US Presidential Election 2020 - The Democratic Candidate for President


owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
Latest nomination odds in the Betting Markets

Kemala Harris 4/1
Bernie Sanders 5/1
Joe Biden 6/1
Beto O Rourke 6/1
Sherrod Brown 19/1
Amy Klobuchar 19/1
Elizabeth Warren 19/1
Cory Booker 24/1
Tulsi Gabbard 32/1
Kirsten Gillibrand 49/1
Julian Castro 99/1

Trump is still 2/1 to be returned as President in 2020.
Kemala Harris 4/1
Bernie Sanders 4/1
Joe Biden 5/1
Beto O Rourke 7/1
Cory Booker 24/1
Amy Klobuchar 24/1
Elizabeth Warren 24/1
Tulsi Gabbard 24/1
Kirsten Gillibrand 49/1
Julian Castro 99/1

Trump is still 2/1 to be returned as President in 2020

CNN have a roughly similar order (Kamala Harris is 1st, Biden 2nd etc)



https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/07/politics/2020-democrats-rankings/index.html

Election Betting Odds

We still await Biden's and Beto's announcements.
 

Betson

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
16,701
Elizabeth Warrens stock seems to have completely collapsed, after the 2016 defeat many had her as the most likely DNC flag bearer in 2020.

The fake Indian stuff did not help her , also she not a very charismatic character..
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,185
Elizabeth Warrens stock seems to have completely collapsed, after the 2016 defeat many had her as the most likely DNC flag bearer in 2020.

The fake Indian stuff did not help her , also she not a very charismatic character..
Hopefully she'll stay in the race for the LOLs.
 

Masonteer

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
24
24/1 seems long for Tulsi. I think she has a great chance of getting the Democratic nomination with her progressive, anti-war, anti-corruption platform.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
24/1 seems long for Tulsi. I think she has a great chance of getting the Democratic nomination with her progressive, anti-war, anti-corruption platform.
Gabbard is not beyond reproach. Her record on some issues that are seen by Democrat activists as important is not great.

Tweeting support for Russian bombing in Syria is not really "anti-war". She has a case to answer there. Many see her as too close to the military-industrial crowd.

Tulsi Gabbard's Record on Syria Is Not Really Anti-War - Lawyers, Guns & Money

Tulsimentum! - Lawyers, Guns & Money
 

midlander12

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5,589
Biden will not get Obama's endorsement, not until, or if, he is nominated.

There is a lot being presumed about Biden as a charismatic figure, actually he is not that good a campaigner at all.

If he runs, I think he will be deflated by the opposition and not make the cut.
Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember the 'plagiarised Neil Kinnock speech' debacle in 1988 - or was it 1992? He could turn out to be a bloody disaster and a considerable distraction from what will be the most important political campaign of modern times. However I see the NYT today is saying he is 95% certain to run so at this stage I'm resigned to it. I'm more interested in (and disappointed by) the Sherrod Brown news - probably the only Dem that would have taken Ohio.
 

O'Sullivan Bere

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
14,493
Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember the 'plagiarised Neil Kinnock speech' debacle in 1988 - or was it 1992? He could turn out to be a bloody disaster and a considerable distraction from what will be the most important political campaign of modern times. However I see the NYT today is saying he is 95% certain to run so at this stage I'm resigned to it. I'm more interested in (and disappointed by) the Sherrod Brown news - probably the only Dem that would have taken Ohio.
By Brown not running it suggests he believes or knows Biden will run. IMO, Biden is also a type that could win OH given his PA 'coal cracker' roots with the white working class industrialist and union types, but Brown clearly was the surest chance of it.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember the 'plagiarised Neil Kinnock speech' debacle in 1988 - or was it 1992? He could turn out to be a bloody disaster and a considerable distraction from what will be the most important political campaign of modern times. However I see the NYT today is saying he is 95% certain to run so at this stage I'm resigned to it. I'm more interested in (and disappointed by) the Sherrod Brown news - probably the only Dem that would have taken Ohio.
Ohio is important, as every state is important, but Democrats should not put other important constituencies at risk by busting a gut chasing white working class votes they may not get anyway. In the mid-terms white, educated, suburbans, men and women, Independents or Republicans, voted Democrat and the better option is to focus on those.

