Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 06-10-2019, 02:37 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
This is exactly why we lost in 2016 and got trump as President. Chasing the perfect candidate- who is never perfect for the entire Dem (and a few Indy) electorate.

The Dems dont hold enough of a majority to wait for or hope for Mr/Ms Perfect. We have seen that. Hoping for perfect gives us Trump.

Altho sure, "Mr OK but not perfect" isnt perfect, of course, they will start the process of helping to slow global warming, protect the environment, help those less fortunate, and so forth.

Your ideas will give us four more years of Trump, and a certain end to civilization as we know it by 2050.

You are- literally- backing the end to civilization as we know it to try and get YOUR perfect candidate- a candidate many others may not be happy with at all. Nothing could be more wrong.
I don't know where you got "they need to be perfect" from "we/I'll even vote for Harris". This isn't a Bernie or Bust, this is Please God Anyone But Biden*. Look, I voted for Hillary, I hate her and a lot of what she stands for, but I could be convinced to do it again if I had to. Biden? I just can't bring myself to support him, my conscience won't allow it at this point. Solidarity only goes so far.

* N.B. it's possible there are other "Biden with the serial numbers files off" candidates among the like 20 or whatever it is the Dems have running, but in terms of the notable 5 or 6 Biden is the only one with this problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Jragon, they won't vote for Biden in the primary, or wouldn't vote for him in the general? Those are pretty different things.
The general

Last edited by Jragon; 06-10-2019 at 02:37 PM.
  #352  
Old 06-10-2019, 02:51 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Yes. But when I see numbers changing over time, I don't expect them to suddenly become static. The point is that Biden's bounce didn't take him up to 40, then settle in at 35; it's kept dropping.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...s-bounce-over/

Biden’s bounce took him from averaging 24 before he announced to 36 after. If it drops all the way back to 24 you’ll have a point. Everyone had a bounce and dropped back down. Biden has lost less of his than many others.
  #353  
Old 06-10-2019, 04:43 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...s-bounce-over/

Biden’s bounce took him from averaging 24 before he announced to 36 after. If it drops all the way back to 24 you’ll have a point. Everyone had a bounce and dropped back down. Biden has lost less of his than many others.
What is it right now?
  #354  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:23 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,940
Right now last three average is 30. Halfway between before average and bounce.
  #355  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:07 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Right now last three average is 30. Halfway between before average and bounce.
Is that how 538 defines it? Can you link to it?

AFAICT, it made an appearance in that one article, then disappeared again. We don't know what values it's taken at different times, and how they compare with what. So its '24' and '36' are meaningless. We cannot say where we are in relation to them.
  #356  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:16 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Is that how 538 defines it? Can you link to it?

AFAICT, it made an appearance in that one article, then disappeared again. We don't know what values it's taken at different times, and how they compare with what. So its '24' and '36' are meaningless. We cannot say where we are in relation to them.
True, his average is usually some weighted rolling average, which wouold also give some weight to the Harris X 35% and Morning Consult 38% both of June 3. So current apples to apples would not be as low. But his formula I don't have.

So how about I do something very simple. Apples to apples.

Ipsos right before: 24.

Ipsos peak, posted May 15: 32.

Ispsos June 6: 31

And oh, among registered Democratic voters the exact same 36% now as at bounce.

Freefall, I know.


Morning Consult before 27%. Peaked at 40%. Most recent 38% (posted June 3)

Yup. More freefall.


Not "inevitable" holding the bounce better than I would have expected.
  #357  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:25 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,167
Jragon, I loathe Joe Biden. Of all the legitimate contenders, only Gabbard ranks lower on my list of whom I'd like to see be the nominee. (By "legitimate contenders" I mean people who have served in Congress or as governor of a state; this doesn't include Buttigieg but even he would rank slightly higher than Biden for me.) But refusing to vote for him in the general election is the kind of narcissistic tantrum I don't have time for. Although mathematically, voting third party or refusing to vote is actually only half as bad as voting for Trump, ethically speaking, a progressive refusing to vote for Biden in the general is just absolutely inexcusable.

