Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3651  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:36 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,048
This race is so remarkably uncertain right now. Bernie is the front-runner but an unusually weak one who is only polling at 24% nationally. Bloomberg has the momentum but I would bet it will stall once his full record is aired and attacked. Biden is severely weakened but if he can win South Carolina he still has a shot;and he has had a good Georgia poll. Pete has done nearly everything right so far but it's still hard to see his path forward. The Klobucharge is real but probably too little too late. Warren appears to be the living dead but probably not yet read to pack it in. I really have no idea where this is going. A very long race without a clear winner appears likely and that is probably not good for the Democrats.
  #3652  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:40 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 88,048
And unfortunately none of them is definitely, at this point, going to be able to defeat an incumbent Republican President at a time that the economy is, in broad terms, doing well.
  #3653  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:53 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
And unfortunately none of them is definitely, at this point, going to be able to defeat an incumbent Republican President at a time that the economy is, in broad terms, doing well.
People keep saying this but that is probably conventional wisdom that only applies to conventional presidents, not someone as polarizing as Trump, for whom his supporters would fiercely back him even if the economy were a smoking crater hole and whose opponents would line up a mile long at the crack of dawn to vote against him even if the Dow Jones hit 50,000. Trump has a pretty hard ceiling of support and also generates rage among his foes. His constant Tweeting and offensive words also ensure that his own approval doesn't rise too high.

The only way the economy could really help him would be if it turned white-hotter than the Sun (which it probably can't because it's as good as it gets).
  #3654  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:03 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,281
Wow. 538 no longer considers Biden a favorite to win South Carolina. Currently giving Sanders a 50-50 shot, Biden 1/3 chance.
  #3655  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:07 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post

It is just not where most Democrats are at.


Bloomberg is where most Democrats are at.
Setting aside whether that last sentence is correct, the issue isn't where most Democrats are at. It's where most voters are at. The Democratic establishment has a bad habit of forgetting that distinction. And I wouild need some real evidence to show that Bloomberg is more where most Americans are at before I believe that.
  #3656  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:13 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Setting aside whether that last sentence is correct, the issue isn't where most Democrats are at. It's where most voters are at. The Democratic establishment has a bad habit of forgetting that distinction.
I would say that shoe more fits online activists better than the establishment. We've got a guy declaring "stop and frisk" should be disqualifying, despite the reality of Bloomberg winning his election while supporting the program.
  #3657  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:25 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,048
The economy was better in 2004 and Bush almost lost and I would rate him a better campaigner than Trump. Trump is very much beatable but yes the economy will be a moderate asset for him and this would be a terrible time to nominate a socialist who wants a "revolution". All the Democrats need IMO is a Gore/Kerry quality candidate but unfortunately they won't get one and will have to take a gamble on someone with serious liabilities.
  #3658  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:50 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I would say that shoe more fits online activists better than the establishment. We've got a guy declaring "stop and frisk" should be disqualifying, despite the reality of Bloomberg winning his election while supporting the program.
This is too close to a "no u" argument for me to take it very seriously.
  #3659  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:58 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,281
But it's not. The fact that the twitter/blogosphere of Dem activists is out of line with mainstream voters is pretty well documented.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...real-life.html
  #3660  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:10 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
He would say it. It doesn't mean he has to mean it, especially because Bloomberg has promised to help the Democratic candidate no matter what. He wouldn't have any control over how Bloomberg spends his money anyway -- all that matters here is the messaging, and that would be effective messaging, IMO, in response to this.

Sanders is a savvy politician. He's been rhetorically on the fringe for decades, but he regularly votes for compromise and other typical savvy politician activities.
I seriously do not believe that saying he'd prefer to stay pure and go into the general election war against a very well funded Trump campaign and PAC machine without the billion dollar war chest, would be effective messaging to Democratic primary voters who care most about defeating Trump.


LHOD, the first issue is where Democratic voters are at. You need to win the nomination. And most of them care most about beating Trump, and are not voting for candidates who are of the hard progressive lane with a class warfare sale pitch. (Sanders and Warren together are far short of the majority that the moderate lane represents.)

Hey I am realistic enough to accept that hyperpartisanship will still be operative after the election no matter who wins. But the evidence to me is that Democratic primary voters and general election voters find the hope to heal and find some bipartisan common ground to be a more attractive sales pitch than selling getting even more entrenched poles.

