Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:18 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
CNN now has Warren as a clear front-runner. This is very bad. I like Warren a lot, but in a general election Warren is going to attract such a groundswell of hostility from the corporatocracy and many moderates that even a totally disgraced Trump will get propelled to a second term. I'd love to see a Warren presidency but thinking it will happen seems like sheer naivety. Has everyone forgotten that the main objective is to prevent the orange menace from being re-elected to another four years of chaos and even further radicalization of the Supreme Court?

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: the idea that it doesn’t really matter whether we have President Trump for four more years or a moderate Democrat (because electing the latter would just be “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”) is truly mindblowing and appalling.
  #252  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:53 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
CNN now has Warren as a clear front-runner. This is very bad. I like Warren a lot, but in a general election Warren is going to attract such a groundswell of hostility from the corporatocracy and many moderates that even a totally disgraced Trump will get propelled to a second term. I'd love to see a Warren presidency but thinking it will happen seems like sheer naivety. Has everyone forgotten that the main objective is to prevent the orange menace from being re-elected to another four years of chaos and even further radicalization of the Supreme Court?
I see no reason to believe that your feelings on this (or the feelings of any random internet person) are any more likely to be valid than a wild guess. Maybe you're right, or maybe you're wrong, but at this point you're just guessing. The same arguments were made about Barack Obama, and even Donald Trump. We just don't know yet.
  #253  
Old 10-17-2019, 07:55 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,460
I'm still amazed that random internet people still think that they just happen to have a line into the American consciousness and have more than a 50-50 understanding of what's going to happen.

Newsflash: you don't. Doesn't matter who you are. You don't know, this early, and neither does anyone else. Even Nate Silver doesn't know. You're just guessing. It's fine that you have feelings (I have feelings too!), but you're being profoundly and stubbornly foolish if you believe that anyone else should treat your feelings as anything more than a wild guess from a stranger.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-17-2019 at 07:55 PM.
  #254  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:40 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: the idea that it doesn’t really matter whether we have President Trump for four more years or a moderate Democrat (because electing the latter would just be “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”) is truly mindblowing and appalling.
Yeah, I'm totally OK with my son and his entire generation spending most of their lives in a hellscape of a world, as long as Trump loses.

Seriously, fuck that shit.
  #255  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:54 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: 41,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I see no reason to believe that your feelings on this (or the feelings of any random internet person) are any more likely to be valid than a wild guess. Maybe you're right, or maybe you're wrong, but at this point you're just guessing. The same arguments were made about Barack Obama, and even Donald Trump. We just don't know yet.
Yeah, but at least the Democratic party has learned from its mistakes. In 2016, we listened to the leftists and ran the visionary candidate, forsaking the choice that was the mainstream moderate party choice. We emphasized a grand vision candidate over a safe candidate, and look at how we lost.

So by all means let's go back to the strategy that worked so well in 2008, and choose the safe moderate candidate over the candidate that inspires people.
  #256  
Old 10-17-2019, 10:44 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
I think it's time to squeeze Yang, Steyer, Castro, and some others out of the debates. I wanna see more Klobuchar.
  #257  
Old 10-17-2019, 11:07 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,049
What is Klobuchar's appeal exactly? What does she say and do that none of the other candidates can? She has no personal charisma whatsoever. She at least doesn't stammer over her words constantly like Biden, but she's like the exact opposite of "authoritative." Even Warren, who I have made no secret of disliking and who I don't think can beat Trump, has a little bit of "authority" in her demeanor. Klobuchar just seems spaced out and kind of like the whole thing is a lark for her.

Steyer is pathetic and utterly forgettable. A billionaire who's running for President should at least be savvy enough at campaigning and presentation to be memorable. For him to have a shot in hell, he would need to have made everyone in America aware of exactly who he is, how he made his money, what he looks like, and what his general political stance is, when they hear the words "Tom Steyer." I guarantee you that they don't. Most people, if asked, would draw a blank. If you are a billionaire, running for president, and in this position, it means you're already a failure.
  #258  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:23 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Yeah, I'm totally OK with my son and his entire generation spending most of their lives in a hellscape of a world, as long as Trump loses.

Seriously, fuck that shit.
It is possible to be pound wise but penny foolish. If Trump gets a few more Supreme picks, how do you think your climate change legislation might fare?

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-18-2019 at 12:23 AM.
  #259  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:10 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Yeah, I'm totally OK with my son and his entire generation spending most of their lives in a hellscape of a world, as long as Trump loses.

Seriously, fuck that shit.

Interesting how Andy, in two consecutive posts before this one, castigated Democratic pragmatists for voicing the same types of concerns you will hear from David Axelrod, who as I have said should have more credibility than pretty much any human alive. For that matter, Barack Obama himself has expressed similar concerns. But Andy says we have no idea what will happen, so we should shut up. However, he does not apparently have any such qualms about a prediction (which sounds more like the confident expression of metaphysical certainty) that electing someone like Biden, Booker, or Klobuchar instead of Warren will lead straight to a "hellscape". No sir, that's just common sense!

