Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2351  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:47 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,369
Yes, we know that Clinton was preferred over Sanders among Democrats. Obviously whomever wins the primary will be the candidate preferred among Democrats: That's not something that can be avoided.

But in head-to-head polls vs. Trump, Sanders did better than Clinton. People have come up with all sorts of arguments for why those polls were irrelevant, and that Clinton was more electable anyway, but the polls are the only relevant data we have, and those arguments the polls are called into doubt by the fact that Clinton was not in fact electable enough.
  #2352  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:50 PM
Richard Parker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But in head-to-head polls vs. Trump, Sanders did better than Clinton. People have come up with all sorts of arguments for why those polls were irrelevant, and that Clinton was more electable anyway, but the polls are the only relevant data we have, and those arguments the polls are called into doubt by the fact that Clinton was not in fact electable enough.
The reason 2016 Sanders-Trump polls don't mean much is the same reason the head-to-head polls now don't mean much: head-to-head polls conducted before a head-to-head campaign aren't especially predictive.

If you're looking for a rough data model for electability, I think you'd do marginally better than the head-to-head polling with just two pieces of data: (1) public perception of candidate ideology (since, all else being equal, people perceived as moderates do better); and (2) small-dollar fundraising adjusted for name recognition (since this tends to measure both how much they will successfully raise in the general and is a name-adjusted measure of popularity). Also, those two factors tend to be inverse--the more moderate you are, the less you are able to rely on small-dollar donors.

It's not perfect. By that measure, Buttigieg is probably the strongest candidate since he has raised an insane amount of money from small-dollar starting from no name recongition while maintaining a fairly moderate public image. And he's probably not, in fact, the most electable. Harris would also fair pretty well in this model I think, which is contrary to my own intuition.But I'll bet if you built the model it would get you closer than head-to-head polling 16 months out.

The model would say Biden is fine. He's raised what you would expect from small donors as the most well-known candidate, and he is positioned as fairly moderate. It would say Sanders is weaker, since he is regarded as the least moderate in the race and hasn't raised as much from small donors as you'd expect given his name recognition (less than Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden).
  #2353  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:57 PM
Richard Parker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,081
Oops. The small donor numbers I was looking at are off somehow, so disregard that commentary.
  #2354  
Old 08-12-2019, 03:53 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Oops. The small donor numbers I was looking at are off somehow, so disregard that commentary.
I was just about to ask for the source of your numbers. Your analysis doesn't match the numbers I've seen, just from recollection. I'd be interested to see some updated ones.
  #2355  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:52 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,369
If moderates did better, then Trump would never have been elected.

EDIT: And any measure you care to make of candidate strength will always have the same failing: It's always going to be based on the situation before the general election campaign. That's not unique to the head-to-head polls. And given that everything else has the same problem as the head-to-head polls, you might as well just cut directly to asking the question to which you want the answer, rather than introducing confounding factors.

Last edited by Chronos; 08-12-2019 at 09:54 PM.
  #2356  
Old 08-13-2019, 09:23 AM
Richard Parker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If moderates did better, then Trump would never have been elected.
This is a silly thing to say for two reasons. First, obviously, saying "all else being equal" doesn't mean all else is always equal. Second, and more importantly, Trump was perceived as a moderate!

This is one of the central findings of the study of US elections. You cannot just handwave it away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
EDIT: And any measure you care to make of candidate strength will always have the same failing: It's always going to be based on the situation before the general election campaign. That's not unique to the head-to-head polls. And given that everything else has the same problem as the head-to-head polls, you might as well just cut directly to asking the question to which you want the answer, rather than introducing confounding factors.
That doesn't make any sense either. We know that head-to-head polls aren't predictive. It doesn't follow that nothing is predictive. Nor does it follow that you cannot increase predictive power by adding more data.
  #2357  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:19 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 84,471
Encouraging news for Democrats in Texas, IF Latino voters finally begin turning out in force - only a third of those eligible voted in 2016, despite Trump's hostility to them being glaringly obvious even then: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/13/polit...ins/index.html
  #2358  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:21 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,030
“I talk about that all of the time and then I wonder why the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, doesn't write particularly good articles about me I don't know why.”