Of 21 Districts that had flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump and the GOP in 2016, only 7 elected Republican Congressmen in 2018, e.g. ME-2 that was able to give Trump an EV in 2016 because of Maine's electoral law flipped to the Democrats. Others were in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Iowa - swing states for 2020.
 

midlander12

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5,589
O
Ohio is important, as every state is important, but Democrats should not put other important constituencies at risk by busting a gut chasing white working class votes they may not get anyway. In the mid-terms white, educated, suburbans, men and women, Independents or Republicans, voted Democrat and the better option is to focus on those.

Of 21 Districts that had flipped from Obama in 2012 to Trump and the GOP in 2016, only 7 elected Republican Congressmen in 2018, e.g. ME-2 that was able to give Trump an EV in 2016 because of Maine's electoral law flipped to the Democrats. Others were in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Iowa - swing states for 2020.
Oh I know - actually in terms of likelihood to flip I would rate Ohio behind all of the above as well as Michigan and possibly even Florida. Nonetheless Brown would have made them likely victors there and therefore a starting advantage they won't have without him. He should definitely be considered for the VP slot.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,162
Interesting poll out of Minnesota.

http://www.dfmresearch.com/uploads/Minnesota_Rail_Survey__2019_March.pdf

Klobuchar beats Trump by 17% even with Schultz taking 7%, so therefore really beats him by about 20%

Any Dem nominee beats Trump by 10% (again with Schultz included, so probably a 12-13% in a head to head )

Trump losing a state by between 12 and 20% that he lost by 1% in 2016 is close to disastrous

I feel one person who will really like the look of this poll is Sherrod Brown

If Klobuchar can outperform the Dem candidate by nearly 10% in her home state, that sort of dividend will almost certainly deliver Ohio for Brown
That would be pure gold for Dems

Kloubacher is just off a thumping re-election to her third term last November. She won by a whopping 24 points while the States other Senator Tina Smith won by about 10 points in a special election to fill out the remainder of former Senator Al Frankens term. Her margin of victory while whopping by any standard is still lower than her 35 point win in 2012. It's a sign of her personal vote and her name recognition.
Minnesota has given us two Vice Presidents, Hubert Humphrey under LBJ and Walter Mondale under Jimmy Carter. Humphrey went on to become the Democratic nominee in 1968 losing to Nixon but winning 13 states including his native Minnesota. Mondale also went onto become the Democratic nominee in 1984 losing to Reagan, in a landslide that swept Reagan back in with a 49 state win. The one state that Reagan lost was...... yes...... Minnesota. That said, Nixon in his own 49 state blowout reelection in 1972 did win Minnesota and is the last Republican to do so.

Minnesota has gone longer than any other state in the Union without voting for a GOP Presidential nominee and with a native daughter in the race it shouldn't be a surprise that she would win the state if she becomes the Democratic nominee.
 

Jack Walsh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
9,109
Kloubacher is just off a thumping re-election to her third term last November. She won by a whopping 24 points while the States other Senator Tina Smith won by about 10 points in a special election to fill out the remainder of former Senator Al Frankens term. Her margin of victory while whopping by any standard is still lower than her 35 point win in 2012. It's a sign of her personal vote and her name recognition.
Minnesota has given us two Vice Presidents, Hubert Humphrey under LBJ and Walter Mondale under Jimmy Carter. Humphrey went on to become the Democratic nominee in 1968 losing to Nixon but winning 13 states including his native Minnesota. Mondale also went onto become the Democratic nominee in 1984 losing to Reagan, in a landslide that swept Reagan back in with a 49 state win. The one state that Reagan lost was...... yes...... Minnesota. That said, Nixon in his own 49 state blowout reelection in 1972 did win Minnesota and is the last Republican to do so.