Last edited by DSeid; 02-14-2020 at 01:11 PM.
  #3661  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:17 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Wow. 538 no longer considers Biden a favorite to win South Carolina. Currently giving Sanders a 50-50 shot, Biden 1/3 chance.
Too lazy to check, but has SC released any new polls?
  #3662  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:34 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,281
538 hasn't added any. This must be based on national polls.
  #3663  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:15 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
This race is so remarkably uncertain right now. Bernie is the front-runner but an unusually weak one who is only polling at 24% nationally. .
What is your opinion on fractions? Do you hate when pizza is cut too much because then you get less pizza?
  #3664  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,281
Gadflies are more interesting if they make some sort of sense. Just sayin.
  #3665  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:50 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
Now here's an interesting poll.

YouGov ran a series of one-on-one matchups in the Democratic primary. If it came down to two candidates:

Sanders 54-33 Klobuchar
Sanders 54-37 Buttigieg
Sanders 54-38 Bloomberg
Sanders 48-44 Biden
Sanders 44-42 Warren

and on the other hand...

Warren 52-38 Bloomberg
Biden 47-34 Bloomberg
Buttigieg 44-37 Bloomberg
Klobuchar 43-38 Bloomberg

It seems that maybe all money does is get you to your ceiling faster. It also seems that, in contrast to some overly simplistic views, voters are picking a candidate and not a "lane". Those who expect that the current supporters of all the other candidates except Warren will eventually unify into an anti-Bernie monolith may be in for a surprise.
  #3666  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:06 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,853
More data calling the "lanes" paradigm into question. New Hampshire exit polls, broken down by self-identified ideology:

Very Liberal (21% of all voters)
Sanders 48
Warren 19
Buttigieg 15
Klobuchar 9

Somewhat Liberal (40%)
Buttigieg 26
Sanders 26
Klobuchar 19
Warren 10

Moderate (36%)
Buttigieg 28
Klobuchar 26
Sanders 16
Biden 12

and for a bit of comic relief...

Conservative (3%)
Buttigieg 21
Klobuchar 19
Gabbard 18
Sanders 11

So Sanders is in double digits with moderates and conservatives, and about a quarter of the left-wingers went for Pete or Amy. Clearly the relationship between self-defined ideology and candidate choice isn't as strong as we left-brain types would like.

Also, as Nate Silver pointed out today, the "Somewhat Liberal" group is clearly where the balance of power lies, and Sanders is doing well with that group, so there's no reason to think he's less likely than anyone else to emerge as their choice as the field narrows.
  #3667  
Old 02-14-2020, 06:53 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
It seems that maybe all money does is get you to your ceiling faster. It also seems that, in contrast to some overly simplistic views, voters are picking a candidate and not a "lane". Those who expect that the current supporters of all the other candidates except Warren will eventually unify into an anti-Bernie monolith may be in for a surprise.
You're right. All the other candidates should just stop worrying about the Bloomberg spending and polling in all the Super Tuesday states. Sleep well, revolutionaries. Sleep well.
  #3668  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:36 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
People keep saying this but that is probably conventional wisdom that only applies to conventional presidents, not someone as polarizing as Trump, for whom his supporters would fiercely back him even if the economy were a smoking crater hole and whose opponents would line up a mile long at the crack of dawn to vote against him even if the Dow Jones hit 50,000. Trump has a pretty hard ceiling of support and also generates rage among his foes. His constant Tweeting and offensive words also ensure that his own approval doesn't rise too high.

The only way the economy could really help him would be if it turned white-hotter than the Sun (which it probably can't because it's as good as it gets).
It's helping him because as long as he can't be blamed for a recession, then the question that wishy-washy voters ask is, "If things aren't really broken, why change when we can vote him out in 4 years anyway?" In the general, it'll be option A vs option B. And more often than not, this type of election is a referendum on the economy.
  #3669  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:01 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 182
I'm definitely not going to make a prediction that Trump doesn't have a good chance of winning because he does, but I do think he's not the same as a lot of incumbents running on a good economy.

He is more polarizing that most, and a higher proportion of voters than normal are going to vote against him regardless of the economy.