Damn, I'm sorry. That sounds like a Trump quote. Let me check... did I put this in the right place?

Oh, yeah. OK. Right thread. That's Bernie Sanders, this morning, stoking the "I'm entitled to the nomination because I came in 2nd last time around" arguments.

https://twitter.com/jeffzeleny/statu...273484801?s=20
  #2359  
Old 08-13-2019, 01:07 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,766
I don't think Bernie has a shot, but why is it wrong to question the objectivity of a newspaper owned by someone who presides over such a major corporation?
  #2360  
Old 08-13-2019, 01:27 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,108
Because it sounds like whining, rather than promoting a message.
  #2361  
Old 08-13-2019, 05:38 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,030
Higgsenboson likely out, mulling CO Senate run:

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/stat...344936967?s=19

Last edited by JohnT; 08-13-2019 at 05:38 PM.
  #2362  
Old 08-13-2019, 05:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Higgsenboson likely out, mulling CO Senate run:

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/stat...344936967?s=19
Great news! Hopefully he does it.
  #2363  
Old 08-13-2019, 07:22 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Higgsenboson likely out, mulling CO Senate run:

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/stat...344936967?s=19
I hope Beto does the same and drops out to challenge Cornyn. I think it should be obvious even to him that he’s not going to win the nomination. I think he has a better chance of beating Cornyn than winning the nomination.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 08-13-2019 at 07:24 PM.
  #2364  
Old 08-13-2019, 07:23 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,082
Stacy Abrams ain't runnin'.
  #2365  
Old 08-13-2019, 07:26 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,710
Sorry for the double post. Here’s a link to a Houston Chronicle editorial asking Beto to do just that.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opi...l-14294396.php
  #2366  
Old 08-13-2019, 07:44 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
I hope Beto does the same and drops out to challenge Cornyn. I think it should be obvious even to him that he’s not going to win the nomination. I think he has a better chance of beating Cornyn than winning the nomination.
Similarly, Bullock has a better chance of beating Daines in MT than winning the nomination.

Texas' filing deadline is this fall sometime, so Beto has a decision to make in just a few months, max.
  #2367  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:09 PM
Precambrianmollusc's Avatar
Precambrianmollusc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,582
December 9th for Texas senate filing.
I agree Beto would do much more good by running against Cornyn, I think this would also fire up the Texas democrats to get out and vote, he generated quite a bit of excitement around here. Same for Hickenlooper, I like him but don't see any chance for him on the big stage.
Hang better check if that is state or federal.
.
Yep all of them
https://ballotpedia.org/United_State...in_Texas,_2020

Last edited by Precambrianmollusc; 08-13-2019 at 10:14 PM.
  #2368  
Old 08-13-2019, 10:47 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Higgsenboson likely out, mulling CO Senate run:

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/stat...344936967?s=19
Hickenloop is probably going to get primaried, and it may not be as easy to get his party's nomination as he thinks.
  #2369  
Old 08-13-2019, 11:48 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,268
Whenever I read the word Hickenlooper, I think of Dr. Seuss books.