DSeid, you have said repeatedly that Edwards came in second in Iowa despite his "love child" scandal. But that didn't sound right to me: I remember not hearing anything about it until after the primary season was well over, despite following political news very closely as I do today. Per Wikipedia, it hit the National Enquirer the month before the caucuses, but not the mainstream media until the summer of 2008.

So I guess it comes down to how many people read the Enquirer, and put stock in their claims (which are, clearly, sometimes true). It apparently didn't have much impact on the caucus I went to witness (living in northern Missouri at the time), where Edwards dominated, Hillary won a solid contingent of mostly older women, Biden got one caucuser who had to re-caucus with one of the other two groups, and Obama got literally zilch, even in the first round--out of probably 100 total caucusgoers. (So imagine my surprise after leaving the caucus and hearing on the radio that he was the winner statewide!)

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-11-2019 at 12:27 AM.
  #358  
Old 06-11-2019, 03:30 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
True, his average is usually some weighted rolling average, which wouold also give some weight to the Harris X 35% and Morning Consult 38% both of June 3. So current apples to apples would not be as low. But his formula I don't have.

So how about I do something very simple. Apples to apples.

Ipsos right before: 24.

Ipsos peak, posted May 15: 32.

Ispsos June 6: 31

And oh, among registered Democratic voters the exact same 36% now as at bounce.

Freefall, I know.


Morning Consult before 27%. Peaked at 40%. Most recent 38% (posted June 3)

Yup. More freefall.


Not "inevitable" holding the bounce better than I would have expected.
Or CNN/SSRS, from 28 to 39 to 32.

Or Quinnipiac, from 29 to 38, and already down to 35 3 weeks ago.

Or Monmouth, that only had him going from 27 to 33 in the first place.

And nice cherry-picking of that Morning Consult 'before' number, btw. I had to scroll all the way back to January to find it. They poll weekly.
  #359  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:54 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Anyhoo:
Quote:
Biden at a fundraiser [last] night, on his desire to work with the Republican Party post Trump.

“With Trump gone you’re going to begin to see things change. Because these folks know better. They know this isn’t what they’re supposed to be doing."
Whatever Biden's smoking, I want some - and he really needs to lay off the good stuff. Because Mitch McConnell was Senate Republican Leader for a full decade before Trump became President, and if anyone can see a big difference in his behavior between 2016 or 2013 or even 2007 and now, I'd sure like it pointed out, because I'm not seeing it.
Mayor Pete, in January:
Quote:
I get the urge people will have after Trump. ‘Look at the chaos and the exhaustion: Wouldn’t it be better to go back to something more stable with somebody we know?’ But there’s no going back to a pre-Trump universe. We can’t be saying the system will be fine again just like it was. Because that’s not true; it wasn’t fine. Not if we could careen into this kind of politics.
I can understand why Joe Biden doesn't see it this way. He spent most of his adult life - 34 years of it - in the pre-Mitch Senate, one where collegiality dominated. It's not too hard to understand why he has a hard time getting his head around the realization that it doesn't work that way anymore - and not just during the era of Trump, but during the previous decade as well.

There is no 'back' to go to anymore. It's gone. Whether or not Trump is an aberration, Mitch McConnell is the same yesterday, today, and forever* likely until he retires. Going back to an old normal where he can stand the Senate on his head with just 40 of his GOP colleagues (2010 says hi) just returns us to the era of Presidential helplessness that lasted for most of Obama's Presidency. There's little point in winning the White House under those circumstances.

