Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-08-2019, 11:11 AM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,748

Just how much of a threat are Sanders to Warren and Vice Versa?


UIt's all in the title.

I understand the other "non or lesser Progressive" Democrats are all competing with each other as well. Debates could change everything.

I'm currently a Bernie dude... (Biden's horrible In my HUMBLE opinion, as far as I can tell, but I'm not an idiot and would vote for him over Trump). Lately I can't deny Warren's hard work and accomplishments, I think she's great for the United States, however I don't know what her foreign influence would be like. I can't picture it in my head.

Anyway... I come in peace. Biden's got baggage from what I've seen, but I honestly could see why he's some people's 'best option' in getting closer to the America they envision.

Last edited by MyFootsZZZ; 06-08-2019 at 11:13 AM.
  #2  
Old 06-08-2019, 11:18 AM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,748
Sorry folks, wrong forum.
  #3  
Old 06-08-2019, 01:12 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,466
[Moderating]
Moved to Elections.

[Not moderating]
Sanders is consistently blowing Warren away, by double digits, in every poll, including in Massachusetts, and including when you look at second and third choices. He's an existential threat to her candidacy, and she's no threat at all to his.
  #4  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:08 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,298
It’s still mostly name recognition now. Let’s get a couple of the early debates in and start thinning out the long shots.

Full disclaimer: everyone on here knows I can’t stand Sanders.

But, I seriously wonder how Bernie is going to look on the debate stage with so many candidates, many of them quite talented. I also wonder how his personality will play. In 2016, I can understand the appeal of his feisty personality versus the reserved Hillary who often seemed as every word was chosen by a campaign consultant.

How’s that going to play now? We’ve already had 4 years of ‘shaking up the system’ with a bomb thrower like Trump. Does Sanders still get seen as a fighter or does he come off as an angry old man?

I don’t know any Democrats who have said they’d never consider Warren, but there are plenty like me that will never vote for Sanders in the primary.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #5  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:34 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
It'll be interesting to see whom the crowd of candidates attack first: Biden or Bernie. Shit is going to fly from all directions, so they'd better have their shit storm gear strapped tightly.
  #6  
Old 06-08-2019, 04:57 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,353
My point of view here is from the son of up from poverty, working class who become middle-class, New Deal Democrats who went to their graves believing (especially my mother) that FDR saved the United States.

Out here in a red state in flyover country, there's not much talk of the Democratic race at all. In fact, the latest political flap in my neck of the woods has been two Democratic state reps who are both running for the same state Senate seat, and neither wants to back down.

IMHO Warren should stay in the Senate, where she seems to be an effective legislator with a powerful voice. Bernie is John the Baptist -- a prophet, not a Messiah. I wish someone had as much old-line, blue-collar working class credibility as Biden, someone younger and less prone to gaffes. But Trump clearly isn't comfortable with Biden as an opponent, so Joe certainly has value simply as a distraction.

As for the rest of the field, they're all just names to me. I can't even spell Mayor Pete's name, and I couldn't tell the difference between him and Beto O'Rourke, either in terms of physical appearance or political positions.

Last edited by Kent Clark; 06-08-2019 at 04:58 PM.
  #7  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:57 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,485
I think Warren is running for president to get more air play for her policies. I mean, I don't think she'd mind winning, but I don't think that's her main goal. I think she wants to be the moral standard-bearer of the progressives.

Similarly, I think mayor Pete is running for 2024, or maybe VP.
  #8  
Old 06-08-2019, 09:00 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,678
I don't know what Booty-judge is running for, but I think it's going to be him versus Biden at the end of it. And I wouldn't be surprised if Biden steps down to let him go on through. It's an early prediction, obviously, but he's the only standout competitor at the moment.

But anyways, as to the OP:

I went through the 2016 Republican Primary results once to try and get a sense for whether Trump won outright or if it was more a matter that Cruz and Rubio split the serious vote.

It's a bit tricky to go through and, quite possibly, I read the numbers wrong but if you look at who sat out of any particular convention and who seemed to get a home-town boost, it looked to me like there were basically three camps among the voters: Pro-Business, Pro-Latino, and Pro-Traditional.

