Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-05-2019, 12:51 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The front-runners in the polling are front-runners because they're doing a better job at campaigning than the rest of the contenders.

I canít see you, so I donít know if you maintained a straight face while claiming that Joe Biden is campaigning more effectively, by a double digit margin, then anyone else.
  #52  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:15 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I canít see you, so I donít know if you maintained a straight face while claiming that Joe Biden is campaigning more effectively, by a double digit margin, then anyone else.
We can't really know for sure who's doing better right now until the voting starts in Iowa (and later). But polling (and fundraising, which I should have mentioned earlier) are the only objective measures we have right now -- by those measures, the front-runners (in polls and fundraising) are generally doing better than those behind them.

I want Biden to drop out, but objectively, there's no reason for him to do so right now.
  #53  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:20 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
the people who have actually run successful Democratic presidential campaigns in the past 40+ years seem to view the race as I do
All two of them?
  #54  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:36 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The front-runners in the polling are front-runners because they're doing a better job at campaigning than the rest of the contenders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I canít see you, so I donít know if you maintained a straight face while claiming that Joe Biden is campaigning more effectively, by a double digit margin, then anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
We can't really know for sure who's doing better right now until the voting starts in Iowa (and later). But polling (and fundraising, which I should have mentioned earlier) are the only objective measures we have right now -- by those measures, the front-runners (in polls and fundraising) are generally doing better than those behind them.
I gotta agree with SlackerInc on this one. Starting off as the veep of your party's most recent President is a huge advantage going in, and I'm sure the degree of that advantage has been objectively measured.

But since my Google-fu is letting me down, take Mondale in 1984, for instance. Would he have been the frontrunner if he'd been just a Senator from Minnesota throughout the Carter years? Of course not! He started off on top because he'd been veep, and had to do a lot less to hold off Gary Hart's challenge than he would have had to do to build up his support to that level to begin with, if he'd been just another Senator. In fact, if he hadn't been veep, it would have been a wide-open field, and Mondale might not have been noticed by most voters.

I've gotta say, Biden looks like a weak candidate compared with Walter Mondale. Do I need to say more?
  #55  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:51 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I gotta agree with SlackerInc on this one. Starting off as the veep of your party's most recent President is a huge advantage going in, and I'm sure the degree of that advantage has been objectively measured.
But that's not randomly determined -- that's part of Biden's campaign. He was a Senator, and then a VP -- not due to random chance, but because of various decisions and actions taken by Biden and his team over the years. This is a huge advantage, but it's not due to random chance or coincidence.

Quote:
But since my Google-fu is letting me down, take Mondale in 1984, for instance. Would he have been the frontrunner if he'd been just a Senator from Minnesota throughout the Carter years? Of course not! He started off on top because he'd been veep, and had to do a lot less to hold off Gary Hart's challenge than he would have had to do to build up his support to that level to begin with, if he'd been just another Senator. In fact, if he hadn't been veep, it would have been a wide-open field, and Mondale might not have been noticed by most voters.

I've gotta say, Biden looks like a weak candidate compared with Walter Mondale. Do I need to say more?
You might well be right -- we'll see. I hope Biden doesn't win -- in fact, I'd prefer every other serious candidate (and even Tulsi Gabbard!) over Biden. But right now, the only thing to go on is the polling and fund-raising... and by those measures, Biden is doing a pretty good job. It's still incredibly early, though, so this doesn't mean much. We might find out in a few months that, actually, Biden's been running a pretty awful campaign (I hope this proves to be the case!). We'll see.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-05-2019 at 01:52 PM.
  #56  
Old 09-05-2019, 02:13 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
But that's not randomly determined -- that's part of Biden's campaign. He was a Senator, and then a VP -- not due to random chance, but because of various decisions and actions taken by Biden and his team over the years. This is a huge advantage, but it's not due to random chance or coincidence.
Maybe so, but what do those decisions and actions have to do with his ability to campaign in 2019-2020?

