Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3451  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:52 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
And that's all I respect, Buttigieg offers no new ideas or structural change which brought about the likes of Trump in the first place, he's the equivalent of Patrick Bateman in his ambition. Yang I can at least respect for energising the Asian American political voice and reminding them that they count.
What's funny is that a year ago he DID offer new ideas and promised structural change. When he started his campaign, his focus was on electoral reform, modernizing the judiciary and increasing participation in civil service.

But in the past few months he has pivoted to become the favorite pet of millionaire donors and transformed himself into someone's idea of a mini-Biden. The metamorphosis is so complete that even political junkies who have been following the soft primary since last year have completely forgotten about Pete 1.0.

I liked the old Buttigieg a lot more than this weird, almost creepy focus-grouped creation that's running now.
  #3452  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:03 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 339
Just a couple days ago I would've bet anything on Biden winning this thing, but clearly Iowa revealed that the former VP is a paper tiger. I figured the old timers would turn out for Uncle Joe no matter what, but I guess so many have died out or finally fullfilled their destiny and became republicans. Or maybe it's as simple as pollsters calling too many landlines these days, who knows.

Sanders looks well-positioned now. His only rival on the left is Warren, while Biden, Pete, the Klob and even Bloomberg are all stuck in the "moderate" lane competing for the same votes.
  #3453  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:17 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
What's funny is that a year ago he DID offer new ideas and promised structural change. When he started his campaign, his focus was on electoral reform, modernizing the judiciary and increasing participation in civil service.

But in the past few months he has pivoted to become the favorite pet of millionaire donors and transformed himself into someone's idea of a mini-Biden. The metamorphosis is so complete that even political junkies who have been following the soft primary since last year have completely forgotten about Pete 1.0.

I liked the old Buttigieg a lot more than this weird, almost creepy focus-grouped creation that's running now.
How many people even remember that Buttigieg first came to national attention in 2016, when he traveled the country campaigning for Sanders? He does seem pretty...flexible...in his convictions.
  #3454  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:20 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
Just a couple days ago I would've bet anything on Biden winning this thing, but clearly Iowa revealed that the former VP is a paper tiger.
Back in December 2019, there was a lot of talk about Biden planning on not taking the first two states and banking on SC and Super Tuesday.

Can Joe Biden win the nomination even if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire?
The competing theories of how to win in 2020 comes down to the momentum primary vs. the delegates primary.


Quote:
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign is confident it can do the improbable: win the Democratic nomination for president without winning Iowa and New Hampshire.

“We’ve long felt that one of our unique advantages is that we have multiple paths to the nomination, and I’m not sure anybody else can say that right now,” Biden’s deputy campaign manager Pete Kavanaugh told Vox.
. . .
The path rests on winning the Obama coalition of nonwhite voters; many older black voters in particular have so far signaled their loyalty to Biden.
. . .
the former vice president’s campaign says faltering there [IA and NH] wouldn’t be a death knell. Their paths hinge on strong showings in the more diverse early states of Nevada and South Carolina, and riding that energy into delegate-rich Super Tuesday on March 3. Pointing to the Southern states of North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia, Kavanaugh said, “Places like that we think we could have a really profound advantage.”
This seems to have been in the plan or at least the narrative. It remains to be see whether it will work.
  #3455  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:33 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
I think it's true that his strength with black voters puts him in a better position than anyone else to survive losses in IA and NH, though "loss" seems a bit too weak a word to describe what seems to have happened to him last night. Of course, Bernie's going to kick his ass in Nevada, so the plan will break down there.
  #3456  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:37 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
If the numbers hold up and Biden comes in at 4th place, he's in serious, serious trouble going forward. It was already clear that he was probably going to lose handily to Bernie Sanders in NH, but I don't think his supporters expected a 4th place finish in IA. ...
No, it is meaningless. Biden already planned on losing in Iowa. It's a caucus. They dont measures who you prefer, they measure how much you prefer them.
  #3457  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:39 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 607
What would help Biden is if Klobuchar dropped out.
  #3458  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:40 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
How many people even remember that Buttigieg first came to national attention in 2016, when he traveled the country campaigning for Sanders? He does seem pretty...flexible...in his convictions.
That seems to be an incorrect statement. Are you referring to the Harvard essay?

