View Single Post
Old 02-22-2019, 05:31 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,370
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Not sure what there is to rebut and I am not rebutting anything. Simple comment: the biggest chunk of voters have no idea who they will be supporting yet. Not being known by most yet and leading the pack at 9% or 4% doesn't have much predictive value.
The contention that I think you're rebutting is the notion that while a number of candidates have been able to garner a bit more support than the 1% range, Brown isn't one of them.

Your counterclaim is that they're practically all down there, or close enough to it to make no never mind.

But while that one poll asks the question of support differently, it disadvantages (or the standard way of asking the question advantages) all candidates equally. But however you put it, when reminded of the candidates' names, voters say of several other candidates, "Yeah, I like her/him." But Brown's not getting any of that action.

I think that one poll you favor is a measure of more solid support, while the other is a measure of what may be a more ephemeral level of support, of leaning towards a candidate rather than being solidly in their camp. (People in that latter situation don't need to be reminded of the name of the candidate they're supporting. ) But if a candidate can't even get those leaners, he's not going to turn them into solid supporters.
Haven't seen your ass and don't care much about it. But the results in Iowa and NH will winnow the field. If a known established big expectations name (Sanders, Biden, Warren) underperforms (not in top two in either) the storyline for them is how down they are and they sink fast. If a lesser name (pretty much everyone else) overperforms (in top three in one or the other) that is the media cycle, even more than an expected winner winning. And those of the pretty much everyone else who do not hit the top three in one or the other are pretty much done with forks sticking out.
(ETA:-->) My point is that IA and NH winnow much more than you think.

New Hampshire, of course, has been part of the winnowing process since time immemorial. Iowa first became part of the winnowing process in 1976, and with the exception of 1992, where all the Dem candidates skipped Iowa to let Tom Harkin have an uncontested win, it's been part of the winnowing process for both parties ever since.

And in all those cycles where Iowa and NH have both been part of the winnowing process, the nominees of each party have won either Iowa or New Hampshire. In none of them has someone whose best finish in IA and NH was a second or third won the nomination, no matter how much they may have beaten expectations.

Maybe this cycle will break the pattern; patterns don't hold up forever - especially given the whiteness of those two states, and the racial and ethnic diversity of the Dem coalition. But (a) it's hard to see Brown being the guy who breaks through in SC or NV on the basis of his greater appeal to blacks or Hispanics after losing in IA and NH, and (b) I'd bet my bottom dollar that nobody's going to win the nomination after their best result in IA and NH is a third-place finish, no matter how much they exceeded expectations by.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 02-22-2019 at 05:36 PM.