Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[No Excuses]

It’s hard to trust FL polls. It was the one state that polling got wrong quite badly in 2018 at the state level.

[88Comrade2000]

 

That's the  EC from 2016.  They were some faithless electors when the electoral college actually voted in Dec. 2016.  

 

If the Dems are going to get to 270 in 2020; they have to win all the states Hillary won plus states that gives them 38 EVs. 

 

So, the with 3 most likely nominees: Sanders, Warren, Biden- what states will they flip?

 

Trump-Sanders:  I think Trump keeps all his states and also wins: Virginia, Colorado, Nevada.  Trump- 334, Sanders- 204

Trump-Warren: I think it's essentially a repeat of the Hillary-Trump race.  Trump- 306, Warren- 232

Trump-Biden: Trump still wins, but Joe does flip Pennsylvania & Michigan.  Trump- 270, Biden- 268

 

Joe's support among older African American voters helps him win PA & MI but he's not going to get voters to make a difference in any other state.

 

Bernie and Elizabeth policy positions are going to scare alot of voters. They won't necessarily vote for Trump but they won't be voting for Bernie or Elizabeth. On the flip side, Bernie & Elizabeth will bring the youth vote.  Maybe that helps the Dems keep the House and take the Senate but there won't be enough of the youth vote to overcome the votes they will lose. Also, their won't be enough votes to overcome Trump's votes.  The only way Elizabeth or Bernie beats Trump is for them to bring out historic amount of new voters. The youth vote is at least 80 to 90 percent and they bring out other voters into their column that hasn't voted in years or sat out in 2016.  I don't see that happening.

 

The democratic nominee will have to be able to get both factions of the Dem party to come out.  The progressives and the more traditional moderate/conservative Dems. I don't see a candidate running that does that.  I don't care about 2018. Trump wasn't on the ballot then. Also, each of the likely nominee is going to turn off some voters.  The dream candidate would be able to unite all factions and win back those 3 midwestern states plus maybe flip NC,GA,AZ and maybe even TX.  Such candidate doesn't exist.

[nonniey]

11 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'd like to hear which individuals or families would lose money not having to pay for insurance or copays with no deductibles besides private insurance companies.  House bill has block Grants to protect hospitals from closing. If the answer is people getting fractions of a percent increase in taxes, how many is that compared to the number of people declaring medical bankruptcy every year in this country?

Those whose new tax burden exceeded their previous medical expenses.  Certainly retired vets (and their families) and active duty military personnel (and their families).   Likely whoever is already on Medicare and Medicaid would also lose out (and those close or semi close to eligibility for medicare).  I don't know what the percentage losing out versus gaining would be but it won't be 0 (It never is when it comes to any legislation).  Just need to determine if it is worthwhile (and it may be). All I'm saying is stop making claims that is it universally beneficial.

[nonniey]

47 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

 

That's the  EC from 2016.  They were some faithless electors when the electoral college actually voted in Dec. 2016.  

 

If the Dems are going to get to 270 in 2020; they have to win all the states Hillary won plus states that gives them 38 EVs. 

 

So, the with 3 most likely nominees: Sanders, Warren, Biden- what states will they flip?

 

Trump-Sanders:  I think Trump keeps all his states and also wins: Virginia, Colorado, Nevada.  Trump- 334, Sanders- 204

Trump-Warren: I think it's essentially a repeat of the Hillary-Trump race.  Trump- 306, Warren- 232

Trump-Biden: Trump still wins, but Joe does flip Pennsylvania & Michigan.  Trump- 270, Biden- 268

 

Joe's support among older African American voters helps him win PA & MI but he's not going to get voters to make a difference in any other state.

 

Bernie and Elizabeth policy positions are going to scare alot of voters. They won't necessarily vote for Trump but they won't be voting for Bernie or Elizabeth. On the flip side, Bernie & Elizabeth will bring the youth vote.  Maybe that helps the Dems keep the House and take the Senate but there won't be enough of the youth vote to overcome the votes they will lose. Also, their won't be enough votes to overcome Trump's votes.  The only way Elizabeth or Bernie beats Trump is for them to bring out historic amount of new voters. The youth vote is at least 80 to 90 percent and they bring out other voters into their column that hasn't voted in years or sat out in 2016.  I don't see that happening.

