Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:25 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It's not so silly; it's reality. It's fact.

You will see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
"You will see."

I presume that little gem is coming to this thread soon, if it hasn't already.
Now, I'd given you all due credit if you had posted that within five minutes. But 26 minutes? I just can't do it .
  #452  
Old 11-01-2019, 09:44 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It's not so silly; it's reality. It's fact.

You will see.
You're adorable!

The thing is, you might be right. Or you might be totally wrong. There's no way for you, or for me, to know. This is just a wild guess. It's one you're free to make... but when you express this kind of certainty, you just make me laugh.

I'll listen to Nate Silver's data-based predictions, which have a great track record going back many years and many elections. Almost every other prediction is worthless crap.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-01-2019 at 09:48 PM.
  #453  
Old 11-01-2019, 11:05 PM
bionic_man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 97

Vice president garunted nomination?


Nixon and gore were both vice presidents under a success nomination.i am wondering if that is a gander of being nominated.Humphrey never got renominated in 72 but Johnson wasn't that popular at end of term.as a v.p. ever lost nomination?
  #454  
Old 11-02-2019, 10:14 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You're adorable!

The thing is, you might be right. Or you might be totally wrong. There's no way for you, or for me, to know. This is just a wild guess. It's one you're free to make... but when you express this kind of certainty, you just make me laugh.

I'll listen to Nate Silver's data-based predictions, which have a great track record going back many years and many elections. Almost every other prediction is worthless crap.
I'm not wrong; Warren's and Sanders' campaigns might fare well in states and counties that are reliably blue, but they are not going to be well-received in the center of the United States.
  #455  
Old 11-02-2019, 10:42 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm not wrong; Warren's and Sanders' campaigns might fare well in states and counties that are reliably blue, but they are not going to be well-received in the center of the United States.
We'll see. I'm unconvinced by the certainty of random strangers on the internet.
  #456  
Old 11-02-2019, 01:25 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
What might work well is a 3% wealth tax applied only instead of income tax when the individual's wealth tax would be larger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
No.
Anyone who thinks a wealth tax is likely to exceed 10% hasn't thought through the simple arithmetic.
  #457  
Old 11-02-2019, 03:16 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Warren's going all in on this plan is IMHO a horrible idea and demonstrates horrible judgement. I've never thought that she would be the best president of the bunch but I had managed to convince myself that she was possibly more electable than Biden as Biden has disappointed so far during this campaign. That's regrettably now past tense.

I am left with hoping that Biden either gets his shit together or falls so dramatically that he drops out leaving space for maybe Klobuchar to pop out of the lower tier ... the former is of course more likely.

Sigh.
  #458  
Old 11-02-2019, 05:55 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,604
I just took a quick peek at what appears to be her website (it has her name in the domain, but, hell, who can tell anymore). One of the things that struck me was where she speaks of putting political/economic power back in the hands of the (common) people. "Back"? Can someone point me to a time when the people had any meaningful power of either kind? Like, ever?
  #459  
Old 11-02-2019, 06:47 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
I just took a quick peek at what appears to be her website (it has her name in the domain, but, hell, who can tell anymore). One of the things that struck me was where she speaks of putting political/economic power back in the hands of the (common) people. "Back"? Can someone point me to a time when the people had any meaningful power of either kind? Like, ever?
Sure. Back when America was great. I'll let you google the exact date.
  #460  
Old 11-02-2019, 06:57 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionic_man View Post
Nixon and gore were both vice presidents under a success nomination.i am wondering if that is a gander of being nominated.Humphrey never got renominated in 72 but Johnson wasn't that popular at end of term.as a v.p. ever lost nomination?
I think the most recent one who actively campaigned for a nomination (unlike, say, Cheney or Quayle) and never got one was Truman's VP, Alben Barkley; the Democrats nominated Adlai Stevenson instead.
  #461  
Old 11-02-2019, 08:49 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Warren's going all in on this plan is IMHO a horrible idea and demonstrates horrible judgement. I've never thought that she would be the best president of the bunch but I had managed to convince myself that she was possibly more electable than Biden as Biden has disappointed so far during this campaign. That's regrettably now past tense.