He also relied on independent voters who are not normally hardline conservatives but bought into his angry message to win in 2016. Relying on them helped him out as an outsider, but now that he's in charge, he is going to have a tougher time making a case to them. Obviously he and the GOP are going to try to paint him as a victim the way the have been from the start, but if he can lose some ground with this demo I think it can easily make up for the random swing voters who decide to vote for him or stay home because of the economy.

Last edited by str8cashhomie; 02-14-2020 at 11:02 PM.
  #3670  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:05 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Interesting in that it shows a Sanders ceiling higher than I thought it was. Albeit just one poll.

In terms of Bloomberg's head to heads nationally not too surprising for this point in the race. He is rapidly rising but still below both Sanders and Biden and still just a name they know and have some sense of to many. Way too early to say what his ceiling will be.
  #3671  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:21 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
The only Republicans who would vote for Sanders are diehard never-Trumpers who are sick of the disgrace he brings to the office of the president and the Republican party. However, I think it more likely that such voters will vote Republican downticket, and just not vote for Trump (leave it blank), or not show up at all. Sanders cannot capture dissenting Republicans so much I don't think.
No, your wrong. I would have voted for Sanders over Trump in 2012.

You dont realize how many of us voted Trump because we hated Hillary.
  #3672  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:24 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,169
Bloomberg should have just have been honest saying "yeah I put more cops in black neighborhoods, thats where the crime was. Its what you do. Its the opposite of sometimes police get angry at a neighborhood and simply quit responding to calls there".

Stop and frisk might have gone too far but I wonder how many robberies it stopped?

Remember how Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas to enforce federal rule. sometimes it has to be done.
  #3673  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:25 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
No, your wrong. I would have voted for Sanders over Trump in 2012.



You dont realize how many of us voted Trump because we hated Hillary.
Hated her so much you would have voted for Sanders when Obama was running for his second term!

Speaking of, how did you vote in that election?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
  #3674  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:36 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Stop and frisk might have gone too far but I wonder how many robberies it stopped?
The data is pretty solid just about none. Best evidence is the drop in crime rate to record lows after it was stopped.

Some believe that the problem was in the implementation with not enough emphasis on documented probable cause and too much leeway given to police officer hunches (which may be explicitly or even implicitly racist just based on cognitive biases). But the facts that it accomplished little if any good and caused significant harms to many are not debated by many at this point.
  #3675  
Old 02-15-2020, 01:44 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The data is pretty solid just about none. Best evidence is the drop in crime rate to record lows after it was stopped.

Some believe that the problem was in the implementation with not enough emphasis on documented probable cause and too much leeway given to police officer hunches (which may be explicitly or even implicitly racist just based on cognitive biases). But the facts that it accomplished little if any good and caused significant harms to many are not debated by many at this point.

https://connectusfund.org/14-pros-an...law-and-policy
1. Stop and frisk laws have helped to get weapons off of the street.
Over a period of 10 years, there were a total of 4.4 million stop and frisk temporary detentions that took place in and around New York City. The official statistics show that 1.5% of those engagements with the public found a weapon on that individual. That means police officers were able to remove over 66,000 items that could have been used to harm someone else in the future.

The arrest rate may be low with stop and frisk as well, but an average of 10% still means that there were 440,000 arrests made that may not have happened otherwise. Those are significant numbers that can justify to many city officials that the policies are working.

3. It creates significant reductions in crime.
After the implementation of the stop and frisk policy in New York City, crime rates went down by about 20%. Cities like Newark that implemented similar policies, even if they call them by the more politically correct name of “field inquiries,” see similar results. It is a form of proactive policing that seeks to stop something bad from happening before it starts. Although some individuals are stopped on the street without having done anything to warrant a contact, most of these incidents occur after a call for service.


To be fair:
List of the Cons of a Stop and Frisk Law and Policy
1. It is a policy that can be easily abused.
Stop and frisk policies make it easier for police officers to follow their hunches instead of having objective evidence or a reasonable suspicion that something illegal may be occurring. This disadvantage is why the NYC version of this law and policy was ruled to be unconstitutional in the first place. Officers were engaging with African-Americans and Hispanics 83% of the time using this option to frisk, yet these two population demographics make up about half of the residents in the area.


Sop it appears it might have been a good idea, but had very poor implementation.