RTF, it's amazing to me that you are the same person who calmly and coolly weights and aggregates poll numbers. I've never seen these two kinds of posting styles go together in one poster before.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #260  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:23 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It is possible to be pound wise but penny foolish. If Trump gets a few more Supreme picks, how do you think your climate change legislation might fare?
I'm trying to come up with the circumstance that the Dems get climate change legislation through Congress and override Trump's veto while Trump is putting more Justices on the Supreme Court.
  #261  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:31 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Interesting how Andy, in two consecutive posts before this one, castigated Democratic pragmatists for voicing the same types of concerns you will hear from David Axelrod, who as I have said should have more credibility than pretty much any human alive.
And I've had words to say about Axelrod's world view in this thread. So my opinion of his cred is rather different from yours.
Quote:
However, he does not apparently have any such qualms about a prediction (which sounds more like the confident expression of metaphysical certainty) that electing someone like Biden, Booker, or Klobuchar instead of Warren will lead straight to a "hellscape". No sir, that's just common sense!
I've explained the connection. You can disagree with me, but it means nothing unless you point out which step in my thinking you disagree with, and why.
Quote:
RTF, it's amazing to me that you are the same person who calmly and coolly weights and aggregates poll numbers. I've never seen these two kinds of posting styles go together in one poster before.
I'm unique.

Look, about the only thing we can say for close to certain about what the future will be like if global warming goes unchecked is that humanity will manage to survive, because we can see the track record of prehistoric humans surviving in a wide range of extremely inhospitable environments.

But whether, and how much, of civilization will be able to sustain itself is very much an open question. And global warming keeps on exceeding the median predictions. And my son is 12 years old. The world that we will choose over the next decade is the world that he will spend his life in. Yes that fucking matters.
  #262  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:58 AM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I see no reason to believe that your feelings on this (or the feelings of any random internet person) are any more likely to be valid than a wild guess. Maybe you're right, or maybe you're wrong, but at this point you're just guessing. The same arguments were made about Barack Obama, and even Donald Trump.
Abraham Lincoln, for that matter. Thank God the electorate back then didn’t let themselves be cowed into voting for the candidate favored most by big business, or my black ass would be in chains.

Last edited by you with the face; 10-18-2019 at 06:58 AM.
  #263  
Old 10-18-2019, 07:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Interesting how Andy, in two consecutive posts before this one, castigated Democratic pragmatists for voicing the same types of concerns you will hear from David Axelrod, who as I have said should have more credibility than pretty much any human alive. For that matter, Barack Obama himself has expressed similar concerns. But Andy says we have no idea what will happen, so we should shut up. However, he does not apparently have any such qualms about a prediction (which sounds more like the confident expression of metaphysical certainty) that electing someone like Biden, Booker, or Klobuchar instead of Warren will lead straight to a "hellscape". No sir, that's just common sense!

RTF, it's amazing to me that you are the same person who calmly and coolly weights and aggregates poll numbers. I've never seen these two kinds of posting styles go together in one poster before.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about. If anyone is predicting "hellscape" silliness due to moderate Democrats, that's very silly. That's not a prediction about an election, though -- it's a prediction about policy (or something like that -- it's vague and silly enough to be generally meaningless and useless). My comment was about predictions about elections. Further, you haven't cited anything from Axelrod that mirrors the posts I criticized. If Axelrod has said something as dumb as, or equivalent to, "Warren is certain to be defeated", then that's incredibly dumb and not worth anything, even from a smart guy like him... but I doubt he's said anything that dumb.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-18-2019 at 07:34 AM.
  #264  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:15 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'm trying to come up with the circumstance that the Dems get climate change legislation through Congress and override Trump's veto while Trump is putting more Justices on the Supreme Court.
I'll help out your imagination: a court challenge may come after Trump's presidency. Or Trump may not feel like vetoing it. If I spent more than 30 seconds, I could probably come up with more.
  #265  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:43 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
Thinking about it, from what I remember, it would take a pretty big blue wave to flip the Senate. So in that sense, "getting climate change legislation through Congress" that would be strong enough for you would naturally come after a Trump defeat.
  #266  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:48 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'll help out your imagination: a court challenge may come after Trump's presidency. Or Trump may not feel like vetoing it. If I spent more than 30 seconds, I could probably come up with more.
The words are in English, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Thinking about it, from what I remember, it would take a pretty big blue wave to flip the Senate. So in that sense, "getting climate change legislation through Congress" that would be strong enough for you would naturally come after a Trump defeat.
And the filibuster??

I mean, that's my freakin' point here: even if the Dems win everything next year, nothing gets through Congress as long as the filibuster is in place.

Exactly two current Democratic candidates - Warren and Harris - have said that there are circumstances where they would push to kill the filibuster. Biden and Sanders have said they wouldn't. Everyone else either is in favor of keeping the filibuster, or has avoided the subject.

If the Dems want to do something about climate change, they need to kill the filibuster. The Senate might do this if the President leans on them hard enough to do that; if nobody leans on them much, they almost surely won't.

