*Watch Lawrence show for his guest, EDITED

[elleng]

who has predicted results of 2020 election, 278 for the Dem candidate WHOMEVER it is!! Her name is Rachel XXX. LATER!


Rachel Bitecofer predicted last year's midterms with incredible accuracy. Her 2020 forecast is ... not too bad

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/17/this-political-scientist-completely-nailed-the-2018-blue-wave-heres-her-2020-forecast/

[JoeOtterbein]

1. Thanks!

KnR!

[highplainsdem]

2. Rachel Bitecofer. Here's her prediction:

http://cnu.edu/wasoncenter/2019/07/01-2020-election-forecast/

[B Stieg]

3. Nice grab! She's on here in 30 minutes...nt

THX

[Funtatlaguy]

4. She is the Nate Silver of the new generation.

[Hoyt]

5. 278 is too close for me, unless I'm waking up 11/4/2020. I'm holding my breathe.

[murielm99]

7. If it is that close,

trump may contest the election. He may try to muddy the waters, call for recounts, rile his base into civil unrest...anything.

I would like to see a higher number than 278.

[Hoyt]

13. Can you imagine going through a month or two of a contested results where one state

could give us 4 more years of trump? Christ.

[elleng]

6. DARN, WISH she'd been on longer, for more info on her approach,

and applicability for the Senate.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. She has more data analysis coming, I'm sure she'll be back

Hopefully on Rachel Maddow next time.

[flamingdem]

8. She said it's all about the base, not the undecided voter

So lets gotv!

[elleng]

9. Not about REPUGS, she said.

ADD this:

'The explanation, of course, is that it was this giant turnout of core constituencies, that either are Democrats or favor Democrats — they’re independents who favor Democrats — and they have a huge turnout explosion. So it's not the same pool of voters changing their minds and voting Democrat after voting Republican because of the issue of health care. It's a whole different pool of voters.

They might have many reasons that they cite, and probably this is not the reason they would cite. But what made them enraged and show up is Trump Inc., the negative partisanship. I don't know why Nancy Pelosi, the DCCC or many of these moderate members are convinced that moderate Republicans crossed over and voted for them. I have the data for some of these districts and the data tells a very different, very clear story: If Republicans voted in huge numbers, they voted for Republicans.'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287246088

[flamingdem]

11. True, but I took it to mean people who lean a bit repug

that we're told we should peel off.

Instead we need to work on our own.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. She specifically said don't worry about motivating moderate DEMS

It's the progressive base that needs to be inspired turn out in massive numbers, not comforting moderates with a "safe" candidate, which could depress turnout in the base.

[BeyondGeography]

18. She's right of course

And there already are plenty of underlying numbers between the “safe” front runner and the more inspirational candidates that back her up:

...there’s an enthusiasm gap for Biden among some primary voters, the poll found. A majority of those surveyed, 56%, said Warren would fight “a great deal” for people like them, and 54% said the same of Sanders. Only 38% described Biden that way.

When asked who has been the most “passionate” so far, Warren and Sanders each had 28%, while Biden had just 14%. Warren, who has touted her policy proposals, was seen as the most specific candidate, with 42%, while Harris was seen as the strongest with 32%.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-21/biden-leads-in-new-cbs-democratic-poll-but-faces-enthusiasm-gap

Biden’s dwindling online fundraising support is another indicator.

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. That info should be its own OP

Those data points capture some of the essence of what will inspire voter turnout, especially among young voters.

If young voters turnout in significant numbers, WE WILL WIN.

[highplainsdem]

19. No, she specifically differentiated between moderates and Democrats in that part of

the interview.

See this reply in another thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287246088#post26

She said moderates can be appealed to, but Democrats don't do it well.

So there she meant centrist independents when she used the term "moderate." I wish she'd be more precise when she also talks about moderate Dems, since it caused this confusion.

[jberryhill]

12. She's right about that!

[JI7]

16. yes, it's about TURNOUT and dealing with Republican voter suppression attempts.

[jberryhill]

10. We'll have to wait to see how the wool on the caterpillars turns out

Or whether the rhubarb blooms early.

[highplainsdem]

17. LOL!