Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:30 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
Still waiting on YouGov's weekly update before putting up my weekly numbers, but Quinnipiac just came out with a new national poll: Warren 27, Biden 25, Sanders 16, Buttigieg 7, Harris 3.

Besides being the first A-rated poll showing Warren nominally ahead, it also confirms another trend: there have been a number of polls that just came out that have Harris down in the low single digits: Emerson's national poll, plus two NH polls and one NV poll, all had her at 3-4%. She's clearly losing altitude here, is noticeably worse off in the polls than before the June debate. I've hesitated to write her off, but at this point it's extremely hard to see how she gets back into the race. She gave herself a big opportunity with that first debate, but totally failed to capitalize.
  #152  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:28 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
... That's not a bad bench, IMHO, but then you don't like anyone, so maybe you disagree.
Now you're exaggerating! I've endorsed both Inslee and Booker, but each is out, or almost out, of contention now. I also like some that were laughed at, e.g. de Blasio. (And BTW, if/when the time comes to pick a surrogate I do NOT think the nod will go to someone shown to be a "loser" earlier in the season.*)

I also DO like both Biden and Warren but in each case their candidacies come with special risks. AND, despite that I like and admire Biden and Warren, AND however far-fetched a Clinton nomination might be, I personally find Clinton more qualified than Biden or Warren on several grounds.

ETA: * - To be clear: A Veep or surrogate slot might go to one of the last 4 or 5 D candidates standing, or to someone who previously lost a general election. It's those already eliminated or down near 1% who I mean by "shown losers."

Last edited by septimus; 09-25-2019 at 09:31 AM.
  #153  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:58 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
You are entitled to your opinion.

But I think (a) you're addressing a far-fetched situation, and (b) the delegates representing the voters who supported a candidate - their opinions are the ones that would count, and rightfully so IMHO.

I think Warren's supporters in particular would be less than happy being represented by a figure more tied to the past than to their vision of the future.
  #154  
Old 09-25-2019, 11:09 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
Details later, numbers now:

Biden 28.4
Warren 21.5
Sanders 16.8
Buttigieg 5.8
Harris 5.2
Yang 3
Beto 2.4
Booker 1.9

Everyone else < 2.0

This includes all national polls rated A-B-C by 538 that have been fielded since the most recent debate.
  #155  
Old 09-25-2019, 11:48 AM
FlikTheBlue is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,841
I see two lanes at this point. The more centrist lane is led by Biden with Harris and Buttigieg as the leading alternates. The left lane is led by Warren with Sanders as the alternate. I think the other candidate are pretty much done for.
  #156  
Old 09-25-2019, 03:38 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
Now that I've got a moment, here's the details: all the polls are now post-debate #3 polls, specifically: A-rated NBC/WSJ, Survey USA, Fox News, and Quinnipiac, and B-rated Emerson and Ipsos, in addition to the at-least-weekly group of B-rated Morning Consult and YouGov, and C-rated HarrisX.

And the numbers, with history now:
Code:
Candidate  Date  8/14  8/21  8/28  9/04  9/12  9/18  9/25

Biden            30.1  28.6  28.5  29.8  26.5  28.5  28.4
Warren           17.0  16.2  16.8  19.0  17.6  18.6  21.5
Sanders          17.1  15.2  16.9  16.0  17.9  16.9  16.8
Buttigieg         5.6   4.7   4.7   5.2   5.0   5.7   5.8
Harris            8.2   7.2   7.2   6.8   6.6   5.6   5.2
Yang                    2.0   2.5   2.6   2.5   2.8   3.0
O'Rourke          2.6   2.7   2.1   1.4   3.0   3.0   2.4
Booker                  2.5   2.3   2.3   2.1   2.9   1.9
And comparison with the other averages:
Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             28.4  29.0  27.0
Warren            21.5  21.4  21.0
Sanders           16.8  17.3  16.0
Buttigieg          5.8   5.8   6.0
Harris             5.2   5.0   6.0
Yang               3.0   3.3   3.0
O'Rourke           2.4   2.6   2.0
Booker             1.9   2.0   1.0
Biden and Sanders are still pretty much where they've been for a while, but Warren's numbers are still rising. In addition to Selzer in Iowa, she's gotten a couple of polls in NH that have her nominally ahead, and three of the last five polls out of California show her ahead of Biden, and no 'nominally' about it.

I'm starting to believe she could win the nomination. Not 'will,' mind you, it's way too early for that. But 'could.'
  #157  
Old 09-25-2019, 03:50 PM
simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,348
I think I'd like to see Biden/Warren as a ticket.
  #158  
Old 09-25-2019, 04:44 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
I think I'd like to see Biden/Warren as a ticket.
Kinda like matter and antimatter?

