Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:29 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,777
I may have placed too much confidence in that predictor, especially this early (when betting is smallish). I do know that, comparing their odds with my intuition I thought of betting Romney in '12 and against Trump in '16 ... and was obviously glad I did not.

I do think Warren is likelier to get the brass ring than Biden. She's the best and brightest on the stage, while Biden's age or gaffes are likely to catch up with him.

I also agree that Biden is more "electable" ... IF he has the health, stamina, and mental acuity to last out the campaign.

You make a good point about tying up money (though you'll probably be able to cash out for good profit by early Spring. OTOH, if you "short" several candidates, you'll lose at most one bet — is that considered when determining what cash balance is required?
  #102  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:43 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
And just for the fun of it, here's how my numbers this week compare with the Real Clear Politics average and The Economist's average:

Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             26.5  26.8  27.0
Sanders           17.9  17.3  16.0
Warren            17.6  16.8  18.0
Harris             6.6   6.5   7.0
Buttigieg          5.0   4.8   6.0
O'Rourke           3.0   2.8   2.0
Booker             2.1   2.3   3.0
Yang               2.5   3.0   3.0
  #103  
Old 09-14-2019, 04:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And just for the fun of it, here's how my numbers this week compare with the Real Clear Politics average and The Economist's average:

Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             26.5  26.8  27.0
Sanders           17.9  17.3  16.0
Warren            17.6  16.8  18.0
Harris             6.6   6.5   7.0
Buttigieg          5.0   4.8   6.0
O'Rourke           3.0   2.8   2.0
Booker             2.1   2.3   3.0
Yang               2.5   3.0   3.0
Can you add 538 too? If you want more homework...
  #104  
Old 09-14-2019, 04:58 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Can you add 538 too? If you want more homework...
They have one?? Reason I did this in the first place was because they didn't have one, AFAICT.
  #105  
Old 09-14-2019, 05:05 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
They have one?? Reason I did this in the first place was because they didn't have one, AFAICT.
Yeah, I assume they have one for internal use at least but I can never find a running average, just the poll number dump.
  #106  
Old 09-14-2019, 05:13 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Good stuff, RTF!
  #107  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:11 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
You make a good point about tying up money (though you'll probably be able to cash out for good profit by early Spring. OTOH, if you "short" several candidates, you'll lose at most one bet — is that considered when determining what cash balance is required?

That’s a good point. But I am mainly interested in betting against Yang. Maybe in January or February I will try to make a quick profit with some of my savings. Is there a transaction fee?
  #108  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:40 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And just for the fun of it, here's how my numbers this week compare with the Real Clear Politics average and The Economist's average:

Code:
Candidate  Average 
                     RTF   RCP  Econ
Biden             26.5  26.8  27.0
Sanders           17.9  17.3  16.0
Warren            17.6  16.8  18.0
Harris             6.6   6.5   7.0
Buttigieg          5.0   4.8   6.0
O'Rourke           3.0   2.8   2.0
Booker             2.1   2.3   3.0
Yang               2.5   3.0   3.0
Why is Booker ahead of Yang in your list? There is no set of numbers where Booker beat Yang in this list.

::MSNBC graphics::
  #109  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:09 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
nm

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-14-2019 at 08:10 PM.
  #110  
Old 09-14-2019, 08:10 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
Why is Booker ahead of Yang in your list? There is no set of numbers where Booker beat Yang in this list.

::MSNBC graphics::
Personal prejudice.
  #111  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Wanted to say thank you too. Cool little project, RTF.
  #112  
Old 09-15-2019, 07:57 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
You're welcome, everyone! I've gotta say I've been enjoying doing this, so I'll keep doing it. And doing my own average by my own written-down rules forces me to see things I might have missed, and keeps me from seeing things that aren't there.

