about drip drip dripping our way to a Trump victory.Report

              • North in reply to Stillwater says:

                I think it’s too early to be making any assessments. So much went on the last week. I think we need another seven days before we can realistically assess what the impact is.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to North says:

                Oh I agree. More than anything, I was just noting, by observing, that the politics of cops shooting unarmed black people is being viewed as what the election might turn on. We’re in a very weird place as a country….Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Stillwater says:

                That’s true… the political failure is that each death should build momentum for a broadly supported Police Reform Agenda that isn’t ideologically toxic; instead each death is sowing seeds of riots which create a perverse disincentive for reform.

                There’s still time to execute some sort of plan… but I can’t say that I’ve seen a lot that makes me think it will be a good one, or well executed. Maybe Trump will do something worse is always a possibility, but not much of a plan.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Marchmaine says:

                “…the political failure is that each death should build momentum for a broadly supported Police Reform Agenda that isn’t ideologically toxic.”

                Do you think there is ANY Police Reform Agenda that wouldn’t be viewed as ideologically toxic by the police and, therefore, by Republicans?Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Kazzy says:


              • Kazzy in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Can you propose some aspects that you think the police and Republicans would sign on to?Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Kazzy says:

                Plenty of Polling showing broad support for lots of reforms. Here’s a Politco Article from July 2020

                Plus, here’s the realworld survey data that’s kinda interesting because it shows both sides of an argument receiving support (from all political quadrants) – which is true to life – but which finds that packaging up reforms is possible when framed correctly and accounting for counter arguments.

                (google Americans on Police Reform by the University of Maryland school of public policy – to avoid double hyperlink moderation)Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine says:


                0% chance cops support real police reform proposals.

                .5% chance Republicans support real police reform proposals. (This may change after November 3.)Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Stillwater says:

                Don’t think this really relates to anything I’ve said… but sure, I doubt Police unions will support reform proposals, but I’ll take the over on 0%.

                Depending on what you mean by “Republicans” the articles/studies I linked to show that Republicans support real police reforms… majorities even.

                The Party? Trump? McConnell? The minority whip in Congress? Sure… I bet they will play foil to any attempt at reform.

                But then, good retail politics exploits the gap between popular proposals and political intransigence and/alliances.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine says:

                March, it’s a response to your response to Kazzy’s question about cops and/or Republicans supporting reform measures.

                Anyway…. when you I say “Republicans” I mean politicians who enact policy. I don’t dispute that republican voters might support reform measures. I mean, they support a bunch of gun regulations too …Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Marchmaine says:

                That is encouraging.

                I remain skeptical that elected Republican officials or police unions would sign on to any of that, but should have clarified from jump that my skepticism was specific to those two groups, and not necessarily Republican party members or those who are ideologically conservative.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Kazzy says:

                My comment just above to Stillwater is relevant here… the point, if I’m Biden, is to win the election… and win it with popular proposals that I can back (not unpopular proposals I’m held hostage to).

                Then force your opponents to fight popular proposals that their electors support. And then support local opponents who campaign on proposals that the local electors support but which are opposed by the incumbents. etc. etc.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

                The thing about all this horserace touting is that any prediction can be made with equal certainty.
                For example:

                Trending on riots is escalating and going more national… Trump is trying to get in front of it… but as of today, not successfully. Biden is benefiting from nationalizing the riots, but so far by virtue of inaction and staying out the Republicans’ path.

                Equal certainty because these are weightless, without any sort of empirical data or observation to support them.

                The polling has remained amazingly stable over the past few months, with almost all swing states fluctuating within the margin of error.Report

              • North in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Well we’re in a bit of a polling drought right now too. Most of the polling outfits tend to poll once right before the conventions, then pause and then start polling again after both conventions end. So we’re looking at maybe Friday or more likely Monday or Tuesday next week before stuff starts coming in that takes the conventions and WI’s fooferaw into account.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “The polling has remained amazingly stable over the past few months, with almost all swing states fluctuating within the margin of error.”

                I hear you… that’s *exactly* what Nate says.

                Just keep keepin’ on.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Ha ha, I don’t rely on polls, since they were wrong before.