I don’t remember seeing much of Buttigieg at all in the 2016 race. Here’s a Politico article that mentions Buttigieg as mayor supporting Clinton during the Indiana primary.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...clinton-222687
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His

Last edited by dalej42; 02-04-2020 at 06:41 PM.
  #3459  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:40 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Not necessarily, polls show that Pete is the most popular second choice among her voters. Run, Amy, Run!
  #3460  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:41 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
That seems to be an incorrect statement. Are you referring to the Harvard essay?

I don’t remember seeing much of Buttigieg at all in 2016 race. Here’s a politico article that mentions Buttigieg as mayor supporting Clinton during the Indiana primary.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...clinton-222687
Yeah, looks like I was wrong. Don't know where I got that idea.
  #3461  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:43 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 607
She hates Pete so if she dropped out I could see her endorsing Biden and/or getting offered the VP slot.

I like Amy but she's got nowhere to go after New Hampshire. Her numbers with black voters are as bad as Pete but less talked of since he stole the thunder of being the young, moderate alternative to Biden.
  #3462  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:48 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, it is meaningless. Biden already planned on losing in Iowa. It's a caucus. They dont measures who you prefer, they measure how much you prefer them.
I'm still hesitant to make a hard call, but again *if* these numbers remain the same, all I can say is that Biden has had his own lane to run in for the last year, and the result could be a fourth place finish - that's not a strong candidate. That's not an Obama-like performance. That's not a Hillary-like performance. The donors who spotted him tens of millions of campaign cash wanted better than that, I can assure you. And Biden isn't going to beat Bernie at grassroots online fundraising, so he'd better convince big benefactors that he's worth their time and money.
  #3463  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:14 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
Back in December 2019, there was a lot of talk about Biden planning on not taking the first two states and banking on SC and Super Tuesday.

Can Joe Biden win the nomination even if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire?
The competing theories of how to win in 2020 comes down to the momentum primary vs. the delegates primary.




This seems to have been in the plan or at least the narrative. It remains to be see whether it will work.
I don't put too much in Iowa caucus results, despite its past predictive record. But if Biden again is out of the top three in New Hampshire, a real primary, then his one big selling point, his electability, deflates.

I personally am of the impression that Biden's support among Black voters is less based on his Obama association than the perception that he has the best odds of beating Trump. Remember that Obama did not have much Black voter support until he won Iowa proving whites really would vote for him. With that belief in doubt they are ripe for being sold on others' electability pitches.

I think he can survive even a third in New Hampshire and still recover in South Carolina enough to stay a real contender, but not another 4th place finish.

ISTM that the Iowa results increase the chances of a multiple votes convention dramatically. Be curious to see how 538's model cranks it out!
  #3464  
Old 02-04-2020, 10:01 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
I think Biden needs to do well in either NH or NV in order to have a chance of winning big in SC. If it develops that Black voters are the only group solidly in his camp, and that they are there mostly because they perceive him as being electable, well...

My WAG is that Nate's model will spit out something like

Sanders 40%
Contested Convention 25%
Biden 20%
Buttigieg 12%
Warren 3%
Field <1%

I'm not sure about that model, though. It appears from this recent article that the model will give Pete a 26% chance of winning the nomination if he ends up finishing .01% ahead of Bernie in Iowa, and a zero percent chance if he finishes .01% behind. Intuitively that seems dubious.
  #3465  
Old 02-04-2020, 10:04 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, it is meaningless. Biden already planned on losing in Iowa. It's a caucus. They dont measures who you prefer, they measure how much you prefer them.
His plan is working perfectly!
  #3466  
Old 02-04-2020, 10:05 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,449
This article notes, among other things, that Biden was hoping for a straight up Biden vs. Bernie fight, which would have played to Uncle Joe's advantage. Now that popular perception is starting to see it as a 6-person race instead of just Biden vs. Bernie, Biden is now in big trouble. There's no particular reason for Democratic centrists to go Biden when they still have multiple alternatives to both Biden and Bernie.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bidens-po...001153840.html

Last edited by Velocity; 02-04-2020 at 10:05 PM.
  #3467  
Old 02-04-2020, 10:12 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
And Nate JUST dropped his analysis while I was typing that!