I am left with hoping that Biden either gets his shit together or falls so dramatically that he drops out leaving space for maybe Klobuchar to pop out of the lower tier ... the former is of course more likely.

Sigh.
My thoughts 1000%, DSeid.
  #462  
Old 11-02-2019, 09:56 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
I think the most recent one who actively campaigned for a nomination (unlike, say, Cheney or Quayle) and never got one was Truman's VP, Alben Barkley; the Democrats nominated Adlai Stevenson instead.
Barkley was about 22 years older than Stevenson, and he died even before the next presidential election was half finished, so that might have been an issue. The oldest Democrat to be elected president (initially) in the last hundred years was Jimmy Carter, at 52. Biden and Sanders are ridiculously old to be vying for the most brutal white-collar job in the country.
  #463  
Old 11-03-2019, 04:25 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Warren's going all in on this plan is IMHO a horrible idea and demonstrates horrible judgement. I've never thought that she would be the best president of the bunch but I had managed to convince myself that she was possibly more electable than Biden as Biden has disappointed so far during this campaign. That's regrettably now past tense.

I am left with hoping that Biden either gets his shit together or falls so dramatically that he drops out leaving space for maybe Klobuchar to pop out of the lower tier ... the former is of course more likely.

Sigh.
+++ Agreed. Surely Warren would get huge support from progressives even without going all in on outlandish pipe dreams. "Build gradually on ACA" was always the correct answer to healthcare.

Klobuchar lacks charisma IMO and, anyway, isn't in the top 8 according to Betfair. The top four are Warren, Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders, with Yang a very distant 5th. I'm afraid all four have serious weaknesses compared with a hypothetical "generic Democrat."

The Democratic front-runners all seem so flawed that D's might do best to just focus on electing Not-Trump.
  #464  
Old 11-03-2019, 08:10 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
Maybe Biden could win the nomination and pick Warren or Harris as the veep. I think Harris would thrash Pence in a debate.
  #465  
Old 11-03-2019, 10:56 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
If Elizabeth Warren actually goes into a debate with Trump or even a high profile interview and candidly tosses around that a) people are going to lose their private insurance - no big deal because 'Medicare to the rescue' and b) it'll only cost $20 trillion dollars and trust me, only the rich will pay for it....that will be her Walter Mondale "Yes, I promise I will raise your taxes" moment. She might not get buried in a landslide the way Mondale did because Trump is a horrible candidate, but even losing to Trump at this point would be a monumental embarrassment -- much, much more embarrassing than an unpopular, polarizing members of the establishment losing to a populist demagogue because voters just decided they wanted to see what would happen if we elected a total doofus. We now see what happens, and there's no excuse for losing this time.
  #466  
Old 11-03-2019, 12:56 PM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 956
I think it's crazy disingenuous to hammer Warren for not specifying M4A financing - which shouldn't be happening anyway because nobody ever hammers GOP magic math on tax cuts and infinite military spending - and to then criticize her for...specifying M4A financing. Pick one line of criticism and stick to it.

Last edited by 2ManyTacos; 11-03-2019 at 12:56 PM.
  #467  
Old 11-03-2019, 01:09 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
I think it's crazy disingenuous to hammer Warren for not specifying M4A financing - which shouldn't be happening anyway because nobody ever hammers GOP magic math on tax cuts and infinite military spending - and to then criticize her for...specifying M4A financing. Pick one line of criticism and stick to it.
That's ridiculous. You aren't contradicting yourself if you complain about lack of detail then complain about specific details when they are released.
  #468  
Old 11-03-2019, 01:52 PM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 956
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's ridiculous. You aren't contradicting yourself if you complain about lack of detail then complain about specific details when they are released.
The argument has clearly changed from "where is the financing plan" to "she shouldn't have released the financing plan." It's dumb.
  #469  
Old 11-03-2019, 01:56 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
The argument has clearly changed from "where is the financing plan" to "she shouldn't have released the financing plan." It's dumb.
I'm willing to bet you can't point to an individual who changed their argument that way.