Can't see Biden asking her, and definitely can't envision her accepting if he did. If he's President, she needs to be right where she is.
  #159  
Old 09-25-2019, 06:39 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
I find it kind of interesting how stable the numbers are compared to mid-August. The only real difference is a bit of a rise by Warren, and a slight drop by Biden and Harris.
  #160  
Old 09-25-2019, 08:56 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I find it kind of interesting how stable the numbers are compared to mid-August. The only real difference is a bit of a rise by Warren, and a slight drop by Biden and Harris.
Historically not too unusual. Real moves often don’t happen until Iowa is only a few weeks away.
  #161  
Old 09-25-2019, 09:11 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Still waiting on YouGov's weekly update before putting up my weekly numbers, but Quinnipiac just came out with a new national poll: Warren 27, Biden 25, Sanders 16, Buttigieg 7, Harris 3.

Besides being the first A-rated poll showing Warren nominally ahead, it also confirms another trend: there have been a number of polls that just came out that have Harris down in the low single digits: Emerson's national poll, plus two NH polls and one NV poll, all had her at 3-4%. She's clearly losing altitude here, is noticeably worse off in the polls than before the June debate. I've hesitated to write her off, but at this point it's extremely hard to see how she gets back into the race. She gave herself a big opportunity with that first debate, but totally failed to capitalize.
I think that when the state polls showed Warren surging ahead of Biden, it kinda poked a hole in Biden's electability argument. And I don't think it's gonna get any better for him now that he's going to be caught up in the vortex of Trump's negative publicity. Whatever is aimed at Trump as part of the Ukrainian scandal will ricochet and graze (and in some cases wound) Biden as well.

Biden is increasingly in danger of becoming the Democratic party's Jeb Bush.
  #162  
Old 09-26-2019, 10:20 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,977
The predictions derived at Predictwise.com continue to change. Trump was 90% to win the GOP nomination a week ago, but has dropped to 82%.

Trump's fall may be understandable — he effectively confessed to a felony a few days ago — but what about Warren? She was never above 20% until mid-July but is now shown as 48% to win the Democratic nomination! What happened?

(Please tell me if Predictwise numbers are a useless distraction — I don't need to post.)
  #163  
Old 09-26-2019, 10:34 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think that when the state polls showed Warren surging ahead of Biden, it kinda poked a hole in Biden's electability argument. And I don't think it's gonna get any better for him now that he's going to be caught up in the vortex of Trump's negative publicity. Whatever is aimed at Trump as part of the Ukrainian scandal will ricochet and graze (and in some cases wound) Biden as well.

Biden is increasingly in danger of becoming the Democratic party's Jeb Bush.
Maybe, maybe not. That's the standard pundit take anyway, but I'm suspecting the opposite.

It is VERY clear that there is no there there as far as Joe Biden doing anything wrong in this matter and he will get a chance to say that forcefully with no one else on the stage arguing otherwise (even though proxies will say other things elsewhere). Couple that chance for him to be forceful with the fact that what actually happened is very illustrative of his key operations role in the Obama terms? It gets him into ground where he's more comfortable knowing where to place his feet ... and his mouth.

This also hurts Warren in another way: Warren's strengths shine when the discussions get into actual policies and plans, her articulating her positive vision and how we get there from here. The Ukraine scandal and the impeachment process will take up the attention of the media and the public and leave little left for those items. To resort to tired cliches, she's been steadily kindling the fire for a while and just as it was really taking off there goes all the oxygen from the room.

Last edited by DSeid; 09-26-2019 at 10:35 AM.
  #164  
Old 09-26-2019, 11:31 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Maybe, maybe not. That's the standard pundit take anyway, but I'm suspecting the opposite.

It is VERY clear that there is no there there as far as Joe Biden doing anything wrong in this matter and he will get a chance to say that forcefully with no one else on the stage arguing otherwise (even though proxies will say other things elsewhere). Couple that chance for him to be forceful with the fact that what actually happened is very illustrative of his key operations role in the Obama terms?
Tru dat.
I'll believe this will hurt him when his poll numbers take a noticeable drop. Hasn't happened yet.
Quote:
It gets him into ground where he's more comfortable knowing where to place his feet ... and his mouth.
Well, he IS good at placing the former in the latter.
Quote:
This also hurts Warren in another way: Warren's strengths shine when the discussions get into actual policies and plans, her articulating her positive vision and how we get there from here. The Ukraine scandal and the impeachment process will take up the attention of the media and the public and leave little left for those items. To resort to tired cliches, she's been steadily kindling the fire for a while and just as it was really taking off there goes all the oxygen from the room.
Now this I have to disagree with. Among the candidates, Warren basically owns the pro-impeachment position, while Biden in particular has been much more reluctant to go there, and even now his support is conditional.

Rather, at a moment when people were starting to say she was being evasive over funding of Medicare for All, the topic switches to a big issue where she's been strong and unequivocal, and on the right side. The M4A discussion might have hurt her, but impeachment will be wind in her sails.
  #165  
Old 09-26-2019, 11:48 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
Well played on foot mouth!!