                Instead I rely on vibes, the gut sense of What Is Happening, and I draw parallels to earlier elections.

                Like this reminds me of the 1952 regional governor race in Sierra Leone, where the backers of the PDP were overconfident and the insurgents of the FPN pulled an upset after a shopkeeper was killed in a robbery resulting in riots.

                Its not a perfect fit, but I am getting the same feels.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Me too. Sometimes, though, my feels adjust to events in the present day…

                Somewhat more seriously, I’ve mentioned I’m in B2B Sales… and one of the things I’ve internalized over 20-yrs is that Bids, like Elections, look like horse races, but they’re not. The race can end when you’re in the lead, it can end when your behind… lots of times they never tell you its over, you just keep running to the finish line thinking you have a shot.

                The jockey’s I beat are the ones who think the finish line, the bid opening, is the goal… my job is to end the race with me in front. The bid opening is just a formality… an oppty to tell the losing bid they lost.

                I’ll admit, this influences some of my thinking on other matters.Report

    • Swami in reply to Stillwater says:

      I agree broadly with this prediction. Biden wins easily and Trump responds poorly, creating even more animosity between tribes, but this time without a GOP figurehead to keep the right wing crazies in check. 2021 becomes another “interesting year”.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to Stillwater says:

      I feel like the guy in Price is Right who just had his bid undercut by $1.

      Sure, that’s the safe bet… but where’s the glory in that?Report

  11. Brent F says:

    Trump and his campaign doesn’t have the energy or juice to upset the apple cart anymore. Even his most committed trolls don’t have the joy in it that they had in 2016. Every state Biden is winning by 3 points right now he wins.


    In retrospect, 2020 Presidential election will look kinda dull. Notable difference is that Trump’s collapse with seniors loses him Florida, but Biden didn’t need it to win.

    Trump needs to find 6 points he doesn’t have in the key states to make this a contest and I don’t think he’s got any tricks up his sleeve to do it. Most of the time, results are boring.Report

    • George Turner in reply to Brent F says:

      If Hillary won every state she was up by 6 to 15 in, she’d be President. 🙂

      That August, she was up by 9 in Michigan. By late October and early November, she still was up by 6. She lost there.

      She was also up by more than 6 in Wisconsin right up until the election. She lost there, too.

      Trump was predicted to win Ohio by 2, but he won it by 8.

      The pollsters haven’t explained or addressed why 2016 polling was so wrong, and there’s no reason to believe the problem isn’t even worse now, since many Trump voters won’t admit they’re Trump voters because they don’t want to get shot or having their house burned down.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to George Turner says:

        Trump is out of bullets.

        Unless Team Blue does stupid things and gives him more bullets and targets (which, admittedly, they might).

        That’s the big difference… in ’16 Trump had ammo and targets; now, as the incumbent, he is the target… and, as I said at the beginning, he’s out of ammo.

        Absent game-changing external factors… just the smoke and noise of blanks.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine says:

          Totally agree. The best thing Biden could do right now is absolutely nothing. Make a cute Youtube video a couple times a week. Answer a few calls. Tell Hillary to stop speaking in public….Report

          • North in reply to Stillwater says:

            He’s kind of been doing that through the summer, not nothing exactly but certainly not out campaigning up a storm. Wonder if he and his people are thinking the same thing as you are.Report

        • George Turner in reply to Marchmaine says:

          The trouble with that analysis is that Hillary was leading Trump by wide margins all the way until the results came in on election night. There wasn’t some magic moment when Trump surged ahead. It’s that the polls were apparently badly off the entire cycle. And in those polls compared to today’s polls, Biden isn’t doing as well as Hillary was.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to George Turner says:

            I address this above… I really don’t think there’s a ‘shy Trump’ voter with Trump being an incumbent president.

            Could there be a surge owing to some event or some mistake or some policy breakthrough … sure; it ain’t over ’till, well, some slightly unsatisfactory time in mid-to-late-December when all the ballots are tallied.

