# Hee-haw, y'all. The 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 12, 2018, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415 "2018-11-12T17:52:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 92
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1821 "2019-07-13T20:39:44Z")
1500 is a decent sample size. And it is not an item in isolation WSJ/NBC:[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/nbc-wsj-poll-biden-warren-top-2020-democratic-field-n1028971](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/nbc-wsj-poll-biden-warren-top-2020-democratic-field-n1028971) Again, working on a premise that Obama-Trump voters are attracted to shaking things up, she handily leads the pack among voters who are looking for large scale change. That aint only educated white women. As to her speaking style … YMMV but those who have heard on the trail are generally leaving more impressed than they were expecting to be. I’d like to see more variety in her style, more of Harris’s measured resoluteness, but she still connects with her audience. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1822 "2019-07-13T20:50:20Z")
DSeid, you used a lot of words there without engaging my main point: > [@SlackerInc](#): > > she is the worst performing incumbent in all of the House and Senate (with the second worst being a Republican congressman under indictment whom the GOP unsuccessfully tried to remove from the ballot). How can you even consider her? There are hundreds and hundreds of senators and representatives on that list. She came in dead last, unable to beat even the indicted Republican guy. Why is it not immediately obvious to any rational observer of politics that no party should ever take the risk of nominating someone like that for president? It’s the very definition, the ne plus ultra, of not appealing to swing voters or even soft Democrats. :smack: ETA: > [@Lamoral](#): > > That poll above was only of 1500 people. I would not expect that to be an accurate representation of anything. > > Warren’s speaking style is awful. She has this desperate, beseeching tone all the time, like she’s pleading for dear life - like a mom at a PTA meeting talking about the dangers of Marilyn Manson. I mean that’s literally the mental image I get every time I hear her talking about anything. This is not a style that is going to win over enough voters to beat Trump. We are fucked if she is the nominee. You are wrong about polling methodology, but the subjective part is spot on. I know you and I cannot be the only ones who perceive her that way. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1823 "2019-07-13T21:16:49Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > […] > And can she do better fighting against Trump than she did with the whole Pocahantas thing? Because that sucked. > > In terms of Senate coat tails, well likely could help with Maine anyway. Not sure about NC let alone the others. > > Above all else this is a pragmatic thought process. > > I am not swung over yet, but she has become my solid second. If Biden’s next performance is disappointing too and he demonstrates that it wasn’t just one bad debate, and he drops down as a result … then she is my best pick now over Harris, who I think has kneecapped herself for the general. Sanders? No. And others even less. I have a hard time buying this is purely pragmatic. Come on, Senate coattails for Maine? I am pretty good at reading people and I think in your mild mannered way, you’re pissed Harris “went there” in the debate. In Harris and Warren, we have one scrappy campaigner and one crappy, even if people are “more impressed than they were expecting to be.” ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1824 "2019-07-13T21:17:21Z")
Sorry that I do not recall your cite nor what metrics “worst” is being defined by. I’ll throw [this](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/is-elizabeth-warren-an-effective-senator/449349/) out there that recognizes that she has few bills that have passed with her name on them but huge impact nevertheless. Would you really want to argue the point that Harris or Sanders have used their times in the Senate with greater impact on an annualized basis? They are both pretty thin and with Sanders having had _years_ to accumulate his nothing. They are not running on the number of bills they have sponsored and gotten passed. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1825 "2019-07-13T21:22:29Z")
I would bet SlackerInc is talking election performance. Warren is a good Senator luckily living in a state where she doesn’t have to be a good campaigner. Eta: here’s this > [@](#): > > We did these calculations for every contested Senate and House election with an incumbent in 2018.7 In the House, net incumbency advantage ranged from +28.4 points for Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski (who ran against a Nazi sympathizer) to -13.2 points for Collins. In the Senate, it spanned +25.2 points (for Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin in West Virginia) to -14.6 points (for Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, a potential red flag for her rumored 2020 presidential campaign). The average U.S. representative had a net incumbency advantage of 2.7 points; U.S. senators got an average boost of 2.6 points over their challengers. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1826 "2019-07-13T21:28:03Z")