Do you think her being for impeachment is why people like her? I don’t. Coming on board as evidence rise to that level, as it is rising to, and as Biden will do, will be enough.

The Democratic primary winner will not be decided by who argued for impeachment earlier or stronger. It will be decided by opinions about who will win and who would be better in the job. Her case for better in the job is best with D voters on policy items, especially economic inequality issues, and intellect. IMHO. But we will see!
  #166  
Old 09-27-2019, 02:39 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
I don’t think being for impeachment last April is much of a feather in her cap, when the reason so many want to impeach now had not yet happened at that time. In April I was against impeachment. In fact, a week ago I was against it. Now I am for it. That is the same for many Democrats.
  #167  
Old 09-27-2019, 08:03 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Well played on foot mouth!!
Thanks for setting it up so nicely for me!
Quote:
Do you think her being for impeachment is why people like her? I don’t. Coming on board as evidence rise to that level, as it is rising to, and as Biden will do, will be enough.

The Democratic primary winner will not be decided by who argued for impeachment earlier or stronger. It will be decided by opinions about who will win and who would be better in the job. Her case for better in the job is best with D voters on policy items, especially economic inequality issues, and intellect. IMHO. But we will see!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I don’t think being for impeachment last April is much of a feather in her cap, when the reason so many want to impeach now had not yet happened at that time. In April I was against impeachment. In fact, a week ago I was against it. Now I am for it. That is the same for many Democrats.
And it is different with many other Democrats.

Two things here, responding to both of you at once:

1) There's a lot to suggest that coming out for impeachment early (April 19) helped pull her out of the pack. If you look at RCP's average, on 4/19 she's tied for 5th with Buttigieg at 6%, behind Harris and Beto as well as Biden and Sanders. Two weeks later, she's over 8% and basically owning 3rd place from that point on, with only brief exceptions. (Until overtaking Bernie more recently, of course.)

2) The other question is, does it help her beyond that initial boost? I'd say hell yes, it sure does. While I agree that many Democrats are OK with having gone slow and only now coming around on impeachment, there are also many Democrats who have been frustrated as hell by the Democrats' inaction, not just on impeachment in 2019, but on a shit-ton of things over the years. As part of that camp, I'll say: we want a fighter, dammit.

Now that doesn't mean fighting over everything - you always have to pick your battles. But you have to be willing to fight over the big stuff. Warren gets this: whether it's fighting for keeping people from being foreclosed on back in 2009-2010, or whether it's fighting to impeach Trump now, she is willing to fight when it's important to do so.

That's part of her brand, just as much as the plans and the wonkiness are. That's a big part of why she's come as far as she has, and why she has a real chance to be the nominee.
  #168  
Old 09-27-2019, 08:31 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
OK, but isn’t that already baked in? I thought the argument was that since impeachment is happening now, she would get an extra boost now for having been into it early. But it’s happening now because a lot of Democrats (like Pelosi and me) only believe Ukraine justified it. For us, any reminder that she was calling for it in April is just reminding us that she jumped the gun. Impeaching at that time would have been terrible politics.
  #169  
Old 09-27-2019, 08:45 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
OK, but isn’t that already baked in? I thought the argument was that since impeachment is happening now, she would get an extra boost now for having been into it early. But it’s happening now because a lot of Democrats (like Pelosi and me) only believe Ukraine justified it. For us, any reminder that she was calling for it in April is just reminding us that she jumped the gun. Impeaching at that time would have been terrible politics.
But being the first to go for it, with the expectation that eventually it would be the right move politically, is in fact the right move politically. Thus Warren should get double points for it -- being right, and being politically savvy (and politically brave).

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-27-2019 at 08:45 AM.
  #170  
Old 09-27-2019, 09:35 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
I remain slightly leaning to Warren for now, and am at this point full in on the need to impeach (knowing that conviction is extremely improbable and that it even now runs a major risk of being politically costly) and her calling for it earlier than this remains a point against her.

What has happened validates Pelosi's waiting to pull the trigger for the right moment approach. This is the simple story that lower information voters can comprehend clearly. Moving to impeach earlier was bad political instincts and would have been horrible tactics. You prosecute your case when you have the best case to make, and when have confidence in the case, not when you personally first conclude someone is guilty.
  #171  
Old 09-27-2019, 09:39 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I remain slightly leaning to Warren for now, and am at this point full in on the need to impeach (knowing that conviction is extremely improbable and that it even now runs a major risk of being politically costly) and her calling for it earlier than this remains a point against her.