A Starbelly ran forth looking hastily for a pooper.
“He must really have to go,” thought President Hickenlooper

Last edited by Locrian; 08-13-2019 at 11:50 PM.
  #2370  
Old 08-14-2019, 08:37 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,369
Who else would be in contention for Colorado's Senate seat? And isn't he pretty popular in his state?
  #2371  
Old 08-14-2019, 09:13 AM
divemaster's Avatar
divemaster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Gainesville, VA
Posts: 3,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Who else would be in contention for Colorado's Senate seat? And isn't he pretty popular in his state?
The Washington Post had a couple of articles about that last week. I, too, just assumed he was a shoe-in for Colorado Senate. However:

Quote:
And if Hickenlooper bails on the jam-packed presidential primary, he’ll just be trading one crowded Democratic contest for another. Ten Democrats have already filed to run against Republican Sen. Cory Gardner in Colorado, and some have raised as much or more money in the past quarter for their bids as Hickenlooper has in his presidential effort....The Democrats already running are giving no indication they intend to end their campaigns...
Quote:
All are younger than the 67-year-old Hickenlooper and are well-positioned to outflank him by reminding Democratic primary voters about the parts of his centrist gubernatorial record that might be especially distasteful to liberals — including his strong support of the state’s oil and gas industry and his uneven support for gun-control measures.

While Hickenlooper’s brand of quirky moderation won him two terms as governor, he never had to face a competitive statewide primary, and his performance in the presidential race has only amplified questions about his viability in the state.
Quote:
Should he do so, Hickenlooper faces a millstone of his own making: his own dismal words about serving in the Senate, which are likely to fuel arguments that voters ought to prefer a candidate who is more interested in the job at stake.

“I’m not cut out to be a senator,” he told Politico in February....“If the Senate is so good, how come all those senators are trying to get out?”

He'd still be the odds-on favorite, to be sure. But there is some concern.

Quote:
“John Hickenlooper remains incredibly popular with Colorado voters,” said Hubbard, adding that he hasn’t talked to Hickenlooper since January. He contended Hickenlooper would become “an instant front-runner in one of the nation’s most closely-watched Senate races.”
  #2372  
Old 08-14-2019, 09:53 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Hickenloop is probably going to get primaried
Huh? Hickenlooper's out of office at present. You mean some future election?

That comment about the Senate being undesirable doesn't help, but it's easy to laugh off - who wouldn't rather be President than Senator?
  #2373  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:21 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,353
Yeah, that's the problem with trying to switch horses in midstream. Setting aside any ideological differences people may have with Hickenlooper, you can't reasonably expect every other ambitious Democrat in the State to hold off on running for Senate until Hick makes his mind up, or to just give up on their campaigns when he indicates he's willing to settle for the Senate after all.
  #2374  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:24 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,353
Well, then again, on the other hand...
  #2375  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:28 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,108
It's good that we're starting to see the shakeout this early - candidates for the top job resetting their sights on Senator or Governor, pushing others down the ladder into other offices they can win, and so forth. The Dems were leaving far too many offices uncontested by otherwise solid candidates who were overreaching with the Presidency.

Hey, Beto? Senate again, okay, pardner? You can be Hickenlooper's colleague there, and with the White House once again in the hands of a decent human being with a reality-based agenda you can work with. That ain't so bad. Inslee and Bullock? Stay where you are; we need you there. Cabinet if asked, though.
  #2376  
Old 08-14-2019, 03:28 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,844
All right, so which dark-horse Democrat still has the strongest (any realistic) chance of pulling off the long-shot to get the nomination?
  #2377  
Old 08-14-2019, 07:45 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,353
Interesting question. It’s hard for me to imagine a plausible scenario for any of them at this point. If Biden were to drop out for some reason, it would create an opening for a moderate like Beto, Mayor Pete or Klobuchar, and free up some black support which might go to Booker. I doubt any one of those when end up with the lion’s share of his voters, though.