If your point is that you can't please everyone, well welcome to the planet.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-03-2019 at 01:58 PM.
  #470  
Old 11-03-2019, 02:35 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
For her plans, Warren has harnessed the intellects of some top (left-wing) economists; these plans have drawn praise even from some more mainstream economists. Despite the nay-saying we see in this thread and elsewhere, she is far stronger as a policy wonk than any other candidate, and lays out a real progressive vision for America's future.

But the above link quotes one of Obama's top economic advisors:
Quote:
“Democrats brought a stack of fact sheets to a gunfight,” Goolsbee said of the 2016 campaign. While he admires the Warren team’s policy chops, he added that “it does give me a little heartburn when there’s so much policy detail this early in the campaign.”
  #471  
Old 11-03-2019, 02:58 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
For her plans, Warren has harnessed the intellects of some top (left-wing) economists; these plans have drawn praise even from some more mainstream economists. Despite the nay-saying we see in this thread and elsewhere, she is far stronger as a policy wonk than any other candidate, and lays out a real progressive vision for America's future.

But the above link quotes one of Obama's top economic advisors:
I don't doubt that Warren's math adds up; it's the quote from Obama's economic advisors that echoes my concerns. It's easy for the right wing to misinform, especially when you give them numbers during a campaign.

I admire Warren's integrity - I really do. But the fact of the matter is that American voters - and probably voters in many dumbed down democracies like ours - can't process information very well. We're just too easily distracted and misdirected.
  #472  
Old 11-03-2019, 03:38 PM
dontbesojumpy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi
I'm not wrong; Warren's and Sanders' campaigns might fare well in states and counties that are reliably blue, but they are not going to be well-received in the center of the United States.
We'll see. I'm unconvinced by the certainty of random strangers on the internet.
It's been mentioned in other threads and I think bears mentioning again here: This forum seems to greatly over-estimate exactly how politically engaged and informed voters really are. So, so many people vote based on their feelings. A giant portion of Trump's base don't have a clue what's going on when it come to the nuts and bolts of policy or governance, he just speaks to them on their level and they love his greatest hits:"Lock her up, build that wall," etc. They love that he calls women he doesn't like pigs and dogs. None of them care about his policies very much. My parents like him because he's h̶a̶r̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶ mean to Mexicans, whom they are terrified of for whatever irrational reasons. In no way is their vote contingent on fact or policy.

An example: A very well educated retired professor I work with, whom has a doctorate, is always so surprised when I tell him some of the stuff Trump does, because he's never heard any of it, so much so that he's incredulous that it could be true. And he has zero interest in sussing it out for himself. He also makes statements all the time along the lines of "I just feel like a republican president is better for my small business. I feel like business is worse for me when a Democrat is in office." He just operates off feelings and votes according to said feelings.

It's not just the right who does it, either. This country tends to vote with pendulous momentum: Obama was the Anti-Bush, whom the country was sick of and wanted the opposite. Trump was the anti-Obama, and HRC was running as a terrible surrogate for Obama's 3rd term. I have a strong feeling that Trump has instilled an insurmountable amount of political fatigue that will cause a lot of uninformed voters to vote for the anti-Trump, whoever that ends up being.

So in the end, I don't think a huge chunk of the voting populous are going to care a tremendous amount about the nitty-gritty of Warren's policies. We all care here, and are engaged and can dissect the nuances of it, but most voters are not like us.

Last edited by dontbesojumpy; 11-03-2019 at 03:39 PM. Reason: I'm bad at quote formatting
  #473  
Old 11-04-2019, 08:08 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,805
Warren made an unforced error by coming out with her plan details. First of all, people who are happy with their employer health insurance are not going to vote for someone who wants to take it away. Secondly, people are going to get sticker shock when they see the price. Thirdly, saying "I have a plan" is a tactical mistake. Just say "Here are my goals for health care and with your help we will improve on health care". Saying "I have all the answers" makes you look like a know-it-all.
  #474  
Old 11-04-2019, 08:36 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
First of all, people who are happy with their employer health insurance are not going to vote for someone who wants to take it away.
I agree that this could be a risk, but I'm not sure there are any candidates who actually avoid this issue.