 

The democratic nominee will have to be able to get both factions of the Dem party to come out.  The progressives and the more traditional moderate/conservative Dems. I don't see a candidate running that does that.  I don't care about 2018. Trump wasn't on the ballot then. Also, each of the likely nominee is going to turn off some voters.  The dream candidate would be able to unite all factions and win back those 3 midwestern states plus maybe flip NC,GA,AZ and maybe even TX.  Such candidate doesn't exist.

You're missing out on the Syria debacle. Many Neo-cons that voted for Trump last time won't vote for him this time and some of them and the ones that sat out in 2016 (never Trumpers) may actually vote for an acceptable Democrat (Biden, Klobucher, Buttegieg).  That could put Arizona, Maine (1EC) and Florida into play (Heck maybe even Texas depending on how a candidate plays it - Klobucher or Buttegieg are best chances of that happening).

[Cooked Crack]

 

[spjunkies]

I wonder how long it will take for that guys dark secrets to come to the surface. 

[bearrock]

54 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

[pic of 2016 map]

That's the  EC from 2016.  They were some faithless electors when the electoral college actually voted in Dec. 2016.  

 

If the Dems are going to get to 270 in 2020; they have to win all the states Hillary won plus states that gives them 38 EVs. 

 

So, the with 3 most likely nominees: Sanders, Warren, Biden- what states will they flip?

 

Trump-Sanders:  I think Trump keeps all his states and also wins: Virginia, Colorado, Nevada.  Trump- 334, Sanders- 204

Trump-Warren: I think it's essentially a repeat of the Hillary-Trump race.  Trump- 306, Warren- 232

Trump-Biden: Trump still wins, but Joe does flip Pennsylvania & Michigan.  Trump- 270, Biden- 268

 

Joe's support among older African American voters helps him win PA & MI but he's not going to get voters to make a difference in any other state.

 

Bernie and Elizabeth policy positions are going to scare alot of voters. They won't necessarily vote for Trump but they won't be voting for Bernie or Elizabeth. On the flip side, Bernie & Elizabeth will bring the youth vote.  Maybe that helps the Dems keep the House and take the Senate but there won't be enough of the youth vote to overcome the votes they will lose. Also, their won't be enough votes to overcome Trump's votes.  The only way Elizabeth or Bernie beats Trump is for them to bring out historic amount of new voters. The youth vote is at least 80 to 90 percent and they bring out other voters into their column that hasn't voted in years or sat out in 2016.  I don't see that happening.

 

The democratic nominee will have to be able to get both factions of the Dem party to come out.  The progressives and the more traditional moderate/conservative Dems. I don't see a candidate running that does that.  I don't care about 2018. Trump wasn't on the ballot then. Also, each of the likely nominee is going to turn off some voters.  The dream candidate would be able to unite all factions and win back those 3 midwestern states plus maybe flip NC,GA,AZ and maybe even TX.  Such candidate doesn't exist.

 

A liberal dem nominee's best chance is flipping PA, MI, and WI.  The margins were razor slim in those three states (PA: 44K, MI: 11K, WI: 23K).  All about 0.5% or less.  Warren and Sanders' liberal version of the populist message plays a lot better to moderates in the rust belt than coastal friendlier message by traditional Dems.  Another factor to look at will be how many in the rust belt disliked Hillary on a personal level (Warren probably have this problem.  Probably less so for Sanders).

 

A moderate dem probably has a considerably easier and wider path to victory.  Klobuchar and Buttigieg would almost certainly put all the midwest states in play, including Ohio and Iowa.  Biden probably puts at least Ohio in play.  Moderates probably also put NC and Fla in play as well (though Fla may be in play regardless due to the sheer amount of effort both parties spend there).