1) Delaware's a damn small state. Winning Delaware doesn't say much about one's ability to win nationwide.
2) I'd be on Medicare now if I wasn't working; Biden won that Senate seat back when I was a teenager. His ability to become a Senator in 1972, most of a lifetime ago, just doesn't say much about now.
3) He's run for President twice before, and sucked at it.
4) Who knows what he did to become VP in 2008? But whatever he did, it's hard to see how that translates into an ability to win votes now.
  #57  
Old 09-05-2019, 02:14 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
That’s quite a stretch, to say “got picked by Obama in 2008 after a second failed presidential run” = “running a good campaign in 2019”.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
All two of them?

Two presidents, but five strategists: Carville, Begala, Plouffe, Cutter, and Axelrod. They are all worried about the way this field is shaping up.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-05-2019 at 02:15 PM.
  #58  
Old 09-05-2019, 02:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Maybe so, but what do those decisions and actions have to do with his ability to campaign in 2019-2020?

1) Delaware's a damn small state. Winning Delaware doesn't say much about one's ability to win nationwide.
2) I'd be on Medicare now if I wasn't working; Biden won that Senate seat back when I was a teenager. His ability to become a Senator in 1972, most of a lifetime ago, just doesn't say much about now.
3) He's run for President twice before, and sucked at it.
4) Who knows what he did to become VP in 2008? But whatever he did, it's hard to see how that translates into an ability to win votes now.
We'll see. Hopefully he's running a shitty campaign and is only doing well in polling and (less so) in fundraising because he was Obama's VP. We'll probably know in several months' time.
  #59  
Old 09-06-2019, 03:58 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
Michael Moore agrees with me ó the one candidate who would pulverize the Orange Man is Michelle Obama!

Far-fetched? Maybe. But we live in far-fetched times.
  #60  
Old 09-06-2019, 12:39 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
While I think Michelle Obama is awesome, she's made it clear that she has no interest in going into politics. She's married to a man who made a career of it, but that doesn't mean it's her thing.
  #61  
Old 09-06-2019, 12:57 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,116
The data are limited, but the record of former First Ladies is not encouraging.

Regards,
Shodan
  #62  
Old 09-06-2019, 02:41 PM
Borborygmi's Avatar
Borborygmi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: the worst timeline
Posts: 971
That's probably a reference to Hillary Clinton. I think the general public saw her more as a scholar, attorney, US Senator, and Secretary of State than a First Lady... unfortunately for her that was pretty thin experience for a potential President when held up against a pageant owner/game show host.
  #63  
Old 09-08-2019, 01:19 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 SlackerInc View Post
Thatís quite a stretch, to say ďgot picked by Obama in 2008 after a second failed presidential runĒ = ďrunning a good campaign in 2019Ē.





Two presidents, but five strategists: Carville, Begala, Plouffe, Cutter, and Axelrod. They are all worried about the way this field is shaping up.
I think it's possible we're over-analyzing it all.

History tells us that if an incumbent president has the winds of a strong economy and domestic peace blowing into his sail, he's gonna be damn hard to beat. Trump will have a harder time taking advantage of that advantage because he's easily the biggest douchebag ever to (dis)grace the White House.

If the economy is still humming along, I think Trump beats anyone in the field, and anyone thinking of joining the race later. On the flip side, if the economy tanks, then the odds favor whoever wins the nomination.

The question is what happens if the state of the country is somewhere in between a rose garden and the septic tank, and that's where the quality and strength of the candidate matter. This is what happened in 2004, when the right candidate perhaps could have defeated Bush, but Kerry didn't.
  #64  
Old 09-09-2019, 12:14 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
The Economist has had a poll aggregating and averaging thing going for several months now, but I just found out about it this morning.