For example: much as I want to read it into the polls, Warren's not on the verge of breaking 20%. (Unless debate #3 gives her a bigger boost than anyone's expecting.) And the Warren/Sanders inversion, where Warren's rise in the polls was going to eventually result in her drawing support from people who'd been supporting Bernie, isn't happening either. Instead, since late July, both Warren and Sanders have been rising in the polls. (I really didn't expect that.) Combined, they're now drawing upwards of 35% in the polls now, versus ~30% then. And Biden's support does seem to be very, very gradually diminishing.

If I was seeing this in the RCP average, I'd blame the stuff I didn't like on the clunky* way they do their average. But when it's happening in my numbers, I can't pretend it's not happening.


* The RCP average turns out to be better than I thought: their rather simplistic average might be off by a couple of points here and there, but per my comparison for last week, it's not that far off from either The Economist's average or my own. I still like mine better, of course.
  #113  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:43 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
They have one?? Reason I did this in the first place was because they didn't have one, AFAICT.
Sorry, you're right, I thought they did but not yet, apparently.
  #114  
Old 09-15-2019, 11:59 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
... I still like mine better, of course.
And you're not alone!

Seriously thanks both for the effort and for sharing it with us.
  #115  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:15 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
It's Wednesday, so it's time for this week's polling average:

Code:
Candidate  Date  8/14  8/21  8/28  9/04  9/12  9/18

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

Everyone else < 2.0
In addition to the three at-least-weekly polls (YouGov, Morning Consult, HarrisX), this week's polls include new polls A-rated NBC/WSJ and Survey USA, B-rated GQR Research, and C-rated McLaughlin and Associates, and the following still-recent holdovers: A-rated CNN-SSRS and B-Rated Ipsos.

And here's the comparison with the other averages:

Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             28.5  27.9  28.0
Warren            18.6  17.7  19.0
Sanders           16.9  16.1  16.0
Harris             5.6   6.0   6.0
Buttigieg          5.7   5.7   6.0
O'Rourke           3.0   3.1   2.0
Booker             2.9   2.7   3.0
Yang               2.8   3.3   4.0
  #116  
Old 09-18-2019, 12:30 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Thanks again.
  #117  
Old 09-18-2019, 02:10 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And the Warren/Sanders inversion, where Warren's rise in the polls was going to eventually result in her drawing support from people who'd been supporting Bernie, isn't happening either. Instead, since late July, both Warren and Sanders have been rising in the polls. (I really didn't expect that.) Combined, they're now drawing upwards of 35% in the polls now, versus ~30% then. And Biden's support does seem to be very, very gradually diminishing.
What mostly seems to be happening is that while Biden support is slightly( but not yet seriously )eroding, the main trend is Warren/Sanders getting fatter by devouring the declining Harris base.

The Big Four looks to be consolidating towards the Big Three.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 09-18-2019 at 02:11 PM.
  #118  
Old 09-19-2019, 10:10 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-than-a-top-3/

Argues for what we’ve been saying for a bit: Biden and Warren are a clear top two. Sanders not in that group anymore.

Also shares a weighted average using the same approach as their presidential approval tracker for both national and Iowa.

National
Biden 30.2
Warren 20.4
Sanders 16.6

Iowa
Warren 23.5
Biden 20.6
Sanders 12.5

Using after last debate polls.
  #119  
Old 09-19-2019, 03:55 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-than-a-top-3/

Argues for what we’ve been saying for a bit: Biden and Warren are a clear top two. Sanders not in that group anymore.

Also shares a weighted average using the same approach as their presidential approval tracker for both national and Iowa.

National
Biden 30.2
Warren 20.4
Sanders 16.6

Iowa
Warren 23.5
Biden 20.6
Sanders 12.5

Using after last debate polls.
I should point out that only two post-debate polls of Iowa were available for this average. Both pollsters are unrated by 538.

As a Warren supporter, I like seeing her name at the top of that list, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable about trusting it if Ann Selzer was one of the pollsters. Nate does say in that piece that a Selzer/DMR poll is coming soon, so I'm gonna withhold judgment until then.