Otherwise, it seems like every major demographic and ideological group within the Party is OK with at least one of the top four. I’m kind of surprised that Castro hasn’t attracted more support, being the only Hispanic in the race. He seems to be the only one of the also-ranks who has a significant constituency that he could theoretically appeal to. But if they haven’t rallied to him yet, I wouldn’t be holding my breath for them to do so in the future.
  #2378  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:43 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 84,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Huh? Hickenlooper's out of office at present. You mean some future election?....
Yes, to win the Democratic nomination for US Senate in Colorado. Not "primaried" as in, "challenged within his own party to keep his current post," but "not blessed with an unopposed primary for a post he hopes to win."
  #2379  
Old 08-15-2019, 07:16 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,108
Okay, but all those other Dems got into the race assuming Hickenlooper was out. Now that The Big Dog is in, expect most of them to target other offices instead.
  #2380  
Old 08-15-2019, 08:35 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,369
Yeah, take a look at that poll that Thing Fish linked to. Granted, it's only one poll, and a B+ isn't the best rating... but it still has him at an outright majority, and a fairly strong one at that, even in a very crowded field. Even from one poll, that's pretty compelling.
  #2381  
Old 08-15-2019, 09:19 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,766
So I watched Bernie's interview with Joe Rogan and it was very interesting - I've always been a fan of the way Sanders communicates, and I think he talks just as well during an interview as a debate - he is very good at speaking with conviction and authority without sounding pompous. But one thing struck me. He's always talking about income inequality and the 1% and how horrible it is that they hoard wealth and get away with not paying their share in taxes, but I feel like for most Americans this concept is nothing more than an abstraction. In this country I don't feel that people really run with the notion of class warfare and the 1% isn't something to be hated but to be aspired to.

I have this theory that on a visceral and maybe even subconscious level, people hate taxes so much that they actually admire ANYONE who can get away with cheating the tax system, no matter how rich that person is. Taxes are like cancer. Nobody wants to think about them, nobody wants to deal with them, and if someone beats them, that person is admired.

Sanders talks a lot about the tax cheating of the Billionaiahs. What he's not doing enough, in my opinion, is DIRECTLY STATING that it's unfair that regular people are getting shafted on THEIR income taxes. He needs to be hammering home the individual voter's personal, skewed relationship to the taxes. Every time he talks about the 1% hoarding all the money and not paying their taxes, EVERY time, he ALSO needs to be saying "and meanwhile YOU are getting screwed and YOU're forking over YOUR hard-earned wages to the IRS." Everyone fucking hates paying taxes. They suck. They're like Satan. The way Sanders has been talking about taxes, he's merely saying "the big companies are working with Satan." That's not enough. He needs to be saying "Satan is jamming his pitchfork right up YOUR ASS and I am the guy who is going to pull it out." I mean literally if he talked in that language, if he got as vulgar about it as Trump gets about everything that pisses him off, it would connect with people. Vulgarity is an asset right now.

If Sanders was to ramp up the message that he is going to relieve the income tax burden on individual middle class people by making huge corporations pay their share, he could really get somewhere. But he needs to stay focused on that concept of "THEY are the ones who are sticking that pitchfork in YOUR ass and I'M the guy who is gonna pull it out."
  #2382  
Old 08-15-2019, 09:43 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
But one thing struck me. He's always talking about income inequality and the 1% and how horrible it is that they hoard wealth and get away with not paying their share in taxes, but I feel like for most Americans this concept is nothing more than an abstraction.
I think this is one place where Warren really has the rhetorical advantage. She's got her 2% wealth tax proposal, but she pairs that with the programs it would pay for which would make a difference in people's lives. And that makes it a lot more concrete.
  #2383  
Old 08-15-2019, 09:53 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
So I watched Bernie's interview with Joe Rogan and it was very interesting - I've always been a fan of the way Sanders communicates, and I think he talks just as well during an interview as a debate - he is very good at speaking with conviction and authority without sounding pompous. But one thing struck me. He's always talking about income inequality and the 1% and how horrible it is that they hoard wealth and get away with not paying their share in taxes, but I feel like for most Americans this concept is nothing more than an abstraction. In this country I don't feel that people really run with the notion of class warfare and the 1% isn't something to be hated but to be aspired to.

I have this theory that on a visceral and maybe even subconscious level, people hate taxes so much that they actually admire ANYONE who can get away with cheating the tax system, no matter how rich that person is. Taxes are like cancer. Nobody wants to think about them, nobody wants to deal with them, and if someone beats them, that person is admired.