Here's their current numbers:

Biden 28%
Warren 19%
Sanders 15%
Harris 8%
Buttigieg 5%
Yang 3%
Booker 3%
O'Rourke 2%
Gabbard 2%

Everyone else < 1%

Here's their methodology blurb:

Quote:
We estimate support for each candidate using a statistical method called Bayesian dynamic Dirichlet regression. The model aggregates polls over the course of the campaign, putting more weight on polls conducted recently, less on those with small sample sizes and accounting for ďhouse effectsĒóthe tendency for some polling firms to over- or underestimate support for certain candidates. We exclude polling firms that do not use rigorous methods. In the past, surveys conducted over the phone with a live interviewer or with online survey-takers that use well-thought-out methodologies have been more reliable than other methods.
I notice that they don't include Morning Consult or any of the Harris polls. I've been somewhat suspicious about the former despite their B- rating from 538, because they claim to be interviewing 35,000 people a week (waaaay more than anyone else), and I've assumed the latter is probably pretty poor, between its C+ rating from 538 and the fact that it's owned and run by notorious sleazeball Mark Penn.

Anyway, they update their average anytime new results come in, and they adjust for sample size and for how recent a poll is, which are things I'd do if I had the time and energy. So they've been filling the need that was the reason for my average, and I expect they're better at it than me. But I think I'll keep updating mine every Wednesday, because I kinda like doing it.
  #65  
Old 09-10-2019, 03:55 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
That’s cool. You should post the Economist numbers at the same time for the sake of comparison.


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think it's possible we're over-analyzing it all.

History tells us that if an incumbent president has the winds of a strong economy and domestic peace blowing into his sail, he's gonna be damn hard to beat. Trump will have a harder time taking advantage of that advantage because he's easily the biggest douchebag ever to (dis)grace the White House.

If the economy is still humming along, I think Trump beats anyone in the field, and anyone thinking of joining the race later. On the flip side, if the economy tanks, then the odds favor whoever wins the nomination.

The question is what happens if the state of the country is somewhere in between a rose garden and the septic tank, and that's where the quality and strength of the candidate matter. This is what happened in 2004, when the right candidate perhaps could have defeated Bush, but Kerry didn't.

You give lip service to Trump having a “harder time” for all the obvious reasons, but the rest of your post shows that you don’t IMO weight that nearly enough.

If we are going to go by history, what we should be amazed by is not that Trump has failed to get good approval ratings despite a strong economy (until recently), but that given his unprecedented level of disgraceful behavior, he has managed to poll above 40 or (even 30) percent at all. Imagine describing his behavior in hypothetical terms to a political scientist or historian thirty years ago, or ten, or five. What would they expect would be the public reaction to such insanity? I doubt they would say “as long as unemployment numbers are low, he should be cruising to reelection”. More like “what about the 25th Amendment? Impeachment?”

ETA: It’s really a shame, the bum rap John Kerry gets. I firmly believe his performance was at the far right end of the bell curve of what any possible Democratic challenger could have done that year.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-10-2019 at 03:57 PM.
  #66  
Old 09-12-2019, 06:04 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Here's my weekly poll average for this week. Other than the three weekly-or-more-often polls (YouGov, Morning Consult, and HarrisX), the only poll from last week that hasn't aged out is the C-rated Change Research poll. Incoming, we have A-rated polls from WaPo/ABC and CNN/SSRS, a poll from B-rated Ipsos, and a poll from C-rated LA Times/USC-Dornsife.

The numbers:

Biden 26.5
Sanders 17.9
Warren 17.6
Harris 6.6
Buttigieg 5.0
O'Rourke 3.0
Yang 2.5
Booker 2.1

Everyone else < 2.0.
  #67  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:05 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
All right, Beto, surgin’ past the Changster! I knew that 0% poll had to be an outlier. He has a long way to go, obviously: but I’ll take it as a first step. He’s within two points of Mayor Pete, after all.
  #68  
Old 09-12-2019, 10:47 AM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 817
Count me as one hoping for Biden to fade or drop out. The recent record of candidates with long, distinguished careers and/or presidential coattails is abysmal:
  • 1984: Mondale gets shellacked by Reagan
  • 1988: G.H.W. Bush beats Dukakis, but loses to B. Clinton in 1992
  • 1996: Dole loses to B. Clinton
  • 2000: Gore loses to G.W. Bush
  • 2008: McCain loses to Obama
  • 2016: H. Clinton ... say no more
Should be obvious by now that not only do experience and name-recognition not confer an advantage, they're probably a liability. People have been fed up with the status quo for a long time, and they keep preferring candidates who promise a break from the recent past. Why does anyone think Biden (of all people) can break that trend?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.