            And, of course, I may be totally wrong… but in ’16 there was a lot of hemming/hawing/handwringing about maybe voting for Trump among the folks I know who *did* vote for trump. This time… all that is gone… about 80% will vote for him again, no questions asked… 10% are reluctant, but see no other choice, 10% are resigned to stay home – but their minds are made up.

            Trump’s a known commodity.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

              I’m also looking at the 3rd Party vote.

              Libertarians got a huge number last time. Hell, the Greens did.

              I do not assume that those numbers will show up to vote 3rd party again. It’ll regress to the mean and go back to hovering around 1%.

              Which means those extra %s go *SOMEWHERE*.

              I don’t know whether they stay home, they vote Trump because he’s moved from “unknown quantity” to “known quantity”, they vote Biden because “thank God, he’s not Clinton!”, or what.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

                Well sure… we’re all anticipating big gains for ASP… but are you seeing Libertarian adjacents going to Trump or Biden or Home?

                You’re closer to that faction… but I haven’t been picking up a resignation/reconciliation vibe from the Economically Conservative / Socially Liberal ex-Red team members? Where are they going?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Sadly, I’m one of the third-party nutballs.

                And everyone I know is “look! Look around! This just proves how you need to vote for my preferred candidate!”

                Whichever one of the two real candidates it is.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Jaybird says:

                The Libertarian party recently went full SJW, so I expect that the American flag waving, motorcycle riding wing of them will be firmly back in the Trump camp.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

          “Unless Team Blue does stupid things and gives him more bullets and targets”

          This for me is the issue that many pundits are thunderously silent on.

          That, an rabidly racists authoritarian cult will win the seat of American government, unless the opposition plays a very clever game, and gets lucky, and maybe gets fair weather on election day, and assuming some celebrity doesn’t make a stupid tweet.

          I’m not saying its an incorrect analysis.
          But its breathtaking in its unspoken assumption.

          In other words, that the default setting, the representative essence of America right now is what we see at the RNC: A freak show of braying white supremacy and culturalkampf.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            vs. a freak show of braying intersectionalism and culturkampf.

            I’m hoping that the vestiges of a Biden national unity approach might break both parties… but I harbor no willingness to help you achieve your total victory. That’s the underlying assumption.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

              My point wasn’t to convince you of the liberal position.

              My point was to note that, according to many pundits and commenters, Donald Trump and his followers represent the true majority of the American electorate, while Biden represents a fluke minority.

              I think that is an astonishing statement.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’m not really sure that’s a true characterization… I don’t think anyone doubts that Biden represents a near or actual majority of voters.

                I mean, I’m predicting a very substantial Electoral College win for Biden. My comments are defending how Biden manages to win individual states ‘despite’ trends that could be exploited by a competent/credible Republican Party and further assume that the majority of the Democratic party isn’t (yet, at least) [completely] beholden to its, erm, ‘flukey’ minority.

                Or were you all planning on eschewing the Electoral College again in 2020?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

                I would like to think it isn’t a good characterization.

                But I keep seeing how the race is actually close when, in my mind, it should be a 1964 blowout.

                And if any sort of gaffe, fainting spell or October surprise happens it can tip things the other way.

                Which is to say that we are a few percentage points away from a Trump victory, and in which case, we will be treated to all sorts of essays about how Trump understands the very soul of America that the Democrats haven’t grasped.

                Again, an astonishing and depressing thought.

                Because we look today at the old photos of lynchings, of those people pouring water on the lunch counter protesters, of Bull Connor and we comfort ourselves to think “That’s not the real America!” when in fact, come November we may be forced to say “Yeah. That is the real America.”Report

      • Brent F in reply to George Turner says:

        Well then, your side has nothing to worry about then.Report

        • George Turner in reply to Brent F says:

          Indeed. Especially because Joe Biden committed treason by trying to overthrow the government of the United States by directing the FBI, CIA, and NSA to sabotage the 2016 election.

          He’s actually unelectable and cannot serve in office. This is why the right is so happy he won the nomination. The final outcome is a forgone conclusion, and the only question is how much blood will be shed before it’s established that Joe Biden will never again hold public office, or even walk free in the United States.