What has happened validates Pelosi's waiting to pull the trigger for the right moment approach. This is the simple story that lower information voters can comprehend clearly. Moving to impeach earlier was bad political instincts and would have been horrible tactics. You prosecute your case when you have the best case to make, and when have confidence in the case, not when you personally first conclude someone is guilty.
Moving to impeach earlier may have been poor political instincts (had it occurred), but advocating for impeachment earlier may have been excellent political instincts, understanding that there was a high likelihood that the "right moment" would indeed come, due to Trump's incompetence and corruption. Those are two different things. We want a politically skillful nominee -- one that can navigate these kinds of differences.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-27-2019 at 09:40 AM.
  #172  
Old 09-27-2019, 09:52 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
So did Warren advocate against moving to impeach earlier and waiting for the right moment to come (or to be put together)?

Or did she advocate for actually beginning impeachment proceedings back in April?



The latter.
Quote:
April 19, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday called for the Democratic-led House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump, making her the most prominent Democrat to move toward ousting the president over evidence from the special counsel’s investigation that Mr. Trump attempted to undermine that inquiry. ... “The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty,” Ms. Warren wrote on Twitter. “That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States.”
  #173  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:00 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So did Warren advocate against moving to impeach earlier and waiting for the right moment to come (or to be put together)?

Or did she advocate for actually beginning impeachment proceedings back in April?

The latter.
Right... how does this dispute my point? I'm saying that this might have been the politically savvy move. Definitively staking out this territory to be the "first". Not saying something boring and practical (and thus entirely forgettable), but making waves, anticipating that eventually you will be shown to be right, even if it doesn't quite look like it at the time. Everything Warren said in that quote was correct. That maybe it was smart of the House to ignore her (at the time) isn't a bug, it's a feature. She was a "maverick", going against the popular understanding and conventional wisdom at the time. She was fighting against the status quo and "normal" Washington DC inaction.

IMO, this is good politics. I want someone who is good at this.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-27-2019 at 10:03 AM.
  #174  
Old 09-27-2019, 10:26 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I remain slightly leaning to Warren for now, and am at this point full in on the need to impeach (knowing that conviction is extremely improbable and that it even now runs a major risk of being politically costly) and her calling for it earlier than this remains a point against her.

What has happened validates Pelosi's waiting to pull the trigger for the right moment approach. This is the simple story that lower information voters can comprehend clearly. Moving to impeach earlier was bad political instincts and would have been horrible tactics. You prosecute your case when you have the best case to make, and when have confidence in the case, not when you personally first conclude someone is guilty.
Personally???????

Even if you didn't read the Mueller Report (I didn't either), Mueller's testimony, and the published summary of his report, made it abundantly clear that Trump had repeatedly obstructed justice.

Obstruction of justice: that's why Nixon resigned ahead of almost certain removal.

And I can tell you that in Trump's case, it's way more clear than it was with Nixon's 'smoking gun' even.

There have been multiple 'right moments'. This is the third, AFAIAC, with the first being in the immediate aftermath of the Mueller Report, which the Dem leadership apparently had no plan to deal with ("You shoulda planned ahead." - Rocky Balboa).

The second was when we found out this summer that not only had the cruel treatment of children at the border not ended after last summer, but that they were keeping babies and young children in crowded, freezing cages, with babies being taken care of not by qualified caretakers, but by whatever older kids in the same cage were willing to look after them, with not enough room for them all to even lie down, only one damn toilet per cage, only barely sufficient food...fuckitall, if human rights abuses on that scale weren't impeachable, then what the fuck is wrong with this country?!?

You know, I don't think the Democratic Party should be or have a Perpetual Outrage Machine like the GOP/Fox News mind-meld is, but there are some things they should damn well BE outraged over, and STAY outraged over. And make sure their outrage is routinely in the public eye.

And babies in motherfucking cages is damn well one such thing.

So third time's the charm, thank goodness, but to say this was the first 'right moment' and therefore Pelosi was justified to wait until now, and Warren totally jumped the gun, is totally fucked-up bullshit.

Not to mention, if the Ukraine extortion hadn't come to light, there would have been NO 'right moment' as far as Pelosi was concerned, and the most criminal President in our nation's history would have gone without any rebuke that would have meant anything, either to him or to history.
  #175  
Old 09-27-2019, 11:05 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Right... how does this dispute my point? I'm saying that this might have been the politically savvy move. ...
So you're saying that actually DOING what she said she wanted to do then would have been politically inept, but disingenuously saying that she wanted to do it was savvy? That she knew better than to actually do it then but was saying something she didn't really think should be done then to score political points later?

Okay. You think that.

I don't think she is that kind of politician. And that is a point in her favor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Personally???????...
Yes personally.

I know you know that impeachment is a political process with "high crimes" being whatever those elected officials decide it is at the moment. Getting enough of those public officials to decide so requires having a solid majority of public opinion in their districts/states believing so.

The Mueller report and his testimony by themselves were not that straightforward easy to understand conclusive slam dunk that the critical mass of lower information voters would be able to glom onto.

