Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Who does Urban think (not hope) will win the November US Presidential Election? (The Poll)

Who will win the popular vote and who will get a majority in the electoral college?

  • Trump will win the popular vote

    Votes: 20 9.2%

  • Biden will win the popular vote

    Votes: 96 44.2%

  • Trump will win a majority in the Electoral College

    Votes: 49 22.6%

  • Biden will win a majority in the Electoral College

    Votes: 70 32.3%

  • It will be 269 to 269 in the electoral college

    Votes: 1 0.5%

  • Chaos followed by a coup d'etat

    Votes: 23 10.6%

  • Chaos followed by provisional revolutionary government

    Votes: 9 4.1%

  • No fucking idea

    Votes: 73 33.6%
  • Total voters
    217
Status
Not open for further replies.
Humberto said:
So let me get this right: you're expecting a proper debate where either side could lose?
Click to expand...
I haven't got a clue about how the debates will pan out, and yes both could lose.
all I'm saying is that those debates can make a difference. Americans seem to take theirs much more seriously.
 
Streathamite said:
The ghosts of Richard Nixon and JFK would tell you they did. Before the first TV debate in thye 1960 contest, Nixon qwas leading and - as incumbent VP - the strong favourite to win. The incredibly telegenic Kennedy came acoss brilliantly, Nixon looked and sounded awful. Kennedy squeaked home.

Equally, Al Gore started the 2000 election-proper race as a widely-admired incumbent VP, and favourite to win, agaisnt a man widely soon as a thick, ignorant buffoon who would be nothing without his family name. In the debates, Gore came across as badly as is humanly possible - he came across as an arrogant, patronising, smug jerk with zero empathy or emotional IQ. Bush came across as a friendly, regular guy. That - plus some spectacularly venal electoral chicanery in Florida - won Bush the Presidency.

In a tight race, the debates matter, because such a race is decided by independent and undecided voters, and it is one of the few occasions they can sit down in the comfort of their own homes, and study how the candidates perform, and address issues, under pressure, over a long stint.
Click to expand...

That’s actually a good post.

Be interesting to see how Trump handles Biden as if it looks like he’s clubbing a baby seal, Biden may end up with a few sympathy votes.

Meanwhile - Nancy Pelosi doesn’t think there should be any debates!

 
Humberto said:
Just asking, but do they ever make much difference? They're usually a couple of prepared statements over here in the UK aren't they, rather than the heavyweight slug-fest they are billed as.
Click to expand...

It's often claimed that Kennedy beat Nixon in 1963 because the latter's five O'clock shadow

Shadow+5.jpg
 
Marty1 said:
That’s actually a good post.

Be interesting to see how Trump handles Biden as if it looks like he’s clubbing a baby seal, Biden may end up with a few sympathy votes.

Meanwhile - Nancy Pelosi doesn’t think there should be any debates!

Click to expand...


Translation....
'Oh, great conversation, good challenges, really interesting. Kill Nancy in the face. What actually are you lot talking about Wokerati. Stop silencing me you seal clubbing activists. Freedom of speech? The great replacement will not prevail.'
 
Smokeandsteam said:
The evidence is as follows:

1. Candidates who run from the centre don’t win anymore. Reports of the demise of populism are mainly the stuff of liberal fantasy. Does the pandemic scare people back to flaccid neo-liberalism? We’ll see
2. Biden’s appeal is essentially the same as Clinton’s. Both are insiders, both are establishment pols. Both reject change and present themselves as better managers of a system that voters have had enough of
3. The Dems will want to keep Biden covered up for sure. But as some point he’ll need to subject to public scrutiny. Let’s be honest here - he’s not a well man. To put it mildly. The right and media are going to savage him and highlight his gaffes and frailness endlessly.
4. The dem bounce looks over. Have a look at the latest polling especially in the states where the poster I was replying to was predicting a Biden walkover. The lead is less than firm. I’d argue that his two VP wins were more explainable by his running mate by the way.

