Donnie’s Back

Back Again

always has been

Frick it here’s my prediction. SOMEHOW…the original swing states returned.

(Note: I checked this. Virginia is solid blue like just Wisconsin and Pennsylvania and New Mexico is a weaker blue like Michigan, but New Hampshire is as tight as Iowa is and is tight enough it’s meeting the definition for Swing State in polling as of late. Imagine a scenario where Trump loses the Rust Belt badly and suffers massive decline in Iowa, but manages to hold Iowa and pick up New Hampshire. That’s 272-266 for Trump)

Going into next election with two extra swing states is kinda cool tho I guess. Maybe all that rhetoric about changing how primaries and causcuses work and killing their first dibs thing as of late scared em and now they gotta be too important to risk pissing off again so they’re turning themselves into swing states. Not an actual theory, but then again, those are THE two early states…hmmmm…crackpot time

It IS a good sign for Harris, but like I said, trying to interpret this nation wide is a bad move. If you did the same thing for Nevada(bluest swing state in 2016 only one Hillary held, second bluest in 2020 only behind Michigan) which is by far the reddest in Early Voting you’d assume Harris was about to get red waved.

All this truly tells us is that the North and Great Lakes region is getting bluer and the Sunbelt is getting redder. Iowa was the reddest of the 4/5 weak red states(People thought Alaska was more gettable than it) and now it might be the bluest. Nevada was the bluest swing state until a month ago and it’s suddenly on track to be the reddest. Arizona was the tightest swing state and now it’s gone hard red, Georgia was safe red until it was dead tight. Trends can break locally without nessacrily indicating a nation swing. Like I said, if you used the ‘Iowa going blue/being close means Kamala sweeps everything’ argument for Nevada you’d be dooming hard.

The early voting data suggests Iowa is alone in this at least on the blue side, and it’s narrow enough the red favored election day would likely take it back. It’s actually about as blue as New Hampshire which…is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you expect election day to turnout. (both are less blue percentage wise than the rust belt swing states and both would be swing states by their current ratios if it wasn’t too late to add them).

HOWEVER, I also heed a potential warning sign here. If the Democrats can flip a weak red state(‘weak’, 7 and a half points last time and polling 10 point average prior to this) or even come close, while still losing the Sun Belt(which is what the early voting data points to, and that hinted at Iowa days before this. It’s a bit more blue than final, but way less than 2020, same with election day in reverse) what’s stopping the reverse happening on Election Day(when the republicans are stronger)?

Like, New Mexico or Virginia or New Hampshire or something. If fucking Iowa can go competitive out of nowhere due to a combination of local factors and being ignored by the main party as safe, whilst Sunbelt swingstates hold red(IE: No huge nationwide shift, this is more regional), the reverse is perfectly plausible too. New Mexico is a border state with a ton of overlap with Arizona which has swung to the reddest swing state, Virginia has the most Anti-Democrat third party spread in the entire country(All the left wingers made it and the Libertarians are more left than usual, but no RFK and no Cornell West/Constitution Party to counterbalance) and went more red than expected in 2021. Neither of them have Abortion on the ballot.

Not to fearmonger or anything ,the Iowa data is great news for the Democrats, just, keep this is mind. This year has been an utter rollercoaster of surprises, both sides have been ‘guaranteed’ to win like 3 times each at this point and something else pops up. Iowa going blue only to be undone by Virginia going red wouldn’t surprise me at this point with what a psychotic roller coaster of an election it’s been.

I will say I noticed a couple days ago on Reddit(zero clue the method used tho) that Iowa was the ONLY outlier among Early Voting/Mail In Voting results. All the blue states had blue leanings, all the red states had red leanings, swing states were split: Rust Belt Blue, Sun Belt Red, except for Georgia which was too close to call due to their lack of transparency and overall closeness. Iowa was more blue thanks to early voting. Only outlier.

On the one hand, this poll suggests that wasn’t an outlier. It FEELS weird because Iowa was considered the right most of the ‘weak red’ bloc, Florida and Ohio and Texas were discussed WAY more as potential pickups and got way more polling, Iowa got the least attention of them.

