US Presidential Election 2020 - The Democratic Candidate for President


NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,162
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?
It's not being rejigged for 2020. The census is next year and the results wont' be finalized in time for the Presidential election year. The new EC will be in place for the 2022 midterms and the 2024 POTUS election.

Projections indicate that the rust belt will lose seats and the south and west will pick up seats (and EC votes). It will be something of a mixed bag for both parties. Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia are all likely to lose a seat. New York is likely to lose two and Texas likely to pick up two or possibly three. Florida also likely to pick up two seats. Oregon, Colorado and Montana are likely to pick up one. Alabama likely to lose one seat, which would be offset by a pick up on Utah.

In what would be a stunning reversal of fortune, California is likely to lose a seat, for the first time since they entered the Union way back in 1850. The 2010 census was the first time the state didn't actually pick up seats but even losing one seat would still see the state as a massive gimme for a Democratic candidate.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
It's not being rejigged for 2020. The census is next year and the results wont' be finalized in time for the Presidential election year. The new EC will be in place for the 2022 midterms and the 2024 POTUS election.

Projections indicate that the rust belt will lose seats and the south and west will pick up seats (and EC votes). It will be something of a mixed bag for both parties. Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia are all likely to lose a seat. New York is likely to lose two and Texas likely to pick up two or possibly three. Florida also likely to pick up two seats. Oregon, Colorado and Montana are likely to pick up one. Alabama likely to lose one seat, which would be offset by a pick up on Utah.

In what would be a stunning reversal of fortune, California is likely to lose a seat, for the first time since they entered the Union way back in 1850. The 2010 census was the first time the state didn't actually pick up seats but even losing one seat would still see the state as a massive gimme for a Democratic candidate.
I used the EV at 270ToWin Electoral College Map which is using 538 Electoral Votes in 2020, the number also given at the site below. There were 531 in 2106.

U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?

2020 Presidential Election Interactive Map
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
I used the EV at 270ToWin Electoral College Map which is using 538 Electoral Votes in 2020. There were 531 in 2106.

Still subject to change, I suppose.

2020 Presidential Election Interactive Map
...
In what would be a stunning reversal of fortune, California is likely to lose a seat, for the first time since they entered the Union way back in 1850. The 2010 census was the first time the state didn't actually pick up seats but even losing one seat would still see the state as a massive gimme for a Democratic candidate.[/QUOTE]

You make that sound as if that is not the fault of the GOP .... California was red in every election from 1952 up to 1992, including voting for Nixon in 1960, and Ford in 1976, Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush I, - the sole exception being the LBJ Landlslide of 1964.

After California went for Clinton, the State GOP decided to take out its vengeance by blaming immigrants, but the effort backfired hideously. The only Republican who has been able to get elected Governor since, Arnold Schwartzenegger, ran unashamedly as a Liberal in the state of Ronald Reagan.

California is a minority white state (47%). It is one of the world's top ten economies, it is massive in both the industrial and agriculture sectors. It also has the usual problems of opiates, gangs, the environment and endemic poverty. But, as is often said, it's present may mirror America's future.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,162
...
In what would be a stunning reversal of fortune, California is likely to lose a seat, for the first time since they entered the Union way back in 1850. The 2010 census was the first time the state didn't actually pick up seats but even losing one seat would still see the state as a massive gimme for a Democratic candidate.
You make that sound as if that is not the fault of the GOP .... California was red in every election from 1952 up to 1992, including voting for Nixon in 1960, and Ford in 1976, Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush I, - the sole exception being the LBJ Landlslide of 1964.

After California went for Clinton, the State GOP decided to take out its vengeance by blaming immigrants, but the effort backfired hideously. The only Republican who has been able to get elected Governor since, Arnold Schwartzenegger, ran unashamedly as a Liberal in the state of Ronald Reagan.