 

Another leftover question from 2016 is what would have happened if Clinton played heavy defense in the midwest leading up to the election?  Trump saw the midwest as vital path to victory (correctly so) and spent a lot of resources there in the final days of the campaign.  Clinton, like many pollsters, saw herself as the most likely winner and focused on expanding the map.  Despite the EV results, Trump (very astutely in my view) threaded the needle in terms of charting a path to victory in 2016.  The path is still quite tough for the incumbent in 2020, whose negatives are pretty much baked in at this point.  In some ways, there is nowhere for his support to go but down.  And that's pretty bad news for an incumbent polling below 50%.

[88Comrade2000]

26 minutes ago, nonniey said:

You're missing out on the Syria debacle. Many Neo-cons that voted for Trump last time won't vote for him this time and some of them and the ones that sat out in 2016 (never Trumpers) may actually vote for an acceptable Democrat (Biden, Klobucher, Buttegieg).  That could put Arizona, Maine (1EC) and Florida into play (Heck maybe even Texas depending on how a candidate plays it - Klobucher or Buttegieg are best chances of that happening).

I call bull.  When push comes to shove, they will vote Trump.  Even those candidates have policies the neocons couldn't stomach.  You think they want a public option? No.

The only Trump voters who may switch, are Sanders supporters; especially if Bernie is the nominee.

[nonniey]

3 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

I call bull.  When push comes to shove, they will vote Trump.  Even those candidates have policies the neocons couldn't stomach.  You think they want a public option? No.

The only Trump voters who may switch, are Sanders supporters; especially if Bernie is the nominee.

I said acceptable Dem candidate none of the three I mentioned are pushing for a public option. And no never-Trumpers won't vote for Trump they didn't last time and are more likely to vote for the Dem this time. 

[No Excuses]

34 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

42 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Heck maybe even Texas depending on how a candidate plays it - Klobucher or Buttegieg are best chances of that happening).

 

Lol

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said:

That's the  EC from 2016.  They were some faithless electors when the electoral college actually voted in Dec. 2016.  

 

If the Dems are going to get to 270 in 2020; they have to win all the states Hillary won plus states that gives them 38 EVs. 

 

So, the with 3 most likely nominees: Sanders, Warren, Biden- what states will they flip?

 

I think they could quite easily flip MI, WI and PA with chances at AZ, NC and even Florida. 

 

Trump barely eon those states and that was with Hillary neglecting them. I don’t expect that to be the case again and Bernie and Warren have strong messages that appeal to those blue collar workers in those areas that went for Trump. They’ve been **** on for 4 years. I think they might want something new, not to mention increased Dem enthusiasm for them over Hillary, years of anti-trump resentment and an engaged youth vote that we haven’t quite seen before 

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

I think they could quite easily flip MI, WI and PA with chances at AZ, NC and even Florida. 

 

Trump barely eon those states and that was with Hillary neglecting them. I don’t expect that to be the case again and Bernie and Warren have strong messages that appeal to those blue collar workers in those areas that went for Trump. They’ve been **** on for 4 years. I think they might want something new, not to mention increased Dem enthusiasm for them over Hillary, years of anti-trump resentment and an engaged youth vote that we haven’t quite seen before 

I wouldn’t even say “could.” The Democratic candidate should win those Midwest states. Trump is very underwater there. The only reason he won was neglect by Clinton and not exciting the base. 

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, nonniey said:

Those whose new tax burden exceeded their previous medical expenses.  Certainly retired vets (and their families) and active duty military personnel (and their families).   Likely whoever is already on Medicare and Medicaid would also lose out (and those close or semi close to eligibility for medicare).  I don't know what the percentage losing out versus gaining would be but it won't be 0 (It never is when it comes to any legislation).  Just need to determine if it is worthwhile (and it may be). All I'm saying is stop making claims that is it universally beneficial.

 

Tricare has deductibles and copays even for retirees.  If you pull some articles to back your claims that those groups you mentioned would expect a net cost increase, I'll read them.  I'll wait.

[nonniey]

Most vets (almost all) pay less than $1000 a year (yes per year - not month) for medical insurance (Tricare) and co-pays. There is no way tax increases to provide Medicare for all would be less than that and certainly it would be multiples of that.  That said they are only a tiny minority of the general population and that has to be taken into account in any determination to implement Medicare for all (It's not like the deal they made with the Government hasn't been adjusted before - by the government - prior to the mid 80s/90s? it used to be free). 