*With apologies to the unknown writer of the Book of Hebrews. Sorry, guy, just couldn't resist.
  #360  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:36 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
It's headlines like these that worry me about Biden. Not that your average Iowa caucus-goer or voter reads Politico religiously, but I worry that Biden's stick-and-move campaign tactics just send the wrong message, and worse, potentially reinforce perceptions about what is one of his inherent weaknesses: his age.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...a-2020-1359543

I suspect one reason that Buttigieg has surged is that he is young and vibrant, and he is also taking more moderate positions, which naturally positions him in particular to pick up whatever support Biden loses.
  #361  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:50 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
As someone said on Twitter:
Quote:
Dubya lied us into war and the whole GOP told us we hated America and loved terrorists if we opposed it but yeah, I’m sure they’ll come to their senses once Trump is gone.
Yeppers to this.
  #362  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:55 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It's headlines like these that worry me about Biden. Not that your average Iowa caucus-goer or voter reads Politico religiously, but I worry that Biden's stick-and-move campaign tactics just send the wrong message, and worse, potentially reinforce perceptions about what is one of his inherent weaknesses: his age.
Biden's problem isn't his age, it's his world view.

Yes, the two are related. But though Warren turns 70 in a week and a half, her mind is fully in the now, and not in some idealized past.

As Dylan said, "he not busy being born Is busy dying," and some of us are able to keep on being born regardless of age, and some aren't.
  #363  
Old 06-11-2019, 06:12 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Biden's problem isn't his age, it's his world view.

Yes, the two are related. But though Warren turns 70 in a week and a half, her mind is fully in the now, and not in some idealized past.

As Dylan said, "he not busy being born Is busy dying," and some of us are able to keep on being born regardless of age, and some aren't.
I don't disagree. I think both Warren and Sanders both campaign well below their age, whereas Biden seems stuck in the year 2002 - a problem that Hillary Clinton had.

What I was getting at was that Biden's lack of face time with voters is potentially sending them the message that he's too old, too tired, too unenthusiastic, too bland to campaign for real.

In terms of Biden's strength as a candidate, I find myself agreeing with both you and DSeid at the same time. I think Biden's current lead is rather significant, and I think voters who support Biden do look at him nostalgically as an old friend. But as some of us have pointed out before, this isn't Biden's first time in the ring, and the last two times he tried, he was knocked out pretty early. Honestly, he's not a great campaigner.
  #364  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:05 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,167
RTF, little point in winning the WH under these conditions?

I beg to differ. Very strongly.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice to look at.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-11-2019 at 08:07 AM.
  #365  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:22 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,230
I don't fault Biden too much for what he said about working with Republicans. I wish he had phrased it like "I'd like to believe that Republicans will work with me if elected, but if they don't then I'm prepared to do battle with them." I don't think you're going to win the swing voters by pledging all out mortal combat with the other side, I think you need to start from the position of being ready and willing to work with the opposition and let the Republicans decide if they want to continue to be petulant little pricks. Best case scenario is that Biden beats Donald so convincingly that DJT becomes toxic and Republicans disavow him and his methods.

Biden has had his share of choppy waters of late but I still think he is the most electable and a Biden-Harris ticket would be the strongest.
  #366  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:22 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,501
But then there's this:
Quote:
From the Times:
Quote:
After being briefed on a devastating 17-state poll conducted by his campaign pollster, Tony Fabrizio, Mr. Trump told aides to deny that his internal polling showed him trailing Mr. Biden in many of the states he needs to win, even though he is also trailing in public polls from key states like Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And when top-line details of the polling leaked, including numbers showing the president lagging in a cluster of critical Rust Belt states, Mr. Trump instructed aides to say publicly that other data showed him doing well.
Along the lines of “other data” that shows him doing well, Trump on Monday evening tweeted a poll from his favorite pollster, Rasmussen, showing his approval rating at a relatively robust 50 percent.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 06-11-2019 at 12:22 PM.
  #367  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:09 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,041
Trump is obviously panicked by Biden. Trump's delirious rant today embarrassed even him.

Joe looks good in Iowa. Plain talk from the old school. Let's make America, America again!!

Good solid politics from a guy named Joe. Love it!