At this point calling the result is for guessers and clairvoyants. But, this idea of a Biden landslide (which is what I was replying to), is a nonsense.
Click to expand...
On (1) I absolutely agree with you that the demise of populism is nonsense. But I'd challenge the contention that candidates who run from the centre don't win anymore (I'd probably re-phrase that to be technocratic liberals don't win anymore) - after all the traditional centre-left/greens had something of a return in this years French elections, in Canada Trudeau won re-election (although lost his majority) and there was no populist breakthrough, in Germany the SPD actually managed a victory at the state level, after years of victories Erodgan's suffering recent loses, even in the Warsaw mayoral elections where the populist won it was a narrow win.

National populism certainly is not going anywhere but there are relatively few places in the west where it is not a minority position with a cap on support. Which is where I disagree with you on (2). First, I don't think there is much evidence the sort of personal dislike voters had for Clinton with respect to Biden. That, combined with the four years of Trump, mean that the anti-Trump coalition is more strongly behind Biden than it was behind Clinton. Remember, that anti-Trump view led to the highest mid-term turnout since 1914. And while I admit it is possible for Biden's support to go down how does Trump's go up? What's so amazing about Trump's support/opposition is how constant it has been. OK there's been a little variation, the initial Covid-19 stuff gave him a small rally round the flag bounce, the combination of his subsequent handling of Covid-19 + and BLM stuff more than reversed that, but really the support/opposition has been pretty much flat.

There's always been a bigger anti-Trump vote than pro-Trump vote. Trump got lucky in 2016 in that pretty much everything was in alignment he was running against a candidate that was almost as unpopular as he was, and the Republicans had an real advantage in the electoral college, the Sunbelt seats that were/are drifting Democrat were still too far away for Clinton (who nevertheless had better votes than previous Democrats) to counteract the loss of the Rustbelt seats that had been drifting away from the Democrats. How much of that electoral college advantage remains is an open question but there is evidence that it is less than in 2016 (1, 2).

So while I can absolutely buy that there could (in fact probably will) be a narrowing of the polls by November, I don't see how Trump is going to take the popular vote, and I'll be highly surprised if Biden does not win the popular vote by more than Clinton did. And in that case it is difficult (but admittedly not impossible) for Trump to win.

I also don't agree that that a Biden landslide is a nonsense, certainly not in the EC where relatively small swings could change the numbers very significantly. Flavour is correct when they say that not only the Rustbelt states but Florida and the Sunbelt states are realistic targets for the Dems.
 
Last edited:
Whatever happens it will be the last time we see those 90s Democrats, thank god

Sanders had a massive effect and Warren was silly but she was a possibility. I personally like Andrew Yang and that hippy woman who got to the quarter finals, the way that the Democrats are just centre right has ruined them, and even if they win, there is no appetite for that.
 
Buddy Bradley said:
Biden wins both popular and electoral, kicking off massive protests by armed militias that descend into a combination of civil war and mass state secessions. Oregon becomes part of Canada; New Mexico just becomes a part of Mexico.
Click to expand...
Also, New England becomes part of England again, Georgia becomes part of Georgia (Caucasus) and Paris, Texas becomes a suburb of Paris, France. It could happen.
 
Buddy Bradley said:
Biden wins both popular and electoral, kicking off massive protests by armed militias that descend into a combination of civil war and mass state secessions. Oregon becomes part of Canada; New Mexico just becomes a part of Mexico.
Click to expand...

And Alaska, like Crimea, will be liberated and return to the loving embrace of mother Russia.
 
Buddy Bradley said:
Biden wins both popular and electoral, kicking off massive protests by armed militias that descend into a combination of civil war and mass state secessions. Oregon becomes part of Canada; New Mexico just becomes a part of Mexico.
Click to expand...
Uhhh...you do know that Washington State is between Oregon and Canada, yes?
 
redsquirrel said:
On (1) I absolutely agree with you that the demise of populism is nonsense. But I'd challenge the contention that candidates who run from the centre don't win anymore (I'd probably re-phrase that to be technocratic liberals don't win anymore) - after all the traditional centre-left/greens had something of a return in this years French elections, in Canada Trudeau won re-election (although lost his majority) and there was no populist breakthrough, in Germany the SPD actually managed a victory at the state level, after years of victories Erodgan's suffering recent loses, even in the Warsaw mayoral elections where the populist won it was a narrow win.