As far as the nationals are concerned, I'd love to see their weights, because that's a bigger advantage for Warren over Sanders than I've seen in anyone's average before now, including my own.
  #120  
Old 09-19-2019, 05:50 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I should point out that only two post-debate polls of Iowa were available for this average. Both pollsters are unrated by 538.

As a Warren supporter, I like seeing her name at the top of that list, but I'd feel a lot more comfortable about trusting it if Ann Selzer was one of the pollsters. Nate does say in that piece that a Selzer/DMR poll is coming soon, so I'm gonna withhold judgment until then.
I just noticed that one of the two unrated outfits polling Iowa, Civiqs, also has done a national poll since the debate. They have Warren over Biden in Iowa, 24-16. Well, possible I suppose, since I don't know shit about what's happening in Iowa, but it's still a bit too far in the direction of what I'd like to believe, so color me skeptical.

But then I see they have Warren over Biden nationally by 30-24, and they also did a poll right before the debate which showed Warren over Biden nationally, 28-23. Since I believe those numbers about as much as I believe what Donald Trump says, I'm similarly (i.e. totally) discounting the big lead they give Warren in Iowa. (And I'm glad I don't include unrated pollsters in my average!)

So I don't have any idea who's ahead in Iowa, and frankly I don't think 538 knows either, given that their conclusion is based on two polls, and this one's entirely responsible for the fact that their average shows Warren ahead. There are reasons to suspect she might be leading there, but no evidence yet AFAIAC.
  #121  
Old 09-19-2019, 06:29 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Agreed.
  #122  
Old 09-20-2019, 02:19 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
New Selzer/DMR Iowa poll will be available tomorrow at 7pm Central time.

The good stuff this time, not this crappy brown acid we've been getting.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 09-20-2019 at 02:20 PM.
  #123  
Old 09-20-2019, 02:33 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
As far as the nationals are concerned, I'd love to see their weights, because that's a bigger advantage for Warren over Sanders than I've seen in anyone's average before now, including my own.
If I'd thought about it for a second, I'd have realized I was comparing my average, which includes a lot of pre-debate polling, with numbers from 538 that only included post-debate polls. When I dropped all the pre-debate polls from my average, it was quite close to theirs, being only 0.3 percentage points off at most for any given candidate.

Only place where the difference was particularly noticeable was with Harris and Buttigieg: they have them tied at 5.8% in post-debate polling, while I have Harris at 6.0% and Buttigieg at 5.5%.

Given how much I've watched my own numbers jump around, due at least in part to averaging over a short time interval with a limited number of polls at any given time, I suspect that any difference between 538's post-debate average and other averages we've seen (including my most recent numbers) has more to do with that sort of noise than any sort of signal from the debate. We'll see what happens as more polls come online.
  #124  
Old 09-20-2019, 07:03 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
That’s true, although I’m hoping the momentum for Beto, which does make a certain amount of sense, continues.
  #125  
Old 09-20-2019, 07:18 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
New Selzer/DMR Iowa poll will be available tomorrow at 7pm Central time.

The good stuff this time, not this crappy brown acid we've been getting.
😀

Wanna make any wild assed predictions?

With no basis whatsoever I’m guessing Warren and Biden within MOE of each other, Biden insignificantly higher. Which is in practical terms advantage Warren based on ground game.

Any others want to take stab in the same dark?
  #126  
Old 09-20-2019, 07:31 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
That sounds about right, and I am cautiously optimistic about a surge for Beto.
  #127  
Old 09-21-2019, 08:40 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Aaaand here's the results of the Selzer/DMR poll:

Warren 22
Biden 20
Sanders 11
Buttigieg 9
Harris 6
Klobuchar 3
Booker 3
Gabbard 2
O'Rourke 2
Steyer 2
Yang 2

Everyone else <2%

Last edited by RTFirefly; 09-21-2019 at 08:41 PM.
  #128  
Old 09-21-2019, 08:51 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,576
I'm thinking Sanders is gonna be out earlier rather than later, because despite all the naysayers I think Sanders is in it for the ideas, not for his ego. And it's becoming increasingly clear that Warren's got the progressive vote this cycle, so Sanders is likely to throw his support to her.