Trump, Kasich, Paul, and Fiorina split the Business vote. Rubio and Cruz split the Latino vote. Jeb and Christie had the traditional vote, but it never had many backers.

Of the two main camps, the Business group was larger and Trump was always the largest vote-puller within that camp. But he was never in the majority, simply because there were more competitors in his camp. The Latino group was smaller than Business, but they always did better than Trump.

Ultimately, though, the candidate who was most popular in the most popular camp was the one who won. While that isn't necessarily the Condorcet winner, that is a fairly "good" outcome, so far as trying to ensure that the election doesn't spit out some random person that no one can understand how he got it.

But so... If we assume that things would more-or-less play out the same way in the Democratic primary, then we would expect Warran and Sanders to win based, essentially, on the size of their camp. If it's the biggest camp in the party, then probably - even if they split the vote within the camp about even - one of them will be the Presidential candidate.
  #9  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:14 AM
Yookeroo's Avatar
Yookeroo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Clemente, California
Posts: 5,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Sanders is consistently blowing Warren away, by double digits, in every poll, including in Massachusetts, and including when you look at second and third choices. He's an existential threat to her candidacy, and she's no threat at all to his.
I bet that when all is said and done, she finishes ahead of him in the primaries. I wouldn't bet a lot, but I think she's going to finish ahead of him.
  #10  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:39 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yookeroo View Post
I bet that when all is said and done, she finishes ahead of him in the primaries. I wouldn't bet a lot, but I think she's going to finish ahead of him.
He has a head start on her. The millennials aren't going to flip over from Sanders to Warren. And everyone else will figure that Sanders already did an unexpectedly impressive job campaigning before, so why bother going with the unknown quantity? I'm sure that the question will tug at the heart-strings of a few, but they'll end up backing the horse that they think can win.

Pocahontas can't win. Trump already defeated her. All he has to do is say that one word and she's toast. She played that wrong.

Sanders... Well, he probably can't win either, but the people who would vote for either of them aren't the sort to see that. They'll see him as electable.
  #11  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:49 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
[Moderating]
Moved to Elections.

[Not moderating]
Sanders is consistently blowing Warren away, by double digits, in every poll, including in Massachusetts, and including when you look at second and third choices. He's an existential threat to her candidacy, and she's no threat at all to his.
Oh yeah?

@DMRegister Iowa Poll results on the 2020 caucus field

Biden: 24%
Sanders: 16%
Warren: 15%
Buttigieg: 14%
Harris: 7%
Klobuchar: 2%
O’Rourke: 2%

No other candidate tops 1%.

Biden's -5 since the previous DMR poll, Bernie's -9, Warren's +6, and Pete's +13.
  #12  
Old 06-09-2019, 06:23 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
It looks like Warren may be siphoning some votes away from Bernie, and Buttigieg may be siphoning some votes away from both Bernie and Biden.
  #13  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:15 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,502
I'm pretty sure the #2 choice of a plurality of Warren and Sanders supporters is Joe Biden (and a plurality of Biden supporters' #2 is Bernie). Voters are way less ideological than pundits want them to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Pocahontas can't win. Trump already defeated her. All he has to do is say that one word and she's toast.
IIRC, there are supposedly people in Trumpworld who are really worried that Donald Trump thinks this way, that if she's the nominee, he'll just run around screaming "Pocahontas! Pocahontas! Pocahontas!" at her and expect the 95% of voters who didn't follow that faux scandal to know WTF he's talking about.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 06-09-2019 at 07:19 AM.
  #14  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:38 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,466
OK, so there's one singular poll where Warren is only a little behind Sanders, instead of a lot behind him.
  #15  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:46 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
I'm pretty sure the #2 choice of a plurality of Warren and Sanders supporters is Joe Biden (and a plurality of Biden supporters' #2 is Bernie). Voters are way less ideological than pundits want them to be.
You can see how the candidates are doing as second choices, and being actively considered, on p.4 of the poll.

There's no "If candidate X was your first choice, who is your second choice?" layout, so your theory is neither supported or called into question by the results. Just what % have candidate X as their first choice, what % have candidate X as their second choice, and what % who don't have candidate X among their top 2 are still actively considering X.
  #16  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:50 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,485
A lot of the May polling shows Warren close to Sanders, a few state polls even give her a 1 point lead:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...outh-carolina/

Biden is still ahead pretty much everywhere.