If we consider Buttigieg the winner: Sanders 36, CC 26, Biden 21, Buttigieg 10, Warren 7
If we consider Sanders the winner: Sanders 64, CC 16, Biden 14, Warren 6, Buttigieg 1
If we call it a tie: Sanders 48, CC 23, Biden 17, Warren 7, Buttigieg 5
  #3468  
Old 02-04-2020, 10:23 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
So his model obviously gives a huge bonus for winning in Iowa, even very narrowly. I think in this case, with no clear winner and the actual results being overshadowed in the media by the vote counting fiasco, the best guess would probably be a cross between the "tie" scenario and the pre-Iowa probabilities (i.e. the "Iowa bump" is likely to be smaller than usual this cycle).

Averaging those two together, we'd get

Sanders 40
Biden 30
CC 20
Warren 6
Buttigieg 4
  #3469  
Old 02-04-2020, 10:27 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I think Biden needs to do well in either NH or NV in order to have a chance of winning big in SC. If it develops that Black voters are the only group solidly in his camp, and that they are there mostly because they perceive him as being electable, well...
Voters in NH will react to this result. Biden's main selling point has been his inevitability. But you can't claim inevitability with a 4th place finish on a date that's been on everyone's calendar since January 2017.

Consider this: Biden was leading the national polls. Moreover, two candidates, Biden and Buttigieg, had a unique advantage in that they could tour the state while Sanders and Warren were confined to the Senate for impeachment -- and yet it appears Biden placed last out of those 4.

Buttigieg simply outworked Biden, doing 5 stops for Biden's 3. But more than that, both Warren and Sanders just seem to connect with voters more.
  #3470  
Old 02-04-2020, 10:30 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Yeah, I agree that Biden's chances are probably lower than the projections above, given how badly he lost.
  #3471  
Old 02-04-2020, 11:16 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,449
Is Buttigieg just as acceptable (to the establishment) as Biden?
  #3472  
Old 02-04-2020, 11:32 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
In terms of his policies being nonthreatening to the oligarchic ruling class, yes. I think many of them may have doubts about his electability, either because of his youth or gayness or because they can read the polls which show him as the weakest of the major candidates in matchups against Trump.
  #3473  
Old 02-04-2020, 11:54 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Is Buttigieg just as acceptable (to the establishment) as Biden?
No way can a openly gay man win in 2020. That is very sad. I hope things will be different and Pete can get some national experience and run in 2028.
  #3474  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:05 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,134
I still think Biden is the best bet to beat Trump and before this I thought he was in a very good position to win the nomination. However, based on polls, I was expecting an OK performance in Iowa, maybe second or a close third at worst. Right now it is looking like fourth place which does put him in a tough spot. Still, NH does have an independent streak as displayed in 2008 and the whole counting mess will probably provide him some cover. His worry now is that Pete will get a big bounce and push him to third place and Warren is not that far behind either.

I agree that electability and being the front-runner has been a big part of Biden's strength and he doesn't have a lot going for him if he loses it. He is not the best campaigner. He doesn't have a lot of money. The media doesn't like him much.

On the flip side the moderate lane still looks very divided between him, Pete,Bloomberg and Klobuchar. He may not need that many votes to win this lane and if he does that the endorsements and money will start to pour in helping him to beat Bernie.
  #3475  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:20 AM
mundylion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 91
People bristled at the idea that things like Citizens United would end up with elections being decided by those with big bucks. This primary is going to go to the guy with big bucks: It's Bloomberg all the way. Money will buy it all.
  #3476  
Old 02-05-2020, 12:20 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
I still think Biden is the best bet to beat Trump and before this I thought he was in a very good position to win the nomination. However, based on polls, I was expecting an OK performance in Iowa, maybe second or a close third at worst. Right now it is looking like fourth place which does put him in a tough spot. Still, NH does have an independent streak as displayed in 2008 and the whole counting mess will probably provide him some cover. His worry now is that Pete will get a big bounce and push him to third place and Warren is not that far behind either.