And Bloomberg agrees:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/polit...isk/index.html
Michael Bloomberg apologized for the first time on the campaign trail Thursday for the New York Police Department's "stop and frisk" policing tactic, which he repeatedly defended while serving as mayor of New York. The apology followed audio from 2015 surfacing earlier this week where Bloomberg is heard describing the policy as a way to reduce violence by throwing minority kids "up against the walls and frisk them."

His comments came during a launch event for "Mike for Black America" in Houston at the Buffalo Soldier National Museum.
"There is one aspect of approach that I deeply regret, the abuse of police practice called stop and frisk," Bloomberg said. "I defended it, looking back, for too long because I didn't understand then the unintended pain it was causing to young black and brown families and their kids. I should have acted sooner and faster to stop it. I didn't, and for that I apologize."
Bloomberg had previously apologized for the policy in November 2019, right before he announced his candidacy.


On one level, up where the Mayor sits, it looked good, and could be a valuable tool. But some line police abused it, and honestly, it was a very easy tool to abuse.

I am gonna give him a pass on this. But it aint a shining moment for him.
  #3676  
Old 02-15-2020, 10:48 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The data is pretty solid just about none. Best evidence is the drop in crime rate to record lows after it was stopped.
Also, crime rates have been dropping since the 1990s all across the country. When cities A, B, C, D, E, and F try approaches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and cities G, H, I, and J do pretty much the same as they were doing when crime rates were increasing, and crime drops in all of them, it's hard to argue that a particular approach was the reason for the drop.

Now it's always possible that every city tailored just the right approach for that particular city, but it's very very improbable.
  #3677  
Old 02-15-2020, 11:44 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
I think intent and motives matter, too. Bloomberg continued the stop-and-frisk policy for the same reasons that the 1994 Crime Bill was signed into law by Clinton. It was seen as a way to fight crime, keeping in mind the fact that in many American cities crimes were perpetrated by people of color against people of color. Stated differently, one concern was protecting people in these communities. Bloomberg continued the policy presumably because it was in place and he thought it was effective, without considering the deeper costs that aren't so easily assessed such as the psychological trauma it was causing people in these communities, how it was criminalizing individuals without justification, and how it led to the breakdown in trust between the city police force and residents.

I don't think it's accurate or even wise to compare Bloomberg's approach, which was most likely based on good intentions but lack of awareness, to the police policies of the current administration, nearly all of which are intended to instill a sense of fear in immigrant communities and critics of the administration more broadly. Trump and the GOP have been able to persist through all of their scandal in no small part because of false equivalency.
  #3678  
Old 02-15-2020, 07:50 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post

The black voters will end up deciding. Call me crazy, but I bet Bloomberg picks up the black vote from Biden.
So what does that leave white voters?
  #3679  
Old 02-15-2020, 09:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
So what does that leave white voters?
Also deciding. In context, your quoted text was discussing how stop and frisk would effect the black vote.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-15-2020 at 09:14 PM.
  #3680  
Old 02-15-2020, 09:23 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,281
And not to bash Warren but this stop and frisk counter campaign that Bloomberg has run blows my mind how much better a politician he is. He has a massive shitty thing on his record but he basically rolled it out himself with a shit tonne of long secured minority leaders. Contrast with Warren rolling out her DNA bet win, with no good Cherokee support lined up.
  #3681  
Old 02-15-2020, 10:30 PM
BeepKillBeep is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
No, your wrong. I would have voted for Sanders over Trump in 2012.

You dont realize how many of us voted Trump because we hated Hillary.
I'm glad to be wrong in this instance.
  #3682  
Old 02-16-2020, 07:14 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Now here's an interesting poll.

YouGov ran a series of one-on-one matchups in the Democratic primary. If it came down to two candidates:

Sanders 54-33 Klobuchar
Sanders 54-37 Buttigieg
Sanders 54-38 Bloomberg
Sanders 48-44 Biden
Sanders 44-42 Warren

and on the other hand...