538 defaults to showing
Biden
Sanders
Warren
O'Rouke
Harris
Buttigieg

in different orders on different pages, presumably they are using some sort of weighted average for the order. But you have to click again to see the other candidates. So I guess that's who they think is seriously in play.

oh, wait, in SC they have Booker and not O'Rourke. I guess they show the top six in each polling group. (national, specific state, etc.)

I haven't decided who I want to support, yet.
  #17  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:58 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
My own power rankings of the candidates so far (nationally, not specific to any one state):

1. Biden
2. Sanders
3. Buttigieg
4. Warren
5. Harris

Once you get past the top five, it's not really clear who the next five contenders are, but I would probably go with Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, Beto O'Rourke, and Amy Klobuchar.

ETA: I should emphasize that this does not take the most recent polling release yesterday into account.

Last edited by asahi; 06-09-2019 at 09:59 AM.
  #18  
Old 06-09-2019, 10:30 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
IIRC, there are supposedly people in Trumpworld who are really worried that Donald Trump thinks this way, that if she's the nominee, he'll just run around screaming "Pocahontas! Pocahontas! Pocahontas!" at her and expect the 95% of voters who didn't follow that faux scandal to know WTF he's talking about.
I agree that that should be stupid, but I also remember "The Dean Scream" and, moreover, swift boating. ...And Trump.

When most voters watch something like the debates, they're just looking at body language. They have no idea what anyone's saying - and most likely no one is really saying much of anything beyond word salad anyways. But whoever seems the most confident, relaxed, and unflappable will do far better than one should, simply on that basis. The person who loses their cool and can't handle a blowhard, people will notice.

Your average human can't debate politics. They can read body language though.
  #19  
Old 06-09-2019, 11:10 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
My own power rankings of the candidates so far (nationally, not specific to any one state):

1. Biden
2. Sanders
3. Buttigieg
4. Warren
5. Harris
You and everyone else in the world, aside from minor quibbles about order.
Quote:
Once you get past the top five, it's not really clear who the next five contenders are
I don't think it matters who the next five are. The first debate is coming up soon, and whoever outside the top 5 can stand out in that context will be at the top of the rest of the pack.
  #20  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:20 PM
TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
IIn 2016, I can understand the appeal of his [Sander's] feisty personality versus the reserved Hillary who often seemed as every word was chosen by a campaign consultant. .
And even with that, he lost to her badly in the primaries. I have no idea why we're even considering the guy who lost to the person who lost to Trump as a potential winner.
  #21  
Old 06-09-2019, 05:13 PM
Yookeroo's Avatar
Yookeroo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Clemente, California
Posts: 5,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
He has a head start on her. The millennials aren't going to flip over from Sanders to Warren. And everyone else will figure that Sanders already did an unexpectedly impressive job campaigning before, so why bother going with the unknown quantity? I'm sure that the question will tug at the heart-strings of a few, but they'll end up backing the horse that they think can win.

Pocahontas can't win. Trump already defeated her. All he has to do is say that one word and she's toast. She played that wrong.

Sanders... Well, he probably can't win either, but the people who would vote for either of them aren't the sort to see that. They'll see him as electable.
Maybe. I suspect it's all downhill from here for Sanders. Maybe that's just hopeful thinking on my part. I don't have any particular love (or hate) for Warren. But I think she'll one of the top 2 or 3 contenders in 6 months.
  #22  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:02 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,455
It's a difficult question to answer at best, and might be impossible.

The obvious answer is "a big threat" and "also a big threat" because, as the pundits like to put it, the two of them occupy similar ideological space. Both are strongly anti-Wall Street, anti-big corporations; both are clearly among the more radical candidates running for the nomination, and their ideas overlap quite a bit. In this formulation, there's a large group of voters in a bucket marked "Fiercely Anti-Big Business," and it's left to Warren and Sanders to divide the voters in that bucket any way they can. A Sanders supporter who sours on Sanders will therefore go to Warren; a Warren supporter's second choice will almost invariably be Sanders.