However I also note on the other hand the early voting data suggests Iowa is an outlier and this isn’t suggestive of a Kamala sweep. This could be because-

1. Iowa has some of the harshest Anti-Abortion laws in the country and isn’t deep deep red like the comparable ones. That’s on the ballot.
2. Iowa is right next to Minnesota and Tim Walz is jacking up the numbers, Iowa is old white country and Tim Walz is perfect for that.
3. RFK Jr couldn’t get off the ballot in Iowa and there isn’t a strong left wing 3rd Party outside the norm like Claudia or Cornel to counterbalance either. Ohio/Texas/Florida don’t have RFK on the ballot and neither do most of the swing states, and the Rust Belt has those other two to counterweight it.
4. Due to the lack of Democrat investment that Ohio and Texas and Florida saw there was also less Republican counter investment, so it trickled left and both sides missed it with so little polling there.

If you think Iowa indicates that nationwide trends are super wrong then you also have to ignore the early voting data that hinted at a bluer Iowa days ago because everything else on that chart is falling to expectation. That data still has Texas/Florida/Ohio Red and suggests the sun belt is going Red outside of maaaaaaybe Georgia which is tight. There are also a few other Iowa polls all showing it still safely red so it could just be super close/future swing state rather than blue this time.

Maybe it is a nationwide trend, maybe it is, but my gut says it’s a mix of lack of red investment and lack of blue polling interest as it wasn’t as seemingly close as places like Florida or Texas, and two huge Iowa specific factors being extreme anti-abortion laws nearly unrivaled nationally and Tim Walz being from right next door and appealing to the Iowa bloc massively.

What it would signal otherwise is that Tim Walz is doing a great job shoring up the white vote in the Rust Belt and that probably secures Wisconsin which ALSO borders Minnesota and has a lot of the same factors as Iowa. The early voting data says they’re losing the Sun Belt so they need to hold the Rust Belt. Iowa going blue and everything else going to plan would funnily enough make Nevada actually matter again. They’re both worth 6 points so Nevada going red(which otherwise was useless in basically any scenario, Republicans would either win without it or NV wouldn’t save them otherwise) would neutralize Iowa being lost and turn a couple scenarios from narrow losses to narrow wins.

I will say this debate is inherently riskier than the last one simply because JD Vance is already at his floor. He’s the most unpopular VP or VP candidate in history. Worse than Sarah Palin, worse than Spiro Agnew, worse than Aaron Burr.
He loses, nothing changes, he cannot go lower barring Mark Robinson tier revelations and even then I have doubts. He wins, Walz slips a point or two, Harris by extension maybe 1/4th of a point.

Really anything that can stop the bleed for the Republicans is a win for them, October is critical. Harris rode a 6 week high after getting in at the end of July, spent the first two weeks undoing the pit Biden had dug, then got boosts from the VP pick and convention that lasted until early September. Trump finally had trends on his side and the debate utterly wrecked that. That’s finally fading again so they really are seeking a win, a screw up here could be too late to wait out and Vance getting some good press could bury stuff like the Uncle Robinson(no relation) disaster.

The other problem is that he’s young, really young, Teddy young. JD Vance is young enough he can fake it for a little bit in a way Trump is just too old to do these days. He’s baitable, but not to the level of Trump or even Biden in this environment. Young Narcissists can put on a face for a while in a controlled space like this, 80s Trump did it all the time and I’d argue Vance might be sharper than him.

I don’t think it’s a bad matchup, Walz is very wholesome and more experienced(and the reverse would be very unideal for the Democrats. Vance would be better at avoiding the massive tangents Harris baited Trump into, meanwhile Walz isn’t as high energy or effective on the pursuit against Trump as Harris is) , but he definitely ‘looks’ and ‘sounds’ older than he is, especially compared to Harris. So Walz is walking in with that already there.

r/politics told me to go here for image posts

For a quick TL:DR on each.

The Libertarians were founded in 1971, initially stuck to a pretty core Randian Libertarian message albeit gradually weaning off the hard AnCap stance. Then they tilted right for a bit in the 90s to take advantage of the disgruntled Republican bloc, then tilted left during Y2K as the Reform Party turned right, but tilted hard right during the Tea Party era and later Trump Era, ultimately culminating in a Party Civil War in 2022 which saw a hard right Trump faction take over the party, followed by a counter takeover by a Moderate and Leftist faction, leading to the hard rights abandoning the party on mass for the GOP and the Moderates trying to go for RFK, but they’ve been kept in line by Chase Oliver’s left leaning faction who are currently nominated. They have been the strongest third party since around 2006, though they’ve collapsed in the polls following internal conflict this year.