I agree that electability and being the front-runner has been a big part of Biden's strength and he doesn't have a lot going for him if he loses it. He is not the best campaigner. He doesn't have a lot of money. The media doesn't like him much.

On the flip side the moderate lane still looks very divided between him, Pete,Bloomberg and Klobuchar. He may not need that many votes to win this lane and if he does that the endorsements and money will start to pour in helping him to beat Bernie.
Well, let's not get carried away. The Iowa results will shake things up somewhat, but right now he's still getting more support in national polls than the other three moderates put together.

But no doubt, he's gone from being the favorite to playing catch-up here. Sanders looks like a near lock to win NH, but Biden, Warren and Buttigieg are all bunched up behind him, and even Klobuchar is trending up. The difference between second and fifth could be quite small in terms of votes, but huge in terms of perception.
  #3477  
Old 02-05-2020, 01:54 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,680
Co-founder of "Farm Aid" and 1980s champion of small town America John "Cougar" Mellencamp has decided the interests of rural America are best served by the ex-mayor of the tiny village of <checks notes> New York City:

Quote:
I was born in a Small Town. And I live in a Small Town. But the reality is, Small Town America is disappearing. And @MikeBloomberg will fight for them. https://youtu.be/0uNLM8Hxas0 via @YouTube #mikebloomberg #johnmellencamp #smalltown

Last edited by JohnT; 02-05-2020 at 01:58 PM.
  #3478  
Old 02-05-2020, 01:59 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,680
Shit, forgot link: https://twitter.com/johnmellencamp/s...857650184?s=20
  #3479  
Old 02-05-2020, 03:18 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Is Buttigieg just as acceptable (to the establishment) as Biden?
In my eyes, yes, but he's going to get squeezed between social conservatives who reject a gay president, people who think he's too young, and people who are fine with a gay president but believe he's not authentically progressive enough.

2020 is probably going to be a weird year for primaries - so weird that we might end up with a brokered convention, and I have a hard time believing that there won't be at least one candidate who will walk away from that process feeling cheated. I suspect that moderates like those supporting Buttigieg and Biden will be better able to digest that kind of bitter pill than Sanders' supporters, and I think the DNC is well aware of that.
  #3480  
Old 02-05-2020, 03:23 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Co-founder of "Farm Aid" and 1980s champion of small town America John "Cougar" Mellencamp has decided the interests of rural America are best served by the ex-mayor of the tiny village of <checks notes> New York City:
I am quickly sliding into the solidly pro-Bloomberg camp. I was willing to see how Biden would do in IA, but it's not looking good. In 2016, Hillary Clinton barely won in Iowa, got drubbed in NH, but managed to come back and win after that. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't seem like a 4th place finish in IA translates to good things to come.
  #3481  
Old 02-05-2020, 03:26 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 13,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by mundylion View Post
People bristled at the idea that things like Citizens United would end up with elections being decided by those with big bucks. This primary is going to go to the guy with big bucks: It's Bloomberg all the way. Money will buy it all.
Bloomberg is using his own money. He could have done that before Citizens United.
  #3482  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:01 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 11,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I am quickly sliding into the solidly pro-Bloomberg camp. I was willing to see how Biden would do in IA, but it's not looking good. In 2016, Hillary Clinton barely won in Iowa, got drubbed in NH, but managed to come back and win after that. I could be wrong, but it just doesn't seem like a 4th place finish in IA translates to good things to come.
The maddening thing about this election cycle is the whole "electability" question. Instead of just everyone voting for who they like, they're trying to second-guess the electorate as a whole. "I may like A, but does anybody else? Maybe I should vote for B...?" And we wind up mentally wrapped around our own axle.

I'd love to see a poll taken that asks Democrats "If Trump wasn't on the November ballot, who would be your choice?"