          But even though everyone on the right thinks exactly that, we generally keep quite about it because we don’t want to jinx things. “Stay calm, don’t move, and let the idiots walk right into it.”Report

  12. Jesse says:

    Since everybody’s being minimalist, why not go the other way.

    Biden – 54.5%
    Trump – 45%
    Others – 0.5%

    Biden – 403
    Trump – 135

    Note, this is the final results – not the “at 11 PM on Election Day results”, just like 2018 seemed a disappointment on Election Night, and turned out to be an actual wave.”Report

  13. Kolohe says:

    Not my actual prediction, but imo the most likely ‘sum of all fears’ map.

    (My actual prediction I’m still working on because I think Biden gets back more BlueWall states, but not sure yet which ones)Report

    • Kolohe in reply to Kolohe says:

      Basically, I don’t have the courage of the above prediction because I don’t see Wisconsin stays with Trump while NE-2 switches to Biden. Similarly, I don’t see how Wisconsin stays red while ME-1 would switch. (Which would remove NE-2’s need to switch)

      But….Nebraska 2 is filled with both Republicans in more the classic suburban mold, plus a bunch of national security oriented conservatives where their professional lives are spent with their fingers on The Button. So maybe?

      (Also, if Wisconsin literally burns between now and November)Report

      • North in reply to Kolohe says:

        Yeah you and Jaybird made somewhat similar predictions. Yours feels a bit more likely. What a clusterfish that would be. Biden would have to fish something up badly to screw up Az that much considering his polling.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to North says:

          I’m not sure that Biden (necessarily) would. It’s the stuff that gets attached to him.Report

          • North in reply to Jaybird says:

            Oh certainly, lord(lady?) knows the GOP tries but then Biden goes and rejects the extreme element. Like the mostly peaceful protestors, he’s embraced them while unreservedly and unabashedly denouncing the violent and destructive elements. Whether the voters go with what the conservatives say about his positions or what he says about his positions himself, of course, remains to be seen.Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

            What has been attached to Biden so far? As in successfully. Biden is an avuncular old dude and every attempt to tar him has failed. Hunter Biden as a black sheep failed, Tara Reade failed, everything falls to shit except in OT land with our closet Trumpists.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

              In the moment? I’d say the extent to which the Mostly Peaceful Protests can be attached to The Democrats.

              I know that Biden is taking an “If By Whiskey” stance on them (and, seriously, that’s the play that *I* would make in his position) but Trump’s position is 100% “THEY’RE BAD” and “well, some of them aren’t that bad” is going to be, effectively, support.

              “But he’s *NOT* supporting them! He’s If By Whiskeying them!”

              “I agree. But contradictions are getting heightened anyway.”

              Here’s an example of what I’m talking about from Kenosha:


  14. Aaron David says:

    Heh. Did anyone who was here in ’16 and made a prediction go back and look at that time capsule?

    I did, and only one person in this group was even remotely close.

    Guess who that was?Report

  15. Kazzy says:

    Trump got 274 electoral votes last time. How many states that he lost does he have a realistic chance to flip?
    Now compare that to the number of states Biden has a realistic chance to flip his way. What number is higher?Report

    • George Turner in reply to Kazzy says:

      Trump got 304 electoral votes. Hillary got 227.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to George Turner says:

        Well, that definitely changes the calculus! I looked quickly at the map included in the post and assumed it was last year’s results.

        I still think my analysis holds, but it means that Trump has much more wiggle room than I initially thought. Biden needs to flip a few states and hold all of Hillary’s. I think he can and will.

        Trump needs to maintain most of his states OR flip one or two his way. My amateur analysis is that PA seems like the only one he may be able to get his way. And if he did, that’d make Biden’s hill much steeper to climb. But I don’t think he gets that. And I see enough combinations of flippable state’s for Biden that I think the odds are in his favor. No guarantee. But good odds.

        What I see a lot of folks doing is saying, “Well, the polls in 2016 were wrong which means trailing in the polls in 2020 is actually good.” Um… no. That isn’t how it works. Yes, the polls in 2016 were wrong, though if you looked at the right polls, they weren’t as wrong as everyone is making them out to be. Many of the states that Trump unexpectedly won landed within the margin of error of the most accurate polls we had.