Trouble is, there's not a lot of evidence that voters are all that ideological in their thinking. I always think of the statistic about the folks who voted for Gene McCarthy in one of the early primaries in 1968 (this anecdote came from my mom, a grad student in political science at the time, and she could never remember whether it was the NH or the MA primary). Since McCarthy was not on the fall ballot, what did they do? Well, some stayed home, and some voted for Humphrey, and some wrote in McCarthy or somebody else, and some voted for Nixon--but the greatest number, not a majority but a plurality, voted for George Wallace. Suggesting that ideology was not the main reason for their pro-McCarthy votes.

In this particular case the two candidates are different in style, background, and much more. I suspect there are a lot of Warren supporters who really want a woman as the nominee and will tend to support Harris or Klobuchar if Warren drops out rather than going to Sanders. Some voters are drawn to Warren's academic background, knowledge base, and detailed policy proposals; others find it a turnoff. Warren is more of a let's-work-together-within-the-system old-school politician, while Sanders is more of a blow-it-up kind of a guy. If age is a big concern you might not be voting for either, but you might also note that Warren is eight years younger than Sanders and would end her second term at the same age (79) at which Sanders would begin his first. And so on. It's quite realistic for a voter to have one of them listed at #1 and the other at #5, say.

So I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as "Two candidates with similar ideologies, matched in a zero-sum game." Guess we'll see.
  #23  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:45 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
OK, so there's one singular poll where Warren is only a little behind Sanders, instead of a lot behind him.
This is an Ann Selzer poll, who is one of the best in the business. Anything with her name on it, I take seriously.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #24  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:14 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
You can see how the candidates are doing as second choices, and being actively considered, on p.4 of the poll.
The way I parse those responses makes me think I should learn a lot more about Kamala Harris.
  #25  
Old 06-09-2019, 08:25 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
The way I parse those responses makes me think I should learn a lot more about Kamala Harris.
The way the primary schedule works this year may work to Harris' advantage. I don't think Harris will win Iowa or New Hampshire - but maybe she doesn't have to. If she can finish respectably in Iowa and/or NH and then compete well and possibly win in Nevada, she might be in a position to have an impact on Super Tuesday, and unlike past years, California's a part of that equation.

We won't really know much about anything until after the debates. By the end of summer, we'll have a much better sense of how this race is going.
  #26  
Old 06-09-2019, 09:28 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The way the primary schedule works this year may work to Harris' advantage. I don't think Harris will win Iowa or New Hampshire - but maybe she doesn't have to. If she can finish respectably in Iowa and/or NH and then compete well and possibly win in Nevada, she might be in a position to have an impact on Super Tuesday, and unlike past years, California's a part of that equation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Iowa a caucus state, where candidates who don't get 15% of the vote in a precinct are eliminated, and the process continues until the only candidates who "win" (receive delegates) have at least 15% of that precinct's votes? If that's the case, being everyone's second choice in a field of 20 could be a very good thing.
  #27  
Old 06-10-2019, 07:42 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The way the primary schedule works this year may work to Harris' advantage. I don't think Harris will win Iowa or New Hampshire - but maybe she doesn't have to.
If so, it'll be a first.
Quote:
We won't really know much about anything until after the debates. By the end of summer, we'll have a much better sense of how this race is going.
I'm going to have to take a middle course between DSeid's 'things aren't going to change much from where they are now' (from the 'Biden's In' thread) and your "We won't really know much about anything until after the debates." We know a great deal already, but much can still change.
  #28  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:19 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,466
Quote:
Quoth dalej42:

This is an Ann Selzer poll, who is one of the best in the business. Anything with her name on it, I take seriously.
I never said that it was a bad or unreliable poll. But every poll has error in it. And that includes the good polls: In fact, any reputable poll will tell you their best estimate of just how much error they have. Nor is there anything magical about "within the margin of error": The errors will follow some sort of bell-shaped distribution, so you'll sometimes have some polls which, through no fault whatsoever on the part of the pollster, will have results somewhat outside of the margin of error. And so you'll get a better picture of the race by averaging many pollsters together than you will from any single poll. Even a mix of good and bad polls is better than a single good poll, provided that you weight the averages appropriately. And so a single poll that looks good for a particular candidate, even a single poll of very high quality, doesn't mean much when the average of all polls paints a very different picture.
  #29  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:29 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I don't know what Booty-judge is running for, but I think it's going to be him versus Biden at the end of it. And I wouldn't be surprised if Biden steps down to let him go on through. It's an early prediction, obviously, but he's the only standout competitor at the moment.