I'm disheartened by Iowa, because (IMHO) the least electable Democrats came in #1 - #2. My favorites came in #3 - #5. Perhaps the most electable wasn't on the ballot.
  #3483  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:16 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Holy shit! 538 model now has Sanders as the favorite in South Freakin' Carolina.
  #3484  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:45 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 607
Got a link for that? Biden still ahead on this page.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...outh-carolina/
  #3485  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:51 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Nope, that’s what I was looking at. Looks like some new polls have been added in the last couple hours. He did say the model would be prone to dramatic swings for the next few days.
  #3486  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:54 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,089
But both the new polls have Biden way ahead, one by double digits. Musta been some backstage flub up.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-06-2020 at 07:57 PM.
  #3487  
Old 02-06-2020, 08:12 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,449
Yahoo: Biden's Campaign Could be Hitting the Wall
  #3488  
Old 02-06-2020, 08:26 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,198
Look past the percentages and consider what the results in Iowa actually show. Biden was on the ground in Iowa, and he got out-worked by Buttigieg. And he had the advantage of having Sanders and Warren tied up in impeachment hearings. Shit, Klobuchar was a relative single-digit no-name who was also tied up in impeachment and she got a lot closer to Biden than most thought she would.

What does all of this tell you?

It tells us something that a lot of us already knew before the race even began: Joe Biden just isn't that good at campaigning. I don't know if it's that he doesn't hire the right people, or that he just doesn't bring it, or what, but this was true in 1988, in 2008, and now, in 2020, it seems just as true now as it was back then. Joe Biden was obviously good at campaigning in Delaware, just as Tom Harkin was good at campaigning in Iowa back in his day, but that doesn't mean shit when you run for president. It's a race like no other.

Don't hold your breath for Joe Biden's firewall. A firewall cannot save a candidate who just isn't that good at campaigning.
  #3489  
Old 02-06-2020, 09:19 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,823
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...outh-carolina/

I think the above link is what was referred to earlier - Sanders being more likely to win SC. Nate's model is more than just polls - it also builds bounces and such based on the expected wins beforehand.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #3490  
Old 02-06-2020, 10:17 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,487

Rachel Bitecofer predicts Democratic victory in 2020


A young political scientist has controversial views on American elections. IIUC she has discovered that energizing the base is far more important than appealing to swing voters. The article may be an interesting read. I hope she's correct when she predicts Democratic victories this year.

Quote:
What if everything you think you know about politics is wrong? What if there aren’t really American swing voters—or not enough, anyway, to pick the next president? What if it doesn’t matter much who the Democratic nominee is? What if there is no such thing as “the center,” and the party in power can govern however it wants for two years, because the results of that first midterm are going to be bad regardless? What if the Democrats' big 41-seat midterm victory in 2018 didn’t happen because candidates focused on health care and kitchen-table issues, but simply because they were running against the party in the White House? What if the outcome in 2020 is pretty much foreordained, too?

To the political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, all of that is almost certainly true, and that has made her one of the most intriguing new figures in political forecasting this year....

The classic view is that the pool of American voters is basically fixed ... and the winner is determined by the 15 percent or so of “swing voters” who flit between the parties.... Bitecofer has a nickname for this view. She calls it, with disdain, the “Chuck Todd theory of American politics”: “The idea that there is this informed, engaged American population that is watching these political events and watching their elected leaders and assessing their behavior and making a judgment.” “And it is just not true.”

...
She counts as an intellectual mentor Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University who popularized the concept of “negative partisanship,” the idea that voters are more motivated to defeat the other side than by any particular policy goals.

In a piece explaining his work in POLITICO Magazine, Abramowitz wrote: “Over the past few decades, American politics has become like a bitter sports rivalry, in which the parties hang together mainly out of sheer hatred of the other team, rather than a shared sense of purpose. Republicans might not love the president, but they absolutely loathe his Democratic adversaries. And it’s also true of Democrats, who might be consumed by their internal feuds over foreign policy and the proper role of government were it not for Trump.”
(Many analysts disagree with Bitecofer:
Quote:
“She would be well-served as an analyst,” Wasserman added, “if she visited some of the counties in Iowa which voted overwhelmingly for Obama and then overwhelmingly for Trump. These are not places where turnout explains the results. She would learn that persuasion and swing voters are the dominant variable in presidential elections, particularly in those battleground states.”
)

Last edited by septimus; 02-06-2020 at 10:18 PM.
  #3491  
Old 02-06-2020, 10:30 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...outh-carolina/

I think the above link is what was referred to earlier - Sanders being more likely to win SC. Nate's model is more than just polls - it also builds bounces and such based on the expected wins beforehand.
And today’s polls were in the field before Iowa’s results. Moreover they were already falling some.
  #3492  
Old 02-06-2020, 11:03 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
A young political scientist has controversial views on American elections. IIUC she has discovered that energizing the base is far more important than appealing to swing voters. The article may be an interesting read. I hope she's correct when she predicts Democratic victories this year.