Last edited by Crane; 06-11-2019 at 01:09 PM.
  #368  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:40 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I don't fault Biden too much for what he said about working with Republicans. I wish he had phrased it like "I'd like to believe that Republicans will work with me if elected, but if they don't then I'm prepared to do battle with them." ...
There is certainly a part of the Democratic primary voter cohort that wants the war on the GOP messaging. There are several candidates who will serve them that messaging.

There is also a portion that wants an optimistic view as the first line and a chance to find some cooperation. Biden dealt with the party of no under Obama. He knows who they are. But he may even be right. The GOP might move into a rebranding phase. There will be no chance to pull off the sort of win that brings the Senate in on coat tails if he demonizes them. And little that cannot be obstructed without it so playing as nice as possible would be smart.

No question that message sells in a general the best.
  #369  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:46 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Trump is obviously panicked by Biden. Trump's delirious rant today embarrassed even him.
He's panicked by the thought of losing to anyone (and becoming subject to prosecution). He's both panicked and pissed by trailing the #2 guy in the hated Obama administration.
  #370  
Old 06-11-2019, 02:30 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 14,943
Biden leads Trump by 'landslide' proportions in new national poll.

Quote:
Former Vice President Joe Biden leads President Trump by 13 points nationally, according to the latest Quinnipiac University survey.

In a national head-to-head matchup, the poll found Biden taking 53 percent against 40 percent for Trump, with the poll's assistant director describing it as a "landslide" margin.

Five other Democratic contenders also lead the president: Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) hold healthy leads over Trump, with Sanders up by 9 points, Harris ahead by 8 and Warren leading by 7.

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) lead Trump by 5 points, with each posting a 47 to 42 split.

“It’s a long 17 months to Election Day, but Joe Biden is ahead by landslide proportions,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Biden’s double-digit lead over Trump is largely driven by the gender gap. The former vice president edges Trump 47 percent to 46 among men. But among women, Biden leads by 26 points, 60 to 34.

Similarly, white voters are split evenly between the two, with Trump at 47 percent and Biden at 46. But Biden leads 85 to 12 among black voters and 58 to 33 among Hispanics.

Both candidates surpass 90 percent support from within their own parties, but independents break for Biden by a 58 to 28 margin.
Granted, it's a long way out, we haven't even had one debate yet, and elections aren't won nationally. But Biden still seems pretty strong.

My own personal poll of two white male Industrial Midwestern union member Obama-voters-who-didn't-vote-for-Hillary-in-2016: Biden is still king as well. Right now these two dudes wouldn't vote for anyone else (Trump included). (Although I wish Bullock would pick up steam; I suspect he'd do well among these guys too if he got some attention.)
  #371  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:21 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
RTF, little point in winning the WH under these conditions?

I beg to differ. Very strongly.
Remember, the goal isn't beating Trump. The goal is putting the brakes on global warming. Beating Trump is part of the package if it gets us closer to acting strongly against climate change. If not, it isn't.

"These conditions" being either we fail to take the Senate, or we succeed there but aren't willing to ditch the filibuster. That doesn't help us toward our goal.

Because we won't get jack shit past Mitch, we'll get blown out in 2022 as depressed marginal Dem voters stay home, we'll lose WH or just barely hang on in 2024, and never again have a trifecta until the window of dealing with global warming has come and gone. All that's left then is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

At least losing WH in 2020 leaves Dems in excellent position to retake the Senate in 2022, and win WH in 2024, assuming the GOP doesn't totally rig the game. We still have some sort of chance then.

We need a Presidential candidate who makes it clear that electing him means nothing unless we win the Senate as well, and once we do that, the filibuster has to go.
  #372  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:24 PM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,041
Only the Dems who run against Trump will survive the early primary. They have to have a plan for beating Trump and a plan for governing. Those who mouth platitudes or spend time attacking each other will be out in the first round.

