Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 89 Days Left


89 Day Poll  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. Look at the data in today's post. Who wins if the election were today?

  2. 2. Allan Lichtman has predicted the election correctly in every election in the last 40 years. Which of the following do you agree with?

    • I agree with Lichtman's prediction that Biden will defeat Trump in 2020.
    • I do not agree with Lichtman that Biden will defeat Trump in 2020.
    • I agree with Lichtman that Trump's short-term economy will work against him (comparing Jan 2020 with Nov 2020).
    • I agree with Lichtman that Trumps long-term economy (comparing 2016 with 2020) will work against him.
    • I agree with Lichtman that Trump has successfully implemented policy change, which will help him.
    • I agree with Lichtman that the BLM protests is a significant social unrest that will work against him. (Lichtman sees social unrest as a key that works against an incumbent)
    • I agree with Lichtman that Trump has not had any significant foreign policy failure, which will help him.
    • I agree with Lichtman that Trump has not had any significant foriegn policy success, which will hurt him.
    • I agree with Lichtman that Trump is entertaining, but that he is not charismatic outside of his base, which will hurt him.
    • I agree with Lichtman that Biden is empathetic and likable, but that he is not charismatic, which will help Trump.
    • I agree with Lichtman that there will not be a serious 3rd party candidate that could shake up the election (Lichtman thinks strong 3rd parties always hurt the incumbents)
    • I agree with Lichtman that Trump's administration has had at least one major scandal, which will hurt him, since he isn't untainted by any major scandal.
  3. 3. Is Joe Biden making a mistake by deciding not to head to Milwaukee to accept the nomination in person?

    • It's a good choice to show that he's serious about the effects of Covid by social distancing and accepting the nomination from his home in DE.
    • It's a bad choice, considering the convention is in a state he needs to win. Some might consider his skipping the convention as a slap in the face or as a weakness.
    • It doesn't matter. All the Conventions for both parties are having people skip them. They might just go virtual.
  4. 4. Who do you trust more to tell the truth in an interview, press conference, or campaign rally?

  5. 5. Who do you think knows more about politics and how to work with legislators?

    • Trump to both.
      0
    • Biden to both.
    • Trump for politics and Biden for legislators.
    • Biden for politics and Trump for legislators.
      0


Recommended Posts

Both nominees have reasons to like today's numbers. I've included a new forecast map:

Categories 89 Weekly Shift
Gen Avg Biden 7.8 (-0.2) Biden -0.5
MI Avg Biden 7.8 (+0.1) Biden -0.4
WI Avg Biden 7.5 (+0.9) Biden +0.4
PA Avg Biden 6.1 (-0.3) Biden -0.6
NH Avg Biden 9.0 (-0.1) Biden +1.5
NC avg Biden 2.2 (+0.1) Biden +0.2
FL avg Biden 5.3 (-0.5) Biden -0.7
GA avg Trump 0.8 (+0.1) Trump -0.4
TX avg Biden 0.1 (-0.1) Biden -0.6
OH avg Biden 0.3 (+0.6) Biden +0.7
IA avg Trump 1.2 (0) Trump +0.2
AZ avg Biden 3.6 (-0.1) Biden -0.4
NV avg Biden 6.1 (-0.2) Biden -0.6
Trump Approval 41.5 (+0.2) 0.9
Trump Disapproval 54.6 (-0.1) 0.9
Favorability Biden 12.4 (+1.4) 1
Direction of the Country -46 (+1.5) 0.1
Generic Ballot Dem 8.8 (+0.6) 0
Betting Markets Biden 60.9 (0) 0
Rasmussen GE n/a n/a
Rasmussen Trump Approval 48 (-1) 0
FoxNews GE n/a n/a
Fox News Trump Approval n/a n/a
ABC/Wash GE n/a n/a
ABC/Wash Trump Approval n/a n/a
Marist GE n/a n/a
Marist Trump Approval n/a n/a
Clinton vs. Trump 2016 GE Clinton +6 2
Biden vs Clinton GE Polls Biden +1.8 -2.5