Last edited by Akaj; 09-12-2019 at 10:47 AM.
  #69  
Old 09-12-2019, 01:55 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
That’s a pretty persuasive list, I must say — even if some would object that the first president Bush did win his first election in 1988 quite handily. It’s interesting to think about 1968 in this context, given that it was extremely close and both parties had nominees of this type. Voters had to pick someone, and of course this was the last time anyone but a major party nominee got electoral votes.
  #70  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:28 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Thatís a pretty persuasive list, I must say ó even if some would object that the first president Bush did win his first election in 1988 quite handily. Itís interesting to think about 1968 in this context, given that it was extremely close and both parties had nominees of this type. Voters had to pick someone, and of course this was the last time anyone but a major party nominee got electoral votes.
I really could have gone back to ...
  • 1976: Ford loses to Carter
... because even though Ford was already President, it was his first time running for the office. The point is that the "it's his/her turn" candidate almost always loses, whether running against a relative newcomer or an incumbent President. We need a name and a face that promises a fresh start.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #71  
Old 09-12-2019, 05:37 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Thatís a pretty persuasive list, I must say ó even if some would object that the first president Bush did win his first election in 1988 quite handily. Itís interesting to think about 1968 in this context, given that it was extremely close and both parties had nominees of this type. Voters had to pick someone, and of course this was the last time anyone but a major party nominee got electoral votes.
The other thing about 1968 was that it was the last year where not that many states chose their delegates via primary or caucus, but were rather in the hands of party insiders. This was why the 1968 Democratic Convention was protested so vehemently: Hubert Humphrey hadn't won any primaries, but the insurgents - Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy, who'd been assassinated after winning California - had won several. Yet Humphrey was the nominee anyway.
  #72  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:02 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
I predict a Biden/Warren ticket -- Biden to sew up the centrist vote, Warren for the progressive vote. As for the racial-minority vote -- where else they gonna go?

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-12-2019 at 08:03 PM.
  #73  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:21 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
I predict a Biden/Warren ticket -- Biden to sew up the centrist vote, Warren for the progressive vote.
I predict there's no way in hell that Warren's gonna be Biden's VP.
Quote:
As for the racial-minority vote -- where else they gonna go?
Nobody's worried that they'll vote GOP or Green or something; it's if they stay home. If African-American turnout sucks, the Dems lose again, period.
  #74  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:04 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
My rankings from the debate last night

1) Elizabeth Warren
----------------------
2) Kamala Harris
----------------------
3) Pete Buttigieg
4) Amy Klobuchar
5) Cory Booker
----------------------
6) Beto O'Rourke
----------------------
7) Bernie Sanders
8) Joe Biden
9) Andrew Yang
10) Julian Castro

Warren for me was the standout in articulating her platform and promoting her vision without going after someone else on stage. She focused on selling herself to the people rather than cause a soundbite. Harris after a terrible debate last time was much more impressive last night focusing on Trump and pivoting more to the middle to offer herself as a center-left alternative to the frontrunner.

Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Booker put in solid performances. This was an introduction for themselves to the public and I think they did it well.

I put Beto in a row on his own because he had good enthusiasm when he spoke (not enough though). However his candid response to the gun confiscation issue while admirable in honesty and bluntness, it's politically going to hurt. But as I said I admire he didn't do what was politically the right thing to do and instead followed his conviction.

Sanders's voice was hoarse and for a while he barely spoke. Got his standard talking points in and the Iraq/Bush/Cheney deviation was good but other than that he was flat. Not bad, not particularly good either. Biden just perplexes me. For the first hour and a half he was looking like the Biden of old. Much more lively, boisterous, getting into the details. He was excellent on the gun control section. Then he faded. That response about the quote from 1975 was a mess and even when he brought up Maduro and Latin America, I didn't particularly disagree with what he said but the way he said it was somewhat angry and unrelated to the point in hand. His closing was excellent I'll admit but I just don't think anyone else mirroring that performance can be in the top five performers, and for a frontrunner a strong start didn't hold. Yang did the things he does well and that is promote UBI and thinking outside of the box to philosophical issues but he doesn't get involved in the bits where political mechanisms are debated (executive authority, how plans will be paid for, working with congress etc). $1000 dollars a month, democracy dollars, that stunt at the start. Feels too gimmicky. What happens if someone one-ups and says they'll give away $2000 dollars a month in UBI? That's his M.O. gone.