 

Additionally there are those already on Medicare and Medicaid that would lose out.

 

Again All I'm trying to point out is there will be losers if this policy implemented. There will be winners too. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

46 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Tricare has deductibles and copays even for retirees.  If you pull some articles to back your claims that those groups you mentioned would expect a net cost increase, I'll read them.  I'll wait.

 

My Tricare does not.  So I will see an increase. 

[nonniey]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

My Tricare does not.  So I will see an increase. 

You are still active duty?

[Renegade7]

13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

My Tricare does not.  So I will see an increase. 

 

8 minutes ago, nonniey said:

You are still active duty?

 

For clarification, stuff like this was what I'm going by, I'm not military

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://tricare.mil/-/media/Files/TRICARE/Publications/Misc/Costs_Sheet_2019.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiZ4uSfs7DlAhXGY98KHXEJATAQFjAJegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw2IVguMIstaVe0CQCZJ4j1V

 

https://www.military.com/benefits/tricare/retiree/tricare-for-retirees.html

[TheGreatBuzz]

13 minutes ago, nonniey said:

You are still active duty?

Yes.

[nonniey]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Yes.

You will have co-pays as a vet when using off post doctors/referrals (Yes Vets and family can still utilize Military hospitals). Co-pays are $30 or less. I spend between $150-250 on co-pays for my me and my family.

[88Comrade2000]

2 hours ago, nonniey said:

I said acceptable Dem candidate none of the three I mentioned are pushing for a public option. And no never-Trumpers won't vote for Trump they didn't last time and are more likely to vote for the Dem this time. 

Yes, they are.  All 3 have mentioned some form of public option.

[nonniey]

Renegade portion of that chart that concerns (non reserve) retirees is this. (For me it is 594 a year plus co-pays)

 

Group A: $297 per individual/$594 per family

Group B: $360 per individual/$720 per family

 

Annual Deductible There is no annual deductible. TRICARE Prime Out-of-Pocket Costs ADSMs, ADFMs, and transitional survivors Covered service Group A Group B All covered services $0 $0 Retirees, their families, and all others Covered service Group A Group B Preventive Care Visit $0 $0 Primary Care Outpatient Visit $20 $20 Specialty Care Outpatient Visit $30 $30 Urgent Care Center Visit $30 $30 Emergency Room Visit $61 $61 Inpatient Admission (Hospitalization) $154/ admission $154/ admission.

[LadySkinsFan]

The big push this year is for those on Medicare plus either none or supplemental policies, especially Plan F, is to switch to a Medicare Advantage plan. Plan F basically covers everything except Plan D drug coverage, dental, and vision, which will be covered under the Advantage plans. 

 

Plan F is the best policy because it covers the most expensive stuff like hoapital, doctor costs if one gets really sick, plus nursing home and other benefits. Plan F won't be offered after 2020, except for those who are grandfathered in. It's the Plan I chose in 2016 when I turned 65. The premiums are expensive but when I go to the doctor I don't have co-pays or lab fees. I have a pretty cheap Plan D plan where I don't pay anything for meds.  When I had my stroke, it cost $60k for six days in the hospital plus all the tests etc. That's why I chose Plan F, which I think is being phased out because it's costing the insurance companies too much, not enough profit.

 

I saw a post on FB the other day where the poster outlined some cost comparison: $8500/year family policy premiums plus co-pays and a $6500 deductible compared to $4000 cost/year for M4A. Guess which he supports.  I would have posted his meme except it was filled with obscenities.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, nonniey said:

 You will have co-pays as a vet

I get that.  I was just agreeing with your point.  Military members will end up paying more.  I imagine most vets will also but haven't looked up the numbers for that.  But my current cost is $0 so I'm guaranteed to pay more.

[bearrock]

Tbf, we could see some kind of offset break for military members as we as society understand that medical benefit is a necessary part of military service (should anyway).  Sanders has shown openness for union workers getting consideration for the fact that their medical benefits reflect years of bargaining.  Military members might receive similar consideration.  I would support such a measure for fwiw.