I’m not talking about efficacy in the Senate or anything like that. I’m talking about something much more important, which is how well someone does in elections compared to the partisan lean of their state or district: > **[How Much Was Incumbency Worth In 2018?](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-was-incumbency-worth-in-2018/)** > > For decades, running as an incumbent was undoubtedly a huge advantage in electoral politics. As recently as 20 years ago, holding office added an average of 8 p… > [@](#): > > Before an election, we really only know what partisan lean and elasticity look like,4 although we can guess at what the popular vote might be thanks to the the generic congressional ballot polling average. After an election, we know the popular vote and the election result, so we can roughly calculate what the net incumbency advantage might have been. For example, Democrats won the national popular vote by 8.3 percentage points,5 but Republican Rep. Chris Collins of the New York 27th District won his election by 0.6 points in a district with a partisan lean of R+22.9 and an elasticity score of 1.10. That means Collins performed about 13.2 points worse than we would have expected based on partisanship and the popular vote alone — a net incumbency disadvantage.6 Given that Collins was indicted on insider trading charges earlier this year and Republicans initially tried to replace him on the ballot, that dramatic negative number makes sense. > > We did these calculations for every contested Senate and House election with an incumbent in 2018.7 In the House, net incumbency advantage ranged from +28.4 points for Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski (who ran against a Nazi sympathizer) to -13.2 points for Collins. In the Senate, it spanned +25.2 points (for Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin in West Virginia) to -14.6 points (for Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, a potential red flag for her rumored 2020 presidential campaign). The average U.S. representative had a net incumbency advantage of 2.7 points; U.S. senators got an average boost of 2.6 points over their challengers. Many people don’t know about or understand this kind of thing. They see she won reelection by a comfortable margin and don’t think about it any further. But the presidential election will not be contested in Massachusetts, so any thinking person should see that she is Kryptonite to swing voters and even soft Ds. BTW, I don’t know why you bring up Sanders, as if I had to choose between the two of them, it would be like choosing between poison ivy and poison oak. ETA: Ninja’d! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1827 "2019-07-13T21:28:55Z")
Oops, that’s from: > **[How Much Was Incumbency Worth In 2018?](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-was-incumbency-worth-in-2018/)** > > For decades, running as an incumbent was undoubtedly a huge advantage in electoral politics. As recently as 20 years ago, holding office added an average of 8 p… ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1828 "2019-07-13T23:06:35Z")
Thanks for the link and sorry for my not getting the what was being referred to. And yes that does give _some_ pause. Although I don’t get their analysis. She won re-election with 60.34% of the vote. Clinton took the state with 60.0% of the vote. Warren won with 6 points more than she won it with in 2012. If they are saying that since the overall electorate was shifted, on average, by 8 points so she should have had a result of 68%, well that is dumb. There is less space to move when you are already winning in a landslide. Assuming a _linear_ relationship with national popular vote margin on top of partisan lean is stupid. The bigger the partisan lean the smaller the impact that national vote partisan margin should be expected to have. I also am not so sure that MA is all that meaningful for the specific blocs I am most interested in. MA is very white, fairly wealthy, well educated. It re-elected both Warren and Republican Governor Charlie Baker at the same time. Let’s accept minimally that as a state it is not a good proxy for PA, MI, or WI, just shifted Leftward 15 points or whatever. IF nominated let us start off with her relative to HRC. If she does only just as well with each demographic then she is good shape (due to demographic shifts). Will she pull the same or better turnout of younger more progressive voters? Yes and more likely better than just the same. Romney-Clinton voters? Could lose a few, but many are never-Trumpers more than anything else. They’ll go back GOP when it is back to a Romneyesque sort but not until. I think MA has quite a few of them actually. Biden would do better with them though. Others worse. Obama-Trump voters? A bigger bloc and critical in the must win states. Few of them in MA. Will a candidate who is honed in as a shake it up economic populism candidate do better with them than HRC did? Hell yeah. Better than Biden. It may be so. IF she can stand up to his tantrums and put him in his place well. Currently that’s important facts not in evidence. Black turn out? Really I’m guessing that the Kerry and HRC numbers are reliable but not likely to be topped in the future. Obama’s turnout is not a standard to expect moving forward. Relative to HRC she should do as well or better with each bloc. Maybe even relative to Biden. Maybe. Again, I am still weakly in Biden’s camp and this is predicated on his flubbing his performance yet again and proving that he does not have the campaigning right stuff. She is the understudy who might take over the leading role. If he comes out solid next debate then I still betting on him as enough change coupled with white working class cred to get the Obama-Trump voters who can be gotten without losing as many Romney-Clinton ones, and maybe doing marginally better with Black voter turnout. But if not? I’m warming to her doing fine is all. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1829 "2019-07-13T23:54:18Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Her VP? Not Harris. Not Biden. Not Sanders > > Castro maybe? I think Castro would be an excellent VP candidate. First, of all the lesser candidates, he’s the one who’s impressed me most. And second, it would almost surely help mobilize Hispanic voters, whose turnout substantially lags that of most other groups. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2019, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1830 "2019-07-13T23:58:44Z")
RTF, agree about Castro. In 2016 I kept saying Hillary should have nominated a Latino running mate for the same reason. I think she probably would have won if she had. DSeid: No offense, but I trust 538’s number crunching more than yours (or anyone’s). And I would argue that every four years we should look for them to hopefully do this again and then we should eliminate anyone below average, or certainly dead last like she is. I understand why Warren excites a certain kind of choir when she preaches to them. But then the choir talks themselves into thinking “oh yeah, and swing voters will love this stuff too!” No. No they will not. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1831 "2019-07-14T00:17:13Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I understand why Warren excites a certain kind of choir when she preaches to them. But then the choir talks themselves into thinking “oh yeah, and swing voters will love this stuff too!” No. No they will not. I’ve been arguing all along that ‘swing voters’ aren’t the people we need. For one thing, there are precious few of them. It’s all about that base, 'bout that base, no treble…(sorry, briefly got possessed by the spirit of [Meghan Trainor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk), sorry about that)…I’ve been saying all along that our base is bigger than theirs, and if that base is as motivated in 2020 as it was in 2018, we’ll swamp 'em. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2019, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1832 "2019-07-14T00:58:32Z")
No offense taken, but this isn’t about the crunching, it is about parsing _the meaning_ of the crunch. Performance relative to partisan lean is a meaningful metric. How to parse the meaning of the metric is the question. Do you have any argument to make against the analysis I offer for how to interpret the metric other than that appeal to authority? (Especially when the authority starts off characterizing what they present as a very simple model.) I will illustrate the argument with the absurd extreme: Candidate A lives in a state with a partisan lean of 80. In a 50/50 national popular vote that state will go 90/10 to one party consistently. In a specific election the national popular vote goes +40 to that party (70/30). Candidate A does great, winning 97% of the vote. But they are only +14 over their partisan lean in an election that was +40! They underperformed by -33!!! Hell, if they got 100% of the vote they’d have underperformed. Is it indeed rational to interpret that result as a poorer than expected performance? As to Castro and the claim that a Hispanic running mate would have tipped the election to HRC … 1. Which states do you think some marginally better Hispanic turnout would have swung? Not likely PA, MI, and WI. Sun Belt states are just not yet ripe for the picking. (And FL Hispanics might vote based on Cuban identity but not Mexican heritage as the draw.) 2. If Hispanic voters didn’t get off their asses after being the target of Trump’s othering hate speech, why would a Hispanic VP have done it? While a two woman ticket might be much I’d wonder most about Stacy Abrams. Honestly I don’t think a two woman ticket would lose anyone that a one-woman ticket hadn’t already lost, and she’d help both shore up some Black turnout and maybe help with the NC Senate race … It would be an interesting ticket if nothing else! ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2019, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1833 "2019-07-14T01:35:52Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > And yes that does give _some_ pause. Although I don’t get their analysis. She won re-election with 60.34% of the vote. Clinton took the state with 60.0% of the vote. Warren won with 6 points more than she won it with in 2012. If they are saying that since the overall electorate was shifted, on average, by 8 points so she should have had a result of 68%, well that is dumb. There is less space to move when you are already winning in a landslide. Assuming a _linear_ relationship with national popular vote margin on top of partisan lean is stupid. The bigger the partisan lean the smaller the impact that national vote partisan margin should be expected to have. Well, you may still think it’s dumb, but they included district “elasticity” in their calculations. From the article: > [@](#): > > A very basic model for predicting congressional election results might look something like: > > Election Result = Partisan Lean + (Popular Vote x Elasticity) + Net Incumbency Advantage > > Where “Election Result” is the incumbent’s margin of victory or defeat, “Partisan Lean” is how much more Republican- or Democratic-leaning a state or district is than the country as a whole,1 “Popular Vote” is the national popular vote for the House of Representatives and “Elasticity” is a measure of how sensitive the state or district is to changes in the national mood.2 The last variable, “Net Incumbency Advantage,” is a rough proxy for things like a candidate’s experience, personal appeal and fundraising, and it shows how many percentage points stronger the incumbent is than the challenger at the ballot box. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2019, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1834 "2019-07-14T01:43:44Z")