But anyways, as to the OP:

I went through the 2016 Republican Primary results once to try and get a sense for whether Trump won outright or if it was more a matter that Cruz and Rubio split the serious vote.

It's a bit tricky to go through and, quite possibly, I read the numbers wrong but if you look at who sat out of any particular convention and who seemed to get a home-town boost, it looked to me like there were basically three camps among the voters: Pro-Business, Pro-Latino, and Pro-Traditional.

Trump, Kasich, Paul, and Fiorina split the Business vote. Rubio and Cruz split the Latino vote. Jeb and Christie had the traditional vote, but it never had many backers.

Of the two main camps, the Business group was larger and Trump was always the largest vote-puller within that camp. But he was never in the majority, simply because there were more competitors in his camp. The Latino group was smaller than Business, but they always did better than Trump.

Ultimately, though, the candidate who was most popular in the most popular camp was the one who won. While that isn't necessarily the Condorcet winner, that is a fairly "good" outcome, so far as trying to ensure that the election doesn't spit out some random person that no one can understand how he got it.

But so... If we assume that things would more-or-less play out the same way in the Democratic primary, then we would expect Warran and Sanders to win based, essentially, on the size of their camp. If it's the biggest camp in the party, then probably - even if they split the vote within the camp about even - one of them will be the Presidential candidate.
Still, keep in mind that all Democratic primaries allocate delegates proportionally. Trump was able to start amassing delegates with winner take all and winner take most states where he’d win a small plurality and the rest of the Republican vote was split.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #30  
Old 06-10-2019, 02:10 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
From the "Biden's In" thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
It's not just Iowa; Biden's national numbers are also dropping:

538's latest national polls:

Ipsos, 5/29-6/5: Biden 31%
YouGov, 6/2-4: Biden 27%
CNN, 5/28-31: Biden 32%

Looking less invincible by the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
OK, so there's one singular poll where Warren is only a little behind Sanders, instead of a lot behind him.
In those same polls I listed above, Sanders' advantage over Warren is 5, 3, and 11%, in that order.
  #31  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:39 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
If so, it'll be a first. I'm going to have to take a middle course between DSeid's 'things aren't going to change much from where they are now' (from the 'Biden's In' thread) and your "We won't really know much about anything until after the debates." We know a great deal already, but much can still change.
Bill Clinton didn't get any delegates in Iowa and though he finished with a New Hampshire delegate split, he finished 9 percentage points behind the leader, Tsongas. He didn't win his first race until March.

Having said that, there's no question that candidates desperately want the campaign to get off to a good start so that they can build momentum going into the March primaries.
  #32  
Old 06-11-2019, 05:20 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Bill Clinton didn't get any delegates in Iowa
There effectively was no Iowa on the Dem side in 1992. Everyone skipped Iowa, and let Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin have all the delegates.

In every year, in either major party, where Iowa and New Hampshire have both been in play, no candidate has won his/her party's nomination without winning one of the two.

ETA: Just in case you're wondering if this is some entirely retrospective cherry-picking of a pattern, I've been writing about this here at the Dope since 2007. It's had five chances to be wrong since then (six, if you include Obama's uncontested renomination in 2012, which I don't), and it keeps on being the case.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 06-11-2019 at 05:24 AM.
  #33  
Old 06-11-2019, 06:42 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,335
Yup. Iowa is pretty key (and NH too) and the Selzer poll showing Sanders dropping from 25 to 16% while Warren went up from 9 to 15% is pretty damning for Sanders.

In terms of threat to each other ... well if one or the other dropped out probably the other would pick up a good portion of the other's support, but not all of it. Some who love Sanders dislike Warren and visa versa. Some would fall back to the default (Biden).