Sanders talks a lot about the tax cheating of the Billionaiahs. What he's not doing enough, in my opinion, is DIRECTLY STATING that it's unfair that regular people are getting shafted on THEIR income taxes. He needs to be hammering home the individual voter's personal, skewed relationship to the taxes. Every time he talks about the 1% hoarding all the money and not paying their taxes, EVERY time, he ALSO needs to be saying "and meanwhile YOU are getting screwed and YOU're forking over YOUR hard-earned wages to the IRS." Everyone fucking hates paying taxes. They suck. They're like Satan. The way Sanders has been talking about taxes, he's merely saying "the big companies are working with Satan." That's not enough. He needs to be saying "Satan is jamming his pitchfork right up YOUR ASS and I am the guy who is going to pull it out." I mean literally if he talked in that language, if he got as vulgar about it as Trump gets about everything that pisses him off, it would connect with people. Vulgarity is an asset right now.

If Sanders was to ramp up the message that he is going to relieve the income tax burden on individual middle class people by making huge corporations pay their share, he could really get somewhere. But he needs to stay focused on that concept of "THEY are the ones who are sticking that pitchfork in YOUR ass and I'M the guy who is gonna pull it out."
Using the tax law to one’s benefit is not cheating.
  #2384  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:19 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,353
As a Bernie supporter I agree with this criticism. I wish he would do a better job of explaining how his policies would concretely improve the lives of ordinary Americans. Warren (or her speechwriters) does a better job of this, but I still feel Bernie is much better at connecting to voters overall than she is.
  #2385  
Old 08-15-2019, 11:52 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Using the tax law to one’s benefit is not cheating.
Manipulating the laws, and the enforcement of them, is.
  #2386  
Old 08-15-2019, 10:51 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,297
A reasonable opinion piece on Politico today worth a read -

The short version of the thesis is that Warren will need to make some headway into Black voter support to get the nom and doing such may be best served by breaking slightly with the white progressive party line towards a few more centrist positions.
Quote:
... if Warren were to win a respectable slice of the black vote in South Carolina, she would prove to white liberals skeptical of her electability that she has support among a constituency without which no Democrat can win a nomination, or the presidency.

In polls, Warren trails Biden in South Carolina by dozens of points. What’s more, about half of the state’s black Democrats say they support Biden, while Warren is practically tied for the lead among the state’s white Democrats.

And African American Democrats are, as Tom Edsall pointed out in a much-discussed column in the New York Times, on average, more centrist than white Democrats. The party’s “more moderate wing, which is pressing bread-and-butter concerns like jobs, taxes and a less totalizing vision of health care reform, is majority nonwhite, with almost half of its support coming from African-American and Hispanic voters,” he wrote.

So it would make sense for Warren to draw some distinctions between herself and her party’s most liberal voters, in order to make her candidacy more appealing—or at least acceptable—to the elements of her party that do not fully embrace the canon. And there’s a long history of winning presidential candidates doing this without alienating their most loyal supporters. ...
What think you?

Is the way for her to make that headway to more fully articulate support for issues of racial justice, or to highlight some of her beliefs that break with progressive orthodoxy and are more centrist (even while maintaining her wanting to implement major system changes)? Or does she just ignore it as an issue?
  #2387  
Old 08-16-2019, 08:34 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The short version of the thesis is that Warren will need to make some headway into Black voter support to get the nom and doing such may be best served by breaking slightly with the white progressive party line towards a few more centrist positions.


What think you?

Is the way for her to make that headway to more fully articulate support for issues of racial justice, or to highlight some of her beliefs that break with progressive orthodoxy and are more centrist (even while maintaining her wanting to implement major system changes)? Or does she just ignore it as an issue?
My main thought is that SC is the fourth state to hold its primary or caucus, following Iowa, NH, and Nevada, and is almost immediately followed by Super Tuesday. Not to say it isn't important, but SC is far from make-or-break, given the calendar.