I put Castro last because I felt his hit on Biden was a low blow and apparently factually incorrect. Furthermore I learnt little about what he stands for, or who he even is.
  #75  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:28 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
Yang did the things he does well and that is promote UBI and thinking outside of the box to philosophical issues but he doesn't get involved in the bits where political mechanisms are debated (executive authority, how plans will be paid for, working with congress etc). $1000 dollars a month, democracy dollars, that stunt at the start. Feels too gimmicky. What happens if someone one-ups and says they'll give away $2000 dollars a month in UBI? That's his M.O. gone.
(Bolding mine)

That's exactly what happened in Alaska: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...l-basic-income

The GOP gubernatorial candidate promised a huge boost to the state's existing UBI. He won, but has failed to deliver.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #76  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:30 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
I predict a Biden/Warren ticket -- Biden to sew up the centrist vote, Warren for the progressive vote. As for the racial-minority vote -- where else they gonna go?
Warren doesn't sound like someone who wants to be anyone's VP. She's a president or bust person.
  #77  
Old 09-13-2019, 12:31 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Boycott, you thought Biden’s closing was excellent? Isn’t that the incoherent rambling that he is getting such bad reviews for? Or was that just before that?

ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Warren doesn't sound like someone who wants to be anyone's VP. She's a president or bust person.
I believe there is 0.00% chance you are right about that. She’s just going to stay in the Senate rather than become the first female vice president and the frontrunner in 2024 or 2028? No way.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-13-2019 at 12:34 PM.
  #78  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:07 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Boycott, you thought Bidenís closing was excellent? Isnít that the incoherent rambling that he is getting such bad reviews for? Or was that just before that?

ETA:

I believe there is 0.00% chance you are right about that. Sheís just going to stay in the Senate rather than become the first female vice president and the frontrunner in 2024 or 2028? No way.
No it wasn't that bit.

The closing was when every candidate was asked about a personal setback they've experienced and how they dealt with it.

It's pretty obvious what Biden's was. He had to bury his first wife and infant daughter then 40 years later had to bury his son when he had his best years ahead. Biden was on a high at that point being elected to the Senate before his 30th birthday, his swearing in was still to come and it was just before Christmas that car accident happened. His life spun upside down and he lost his faith but the way he got through it was having a sense of purpose and channelling your grief by having something to keep engaged and help others.
  #79  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:14 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
I still thought he got dinged for that because the question was about professional setbacks, not personal ones.
  #80  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:23 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I still thought he got dinged for that because the question was about professional setbacks, not personal ones.
Most of what I've seen has been praise for that answer. And to a point it overlapped as professional setback because he was set to become a US Senator and by his admission started to drift in anger but it was being involved in policy work and public service that kept him going. Others also gave personal answers such as Klobuchar talking of her father being an alcoholic with three DWIs to his name but who with the support of "family, friends and grace" turned it around and that helped inspire her into public service to help others. Buttigieg talking about coming out and the troubles he was wondering as he was serving in the military. Sanders talking of being brought up in a rent-controlled apartment to an immigrant father who came to this country with nothing in his pocket.
  #81  
Old 09-13-2019, 01:32 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,050
The post-debate news chatter and spin rooms are still mostly talking as if it's a 3-person race. I don't think much will fundamentally change until more candidates start dropping out and until we get closer to the start of primary season.
  #82  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:06 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,954
Unless there is a health crisis for one of them the top three will remain Biden, Sanders and Warren, probably in that order until after Iowa and New Hampshire. Of those onstage last night I’m not sure who will drop out before then but if I had to guess I would expect it to be Castro. He did nothing last night to help his campaign and actually did some damage to his image. All the others will probably hang at least through Iowa.
  #83  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:15 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 Kolak of Twilo View Post
Unless there is a health crisis for one of them the top three will remain Biden, Sanders and Warren, probably in that order until after Iowa and New Hampshire. Of those onstage last night Iím not sure who will drop out before then but if I had to guess I would expect it to be Castro. He did nothing last night to help his campaign and actually did some damage to his image. All the others will probably hang at least through Iowa.
Castro not only hurt himself last night but I think he could have a hard time recovering from that beyond this race. I doubt it hurts him in his district, but it limits his cred as a legitimate national player. Some of the Dems have overdone it with this identity crap, and I'm glad Castro apparently overplayed his hand.
  #84  
Old 09-13-2019, 02:19 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 249
Three debates in and can anyone note a policy position of Castro?