In any case they are essentially tied in Iowa now with Sanders dropping there significantly. Neither will be dropping out so to the degree they are splitting the same voting pool it is not going to change. Sanders has a floor (that 538 estimates is 8%), so max Warren could pick up is 8 from him to maybe 23ish. That theoretically could give her a shot at it. If she got all of his defectors and none went elsewhere, especially to Biden. Which some would.

How often has someone who has not been first or second in Iowa won NH, when both were in play?
  #34  
Old 06-11-2019, 09:47 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post

... How often has someone who has not been first or second in Iowa won NH, when both were in play?
1988 anyway. Gephardt and Simon were one and two in Iowa with Dukakis third, but NH had it Dukakis, Gephardt, and Simon 1, 2, and 3.

So not being second in Iowa maybe is not quite the death knell I though it was.
  #35  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:06 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,335
Interesting yougov poll results. https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...nTabReport.pdf

Biden pretty flat but Warren and Sanders have flipped. Now Warren the higher 16 to 12. Was reversed Sanders above Warren 16 to 11 previous week. Just one polling house and one result but still. It looks more like Warren is the more likely to emerge as the Biden challenger of that younger whiter progressive demographic.
  #36  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:39 PM
Ulf the Unwashed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,455
Make it two polls: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-in-third-poll

In Nevada, Warren with 19%, Sanders at 13%. (Biden's at 36%.)

Feeling like a trend.
  #37  
Old 06-13-2019, 01:58 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
Sanders may be in some serious trouble. He doesn't seem like the kind of candidate that can really use the debates to overcome a big deficit either. His whole campaign is about authenticity, and being *the* true progressive. The danger all along is that someone like Warren would come along and take some of that energy away from him, and that may be what's happening. And this time, I think being an independent and caucusing as a Democrat isn't going to work for him. Warren is both a loyal Democrat and a bona fide progressive.

Last edited by asahi; 06-13-2019 at 02:00 PM.
  #38  
Old 06-13-2019, 03:11 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
[Moderating]
Moved to Elections.

[Not moderating]
Sanders is consistently blowing Warren away, by double digits, in every poll, including in Massachusetts, and including when you look at second and third choices. He's an existential threat to her candidacy, and she's no threat at all to his.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that, Chronos. There are polls in Iowa where they're essentially neck and neck and where Warren has gained ground while Bernie has lost ground.

I do believe it's true that they're cannibalizing each other to some extent and both need Biden to implode pretty badly if they want to move into the top spot.

In the latest Seltzer of Iowa it's

Biden 24
Bernie 16
Warren 15
Buttigieg 14

Ditto New Hampshire. The last Tel survey was:

Biden 33
Sanders 12
Warren 11
Buttigieg 7
Harris 7

But that was almost a month ago.

Here where I am - South Carolina - Sanders is having a rougher time of it:

Biden 37
Sanders 10
Warren 8
Harris 7

I'd be VERY surprised if either Sanders or Warren did well down here.
  #39  
Old 06-13-2019, 05:38 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,152
half of the democratic party are now self identified liberals, and because liberals are more politically engaged than other groups in general, the % of voters who are liberal in primaries is possibly higher. Its possible that self identified liberals could be 60%+ of democratic primary voters, especially in early states.

Having said that, Warren is taking votes from Sanders, which is fine. I supported Sanders in 2016 but now am leaning towards Warren.

However I have serious caveats about her, and a lot of liberals I've met do too. She is not a good politician. Is she a good policy wonk? She sure is. But voters don't care about that for the most part. Most voters can barely be bothered to get up and vote once every four years. They don't understand what the parties stand for, let alone the difference between candidates. Only the heavily engaged 20% of voters care about that stuff. 40% of adults don't bother to vote, and in a normal midterm its closer to 70% of eligible voters who don't vote.

Warren would be eaten alive by Trump and the GOP when it comes to politics, and that worries me. She will try to turn the conversation back to issues, not understanding that 80% of voters don't care about or understand issues beyond a superficial level. I think she has been 'spoiled' by being in Massachussetts which is an extremely democratic state, but also a highly educated state. The stuff that works there isn't going to work with barely engaged voters who can barely be bothered to vote.

