Memories from the Biden thread…
Ken Vogel is the guy quoted in #2616
So? The journalist working on the Biden in the Ukraine story thinks there’s a story there. Shocking. And I still say that you are very much a hothouse flower if you think that was a hit piece.
Guardian article notes that Democrats are using “negativity” (about the challenges they face) as a way of avoiding complacency, but that it could also end up being a self-defeating prophecy.
Yeah, I think the op-ed is almost paradoxical in fretting that Democrats are being too negative, so we are probably going to lose. But I have said for a long time that it is wrongheaded to believe that the correct attitude to go into this election with is pessimism on the theory that optimism will sink us. Complacency would be a problem, but challengers are never going to be complacent. They may fiercely believe they can win, but they never sit back and feel it’s already locked in.
So the correct attitude IMO is “We are going to take this motherfucker down. Let’s roll.”
Looking at the recent hypothetical general election polls, it appears that Warren has now moved into a position at least equal to Sanders, who had previously been a clear second to Biden. The very most recent polls, from the last week or so, actually show her doing significantly better.
Weird recent polls: In New Hampshire, Biden beats Trump by 9, Warren loses by 2, and the second-best Dem option at +8 is…Yang?!
In Utah, the only Dems who can beat Trump are Bernie, just barely, and…Cory Booker by 12 points?? Hello?
From what? Do you mean he’ll withdraw his candidacy?
I never listen to those head to head numbers. They’re meaningless.
The real problem for Bernie is that his polling in the early states is hovering around 15% or below, the cutoff for getting any delegates. If he’s shut out in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada there’s going to be some rethinking to do.
I have long tried to argue that those trial heats are meaningless, and those oddball results tend to support that thesis.
It’s an interesting point about that 15% threshold. I have been pondering that depending on the polling in Minnesota, there could be a triple bank shot scenario where I vote for Bernie despite considering him unfit to be the Democratic standardbearer.
If (as appears likely) all the leading candidates are poor choices in my view, and Bernie’s getting 15% would make it slightly more likely that we get a contested convention, where maybe (just maybe) we get some kind of compromise candidate like Al Gore, I just might go there.
OK, so maybe it’s more like a sextuple bank shot. But if no candidate I actually like seems to have a chance to get 15%, and Bernie continues to look like someone who can get delegates but not the nomination, I might just throw it up and see what happens.
It’s may be more of a blindfolded triple bank shot.
It’s easy to think of Minnesota as one of the many with a March 3rd / Super Tuesday primary date. Early voting starts 46 days before that. That’s the middle of January. It’s several weeks before we even get Iowa caucus results. If early voting numbers are up you have to consider weeks of polls. Some will likely include candidates that were in the race when voting starts but drop after Iowa or NH.
Klobuchar, assuming she makes it to IA/NH before suspending her campaign, could really jack up the Minnesota results. The home state advantage could see her picking up a lot of votes and maybe even some delegates from the early vote even if she drops before the actual primary date.
It’s also important to point out that the 15% threshold applies both to the state and district level delegates. The district level delegates are the bulk of delegates. It’s possible to win delegates at the district level even without meeting the statewide threshold.
Maybe that should be the drunken, blindfolded, three bank shot.
It is debatable how meaningful such polls are. The oddball results aren’t relevant to that discussion, though, any large group of polls will have outliers.
I do think such polls are meaningful, so this is an important development for me, as it makes me feel comfortable having Warren rather than Biden as my backup plan.
LOL, fair. I didn’t know this about early voting. That strikes me as quite foolish to vote early in the primaries when you don’t know what the state of the race will be a month and a half later. But people will still do it, and it has the potential to make things weird as you say. It does actually give me greater hope that there will be a contested convention, because the winnowing and bandwagon effects will not be as strong.
My personal attitude is that I don’t just want to beat Trump; I want to beat him thoroughly. Even if we lived in Magical Hypothetical World where the Democratic candidate was absolutely 100% guaranteed to get a floor of 270 electoral votes, I wouldn’t be complacent. I’d still be fighting tooth and nail to get more, because I don’t want to just squeak out a slight victory; I want to crush him and all he represents. Which has the benefit that, in the real world where those 270 EVs aren’t guaranteed, fighting hard for more also improves the odds of getting those 270.
I’ve linked to some version of this exchange before, but with Biden and Warren now leading the pack, this clip from 14 years ago is worth a rewatch.
Fourteen years ago! Biden seems much younger and more alert before. Warren was ready to fight then and now.
The betting markets seem to have shifted heavily in Warren’s favor in the last week presumably on the belief that the Ukraine issue hurts Biden. I am not sure about that but I broadly agree that Warren is the front runner. She performs consistently in the debates, appears to have a solid ground game and is the darling of the Democratic pundit class. Starting off with two heavily white states will also be to her advantage. Biden is still ahead in the polls but there are question marks about his age and vitality and he draws a truly remarkable amount of bile from parts of the left pundit class. It’s not hard to see him fading away though he has shown a decent amount resilience after that first debate fiasco.
I still think that, warts and all, Biden is the best bet for the general. At a deep level I think he offers what a majority of voters want, a return to normalcy and at least a step back from polarization. I think abolishing private health insurance will be a huge liability for Warren and I just hope it’s tactical position which she will walk back in the general. And her record of generally underperforming Democratic candidates in her MA elections does suggest she may have a problem with white working-class voters in purple states.
That may well be right. The aspects of Biden that worry me seem less concerning when he is up against Trump. Although I don’t know that we can say for sure that Trump will be the Republican nominee.
I mostly have the same desire you do, but I actually don’t agree that the strategy to max out the breadth of your victory is necessarily the same as the one to make it most likely you will definitely win. Kind of like in football if you are winning by one point with one second on the clock and you are in range for an easy field goal. Kicking the field goal will give you the largest average winning margin, but there might be a fumble or a block and the other team runs it back for a score. Therefore the correct play is just to kneel on the ball and hold onto your certain one point victory.
A situation has to be pretty contrived before that sort of dynamic comes into play, though. In the football analogy, there’s only one variable in play, with everything else already decided. In the real election, though, there are at least 51, and they’re all decided at the same time, after all of the relevant campaigning decisions have been made.
But going for max electoral votes would require spreading the candidate and campaign thinner. Some people believe Hillary made this mistake.
I completely agree. First and foremost of course though is being sure of getting what we need. (How come I’m hearing Rolling Stones right now?)
I want a repudiation of Trumpism. Under circumstances as they stood before last week I would have though I’d not have very much chance of seeing that. Now I see a path. That path is contingent upon Trump’s abuse of power for personal gain being very clear to even very low information voters yet his remaining in office as out of naked partisanship by GOP-critters.
You will be left with maybe 35% of this country who will stay true anyway and more than a third of the Senators and their states. He will stray in office. But Florida, even Iowa, Ohio, and Texas are likely lost to him then.
Doesn’t it depend on who he winds up running against?
Either Warren of Biden would do just about as well in that circumstance. Different sales tactics of course but in different ways appealing to the same people. Not sure which I believe would sell better … Biden’s more centrist positions or Warren’s more strident positions on how this shows that we need more major structural changes to the institutions themselves when they can be abused in this sort of manner.
Which do you think would sell better?