Biden is leading the way with Warren close behind.
  #373  
Old 06-11-2019, 04:29 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
There is also a portion that wants an optimistic view as the first line and a chance to find some cooperation. Biden dealt with the party of no under Obama. He knows who they are. But he may even be right. The GOP might move into a rebranding phase.
Yeah, and Publisher's Clearing House may call me up tomorrow to tell me I've won $10 million.
Quote:
There will be no chance to pull off the sort of win that brings the Senate in on coat tails if he demonizes them.
Excluded middle alert.

The nominee doesn't need to demonize them, s/he just needs to say what Obama didn't in 2012 and Hillary didn't in 2016, when they had the full attention of the country at the end of one of those debates: "there's only so much the President can do with a Republican Congress. Don't just vote for me, you need to vote for Democrats up and down the line. You need to give me a Democratic Congress (or in 2020, a Democratic Senate specifically). And then we'll do the procedural things necessary so that I'm the one with the veto, not Mitch McConnell. ETA: Hopefully he'll see reason and support our agenda, but if he doesn't, we'll still pass it and make life better for all Americans."

See, a candidate can be forthright and honest about what needs to be done without demonizing anyone.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 06-11-2019 at 04:30 PM.
  #374  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:39 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Remember, the goal isn't beating Trump. The goal is putting the brakes on global warming. Beating Trump is part of the package if it gets us closer to acting strongly against climate change. If not, it isn't.

"These conditions" being either we fail to take the Senate, or we succeed there but aren't willing to ditch the filibuster. That doesn't help us toward our goal.
....c.

At least losing WH in 2020 leaves Dems in excellent position to retake the Senate in 2022, and win WH in 2024, assuming the GOP doesn't totally rig the game. We still have some sort of chance then....
Yeah, it is. Senate is nice, and maybe even more important. But I dont see how losing the WH in 2020 makes it more likely to retake the senate.
  #375  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:48 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I refer you to Ariel Edwards-Levy, HuffPost polling editor:
(Accompanying a chart where y is near zero at the left end of the x-axis, which represents 300 days before the general election, and y increases as it goes to the right, with the right end being x=0 days before the election):
Quote:
1) The y-axis here is how much predictive power general election polls have

2) We are currently way off to the left of where this chart begins
This is true for the advantages that the poll shows all the other candidates having over Trump in a general election. It's not just Biden.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 06-11-2019 at 05:49 PM.
  #376  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:51 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Trump is obviously panicked by Biden. Trump's delirious rant today embarrassed even him.

You mean him saying over and over that Pelosi and the Democrats committed "many crimes"? Or was there something else I missed?


Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Remember, the goal isn't beating Trump. The goal is putting the brakes on global warming.

Beg to differ once again. For my money, if we use Obama as a baseline and stipulate that we have descended 100 units from that baseline with Trump as president, getting a normal Republican in to replace him (Pence, say) would get us 85% of the way back, to a -15. The remaining 15 is composed mostly of getting rid of tax giveaways to the rich, protection of voting rights, guaranteeing health care for all, and reforming immigration policy. Global warming is <1 unit.

But if you feel that way, I hope you're supporting Inslee! I really like him, although I suppose I'm his one and only supporter who doesn't really care about global warming.

(BTW, one of the few things I agree with Bernie Sanders about is that it would be a mistake to do away with the filibuster.)
__________________
Some people on TV are nice to look at.
  #377  
Old 06-11-2019, 06:07 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Global warming is <1 unit.
Then I'm afraid we have little to say to each other about this election.