The USA Green Party was founded in 1991(though the current version broke away in 2001 and the remnant faction died off in 2019) as a mostly environmentalist and progressive party. After some initial issues with the Natural Law Party they surged in 2000 taking advantage of a right wing takeover of the Reform Party, under the leadership of Ralph Nader. Following Ralph leaving briefly in 2004 for the Reforms combined with Obama rising the Green Party nearly collapsed in the late 2000s, but since then the modern Green Party has mostly consolidated under the tight control of Jill Stein, who has been the dominant figure in the party since 2011. It’s very much her party as seen by the bad under performance in 2020 when she didn’t run. They were briefly the Number 1 third party in the early-mid 2000s and have been solidly Top 2 for their entire existence. They’re set to outpreform the Libertarians for the first time in 20 years this year, though their future is iffy with Jill’s coming retirement and the soaring PSL cutting into their base.

The Constitution Party was founded in 1990(As the Taxpayer Party), as part of a broader wave of Right Wing dissatisfaction with the GOP following Bush breaking his ‘Read My Lips’ promise. While initially working together, the Reform Party faction and Constitution Party factions broke up in 1992. They believe in Christian Nationalism, Hardline Constitutionism, and were the dominant party of the Tea Party bloc. While traditionally considered part of the Big 3, both because they almost always come Third Place and because they can consistently run their own primaries and get their own candidates(Most of the dozen or so active other third parties can’t, usually working together as a coalition to nominate a single candidate. Rocky De Le Fuente is a recent example of this), but they’re far behind the other two, only getting 1/5th of a percent nationally at best(Though on the state level they’ve gotten as high as 4%). After rising in the Obama era as a major Tea Party contributor, they’ve weakened massively following the rightward shift of the GOP and infighting with other small right parties like the AIP(Of George Wallace ‘Foreva’ fame) or ADP. They’ve been outperformed by hotshot independents and coalition candidates several times, but most notably in 2020 did worse than the newcomer and potential new ‘3rd Third’.

The PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation, or Socialist Liberation Party) is a Communist-Socialist-Marxist party founded in 2004. They are the fastest growing Third Party in the USA. They went from not even being the Top Communist Party in 2008(getting slightly fewer votes than the Socialist Workers Party, who are the second oldest third party active RN dating back to the 1930s and are the second largest communist party here even today), to top of the Communists in 2012, to 5th best overall in 2016(Behind the Big 3 and Evan McMullin) to Top 3 in 2020. They’re widely predicted to eclipse the Constitution Party(arguably already have) and get comparable numbers to the Greens in the states they run in. They’re also 4th overall in Ballot Access(Behind the Libertarians, Greens, and RFK Jr) this year. Their final totals could be quite close to the Libertarians given how badly they’ve fallen apart as of late, and between that and Jill Stein’s retirement after this election they’re set to be the biggest 3rd Party nationally by 2028. They’ve also gained a reputation for avoiding the purity checks and hardline member stances of the other parties, instead focusing on co-opting and controlling grassroots leftist movements, using on the ground operatives for more media exposure, and absorbing smaller communist parties.

All I’m gonna say is that if they get this wrong, it’s the biggest upset in the betting circuit thus far.

They had Kamala ahead of Biden for a full 5 days prior to him dropping out and she had been solidly second place since the 30th (Newsom initially had a spike, but then fell), trading first place with Biden several times before that final soar.

JD Vance was solidly Top 2 in the Rep VP race from early June onward and was Number 1 most days in July outside of one or two brief Burgum spikes.

They were pretty solid on Trump being the Rep nominee from the start of 2023 onward, only a brief dip around the midterms.

Shapiro has been in the Top 2 solidly since betting opened on the 23rd-24th(And by that time people like Newsom and Whitmer who might have had an early lead had betting opened on the 21st or before Biden dropped had publically said no) and has had an extremely strong lead since the 30th never dropping below 20 points ahead of second place and briefly getting as high as 50 points ahead of everyone else.