The other likely nominees are proposing very expansive versions of the "public option," which would include eligibility for people who don't like their employer plans, which implicitly means that the public option will have to be financed with an employer-side payroll tax on every employee who opts for the public option (since employer plans are mostly paid for by employer-side premiums).

Some employers will keep on offering insurance plans, but lots won't (if you're paying huge amounts of money either way, why bother keeping the HR burden when you can offload it to Uncle Sam?), and I'm not sure BidenCare will be any less of a liability once it's demagogued, possibly semi-accurately, as likely to lead to tens of millions of people losing "their" insurance (not that it's really "theirs" when their boss has unilateral dictatorial control over it and they pay for it with company scrip).

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 11-04-2019 at 08:39 AM.
  #475  
Old 11-04-2019, 02:16 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
And here's the evidence that Warren would be in some real trouble against Trump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/u...legrounds.html

I go back to what's been pointed out before, not only by me but by others. Trump will probably do even worse in terms of the national popular vote than he did in 2016, and yet he could still conceivably win the EC even if he did do worse. This is what electoral polarization looks like in a presidential race where you have 51 separate concurrent contests. Don't get suckered by the national polling data (like we did last time); look at what matters: the EC.

Trump is vulnerable, and will continue to be so. But so is pretty much anyone who competes against him, at least with the field that exists now. I think Biden, with all of his flaws, probably candidate best suited to defeat Trump. It's not that Biden has great ideas or a mesmerizing persona; it's that if voters are going to vote for 'anyone but Trump,' Biden is probably going to be easy on the brain. People will at least assume that they know Biden and know what they're getting with him. That's less true with Warren, Sanders, or even Buttigieg. If voters really do turn on Trump, they're not going to be in the mood to take another risky candidate; they'll want someone they can depend on, or at least hope they can.

Unfortunately, it remains to be seen if Biden can inspire and unite progressives of all stripe. And it remains to be seen whether he doesn't start to look like forgetful gramps when given more mic time at the debates.

Last edited by asahi; 11-04-2019 at 02:17 PM.
  #476  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:35 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,971
I agree that Warren has made a big mistake by embracing MFA and compounded it by going into unnecessary detail about payment cuts to doctors and hospitals. She is an example of the broader problem that much of the Democratic party, both its pundit class and many of its politicians, just don't have a clue about the voters they need in swing states in order to win elections. They keep pushing issues like MFA and reparations and political figures like AOC who are increasingly defining the party in a way which is electoral poison in the places that matter.

Sanders and Warren have convinced much of the party that there is a desire among voters for a left-wing revolution in economic policy for which there is no polling evidence. The latest NBC/WSJ poll has Trump with a 52-43 approval on the economy. The median voter does want higher taxes on the rich and incremental policies to expand health care, education and other services. What they don't want is a massive government takeover of much of the economy which is what MFA amounts to.

Meanwhile candidates like Biden and Buttigieg who do have viable platforms have obvious and serious problems of their own.
  #477  
Old 11-04-2019, 03:43 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Trump is vulnerable, and will continue to be so. But so is pretty much anyone who competes against him, at least with the field that exists now. ... Biden is probably going to be easy on the brain.... If voters really do turn on Trump, they're not going to be in the mood to take another risky candidate; they'll want someone they can depend on, or at least hope they can.

Unfortunately, it remains to be seen if Biden can inspire and unite progressives of all stripe. And it remains to be seen whether he doesn't start to look like forgetful gramps when given more mic time at the debates.
I agree with this. But, in addition to Biden's fading charisma and ability to articulate — neither of which were ever great — there's the risk of physical lapse, e.g. infarction like Bernie had.

I wish we had a "generic Democrat" to turn to: perhaps Hickenlooper, Klobuchar or Booker. Unlike all the people happy to have pruned the field so early, I wish we still had a default moderate middle-aged Democrat in the race. Kamala Harris? She ain't it.
  #478  
Old 11-04-2019, 05:57 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I agree with this. But, in addition to Biden's fading charisma and ability to articulate — neither of which were ever great — there's the risk of physical lapse, e.g. infarction like Bernie had.

