EPTJohnson county in 2016: +38 for Clinton, now +43
Polk county in 2016: +11 Clinton, now +15 for Biden
Dallas County in 2016: +9 Trump. now a dead heat.
2020 US Election - Page 53
| Forum Index > General Forum |
FlaShFTW
United States10530 Posts
Johnson county in 2016: +38 for Clinton, now +43 Polk county in 2016: +11 Clinton, now +15 for Biden Dallas County in 2016: +9 Trump. now a dead heat. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
None of this "dual chair" between a centrist and a progressive. Whether that's the right result or not politically in the long-run is much harder to say, as it would be fighting yesterday's war. Bernie polled better head to head against Trump, and that really is fairly predictive, even before all the attack ads get launched. The pick of Biden was a ploy to gain back white non-college educated voters in the midwest and the mythical moderate never-trump Republican (who aren't an actual voting bloc anywhere). It appears to have driven off Latinos and not actually made inroads on the desired groups. It has continued inroads among suburban women, but I think that has a lot more to do with Trump than his opponent. Bernie would have done better in the southeast and sunbelt and worse in Florida, based on primary results. The Rust Belt I'm really not sure about, as we still haven't seen the results. | ||
|
Batmankills
145 Posts
| ||
|
Shingi11
290 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:01 Mohdoo wrote: What reason do we have to think the Midwest pans out if Pennsylvania goes red? We can only assume the Midwest will follow. Though I admit Arizona is a beacon of hope for now We have to see, it has been a crazy night but his weakest rust belt state was PA so the other two could hold if it is close. PA is almost all same date vote though. Almost none is going to be early. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote: Biden wins WA. Glad I didn't vote for him. I as well am glad that I didn't vote for Biden. It was distasteful enough to swallow my pride and vote for someone as bad as Clinton in '16 only for it to also be a loss; I'm happy to not have supported a repeat of the same whether or not he ekes a win out in the end. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12487 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:03 Nevuk wrote: If Biden loses, the establishment gets swept out of power of the DNC by a bunch of (rightfully) extraordinarily pissed off progressives. None of this "dual chair" between a centrist and a progressive. That's what is supposed to happen but you're going to have to fight like hell for it to actually happen, if you want it. That being said this isn't lost yet. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46247 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9326 Posts
On November 04 2020 12:58 GoTuNk! wrote: On Florida he said Trump was gonna 1.16% better than 2016, until it stopped reporting for being unnecesary. So... lol 48.6 to 47.4 in 2016 51.3 to 47,8 in 2020 lol indeed. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On November 04 2020 12:58 GoTuNk! wrote: On Florida he said Trump was gonna 1.16% better than 2016, until it stopped reporting for being unnecesary. So... lol It's not a "he said" lol he was literally scrubbing VOTES that SOE/Counties post in real-time....do people just not listen or something? | ||
|
shawster
Canada2485 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:03 Nevuk wrote: If Biden loses, the establishment gets swept out of power of the DNC by a bunch of (rightfully) extraordinarily pissed off progressives. None of this "dual chair" between a centrist and a progressive. Whether that's the right result or not politically in the long-run is much harder to say, as it would be fighting yesterday's war. Bernie polled better head to head against Trump, and that really is fairly predictive, even before all the attack ads get launched. The pick of Biden was a ploy to gain back white non-college educated voters in the midwest and the mythical moderate never-trump Republican (who aren't an actual voting bloc anywhere). It appears to have driven off Latinos and not actually made inroads on the desired groups. It has continued inroads among suburban women, but I think that has a lot more to do with Trump than his opponent. Bernie would have done better in the southeast and sunbelt and worse in Florida, based on primary results. The Rust Belt I'm really not sure about, as we still haven't seen the results. Do you know if he did better with Latinos compared to Biden? Not rhetorical; just wondering. My impression was always that Bernie did worse with everyone except college educated whites. The head-to-head polling results from back then don't really matter TBH. In my mind, there's literally no way Bernie or a progressive would ever win any of the rust belt states, but IDK. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