It's gonna be a two-person race before too long, I think. Warren's going to get close to 100% of Sanders's vote when that happens. Are there any candidates that, when they drop out, will see close to 100% of their votes transfer to Biden?

Biden's been in the lead, but the second and third place candidates have consistently been Warren and Sanders. When one of them (Sanders) drops out, I'm having trouble seeing how he maintains any lead.

And I was thinking this before this latest poll.

(That said, I'm officially out of the prediction game ever since 2016, so all this is just blathering).
  #129  
Old 09-21-2019, 08:52 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
MOE +/- 4.

Warren v Biden. It’s on.




I seriously would be fine with either and have concerns with each. Hopefully one or the other will stand out better on her or his merits. Warren’s lead is well within MOE but her ground game superiority makes this her lead for realz.

Will Sanders continue to honor their nonaggression pact as his sun sets?
  #130  
Old 09-21-2019, 10:56 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
It's gonna be a two-person race before too long, I think. Warren's going to get close to 100% of Sanders's vote when that happens.

I think this is completely wrong. I know a bunch of Bernie supporters, and they all seem to hate Warren.
  #131  
Old 09-22-2019, 06:10 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I think this is completely wrong. I know a bunch of Bernie supporters, and they all seem to hate Warren.
In 2016 when many Bernie online supporters were found to be making sexist attacks towards Hillary/her supporters a common retort was "we'd have voted for Elizabeth Warren if she ran" as a way to dance around it.

Shows that was a lie.
  #132  
Old 09-22-2019, 06:56 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,712
I know it’s just one poll (referenced a couple posts ago), but it’s interesting that Buttigieg seems to be the “minor contender enjoying a bit of a surge,” not O’Rourke (nor Booker, whom I personally prefer among the three). Maybe just an Iowa thing — we should know more in coming days.

ETA:Yes, it’s an Iowa thing. Buttigieg was polling even higher there in June.

Last edited by JKellyMap; 09-22-2019 at 07:00 AM.
  #133  
Old 09-22-2019, 08:23 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
In 2016 when many Bernie online supporters were found to be making sexist attacks towards Hillary/her supporters a common retort was "we'd have voted for Elizabeth Warren if she ran" as a way to dance around it.

Shows that was a lie.
Or, you know, it shows they aren't a hive mind. It's within the world of known physics that different Sanders supporters may have different feelings about Warren.

But thinking Warren is going to get 100% of Bernie's vote when he drops out is ludicrous. I don't trust the numbers completely but Biden and Warren are basically tied as the second choice of Sanders supporters on the weekly Morning Consult polling. Obviously there's more going into people's choice besides "progressive lane" or "establishment lane".

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-22-2019 at 08:26 AM.
  #134  
Old 09-22-2019, 09:26 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
MOE +/- 4.

Warren v Biden. It’s on.




I seriously would be fine with either and have concerns with each. Hopefully one or the other will stand out better on her or his merits. Warren’s lead is well within MOE but her ground game superiority makes this her lead for realz.

Will Sanders continue to honor their nonaggression pact as his sun sets?
The moment of truth will come when Warren is confronted with the reality that she will have to pivot toward the center a wee bit on things like healthcare. She will have to somehow reassure voters in the center that they won't lose their current health insurance, and that will means some sort of <swallow> compromise. I could see Bernie Bros going full on Benedict if they sense that Warren isn't serious about carrying the progressive torch. That doesn't seem to be a problem now, but it never is in the primaries.
  #135  
Old 09-22-2019, 09:30 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I think this is completely wrong. I know a bunch of Bernie supporters, and they all seem to hate Warren.
Cool? I know a ton of Sanders supporters, but all the ones I know are already edging their way over into Warren's camp. Your experience is not at all the same as mine.