8bgkb.png

vcczar @Reagan04 @Actinguy @Patine @Conservative Elector 2 @TheMiddlePolitical @WVProgressive @SilentLiberty @pilight @admin_270 @Hestia11 @Herbert Hoover @mlcorcoran @Leuser @upandaway @jvikings1 @Rodja @Edouard @jnewt @Nentomat @Kingthero @Sunnymentoaddict @RFK/JFKfan @Mr.Blood @Zenobiyl @Wiw @MBDemSoc @ThePotatoWalrus @Alxeu @Allyn @Cenzonico @CentristGuy @Ishan @billay @wolves @RI Democrat @lizarraba @lizphairphreak @TheLiberalKitten @MysteryKnight @avatarmushi @servo75

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q4 is a hard one. I neither trust Biden nor Trump particularly. I went with Biden here nonetheless, but America can't afford a President who's solely campaigning on feel-good phrases with little substance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Q4 is a hard one. I neither trust Biden nor Trump particularly. I went with Biden here nonetheless, but America can't afford a President who's solely campaigning on feel-good phrases with little substance.

How do you define "little substance" with Biden? He's been telling people what he plans to do for months. He even has a web page with his ideas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lichtman's influence/predictive powers is pretty consistently overblown.  His "13 Keys" are open to wide interpretation -- what counts as charisma?  What counts as a scandal?  etc.  He also has been wrong on multiple occassions.

He predicted Gore would win in 2000 and ultimately that Trump "could lose" in 2016 -- "could lose" isn't even useful input.  Anyone "could" lose.  Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.  It isn't even clear what the keys are supposed to be predicting: popular or electoral win.  Either way, they've been wrong

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Lichtman's influence/predictive powers is pretty consistently overblown.  His "13 Keys" are open to wide interpretation -- what counts as charisma?  What counts as a scandal?  etc.  He also has been wrong on multiple occassions.

He predicted Gore would win in 2000 and ultimately that Trump "could lose" in 2016 -- "could lose" isn't even useful input.  Anyone "could" lose.  Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.  It isn't even clear what the keys are supposed to be predicting: popular or electoral win.  Either way, they've been wrong

 

It measured popular vote and then he changed it up to make it reflect the EC for 2004 and beyond. The fact it was based on PV before was because there hadn’t been a mixed election result since the 19th century when he started. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

How do you define "little substance" with Biden? He's been telling people what he plans to do for months. He even has a web page with his ideas. 

An issue I have with Biden is that he's saying a lot of things, which sound good. His statements are more about respect, love and caring for each other. However, that's not how reality works unfortunately. America faces a lot of problems and those problems won't be solved by preaching nicely. People won't turn nice just because a President Biden tells them to do. Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping won't become allies because Mr. Niceguy resides in the White House. He talks and talks for hours and at the end he didn't say much. That's at least my impression. Biden's campaigns on a feel-good agenda, which won't be doable and lacks true answers to recent problems. It's the vision approach like the 'Yes We Can' campaign. My impression is he will be overwhelmed when it comes to true decisions to be made. Trump on the other hand campaigns for the moment, he lacks vision. However, if you can't address a problem when it pops up, you won't be able to address the future. Therefore vision is not always the factor to choose at the end of the day.

I had this issue with Buttigieg as well. The matter of the fact is Buttigieg sad much in a debate, some things sounded not bad honestly. However, at the end of such a debate I asked myself how does he want to do that. I get the feeling many things Biden and others talk about won't be solvable in one or two terms. They might not even be solvable in a century. They have vision, but lack a true plan and might not be able to take tough decisions. An additional issue of mine with Buttigieg was that I didn't even believe Buttigieg believed himself while talking. He seemed too contrived to me when talking. I am sorry @Actinguy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

It measured popular vote and then he changed it up to make it reflect the EC for 2004 and beyond. The fact it was based on PV before was because there hadn’t been a mixed election result since the 19th century when he started. 

But...the keys didn't change, did they?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

An additional issue of mine with Buttigieg was that I didn't even believe Buttigieg believed himself while talking. He seemed too contrived to me when talking. I am sorry @Actinguy.

I would disagree with this entirely -- Buttigieg is the rare politician who actually does come across to me as actually believing what they say.

He's a smart guy.  Smart people tend to believe in their own ideas. 

Versus others (such as Trump) who are just winging it and hoping nobody notices that they didn't read the book they're giving the oral report on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I would disagree with this entirely -- Buttigieg is the rare politician who actually does come across to me as actually believing what they say.