So if the Dem nominee is someone who wants to keep the filibuster, it doesn't matter if they win, it doesn't matter if the Dems win the Senate too. Nothing will be done about climate change.

Is there a hole in that logic, or not? If there is, what is it? Any criticism of my position that doesn't address those questions is a waste of pixels.
  #267  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:16 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
Oh man, this climate change/Warren must win is all about which candidate supports removing the filibuster? Ok, forget I said anything.
  #268  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:15 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
Actually, here's an honest question: did Obama or Trump publicly support the removals of the appointment filibusters?

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-18-2019 at 01:17 PM.
  #269  
Old 10-18-2019, 06:42 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Oh man, this climate change/Warren must win is all about which candidate supports removing the filibuster?
You've stated it backwards: the need to get rid of the filibuster is about climate change (and about pretty much every other Dem priority from a public option to a higher minimum wage). But yeah, that's the idea.
  #270  
Old 10-18-2019, 07:00 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
With the way things are, removal of the filibuster is possibly going to be required. My objection to your position has always been that the President has got nothing to do with it. Senators will use their own calculus on it no matter what. I personally think that a Presidential candidate running on a promise to change the rules of procedure in another branch kind of bullshit too. Warren is a Senator. Howzabout she gets rid of Senate procedure she doesn't like while she's in there.
  #271  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:50 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
With the way things are, removal of the filibuster is possibly going to be required. My objection to your position has always been that the President has got nothing to do with it.
And I've addressed that several times.
Quote:
Senators will use their own calculus on it no matter what.
And nothing anyone else does can change their calculus?

Seems kinda weird, especially because that's exactly how politics works.
Quote:
I personally think that a Presidential candidate running on a promise to change the rules of procedure in another branch kind of bullshit too.
I don't think anyone's promising anything, but just saying it has to be done.
Quote:
Warren is a Senator. Howzabout she gets rid of Senate procedure she doesn't like while she's in there.
Seriously??

53-47 GOP majority. Mitch McConnell.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 10-18-2019 at 08:51 PM.
  #272  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:09 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
I know you've addressed that several times. I am, unbelievably, unconvinced. Massively unconvinced. I think this whole line of argument is idiotic. And that impression is buffed by the fact that you didn't answer my question as to whether Obama or Trump had publicly endorsed earlier filibuster killings.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-18-2019 at 09:11 PM.
  #273  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:02 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,474
Here, in order, are the eleven persons most likely to become President of the United States in 2021, according to Betfair:
Trump 41.8% 78.1% 74.5%
Warren 22.5% 46.3% 41.5%
Biden 10.3% 18.2% 20.5%
Buttigieg 5.2% 10.2% 15.5%
Sanders 5.1% 8.0% 12.5%
Clinton 2.3% 5.5% -
Yang 2.3% 3.4% 9.5%
Pence 1.7% 5.6% 7.0%
Haley 1.7% 6.4% 9.5%
Harris 0.7% 1.5% 4.5%
Romney 0.3% 2.0% 7.5%
The second number is the chance to win his/her party nomination according to Betfair; the third number is the same chance according to Predictit.

Good news, I think, is that if Trump does NOT win his party's nomination, the D will probably win the general. (Haley, for example, has over 6% chance to be the GOP nominee, but less than 2% to become Potus.)

Chances of Democratic control per Predictwise:
72% House of Reps
53% White House
36% Senate
  #274  
Old 10-21-2019, 05:17 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I know you've addressed that several times. I am, unbelievably, unconvinced. Massively unconvinced. I think this whole line of argument is idiotic. And that impression is buffed by the fact that you didn't answer my question as to whether Obama or Trump had publicly endorsed earlier filibuster killings.
I don't answer questions. I respond to counterarguments.
  #275  
Old 10-24-2019, 06:57 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Sorry I'm late with this week's installment, but yesterday was a busy evening. In a good way, but still didn't leave me any time for putting this together.

Anyhow, other than one Fox News poll from October 6-8 which is about to age out, everything is pretty new. Survey USA polled just before last Tuesday's debate, and Quinnipiac and CNN-SSRS have polled since, and that's just the A-rated polls; B-rated Emerson and Ipsos have also polled since, as well as our weekly B-rated YouGov, Morning Consult, and C-rated HarrisX.