There will be a tiny--tiny--number of Sanders supporters that will go third party. But I think Sanders will, within the next six months, withdraw from the race and throw his support to Warren. Few of his supporters will fail to follow.
  #136  
Old 09-22-2019, 09:40 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,831
I have a feeling that if the Ukraine scandal becomes a thing, it could hurt Biden as much as it hurts Trump. I expect Biden to take a hit among Democrats.
  #137  
Old 09-22-2019, 09:44 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Here's a link to the complete poll results.

Some other results from the poll:

First plus second choice:

Warren 42
Biden 30
Sanders 21
Buttigieg 18
Harris 16

First plus second choice in March Selzer/DMR poll:

Warren 21
Biden 46
Sanders 38
Buttigieg 2 (hardly anyone knew who he was yet)
Harris 18

% considering voting for the candidate:

Warren 71
Biden 60
Sanders 50
Buttigieg 56
Harris 55

Net favorable (fav - unfav):

Warren +57
Biden +38
Sanders +22
Buttigieg +55
Harris +39

Net favorable, March:

Warren +43
Biden +68
Sanders +46
Buttigieg +6
Harris +49


Warren's not only grown her support since March, but her net favorables have grown, and the number of people who have her as their second choice has grown as well. (They didn't ask the 'considering voting for' question in March, but given how high that is for her...) Other than Buttigieg, she's the only candidate that this can be said about.

In short, she's still got a lot of room to increase her support in Iowa over the next 4+ months.
  #138  
Old 09-22-2019, 09:52 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Cool? I know a ton of Sanders supporters, but all the ones I know are already edging their way over into Warren's camp. Your experience is not at all the same as mine.

There will be a tiny--tiny--number of Sanders supporters that will go third party. But I think Sanders will, within the next six months, withdraw from the race and throw his support to Warren. Few of his supporters will fail to follow.
I dunno, on both counts.

I hope you're right about both, but I still remember how Bernie kept contesting the 2016 nomination well after he'd ceased to have a chance to win.

And the polling I've seen about where Bernie's support is coming from suggests that, among whites, Bernie has more support from moderates than you'd expect, and that Biden's the second choice of a decent chunk of them.

I agree that if Sanders drops out, Warren will benefit a lot more than Biden will. But if she can pick up 75-80% of the Sanders vote after that point, she'll be doing about as well as can be expected.
  #139  
Old 09-22-2019, 10:03 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Another interesting thing in the numbers: with only a couple of exceptions, the net favorables for the minor candidates really stink. Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Ryan, Sestak, Steyer, Williamson, and Yang are all either barely breaking even or seriously underwater in their fav - unfav numbers.

And that's among potential Dem caucus-goers who have an opinion about them: most potential caucus-goers still don't have any opinion about several of them (Bennet, Bullock, and Ryan in particular) but if they're not doing particularly well among those who've formed an opinion, what's the odds of big gains among those who haven't?

All of them should consider dropping out soon. (Few of them will.)
  #140  
Old 09-22-2019, 10:47 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
All of them should consider dropping out soon. (Few of them will.)
Does it really matter? I know people want the field to shrink but isn't almost everyone under Harris' numbers being mostly ignored? The only exceptions are the "interesting" characters Buttigieg, Yang and Beto.
  #141  
Old 09-22-2019, 11:34 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Does it really matter? I know people want the field to shrink but isn't almost everyone under Harris' numbers being mostly ignored? The only exceptions are the "interesting" characters Buttigieg, Yang and Beto.
They still take time away from the legitimate candidates in the debates, and still quite possibly will cause another debate split over two nights - in addition to the ten who were on stage ten days ago, Steyer has qualified for the October debate, and now Gabbard is just one 'good'* poll away.

I've also been of the belief that one of the problems of this primary season is that too many candidates reduces the number of candidates that people are willing to think about. With eight or ten candidates, most people can almost unconsciously do a basic sort into a few leaders, a few candidates that might be worth a look, and a few candidates that aren't. With twenty, that process is overwhelmed and shuts down.