I wish we had a "generic Democrat" to turn to: perhaps Hickenlooper, Klobuchar or Booker. Unlike all the people happy to have pruned the field so early, I wish we still had a default moderate middle-aged Democrat in the race. Kamala Harris? She ain't it.
I kinda wish Mitch Landrieu would get drafted. I know he's not necessarily high in terms of qualifications, and there were some controversies during his time as New Orleans Mayor, but he might be the right balance between "woke" and Bill Clinton throwback. And he's good in front of the camera.
  #479  
Old 11-04-2019, 06:02 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
I agree that Warren has made a big mistake by embracing MFA and compounded it by going into unnecessary detail about payment cuts to doctors and hospitals. She is an example of the broader problem that much of the Democratic party, both its pundit class and many of its politicians, just don't have a clue about the voters they need in swing states in order to win elections. They keep pushing issues like MFA and reparations and political figures like AOC who are increasingly defining the party in a way which is electoral poison in the places that matter.

Sanders and Warren have convinced much of the party that there is a desire among voters for a left-wing revolution in economic policy for which there is no polling evidence. The latest NBC/WSJ poll has Trump with a 52-43 approval on the economy. The median voter does want higher taxes on the rich and incremental policies to expand health care, education and other services. What they don't want is a massive government takeover of much of the economy which is what MFA amounts to.

Meanwhile candidates like Biden and Buttigieg who do have viable platforms have obvious and serious problems of their own.
The problem for Warren and Sanders isn't that they're necessarily 'wrong' about the economy; their problem is that the American voter is willing to stick with a system that works just well enough to keep them employed and doesn't want to risk rocking the boat even if they know that, overall, for the masses, changes could produce a better and more equitable economy 5-10 years from now. And it's hard to blame them when we consider that with all of the new conservative judges Trump and McConnell have installed, any changes are likely to face serious headwinds in the more right-leaning courts.

It's going to take time for people - perhaps a long time - before we finally see just what a complete disaster November 8, 2016 was for the average person. Hell, we may never get it.
  #480  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:11 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Her argument Shodan (albeit without any data cited to support it that I see, and I'd love to see it) is that doctors will take less payment in but at the same time spend less as they can fire almost all the staff they now have that deals with insurance and billing. (Those "hours they currently spend billing a swath of interlocking private and public insurance plans to providing care" are almost all hours that others are hired to do.) Hence in net make about the same.
I should have gotten back to this sooner.

I did a bit of Googling, and it appears that if this is Warren's argument, it is not as solid as it might be.
Quote:
Also, the administrative costs of private insurance and Medicare cover different types of costs. Experts told us that a single-payer system for the United States would have lower administrative costs than today’s private insurance, but it likely wouldn’t be able to achieve administrative costs as low as the existing Medicare program. Finally, the figures are misleading because lowering administrative costs wouldn’t necessarily lower overall costs. In fact, administrative costs sometimes help make the delivery of health care more efficient.
Cite.

And also -
Quote:
But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly.
Cite. M4A wouldn't be covering the same patients as Medicare does now. Plus the added costs of unemployment and retraining for the health care administrators needs to be factored in.