        His victory was the equivalent of hitting on 12 against a 16 showing and drawing an 8. It worked. But it won’t work most of the time and shouldn’t be the strategy one seeks to employ.Report

  16. LeeEsq says:

    I’m going to guess that Michigan is going to go blue this year based on many different factors. Wisconsin may also go blue. This will make Biden President easily. North Carolina and Florida are also in play because of Trump’s less than subtle responses. He basically lost the white suburban vote at this point and that is dangerous for the Republicans.Report

  17. Jaybird says:

    A couple of things that could change things. Maybe.


    • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

      I saw some videoa purporting to show gun fire starting to come up on reddit before I went to bed. Three shot, two dead last night.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

        This made me wonder… is Kenosha a college town?

        Yep. It is.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

          Can you elaborate?

          The image of the shooter walking by the cops, gun hanging from his neck, and them not responding is… well… something.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

            You know how I spent a year or so there talking about “Divorce or War” and I got some light pressure to stop talking about that sort of thing?

            Well, I stopped mentioning it all the time not because I stopped thinking it but because of the light pressure.

            This is what the beginnings of War looks like.

            Here’s a question for you to hold up from time to time as you’re watching something that you’re having trouble putting into the proper context:

            “What did you think would happen?”Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

              I’m struggling to see what that has to do with Kenosha being a college town.

              I’m not entirely shocked that violence emerged in response to the protests, vandalism, rioting, etc (I haven’t been following the story closely so don’t know how much of which is happening). So, to the question of, “What did I think would happen?” at some point my answer would have been, “Those being harmed by the vandalism and rioting will strike back.”

              What remains to be seen is whether this person was someone being harmed by the vandalism and whether his actions constitute striking back.
              Or… if this was some opportunistic thug who saw his chance to strike AT folks whom he disagreed with.
              Or… if this was some deranged individual who wants to watch the world burn.
              Or… something else.

              And, yes, all of those may have come up as possible answers to, “What did you think would happen?” but that doesn’t necessarily make them appropriate responses.

              I mean, doesn’t that same question go the other way? What did you think would happen if police kept shooting unarmed Black men?Report

    • Aaron David in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Didn’t the Dems have Linda Sarsour speak?

      Why do the Nazis support Joe?


      • greginak in reply to Aaron David says:

        Trolling…great…that always makes for better discussion.Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to greginak says:

          It is all they have.Report

        • Aaron David in reply to greginak says:

          So, Saul is trying to troll the right, and when he gets shown similar, if not worse issues on the left, all you can say is “trolling…”

          Interesting. What’s next, “I’m rubber you’re glue?”Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Aaron David says:

            You… don’t see the difference there?

            In one situation, the GOP itself were ready to officially elevate a guy who turned out to promote Neo-Nazi crap.

            In the other, a guy used an online meme generator to make it look like Biden endorsed his support.

            Those… aren’t the same things. Not even close. Come’on man, you’re better than that.Report

            • Aaron David in reply to Kazzy says:

              Saul posted a link to an article (behind a paywall) that the headline states that someone who once said something offensive was removed from the RNC lineup.

              Removed. As in no longer there. What is the tweet in question? Don’t know, as it is behind a paywall.

              Does the article say something different? Don’t know, as it is behind a paywall.

              I do know that Linda Sarsour, a known anti-semite actually did speak at the DNC, and only after she spoke did the Biden campaign try to distance themselves from her.* So, either anti-semitism is at play on both sides, or the RNC got rid of it beforehand while the DNC kept it on the ticket, only attempting removal post hoc.

              I don’t know whether or not Spencer is actually voting for Biden and the Dems or not, but, that seems to be his Twitter account. I haven’t seen anything contradicting that if he isn’t. I would certainly like to look at something that officially denied that, but until I do see that, it stands.

              I do know that as much as Saul derides trolling, he clumsily attempts it. Is what I did trolling also, or simply showing that no matter how holy he feels, there is always a stain on both sides.