Looks like Warren really took a hit as a result of Debate #4 - remember how people were saying the polling would basically be frozen in place since everyone was focused on impeachment? Well, not so much. And it looks like Sanders and Harris profited from her loss, proving me wrong in what I said about them last week. Anyway, here's the numbers:
Code:
Candidate  Date  8/14  8/21  8/28  9/04  9/12  9/18  9/25  10/2  10/9 10/15 10/24

Biden            30.1  28.6  28.5  29.8  26.5  28.5  28.4  27.6  26.2  28.7  28.4
Warren           17.0  16.2  16.8  19.0  17.6  18.6  21.5  22.4  25.0  25.4  21.6
Sanders          17.1  15.2  16.9  16.0  17.9  16.9  16.8  16.4  15.3  13.6  16.9
Buttigieg         5.6   4.7   4.7   5.2   5.0   5.7   5.8   5.6   5.2   6.0   6.2
Harris            8.2   7.2   7.2   6.8   6.6   5.6   5.2   5.1   4.2   4.4   5.5
Yang                    2.0   2.5   2.6   2.5   2.8   3.0   2.9   3.1   2.4   2.2
O'Rourke          2.6   2.7   2.1   1.4   3.0   3.0   2.4   2.4   1.6   2.1   2.4
Klobuchar                                                                     2.0

Everyone else < 2.0
And the comparison with the other averages:
Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             28.4  27.2  25.0
Warren            21.6  21.8  24.0
Sanders           16.9  17.3  15.0
Buttigieg          6.2   7.0   7.0
Harris             5.5   5.3   5.0
Yang               2.2   2.5   3.0
O'Rourke           2.4   2.3   2.0
Klobuchar          2.0   2.0   2.0
As you can see, Amy Klobuchar has joined the 2% bunch. Out of the white noise at last, at least by the standards of this scorecard.
  #276  
Old 10-24-2019, 07:28 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Thinking about it, from what I remember, it would take a pretty big blue wave to flip the Senate. So in that sense, "getting climate change legislation through Congress" that would be strong enough for you would naturally come after a Trump defeat.
I wouldn't be terribly upset if Yahweh were to Rapture every Republican voter on November 2, 2020. If He did, I wouldn't even be upset if He sent them all back on November 4, with an explanation that it had been a Sitzprobe.
  #277  
Old 10-24-2019, 07:30 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
The words are in English, but...

And the filibuster??

I mean, that's my freakin' point here: even if the Dems win everything next year, nothing gets through Congress as long as the filibuster is in place.

Exactly two current Democratic candidates - Warren and Harris - have said that there are circumstances where they would push to kill the filibuster. Biden and Sanders have said they wouldn't. Everyone else either is in favor of keeping the filibuster, or has avoided the subject.

If the Dems want to do something about climate change, they need to kill the filibuster. The Senate might do this if the President leans on them hard enough to do that; if nobody leans on them much, they almost surely won't.

So if the Dem nominee is someone who wants to keep the filibuster, it doesn't matter if they win, it doesn't matter if the Dems win the Senate too. Nothing will be done about climate change.

Is there a hole in that logic, or not? If there is, what is it? Any criticism of my position that doesn't address those questions is a waste of pixels.
Does the President get to decide whether the Senate retains the filibuster?

TIL, I guess...
  #278  
Old 10-24-2019, 08:25 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Does the President get to decide whether the Senate retains the filibuster?

TIL, I guess...
I feel like I'm repeating myself:
Quote:
The Senate might do this if the President leans on them hard enough to do that; if nobody leans on them much, they almost surely won't.
  #279  
Old 10-24-2019, 08:37 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I don't answer questions. I respond to counterarguments.
Is that how you roll? Ok. Your insistence that the president is required to back a filibuster removal is not supported by the history of actual filibuster kills. You have no evidence whatsoever that a Presidential push for filibuster removal has any import and there's evidence that it is not required.
  #280  
Old 10-26-2019, 01:02 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Is that how you roll? Ok. Your insistence that the president is required to back a filibuster removal is not supported by the history of actual filibuster kills. You have no evidence whatsoever that a Presidential push for filibuster removal has any import and there's evidence that it is not required.
Gimme a break. The Senate's long had a culture of resistance to change. Mitch McConnell's been able to overcome this on the GOP side, but there's been plenty of evidence that many Dem Senators would rather restore all the traditions that McConnell has already axed for GOP partisan benefit than to keep on going for their own benefit.

I shouldn't have to explain this baseline reality to you like you were a newcomer from Burkina-Faso.
  #281  
Old 10-31-2019, 05:00 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Between last week and now, things didn't change much: only one poll aged out (Fox News) and only one new poll (Suffolk University) was added to the mix. Other than that, just updates from the weekly polls. Here's the numbers:
Code:
Candidate  Date  8/14  8/21  8/28  9/04  9/12  9/18  9/25  10/2  10/9 10/15 10/24 10/31

Biden            30.1  28.6  28.5  29.8  26.5  28.5  28.4  27.6  26.2  28.7  28.4  28.1
Warren           17.0  16.2  16.8  19.0  17.6  18.6  21.5  22.4  25.0  25.4  21.6  21.2
Sanders          17.1  15.2  16.9  16.0  17.9  16.9  16.8  16.4  15.3  13.6  16.9  16.6
Buttigieg         5.6   4.7   4.7   5.2   5.0   5.7   5.8   5.6   5.2   6.0   6.2   7.1
Harris            8.2   7.2   7.2   6.8   6.6   5.6   5.2   5.1   4.2   4.4   5.5   5.2
Yang                    2.0   2.5   2.6   2.5   2.8   3.0   2.9   3.1   2.4   2.2   2.3
O'Rourke          2.6   2.7   2.1   1.4   3.0   3.0   2.4   2.4   1.6   2.1   2.4   2.1
Klobuchar                                                                     2.0   2.1
Everyone else < 2.0
And the comparison with the other averages:
Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             28.1  26.7  25.0
Warren            21.2  21.3  23.0
Sanders           16.6  16.8  15.0
Buttigieg          7.1   7.7   7.0
Harris             5.2   4.7   5.0
Yang               2.3   2.7   3.0
O'Rourke           2.1   2.0   2.0
Klobuchar          2.1   1.8   2.0
  #282  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:59 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Late with this week's edition - again, busy times on the home front. Hopefully things should start settling down now.