I find it really interesting that two people can have such a different impression. To me Buttigieg seemed as one if not the most dishonest guy up on that debate stages. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I find it really interesting that two people can have such a different impression. To me Buttigieg seemed as one if not the most dishonest guy up on that debate stages. 

No idea where that would be coming from.  Was he just saying things you don’t agree with?

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

An issue I have with Biden is that he's saying a lot of things, which sound good. His statements are more about respect, love and caring for each other. However, that's not how reality works unfortunately. America faces a lot of problems and those problems won't be solved by preaching nicely. People won't turn nice just because a President Biden tells them to do. Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping won't become allies because Mr. Niceguy resides in the White House. He talks and talks for hours and at the end he didn't say much. That's at least my impression. Biden's campaigns on a feel-good agenda, which won't be doable and lacks true answers to recent problems. It's the vision approach like the 'Yes We Can' campaign. My impression is he will be overwhelmed when it comes to true decisions to be made. Trump on the other hand campaigns for the moment, he lacks vision. However, if you can't address a problem when it pops up, you won't be able to address the future. Therefore vision is not always the factor to choose at the end of the day.

I had this issue with Buttigieg as well. The matter of the fact is Buttigieg sad much in a debate, some things sounded not bad honestly. However, at the end of such a debate I asked myself how does he want to do that. I get the feeling many things Biden and others talk about won't be solvable in one or two terms. They might not even be solvable in a century. They have vision, but lack a true plan and might not be able to take tough decisions. An additional issue of mine with Buttigieg was that I didn't even believe Buttigieg believed himself while talking. He seemed too contrived to me when talking. I am sorry @Actinguy.

I think you've been dubbing their speeches with old Mohandas Gandhi voice audioclips, there... :P

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

No idea where that would be coming from.  Was he just saying things you don’t agree with?

No, most Democrats said such things and Buttigieg was probably more moderate than others. One incident I disliked very much was when he attacked Klobuchar for not knowing the President of Mexico or something like that. This was uncalled for and revealed how he campaigns. I don't like personal attacks for which I also detest Trump's style of insulting everyone who doesn't agree with him. I disagree with a lot of Democrats and some Republicans as well, but I don't think I've insulted anyone heavily yet. 

Another thing which struck me was his constant effort to remind anyone about his sexuality. I have no problem with gay people. I was a lot more dogmatic on this issue in the past, but I don't care anymore. It's everyone's decision and I could be supportive if asked for support when someone struggles with being accepted as gay. Still, this doesn't mean I support gay marriage, but that's for other reasons and it's basically a political/religious decision. The problem I had with Buttigieg here was that he seemed to use his sexuality to gain political advantage for being different or special. That's like the posing of Trump for being a ''successful'' businessman. If he had said, ''Look I am gay, but let's get started now'' it would have been totally ok, although I personally think it's a private information. No one should be obligated to make it public, because it doesn't matter for the office he's running for. A gay president can be a better president than a straight president. I had the impression Buttigieg repeated his narrative too often.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Still, this doesn't mean I support gay marriage, but that's for other reasons and it's basically a political/religious decision.

Mixing religion and politics is always a toxic brew, and leads to many of the greatest injustices and among the worst tyrannies of history - because theocratic tyrants firmly believe they're unaccountable to anyone on the Earth and have a psychotically unshakable sense of their own "moral rightness," even as they as perform the worst of oppression and atrocity. And Christianity was never meant to be fused with politics, unlike it's sister Abrahamic Monotheist Religions of Judaism and Islam. The Ministry of Christ makes this VERY clear. Every time Christ spoke on mortal government or currency and other wealth or violent force or punishment, it was always a cautionary parable or condemnation, and it's obvious He viewed these things as impediments, not tools, to Salvation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with Lichtman a lot. Trump had huge foreign policy failures (e.g. Korean crisis), neither is Trump entertaining nor Biden likeable (which he was for me until women began to call him out for being the exact same thing we are all tired of (and there are also weird videos of which I am not sure if they are actually real footage))

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I disagree with Lichtman a lot. Trump had huge foreign policy failures (e.g. Korean crisis), neither is Trump entertaining nor Biden likeable (which he was for me until women began to call him out for being the exact same thing we are all tired of (and there are also weird videos of which I am not sure if they are actually real footage))

A summit with North Korea, along with starting no new wars, were Trump's only foreign policy SUCCESSES!