There's still been zero votes reported from St. Paul, none in Washington county, and very little in Dakota and Scott counties (The latter 3 are all suburbs). Duluth and Rochester have also reported very little of their vote. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12487 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:06 shawster wrote: Do you know if he did better with Latinos compared to Biden? Not rhetorical; just wondering. My impression was always that Bernie did worse with everyone except college educated whites. The head-to-head polling results from back then don't really matter TBH. In my mind, there's literally no way Bernie or a progressive would ever win any of the rust belt states, but IDK. He crushed with latinos, especially in Nevada but also in Iowa (where nobody cared about latinos so that was interesting strategy). A progressive would probably be more likely to win the Rust Belt states from what I've seen, not less likely. Florida would be doomed tho but you guys never win Florida anyway. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24211 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:06 shawster wrote: ...My impression was always that Bernie did worse with everyone except college educated whites. You ever wonder why that was? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:06 shawster wrote: Do you know if he did better with Latinos compared to Biden? Not rhetorical; just wondering. My impression was always that Bernie did worse with everyone except college educated whites. The head-to-head polling results from back then don't really matter TBH. In my mind, there's literally no way Bernie or a progressive would ever win any of the rust belt states, but IDK. Yes. Bernie did a lot better in the southwest due to it. He was especially liked by younger Latinos. While it's unlikely that they win the rust belt states, if Biden doesn't win them then they clearly aren't worth reaching for, or at least not by going for the old dem demographic of union whites (who are probably mostly in the grave). Bernie can kind of speak to their fondness for unions in a different way than Biden, but it's a different path. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4434 Posts
| ||
|
shawster
Canada2485 Posts
I mean, one of the biggest reasons why he lost the democratic primary was because of the black vote. Obviously he would've gotten trounced by the Cuban vote in Florida. That forms the basis of my impression, lol. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On November 04 2020 13:06 Wegandi wrote: It's not a "he said" lol he was literally scrubbing VOTES that SOE/Counties post in real-time....do people just not listen or something? Yeah I know. I mean he was extrapolating results from party affiliation. He did a nice job in hindsight | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/#FL:1,OH:1,TX:1,AZ:0,NH:0,IA:0,PA:1 But if he loses IA it turns into something of a nightmare scenario where a tie is extremely likely : 49 Biden-30 Trump - 21 (tie) https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/#FL:1,OH:1,TX:1,AZ:0,NH:0,PA:1 It is also hard not to wonder if Dejoy's fucking with the USPS hasn't affected ballots more than expected. | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States999 Posts
On November 04 2020 12:59 KwarK wrote: Sorry, is the claim now that Trump has performed at a solid B average? Two posts ago it was that it was recordbreaking. He's 3rd out of the last 4 presidents in growth in market valuations and the guy he beat literally presided over the collapse of global capitalism. You keep shifting the goalposts. You started with Trump growing the economy at an unprecedented pace. You then changed that to Trump growing the valuation of major companies at an unprecedented pace while keeping the economy growing slowly. Now you're arguing that Trump grew the valuation of major companies at a below average rate but that you'd still give him a passing grade. Please argue your original claim, that Trump delivered record breaking growth. My original claim is that Trump grew the stock market on pace with China's, despite lower GDP growth, and that we have had an amazing economy. An economy is a multifaceted thing, and having the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years is in my mind at least, quite the accomplishment. I suppose if you argue semantics, that isn't recordbreaking though. I don't believe I'm moving goalposts, I believe you're misrepresenting what I have said. I think we can agree it's not fair to look at the market during a pandemic year, which has global consequences and knock-on effects throughout the stock market, but he grew the stock market an average of 14% YoY his first three years. On the topics of records, he also extended the bull market to be the longest in US history - which is why his 14% performance is fantastic. The market should have had a downturn - in fact the economy broke another record - the longest time without a recession in US History (which ended due to the pandemic). | ||
| ||