Warren has already been doing a very good job of "articulat[ing] support for issues of racial justice," and she's gotten props for this from a number of African-American commentators. That doesn't make much of a difference in what has until recently been a crowded field, but I think this will help her a great deal once it sinks in that it's effectively become a two-person race between her and Biden. So IMHO she just needs to keep doing what she's been doing.
  #2388  
Old 08-16-2019, 09:23 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,260
It will never become a two person race. Sanders is in it until the convention and will pick up delegates on the way.

Biden is weaker than Clinton was for primary purposes. He may be stronger than her for general purposes if he can force the progressives to take a chill pill.
  #2389  
Old 08-16-2019, 09:38 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
It will never become a two person race. Sanders is in it until the convention and will pick up delegates on the way.
Notice the word "effectively" before "become a two-person race."
  #2390  
Old 08-16-2019, 10:34 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,260
Yes, it won’t effectively be a two person race if someone with over 15% of delegates is preventing anyone from gaining a majority.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-16-2019 at 10:34 AM.
  #2391  
Old 08-16-2019, 11:06 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Yes, it won’t effectively be a two person race if someone with over 15% of delegates is preventing anyone from gaining a majority.
He won't necessarily have 15% of the delegates. For example, the current Iowa polling average on Real Clear has him at about 12% there. If that was the caucus result, he would get zero delegates as there is a 15% threshold for being awarded any. At current polling, only Biden and Warren would get delegates.

Last edited by CarnalK; 08-16-2019 at 11:10 AM.
  #2392  
Old 08-16-2019, 12:55 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
He won't necessarily have 15% of the delegates. For example, the current Iowa polling average on Real Clear has him at about 12% there. If that was the caucus result, he would get zero delegates as there is a 15% threshold for being awarded any. At current polling, only Biden and Warren would get delegates.
That assumes he ends up below 15% in every district - and remember that about 2/3 of the delegates (it depends on how many "bonus" delegates states get for late or "multi-state" primaries/caucuses) are at district level.
  #2393  
Old 08-16-2019, 12:56 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
It will never become a two person race. Sanders is in it until the convention and will pick up delegates on the way.
It had ceased to be a two person race long before he recognized it the last time, too. We know the results.

It's still early (for half of the field), and what looks like data is still mostly noise, so I'll just say ISTM there is less than a 50% chance of the nominee being Biden, Warren, Sanders, or Harris.
  #2394  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:04 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
That assumes he ends up below 15% in every district - and remember that about 2/3 of the delegates (it depends on how many "bonus" delegates states get for late or "multi-state" primaries/caucuses) are at district level.
Yes, he may pick up delegates at the district level but my main point is that just because he's polling at around 15% nationally or in some states doesn't at all mean he's going to be collecting 15% of the delegates. He has to actually win over 15% somewhere to get any. (to avoid further nitpicks: excepting the likely rare races where nobody gets 15%)

Last edited by CarnalK; 08-16-2019 at 01:07 PM.
  #2395  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:54 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,260
I understand I was just giving a ballpark number of how many delegates he may end up with. Even if he has half that he could deny Biden a coronation, meaning it is most definitely not a two person race, as the various hacks will come out of the woodwork.

Sanders’ performance will be key in this contest even if he has no chance of taking the whole thing.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 08-16-2019 at 01:56 PM.
  #2396  
Old 08-16-2019, 01:57 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 121
Interesting article in the NYT about the Biden and Obama relationship. Carries a few of the same old stories about how the selection of Biden by the Obama campaign was a tactical move led by David Axelrod and a few others.

But there are some new points made I hadn't heard before. The pair of them have been pictured hanging out together since leaving office so it's pretty obvious the discussion of 2020 happened. According to the article Obama is quoted as telling Biden "you don't have to do this Joe, you really don't" earlier in the year (Biden got in at the end of April).