But I'm curious: do you not believe that time is running short before global warming becomes self-perpetuating no matter what we do, or do you just believe it's not that big a deal if it does?
  #378  
Old 06-11-2019, 06:10 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Anyhow, back to polls: the latest Quinnipiac poll was released today, and this is its fourth iteration over the course of this year:
Code:
                     DEMOCRATS/DEMOCRATIC LEANERS
                     Jun 11  May 21  Apr 30  Mar 28
                     2019    2019    2019    2019
                                     
Biden                30      35      38      29
Sanders              19      16      11      19
Warren               15      13      12       4
Buttigieg             8       5      10       4
Harris                7       8       8       8
O'Rourke              3       2       5      12
Also, Booker, Klobuchar, Ryan, and Yang each got 1%, while everyone else got zero.
  #379  
Old 06-11-2019, 06:13 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I refer you to Ariel Edwards-Levy, HuffPost polling editor:
(Accompanying a chart where y is near zero at the left end of the x-axis, which represents 300 days before the general election, and y increases as it goes to the right, with the right end being x=0 days before the election):

This is true for the advantages that the poll shows all the other candidates having over Trump in a general election. It's not just Biden.

(1) Your link is broken.

(2) HuffPo's claim here is at direct odds with that of 538's, that I posted upthread. I know which source I take more seriously.
  #380  
Old 06-11-2019, 06:18 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Then I'm afraid we have little to say to each other about this election.

But I'm curious: do you not believe that time is running short before global warming becomes self-perpetuating no matter what we do, or do you just believe it's not that big a deal if it does?

I think we are already past that point. I think we'll deal with it, that it will be more of a nuisance than an existential crisis. But I think it's good the way you framed it, because our menu of choices does not include "rewind to 1950 and move along a renewable-energy track rather than using so many fossil fuels". The real comparison is between "continue as we are now" (which does include a pretty big push for renewables) vs. "implement the most ambitious anti-GW measures that are even remotely politically feasible" (which does not include AOC's Green New Deal), with all the warming momentum priced in no matter what we do. And the difference in likely outcomes between those two tracks is just not that huge in my estimation.
  #381  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:22 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
(1) Your link is broken.
It is, and AFAICT it's gone from her Twitter feed. Never seen her delete a tweet before.
Quote:
(2) HuffPo's claim here is at direct odds with that of 538's, that I posted upthread. I know which source I take more seriously.
'Upthread' is 378 posts worth, so much as I'd love to take it seriously, I can't until I read it, and damned if I'm searching through all your posts to find a link. (Are you sure they were talking about general election polling? Makes a big difference.)
  #382  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:31 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Remember, the goal isn't beating Trump. The goal is putting the brakes on global warming. Beating Trump is part of the package if it gets us closer to acting strongly against climate change. If not, it isn't.

"These conditions" being either we fail to take the Senate, or we succeed there but aren't willing to ditch the filibuster. That doesn't help us toward our goal.

Because we won't get jack shit past Mitch, we'll get blown out in 2022 as depressed marginal Dem voters stay home, we'll lose WH or just barely hang on in 2024, and never again have a trifecta until the window of dealing with global warming has come and gone. All that's left then is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

At least losing WH in 2020 leaves Dems in excellent position to retake the Senate in 2022, and win WH in 2024, assuming the GOP doesn't totally rig the game. We still have some sort of chance then.

We need a Presidential candidate who makes it clear that electing him means nothing unless we win the Senate as well, and once we do that, the filibuster has to go.
Meaningful movement on climate change is really only one of the goals, even if it is the one that matters most to you. I am sure "we" (not just you and me) could have long debates over which is most critical but losing the Senate with Trump still in place is much worse than losing the Senate with the presidency in place.
  #383  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:24 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
It is, and AFAICT it's gone from her Twitter feed. Never seen her delete a tweet before.
'Upthread' is 378 posts worth, so much as I'd love to take it seriously, I can't until I read it, and damned if I'm searching through all your posts to find a link. (Are you sure they were talking about general election polling? Makes a big difference.)
The 538 I know of is about how the polling in primaries are fairly predictive even early on.

Another take by Nate Cohn in NYT's Upshot. Basic premise that if history applied we'd be considering Biden "inevitable" but history may not be so predictive anymore. The times have changed.

Meanwhile this may be the graph RTFirefly had seen.
Quote:
The figure below plots the trend in the r-squared from the forecasting equation. If polls were perfect predictors of the outcome, the r-squared would be 1.0. If the polls were pretty much useless predictors, the r-squared would be 0.