There have been reports that some Iowans are pissed at all these minor candidates for trying to claim a slice of their attention, and aren't shy about letting the candidates know, and I think that part of it is that they can't think their way through twenty candidates even enough to narrow it down to a manageable number. And so you get a situation where candidates like Booker and Klobuchar who might get a decent look from voters in a ten-candidate field, basically get tossed on the mental garbage heap with all the Tim Ryans and Steve Bullocks and Tom Steyers in a twenty-candidate field.

So yeah, I think the presence of all these vanity candidates is a problem, and I wish they'd hurry up and fuck off.


* 2% nationally or in one of the first four states, by one of a list of approved pollsters and sponsors.
  #142  
Old 09-22-2019, 12:47 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I have a feeling that if the Ukraine scandal becomes a thing, it could hurt Biden as much as it hurts Trump. I expect Biden to take a hit among Democrats.
I think there are a metric ton of good reasons why Biden should not be the nominee. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

And far more than I want the nominee to be someone besides Biden, I really, really don't want Democrats to feel they can benefit from bullshit fabricated not-even-pseudo-scandals that Trump or Fox News or whoever on the right thinks they can use against one Democrat, or some small group of Democrats.

When this made-up shit comes from the other side, Dems need to stand united against this. None of this "the enemy of my enemy" stuff - Trump is an enemy, Fox News is an enemy, the GOP is an enemy. Your preferred candidates' rivals for the nomination are just that, rivals. They are not enemies.

To let our true enemies divide us, and for one Dem to take advantage of bogus right-wing attacks against another Dem, would be absolutely the wrong thing to do, and would be destructive to our common cause. We cannot let this happen.

ETA: asahi, my apologies if this seemed aimed at you. After reflection, I realize you were probably just saying, "this is a thing that could happen," not "this is something I want to happen." There are people out there on the Dem side who are clearly in the latter camp, and this broadside is aimed at them.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 09-22-2019 at 12:51 PM.
  #143  
Old 09-22-2019, 02:15 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
... To let our true enemies divide us, and for one Dem to take advantage of bogus right-wing attacks against another Dem, would be absolutely the wrong thing to do, and would be destructive to our common cause. ...
Sad thing is that it is nevertheless almost assured that minimally some supporters of a rival or two will do that. And in the process aid and abet the amoral abuse of power that is the Trump presidency.
  #144  
Old 09-22-2019, 08:28 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
All too true, DSeid.

But getting back to numbers: there have been four polls* of NH over the past month, and before the earliest of those, there'd been a gap of a few weeks. So I did my usual** averaging on them, and came up with:

Sanders 23.3
Biden 23.1
Warren 20.3
Buttigieg 7.3
Harris 6.7
Gabbard 3.5
Yang 3.3
Booker 2.2

Everyone else < 2.0

So it's pretty close among the top 3 in NH. But this is a primary that Sanders won with 60% of the vote in 2016, so I think we can see how much of that was anti-Hillary protest vote, and how much (or little) of it was about really being pro-Sanders.


*A-rated RKM, B-rated YouGov and Emerson, and C-rated HarrisX.
** Other than having them age out after a month rather than 2 weeks, that is.
  #145  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:00 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,777
I know my posts of Betfair/Predictwise odds aren't popular, but Warren has risen from 36 to 42% over the past ten days:

Nomination / November Winner
- Trump 42.2%
42% Warren 21.8%
23% Biden 11.3%
8% Sanders 5.0%
5% Harris 2.0%
5% Buttigieg 2.3%
5% Yang 3.3%
4% Clinton 1.3%
1% each: Gabbard, O'Rourke, Booker, Klobuchar
Control
33% Senate
52% White House
75% House of Reps
  #146  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:04 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,712
I love George Clinton as much as anyone, but I’m surprised to see him in your list there. (Seriously, was that a typo?).
  #147  
Old 09-24-2019, 01:13 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,712
Okay, I see Betfair lets you bet on all kinds of kooky choices, like Hillary Clinton, Kanye West, and Ivanka Trump. Alrighty then.
  #148  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:30 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Here's a link to the complete poll results.