Also, 538 is messing with my head. You may remember that I've been giving their A-rated polls a weight of 5; B-rated, 3; and C-rated, 1. Only now they've put a number of pollsters on the A/B and B/C borderlines, so I had to revise my spreadsheet to allow for weights of 4 and 2, respectively. Fuckers.

Anyhow, besides that, we've got almost an entirely new crop of polls. A-rated Monmouth, Fox News, and Washington Post/ABC; A/B rated NBC/WSJ and IBD/TIPP; B-rated Ipsos, Suffolk, and the weekly YouGov; B/C rated USC/LA Times and the weekly Morning Consult; and C-rated daily HarrisX. (Whew!)

But despite all that, the numbers didn't change much (but you'll have to scroll right to see this week's numbers):
Code:
Candidate  Date  8/14  8/21  8/28  9/04  9/12  9/18  9/25  10/2  10/9 10/15 10/24 10/31  11/8

Biden            30.1  28.6  28.5  29.8  26.5  28.5  28.4  27.6  26.2  28.7  28.4  28.1  27.1
Warren           17.0  16.2  16.8  19.0  17.6  18.6  21.5  22.4  25.0  25.4  21.6  21.2  20.7
Sanders          17.1  15.2  16.9  16.0  17.9  16.9  16.8  16.4  15.3  13.6  16.9  16.6  16.6
Buttigieg         5.6   4.7   4.7   5.2   5.0   5.7   5.8   5.6   5.2   6.0   6.2   7.1   7.6
Harris            8.2   7.2   7.2   6.8   6.6   5.6   5.2   5.1   4.2   4.4   5.5   5.2   3.5
Yang                    2.0   2.5   2.6   2.5   2.8   3.0   2.9   3.1   2.4   2.2   2.3   2.5
O'Rourke          2.6   2.7   2.1   1.4   3.0   3.0   2.4   2.4   1.6   2.1   2.4   2.1   bye!
Klobuchar                                                                     2.0   2.1   2.3
Everyone else < 2.0
And the comparison with other averages:
Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             27.1  28.3  26.0
Warren            20.7  20.6  23.0
Sanders           16.6  17.6  16.0
Buttigieg          7.6   7.0   8.0
Harris             3.5   4.5   5.0
Yang               2.5   2.3   3.0
Klobuchar          2.3   2.6   2.0

Last edited by RTFirefly; 11-08-2019 at 09:01 PM.
  #283  
Old 11-13-2019, 11:17 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,474
According to Betfair, here in order are the 14 persons most likely to be elected President a year from now. The 2nd number is the chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
40.5% - Donald Trump
14.9% 29% Elizabeth Warren
11.5% 22% Joe Biden
7.6% 16% Pete Buttigieg
6.8% 11% Bernie Sanders
2.8% 3.6% Michael Bloomberg
2.7% 5.8% Hillary Clinton
1.9% 3.6% Andrew Yang
1.8% - Mike Pence
1.2% - Nikki Haley
1.0% 1.7% Amy Klobuchar
0.8% 1.7% Tulsi Gabbard
0.6% 0.9% Kamala Harris
0.5% - Mitt Romney
Warren was 52% to win the nomination on October 15, so has fallen sharply over the past four weeks.

Chances of Democratic control according to Predictwise:
House of Reps 73%
Presidency 53%
Senate 36%
  #284  
Old 11-13-2019, 05:00 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
There's not a lot of point in even putting up this week's numbers, so little has changed.

Since last week, here's all that's happened: the Suffolk poll has aged out, and YouGov and Morning Consult have done their weekly updates. Even HarrisX has taken a break from updating.