I think people want someone tough, competent and who they can connect with on an emotional level. I don't think Warren brings that.

Biden has his perks. As a white man and a political moderate, he doesn't scare away rural whites. He won't win them, but he would lose them by a smaller margin than Warren. But Biden's statement that the GOP would agree to become bipartisan after 2020 was so scarily naive that I don't know how comfortable I am. That is the same level of naivety as when George W Bush said he could see into Putins soul and see Putin is trustworthy and is a good person.

The modern GOP has a base that is made up of angry, reactionary white nationalists who hate democracy because democracy undermines their efforts to live in a white christian ethnostate. Claiming that the GOP will come around to cooperate on health care or infrastructure is beyond idiotic and really makes me question Biden's competence to lead.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-13-2019 at 05:39 PM.
  #40  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:05 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,335
More of interest in that yougov’s cross tabs.

Most skewed to white is Buttigieg and Warren support, even more than Sanders. Most skewed to Black and older support is Biden.

I don’t know of specific polling on this but I’d WAG that more Democratic primary voters want to see attempts at bipartisanship and optimism about it than want to vote for someone who messages that more than a third of this country are white nationalists who hate democracy. You might not think that by reading your social media feeds though. Optimism may be naive but many of us like someone with hope.

And among those who had both voted for Romney then Clinton, and those who voted Obama then Trump, I would bet that preference is overwhelmingly for having a preference for optimism about bipartisanship and a distaste for thinking of those who have voted for the GOP as evil. Dems need those voters.

Meanwhile a GOP building after a sizable Trump loss, especially if they also lose the Senate but even if not, is going to want to rebrand.
  #41  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:23 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,335
Okay. Polling that supports my contention.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/2431166002

https://news.hudsonpacific.co/no-lab...n-5be5ffa98f24

Now the GOP as a whole doesn’t need to flip over into a bipartisan mode. Just a few seeing that as required to keep winning in their states is enough and necessary to get things accomplished.
  #42  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:40 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Now the GOP as a whole doesn’t need to flip over into a bipartisan mode. Just a few seeing that as required to keep winning in their states is enough and necessary to get things accomplished.
Republican Representatives and Senators who are seen as not ideologically pure enough have been consistently defeated in their state primaries at least since the rise of the Tea Party movement about 10 years ago.

There is little possibility that a "bipartisan" Republican will even make it to the November 2020 ballot.
  #43  
Old 06-13-2019, 09:41 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,152
Biptartisanship is fine if you can get it with intelligent and responsible people who care about whats best for the nation.

But ignoring reality because it is unpleasant is not fine. The GOP are openly engaged in gerrymandering and voter suppression to keep their majority, in places like Wisconsin the GOP only won 44% of the vote but won 2/3 of the state assembly seats due to massive cheating via gerrymandering. half the GOP base believe Trump should be able to postpone elections, shut down media operations, he was appointed by god, think the media is the enemy of the people, think millions voted illegally in 2016, etc.

Facts don't stop being facts because they are unpleasant. If someone in the 1940s was naive enough to think whites in the south would cooperate out of good conscience on expanding voter rights to blacks, they'd be rightly called naive and people would question if they are competent to lead if they believe such pollyannaish things.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-13-2019 at 09:42 PM.
  #44  
Old 06-14-2019, 07:59 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,335
Kent Clark making something large doesn’t make it more true. There are only politicians. They do what gets them re-elected and what they think is right which may be what I think is wrong.

For the last decade GOP hard line positioning has sold well. After a Trump loss, preferably a big one? The voices that had been saying that they need to reach beyond the base might get louder and more likely to win.

The ten years are facts. What happens in the next four is speculation and assuming no change as facts change is often groundless.

In any case trying to work together sells better and is more likely to accomplish something than not trying to
  #45  
Old 06-14-2019, 08:25 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,466
If I were running, the stance I would take is that we desperately need bipartisanship... and with the current crop of Republicans, we're not going to get it. We need to get rid of the current Republicans to make way for a new conservative party that's actually conservative.
  #46  
Old 06-14-2019, 02:06 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
I have to confess that I wrote off Warren too early, and I'm probably not alone. I've never really thought of myself as much of a Warren fan but she's starting to grow on me a little. I like her toughness. I'm not sure that all of her ideas would necessarily sell to the broad cross section of the nation, but I never thought Bernie Sanders would be even remotely competitive in his contest with Hillary Clinton, either. We live in interesting times.
  #47  
Old 06-15-2019, 05:59 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Two separate, almost unrelated, questions are (1) Who would do a better job as President? (2) Who is most likely to win a General Election? Among the front-runners I'm afraid I give the nod to Biden on both questions.