Minnesota has gone longer than any other state in the Union without voting for a GOP Presidential nominee and with a native daughter in the race it shouldn't be a surprise that she would win the state if she becomes the Democratic nominee.
Yeh NYCKY, hence why I added that the same poll has "Any Dem" winning in Minnesota by between 12-14%
In Michigan today "Any Dem" beats Trump by between 18-20%

You cannot say both of these (especially Michigan) are anything but shocking numbers for Trump, and many are fooling themselves that he has 42-43% via his approval rating and only needs another 3-4% on top of that to win.
But he is miles off this on these two State polls and others as well

Trump is miles off where he needs to be to win right now.
And it is too simple to say "ah he is guaranteed 42-43% on a bad day"
He is below these levels as we speak and what gets better for him from here?
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,162
O


Oh I know - actually in terms of likelihood to flip I would rate Ohio behind all of the above as well as Michigan and possibly even Florida. Nonetheless Brown would have made them likely victors there and therefore a starting advantage they won't have without him. He should definitely be considered for the VP slot.

I am not even sure that Brown could hold Ohio, though I will concede he likely would and without him it would be much more difficult. He just won reelection by about 7 points, a comfortable enough victory but underwhelming when you consider it was a great year for the Democrats and he had an underfunded opponent. The GOP preferred candidate, Josh Mandel didn't run for reasons related to his wifes health.

Brown is the only statewide Democratic officeholder left. I fear that Ohio may be losing its bellweather status, just as Missouri did too.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,162
Yeh NYCKY, hence why I added that the same poll has "Any Dem" winning in Minnesota by between 12-14%
In Michigan today "Any Dem" beats Trump by between 18-20%

You cannot say both of these (especially Michigan) are anything but shocking numbers for Trump, and many are fooling themselves that he has 42-43% via his approval rating and only needs another 3-4% on top of that to win.
But he is miles off this on these two State polls and others as well

Trump is miles off where he needs to be to win right now.
And it is too simple to say "ah he is guaranteed 42-43% on a bad day"
He is below these levels as we speak and what gets better for him from here?
These aren't good for numbers for Trump, there is no glossing over that but polls aren't reliable indicators at all yet. The election is not being held today and there are still candidates jumping in the race. By this time next year we will have a much, much smaller field of candidates and if Trump is polling like this, then yes it's a different story.
 
Last edited:

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
31,762
These aren't good for numbers for Trump, there is glossing over that but polls aren't reliable indicators at all yet. The election is not being held today and there are still candidates jumping in the race. By this time next year we will have a much, much smaller field of candidates and if Trump is polling like this, then yes it's a different story.
I would think that until candidates are selected, its pretty pointless trying to predict which states will vote for whoever. We assume Trump will run again but surely a lot will depend on the results of the current investigation(s)? If Trump is damaged and the Democrats choose a nutter, there is an opportunity for an independent candidate.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
These aren't good for numbers for Trump, there is no glossing over that but polls aren't reliable indicators at all yet. The election is not being held today and there are still candidates jumping in the race. By this time next year we will have a much, much smaller field of candidates and if Trump is polling like this, then yes it's a different story.
In 1995 and 2011, Clinton's and Obama's polling numbers were already lifting off at this point, preparatory to getting re-elected. They were winning back voters who had deserted the party in the mid-terms.

Reagan left it slightly later, but by mid 1983, his polling numbers were also on the up, preparatory to a thumping re-election victory. Again, he was winning back voters who had become disillusioned with him.

Trump's numbers have been so flat since he took office there is nobody to win back - he never had them in the first place. Now, he might leave it even later than Reagan, but there is no sign of any imaginative Trump outreach to lost voters. The alarm bells will be ringing in 6 months if there is no uplift in his polling. IMHO, they are ringing already (but maybe not all that loudly yet).
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
In 1995 and 2011, Clinton's and Obama's polling numbers were already lifting off at this point, preparatory to getting re-elected. They were winning back voters who had deserted the party in the mid-terms.

Reagan left it slightly later, but by mid 1983, his polling numbers were also on the up, preparatory to a thumping re-election victory. Again, he was winning back voters who had become disillusioned with him.

Trump's numbers have been so flat since he took office there is nobody to win back - he never had them in the first place. Now, he might leave it even later than Reagan, but there is no sign of any imaginative Trump outreach to lost voters. The alarm bells will be ringing in 6 months if there is no uplift in his polling. IMHO, they are ringing already (but maybe not all that loudly yet).
As if on cue ....