That's it. Not a single qualifying new poll. So the numbers have changed only minimally. And here they are:
Code:
Candidate  8/14 8/21 8/28 9/04 9/12 9/18 9/25  10/2  10/9 10/15 10/24 10/31  11/8 11/15

Biden      30.1 28.6 28.5 29.8 26.5 28.5 28.4  27.6  26.2  28.7  28.4  28.1  27.1  27.2
Warren     17.0 16.2 16.8 19.0 17.6 18.6 21.5  22.4  25.0  25.4  21.6  21.2  20.7  20.8
Sanders    17.1 15.2 16.9 16.0 17.9 16.9 16.8  16.4  15.3  13.6  16.9  16.6  16.6  17.2
Buttigieg   5.6  4.7  4.7  5.2  5.0  5.7  5.8   5.6   5.2   6.0   6.2   7.1   7.6   7.5
Harris      8.2  7.2  7.2  6.8  6.6  5.6  5.2   5.1   4.2   4.4   5.5   5.2   3.5   3.7
Yang             2.0  2.5  2.6  2.5  2.8  3.0   2.9   3.1   2.4   2.2   2.3   2.5   2.7
Klobuchar                                                         2.0   2.1   2.3   2.3
Everyone else < 2.0
And the comparison with the other averages:
Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             27.2  28.3  25.0
Warren            20.8  20.6  23.0
Sanders           17.2  17.6  16.0
Buttigieg          7.5   7.0   8.0
Harris             3.7   4.5   5.0
Yang               2.7   2.3   3.0
Klobuchar          2.3   2.6   2.0
  #285  
Old 11-17-2019, 06:19 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Just in case I've never said it all in one place, here's how I do my averaging:

1) Each Wednesday (usually), I go to 538's list of recent national polls.

2) I include those polls whose middle date in the field is within the past 2.5 weeks (17.5 days).
For instance, a poll that was in the field November 1-3 would have middle date November 2, and would sunset in between 11/19 and 11/20. A poll that was in the field November 1-4 would have middle date November 2.5 and would still be good on 11/20, then sunset before 11/21.

3) Polls with a 538 rating in the A range are given a weight of 5.
Polls with a 538 rating of A/B are given a weight of 4.
Polls with a 538 rating in the B range are given a weight of 3.
Polls with a 538 rating of B/C are given a weight of 2.
Polls with a 538 rating in the C range are given a weight of 1.

Then I average them with those weights.

Unrated polls aren't included. Only national polls are included, no polls of individual states or groups of states are included.
  #286  
Old 11-18-2019, 10:11 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,023
Thanks for all the work.

Can you do one of just the swing states? National polls don't really give you much of an idea of who is going to win in a close election.

Hillary won California by 4.5 million votes. Her entire popular vote margin was only 3 million.

The only polls that matter are the ones in swing states and I wish our lead was bigger in some of those swing states. I'd like to see a decisive victory but at this point any victory would be nice.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 11-18-2019 at 10:13 AM.
  #287  
Old 11-18-2019, 11:28 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Can you do one of just the swing states?
Weighted average of polls (from fivethirtyeight.com) from past seven weeks. First figure is Pennsylvania, 2nd is Wisconsin.
Biden 27% 22%
Warren 16% 25%
Sanders 12% 18%
Buttigieg 5% 6%
But is this really the stat you want? These poll Democratic primary voters. We need to know how Archie Bunker will vote in the general election.
  #288  
Old 11-19-2019, 08:16 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Can you do one of just the swing states? National polls don't really give you much of an idea of who is going to win in a close election.
The reason I wouldn't even if I had the time is that primary polls don't map well onto general election polls. One can draw some inferences, but they're arguable.

But if you're interested, just go to 538's primary polls and where that drop-down menu at the top says 'National,' find the states you're interested in on that drop-down, and you'll get the most recent primary polls for that state. There really aren't that many polls for any given state, so you can get a sense quite quickly of roughly where things stand.
  #289  
Old 11-19-2019, 08:21 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
But is this really the stat you want? These poll Democratic primary voters. We need to know how Archie Bunker will vote in the general election.
Do we though? The drop-off between AA turnout in 2012 and 2016 was about 6 percentage points, from about 65% to about 59% IIRC. If it had been more like 60% or 61%, Hillary would have gotten enough additional AA votes in Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia that right now we'd be bemoaning Hillary's inability to do anything as President, and worrying about her re-election prospects.

(This despite the fact that her AA support in the primaries was way more than where Biden's polling with black voters.)
  #290  
Old 11-23-2019, 06:33 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,474
After almost four months leading the pack, and getting as high as 54%, Liz Warren has fallen back to below Biden in the prediction markets for the D nomination. Latest numbers from Predictwise.Com:
23% Joe Biden
21% Elizabeth Warren
18% Pete Buttigieg
12% Bernie Sanders
4% Michael Bloomberg
4% Andrew Yang
2% Amy Klobuchar
Why the big fall for Warren? Her kicking an own-goal by wanting to take away the private insurance many Americans are happy with?
These numbers sum to much less than 100%. The markets seem to give high probability to a dark-horse coming from out of nowhere to save the day!


I admit to not understanding the numbers for the R nomination:
78% Donald Trump
7% Nikki Haley
7% Mike Pence
3% Mitt Romney
A stupid and hateful criminal who behaves as though he really is Putin's puppet? Sure, let's re-elect him!
  #291  
Old 11-26-2019, 06:44 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
I skipped last week, and should have said something about it. Basically, all the old polls had aged out, and only two new polls (other than our three that are there every week) had replaced them: B-rated Ipsos, and Emerson, recently promoted from a B to an A. Just seemed like too few polls to average, so I let myself be lazy.

