I’ve seen data supporting your analysis, here. I’m kind of surprised that Harris appears to have taken a hit after the second round of debates—she didn’t have any obvious gaffes.
Maybe it’s just a resurgence for both Biden and Warren, which had to come from somewhere (and that somewhere happened to be Harris’s previous supporters).
It’s still early, though.
The polls are in, and here’s who won the second Democratic debate - Vox
She smacked on Biden in the first debates, but then showed she couldn’t take it.
Well, maybe. Undeniably, though, many must be seeing it that way.
I think it’s more like every chance Warren gets a chance to speak, she seems more and more electable. Perhaps more visionary than Harris.
To be clear, though, the polls I was looking at were polls of general election voters matching each of the contenders against Trump, not polls of Democrats matching the Democrats against each other.
Maybe in Bizarro World. She literally scolded the fucking audience. :smack:
It wasn’t so much that; her bounce had already faded to half of the advantage it was in the week after the infamous take-down of Biden. The way I see it, the anti-Biden take-down was a one-week news cycle. We moved on from that news cycle, and the polls began a kind of re-set. And yet, if you look at the residual, she moved up on Buttigieg by a net of 5 percentage points, where she still stands today. So she didn’t quite catch up with Biden, Warren, and Sanders - all of whom were absolutely more recognizable, household names than Harris - but she did move past Buttigieg. So I think her campaign would take that if you’d told her that this would be where she’d stand after the first debate.
People are forgetting that we’re still very early in the season yet. Historically there has been significant poll movement in the fall of the year before the election, which is when voters begin paying attention. Remember, after all, that they can’t actually cast a vote until winter, so there’s no way they’re paying this much attention to the race now. A long way to go yet.
Keep in mind that we’ve had arguments about “electability” before that have been completely and utterly dismantled. Obama was not “electable” because he was young and black. Trump wasn’t “electable” because he was a bigoted buffoon. We won’t know who’s “electable” for a while, but we can be sure that the definition of it will probably change. I don’t know if Warren is electable, but I certainly don’t know that she isn’t, and I have to confess, I’m becoming more and more impressed with her as the election cycle moves forward.
Do I think she’d be a long shot against Trump? Yes, but I also think that there’s a scenario in which she wins.
Well, she really, really wanted to tell the story about her friend with the dying kid. And they were (rightfully) laughing at her.
I like Warren, but that was hard to watch.
True. There are some common trends to be seen, though.
Are you basing this view on the idea that reliable polls can reasonably be assumed to describe the reactions of all registered voters?
But Obama and Trump did do worse than a “safer” nominee from their respective parties would have. They won anyway because the political winds were against their opponents. Warren could very possibly do the same, but why risk it?
Indeed, but I hear from so many people who say she was right, because the audience was out of line. It’s like they really want her to be the stern schoolmarm, politics be damned.
But why the hell did none of the post-debate commentary mention that cringeworthy moment, instead only focusing on her “strong moment” against Delaney? (Which was also bullshit IMO, but I can at least understand why the lefties loved it.)
Callback!
(Is there a point you’re trying to make …?)
Why risk it? Why risk it?!
I want to be clear: my mind’s not made up, but that’s a bleep reason to not support Warren. If ever there was an election to be bold, Christ, it’s this one. I’ve been leaning Biden the whole time, but fuck, he’s playing it too goddamn safe. He needs to step out and be his own goddamn self.
He’ll make it - as soon as you get off his lawn.
Really just not true. Polls in the first half of the year have a very tight correlation with polls in the second half and both have a very good correlation with primary outcomes.
These can be further broken down by level of name recognition. Being well known, like Warren and Sanders makes their under 20% polling more ominous for them. Harris has slightly better of a chance by that single item analysis if she is considered “lesser known” … but her inertia is heading downward.
Biden is not quite at the 35% level, but in most polls not so far off (for example this week’s MC at 33%, but neither Sanders or Warren are currently over 20%. Bottom of the ninth it may not be, but second inning? That way over sells how “early” this is given the polling as it stands. More like seventh with Biden up by three runs. Game’s not over by any stretch. But you will see some swinging for the fences in the next innings.
As to Warren the fact that she keeps her gradual climb after that debate is fairly good evidence that not too many were too bothered by that episode.
How could many be bothered when so few watched live and the media didn’t report on that moment? :smack: Talk about giving her a free pass! But everyone will be watching if and when she debates Trump.
I could not disagree more strenuously. I often like your takes, and I even defended your political acumen on another board. but if there was ever an election to play it safe, this is the one. I heard a very smart pundit say that the ideal campaign platform for a Democrat would be to just promise to be boring and not say crazy shit on Twitter, etc. Return to normalcy.
The election to be bold is when you are up against a super popular incumbent like Reagan in ‘84!
Well, I’m honestly curious why you said that to me earlier in such a way that I inferred skepticism but here you seem on board with the polls showing meaningful post-debate reaction.
(if anyone is curious, I’m calling back to this exchange in the “Democratic Debates 7/30 & 7/31” thread)
Actually, very, very true - not sure what 538’s talking about here, but if you go back to 2008, Barack Obama didn’t take a lead in the national polls until February 2008. That was AFTER the first primary/caucuses. In August of 2007, Hillary Clinton was beating him by 14 points. In October, some 3 months later, she was beating Obama by 26 points! In November, Clinton started a long, slow decline, which began to speed up just before the first few primaries.
And guess what, the same thing happened in 2016. In July of 2015, Clinton had a 50-point lead over Sanders. By September that lead was down to just 15 points. Clinton increased that lead to 25 points in late November/early December before the race went into a long trend of tightening. Clinton’s lead in the polls was down to 1% during the primaries before winning the California primaries and winning the nomination.
ETA: I read the article, and that’s just a case of math geeks playing with politics. Sure, if someone enters the race with a household name and lots of money, as Hillary Clinton did during the 2015-16 election cycle, odds are she will win. Nevertheless, the polls actually did move, and quite a lot. And in 2008, not only did they move, but Hillary Clinton ended up losing the nomination. And as I mentioned, Donald Trump was “unelectable” and entered the race polling at just under 5% before taking the lead. I don’t think voters are really paying attention just yet.