A new EPIC-MRA poll in Michigan finds 49% of voters say they will definitely vote to replace President Trump and another 16% say they will consider voting for someone else.

Only 31% said they will definitely vote to re-elect Trump.
Trumpians will still say there is still time, and maybe there is, but it is a limited commodity.

Trump Sags In Michigan
 

midlander12

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5,589
I am not even sure that Brown could hold Ohio, though I will concede he likely would and without him it would be much more difficult. He just won reelection by about 7 points, a comfortable enough victory but underwhelming when you consider it was a great year for the Democrats and he had an underfunded opponent. The GOP preferred candidate, Josh Mandel didn't run for reasons related to his wifes health.

Brown is the only statewide Democratic officeholder left. I fear that Ohio may be losing its bellweather status, just as Missouri did too.
Yes I think Trump will hold Ohio, and probably also Iowa and quite possibly Florida. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are looking more problematic. His only real chances of making up for their loss would be Minnesota, New Hampshire, maybe Maine - I wouldn't be betting the bank on any of them.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
Yes I think Trump will hold Ohio, and probably also Iowa and quite possibly Florida. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are looking more problematic. His only real chances of making up for their loss would be Minnesota, New Hampshire, maybe Maine - I wouldn't be betting the bank on any of them.
If a Democratic candidate wins all Clinton's States, plus Pennsylvania, Wisconsin & Michigan, then it is Game Over for Trump 278 - 260, assuming he keeps the EV from ME-2..

Just noticed that Hawaii has an extra EV this time, and Washington State has 4 EVs added, so that the same states would bolster the Democratic column to 232. Texas has also got two more EVs, so Trump's putative total would be 306. The election could be so close that such a small change may matter.

For example, if Trump keeps the ME-2 EV electoral vote in 2020, and won Pennsylvania and Florida, it would being his total to 268. If the Democrat won Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona (now a swing state), on top of Clinton's wins, that would bring his or her total to 269.

That means NE-2, the Nebraska district that has an EV, and voted Obama in 2008, could decide the election. If it stuck with Trump, it would throw the election into Congress (but advantage Republicans), if it went for the Democrat, it would give them the Presidency. Cue a lot of comment about the "undemocratic electoral system, badly in need of reform" from Republicans. ;)

NE-2 is a "swing district" according to commentators - in other words, winning its EV is achievable for Democrats.

It is indicative of how razor thin matters are, that a couple of congressional districts, in Maine and Nebraska, could decide the election.
 

midlander12

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
5,589
If a Democratic candidate wins all Clinton's States, plus Pennsylvania, Wisconsin & Michigan, then it is Game Over for Trump 278 - 260, assuming he keeps the EV from ME-2..

Just noticed that Hawaii has an extra EV this time, and Washington State has 4 EVs added, so that the same states would bolster the Democratic column to 232. Texas has also got two more EVs, so Trump's putative total would be 306. The election could be so close that such a small change may matter.

For example, if Trump keeps the ME-2 EV electoral vote in 2020, and won Pennsylvania and Florida, it would being his total to 268. If the Democrat won Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona (now a swing state), on top of Clinton's wins, that would bring his or her total to 269.

That means NE-2, the Nebraska district that has an EV, and voted Obama in 2008, could decide the election. If it stuck with Trump, it would throw the election into Congress (but advantage Republicans), if it went for the Democrat, it would give them the Presidency. Cue a lot of comment about the "undemocratic electoral system, badly in need of reform" from Republicans. ;)

NE-2 is a "swing district" according to commentators - in other words, winning its EV is achievable for Democrats.

It is indicative of how razor thin matters are, that a couple of congressional districts, in Maine and Nebraska, could decide the election.
I have a hunch (just a hunch) that it won't be that close. However the above scenario would indeed be remarkable. I didn't realise the EC was being rejigged for 2020 - I thought that only happened after a census?
 

President Bartlet

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 17, 2006
Messages
8,584
I do believe that the orange turd is beatable - the Dems did to play smart and be prepared for a dirty fight and to call out out the moron for the lying toerag he is
 
Top