I suspect the overall cite that covers this is
Quote:
When something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Regards,
Shodan
  #481  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:23 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,374
Don't listen to today's episode of The Daily unless you're looking for a reason to jump off a bridge. NYT's biggest poll to date show's Warren likely losing in all six battlegrounds and Biden likely winning. She trails Biden by 6%. While I prefer Warren, there is no fucking way I'm giving up that kind of edge. This is so depressing because it confirms my intuition - Warren will lose the general. We can try to paint everything in a favorable light and delude ourselves or we can get Trump out of office.
  #482  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:52 AM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,136
Those polls are not very trustworthy. When you ask a respondent “how about X vs Trump l, how about Y vs Trump, how about Z vs Trump?” you are basically begging them to set a line somewhere in the middle. This is completely different than the mental process involved in the actual general election, which is more like “Ok it’s Y candidate or it’s Trump. Now watch them debate and campaign for many months, decide if you even feel motivated to vote for one of them, and then make your choice.”
  #483  
Old 11-05-2019, 10:25 AM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
Those polls are not very trustworthy. When you ask a respondent “how about X vs Trump l, how about Y vs Trump, how about Z vs Trump?” you are basically begging them to set a line somewhere in the middle. This is completely different than the mental process involved in the actual general election, which is more like “Ok it’s Y candidate or it’s Trump. Now watch them debate and campaign for many months, decide if you even feel motivated to vote for one of them, and then make your choice.”
Frankly, that sounds like even a worse prospect for Warren. These polls match my admittedly anecdotal observations of my friends who unanimously say they'll vote for Biden but not Warren. Things may very well change, but as of now, I do think a vote for Warren is a vote for Trump.
  #484  
Old 11-05-2019, 03:32 PM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,136
If we as a country have sunk so low as to re-elect Trump over someone like Warren... we deserve what we get. I’m not going to worry about what others will do, and simply pick who I think is the best person for the job.
  #485  
Old 11-05-2019, 04:04 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
Frankly, that sounds like even a worse prospect for Warren. These polls match my admittedly anecdotal observations of my friends who unanimously say they'll vote for Biden but not Warren. Things may very well change, but as of now, I do think a vote for Warren is a vote for Trump.
I am skeptical that "your friends" are representative of the entire electorate of the United States.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #486  
Old 11-05-2019, 05:29 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I am skeptical that "your friends" are representative of the entire electorate of the United States.
Hence the term "admittedly anecdotal," but the NYT poll supposedly is.
  #487  
Old 11-05-2019, 05:36 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
If we as a country have sunk so low as to re-elect Trump over someone like Warren... we deserve what we get. I’m not going to worry about what others will do, and simply pick who I think is the best person for the job.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard the "well then we deserve what we get" from frustrated Warren/Bernie supporters (of which I count myself one) when faced with the possibility that Biden is a more viable candidate. Would you really be willing to accept that outcome? Might it not potentially be worth it to compromise to get Trump out of office? I'm not saying things will stay as they are, but as of now, a vote for Warren is probably a vote for Trump. I don't like it any more than you but 4 more years of Trump is unacceptable.
  #488  
Old 11-05-2019, 05:38 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
I can't tell you how many times I've heard the "well then we deserve what we get" from frustrated Warren/Bernie supporters (of which I count myself one) when faced with the possibility that Biden is a more viable candidate. Would you really be willing to accept that outcome? Might it not potentially be worth it to compromise to get Trump out of office? I'm not saying things will stay as they are, but as of now, a vote for Warren is probably a vote for Trump. I don't like it any more than you but 4 more years of Trump is unacceptable.
That's ridiculous. We really don't know, and can't know, which candidate is stronger or weaker in the general, at this point.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #489  
Old 11-05-2019, 07:04 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's ridiculous. We really don't know, and can't know, which candidate is stronger or weaker in the general, at this point.
But we can know who is polling better against Trump in the battleground states that are crucial to a D victory in 2020. And at this point that NYT poll is a strong indication that it isn't Warren.

Look, I prefer Warren in many ways over Biden or pretty much any other candidate. But there is no way I'm willing to go all in on a nominee when we have data saying that would be a mistake. Fortunately we're a good many months out from having to pick one person and stick with them. It appears to me Warren has alot of work to do in order to be able to carry those states in the general.
  #490  
Old 11-05-2019, 08:42 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
But we can know who is polling better against Trump in the battleground states that are crucial to a D victory in 2020. And at this point that NYT poll is a strong indication that it isn't Warren.



Look, I prefer Warren in many ways over Biden or pretty much any other candidate. But there is no way I'm willing to go all in on a nominee when we have data saying that would be a mistake. Fortunately we're a good many months out from having to pick one person and stick with them. It appears to me Warren has alot of work to do in order to be able to carry those states in the general.
Polls this early mean almost nothing. Most of the country isn't paying close attention to the candidates.