In addition to those, we'll have a new Quinnipiac poll (newly demoted from A to B) in this week's average, and we'll see what else shows up tomorrow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
After almost four months leading the pack, and getting as high as 54%, Liz Warren has fallen back to below Biden in the prediction markets for the D nomination. Latest numbers from Predictwise.Com:
23% Joe Biden
21% Elizabeth Warren
18% Pete Buttigieg
12% Bernie Sanders
4% Michael Bloomberg
4% Andrew Yang
2% Amy Klobuchar
Why the big fall for Warren? Her kicking an own-goal by wanting to take away the private insurance many Americans are happy with?
That, and a ton of generally critical press.
Quote:
These numbers sum to much less than 100%. The markets seem to give high probability to a dark-horse coming from out of nowhere to save the day!
I'm a Warren fanboy, but if I had to put down a bet right now, it would be on Biden.
He's the weakest anointed frontrunner ever, but he never seems to fall out of that 27-28% range very far or for very long. If there's a candidate who can break the 40-year-old pattern and win the nomination after losing IA and NH, it's him.
Quote:
I admit to not understanding the numbers for the R nomination:
78% Donald Trump
7% Nikki Haley
7% Mike Pence
3% Mitt Romney
A stupid and hateful criminal who behaves as though he really is Putin's puppet? Sure, let's re-elect him!
The only way he's losing the nomination is if he's impeached and removed, and that's a long shot. What's to understand? GOP voters don't care if he's Putin's puppet. America being *the* world power is soooo 2015, as far as Republicans are concerned. Can't own the libs like that!
  #292  
Old 11-27-2019, 07:47 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Since yesterday, we've got new polls from SurveyUSA (A) and CNN/SSRS (A/B) in addition to the aforementioned Emerson (A), Quinnipiac and Ipsos (B), and our recurring YouGov (B), Morning Consult (B/C) and Harris (C).

Short version: Warren's plummeted, Sanders has gone up a tad, and Buttigieg's firmly into double digits. And Bloomberg's above this average's 2% threshold. The numbers:
Code:
Cndidate 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/04 9/12 9/18 9/25 10/2 10/9 10/15 10/24 10/31 11/8 11/15 11/27

Biden    30.1 28.6 28.5 29.8 26.5 28.5 28.4 27.6 26.2  28.7  28.4  28.1 27.1  27.2  26.3
Warren   17.0 16.2 16.8 19.0 17.6 18.6 21.5 22.4 25.0  25.4  21.6  21.2 20.7  20.8  15.7
Sanders  17.1 15.2 16.9 16.0 17.9 16.9 16.8 16.4 15.3  13.6  16.9  16.6 16.6  17.2  18.8
Buttigieg 5.6  4.7  4.7  5.2  5.0  5.7  5.8  5.6  5.2   6.0   6.2   7.1  7.6   7.5  10.0
Harris    8.2  7.2  7.2  6.8  6.6  5.6  5.2  5.1  4.2   4.4   5.5   5.2  3.5   3.7   3.7
Yang           2.0  2.5  2.6  2.5  2.8  3.0  2.9  3.1   2.4   2.2   2.3  2.5   2.7   3.2
Klobuchar                                                     2.0   2.1  2.3   2.3   1.9
Bloomberg                                                                            2.5
Everyone else < 2.0
And the comparison with the other averages:
Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             26.3  28.3  25.0
Warren            15.7  16.7  19.0
Sanders           18.8  17.8  16.0
Buttigieg         10.0  10.5  12.0
Harris             3.7   3.8   4.0
Yang               3.2   3.2   4.0
Klobuchar          1.9   2.0   2.0
Bloomberg          2.5   2.4    <1
  #293  
Old 11-27-2019, 08:52 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
Almost looks like Warren scared the shit out of some of her supporters. Most peculiar. Guess I missed the memo.
  #294  
Old 12-03-2019, 09:35 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
Unless a new poll is released tomorrow, there will be no new polls from last week, just the updates of the three weekly polls. But since this will be the last week with Harris in the polls, I'll go ahead and put up the new numbers once YouGov is updated tomorrow, even if they're only barely changed from last week.
  #295  
Old 12-04-2019, 08:34 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
We did have one additional poll: C-rated Change Research, which had Biden, Warren, and Sanders in basically a 3-way tie. Now we know why they've got a C rating at 538, and also why I downweight C-rated pollsters. Anyhow, Kamala's last hurrah:
Code:
Cndidate 8/21 8/28 9/04 9/12 9/18 9/25 10/2 10/9 10/15 10/24 10/31 11/8 11/15 11/27 12/4

