Just how much of a threat are Sanders to Warren and Vice Versa?

UIt’s all in the title.

I understand the other “non or lesser Progressive” Democrats are all competing with each other as well. Debates could change everything.

I’m currently a Bernie dude… (Biden’s horrible In my HUMBLE opinion, as far as I can tell, but I’m not an idiot and would vote for him over Trump). Lately I can’t deny Warren’s hard work and accomplishments, I think she’s great for the United States, however I don’t know what her foreign influence would be like. I can’t picture it in my head.

Anyway… I come in peace. Biden’s got baggage from what I’ve seen, but I honestly could see why he’s some people’s ‘best option’ in getting closer to the America they envision.

Sorry folks, wrong forum.

Moved to Elections.

[Not moderating]
Sanders is consistently blowing Warren away, by double digits, in every poll, including in Massachusetts, and including when you look at second and third choices. He’s an existential threat to her candidacy, and she’s no threat at all to his.

It’s still mostly name recognition now. Let’s get a couple of the early debates in and start thinning out the long shots.

Full disclaimer: everyone on here knows I can’t stand Sanders.

But, I seriously wonder how Bernie is going to look on the debate stage with so many candidates, many of them quite talented. I also wonder how his personality will play. In 2016, I can understand the appeal of his feisty personality versus the reserved Hillary who often seemed as every word was chosen by a campaign consultant.

How’s that going to play now? We’ve already had 4 years of ‘shaking up the system’ with a bomb thrower like Trump. Does Sanders still get seen as a fighter or does he come off as an angry old man?

I don’t know any Democrats who have said they’d never consider Warren, but there are plenty like me that will never vote for Sanders in the primary.

It’ll be interesting to see whom the crowd of candidates attack first: Biden or Bernie. Shit is going to fly from all directions, so they’d better have their shit storm gear strapped tightly.

My point of view here is from the son of up from poverty, working class who become middle-class, New Deal Democrats who went to their graves believing (especially my mother) that FDR saved the United States.

Out here in a red state in flyover country, there’s not much talk of the Democratic race at all. In fact, the latest political flap in my neck of the woods has been two Democratic state reps who are both running for the same state Senate seat, and neither wants to back down.

IMHO Warren should stay in the Senate, where she seems to be an effective legislator with a powerful voice. Bernie is John the Baptist – a prophet, not a Messiah. I wish someone had as much old-line, blue-collar working class credibility as Biden, someone younger and less prone to gaffes. But Trump clearly isn’t comfortable with Biden as an opponent, so Joe certainly has value simply as a distraction.

As for the rest of the field, they’re all just names to me. I can’t even spell Mayor Pete’s name, and I couldn’t tell the difference between him and Beto O’Rourke, either in terms of physical appearance or political positions.

I think Warren is running for president to get more air play for her policies. I mean, I don’t think she’d mind winning, but I don’t think that’s her main goal. I think she wants to be the moral standard-bearer of the progressives.

Similarly, I think mayor Pete is running for 2024, or maybe VP.

I don’t know what Booty-judge is running for, but I think it’s going to be him versus Biden at the end of it. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden steps down to let him go on through. It’s an early prediction, obviously, but he’s the only standout competitor at the moment.

But anyways, as to the OP:

I went through the 2016 Republican Primary results once to try and get a sense for whether Trump won outright or if it was more a matter that Cruz and Rubio split the serious vote.

It’s a bit tricky to go through and, quite possibly, I read the numbers wrong but if you look at who sat out of any particular convention and who seemed to get a home-town boost, it looked to me like there were basically three camps among the voters: Pro-Business, Pro-Latino, and Pro-Traditional.

Trump, Kasich, Paul, and Fiorina split the Business vote. Rubio and Cruz split the Latino vote. Jeb and Christie had the traditional vote, but it never had many backers.

Of the two main camps, the Business group was larger and Trump was always the largest vote-puller within that camp. But he was never in the majority, simply because there were more competitors in his camp. The Latino group was smaller than Business, but they always did better than Trump.

Ultimately, though, the candidate who was most popular in the most popular camp was the one who won. While that isn’t necessarily the Condorcet winner, that is a fairly “good” outcome, so far as trying to ensure that the election doesn’t spit out some random person that no one can understand how he got it.

