Morning Consult seems to be the main one keeping on top of second choices.
Currently Warren’s second choice is Bernie @ 33%, Biden @ 24%, Buttigieg@12%. My laugh of the day: Sanders’ top second choices are Warren @32%, Biden @24% and frigging Yang @9%.
She wrote off a couple of particular economists as wrong, not the entire freakin’ discipline.
And their conclusion was that the wealth tax would still raise most of what Warren said it would, just not all of what Warren said it would.
And they may well have been wrong on that because, according to what I’ve read, they ignored parts of Warren’s plan that are aimed at reducing the ability of rich people to shift money around to avoid taxes.
The wealth of the world’s 500 wealthiest people increased by $1.2 trillion last year.
Not ‘they’re worth $1.2T.’ No, that’s the one-year increase in their net worth.
What you’re saying was very true 40 years ago, when the wealth distribution in our society wasn’t nearly so lopsided. If you wanted government to pay for something, you had to tax the middle class because there wasn’t an insanely wealthy overclass.
That was then, and this is now. Now there really IS an insanely wealthy overclass, and yes, you CAN tax them enough to pay for trillions of dollars of goodies.
I can understand that it upsets you that she frequently talks like she’s from Oklahoma or something. She’s got a lot of nerve, talking like she’s from somewhere like that, just because she happens to be from there. :rolleyes:
Nah, it’s for being Joe Lieberman reconstituted in a younger man’s body. It’s like 2004 all over again, with Dem moderates pointing all their guns leftward again.
And in Buttigieg’s case, he’s attacking Warren and Bernie for the same policy he supported a year ago. It’s sweet how he’s not going to upset any rich people’s applecarts; I’m sure his first invite to a wine cave won’t be his last.
New Monmouth poll for NH out tomorrow.
It’s too bad I don’t live in Virginia
I’m torn. GD is the forum for witnessing, but maybe posts like this should be in MPSIMS or CS because they’re more the place for fanboyism.
Was that off the cuff or has the Warren camp come up with some bullet points on that comparison?
Monmouth NH poll just released with Pete on top
Buttigieg 20%
Biden 19%
Sanders 18%
Warren 15%
Klobuchar 6%
So, almost identical to the CBS/YouGov poll from a few days ago. Basically a three way tie at the top and the Warren campaign struggling.
Steyer at 4% and Yang at 3% almost guarantees that they’re not making the debate stage, deadline is tomorrow.
DMR poll rumored for Saturday night would be too late.
Afaik, to qualify for the debates with a state poll, the threshold is actually 7%. How the heck did Klobuchar qualify?
Klobuchar qualified easily.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/five-democrats-have-qualified-for-the-january-debate-who-else-might-make-it/amp/
You mean barely, she barely qualified. She hasn’t got 5% in a national poll for a while, somehow scraped together 4 of them.
Update: the DMR poll will be released tomorrow at 5 pm CST.
I should have clarified, she wasn’t sweating it like Yang and Steyer are.
No, that’s not true. Monmouth’s headline: “Four-Way Fight in Dem Primary.”
They say it that way because the support levels of the top four candidates are statistically indistinguishable from one another.
Pete is on top and Warren is 4th in that poll. It’s different from the YouGov poll with the 3 way tie at the top.
The margin of error is 4.9% percentage points.
Nate Silver’s website has a brand new Primary model up!
Really cool stuff:
I was just looking at that.
538 win probabilities are way different than the implied probabilities derived from PredictIt markets for several primary states.
For example, CO primary…
538 Bernie win ~ 30%
PredictIt Bernie win ~ 50%
Looks like there’s money to be made.
Exactly. Clinton basically sat some primaries and caucuses out. Looking at 2016 results and thinking Bernie has a lock on Colorado is a foolish bet.
among the 404 respondents to
FTFY.
of each estimate
It’s worth noting that, unless two estimates are strongly positively correlated (the reverse would be more likely, of course), the MOE of a difference is noticeably larger than the MOE of either estimate, as you might expect.
With the same MOE and zero correlation, you can take the MOE of the estimates and multiply by the square root of 2 to get the MOE of a difference. See pp. G-14 through G-16 here, from formula (3) on p.G-14 to Example 5 on G-16.