California is a minority white state (47%). It is one of the world's top ten economies, it is massive in both the industrial and agriculture sectors. It also has the usual problems of opiates, gangs, the environment and endemic poverty. But, as is often said, it's present may mirror America's future
.[/QUOTE]


That's not what I was suggesting at all. Just merely noting that California increased it's electoral vote in every census since it entered the Union in 1850. In 2010 it didn't pick up any but stayed the same and next year it is likely to lose one. The census hasn't even been held yet and it's not certain that California will lose a seat at all, but early indications are that it is possible. The state is still growing in population but not as quickly as other parts of the country and as I noted, it's still a massive gimme for a Democratic candidate. The state is almost 20% of what you need to win the electoral college.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,162

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
Yes there was some faithless electors in that race that ultimately cast their votes for candidates that the weren't supposed to.
Ok, should have remembered that.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,162
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.

It used to be that whoever won two of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio won the election. The last time a winner lost two of those states was Kennedy in 1960 and Florida had a much smaller vote EC vote then. I think next year the election will likely be won and lost in the three states you mention as problematic for Trump, Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10)

I agree that Trump will likely hold Florida, Ohio and Iowa too. Leaving aside faithless electors, Trump won 306 EC votes last time and can afford to lose 36 and still win assuming he holds his 2016 states including the single EC vote in Maine. He could lose two of those states and still win but he can't afford to lose all three without a pick up somewhere else. It's unlikely he would lose all three and pick up neighboring Minnesota. Picking up Nevada or Colorado or New Hampshire on their own wouldn't offset the loss of all three rust belt states but a much longer shot Virginia would. I would expect that whoever the Democratic nominee is will take a long trawl through those three states for a running mate, but there isn't anyone glaringly obvious that springs to mind. All that said, it's a long way to the election and "events dear boy" have a way upsetting things.

You can bet your bottom dollar that a Democratic nominee will pay plenty of visits to Wisconsin and won't wait til four days before the election to visit Michigan.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,162
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.

Yes who knows what the results of the investigations will uncover. It's still possible that Trump wont' or can't run again and yes who knows who the crowded Democratic field will throw out to us. There remains the possibility of an opening for someone like Howard Schultz.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
It used to be that whoever won two of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio won the election. The last time a winner lost two of those states was Kennedy in 1960 and Florida had a much smaller vote EC vote then. I think next year the election will likely be won and lost in the three states you mention as problematic for Trump, Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20) and Wisconsin (10)

I agree that Trump will likely hold Florida, Ohio and Iowa too. Leaving aside faithless electors, Trump won 306 EC votes last time and can afford to lose 36 and still win assuming he holds his 2016 states including the single EC vote in Maine. He could lose two of those states and still win but he can't afford to lose all three without a pick up somewhere else. It's unlikely he would lose all three and pick up neighboring Minnesota. Picking up Nevada or Colorado or New Hampshire on their own wouldn't offset the loss of all three rust belt states but a much longer shot Virginia would. I would expect that whoever the Democratic nominee is will take a long trawl through those three states for a running mate, but there isn't anyone glaringly obvious that springs to mind. All that said, it's a long way to the election and "events dear boy" have a way upsetting things.

You can bet your bottom dollar that a Democratic nominee will pay plenty of visits to Wisconsin and won't wait til four days before the election to visit Michigan.
Clinton has been justly criticised for not campaigning in Michigan, but in all fairness she lost the election in Pennsylvania and Ohio. And she did not stint in visits to those.

I think it is too early to say that Trump will win again in the Rust Belt .... Assumptions that he will sound suspiciously like 2016 Democratic assumptions about the Blue Wall.

Trump actually boxed in to a re-run of 2016, but without the advantages of insurgency, running against Washington, being an unknown quantity, having both moderate ("great Healthcare") and conservative characteristics, .... the 2018 mid-terms showed Trumpism has not expanded beyond its narrow 2016 base. In fact, it lost ground in the South West, where Arizona is now in play. Unless Trump can repeat the wins in the string of states he won in 2016, then his re-election is a goner.