Warren 52-38 Bloomberg
Biden 47-34 Bloomberg
Buttigieg 44-37 Bloomberg
Klobuchar 43-38 Bloomberg

It seems that maybe all money does is get you to your ceiling faster. It also seems that, in contrast to some overly simplistic views, voters are picking a candidate and not a "lane". Those who expect that the current supporters of all the other candidates except Warren will eventually unify into an anti-Bernie monolith may be in for a surprise.
Sounds like a good argument for Warren to hang in there, even if Super Tuesday isn't very super for her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
More data calling the "lanes" paradigm into question. New Hampshire exit polls, broken down by self-identified ideology:
Maybe I'm hanging out in the polling-geek corner of Twitter too much, but I'd have thought the whole 'lanes' thing had been thoroughly trashed by now. I think it applies to people like us who pay a great deal of attention to politics, but most people don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Too lazy to check, but has SC released any new polls?
Yep. East Carolina U. (unrated by 538), Feb. 12-13 (ETA: IOW, entirely after NH), 703 likely voters:

Biden 28
Sanders 20
Steyer 14
Buttigieg 8
Klobuchar 7
Warren 7
Bloomberg 6 (but not on the ballot)
Gabbard 1

The Buttigieg-through-Bloomberg group is statistically indistinguishable from one another, but the other gaps between candidates are outside the MOE.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 02-16-2020 at 07:15 AM.
  #3683  
Old 02-16-2020, 08:08 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,965
Bloomberg may have a "me, too" problem:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...national-polls

According to another source (GQ, as I recall), Bloomberg's been sued 40 times for gender discrimination and/or harassment.

That's going to complicate his nomination bid a bit, I'd think.
  #3684  
Old 02-16-2020, 10:16 AM
Socsback is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Now here's an interesting poll.

YouGov ran a series of one-on-one matchups in the Democratic primary. If it came down to two candidates:

Sanders 54-33 Klobuchar
Sanders 54-37 Buttigieg
Sanders 54-38 Bloomberg
Sanders 48-44 Biden
Sanders 44-42 Warren

and on the other hand...

Warren 52-38 Bloomberg
Biden 47-34 Bloomberg
Buttigieg 44-37 Bloomberg
Klobuchar 43-38 Bloomberg

It seems that maybe all money does is get you to your ceiling faster. It also seems that, in contrast to some overly simplistic views, voters are picking a candidate and not a "lane". Those who expect that the current supporters of all the other candidates except Warren will eventually unify into an anti-Bernie monolith may be in for a surprise.

Something doesn't add up here. We have data showing that Bernie and EW are drawing votes from the same "demographic". All other polls (and actual votes in NH and Iowa) show Bernie beating EW by a significant margin. This one does not.

Show me how this poll was conducted, and who was surveyed, and maybe I'll consider it. Otherwise, it seems pretty suspect. It looks like a poll simply of progressive voters.

Last edited by Socsback; 02-16-2020 at 10:17 AM.
  #3685  
Old 02-16-2020, 04:37 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socsback View Post
Something doesn't add up here. We have data showing that Bernie and EW are drawing votes from the same "demographic". All other polls (and actual votes in NH and Iowa) show Bernie beating EW by a significant margin. This one does not.
When I was doing my own polling average in this thread, I got a pretty good idea of which candidates were always high or low in polls by which polling outfits. YouGov consistently showed more support for Warren than other pollsters did.
  #3686  
Old 02-16-2020, 05:07 PM
Socsback is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
When I was doing my own polling average in this thread, I got a pretty good idea of which candidates were always high or low in polls by which polling outfits. YouGov consistently showed more support for Warren than other pollsters did.
OK. So that tells us ....... what? That they're polling mostly progressive voters?
  #3687  
Old 02-16-2020, 06:01 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
...According to another source (GQ, as I recall), Bloomberg's been sued 40 times for gender discrimination and/or harassment. ...
Bloomberg as an individual? Or his company?

That makes a difference. Though neither is good, if people are alleging someone at the company discriminated or harassed, it doesn't necessarily follow that the discrimination or harassment was company policy (and therefore Bloomberg's personal policy). He might be held morally responsible, but that's not the same thing as if he personally harassed women.