Going early with anything other than the strongest and easiest for the lower information voter to understand case possible would have been DUMB. A weaker case, harder for the typical voter to grok, 100% doomed to not result in a Senate conviction, with plenty of time to leave the news cycle and have a backlash before the general election, would have done great harms.

Pelosi slow walking it, gathering the evidence to build the best case possible, letting Trump meanwhile make the case stronger himself, to "self-impeach", and putting it out to time most effectively with the Senate killing that best case as looking bad for the general without time for it to leave the news cycle as much, was a much better approach.
Quote:
Trump is ‘self-impeaching,’ Pelosi says
Lisa Mascaro, AP Congressional Correspondent Published 9:31 a.m. ET May 11, 2019 ...

... “The president is self-impeaching,” she told her colleagues last week during a private caucus meeting, echoing comments she also aired in public. “He’s putting out the case against himself. Obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. Ignoring subpoenas and the rest.”

She added, “He’s doing our work for us, in a certain respect.” ...

... “Sometimes people act as if it’s impeachment or nothing,” Pelosi told reporters. “No, it’s not that. It’s a path that is producing results and gathering information.” ...

... “Our strategy right now is just to get to the truth and the facts,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Raskin said he kept a little chart on his notepad during a hearing last week, when the committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over the full Mueller report, and it was the Republicans who most mentioned impeachment.

“The Republicans would love us to begin impeachment process,” he said. “If we get to impeachment, we’re going to get there on our own schedule and for our own reasons, not because they need to throw some red meat to their base.” ...
I am not yet confident in how this will play out. Too many unknowns. But clearly that approach has resulted in a much better shot at better outcomes than pushing ahead earlier, as Warren advocated doing, would have.

Last edited by DSeid; 09-27-2019 at 11:07 AM.
  #176  
Old 09-27-2019, 12:06 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So you're saying that actually DOING what she said she wanted to do then would have been politically inept, but disingenuously saying that she wanted to do it was savvy? That she knew better than to actually do it then but was saying something she didn't really think should be done then to score political points later?

Okay. You think that.

I don't think she is that kind of politician. And that is a point in her favor.
It doesn't require disingenuousness -- she could honestly want them to do it (due to morality and decency), while still understanding that it's probably not the right move politically. So she chooses to play up the former and play down the latter, because politicians have to make decisions like that in order to get their message out and try to appeal to voters.

I'm not sure if I've ever known of a successful politician who isn't "that kind of politician" in some fashion. That's a feature, not a bug, when it comes to politics.
  #177  
Old 09-27-2019, 12:29 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,601
At the moment, I consider her a policy wonk who got handed a safe seat six yeqrs ago. We've yet to see how successful a politician she is.
  #178  
Old 09-27-2019, 12:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
At the moment, I consider her a policy wonk who got handed a safe seat six yeqrs ago. We've yet to see how successful a politician she is.
I agree. If she wins the primary, that will be some indication she's a skillful politician -- that's a tough thing to do. But right now I'm just hoping, for the most part.
  #179  
Old 09-27-2019, 01:37 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Yes personally.

I know you know that impeachment is a political process with "high crimes" being whatever those elected officials decide it is at the moment. Getting enough of those public officials to decide so requires having a solid majority of public opinion in their districts/states believing so.

The Mueller report and his testimony by themselves were not that straightforward easy to understand conclusive slam dunk that the critical mass of lower information voters would be able to glom onto.
By themselves? Well, of course not! That's what Congress is for.

First, those lower information voters follow the cues that their leaders provide. The Mueller Report was publicly a flop because both parties signaled it was - the Republicans by claiming vindication, the Democrats by shrugging.

If the Dems all say, "omigod, this is horrible," then all the Dem-leaning people are going, "I don't know what's going on yet, but apparently there IS something going on here." Then the Dems have hearings. They summarize the key parts of the report, they explain obstruction of justice (Patrick Fitzgerald's "throwing sand in the umpire's eyes" is pretty straightforward - the prosecutor thinks someone's committed a crime, but she can't tell, because they've done things that have made it impossible to tell - destroyed evidence, fired the investigators, etc.), and describe the key instances of it.

Are people dumber now than they were in 1974? If not, then this should have worked just fine.
Quote:
Going early with anything other than the strongest and easiest for the lower information voter to understand case possible would have been DUMB. A weaker case, harder for the typical voter to grok, 100% doomed to not result in a Senate conviction, with plenty of time to leave the news cycle and have a backlash before the general election, would have done great harms.