There has to be a reason to run for president. The ones who were making vanity runs have all been dismissed. He's really the only one standing on that stage who I have no idea what his is or who he is.
  #85  
Old 09-13-2019, 05:41 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Decriminalization of illegal border crossings. The thing he attacked Beto about.
  #86  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:23 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
Here are the latest odds from Predictwise. Warren has gained a little, mainly at Harris' expense.

Democratic Nomination
36% Warren
23% Biden
12% Sanders
8% Harris
6% Yang
4% Buttigieg
2% Booker
1% each - Klobuchar, O'Rourke, Gabbard
Republican Nomination
89% Trump
3% Pence
2% Haley
1% each - Ryan, Rubio, Cruz
Democratic Control, 2021
73% House of Reps
53% White House
34% Senate
(Several Dopers, including myself, have recently turned to Liz Warren as our best practical hope. Cross your fingers.)
  #87  
Old 09-13-2019, 11:23 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
LOL at 6% for Yang.
  #88  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:47 AM
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 asahi View Post
Castro not only hurt himself last night but I think he could have a hard time recovering from that beyond this race. I doubt it hurts him in his district, but it limits his cred as a legitimate national player. Some of the Dems have overdone it with this identity crap, and I'm glad Castro apparently overplayed his hand.
Agreed. I've never really understood why anyone, including Julian and Joaquin, seriously thought he had a chance at the Presidency in 2020. His appearances as a pundit on the news shows always seemed lackluster and empty. His performance in the latest debate makes it clear to me he's little more than an opportunistic dick. I don't see him doing too well on a national level going forward.

And I say this as someone who has serious concerns about Biden as the nominee.
  #89  
Old 09-14-2019, 06:14 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Sheís just going to stay in the Senate rather than become the first female vice president and the frontrunner in 2024 or 2028? No way.
Let's consider the people she could be VP to:

1) Biden: are you fucking kidding me? Her philosophical differences with Biden are way too great for her to handcuff herself for four years. She'll want to be in the Senate, where she'll have a bully pulpit to push Biden to be better than he'd otherwise be.

2) Sanders: OK, there's a possibility here. Sanders has a lot of big visions for how he wants to change things, but he's not the guy you want to turn to for implementation. (I wonder whether Bernie has the self-awareness to realize this, though.) If Bernie somehow wins the nomination, I could see a Sanders/Warren ticket where, once in office, they had a similar relationship to Bush and Cheney, where Warren was President in all but name.

3) Pretty much anyone else (Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, Klobuchar, whoever): they're all way younger, and likely to be two-termers if they win in 2020. So if Warren ran for President in 2028, she'd turn 80 about six months into her first term. So that seems an unlikely prospect to hold out for. Being veep would have to be the reward for her, in and of itself. (And if the nominee is Harris or Klobuchar, there'd already be a woman at the top of the ticket; being first woman VP wouldn't be that big a deal under those circumstances.)
  #90  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:09 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Here are the latest odds from Predictwise.
Just how many people are putting money down on the Democratic primary outcome, and what sort of people are they?