  18. Jaybird says:

    Don Lemon makes a point on CNN:


    • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

      It would still be wrong and probably ultimately counter-productive but I’d sort of sympathize if the destruction was directed at the police. Attacking a bunch of businesses on the other hand just makes the reactionaries’ case for them. Obviously conclusions should be withheld until the facts come out (not that they will be) but it’s hard to fault people for reacting violently in defense of their livelihoods, if that is in fact what’s happening.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

        it’s hard to fault people for reacting violently in defense of their livelihoods, if that is in fact what’s happening

        You will see people try. The thing to look out for is something like “insurance will pay for things… but you can’t replace a human being”.

        Dark comedy can be found in people saying something like that and then, the next night, saying “WHERE IN THE HELL ARE THE POLICE?” when the mostly peaceful protests find their way closer to home. Pic Related:


      • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

        If people believe that the only solution to periodic riots is to engage in mass police repression, then this is what they wanted all along.

        The protesters last night were saying exactly the same things they said in 1965 in Watts, and 1992 in Los Angeles.

        And each time we get these stern lectures that tell us sadly, the only possible solution to riots is massive displays of violent repression, but honest Injun pinky swear, we will reform the cops as soon as the rioting stops.
        And then when the rioting stops, somehow it all..just…somehow…goes away.

        Until the fire next time.Report

        • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          So they deserve it then? That’s what we’re going with?Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

            No one “deserves” anything.
            The citizens of a republican democracy freely and willfully created this government, and this culture that we all live in. It wasn’t space aliens who created it, we weren’t compelled against our will to build this.

            We, collectively created the circumstances that produce cops shooting people in the back, and people lashing out in anger.

            No one individual “deserves” any of this. No one individual can fix it.

            But collectively we can fix it, and we can redress the grievances and we can create a different government and culture.

            Or, we can just do exactly the same thing we have been doing for longer than I’ve been alive, and hope that this time it will somehow turn out differently.Report

        • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          That’s a pretty meta argument to make for voting for a Dem ticket of Biden/Harris.

          What’s the plan this time… other than somehow going away?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      Further evidence of bad polling:


      • George Turner in reply to Jaybird says:

        Washington Examiner: Trump pops to 52%: ‘Best job approval rating on record,’ up with blacks, even Democrats

        Buoyed by blacks and independent voters, as well as urban dwellers shocked by the Black Lives Matter protest violence raging in some cities, President Trump’s approval rating has hit a new high, according to a survey heavy with minority voters.

        The latest Zogby Analytics poll just shared with Secrets had Trump’s approval at 52%. “The president has recorded his best job approval rating on record,” said pollster Jonathan Zogby.

        What’s more, his approval rating among minorities was solid and, in the case of African Americans, shockingly high. Zogby said 36% of blacks approve of the president, as do 37% of Hispanics and 35% of Asians.

        There’s lots of interesting data and analysis at the link. The protests are flipping urban voters.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      Additional evidence of bad polling:


      • George Turner in reply to Jaybird says:

        Hopefully a diner will, with gusto, follow along with the Fascist salute but add a Germanic twist by shouting “Seig heil! Seig heil! Seig heil!” and getting it on video. Heck, since the activists are too dumb to know they’re using the Fascist salute, they’ll probably be too dumb to know where seig heil comes from and just join right in. The Internet is made for capturing such moments. 🙂Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      The New York Times notices similar:


    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      Last update in this vein for a while, I think:


  19. Just cause I want to be on the record in case this comes to pass:

    My theory is that because so much was made about “Trump losing the popular vote” when a whole lot of people in blue states didn’t bother to turn out for him, we’re going to see a massive turnout of red voters IN blue states. Trump won’t win the states, but will pick up a lot of votes in these states, and may even set up a scenario where Trump wins the popular vote and Biden wins the electoral college.

    That’s my prediction.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

        Hot takes and knee jerk contrianism are a hell of a drug.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          I find that I mostly enjoy encountering thoughts that have never occurred to me.

          Even when I don’t agree with them, for a second, I know what it’s like to look at things from a different point of view.

