First Howard Schultz and now Steyer. I think I preferred it when billionaires were devoting their free time and money to building rocket ships rather than running for president.
Strawman, dude. Nothing I’ve said comes close to saying we should write this vote off. You’re doing the silly thing of conflating Obama-Trumpers with non-college whites.
As to that “silly thing” … Obama’s non-college educated white vote minus Clinton non-college educated white vote is a very close match to Obama-Trump vote. That’s just the reality, not silly conflation. Obama to nonvoter OTOH were mostly in minority demographics.
Glad we agree that they are votes worth fighting for and having serious outreach to.
And maybe best to stop on an item of agreement.
According to one poll.
Ain’t enough rolleyes.
There’s no question that, excluding his first couple months in office, Trump’s approval is about as good now as it’s ever been, but per the 538 link, it’s still a level (42.7%) that he’s matched or slightly exceeded a number of times during the past 14 months.
His approval minus disapproval is currently minus 9.6%; the closest he’s gotten to even (again, excluding his first two months) was minus 8.7% on 6/21/18. So he’s not brushing up against a new personal best there.
Just want to point out what this really says:
So let’s compare two liberal-moderate/DK-conservative breakdowns:
O-T voters: 33-25-42
USA(Gallup): 26-39-35
Looks like the O-T voters average about the same as the general population, but fewer of them are found in the middle, and more of them are found towards either side.
No point to make, but that ‘fully’ at the beginning of the quote seemed to be emphasizing the percentage of O-T voters identifying as conservative for no apparent reason.
It means that these voters might as well be identifying their ideological position using a coin flip. All noise, no signal.
If it makes you feel better Elon Musk was born in S. Africa so he cannot run for president. 
And likewise Richard Branson’s out of the running, thank god.
The relevance of the “fully” to me seemed to be that they were not expecting those who voted for Obama twice and back D for midterms after voting Trump to be conservative identifying. One reasonable preconception was that these swingable voters would be MORE in the moderate middle than the general population. But, consistent with ywtf’s thesis, these voters specifically seem to find moderation less appealing than a message to shake things up, with the direction of the shake less important than that it is a shake up. Or alternatively, they don’t really categorize cleanly on this scale and what ID they have would vary with what aspect of the issues is being emphasized by a party at that time. Not sure which is the case but their tendency to relatively avoid the moderate label is something that tells us something, even we can’t be sure of what that something is.
Bezos can run , he also has a rocket company , Blue Origin , but it’s not as well known as SpaceX. They are in the earlier stages of development of the rockets.
Tom Steyer is running as a Dem, not independent.
He’s spending all his spare cash on his ex-wife.
Latest polls make better reading for Biden.
Morning Consult: Biden (31%), Sanders (19%), Harris (14%), Warren (13%), Buttigieg (6%)
Emerson: Biden (30%), Sanders (15%), Harris (15%), Warren (15%), Buttigieg (5%)
Biden has dropped in each poll. 34 to 30 in Emerson’s log, and 33 to 30 in Morning Consult’s log (within M.O.E). However what is good for him is he maintains a healthy gap at this point and it seems the Harris debate bounce has eased off. He needs a much more strong debate performance in a few weeks nevertheless because that debate and the immediate aftermath showed he is not teflon. If he can’t withstand attacks from his own party then Trump will lick his lips.
I think it was quite evident pre-debate that this group of five were the ones with a pathway (with Buttigieg a distant fifth) and that has been consolidated. What is more significant is Sanders has dropped 12% points in the Emerson poll. So even though Biden dropped four points, he has actually increased his lead from 7 to 15% points. It’s pretty noticeable that the Sanders campaign staff like David Sirota were anticipating this being a run-off between Biden and Sanders but that’s not worked out that way at all. He has to look over his shoulder and that actually helps Biden since he has a big enough gap to take a big blow and survive it as the busing saga proves. What he cannot afford is to let it become a recurring theme where he becomes a liability in the general election as it might get to the stage where the other candidates do that thing where everyone jumps up on that one guy to get him out of the race because needs must. We saw the Republican field attempt that with Trump but Trump fought it off because he relished being under siege. His entire message to woo the base is they are under siege from the establishment. Biden obviously cannot use that defence.
But strictly on Sanders, he is no longer solely in that leftward lane with Elizabeth Warren in the race, and she is actually trying to build a coalition in how she is detailing her plans, why everyone benefits, how it gets done and so forth. Whereas Sanders is a bit of a one trick pony. His debate performance was pretty ineffective but got glossed over since he was caught in between Biden and Harris (literally!). Nonetheless while one has to credit Sanders for his consistency (we’re going to take on this industry and that industry, medicare for all, cancel student debt, we’re going to take on this industry and that industry…), the democratic electorate ultimately did not go down that path in 2016. He has had three years to reflect on why and the main reason in my mind was the lack of coalition. The difference between Warren and Sanders in this regard is Warren is a democrat who wants to work with fellow democrats to change the system. Bernie is not party partisan so he will go after both sides since he wants to fundamentally uproot the system. I don’t dislike Bernie (some of his fans however :rolleyes:) but when you’re running to be the de facto leader of the democratic party you have to realise it’s a big and diverse umbrella.
My take remains that Sanders’ campaign is dead man walking. Has been for a while. But there enough Bernie or Busters that his bottom will be 8ish and will be enough to kneecap Warren’s hopes to take the lead.
I’m surprised that Biden’s numbers are this good in not one but two national polls. This was the point that I thought his bad news cycle would max out on poll impact (and then partially recover). 12 to 15 points above the pack after this bad of a news cycle is freakish.
Still it does show a hit. Before the debate, 6/19 to 26, Morning Consult had Biden up 17 at 35, and now up 12 at 31. It’s not nothing but it isn’t as big as I thought it would be at this point.
Agree with pretty much all of this. It’s not that Sanders is collapsing; he’s just not moving, and he can’t remain stagnant and expect to win. Warren and Harris both look good, but the damage to Biden’s campaign appears to have maxed out and we’re seeing the voters move past that negative news cycle.
Trump can lick his lips and attack all he wants. This is pure swing state politics. The real question is, can Biden hang on to all the states Hillary won, and get 44,000 more votes than Hillary in Pennsylvania, 10,000 more in Michigan, and 23,000 more in Wisconsin. Or, for that matter, could he get 90,000 more votes than Hillary in Arizona even if he loses Wisconsin and Michigan?
Even Ol’ Joe can probably manage to campaign hard in four states, and at least visit some others.
CNN has set out some rules for the 2nd 2020 Presidential Debate.
We should no longer be talking about Mayor Pete as part of the top group.
I always thought that logically, if anything Perot should have been a help to Bush in 1992, and a boon to Clinton in 1996. Elections with incumbent presidents are referendums on the president, and splitting the anti-incumbent vote just helps the incumbent.
Actually, no. Morning Consult claims to have a sample of >16,000 likely voters, so their MOE is about 0.8%.
Morning Consult is a bit of an outlier: they had Biden at 38% (only 2 points down from his first full post-announcement week) right up to the debate, long after he’d dropped into the low to mid 30s (or lower) in pretty much every other poll. So his total hit in that poll is pretty big, and their numbers aren’t directly comparable with other polls. (They also have Bernie holding steady at 19% from the beginning of May until now.) I don’t ignore Morning Consult, but I take them with a grain of salt.