National populism certainly is not going anywhere but there are relatively few places in the west where it is not a minority position with a cap on support. Which is where I disagree with you on (2). First, I don't think there is much evidence the sort of personal dislike voters had for Clinton with respect to Biden. That, combined with the four years of Trump, mean that the anti-Trump coalition is more strongly behind Biden than it was behind Clinton. Remember, that anti-Trump view led to the highest mid-term turnout since 1914. And while I admit it is possible for Biden's support to go down how does Trump's go up? What's so amazing about Trump's support/opposition is how constant it has been. OK there's been a little variation, the initial Covid-19 stuff gave him a small rally round the flag bounce, the combination of his subsequent handling of Covid-19 + and BLM stuff more than reversed that, but really the support/opposition has been pretty much flat.

There's always been a bigger anti-Trump vote than pro-Trump vote. Trump got lucky in 2016 in that pretty much everything was in alignment he was running against a candidate that was almost as unpopular as he was, and the Republicans had an real advantage in the electoral college, the Sunbelt seats that were/are drifting Democrat were still too far away for Clinton (who nevertheless had better votes than previous Democrats) to counteract the loss of the Rustbelt seats that had been drifting away from the Democrats. How much of that electoral college advantage remains is an open question but there is evidence that it is less than in 2016 (1, 2).

So while I can absolutely buy that there could (in fact probably will) be a narrowing of the polls by November, I don't see how Trump is going to take the popular vote, and I'll be highly surprised if Biden does not win the popular vote by more than Clinton did. And in that case it is difficult (but admittedly not impossible) for Trump to win.

I also don't agree that that a Biden landslide is a nonsense, certainly not in the EC where relatively small swings could change the numbers very significantly. Flavour is correct when they say that not only the Rustbelt states but Florida and the Sunbelt states are realistic targets for the Dems.
Click to expand...
Pretty good analysis that - but I also think you neded to factor in the latinos
 
tim said:
Biden strikes me as a much weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton, perhaps because I hear too much Trump propaganda about him, so I'm really not convinced that he will be able to win a majority in the Electoral College, even if he wins the popular vote. I'm also fairly convinced that at least some of the Republican voter suppression plots will succeed, giving Trump a significant advantage.


Do you share my pessimism(Marty1 are you creaming yourself at the mere thought of it)? Also, will the Democrats be as accepting as they were last time, if he wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college? If it all starts going tits up would the military step in?
Click to expand...
Apols if a pea roast, but this webpage may be a useful reference point over the next couple of months:

US 2020 Presidential election forecast model: will Donald Trump or Joe Biden win?

especially they dynamic tracking:

1598618582284.png
 
redsquirrel said:
On (1) I absolutely agree with you that the demise of populism is nonsense. But I'd challenge the contention that candidates who run from the centre don't win anymore (I'd probably re-phrase that to be technocratic liberals don't win anymore) - after all the traditional centre-left/greens had something of a return in this years French elections, in Canada Trudeau won re-election (although lost his majority) and there was no populist breakthrough, in Germany the SPD actually managed a victory at the state level, after years of victories Erodgan's suffering recent loses, even in the Warsaw mayoral elections where the populist won it was a narrow win.

National populism certainly is not going anywhere but there are relatively few places in the west where it is not a minority position with a cap on support. Which is where I disagree with you on (2). First, I don't think there is much evidence the sort of personal dislike voters had for Clinton with respect to Biden. That, combined with the four years of Trump, mean that the anti-Trump coalition is more strongly behind Biden than it was behind Clinton. Remember, that anti-Trump view led to the highest mid-term turnout since 1914. And while I admit it is possible for Biden's support to go down how does Trump's go up? What's so amazing about Trump's support/opposition is how constant it has been. OK there's been a little variation, the initial Covid-19 stuff gave him a small rally round the flag bounce, the combination of his subsequent handling of Covid-19 + and BLM stuff more than reversed that, but really the support/opposition has been pretty much flat.

There's always been a bigger anti-Trump vote than pro-Trump vote. Trump got lucky in 2016 in that pretty much everything was in alignment he was running against a candidate that was almost as unpopular as he was, and the Republicans had an real advantage in the electoral college, the Sunbelt seats that were/are drifting Democrat were still too far away for Clinton (who nevertheless had better votes than previous Democrats) to counteract the loss of the Rustbelt seats that had been drifting away from the Democrats. How much of that electoral college advantage remains is an open question but there is evidence that it is less than in 2016 (1, 2).

