Not necessarily if you’re a gambler. There’s a whole bunch of reasons to make bets that aren’t on the favorites. If that weren’t true, there wouldn’t be anyone to bet with.
nm
A Quinnipeac poll shows Trump trailing 5 Democrats.
I think the moral is: “electability” is overrated. Vote your conscience in the primary.
Sanders won’t drop out until the winner is up on the podium giving his acceptance speech. Certainly not to help another candidate. This is his last shot at the presidency and he’s the leader of the progressive movement. He’s not going to tell his supporters to settle for Warren.
Much as I like Gillibrand, she was going nowhere. There comes a time to stop wasting one’s time (not to mention everyone else’s), and she and a number of candidates are at that point. Kudos for making the right call.
Me either. As a Warren fan, I know what I want to happen, but honestly I have no idea which of the top four candidates is going to win. My only thought is that I really don’t expect any of the lesser candidates to break through.
Earlier on, I was sure that Sanders would not win the nomination, but lately I’m not even sure of that anymore. Could be Biden, Warren, Sanders, or Harris, but damned if I have any idea which.
I’m curious why you’re adding Harris to your top candidates but not Pete. According to your rankings, there’s a bigger gap between Warren and Harris than there is between Harris and Pete, and that gap is shrinking.
Is this prediction based on numbers or something else?
I like Gillibrand but she wasn’t catching on and good for her for recognizing it. Everyone who didn’t qualify for the latest debate also needs to drop out, IMO.
Why do you think there needs any explanation other than “top 4”.
If forced to bet I’d still take Biden over Warren at this point but it would be close. She has consistent forward momentum and more proven skill campaigning in this specific cycle.
jsc1953, and Morning Consult only has Biden (by the most) and Sanders winning.
Seriously the moral is don’t take national election head to head polls too seriously at this point.
OTOH there is something to be taken away. In the Quinnipiac Trump sits solidly at 38 to 40%. The differences are how many are willing to say yes to another choice but he does not get any more yes in any match up. Likewise for the MC one but with Trump at 35 to 36% in each match up.
For the question of are you sure you’d vote Trump the answer is apparently between 35 to 40%, with the answer of sure for any specific alternative depending on how well they know who that choice is more than anything else. Pretty consistent with his 41% approval rating. You just need a D candidate who does not end up disapproved of by as much or more by the end …
Back to the single poll bit … this comment in a CBC news bit really disturbs me:
THAT’s how clustering occurs and why Monmouth earns its high rating and whatever shop Anzalone runs almost certainly does not get one.
I’ve been in the Warren camp since the get go. I liked her before she was a candidate for Pres and that affection has steadily gone up the longer this campaign has gone forward.
She stands out for a few important reasons (imho, at least). She is the only candidate who, starting on Day 1, has had a steady, slow-growing momentum that has pushed her star higher and higher. And this is because her campaign is actually ABOUT something. She’s actually interested in the machinations of the federal government, the nuts and bolts. After all, you cant enact big change if you don’t understand the tools you’re attempting to use to achieve that change. She is about more than her personal ambitions. Her entire professional life has been an almost inevitable journey to this spot.
She answers every question posed to her! That alone sets her apart. And she is genuine every time in her attempt to answer, she doesnt hesitate before leaping right in to the substance of an issue, she’s not worried about tailoring her response for a sound bite. Or to not make the wrong kind of waves.
I spend a lot of time on Facebook and I regularly see campaign ads for Warren, Buttigieg, and Sanders, but I have NEVER seen a Cory Booker ad on Facebook. That makes me think he’s doing something wrong. He doesn’t seem to be campaigning hard enough. He hasn’t been in the news for doing or saying anything noteworthy. Right now Booker should be courting controversy - that’s how to get attention. He’s hiding too much in the shadows, I think. It’s a shame because I really like him and think he is very electable but he appears not to have a shot at the nomination.
I’ll grant the praise you’ve given her but this statement is not necessarily true. A boss, a leader, needs to hire the people who who really understand the tools. I’ll take someone who understands the tools less but knows how to assemble and lead a great team, over someone who knows more themselves but fails in the team leadership department.
I’m not saying she fails there. In fact I think the fact that her campaign is executing so well so far is good evidence that she DOES do that well. But I am disputing the concept that the leader needs to be the expert.
This. There are only so many hours in a day, and a boss can only learn and understand so much. This is true at way lower levels than the President of the United States, and it’s especially true at that level. A President needs to put together a good team that s/he can delegate responsibility to without losing sleep.
Fair enough. It’s refreshing to see her interest in detail. You wouldn’t disagree that that is a good quality in a President would you? Of course not taken to the extreme of micromanagement (which ive seen no indication of from her) but to that of possessing well-rounded understanding of what going on around her.
I know that the field has to be narrowed at some point, but I’d still rather see it done by ACTUAL VOTERS, rather than polls and donors.
It’s hard to base predictions on numbers. They can tell you where you are and where you’ve been, but they can’t often tell you where you’re going.
In Buttigieg’s case, I’m going with what seems to me to be the obvious reality that not too many people are going to be OK with nominating a candidate for President who’s never had any bigger responsibilities than being mayor of South Bend. He’s made worthwhile contributions to the discussion, but he’s not going to be the nominee.
In Harris’ case, while her inability to capitalize in any lasting way on her performance in the first debate certainly gives me reason to doubt her chances, I’m not ready to write her off yet. That’s based on little but intuition; I can’t really say more than that. Other than, I’m definitely not an oracle. I really don’t know how things are going to play out.
And also, doesnt knowing detail help to make the most informed choice as to who best to surround yourself with?