These details will be glossed over by Bloomberg opponents, of course. But they do matter.
  #3688  
Old Yesterday, 01:47 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,048
There is at least one credible allegation of Bloomberg personally making extremely crude and sexist comments (Wapo article):

Quote:
In the most high-profile example, a top saleswoman, Sekiko Sakai Garrison, alleged that Bloomberg told female salespeople about a male colleague getting married: “All of you girls line up to give him [oral sex] as a wedding present.” And, the lawsuit said, when Bloomberg saw certain women, he said, “I’d f--- that in a second.”
Quote:
Garrison alleged that Bloomberg berated female employees who got pregnant. “What the hell did you do a thing like that for?” Bloomberg allegedly told one pregnant employee. On another occasion, the lawsuit said, Bloomberg berated a female employee who had trouble finding a nanny. “It’s a f------ baby! . . . All you need is some black who doesn’t have to speak English to rescue it from a burning building.”
Quote:
When Bloomberg learned on April 11, 1995, that Garrison was pregnant, according to her suit, he allegedly said to her, “Kill it!” Garrison asked Bloomberg to repeat what he said, and she said he responded, “Kill it! Great! Number 16!,” which she took as a reference to the number of pregnant women and new mothers at the company.
There is an independent witness for the last incident:
Quote:
David Zielenziger, a former Bloomberg technology writer, told The Post he was there and heard the conversation.

“I remember she had been telling some of her girlfriends that she was pregnant,” Zielenziger said. “And Mike came out and I remember he said, ‘Are you going to kill it?’ And that stopped everything. And I couldn’t believe it.”

Zielenziger said he never talked to Garrison about what he heard and did not participate in her lawsuit. He said Bloomberg’s question was crude, inappropriate — and typical. “He talked kind of crudely about women all the time,” Zielenziger said.
The more I read about Bloomberg the more astonished I am that anyone is considering seriously him for Democratic nominee. There are so many other problems with him too: stop and frisk obviously but also his opposition to Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, his 2004 endorsement of George W Bush. It's absurd.
  #3689  
Old Yesterday, 05:40 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socsback View Post
OK. So that tells us ....... what? That they're polling mostly progressive voters?
I'm not gonna work backwards from their outcomes to their sampling frame; that's beyond my capabilities as a statistician.

But if they show more support for Warren generally, it fits in that they'd show her with more support v. Sanders than other pollsters do, and more support v. Sanders than they show for other candidates v. Sanders. That's all.
  #3690  
Old Yesterday, 06:05 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
There is at least one credible allegation of Bloomberg personally making extremely crude and sexist comments ...
The more I read about Bloomberg the more astonished I am that anyone is considering seriously him for Democratic nominee. There are so many other problems with him too: stop and frisk obviously but also his opposition to Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, his 2004 endorsement of George W Bush. It's absurd.
You've awakened me to the absurdity of Bloomberg's candidacy. Unfortunately, almost all the candidates are absurd one way or another. Amy Klobuchar is my last hope for "generic white guy." (Earlier I was touting Cory Booker as "generic white guy" — his color may have been off and, in any event Booker is no Obama.)

With great gloom we face the heart-breaking fact that come November, the Nighmare is likely to continue.
  #3691  
Old Yesterday, 06:28 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,048
I agree that Klobuchar is one of the less bad alternatives left but man it's embarrassing watching her flail around when asked who the President of Mexico is. This is something that an experienced Senator should know anyway but don't these people do elementary prep before an interview on Telemundo ?

When I was younger I would wonder if politicians were smarter than they sounded and just dumbing it down in public but the older I get the more I realize they often are that clueless. I realize they must have skills I can only dream of like making small talk to 800 rich donors and repeating the same stump speech 78 times a day but it would be reassuring if they also knew something about the subjects they make hugely consequential decisions about.
  #3692  
Old Yesterday, 09:06 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
You've awakened me to the absurdity of Bloomberg's candidacy. Unfortunately, almost all the candidates are absurd one way or another. Amy Klobuchar is my last hope for "generic white guy." (Earlier I was touting Cory Booker as "generic white guy" — his color may have been off and, in any event Booker is no Obama.)

With great gloom we face the heart-breaking fact that come November, the Nighmare is likely to continue.
The problem with Amy is that the average person that doesn’t follow politics or the news doesn’t know who she is. Seriously.

I haven’t seen one ad for her. My college aged niece didn’t know who she was. My brother, who actually watches cable news some and is MORE engaged than most people I know....I asked him if he knew who she was and his first reaction was “she works for CNN, right?” Then, after a gentle nudge, he remembered she was running for President.

This poll is a little more optimistic than 1 am, it shows 44% of Democratic primary voters view her favorably, 16% negatively, 23% have heard of her but have no opinion ( maybe because they think she’s a CNN newscaster) and 18% haven’t heard of her.
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

But that’s still sort of miserable- especially as voting has started in many Super Tuesday states.