So while I can absolutely buy that there could (in fact probably will) be a narrowing of the polls by November, I don't see how Trump is going to take the popular vote, and I'll be highly surprised if Biden does not win the popular vote by more than Clinton did. And in that case it is difficult (but admittedly not impossible) for Trump to win.

I also don't agree that that a Biden landslide is a nonsense, certainly not in the EC where relatively small swings could change the numbers very significantly. Flavour is correct when they say that not only the Rustbelt states but Florida and the Sunbelt states are realistic targets for the Dems.
Click to expand...

On (1) I agree that technocratic liberals is probably a better descriptor, so let's use that.

On (2) it is true that Biden doesn't have the personal baggage and unpopularity that Clinton had. But let's also be clear. In policy terms, in social, economic and cultural terms, Biden is about to run, essentially, the same campaign that Clinton ran and lost on in 2016. At the same point in the election cycle Trump trailed Clinton by 9% and now trails Biden by the same, but with two key differences from then and now that are being overlooked:

a) Trump support is strengthening among white voters (74% of the electorate) and the solid segment of support among Hispanic voters is moving in the right direction. The latest polling shows white voter satisfaction with Trump is 20% higher than it was at this point 4 years ago. Among Hispanic voters the latest WSJ poll showed his support increasing from 28% (2016) to 31% (now).
b) On all polls Trump remains in the lead on the economy and by a larger margin than in 2016

The same WSJ poll showed that among 'up for grabs' voters Trump has a 10% lead over Biden. The latest NSBC poll (and others) show the Biden lead decreasing in both the Rust Belt and Sunbelt states. The lead for Biden is approaching margin of error levels and this is before the campaign really intensifies.

Finally, landslide victories are normally won by candidates who are popularly perceived to be the candidate of 'change' and 'modernity'. Insurgent campaigns develop momentum, energy and engagement as a result. Biden is running a campaign based on the polar opposite. It's essential offer is to reset and return America back to some point in the past (Before Trump, the 90’s, whatever). The problem with that of course is that a return to the past isn't going to motivate people outside the base that it already has. Like Trump and the GOP the Democrats remain unpopular. The form of politics that Biden is to his core remains deeply unpopular. Most of the Biden support is based on lesser evilism rather than positive factors.

If 2016 taught the Democrats anything is was that the only way to beat Trump decisively is by acknowledging the surging desire for change and to put forward a programme - and a candidate - that reflects it.

The selection of Biden, and the manner in which the machine delivered him and defeated Sanders, was premised on an explicit rejection of 'change'. It was cloth eared.

It’s premised on on anAnti-Trump feeling/and a return of the professional managerial class to be enough to motivate its base and activists (because we know if nothing else that the Democrat machine alone can't win) and, crucially, to win the 'up for grabs’. It’s the same strategy as Clinton‘s basically.

It assumes the moral revulsion is enough and is wide enough to get home. It swaps an unpopular candidate for a less unpopular candidate.

As the campaign intensifies we can expect to see Biden painted at the candidate of defund the police/white BLM protestors smashing things up/antifa/stuff so off the wall that it will take the breath away.

The aim will be to motivate still angry white ‘left behind’ voters in the key states we’ve identified. It will target those fearful of civil war and riots.

It will seek to solidify the lead among the up for grabs by appeals to patriotism and yes, racism. It will seek to demotivate working class democratic support. It’s exactly how Nixon won by building an alliance of the reactionaries and the left behind and culturally angry in the 1970’s. Like then, a depressing and generational ‘culture war’ appeal over class interests can be stood up because of the essentially reactionary politics of the democrats.

I simply do not see any way to a Biden landslide. In a ‘normal’ year with a GOP candidate who wasn’t Trump I’d write Biden off now tbh. As it stands it’s 50/50
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

singsongfun
What chance does Trump have of winning the 2024 Presidential Election?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
216
Views
11K
Lucky 888
L
P
Mexico Presidential Elections 2/6/24
Replies
4
Views
386
rutabowa
R
Sasaferrato
Who are the Henry Jackson Society?
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
8ball
8ball
mojo pixy
Give me a reason not to embrace the far-right
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
3K
Lotte
L
RD2003
South Africa election
Replies
2
Views
350
RD2003
RD2003
Back
Top Bottom