Pelosi slow walking it, gathering the evidence to build the best case possible, letting Trump meanwhile make the case stronger himself, to "self-impeach", and putting it out to time most effectively with the Senate killing that best case as looking bad for the general without time for it to leave the news cycle as much, was a much better approach.
She didn't do any of this. Instead, a lucky break landed in her lap.
Quote:
I am not yet confident in how this will play out. Too many unknowns. But clearly that approach has resulted in a much better shot at better outcomes than pushing ahead earlier, as Warren advocated doing, would have.
They say hope is not a plan. As it turns out, it worked out this time. But until you know that this is going to happen, it's a terrible plan. It's like looking at a lottery winner after he's won, and saying that's how you do it, alright.
  #180  
Old 09-27-2019, 01:38 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
... -- she could honestly ...
You are creating a fairly tortured imagined presumption of what her thought process "could" have been.

One that I do not personally see and one that if I did see would remove her from my consideration completely. Intentionally undercutting Democratic leadership messaging for a perception of personal political gain when you in fact recognize that what you propose would be "probably not the right move politically"?

You think that perception of her being so "savvy" will win her support??

I think she honestly just does not have the same sort of quality political instincts and understandings that Pelosi has. I believe her statements at face value.

I believe that for her it was enough for her to be throughly convinced of the case with no real consideration for the need to prosecute the case inclusive of the public-at-large with a case strong enough to win a majority over and not timed in a way that potentially benefits the GOP side any more than is absolutely necessary.
  #181  
Old 09-27-2019, 01:41 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
... She didn't do any of this. ...
This is an untrue statement. Information gathering has been ongoing and more very significant information (such as the tax records from Deutsche Bank and much more) was coming up.
  #182  
Old 09-27-2019, 01:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
If the Dems all say, "omigod, this is horrible," then all the Dem-leaning people are going, "I don't know what's going on yet, but apparently there IS something going on here." Then the Dems have hearings. They summarize the key parts of the report, they explain obstruction of justice (Patrick Fitzgerald's "throwing sand in the umpire's eyes" is pretty straightforward - the prosecutor thinks someone's committed a crime, but she can't tell, because they've done things that have made it impossible to tell - destroyed evidence, fired the investigators, etc.), and describe the key instances of it.

Are people dumber now than they were in 1974? If not, then this should have worked just fine.
It's not the same. While technically not required for a charge of obstruction, an underlying crime is important to sell it to the public. Nixon hired people to burgle his opponents' offices. Trump had a couple of unproductive meetings with Russians. That difference, imho, matters a whole hell of a lot as far as the politics of an impeachment is concerned.
  #183  
Old 09-27-2019, 02:05 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You are creating a fairly tortured imagined presumption of what her thought process "could" have been.

One that I do not personally see and one that if I did see would remove her from my consideration completely. Intentionally undercutting Democratic leadership messaging for a perception of personal political gain when you in fact recognize that what you propose would be "probably not the right move politically"?

You think that perception of her being so "savvy" will win her support??

I think she honestly just does not have the same sort of quality political instincts and understandings that Pelosi has. I believe her statements at face value.

I believe that for her it was enough for her to be throughly convinced of the case with no real consideration for the need to prosecute the case inclusive of the public-at-large with a case strong enough to win a majority over and not timed in a way that potentially benefits the GOP side any more than is absolutely necessary.
It's just a possibility. "Intentionally undercutting Democratic leadership messaging" might be a great move politically in the primary season (and even one that Pelosi would welcome in some circumstances -- she's a very skilled politician, well-used to this kind of obfuscating strategy when it would be helpful).

In any case, what Warren said was factually correct at the time. You haven't even critiqued her actual words -- and they were right. If you think it was the wrong strategy, fine... Pelosi ignored Warren's words. I don't care if Warren projected an "incorrect" strategy in which she'd have no influence on anyway -- that was all messaging. Messaging is different than actual strategy, especially in a primary. I think she got the messaging right, since lots of Americans don't pay tons of attention, and being the first to call for an entirely justified impeachment is a very simple and concise message... far simpler and concise than the actual political strategy which takes a while to explain.

Simple and concise messaging is fine. Even good and strong in some circumstances. I think this is one of them.
  #184  
Old 09-27-2019, 02:16 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Trump had a couple of unproductive meetings with Russians.
Conspiracy, extortion, treason …

Your complaint that he needs to have criminal charges against him to make impeachment stick has to be considered in the light of his DOJ's insistence that it won't file any against an incumbent President.
  #185  
Old 09-27-2019, 02:20 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,601
I didn't make that complaint in any way. I said it's important politically to have an underlying crime if you are going to impeach for obstruction of justice. Mueller's report specifically addressed the fact that even though collusion with the Russians couldn't be shown, that doesn't mean obstruction didn't happen.

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-27-2019 at 02:24 PM.
  #186  
Old 09-27-2019, 02:58 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
At the moment, I consider her a policy wonk who got handed a safe seat six yeqrs ago. We've yet to see how successful a politician she is.

Bingo. Although I would add that her results in 2018 suggest how unsuccessful a politician she is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I remain slightly leaning to Warren for now, and am at this point full in on the need to impeach (knowing that conviction is extremely improbable and that it even now runs a major risk of being politically costly) and her calling for it earlier than this remains a point against her.