Yes, it is a long way to the election - and Trump still has the advantage of incumbency. The savvy thing is to wait until after the 2020 Conventions to see the polls begin to reflect reality.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
Faithless Electors in 2016. from 270ToWin
  • There were seven faithless presidential electors. Aside from 1872 - death of Horace Greeley - it is the greatest number since electors began casting one vote each for president and vice president (12th Amendment, 1804). Three additional faithless votes, one each in Colorado, Maine and Minnesota, were disallowed.
  • Clinton won Washington; however three Electors cast votes for Colin Powell, one for Faith Spotted Eagle
  • Trump won Texas; however one Elector cast a vote for Ron Paul, another for John Kasich
  • Clinton won Hawaii; however one Elector cast a vote for Bernie Sanders
If 2020 is close to within a few EVs, and that is possible, it would be a terrible indictment of the Electoral College system if the Presidency came down to the fidelity or infidelity of a handful of Electors.
 
Last edited:

arsenal

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
346
It is easy and inconsequential to be a faithless elector when the result is not close in the EC. Take a situation like the 2000 election and you would have no faithless electors,or at least not enough to change the outcome.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,162
The DNC announced this morning that the 2020 convention will be held in Milwaukee. Looks like Hillary will finally get to Wisconsin after all. :D
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
The DNC announced this morning that the 2020 convention will be held in Milwaukee. Looks like Hillary will finally get to Wisconsin after all. :D
As Milwaukee voted for her 2 to 1, she is assured a warm welcome. ;)
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
Morning Consult poll, over 15,000 Likely Voters ...

MAR 4-10, 2019
Morning Consult

Biden 31%
Sanders 27%
Harris 10%
Warren 7%
O'Rourke 7%
Booker 4%
Klobuchar 3%
Bullock 1%
Buttigieg 1%
Castro 1%
Gabbard 1%
Gillibrand 1%
Hickenlooper1%
McAuliffe 1%
Inslee 1%
Delaney 1%
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
As Milwaukee voted for her 2 to 1, she is assured a warm welcome. ;)
Interesting article in the Economist about Scott Walker's Democratic successor as Governor of Wisconsin- Tony Evers. Evers had a reputation for being quiet, but his term as Governor looks as if it will be anything but ....

Mr Evers, who took office in January, has set out a lengthy list of proposals, notably for a two-year budget, that will define much of his administration. There are likely to be months of combat, given the opposition from Republicans who control both the state Assembly and the Senate. The governor will spar, too, for he can veto legislation he dislikes.
Tony Evers seems to be following Scott Walker’s playbook

(It's pay-walled, but you might get the print edition).

Evers is also planning to appoint a Commission to set electoral boundaries after the 2020 Census, an effort which may get to the Supreme Court, where Republicans will argue it usurps the power of the Legislature, which is already gerrymandered in favour of the GOP.

Anyway, this gives me hope that a local activist Democratic organisation will turn out a majority vote for the Democratic candidate in 2020. For all the fuss made about Wisconsin, Trump actually got less votes there than Mitt Romney, and only won by a sliver.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
Morning Consult poll, over 15,000 Likely Voters ...

MAR 4-10, 2019
Morning Consult

Biden 31%
Sanders 27%
Harris 10%
Warren 7%
O'Rourke 7%
Booker 4%
Klobuchar 3%
Bullock 1%
Buttigieg 1%
Castro 1%
Gabbard 1%
Gillibrand 1%
Hickenlooper1%
McAuliffe 1%
Inslee 1%
Delaney 1%
Odds for the Nomination are now more closely aligned with the polls.

Sanders 4/1
Biden 4/1
Harris 5/1
O'Rourke 5/1
Warren 19/1
Klobuchar 32/1
Booker 32/1
Gabbard 32/1
Gillibrand 991/
Castro 99/1

In the Betting Markets, there are 4 clear favourites. Biden has yet to confirm he is running, but the others are already trotting to the Starting Gate.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
45,079
Beto showing himself to be another pro Israel shill.

I think that is premature.

All the other major candidates (at least Harris & Sanders) supported Illan Omar during the recent unpleasantness. Beto may have a more nuanced policy than he is given credit.

Many Democrats, maybe even most, are waiting in the tall grass over the blatant disrespect shown to President Obama and VP Joe Biden while they were in office, and for Netanyahu's open partisanship with Trump and Republicans. Even though the Obama Administration granted Israel the biggest aid package it has ever received. If Democrats learned anything, it was that they will not gain any kudos pandering to Israel's right wing, which is beyond appeasement. Beto will be reminded of that.
 
Top