Friday, October 16, 2020

11 Points Is Very Big



A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of registered voters shows Trump losing in a 53% to 42% election-- an 11 point deficit. That's a lot. In the 1968 presidential election, the first time I was allowed to vote, Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey by seven-tenths of a point, about half a million votes. Carter beat Ford by 2 points. Four years later, Reagan's landslide win over Carter was 9.7 points. Clinton beat George HW Bush by 5.6 points and then beat ole Bob Dole by 8.5 points. Gore actually beat George W Bush 50,999,897 (48.4%) to 50,456,002 (47.9%) but the Republican Supreme Court blatantly stole the election for Bush. Four years later, Bush beat Kerry by 2.4 points. In 2008 Obama beat McCain by 7.2 points and then beat Romney by 3.9 points in 2012. Hillary beat Trump 65,853,514 (48.2%) to 62,984,828 (46.1%) but was denied the presidency because of the purposely anti-democratic electoral college (which should have been abolished long ago-- and would have been if it ever worked against a Republican or if the Democratic Party ever grew a pair).

Wall Street Journal reporter Eliza Collins wrote that "The poll holds warning signs for Republicans down-ballot, as well. Democrats came out ahead of Republicans by 8 points when voters were asked which party they planned to support for Congress... Biden continues to gain with groups that backed Mr. Trump in 2016, such as seniors and white women. At the same time, Mr. Trump’s lead has weakened among some core parts of his base, including white men without college degrees. A majority of voters are unhappy with the president’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Some 41% approve of his handling of Covid-19 in the latest poll, compared with 57% who disapprove."

Even in states where a statewide loss is not likely for Trump, his unpopularity in suburban districts is going to kill his GOP enablers from coast to coast. It's what the silly Beltway prognosticators-- including at the DCCC-- don't understand about a wave. Even the very worst and least-deserving-of-reelection Democrats, like Blue Dogs Anthony Brindisi (NY), Kendra Horn (OK), Joe Cunningham (SC), Ben McAdams (UT) and Abigail Spanberger (VA), are all probably going to be reelected because of widespread antipathy towards Trump and his lackeys.

Progressive challengers in deep red districts who the DCCC wrote off early in the cycle, are now on the verge of defeating powerful entrenched Republican incumbents-- and some have even been embraced, albeit reluctantly, by the DCCC! Look at these 7 candidates. All are running in prohibitively red districts gerrymandered to elect Republicans; all were entirely ignored by the Democratic establishment; all are in districts where Trump's support is collapsing; and all are pulling even or surpassing their Republican opponents. These are the candidates whose campaigns we should be pouring resources into right now:
Adam Christiansen (FL-03) R+9
Audrey Denney (CA-01) R+11
Nate McMurray (NY-27) R+11
Julie Oliver (TX-25) R+11
Liam O'Mara (CA-42) R+9
J.D. Scholten (IA-04) R+11
Mike Siegel (TX-10) R+9
Goal Thermometer7 races with an average PVI of about R+10... all once considered out of reach and absolutely impossible, but all now very much within reach and very much possible and worth investing in. For example, Julie Oliver's "impossible race" has now been endorsed by the DCCC, which is starting to get excited about seeing her replace one of the most vile of the Trump enablers in the House. "Everyone knows big money and the ultra-wealthy have too much power in Washington," Julie told me this morning, "and I’m a political outsider who has refused all PAC money and isn’t afraid to stand up to corrupt special interests and leaders in both parties. We need to end the culture of corruption in Washington, and Roger Williams has shown a disturbing pattern of unethical behavior-- whether it’s being investigated for amending a bill to support car dealerships by letting them rent out dangerous vehicles under active safety recall, cutting to the front of the line to take millions in bailouts for his car dealership while Texas small business owners lost everything and voting to keep that hidden from the public, or abusing his position to make backroom deals on behalf big money donors."

Progressive Democrat J.D. Scholten is running a campaign in Iowa based on the same kinds of ideas. Last night he told me that "All farmers can agree that we need to enforce our antitrust laws in agriculture because right now corporations are controlling the inputs, outputs, and choices for farmers. In my first year in Congress, my goal is to introduce legislation to modernize the Packers and Stockyards Act, level the playing field for farmers, and hold corporations accountable. Meanwhile, my opponent takes corporate PAC donations from Tyson, Smithfield, and Syngenta-- the very corporations that are helping to push farmers off the farm and into bankruptcy. My strong, unwavering support for enforcing antitrust laws has earned me support from farmers across the political spectrum."

This morning California progressive Audrey Denney told me that she has "consistently been running on: 1) Forest health and fire prevention, 2) Truly universal healthcare and an emphasis on rural health, 3) COVID recovery and economic growth, 4) Rural broadband. All with the underlying theme of the essential need to get money out of politics and fire corrupt self-serving politicians. Our message is getting through to voters and we are going to win... Since we sent Rep. LaMalfa back to DC for his 4th term:
He voted against HR 968 that would have protected people with pre-existing conditions.
He voted against HR 3 that would have lowered prescription drug prices.
He voted against HR 1 which among many other things, would have strengthened ethics rules for members of Congress.
He voted against S47 wildly bipartisan public lands funding bill-- when half of his district is public lands.
He voted against the HEROES Act twice-- even though besides desperately needed COVID relief it would have provided: $500 million for Safer Grants (Fire emergency response), $500 million for Fire Fighter Assistance grants, assistance to livestock producers (we are now losing 4th generation cattle ranches), money for rural hospitals, and rural broadband.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


At 9:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a hard time believing that it's going to be an 11 point race when all the votes are counted. My guess is that Biden will win, but it will probably be more like 7 to 8 points nationally. If Biden was consistently hitting 54 and 55 points, I would think a double-digit blow-out would be more likely. Who are the late deciders at this point? Are they deciding between Trump and Biden, or Trump and no vote, or Biden and no vote, or third party?

At 9:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

biden may win the popular vote by 10 million. but he can still lose the electoral college.

Or he may win the popular vote by 10 points but only squeak by in the electoral college (assuming no elector-naming fraud by nazi states).

we don't have a democracy. we have a hedged oligarchic democracy-ish shithole.

At 4:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 9:28 PM, if Biden wins the popular vote by 10 million, he will win the electoral college easily. In 2000, Gore had a 500,000 edge nationally in the popular vote. Clinton received 2 million more votes in 2016 with the difference being about 90,000 votes in MI, WI, and PA. If Biden wins by 5 million votes nationally, he's going to win the electoral college.

It's in the 2 to 3 million vote range, and 2% to 3% in the polls, where the tipping point issue becomes more of a factor. Right now, even factoring in undecideds, it doesn't look like a 2% to 3% race nationally. Maybe there's a rebound to Trump post COVID-19 hospitalization, but it would need to be a massive shift. I think that's unlikely given the national trends lines with COVID-19 numbers, and given some of the recent economic signals.


Post a Comment

<< Home