But so… If we assume that things would more-or-less play out the same way in the Democratic primary, then we would expect Warran and Sanders to win based, essentially, on the size of their camp. If it’s the biggest camp in the party, then probably - even if they split the vote within the camp about even - one of them will be the Presidential candidate.

I bet that when all is said and done, she finishes ahead of him in the primaries. I wouldn’t bet a lot, but I think she’s going to finish ahead of him.

He has a head start on her. The millennials aren’t going to flip over from Sanders to Warren. And everyone else will figure that Sanders already did an unexpectedly impressive job campaigning before, so why bother going with the unknown quantity? I’m sure that the question will tug at the heart-strings of a few, but they’ll end up backing the horse that they think can win.

Pocahontas can’t win. Trump already defeated her. All he has to do is say that one word and she’s toast. She played that wrong.

Sanders… Well, he probably can’t win either, but the people who would vote for either of them aren’t the sort to see that. They’ll see him as electable.

Oh yeah? :smiley:

@DMRegister Iowa Poll results on the 2020 caucus field

Biden: 24%
Sanders: 16%
Warren: 15%
Buttigieg: 14%
Harris: 7%
Klobuchar: 2%
O’Rourke: 2%

No other candidate tops 1%.

Biden’s -5 since the previous DMR poll, Bernie’s -9, Warren’s +6, and Pete’s +13.

It looks like Warren may be siphoning some votes away from Bernie, and Buttigieg may be siphoning some votes away from both Bernie and Biden.

I’m pretty sure the #2 choice of a plurality of Warren and Sanders supporters is Joe Biden (and a plurality of Biden supporters’ #2 is Bernie). Voters are way less ideological than pundits want them to be.

IIRC, there are supposedly people in Trumpworld who are really worried that Donald Trump thinks this way, that if she’s the nominee, he’ll just run around screaming “Pocahontas! Pocahontas! Pocahontas!” at her and expect the 95% of voters who didn’t follow that faux scandal to know WTF he’s talking about.

OK, so there’s one singular poll where Warren is only a little behind Sanders, instead of a lot behind him.

You can see how the candidates are doing as second choices, and being actively considered, on p.4 of the poll.

There’s no “If candidate X was your first choice, who is your second choice?” layout, so your theory is neither supported or called into question by the results. Just what % have candidate X as their first choice, what % have candidate X as their second choice, and what % who don’t have candidate X among their top 2 are still actively considering X.

A lot of the May polling shows Warren close to Sanders, a few state polls even give her a 1 point lead:

Biden is still ahead pretty much everywhere.

538 defaults to showing

in different orders on different pages, presumably they are using some sort of weighted average for the order. But you have to click again to see the other candidates. So I guess that’s who they think is seriously in play.

oh, wait, in SC they have Booker and not O’Rourke. I guess they show the top six in each polling group. (national, specific state, etc.)

I haven’t decided who I want to support, yet.

My own power rankings of the candidates so far (nationally, not specific to any one state):

  1. Biden
  2. Sanders
  3. Buttigieg
  4. Warren
  5. Harris

Once you get past the top five, it’s not really clear who the next five contenders are, but I would probably go with Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, and Amy Klobuchar.

ETA: I should emphasize that this does not take the most recent polling release yesterday into account.

I agree that that should be stupid, but I also remember “The Dean Scream” and, moreover, swift boating. …And Trump.

When most voters watch something like the debates, they’re just looking at body language. They have no idea what anyone’s saying - and most likely no one is really saying much of anything beyond word salad anyways. But whoever seems the most confident, relaxed, and unflappable will do far better than one should, simply on that basis. The person who loses their cool and can’t handle a blowhard, people will notice.

Your average human can’t debate politics. They can read body language though.

You and everyone else in the world, aside from minor quibbles about order.

I don’t think it matters who the next five are. The first debate is coming up soon, and whoever outside the top 5 can stand out in that context will be at the top of the rest of the pack.

And even with that, he lost to her badly in the primaries. I have no idea why we’re even considering the guy who lost to the person who lost to Trump as a potential winner.