Oh I read that. It isn’t addressing the point I raised however. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2019, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1835 "2019-07-14T01:47:51Z")
I think it does, in large part. The elasticity of Massachusetts’ voting history is very much attached to the landslide aspect. It most certainly addresses your complaint that a linear relationship with the national vote is stupid. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2019, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1836 "2019-07-14T06:33:17Z")
Special pleading for a candidate you personally like. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2019, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1837 "2019-07-14T07:06:32Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > For that matter, how about a Harris-Biden ticket. Harris gets to the Benefit of Biden’s experience (like Obama), Biden gets a position he’s entirely suited for, where age doesn’t really matter (like Alben Barkley), and a few speaking gaffes might be embarrassing to the President but certainly not fatal (like Dan Quayle or for that matter, Joe Biden.) > > And, he can step away/get pushed off the ticket in four years. > [@Procrustus](#): > > I can’t imagine he wants to be #2 again. > [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > I can’t imagine tha tin July 2015 Hillary wanted to be Secretary of state. Strange things happen. Yeah, like Chump winning. Still, I can’t see Biden settling for VP again. I’m voting for him in the Hawaii primary. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2019, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1838 "2019-07-14T13:17:06Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I think it does, in large part. The elasticity of Massachusetts’ voting history is very much attached to the landslide aspect. It most certainly addresses your complaint that a linear relationship with the national vote is stupid. No really it doesn’t. “Elasticity” applies in both directions equally, at least in that formulation of it, a basic linear equation, of the y=mx+b sort. My point is precisely that such is not the case. Elasticity is expected to decrease nonlinearly as the popular vote margin increases at the extremes of partisan lean in the direction of the partisan lean. But in any case, bottom line is that that number doesn’t worry me much. OTOH the fact that home state voters [prefer Biden](https://www.suffolk.edu/-/media/suffolk/documents/academics/research-at-suffolk/suprc/polls/massachusetts2/2019/6_11_2019_marginals_pdftxt.pdf) to her, at least so far, does. 22% Biden over her second at 11%. That has been a big red flag in my mind. Of course Harris loses in CA too, and was in fourth! When those who know you best say that person, President? Nah. Well that does say something and that something aint good Those results certainly factor in to my continuing to think of Biden as the better choice right now. But if he flops debate-wise again? We need a back-up. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2019, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1839 "2019-07-14T13:32:48Z")
Here’s another, from CNN: > [@](#): > > What’s the point: Warren’s margin may sound impressive, until you realize Hillary Clinton won Massachusetts by 27 points in 2016. Clinton won by 3 more points than Warren, despite 2018 being a better year for Democrats nationally and Warren having the advantage of incumbency. > > Warren’s performance in 2018 was one of the weakest for a Democratic Senate candidate. I created a simple statistical formula explaining the results of the 34 Senate races with at least one Democrat (or independent who caucuses with the Democrats) and one Republican. Controlling for a state’s weighted average partisanship and incumbency, Warren’s performance was the sixth worst of all Democrats. She did 7 points worse than expected. (For comparison, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders outperformed their baselines by 9 and 12 points respectively.) [https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/01/politics/elizabeth-warren-2020-warning-signs/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/01/politics/elizabeth-warren-2020-warning-signs/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2019, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415/1840 "2019-07-14T13:55:42Z")
You realize that’s what was cited by 538 as how that _might_ have implications in a presidential race? Again, that was not the focus of the 538 analysis. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415.md?page=91) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hee-haw-yall-the-2020-democratic-presidential-primary/824415.md?page=93)