What has happened validates Pelosi's waiting to pull the trigger for the right moment approach. This is the simple story that lower information voters can comprehend clearly. Moving to impeach earlier was bad political instincts and would have been horrible tactics. You prosecute your case when you have the best case to make, and when have confidence in the case, not when you personally first conclude someone is guilty.

Exactly. Think of any successful prosecution of a mob boss, after years of patient groundwork. Now think of someone in the prosecutors office who wanted to move forward much earlier, before they had their ducks in a row. That person is not vindicated because the careful patient approach was ultimately successful.
  #187  
Old 09-28-2019, 08:03 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,019
It's clear that the winds are blowing into Warren's sails. She's the candidate that's generating the most enthusiasm, and unlike Bernie in 2016, she doesn't have the reputation for being a completely fringe candidate.

As I see it, the real challenge for Warren - as it was for Sanders in 2016 - is to get more Black and Hispanic support. I think Sanders arrogantly overlooked the Black vote, and just assumed that his message of progressive change was a formula that should be self-evident and that he didn't need specific messages for specific communities. We can already see that Sanders himself is rethinking that approach in this election, and it will be critical for Warren if she wants to take her campaign and election chances to the next level.
  #188  
Old 10-02-2019, 09:16 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
It's Wednesday, so we've got this week's update of the polling average.

First, one housekeeping note: I said before the most recent debate that, after the debate, I was going to extend the time I included polls from 2 weeks to 2.5 weeks. And this week, it makes a big difference, because three A-rated polls taken right after the last debate - Fox News, NBC/WSJ, and Survey USA - wouldn't have made the 2-week cut, but do make the 2.5 week cut. And they were really the last three good polls for Biden, and they were just kinda so-so for Warren, at least from the perspective of now; they were really pretty good for her at the time.

Meanwhile, on top of Quinnipiac's poll last week showing Warren in the lead, we now have Monmouth and YouGov saying the same thing.

Polls included in this week's average: the aforementioned A-rated Fox News, NBC/WSJ, Survey USA, Quinnipiac, and Monmouth; the B-rated Emerson, plus the weekly YouGov, Morning Consult and now Ipsos as well, apparently; and the C-rated and daily updated HarrisX, plus a C-rated Zogby poll that's also in that group that needed the extension from 2 to 2.5 weeks to continue to be included.

Anyhow, the numbers:
Code:
Candidate  Date  8/14  8/21  8/28  9/04  9/12  9/18  9/25  10/2

Biden            30.1  28.6  28.5  29.8  26.5  28.5  28.4  27.6
Warren           17.0  16.2  16.8  19.0  17.6  18.6  21.5  22.4
Sanders          17.1  15.2  16.9  16.0  17.9  16.9  16.8  16.4
Buttigieg         5.6   4.7   4.7   5.2   5.0   5.7   5.8   5.6
Harris            8.2   7.2   7.2   6.8   6.6   5.6   5.2   5.1
Yang                    2.0   2.5   2.6   2.5   2.8   3.0   2.9
O'Rourke          2.6   2.7   2.1   1.4   3.0   3.0   2.4   2.4
Booker                  2.5   2.3   2.3   2.1   2.9   1.9   2.2

Everyone else < 2.0
And the comparison with other averages:
Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             27.6  26.1  26.0
Warren            22.4  24.4  22.0
Sanders           16.4  16.7  16.0
Buttigieg          5.6   5.6   6.0
Harris             5.1   4.7   5.0
Yang               2.9   3.3   3.0
O'Rourke           2.4   2.1   2.0
Booker             2.2   1.4   1.0
If I'd cut it off at 2 weeks as in the past, the numbers would have looked extremely interesting: Biden 25.3, Warren 24.1, Bernie 16.5, Pete 5.7, Harris 4.5, Yang 3.0, Beto 1.9, Booker 1.6. Maybe I should have done it that way, but I'd said I'd do it the other way, and I figure it's better to do it as I said I would, because otherwise there's the inevitable temptation to do the numbers the way they would look best for my preferred candidate.
  #189  
Old 10-02-2019, 09:53 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
I agree. Won’t matter by next week anyway.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 10-02-2019 at 09:54 PM.
  #190  
Old 10-03-2019, 05:58 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
As of this morning, Survey USA and NBC/WSJ have aged out, even with the new cutoff.

So as of right now, my averages would be Biden 26.1, Warren 22.5, Bernie 16.8, Pete 5.5, Harris 5.0, Yang 2.8, Beto 2.3, Booker 1.9.

Fox News will age out between tonight and tomorrow, and Zogby a day later.
  #191  
Old 10-03-2019, 06:09 AM
galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,752
reported
__________________
Salvator apiae.
  #192  
Old 10-03-2019, 07:13 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
As of this morning, Survey USA and NBC/WSJ have aged out, even with the new cutoff.