          It’s like encountering and participating in another culture, even if only for a few seconds.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Kristin Devine says:

      This is something that I highly doubt. A lack of enthusaism in Biden is something that gets a lot of play online but bares very little in real life. The overwhelming majority of Democrats like Joe Biden a lot. That is why he won the nomination. The overwhelming majority of Democrats also like Kamala Harris a lot. That is why she is well approved as the VP pick.

      What seems to happen on the internet is that Bernie or Busters are the loudest voices and people take that stance that Democrats are lukewarm on Biden. Twitter is not real life and doubly so for Rose Twitter.

      HRC’s negatives were much higher than Biden’s and she managed to win the popular vote by a significant margin against Trump. Claiming Biden won’t do so is a hot hot take for those sweet pundit dreams and dollars.Report

    • Constantine P Soutsos in reply to Kristin Devine says:


    • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      See? No problem.

      He got arrested after doing something like that.

      Now we just have to get the authorities to arrest cops when they do the same.Report

      • George Turner in reply to Jaybird says:

        So they charged him with fleeing to avoid prosecution?

        One of the problems we’ll soon encounter is that it’s generally legal to shoot looters. It’s generally legal to use force to defend property, and if the people using force to harm property are also threatening the property’s defenders, it’s generally really legal for the property defender to shoot them. The law heavily favors defense of innocent people and their property, and is heavily weighed against those engaging in criminal acts – like rioting and looting.

        As a result, as these incidents become more common, prosecutors are going to have a difficult time making any serious charges stick against team Defense. Based on the protesters chants about “property vs people”, this is going to come as a really big shock to them, and they’ll likely escalate further in the use of lethal force. The body count might get extremely high, and we will perhaps reach a state that can be described as a civil war or mass insurrection.

        Trump may have to invoke the insurrection act. If he does, we might not let the problem states have their votes counted in the electoral college, just like the 1864 election.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to George Turner says:

          It’s generally legal to use force to defend property

          It’s legal to use force to defend *your own* property. The loophole, seems to me, would be SYG laws in states that allow open carry and so on. Either way, though, we’re rapidly approaching a point where laws don’t matter.Report

          • George Turner in reply to Stillwater says:

            It’s generally legal to use force to defend someone else’s property, too. Many aren’t aware of that. Neighbors get to defend each other’s stuff, and each other. You can generally shoot the mugger even if you’re not the one getting mugged. But you usually can’t pursue them. That of course varies somewhat state to state.

            However, my point is that as these incidents continue, and the mobs demand “justice” for one of the defenders’ actions, the prosecutor might wildly overcharge the case to appease the mob now, and lose the case when it comes to court, such as after the Rodney King verdicts. Or he can go for much lesser charges that might stick, but will inflame the mobs almost immediately.

            It will create subsequent cycles of extreme unrest, violence, looting, arson, and murder. There’s likely no “anti-cop” “pro-BLM” appeasement route out of this cycle.Report

            • Stillwater in reply to George Turner says:

              Many aren’t aware of that.


              • George Turner in reply to Stillwater says:

                My housemate defended a college kid who was arrested during a violent fight outside a downtown bar. Some drunk guys were assaulting some nearly-helpless target and so the college kid, more than a bit tipsy himself, dove in to defend the person under assault. Then the police showed up and arrested everyone involved, charging them with the usual stuff.

                So the college kid was all depressed , thinking that he’d just kissed his career in medicine goodbye, would get kicked out of college, probably end up washing dishes at Hooters, etc.

                So he talked to my housemate, the public defender, who told him “I got the prosecutor to drop the charges.” “What? How?” “Because what you did was not illegal.” “What do you mean ‘not illegal’?” “It’s legal to use force to defend someone. You didn’t do anything wrong.” It took a while for that to sink in, and then the kid beamed with the biggest smile.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to George Turner says:

          If he does, we might not let the problem states have their votes counted in the electoral college, just like the 1864 election.

          Congress cannot refuse to let states be counted simply because they do not like them, or even _if they are in active rebellion_.

          There were exactly ‘two states’ that were not counted in 1864, Tennessee and Louisiana, and that was because their ‘state electors’ were elected via the military holding a vote in only in the Union-military-occupied districts of those states, and Congress rightly said ‘That’s not a valid vote.’.