I will confess I'm skeptical of the predictive value of political betting markets.
  #91  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:37 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
I put Beto in a row on his own because he had good enthusiasm when he spoke (not enough though). However his candid response to the gun confiscation issue while admirable in honesty and bluntness, it's politically going to hurt. But as I said I admire he didn't do what was politically the right thing to do and instead followed his conviction.
I have to disagree about the political effects - this will help Beto politically.

Three reasons:

1) People really like politicians who take a stand. Beto did this.

2) Polling shows that Beto's position on an assault weapon ban and mandatory buyback is pretty popular among Dems. In a Democratic primary, there's a market for a politician taking that stand.

3) Where was Beto before this? He was in danger of disappearing off people's radar. He's fixed that. Will this help him win the nomination? No, but what he was doing up until El Paso wasn't helping him do that either. But I bet he'll rise a bit in the polls. Double digits? Doubtful, at this point. But maybe back up to mid single digits, which would still be a big improvement for him.
  #92  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:57 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Just how many people are putting money down on the Democratic primary outcome, and what sort of people are they?

I will confess I'm skeptical of the predictive value of political betting markets.
We've had this debate before. There are scholarly papers leading to the conclusion that such betting markets tend to outperform other predictors. You're right to wonder if the size of the market is adequate to be a good predictor. Over $1.6 Million has already been wagered on the Democratic nomination market just at Betfair, if I'm reading this correctly; but that might be far too little for the predictions to be very reliable.

But whatever the prediction's margin of error, are its results meaningful? Let me ask a simple question:
At present, Biden is significantly ahead of Warren in polls, but Warren is way ahead in betting markets.
If you were to guess (or bet!) right now, which of the two do you think is more likely to be the nominee?

Last edited by septimus; 09-14-2019 at 08:00 AM.
  #93  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:11 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I have to disagree about the political effects - this will help Beto politically.

Three reasons:

1) People really like politicians who take a stand. Beto did this.

2) Polling shows that Beto's position on an assault weapon ban and mandatory buyback is pretty popular among Dems. In a Democratic primary, there's a market for a politician taking that stand.

3) Where was Beto before this? He was in danger of disappearing off people's radar. He's fixed that. Will this help him win the nomination? No, but what he was doing up until El Paso wasn't helping him do that either. But I bet he'll rise a bit in the polls. Double digits? Doubtful, at this point. But maybe back up to mid single digits, which would still be a big improvement for him.
Iím not sure.

Letís say we figure, for the sake of argument, that going into the debate he didnít really have a shot at being the Democrat who runs against Trump next year; per the polls (and the betting) in the days leading up to it, just grant for a moment that, no, itís going to be Biden, or Warren, or Sanders, or Harris, or Buttigieg. Letís say, too, that OíRourke instead is where Biden was circa the Ď08 race: the guy who could, at best, get tapped as a running mate and then become VP.

Biden is now trying to parlay that into a presidency ó kind of how Bush did, once it became clear that the best he could do in the Ď80 race was get tapped as a running mate and then become VP; he then parlayed that into a presidency. Would you say that OíRourke helped ó well, not his BETO 2020 chances, letís leave that out, letís leave that all the way out, itís too silly; one or two or three of the folks ahead of him could still flake out or flame out, and it still wouldnít happen for him. But would you say that he helped his running-mate chances?
  #94  
Old 09-14-2019, 09:15 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
But whatever the prediction's margin of error, are its results meaningful? Let me ask a simple question:
At present, Biden is significantly ahead of Warren in polls, but Warren is way ahead in betting markets.
If you were to guess (or bet!) right now, which of the two do you think is more likely to be the nominee?
Damned if I know. My best guess is that Biden has a slightly better chance of winning the nomination than Warren does.

How that tells me which one is more meaningful, again, damned if I know. The polls are certainly more meaningful to me. But if the point is to get away from subjective opinions, that doesn't help.