Some other results from the poll:

First plus second choice:

Warren 42
Biden 30
Sanders 21
Buttigieg 18
Harris 16

First plus second choice in March Selzer/DMR poll:

Warren 21
Biden 46
Sanders 38
Buttigieg 2 (hardly anyone knew who he was yet)
Harris 18

% considering voting for the candidate:

Warren 71
Biden 60
Sanders 50
Buttigieg 56
Harris 55

Net favorable (fav - unfav):

Warren +57
Biden +38
Sanders +22
Buttigieg +55
Harris +39

Net favorable, March:

Warren +43
Biden +68
Sanders +46
Buttigieg +6
Harris +49


Warren's not only grown her support since March, but her net favorables have grown, and the number of people who have her as their second choice has grown as well. (They didn't ask the 'considering voting for' question in March, but given how high that is for her...) Other than Buttigieg, she's the only candidate that this can be said about.

In short, she's still got a lot of room to increase her support in Iowa over the next 4+ months.

Interesting numbers. But one thing you didn’t mention is how strongly they show Bernie’s ceiling, which has descended considerably since the earlier poll. His unfavorables are the worst and the “willing to consider” are the lowest.
  #149  
Old 09-25-2019, 04:33 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,777
Of course one can expect a lot of nonsense at a site like Betfair, but ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Okay, I see Betfair lets you bet on all kinds of kooky choices, like Hillary Clinton, Kanye West, and Ivanka Trump. Alrighty then.
I don't want to be over-eager to defend Betfair bettors, but Buttigieg and Yang strike me as much kookier possibilities than Clinton. Also kookier IMO are the socialist Sanders and perhaps Kamala Harris, whom I find lacking in Presidential demeanor. Even my favorite — Elizabeth Warren — has significant flaws. If I could wave a wand and pick the next President, I might go with Hillary Clinton.

It's easy to imagine scenarios where the nomination is almost decided for Biden or Warren, with others dropped out and ... disaster strikes! Where emergency forces the DNC to come up with an old work-horse as the last-minute candidate. The GOP, in a similar situation, might turn to Mitt Romney, but — serious question — whom do the Democrats have "in the bull-pen"? Most of the candidates left on the stage seem almost like jokes to me.

A 4% chance may be too high an estimate, but scenarios where the Democrats need to turn to the "bull-pen" next summer do not seem far-fetched to me.
  #150  
Old 09-25-2019, 05:52 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I don't want to be over-eager to defend Betfair bettors, but Buttigieg and Yang strike me as much kookier possibilities than Clinton.
From a betting standpoint? Don't be ridiculous. They're running, she's not.
Quote:
Also kookier IMO are the socialist Sanders and perhaps Kamala Harris, whom I find lacking in Presidential demeanor.
You just don't like anyone. Whatever.
Quote:
Even my favorite — Elizabeth Warren — has significant flaws. If I could wave a wand and pick the next President, I might go with Hillary Clinton.
"Henry Kissinger is a friend of mine." - Hillary Clinton

In 2016, she was the best choice anyway. Now we've got better ones.
Quote:
It's easy to imagine scenarios where the nomination is almost decided for Biden or Warren, with others dropped out and ... disaster strikes! Where emergency forces the DNC to come up with an old work-horse as the last-minute candidate.
How does that work? If the leading candidate was killed, presumably his/her delegates would decide who they supported instead. If Biden, maybe they'd look to Booker or Klobuchar. If Warren, my WAG would be either Harris or Inslee.

That's not a bad bench, IMHO, but then you don't like anyone, so maybe you disagree.
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 02:54 PM.

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

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

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

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

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

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017