The Democrats ( with one possible exception) do not have the resources to win this year’s general election.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; Yesterday at 09:08 AM.
  #3693  
Old Yesterday, 09:25 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
The problem with Amy is that the average person that doesn’t follow politics or the news doesn’t know who she is. Seriously.
No question about it. And name recognition is a necessary condition for competing in the primaries: if people aren't sure of who you are in the first place, they're damn sure not going to vote for you.

And name recognition explains a lot of other seeming oddities in the polls: polling last year showed that a lot of likely voters had Biden and Sanders as their top two choices, in either order, confounding the commentators who thought of the primaries in terms of 'lanes.' Why was this happening? Probably because they were the two Dem candidates who started 2019 with near-universal name recognition, while everyone else was playing catch-up.
  #3694  
Old Yesterday, 09:47 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
I agree that Klobuchar is one of the less bad alternatives left but man it's embarrassing watching her flail around when asked who the President of Mexico is. This is something that an experienced Senator should know anyway but don't these people do elementary prep before an interview on Telemundo ? ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
The problem with Amy is that the average person that doesn’t follow politics or the news doesn’t know who she is. Seriously. ...
The latter is why the former is SO bad.

She has virtually no support among Hispanic voters (or Black or Asian ones) and she is right that it is "on her" to expand beyond a whites only crowd. That Telemundo bit was likely her first exposure to many Hispanic voters and what she showed was that she cared so little about them that she didn't even do the most basic prep work (and that she has cared so little about issues relevant to them that she did not know that basic information going in).

Ooof. I like her pragmatism but that is some bad combination of dumb and lazy (and maybe some white issues filter).
  #3695  
Old Yesterday, 10:05 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
I agree that Klobuchar is one of the less bad alternatives left but man it's embarrassing watching her flail around when asked who the President of Mexico is. This is something that an experienced Senator should know anyway but don't these people do elementary prep before an interview on Telemundo ?
I watched and didn't see her really flailing. She answered No when asked for the name. "Should" she have known the name? Perhaps. Is it a big deal that she didn't? I don't think so. Some people play cards very well, yet don't remember which Jacks are one-eyed. Presumably she'll know his name if she gets the job where that knowledge is more necessary.

I didn't know the name, but heard it as I watched the video. If his name were George Williamson or Henry Bookbinder I could probably tell you the name I heard. But all I remember is: his name sounds very Spanish.

ETA: But, regardless of the name memory, she seemed uncharismatic and drab in the video. But if I jump off the Klobuchar wagon where is left for me? Maybe I really will become a Bernie Bro, by process of elimination!

Last edited by septimus; Yesterday at 10:08 AM.
  #3696  
Old Yesterday, 11:54 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,048
I do think it matters. The US-Mexico relationship is obviously an important issue for any President and if you don't even know who the President of Mexico is you simply don't know enough to form an informed opinion. And you can't wait till you are President when you will be overwhelmed with a hundred issues at once. You have to acquire the knowledge and judgement about the big issues before you become President.

Anyway I agree that Klobuchar doesn't really have a chance so it's a moot point anyway. At the end of the day despite his obvious problems, Biden is the least bad alternative left and the one who is most likely to stop Bernie as well as beat Trump.
  #3697  
Old Yesterday, 12:22 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post
There is at least one credible allegation of Bloomberg personally making extremely crude and sexist comments ....
I really dont care about a allegation of something back in 1995.

These attacks on the other democratic candidates are something everyone should be ashamed of.



All they will do is ensure trump wins.
  #3698  
Old Yesterday, 12:28 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I really dont care about a allegation of something back in 1995.

These attacks on the other democratic candidates are something everyone should be ashamed of.



All they will do is ensure trump wins.
Nm. Wrong thread

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; Yesterday at 12:29 PM.
  #3699  
Old Yesterday, 12:28 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I really dont care about a allegation of something back in 1995.

These attacks on the other democratic candidates are something everyone should be ashamed of.



All they will do is ensure trump wins.
Concern noted.
  #3700  
Old Yesterday, 12:35 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
So what does that leave white voters?
And why is there no White Entertainment channel??? And no White History month???

Read for comprehension. White voters are certainly relevant, but I hope they aren’t being included in polls of black voters.
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 09:10 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