Since then Obama has been in contact with him and the campaign. Whether it's out of just personal affection is the interesting bit for me. Because I reckon Obama must feel pretty awkward about how this is panning out. On one hand Biden's his buddy and loyal ally so you want him to do well. A criticism on him for his vice presidency is treated as an attack on Obama for his presidency. And considering Trump is in a personal vendetta to rip up everything Obama did because he might feel his legacy hinges on Biden.

On the other hand he might be thinking what a lot of Biden critics are saying - Biden's served his time and should pass the torch. That he may be leading in the polls but to win the election against Trump, democrats have to turn out and you can't risk voter apathy as 2016 showed.

It's a conundrum that reaches an underlying point - Biden may be the best candidate to beat Trump but is he the best candidate to be President? They are two different things. The former is driven out of partly fear (when you hate the president more than you like your candidate) and partly a self fulfilling prophecy (all the polls say most people think that way so I should too). The latter is assuming others can beat Trump too (and polls also show a few others can). So in that case why should we settle? Why not choose the best campaign platform, the best campaigner, the best debater? Does Biden tick these boxes? He seems to tick the first one but the other two...at this point absolutely not.

Last edited by Boycott; 08-16-2019 at 02:01 PM.
  #2397  
Old 08-16-2019, 04:38 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,297
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethi...delegates/amp/

A good discussion of how the delegate math would play out. Under 15% in a state generally means less than 5% of that state’s delegates. Overall polling 10 to 13% will likely mean a state or so over threshold but overall not too many states. Those who poll there are looking at 5% mostly.

Not enough to be key.

Unless Sanders’ fortunes shift dramatically he will be immaterial. Those below him as well.

Maybe enough at 5% of delegate count would push into the second round in which supers vote too bit a clear plurality getter of popular vote and leader in the delegate count, be that Warren or Biden, would then be coronated.

As to my question on Warren and Black voters my WAG is that there is less a need to pushback against any progressive positions than the same thing I need: to be more fully convinced of her ability to win and maybe help with the Senate too. I don’t think it is positions as much as personality and weathering an attack well.

Either Biden or Warren would be great presidents. Not sure which one better other than the one who best helps win the Senate.
  #2398  
Old Yesterday, 05:26 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Maybe enough at 5% of delegate count would push into the second round in which supers vote too bit a clear plurality getter of popular vote and leader in the delegate count, be that Warren or Biden, would then be coronated.
I assume you mean, "in which supers vote too, but a clear plurality getter..."? I also assume that if it did get to a second ballot, the party bigwigs would gather the superdelegates together and coordinate their efforts for there to be a definite winner on the second ballot; if it gets past two ballots, they might as well nominate Trump.

One thing I have not been able to figure out: at what point are a candidate's pledged delegates released? The Republicans have state-by-state rules, but the only reference I have been able to find in either the Democrats' national rules or in any of the state delegate selection plans is, "All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

Oh, and if anyone is interested in the district-versus-statewide delegate breakdown, it depends on how many "bonus delegates" the state gets:
  • Without any bonus, 15/23 of the delegates are district delegates
  • With the April primary bonus, 33/50
  • With the May/June primary bonus, 2/3
  • With the April "regional" bonus, 25/34
  • With the May "regional" bonus, 27/40
This ranges from 65.2% to 67.5%
I think the only "regional" primary is the six states on 4/28 (MD, DE, PA, NY, CT, RI)
  #2399  
Old Yesterday, 05:59 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,297
Yes “but”. Phone correction.

https://www.270towin.com/content/sup...tic-nomination

Quote:
All delegates become unpledged and superdelegates will also vote if the convention is contested (i.e., more than one ballot is needed to select a nominee). For those subsequent ballots, a majority of all 4,745 delegates (2,373) will be needed to secure the nomination.
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 08:41 AM.

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