So as of right now, my averages would be Biden 26.1, Warren 22.5, Bernie 16.8, Pete 5.5, Harris 5.0, Yang 2.8, Beto 2.3, Booker 1.9.

Fox News will age out between tonight and tomorrow, and Zogby a day later.
Not sure what galen “reported,” but anyway....

Now it’s looking like Bernie himself has “aged out.” These numbers are likely to change significantly in coming days.
  #193  
Old 10-03-2019, 07:20 AM
galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Not sure what galen “reported,” but anyway....

Now it’s looking like Bernie himself has “aged out.” These numbers are likely to change significantly in coming days.
There'd been an ad spam post just prior, that's since been disappeared.
__________________
Salvator apiae.
  #194  
Old 10-03-2019, 07:29 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
There'd been an ad spam post just prior, that's since been disappeared.
I should have figured that out! Thanks.
  #195  
Old 10-03-2019, 09:53 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Not sure what galen “reported,” but anyway....

Now it’s looking like Bernie himself has “aged out.” These numbers are likely to change significantly in coming days.
I dunno - most of his followers are pretty devoted. I'd expect them to wait and see whether Bernie's going to be up to resuming his campaign before the numbers shift much as a result of this. He might lose a couple of % points right away, but still be at 14-15% for at least a few weeks, would be my guess.

Unless he announces sooner than that that he's suspending his campaign, of course. But he's a stubborn old guy, and aside from what just happened, he's in surprisingly good shape. So I don't expect that to happen unless it becomes obvious to him that he really, really can't continue. And I think it would take him at least a few weeks for him to come to accept that.
  #196  
Old 10-03-2019, 10:31 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,760
Honestly I think Sanders' heart episode could impact Biden more thatn Sanders!

Sanders is not too far off from his floor, those "devoted followers". He could lose a few based on perception of too old, but anyone leaving on that basis are pretty unlikely to switch over to the next oldest candidate. Otherwise so long as he does not suspend and gets back on the trail within 10 to 14 days (which is not unreasonable), his floor voters will stay true to him.

But a larger number of other voters who have not been Sanders supporters, some of who have been saying "Biden" are giving the question of nearing 80 more consideration than before. Biden is very far from his floor if he even has one. Some who have been beginning to reconsider that maybe Warren is just as electable could have these thoughts be enough to tip their balance. Timing is important and even a small push when the car is already with forward momentum out of the snow bank is of big impact.
  #197  
Old 10-03-2019, 10:44 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Honestly I think Sanders' heart episode could impact Biden more thatn Sanders!
Might be! But it would probably be hard to tell whether Biden's support was slipping (a) because of this ridiculous Hunter Biden crap, or (b) because of Bernie's heart problems, or (c) because he's an uninspiring candidate whose support was slipping anyway.
  #198  
Old 10-03-2019, 11:56 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,626
The argument that "76 and 78-year old Biden and Bernie are too old, so we need to all go over to 70-year old Warren" isn't too persuasive to voters.

This is a prime chance for 37 and 54-year old Buttigieg and Harris to make a comeback by advertising their youth, but they're probably too far behind in the polls for that now.
  #199  
Old 10-03-2019, 12:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The argument that "76 and 78-year old Biden and Bernie are too old, so we need to all go over to 70-year old Warren" isn't too persuasive to voters.

This is a prime chance for 37 and 54-year old Buttigieg and Harris to make a comeback by advertising their youth, but they're probably too far behind in the polls for that now.
I don't think it's about numbers, it's about appearance and performance. IMO, Warren appears much younger, sharper, and more energetic than Biden. We'll see if others agree or not.
  #200  
Old 10-03-2019, 06:18 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
This is an untrue statement. Information gathering has been ongoing and more very significant information (such as the tax records from Deutsche Bank and much more) was coming up.
To build what case? Or was she just going on a fishing expedition, hoping to turn up the Holy Impeachment Grail in his tax records?

I mean, yeah, we all expect that Trump's tax returns will provide evidence that he's a crook. But at this point, it's likely to be no bigger or smaller a deal than the stuff we already know about, such as the whole emoluments thing.

We already knew he'd committed horrific abuses of children at the border, truly appalling human rights violations. That was, and is, way more impeachable than some financial skulduggery. Ditto the ten instances of obstruction of the Russia investigation that Robert Mueller was kind enough to lay out for us all.

There was no equivalently big case that Pelosi and the House Dems were building towards. And the Ukraine extortion just fell into their laps. I think the burden's on you to prove that there was any case at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
"Bright idea of mine," said Ford, "to find a passing spaceship and get rescued by it."
"Oh, come off it," said Arthur. "The chances against it were astronomical."
"Don't knock it, it worked," said Ford.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017