Biden    28.6 28.5 29.8 26.5 28.5 28.4 27.6 26.2  28.7  28.4  28.1 27.1  27.2  26.3 26.6
Warren   16.2 16.8 19.0 17.6 18.6 21.5 22.4 25.0  25.4  21.6  21.2 20.7  20.8  15.7 15.9
Sanders  15.2 16.9 16.0 17.9 16.9 16.8 16.4 15.3  13.6  16.9  16.6 16.6  17.2  18.8 18.6
Buttigieg 4.7  4.7  5.2  5.0  5.7  5.8  5.6  5.2   6.0   6.2   7.1  7.6   7.5  10.0 10.3
Harris    7.2  7.2  6.8  6.6  5.6  5.2  5.1  4.2   4.4   5.5   5.2  3.5   3.7   3.7  3.6
Yang      2.0  2.5  2.6  2.5  2.8  3.0  2.9  3.1   2.4   2.2   2.3  2.5   2.7   3.2  3.1
Bloomberg                                                                       2.5  2.8
Everyone else < 2.0
1) I dropped the week of 8/14 to make everything fit. See a previous week for those numbers.
2) Klobuchar had a second week at 1.9%, so it's back to RTF Average anonymity for her.

And the comparison with the other averages:
Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             26.3  27.8  26.0
Warren            15.7  14.2  18.0
Sanders           18.8  15.6  15.0
Buttigieg         10.0  11.4  13.0
Harris             3.7   3.4   4.0
Yang               3.2   2.6   4.0
Bloomberg          2.8   4.0    <1
  #296  
Old 12-05-2019, 03:55 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
And the comparison with the other averages:
Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             26.3  27.8  26.0
Warren            15.7  14.2  18.0
Sanders           18.8  15.6  15.0
Buttigieg         10.0  11.4  13.0
Harris             3.7   3.4   4.0
Yang               3.2   2.6   4.0
Bloomberg          2.8   4.0    <1
Just FYI, the RTF number in this chart pulls from the 11/27 number in the other chart, not the 12/4 number (except for Bloomberg).
  #297  
Old 12-05-2019, 10:21 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
You're right, I apparently goofed last night. Let's try that again:

The comparison with the other averages:
Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             26.6  27.8  26.0
Warren            15.9  14.2  18.0
Sanders           18.6  15.6  15.0
Buttigieg         10.3  11.4  13.0
Harris             3.6   3.4   4.0
Yang               3.1   2.6   4.0
Bloomberg          2.8   4.0    <1
FWIW, both The Economist and RCP have Klobuchar at better than 2% (3% and 2.4% respectively) but I have her at 1.9% for the second consecutive week.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 12-05-2019 at 10:22 AM.
  #298  
Old 12-11-2019, 06:13 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,289
aSince last week, all of last week's polls have aged out or (in the case of our Weekly Three) been replaced. We have new polls by A-rated Monmouth and B-rated Quinnipiac and Ipsos, and the weekly polls from B-rated YouGov, B/C rated Morning Consult, and C-rated HarrisX. And here we go:
Code:
Candidate  9/04 9/12 9/18 9/25 10/2 10/9 10/15 10/24 10/31 11/8 11/15 11/27 12/4 12/11

Biden      29.8 26.5 28.5 28.4 27.6 26.2  28.7  28.4  28.1 27.1  27.2  26.3 26.6  25.9
Warren     19.0 17.6 18.6 21.5 22.4 25.0  25.4  21.6  21.2 20.7  20.8  15.7 15.9  15.6
Sanders    16.0 17.9 16.9 16.8 16.4 15.3  13.6  16.9  16.6 16.6  17.2  18.8 18.6  18.0
Buttigieg   5.2  5.0  5.7  5.8  5.6  5.2   6.0   6.2   7.1  7.6   7.5  10.0 10.3   8.5
Yang        2.6  2.5  2.8  3.0  2.9  3.1   2.4   2.2   2.3  2.5   2.7   3.2  3.1   3.3
Bloomberg                                                               2.5  2.8   4.9 
Klobuchar                                        2.0   2.1  2.3   2.3   1.9  1.9   2.6      
Everyone else < 2.0
And the comparison of averages:
Code:
Candidate  Average RTF   RCP  Econ

Biden             25.9  28.5  26.0
Warren            15.6  15.3  16.0
Sanders           18.0  17.8  16.0
Buttigieg          8.5   9.0  10.0
Yang               3.3   3.2   4.0
Bloomberg          4.9   5.5   3.0
Klobuchar          2.6   2.5   3.0
The changes aren't earthshaking. Buttigieg's dropped out of double digits, and Bloomberg's picked up a couple of points, but let's see if those changes hold up after another week. Similarly, Biden's at his lowest point so far since I started keeping this average, but not by that much. And even if that change does hold up after another week, he's still eight points ahead of Sanders and ten ahead of Warren: can't beat something with nothing.

Oh yeah: Klobuchar's back above the 2% line.
  #299  
Old 12-12-2019, 12:21 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,474
The Betfair numbers reported by Predictwise are also moving:
22% Biden
18% Sanders
14% Warren
14% Buttigieg
8% Bloomberg
4% Yang
3% Klobuchar
1% Gabbard
0% Booker
Sanders is at 2nd, up from 4th last time I posted. The infarction helped his campaign?
  #300  
Old 12-12-2019, 01:42 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,035
Warren taking a tumble upped his odds at Betfair, nothing more.
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 01:46 PM.

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