There also hasn’t been a consistent second place option ala Burgum, Kelly was the other guy to hit first place and traded spots with Shapiro initially, but he tanked horribly on the 30th-31st and never recovered. Beshear has been first once or twice and was a strong 3rd or 4th prior, but he’s never gotten to 20% or higher. Same with Buttigieg. Walz is the strongest right now, and he admittedly was handicapped a bit as he didn’t get put on the poll until the 31st(His name wasn’t on the initial first week list at all and by the time he was popping up hard the betting already opened), but even accounting for that at his best he’s never gotten to the level of Mark Kelly pre-30th(who was in the mid 30s point wise peaking at 44%), let alone Shapiro post-30th (who has been anywhere from 55-77%).

read that in a bad Obama impression for some reason…been watching too much jibjab

even spicier

Just to say, I’m increasingly uncertain about how truthful it really is that JD Vance was the worst possible pick for Trump and the best case for the democrats. If the matchup was still Biden, perhaps. But the thing is, Kamala has the black vote, Indian vote, and to a lesser extent the Female vote on lockdown now. She’s the candidate, she’s got them turning out hard, any attempt for Trump to win some over with someone like Carson or Swaney would have been utterly undone and rendered moot. There’s a bit more of an argument for the women, but Nikki was too troublesome and most of the other options are either old or look old. Trump needed someone young to shore up that flank, who won’t depress his base(or will help boost them, albeit after the shooting that’s not needed), helps him look sane and the ticket by proxy, and is at least potentially helpful with either the rust belt whites or Hispanics(who are the actually gettable ones against Harris). Vance is young, helps the base, and might edge out a few rust belt voters. He’s useless with Hispanics though and doesn’t help the moderate issue. So still not great, but a lot of the picks people were worried about like Ben Carson would have been completely neutralized by Harris with hindsight. The threat of Trump pulling over key black voters is a dead threat and that’s not where the VP sway matters most right now.

The two picks that would be better than Vance(and the two you should feel worried about Trump switching to in the next 10 days) are Doug Burgum and Glenn Youngkin. Burgum has a lot of the same advantages as Vance, and he comes off as a lot more sane and less stupid, albeit at the cost of being older than Harris and most of her VP choices. That one could go either way honestly and I doubt Trump would risk the optics for someone barely better, but if he did he could be an issue especially as it kills stories like OP. The real threat would be Glenn Youngkin. He’s younger than Harris by two years and younger than almost all her VP options. He’s a white guy, he comes off as more moderate than Trump or Vance by comparison, but not so much to risk depressing the base like Haley, and he’s younger(Also he has Young in his last name, easy to work with). The biggest threat with him though is that he’d give a boost in Virginia, and while Post-Biden that’s not a death sentence it forces Harris to commit resources and time to a state the Republicans don’t really need to win and the Democrats really cannot afford to lose. Also both Burgum and Youngkin have tech industry roots and heavy ties. They might not be Vance tier loyalists, but they’ll sing the tune of the Paypal Mafia if they must.

Mostly true. You could argue if Major Primary Contenders should be counted(Top 3 would be unchanged) and Biden is still the older President, Trump would have to win and make it to his 4th and final year to beat that. Reagan issue, people debated the definition back in 2016 too.

Just maybe hold off then, if Biden fucking croaks or something it’ll make the Democrats look worse for not taking their guy’s age seriously. Make sure he’s fine and not COVIDous for a few days

The definition of major party was fuzzy back in the civil war reconstruction era

Again, for the record, Peter Cooper is the record holder for oldest Nominee. Trump is second and Biden is third(albeit Biden is still older by the Reagan metric of end of office if Trump ends up losing or dies midway through). If you wanna say oldest REPUBLICAN ever go for it, that’s a far safer claim that’s not made incorrect thanks to Peter Cooper or vulnerable to debating the exact definition like Biden is(like he was A Nominee in the primaries, he just didn’t become THE Nominee). Also making this argument makes the ‘Biden should resign’ thing worse so, maybe hold off on that. There’s plenty of legitimate anti-Trump arguments that can be expressed as simple factual statements. Trump is rapist. No need to get into the age shit

I’m going off the week 1 polls. She was weaker than everyone else when adjusted for name recognition and was the only one within the margins of Biden. I also don’t disagree on the base point, but there’s 3 months, the war machine needs time to spool up and the Republicans have had a 2 week headstart. It’s gonna be tight and Pensyllvania is not going well