The graph shows that polls 300 days have little predictive value at all. The r-squared values increase sharply during the next 3 months or so—when the eventual nominees are becoming better known during the primaries—and then increase more sharply again in the 3 months before the election, when the general election campaign is underway.


I interpret this as a useful cautionary tale about over-interpreting early polls.
  #384  
Old 06-11-2019, 10:16 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Trump is obviously panicked by Biden. Trump's delirious rant today embarrassed even him.
This is the best thing about Biden's candidacy, how it upsets Trump. I said some time ago in some post here somewhere that my ideal campaign would have Biden withdraw/suspend his campaign right before Iowa for "health reasons" but pledge to campaign against Trump for as long as he could. Then I'd like to see him do one or two high visibility rallies each week in Rust Belt states, then introduce the eventual nominee at said rallies.

In fact, I'd love to see joint Biden-Sanders rallies in Madison, WI, Ann Arbor, MI and some other cities.
  #385  
Old 06-11-2019, 11:33 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
This is the best thing about Biden's candidacy, how it upsets Trump. I said some time ago in some post here somewhere that my ideal campaign would have Biden withdraw/suspend his campaign right before Iowa for "health reasons" but pledge to campaign against Trump for as long as he could. Then I'd like to see him do one or two high visibility rallies each week in Rust Belt states, then introduce the eventual nominee at said rallies.

In fact, I'd love to see joint Biden-Sanders rallies in Madison, WI, Ann Arbor, MI and some other cities.
If there is anything I have learned from Pelosi, the more the GOP and trump is scared or trying to blacken the name of a Dem, the more we need that candidate.
  #386  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:39 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,593
I don't know. They did that with Hillary. Did we "need" that candidate?
  #387  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:39 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Are you sure they were talking about general election polling? Makes a big difference.

No, you're right--and now that I think of it, Nate Silver has talked about how shaky "trial heat" polling is. I'll Emily Latella this one--mea culpa.
  #388  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:38 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
This is the best thing about Biden's candidacy, how it upsets Trump. I said some time ago in some post here somewhere that my ideal campaign would have Biden withdraw/suspend his campaign right before Iowa for "health reasons" but pledge to campaign against Trump for as long as he could. Then I'd like to see him do one or two high visibility rallies each week in Rust Belt states, then introduce the eventual nominee at said rallies.

In fact, I'd love to see joint Biden-Sanders rallies in Madison, WI, Ann Arbor, MI and some other cities.
I do believe Biden has the best chance of unseating Trump but he is not my preferred candidate at all. Therefore my ideal campaign would have Biden win the presidency in a ticket featuring one of the younger democratic candidates so the day after the inauguration he says his job is done, resigns and hops on the Amtrak back to Delaware!
  #389  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:39 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I don't know. They did that with Hillary. Did we "need" that candidate?
I think Pelosi is a savvier politician, and she understands human psychology better than Biden. Pelosi had to fight for her position at the top of the political hill, which involved a much more complex calculus and a lot more political acumen than what Biden has ever had to employ. Biden is where he is today because...Obama needed Pennsylvania. No disrespect to Biden - any guy who can win a statewide office for decades has some political smarts, but Biden ain't Pelosi.
  #390  
Old 06-12-2019, 08:43 AM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,041
asahi,

Perhaps so, but Biden is taking a Pelosi like approach to his campaign - steady and thorough. In the Dem debates, Biden will just continue to pound Trump. The media will amplify it and that will drive Trump further into frenzy. As Trump continues to descend in head-to-head poles with Biden, he may unravel completely. That would leave poor Pence.
  #391  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:18 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,501
That's what Clinton did last time, remember? All it did was to get his supporters to pump their fists and yell "That's gettin' 'em, Trump!"
  #392  
Old 06-12-2019, 10:36 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
I don't know. They did that with Hillary. Did we "need" that candidate?
Yes. Hillary was 1000X better than trump.