This is what the primary process is for - to see who has the best campaign skills. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than going by polls a year before the election.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #491  
Old 11-05-2019, 08:55 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Polls this early mean almost nothing. Most of the country isn't paying close attention to the candidates.

This is what the primary process is for - to see who has the best campaign skills. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than going by polls a year before the election.
Have you really looked into this? Because the NYT article specifically said polls this far out are actually about as good as polls close to the election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYT
But on average over the last three cycles, head-to-head polls a year ahead of the election have been as close to the final result as those taken the day before. The stability of the president’s approval rating is a reason to think this pattern might hold again for a fourth cycle, at least for the three leading and already well-known Democrats tested in these polls.
So why are you so sure we're swimming in a sea of doubt?
  #492  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:01 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Have you really looked into this? Because the NYT article specifically said polls this far out are actually about as good as polls close to the election.



So why are you so sure we're swimming in a sea of doubt?
That's not much of an actual trend (sample size of 3?), especially when we're talking about a single poll. Maybe those are right, or maybe the ones that said Warren was up on Trump nationally by 15 are right. Until Nate Silver has a tracker up with a % chance, it's all a wild guess, IMO.

We'll see.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-05-2019 at 09:02 PM.
  #493  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:15 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's not much of an actual trend (sample size of 3?), especially when we're talking about a single poll. Maybe those are right, or maybe the ones that said Warren was up on Trump nationally by 15 are right. Until Nate Silver has a tracker up with a % chance, it's all a wild guess, IMO..
You are kinda being silly. First of all, it is not a sample size of 3. It's a trend over the last 3 elections involving dozens of surveys and seems to be trending that way now. And the NYT article did not in any way contradict that Warren isn't doing better nationally. The whole friggin point is the Electoral College advantage Trump seems to have over Warren.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-05-2019 at 09:17 PM.
  #494  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:25 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You are kinda being silly. First of all, it is not a sample size of 3. It's a trend over the last 3 elections involving dozens of surveys and seems to be trending that way now. And the NYT article did not in any way contradict that Warren isn't doing better nationally. The whole friggin point is the Electoral College advantage Trump seems to have over Warren.
From one poll? Maybe. I'm skeptical that means anything more than a blip at this point. I'll wait for Nate Silver.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #495  
Old 11-05-2019, 09:26 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You are kinda being silly. First of all, it is not a sample size of 3. It's a trend over the last 3 elections involving dozens of surveys and seems to be trending that way now. And the NYT article did not in any way contradict that Warren isn't doing better nationally. The whole friggin point is the Electoral College advantage Trump seems to have over Warren.
...you are talking about the same New York Times that once had the headline "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia?" I think that its perfectly fine to be "swimming in a sea of doubt" at the moment. I don't think anyone is in the position to call the elections yet, let alone the primaries. If you want to think that the poll means Biden will absolutely defeat Trump then go ahead, but that's a dangerous position to be taking if you ask me.
  #496  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:22 PM
KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
From one poll? Maybe. I'm skeptical that means anything more than a blip at this point. I'll wait for Nate Silver.
It's certainly fair to be skeptical on polls and it's still early to tell how things will develop, but if, for example, Biden is leading Warren against Trump by 6 points in battlegrounds at election time, would you be willing to take that risk? Polls aren't perfect but they are our best guess. Even if you're as far left as they come, surely you would believe the acceptibilty spread between Warren and Biden to be a hell of a lot narrower than between Biden and Trump, no?
  #497  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne View Post
It's certainly fair to be skeptical on polls and it's still early to tell how things will develop, but if, for example, Biden is leading Warren against Trump by 6 points in battlegrounds at election time, would you be willing to take that risk? Polls aren't perfect but they are our best guess. Even if you're as far left as they come, surely you would believe the acceptibilty spread between Warren and Biden to be a hell of a lot narrower than between Biden and Trump, no?
I will consider my estimate of electability among other factors when I cast my ballot. Right now I believe there's near zero solid data on which candidates are more or less likely to beat Trump. That may change in the future, and I will certainly reevaluate my support if that changes.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
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 05:35 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