(Nitpick: you mention "the prediction's margin of error" and I expect that was just a more or less accidental turn of phrase. But it should be said that (a) while betting markets are essentially predictions, they have no defined margin of error, and (b) while polls have margins of error, they're snapshots, not predictions.)
  #95  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:03 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
(Nitpick: you mention "the prediction's margin of error" and I expect that was just a more or less accidental turn of phrase...)
Counter nitpick and off-topic : The phrase was poorly chosen but was not accidental. As a thought experiment I imagine a hypothetical excellent predictor ó near-perfect at analyzing the present, though with no special power to foresee the future. (Nate Silver on super-steroids, or a super Deep Mind trained on politics and perhaps with microphones in every household!) In the thought experiment, there would be an Excellent Prediction.

At issue is to guesstimate the expected deviation between such an "optimal predictor" and a real-world Nate Silver or Betfair.

Given the 36-23 score at Predictwise, I would certainly have enough faith in such predictors to bet a considerable sum at even money, e.g. Win $10,000 with Warren, Lose $10,000 with Biden, Zero otherwise.
  #96  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:26 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 RTFirefly View Post
I have to disagree about the political effects - this will help Beto politically.

Three reasons:

1) People really like politicians who take a stand. Beto did this.

2) Polling shows that Beto's position on an assault weapon ban and mandatory buyback is pretty popular among Dems. In a Democratic primary, there's a market for a politician taking that stand.

3) Where was Beto before this? He was in danger of disappearing off people's radar. He's fixed that. Will this help him win the nomination? No, but what he was doing up until El Paso wasn't helping him do that either. But I bet he'll rise a bit in the polls. Double digits? Doubtful, at this point. But maybe back up to mid single digits, which would still be a big improvement for him.
I pretty much find myself in agreement with all of this.

Beto is finally becoming...'Beto'. The kind of punkish, long shot candidate who seriously challenged Ted Cruz for the US Senate. He looked really stiff and wooden in his first debate, and he took some sucker punches from an aggressive Castro. It seemed then that his candidacy was going nowhere, but the more people see him, the more they like him. He's like a vulgar RFK or something.

Beyond this, while Biden might be the front-runner, there is still a lot of anti-incumbent energy among the electorate, and that's still something that Biden may have to confront at some point - Biden being the closest thing to an incumbent in the Democratic field.
  #97  
Old 09-14-2019, 10:48 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Just how many people are putting money down on the Democratic primary outcome, and what sort of people are they?

I will confess I'm skeptical of the predictive value of political betting markets.
Silver on that. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...andidate-race/
Quote:
... frankly, the people trading in these markets ó mostly younger and well-educated ó arenít your prototypical Biden voters.
  #98  
Old 09-14-2019, 01:28 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate Silver
... frankly, the people trading in these markets — mostly younger and well-educated — aren’t your prototypical Biden voters.
IOW, some of them are likely betting their loyalties and hopes, rather than their best reasoned judgment.

I can relate to that, certainly - I've done it often enough, myself. Still do from time to time, just somewhat less frequently than when I was younger. ETA: But it's a good reason to be somewhat skeptical of the betting market as a predictor of outcomes.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 09-14-2019 at 01:30 PM.
  #99  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:08 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Exactly. (Scottish teens! )

Septimus, do you really think if we run this primary race a million times, Yang gets the nomination almost as often as Harris does, and over one-fourth as often as Biden does?

ETA: I also question the ability of markets like this to properly value darkhorses generally. Who wants to short Yang at 16 to 1, to make six dollars next summer for tying up $100 over the interim?

Last edited by SlackerInc; 09-14-2019 at 02:11 PM.
  #100  
Old 09-14-2019, 02:27 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,885
Since I've been creating my own average for five weeks now, here's a summary of how the numbers have changed over the period:
Code:
Candidate  Date  8/14  8/21  8/28  9/04  9/12

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

Everyone else < 2.0
I'm thinking a bit too much of the variation from one week to the next is an artifact of which polls were added to and dropped from the survey. I'm thinking in particular of Bernie's low numbers the week of 8/21, Warren's high numbers the week of 9/4, and Biden's big drop from 9/4 to 9/12.

I was dropping polls two weeks after the midpoint of the time they were in the field, and I think that might be a bit *too* quick. I'm going to extend that to 2.5 weeks, starting the week of 9/25, to see if that smooths out the changes a bit.
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 05:38 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