          The other Confederate states did not send electors, and thus their electors did not exist to be counted or not.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to George Turner says:

          If he does, we might not let the problem states have their votes counted in the electoral college, just like the 1864 election.

          Congress cannot refuse to let states be counted simply because they do not like them, or even if they are in active rebellion.

          There were exactly ‘two states’ that were not counted in 1864, Tennessee and Louisiana, and that was because their ‘state electors’ were elected via the military holding a vote in only in the Union-military-occupied districts of those states, and Congress rightly said ‘That’s not a valid vote.’.

          The other Confederate states did not send electors, and thus their electors did not exist to be counted or not.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

        Except that he was arrested by cops in Illinois, the police in Kenosha let him walk away.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          the police in Kenosha let him walk away.

          Is there evidence of this happening?Report

          • George Turner in reply to Stillwater says:

            I think they gave him some water when he apparently tried to turn himself in.

            This was brought up at the Kenosha police press conference. Cops don’t automatically know who is wanted and who isn’t. They probably didn’t even know there’d been a shooting, because the radios were buzzing with all sorts of activity.

            But I’m glad the left is finally getting on board with the need for more cops and more pro-active law enforcement policies. 🙂Report

  20. Saul Degraw says:

    “But Abby Johnson and Cissy Graham Lynch made their positions perfectly clear: Their way of life is to police other people’s lives and call it freedom. Their way of life is to claim they are being oppressed if they are not allowed to oppress others. That is the way of life they’re trying to protect.”

  21. Kolohe says:

    Ok, here is where I’m at now –

    My ‘boldest’ predictions are that both AZ & NC break for Biden, while WI stays with Trump (being the lone remaining ‘brick’ in the reconstructed northern mid west so called blue wall

    Popular vote – 66.8 to 67.2 million For Biden, 63.0 to 63.5 million for Trump.

    50.1% Biden 47.3% Trump

    Libertarians will get fewer than 2 million votes. Everyone else will get fewer than 1 million apiece (& fewer than 1.5 million collectively)Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Kolohe says:

      The hardest part about predicting the November results is predicting how many unarmed black men will be shot by cops between now and then, and where.

      I like the specificity on vote totals. My only guess on that is that Biden out-performs Hillary’s numbers.Report

      • Kolohe in reply to Stillwater says:

        The 2016 final tally was 62.98 million Trump, 65.85 million Clinton. My overall feel is Trump does gain votes on net, as third party & esp McMuffin voters come home, but is substantially mitigated by the Trump to Biden switch voters, and those that literally stay home (& don’t vote by mail or other).

        Biden also gets some of the third party vote last time that is picking a side (including McMuffin himself). 1 million more votes might be a reach, but I am banking on the 2008 & 2012 Obama voter that either sat out or was shut out in 2016. And a Dem party election strategy that is not really worried too much about the opportunity cost of running up the score in safe Dem states. (This last might be wishcasting though)Report

    • Kolohe in reply to Kolohe says:

      Senate – – 50/50 next year
      (Collins finally loses, Dems also flip NC. But Earnst holds on, as does the GOP MT senator. Flipping both AZ and CO, though makes up for the loss of the AL seat)Report

    • North in reply to Kolohe says:

      Highly plausible to me, well done. If I had to bet on a midwest state for Trump to retain I’d totally choose WI.Report

  22. Jaybird says:

    Interesting information on Biden’s August fundraising:


  23. North says:

    Mmm… as HRC showed money, above a certain base line minimum, doesn’t marginally help a lot in national elections for well known figures. Biden himself won the nomination with, basically, a shoebox full of change and a brown bag lunch. On the other hand is suggests enthusiasm and support for the Harris pick and the Biden candidacy so that’s relevant.
    Also, Trump seems to have burned through his huge cash advantage with very little to show for it (no doubt his crack team has siphoned off no small amount of it for their own uses). I’ve started seeing articles showing up about Republicans kvetching about the Trump campaign stopping advertising in their areas.
    But, still, my first point is the most significant. Money is good but it isn’t predictive.Report