Sanders reported internal polling that pretty much matched this.
Sanders - 29
Pete - 25
Warren - 21
Biden - 13
Klobuchar - 11
Sanders internal polling over-represents himself, which I guess is expected from internal polling, but everyone else is almost exactly the same (Klobuchar is off by 1).
[quote=“asahi, post:199, topic:847465”]
I don’t want to be hyperbolic and say that the Democrats are doomed, but if the Dems were playing in a Super Bowl, it would remind me of this:
[/QUOTE]Here’s what centrist, corporate Democrats are thinking: NOW IS THE TIME TO PANIC! - YouTube
I think there is a fear factor.
If the majority of Democrats simply want to beat Trump even if ideologically the candidate most likely is not as pure as you want, I think they’ll swallow some pride. Most Democrats identify as ‘moderate’ anyway.
That candidate for the last year has been Biden. He is struggling with cash however and has banked himself on South Carolina launching him off the pad to clean up on Super Tuesday. The Southern states still have Biden well clear in the polls.
If Biden gets hit in the early states that’s where Bloomberg can emerge. He like Biden needs no help on name recognition. But unlike Biden, money is no object for him. He is viable in swing states, can bring on some republicans and the independents. Whereas there is a risk that a Sanders nomination is an experiment the Trump campaign and GOP down ballot candidates want — so they can fearmonger about socialism.
Here’s the deal - I think Biden has been weakened as a general election candidate with the Ukraine innuendo. But I still think if he’s the nominee Dems at least keep the House, maybe expand it. Because down ballot candidates can align on his platform. Sanders I think loses us the control of the House because it were moderate Dems who won red districts in 2018 to gain control. Sanders agenda will require them to publicly bind in with him and down ballot Republicans have an opportunity to turn those districts red again.
Who probably don’t even know the other exists; sure. Just like I’m willing to blame Trump for what his minions pull …
In my estimation, Biden’s campaign may already be mortally wounded – I’ll wait until the final results of Iowa come in before being more assertive in making that kind of proclamation, but it’s grim right now if you’re a moderate democrat.
If I were a major moderate Democratic benefactor - hell, if I’m a Republican who wants the country to wake up from this Trump nightmare and shudder at the thought of Bernie Sanders vs Mitch McConnell and endless, pointless fights over the fiscal cliff and sequestered funding - I would be seriously considering picking up the phone and telling Joe Biden that “It’s over: we’re not going to encourage you to keep running. Drop out, wait for a month or two, and get behind Michael Bloomberg.”
It’s not really a popular vote win though. It’s like comparing a poll of people from before they made up their mind to a poll of those same people after. Of course, more weight should be given to the latter.
No. They definitely know each other.
It would be silly to think otherwise.
Why? It’s a caucus, not a primary. Dems need to understand the rules, play by them and quit bitching about them.
Because that’s how they roll.
A NY Times article summed it up well: “Finally, for Iowa’s non- competitor, the other mayor in the race, the whole night went beautifully: a wounded Biden and a Buttigieg deprived of the full benefits of victory is pretty much all that Bloomberg could have hoped for in his apparent plan to be the last non-Sanders option standing when Super Tuesday rolls around in March.“
Fuck your factually incorrect conspiracy theories in the ass.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
But that argument of “but I won X (underlying statistic) of the vote” should always be shut down by the media or anyone else who is being fair. Nobody humors a losing football team because they got more total yards or threw for more touchdowns or was better on defense therefore they should have won the game.
Everyone knew going in the game was about points like they knew going in that Iowa was a caucus system about delegate allocation.
It’s whiny loser bullshit and the media should not entertain it and people should call out those candidates who whine about it.
I’d hold onto putting all the eggs in the Bloomberg basket until after Nevada. New Hampshire is coming up — Sanders won that by over 20 points against Hillary. It is also Warren’s neighbouring state. You expect them to do well, although a split vote could reduce the margin of win from 2016. Nevada is where a more diverse electorate votes and that’s what Biden has been relying on. If he loses Nevada, 0-3 going into his South Carolina firewall is pretty much game over to me.
That said based on the 62% results in Iowa, Warren isn’t doing so well given she has paid much more attention to that state than Biden. Closer to him in 4th than Sanders in 2nd.
Yep.
Nate Silver agrees with me.
Agreed (with Boycott). I think, overall, it’s Warren who had the worst night (accounting for expectations and those likely to do well in most upcoming states).
Full disclosure. I’m a Pete supporter.
Should Pete end up winning because of realignment then that’s the result of a political strategy. Bernie has chosen a strategy of full speed ahead, no compromise, my way or the highway, boo Hillary Clinton, it’s ok to call Elizabeth Warren a snake and full scorched earth. It’s pretty easy to see why not too many people for the non viable candidates wouldn’t go over to him.
Pete chose a strategy to call the other candidates his competitors not his opponents. While obviously it might be different among the activists, most IA voters probably don’t go to bed with a passionate hatred of Pete Buttigieg.
You’re really projecting heavily when you accuse others of engaging in a scorched earth policy against candidates and voters they don’t like.
Right. Because it’s utterly unprecedented for Democrats to complain about situations where they win the popular vote but somehow lose the election. :rolleyes:
Granted, SDC equivalents are the metric by which the Iowa caucus has been traditionally judged, and the popular vote totals weren’t even made available until this cycle. So it’s not unreasonable for both candidates to claim “victory” here. Of course, Buttigieg’s “victory” was more unexpected and therefore more newsworthy.
In terms of the actual meaningful outcome measure, pledged delegates to the national convention, a race this close is practically a tie; Pete might end up with one more delegate than Bernie, or it might be a tie.
Hm? Not really. It’s more like comparing a poll showing how many voters supported each candidate to the results of running those numbers through an algorithm which arbitratrily weights the opinion of some voters more heavily than others. Obviously, more weight should be given to the former, at least if your goal is to predict how things will shake out in other elections where no such algorithm will be in place.
But again, it’s silly for either candidate to claim an unambiguous victory here (I’m sure they’ll both do it, but it’s still silly). For all practical purposes, assuming the current numbers hold up, this should be considered a tie.