I'm afraid Sanders would be a travesty as Potus. I have huge respect for the razor-sharp Warren but am far from sure going toe-to-toe with Kim, Putin, etc. is the best use of her talents.

Biden would be my top choice EXCEPT that he's already showing signs of old age. I think there's a strong chance his health or mental agility will slip over the next 16 months. If he's the nominee he'd better have a running-mate of great talent and charisma.

I agree with Kent Clark:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
IMHO Warren should stay in the Senate, where she seems to be an effective legislator with a powerful voice. Bernie is John the Baptist -- a prophet, not a Messiah. I wish someone had as much old-line, blue-collar working class credibility as Biden, someone younger and less prone to gaffes. But Trump clearly isn't comfortable with Biden as an opponent, so Joe certainly has value simply as a distraction.
On Warren:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Pocahontas can't win. Trump already defeated her. All he has to do is say that one word and she's toast. She played that wrong.
Maybe; polls suggest she'll have trouble outside the "liberal fringe."

But I don't think "Pocahontas Scam" is fatal. She just needs to say:

I was curious about our family lore, so took the DNA test. It showed me at the lower end of the Native genes expected from our family lore.

But on a more serious note, are we as Americans going to be swayed by this clown's outrageous buffoonery? Is the question of whether I am one-part-in-32 Native or just one-part-in-64 more important than Trump and his ilk transferring trillions in wealth from ordinary Americans to the super-rich? Is coming up with sophomoric insults like "Pocahontas" what we look for in a Commander-in-Chief?

I'm proud of my family lore, even though it appears I'm 1% or 2% Native instead of the 3% I thought. The buffoon doesn't share American values, even on family. He insults Don Junior. And he couldn't remember whether his own father was born in New York or Germany.

I challenge the Buffoon to an IQ test.

  #48  
Old 06-15-2019, 08:29 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,466
Won't work.

"I just took an IQ test, and I got a perfect 3,000! The doc said that it was the highest IQ hed ever seen, probably the highest in history. Nobody is snatrer than me, especially not thar dumb Injun woman!"
  #49  
Old 06-15-2019, 10:21 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,600
This came out 2 days ago but Warren is now in 2nd place in California; Harris is now in 4th.

We still have to wait for the debates to see how they look and feel on TV, but what's becoming clear is that Warren is a good campaigner. She has a strong message, and she has apparently organized pretty well.
  #50  
Old 06-15-2019, 11:10 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
But I don't think "Pocahontas Scam" is fatal. She just needs to say:

I was curious about our family lore, so took the DNA test. It showed me at the lower end of the Native genes expected from our family lore.

But on a more serious note, are we as Americans going to be swayed by this clown's outrageous buffoonery? Is the question of whether I am one-part-in-32 Native or just one-part-in-64 more important than Trump and his ilk transferring trillions in wealth from ordinary Americans to the super-rich? Is coming up with sophomoric insults like "Pocahontas" what we look for in a Commander-in-Chief?

I'm proud of my family lore, even though it appears I'm 1% or 2% Native instead of the 3% I thought. The buffoon doesn't share American values, even on family. He insults Don Junior. And he couldn't remember whether his own father was born in New York or Germany.

I challenge the Buffoon to an IQ test.

I don't think that will work, and I don't think she could withstand the "Pocahontas" attack in a general election campaign. This retort is nothing but an insult and would not overcome the basic issue behind it.

Almost every white person in the United States has "family lore" that they are descended from Indians. My grandfather told me the same thing. However most white people do not claim to be a minority and put down that they have Native American/Indian ancestry on forms to get a benefit or set aside because of it.

That won't sit well with minorities or with whites no matter the gloss that she tries to put on it.
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 08:57 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