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Patine said:

A summit with North Korea, along with starting no new wars, were Trump's only foreign policy SUCCESSES!

I'd argue it turned as a disaster. North Korea got political gains and international recognition for giving the free world nothing. They got away with every provocation they sent out. It's an embarrassment to be honest and such a summit should never have taken place under these conditions. It's not Trump's fault alone. President Moon of South Korea is probably among the worst and weakest presidents the country ever had. His approval ratings dropped by half since he took office. Good for him that South Korea has a one term limit for life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I'd argue it turned as a disaster. North Korea got political gains and international recognition for giving the free world nothing. They got away with every provocation they sent out. It's an embarrassment to be honest and such a summit should never have taken place under these conditions. It's not Trump's fault alone. President Moon of South Korea is probably among the worst and weakest presidents the country ever had. His approval ratings dropped by half since he took office. Good for him that South Korea has a one term limit for life.

 

28 minutes ago, Patine said:

A summit with North Korea, along with starting no new wars, were Trump's only foreign policy SUCCESSES!

I would completely agree. The North korea summit was a monumental failure. But I don't think it counts as bad as Lichtmann's keys require. The reality is that Trump's foreign policy, outside of the North Korea debacle, has been the exact same Foreign Policy America has had for 30 years, it's the same neoconservative-neoliberal thought that has reigned since it was born out of the ashes of the Cold War. The only difference for Trump has been removing the diplomatic side of the Foreign Policy and adhering to a much more strict anti-diplomatic approach when it comes to our allies. It's a stricter interpretation of neoconservatism without the neoliberal elements regarding diplomacy and trade policy.

Really, America has had the same foreign policy since George H. W. Bush. We've had the same goals since 9/11. Obama continued Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East and now Trump is continuing Obama's with the only difference being competence level. People have this idea that Middle Eastern policy has bandied back and forth politically when it reality it's only ever incrementally changed. The Department of Defense continues on with its work regardless of whether it's Bush Obama or Trump in the White House. They worked on catching Osama Bin Laden all throughout Bush's term and finally got him during Obama's first years. That wasn't an Obama or a Bush success. That was an American success. Similarly, the Obama administration worked on defeating ISIS and the DoD got it done within Trump's first year. Unlike Trump would tell you, that was by no means due to his "genius" it was simply the DoD working with what they inherited from the Obama years just like they had done 8 years ago in the hunt for Bin Laden.

The key difference in foreign policy between Trump and his two predecessors is how we treat the world outside the Middle East. We've gone from being allied with Western Europe to getting tough on Western Europe. We've gone from being tough on Russia to being sympathetic with Russia. That's the issue here. Trump also, unlike other Presidents, seems to have a desire to please other world leaders instead of putting America First. He acts all macho with our allies who are "ripping us off" but then turns around and says that we need to be nicer to Russia and Saudi Arabia and that while his rhetoric is tough on China, his discussions with Xi Jinping have been anything but.

He sort of has this dangerous schizophrenic view of Foreign Policy that has really damaged our standing abroad and has only benefited a handful of people; the Trump family.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Similarly, the Obama administration worked on defeating ISIS and the DoD got it done within Trump's first year.

Saying the defeat of ISIS was "an American victory and accomplishment," shows a very distorted view of the situation. The Pentagon specifically made efforts to have almost all U.S. involvement in that affair be commando raids, air strike, intel gathering, and military aid and advisors. Now, I'm not at all downplaying the value of that - and. in fact, it's exactly the same contribution to the effort other NATO countries (except Turkey, who was more hands on to regional presence) and Russia made. The real on the ground fighting, taking of territory, and forcing back of the physical, geographical, military, and political presence of ISIS, was done by nations and militias in areas terrorized and captured (or threatened to be captured) by ISIS forces - including nations often maligned in Western media, like Iran, who, along with Shi'ite militias they armed and supported in Iraq and Syria, did a lot of on the ground fighting of significant import. Trump's deluded, "computer game final boss fight mentality," after the death - again, in a commando raid - of the self-proclaimed Caliph when the organization was very much on the ropes, seemed to further the view by many Americans that the defeat of ISIS was an "American victory and accomplished, credited meaningfully only to the U.S. military alone," or at least that's the impression I get from a lot of casual speech by the omission of mention of the vital parts played by the many other nations and militias who collectively contributed the vast majority of the meaningful, active war effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...