(Many analysts disagree with Bitecofer:
)
I generally agree with Bitecofer. I think what her critic is missing is that there was a realignment in process; white rural working class voters have moved from the Democrats to the GOP, and educated middle class suburbanites have moved in the opposite direction. 75% of Obama-Trump voters plan to vote for Trump again. They’re not swing voters, they’ve just moved from one base to the other. And it is also true that as the campaign has gone on, the differences between the performances of Democratic candidates in head to head polls against Trump have shrunk, suggesting that, yeah, the choice of candidate may not be super crucial.
  #3493  
Old 02-07-2020, 06:29 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I hope she's correct when she predicts Democratic victories this year.
I'm increasingly irritated by Politico's click-baity type articles, and this is a prime example. Like the Rich Lowry piece that was linked last night, I opened the article and was almost immediately confronted with something that jumped out as a red flag in terms of validity.

If her argument is that there's no swing voter, last year's mid-terms are not the evidence to cite. Mid-terms are typically reactions against whoever's perceived to be in power at the time. Moreover, any reaction to Trump being in power is going to be extreme. Mid-term elections typically do favor who can fire up the base; presidential elections, OTOH, are far more complicated. Generally speaking, they are referendums on incumbents.
  #3494  
Old 02-07-2020, 07:34 AM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
A young political scientist has controversial views on American elections. IIUC she has discovered that energizing the base is far more important than appealing to swing voters.
Some of us have been explaining this since 2016. There is no sane reason this should be controversial, but we’re not in sane times.
  #3495  
Old 02-07-2020, 08:12 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,964
It is less a discovery than an ongoing expression of one position of a longstanding debate that has many aspects to it. The position, the view, and the debate are certainly not novel.

IMHO the "energize the base" construct is naively simplistic. Those who argue for such almost always define "the base" as those who happen to share their opinions. The base of the Democratic party is a big tent of overlapping demographics and points of view. Sometimes energizing one "base" depresses the other "base".

In any case virtually no one argues that turnout does not matter. And few argue that there are no swingable voters or that they do not matter. Anyone who "explains" otherwise is frankly making a dumb argument. The sane discussion is how to balance appealing in ways to maximize turnout of various aspects of the base and different portions of swingable voters, and how that differs for national elections vs House and Senate seats, and in presidential years vs midterm years. Even specifically in the electorally critical states. And what actually accomplishes any of those goals.
  #3496  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:04 AM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It is less a discovery than an ongoing expression of one position of a longstanding debate that has many aspects to it. The position, the view, and the debate are certainly not novel.

IMHO the "energize the base" construct is naively simplistic.
Not any more naively simplistic than believing the best nominee is the one who is the most palatable to swing voters. Most Biden supporters seem to fall into this camp, whether they want to admit it or not.

What’s telling is that you rarely hear them touting his effectiveness, his smarts, or his passion for the people. You never hear them make a case for him being the best leader. It’s his appeal to independents, moderates, and undecideds that his supporters only seem to talk about.

Last edited by you with the face; 02-07-2020 at 09:05 AM.
  #3497  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:27 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
IMHO the "energize the base" construct is naively simplistic. Those who argue for such almost always define "the base" as those who happen to share their opinions.
She doesn't.
  #3498  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:39 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by you with the face View Post
Not any more naively simplistic than believing the best nominee is the one who is the most palatable to swing voters. Most Biden supporters seem to fall into this camp, whether they want to admit it or not.

What’s telling is that you rarely hear them touting his effectiveness, his smarts, or his passion for the people. You never hear them make a case for him being the best leader. It’s his appeal to independents, moderates, and undecideds that his supporters only seem to talk about.
Not sure what "most" do or don't believe. And as I personally don't have mind-reading abilities, I will make no claims about what people believe in their heads that differ from what they say.

