And solidly Democratic Gen Z votes at a higher rate than Millennials or GenXers did at the same age. (I am a GenXer guilty of that myself: I didn’t vote in either ‘92 or ‘96, although I am atypical in that I did vote in low-turnout ‘94.)
An interesting piece from Ronald Brownstein in *The Atlantic *today. He cites numerous polling orgs who are predicting record turnout in '20, with most of the increases coming from younger and/or minority voters. Those orgs think that total voting could reach 156 million, based on early polling (up from 139m in 2016).
Brownstein may be the single sharpest mind in politics.
Dude, I love you but you gotta stop this.
This is the line of thinking that leads to lowered turnout. We have to go into every single opportunity thinking that it’s razor thing, regardless of what the polls say, and that one. more. vote. is the one that will make the difference. This is not the time to get either complacent or apathetic. We want every vote in every state. That’s how you win big. That’s how you generate coattails. We want both those things.
Inflation as a whole, however, isn’t that much of a problem. It’s the lack of inflation that in some ways I would find even more ominous if I were an economist in the White House (grounded in reality, that is). One thing keeping inflation somewhat in check is that the price of energy is low, and the dollar is relatively strong. These two factors are what they are because of our trade policy.
So why, then, is this a problem for Trump?
Because it means that the global economy, thanks in no small part to our trade policy, is increasingly risk-averse, and when businesses stop investing, they stop growing. And when they stop growing…they stop hiring. Exactly when that might boomerang back to us is anyone’s guess. It’s hard to determine how severe the problem is, but just generally speaking, I think it’s fair to say that a trade war cannot continue ad infinitum without consequence in an economy like ours that is deeply connected to international trade and dependent on consumption. Pretty soon, what’s happening to farmers is going to star having some major ripple effects to suppliers, banks, you name it. The Ag economy is something this country doesn’t want to screw up.
Regarding the 55% of people that said they would “definitely not vote” for President Trump in 2020, it’s worth noting that in their January poll, it was 56%, the point being that that “definitely not vote” category can shrink over time, even in spite of what people tell a pollster 19 months before the election.
This is one of those times when I find myself in complete agreement with HurricaneDitka. Not only that, but his shorthand "that ‘definitely not vote’ category’ can easily turn into an actual “definitely not vote” for anyone.
I’ve watched Democrats screw up elections since 1968. History shows that in 1968 the Democrats had one old-line, party insider, with a long record of support for labor and civil rights issues, who literally oozed compassion and humanity; one candidate who inspired passion, but was assassinated ruing the primaries, and whose place was taken by another candidate with all the right ideas but none of the charisma; and a third candidate with a devout following of young people, who mobilized, got haircuts and shaved their beards, and went out door to door encouraging voters to support that candidate.
And with all that, the Democrats ended up winning only 11 states for a measly 191 electoral votes, and losing the popular vote to Richard Nixon by 560,000 votes.
Folks, Richard Nixon was a politician NOBODY loved, and a lot of people hated.
I spotted HHH, RFK, and “Clean for” Gene McCarthy. But who is the “no charisma” candidate?
What I have heard from political scientists is the opposite: the side that thinks they are fucked is the one whose turnout drops in discouragement. The side that feels the wind at their backs still feels impelled to vote, to be part of the winning effort.
And even if that were not true, I think people were spooked enough by 2016 that we don’t have to worry about it in this cycle at least. Plus I think many voters will take a deep, unusually visceral satisfaction in voting Trump’s ass out of office. I know I will!
Dude. Are you seriously taking a change from 56 to 55 as significant? That’s just statistical noise.
Hence our coming war with Iran.
Well, technically I’m not actually a Gabbard supporter. I’m a Buttigieg supporter. He’s definitely my preferred candidate. That said, if he were to withdraw or something then I’d definitely be happy with Gabbard. I’m not sure if that makes me a supporter or a conditional supporter or whatever, but she’s my second or third choice.
I should also point out that my support for any candidate is 100% based on whether or not I think they can beat Trump. For example, I’d be horrified if Elizabeth Warren were nominated because, even though my politics align better with hers than with Gabbard’s, I honestly don’t think Warren has a hope in Hell of beating Trump. Gabbard, IMO, definitely could beat him, because she’s more charismatic and persuasive than him and, at the end of the day, that’s really the only thing that counts. But this is doubly true of Buttigieg, so he’s who I support.
Gabbard has no chance in Hell of beating Trump. She inspires very fervent support from her supporters, but that doesn’t matter, because her supporters are a very small minority, and everyone else hates her.
He just finished telling you that Gabbard was his second choice, so does Unreconstructed Man hate her or is he a fervent supporter?
Apparently Donald’s internal pollsters told him he was behind in 15 of 17 states. Does anyone know which states? It seems reasonable to assume that states that we know damn well how they’re going to vote were excluded, so if he’s losing 15 of 17 states that he could possibly lose or has a hope to win, then things are looking good for Biden right now. Of course, nothing like a war to rally the country behind you, as we’re about to find out.
It makes sense. One of the highest turnouts over the past few decades was in 2004 when many voters turned out to support or oppose George W Bush. I suspect that these same dynamics will take shape in this upcoming cycle. The attempts to suppress votes may actually result in a backlash against such efforts.
I’m guessing it’s not states like Wyoming, but states that may usually be fairly safe ‘red’ like Arizona, which is why they’re alarmed. I woudn’t even write off Kansas for Democrats if things start going way south. I’m writing under the assumption that Biden wins and emerges from the primaries unscathed.
I was going to write a response to that myself, but you summed it up perfectly. Supporting Gabbard is bizarre and amusing to me. Supporting Gabbard because she is one of the only ones who can beat Trump? That’s…just… :eek: 
:dubious: :smack:
What are you basing this on?
Don’t know about Chronos but I could base her being very disliked on things like the YouGov poll.
To be sure most don’t know her at all, so it is not accurate to say “everyone else hates her”, but of those with an opinion (restricting to D only) it’s 3 times as many “very unfavorable” to “very favorable”. Buttigieg is 4 to 1 the other way, for comparison. But then Harris is more than 5 to 1 the other way. Gabbard’s underwater overall.
These are not the numbers of someone who is “charismatic and persuasive”.
Ahead of his campaign rally in Orlando, the Orlando Sentinel decided to already issue an endorsement in the election. They are endorsing Not Donald Trump.
But who did they endorse in 2016? A newspaper changing its endorsement is significant. A newspaper endorsing the same party it did last cycle doesn’t mean anything.