And she was better than the other two actual candidates running at that time, altho true Sanders would have been interesting.
  #393  
Old 06-12-2019, 12:03 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That's what Clinton did last time, remember? All it did was to get his supporters to pump their fists and yell "That's gettin' 'em, Trump!"

Not true. The 538 analysis was that she did herself quite a bit of good in the debates. She was just starting from a weaker position than most people realized (538 being the exception, giving her only a 60-70 percent chance to win throughout the fall).

If a few people in each Rust Belt precinct had happened to stay home and a few others had gone out to vote instead of blowing it off, it would be fair to say Hillary had saved her candidacy—and the country—by performing strongly in the debates.
__________________
Some people on TV are nice to look at.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-12-2019 at 12:04 PM.
  #394  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:04 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
No, you're right--and now that I think of it, Nate Silver has talked about how shaky "trial heat" polling is. I'll Emily Latella this one--mea culpa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The 538 I know of is about how the polling in primaries are fairly predictive even early on.

Another take by Nate Cohn in NYT's Upshot. Basic premise that if history applied we'd be considering Biden "inevitable" but history may not be so predictive anymore. The times have changed.

Meanwhile this may be the graph RTFirefly had seen.
That was indeed the graph that Edwards-Levy had intended, since a very similar tweet is up today with exactly that graph. My WAG is that she accidentally included the wrong graph with her original tweet.

Anyway, that seems to be the state of knowledge on the subject: primary polling has predictive power surprisingly early on, but general election polling, not more than 300 days out, i.e. next January.
  #395  
Old 06-12-2019, 06:29 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
That's what Clinton did last time, remember? All it did was to get his supporters to pump their fists and yell "That's gettin' 'em, Trump!"
What's working against Trump in 2020 is that we will have had 4 years to experience Trump. In 2016, the American public could imagine what Trump would be like, and their imagination was free to go wherever it wanted.

At the same time, his weakness is his strength. People know what they're getting with President Trump. They know less about President Biden, although maybe being Vice President is almost the same thing?
  #396  
Old 06-12-2019, 09:34 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,167
I have never seen “The Apprentice”, but I assume on that show he didn’t act the way he has in the presidency (what Bill Maher terms being a “whiny little bitch”).
__________________
Some people on TV are nice to look at.
  #397  
Old 06-13-2019, 10:14 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,122
like most "reality" shows The Apprentice was pretty much as scripted as a sitcom or a doctor/lawyer/cop/etc. 1 hour drama. Trump was not really picking who stayed or got fired and who won the show.
  #398  
Old 06-13-2019, 11:05 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,167
Sure. That’s why I say I picture him acting in some sort of “strong, competent executive” type way, that could have led people to imagine him being an effective president. But of course the reality has been quite different.

I would quibble with your broad pronouncement, though, as a fan of certain reality competitions (Survivor, Project Runway, SYTYCD). Hosts (like Trump) are certainly engaging in a scripted show. But the competitors are not acting. There is just not plausibly a large reservoir of unknown virtuoso actors out there who are content to use their skills to project absolute verisimilitude for a few episodes of a TV show before returning to anonymity. (Watch a few low budget movies, and you will get a good sense of how rare it is to find that level of acting talent.)

Last edited by SlackerInc; 06-13-2019 at 11:06 AM.
  #399  
Old 06-14-2019, 07:15 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
That was indeed the graph that Edwards-Levy had intended, since a very similar tweet is up today with exactly that graph. My WAG is that she accidentally included the wrong graph with her original tweet.

Anyway, that seems to be the state of knowledge on the subject: primary polling has predictive power surprisingly early on, but general election polling, not more than 300 days out, i.e. next January.
And more of the same now on 538.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-seriously-no/
  #400  
Old 06-15-2019, 06:57 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,624
In short, it's pretty clear that Biden is in a dominant position. He would have to look pretty damn bad in the debates - like Rick Perry bad - for him to get taken down a notch.
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 08:12 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017