Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

elleng

(130,728 posts) Thu Sep 5, 2019, 11:03 PM Sep 2019

With 16 Months to go, Negative Partisanship Predicts the 2020 Presidential Election.

LAST UPDATED: JULY 1, 2019

by Rachel Bitecofer

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

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

With 16 Months to go, Negative Partisanship Predicts the 2020 Presidential Election. (Original Post) elleng Sep 2019 OP

No, really? What a shock EndGOPPropaganda Sep 2019 #1

Thanks for this fascinating read, my dear elleng! CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2019 #2

Just ran into it; elleng Sep 2019 #3

I don't really see more than opinion in her sense that a more left candidate will bring on emmaverybo Sep 2019 #4

EndGOPPropaganda

(1,117 posts)

1. No, really? What a shock

Reply to elleng (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 11:27 PM

Sep 2019

Negative Partisanship has predicted American politics since about 2013 on

CaliforniaPeggy

(149,517 posts)

2. Thanks for this fascinating read, my dear elleng!

Reply to elleng (Original post)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 12:04 AM

Sep 2019

I hope you will post more of her writing.

Fascinating stuff and I sure hope she's right.

elleng

(130,728 posts)

3. Just ran into it;

Reply to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 12:13 AM

Sep 2019

will surely post whatever I see.

emmaverybo

(8,144 posts)

4. I don't really see more than opinion in her sense that a more left candidate will bring on

Reply to elleng (Original post)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 12:17 AM

Sep 2019

the voting surge and have no suppressing effect, Biden will have to work on the fact that he’s not a woman etc.

She really veered off at that juncture from any supporting evidence to back her theory.

Reply to this discussion