Personally between Sanders and Biden I think Biden would be much much more effective (and have read many discussions about that), think neither is all that super smart (Warren, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg all seem MUCH "smarter" to me), that they each have the same passion for the people (expressed very differently to be sure, Biden by the doing, and honestly seeming more "real" and less self-serving to me), and that Biden has MUCH better leadership skills. Many of those things are WHY he'd appeal more to independents, moderates, and undecideds. I also think, based on demographics, that in the electorally key states those voters matter more than the segment of the base that would come out for a harder progressive but stay home for a more center Left candidate. I think the same is true in states that have competitive Senate races and would benefit from coattails. But that is nevertheless very debatable.

That said the fork is being raised over him and may descend if he is 4th in New Hampshire.

I am slowly coming around to seeing the theory of Bloomberg's electability case. His part of the base is urban and suburban voters who love his strong and unabashed positions on climate change, gun control, immigration, and public health issues, and are more comfortable with someone like him, scary economically smart, at the helm when we hit the overdue end of the current growth cycle with all the usual tools already burned up by the current administration. I don't see fired up progressives who would stay home if the candidate is not a class warfare candidate as offsetting the pluses of sweeping the suburbs and leaving Trump with his base and not much more.

Last edited by DSeid; 02-07-2020 at 10:42 AM.
  #3499  
Old 02-07-2020, 11:40 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,412
Bloomberg hasn't even appeared in a debate yet. There's going to be a debate TONIGHT and he isn't even in it. Right now the ONLY thing that the average non-political-junkie American knows about Bloomberg is that he's really really rich, and he was the mayor of New York. Move up one tier of knowledge and maybe they also know that he's extremely anti-gun and that he tried to restrict the sizes of soda cups.

It has been almost a year since this contest began (i.e. all the candidates announced their running.) That's one whole year that Bloomberg was NOT selling himself to the American people. I don't give a fuck how much money he has, it's too late in the game for him to catch up.

I'm just in awe of these people who think Bloomberg actually has a shot. All he is going to do is suck attention and energy away from the other candidates, who, flawed though they all may be in some way, have at least PUT THEIR TIME IN soldiering on through this campaign for the past year.

Last edited by Lamoral; 02-07-2020 at 11:43 AM.
  #3500  
Old 02-07-2020, 11:50 AM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 339
That Politico article left me intrigued as I never heard of Bitcofer. Here is her election forecast, which she released back in July (!):
https://cnu.edu/wasoncenter/2019/07/...tion-forecast/
I tend to agree with her general idea that swing voters don't really exist anymore, and all that matters is base turnout. But this "forecast" reads like an online psychic's overly confident predictions. It's absolutely bonkers that anyone would think they could accurately predict an election outcome before it's even known who one of the candidates will be. She alludes to this at one point:
Quote:
By and large, I don’t expect that the specific nominee the Democratic electorate chooses will matter all that much unless it ends up being a disruptor like Bernie Sanders.
This is a massive asterisk. According to FiveThirtyEight's own forecast, Sanders is currently the most likely nominee, with about a 1 in 2 chance of claiming the nomination. Just flip a coin to decide whether to throw out her prediction outright, I guess.
Quote:
If the nominee hails from the progressive wing of the party, it will provoke massive handwringing both within the party and the media that if not controlled could become self-reinforcing. But the Democrats are not complacent like they were in 2016 and I doubt there is any amount of polling or favorable forecasts that will make them so. That fear will play a crucial role in their 2020 victory. We will not see a divided Democratic Party in 2020.
Hopelessly naive. There has been just one caucus so far, and various factions are already at each others throats over which candidate rightly won. It's just going to get worse, with assists from foreign social media interferers and Republican concern trolls, of course.

Dr. Bitcofer seems like a nice lady who is passionate about politics. She almost completely nailed the Democratic gains in the House last time. This would be impressive if she didn't also completely whiff on their Senate gains and governorship gains. A 1 out of 3 batting average does not inspire confidence imo.
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 08:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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