2020 Democratic Nominee

[Js1 85446]

13 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

how do you figure?

On mobile but Harris/Warren and Bernie/Biden are competing for the same voters. Obviously you need crossover to win. But in the long run, very difficult for all 4 to exist simultaneously.  One goes up, one goes down. It was going to end up a Bernie or Biden vs. Liz or Harris battle in the end. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Js1

[henrygandorf 29194]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

On mobile but Harris/Warren and Bernie/Biden are competing for the same voters. Obviously you need crossover to win. But in the long run, very difficult for all 4 to exist simultaneously.  One goes up, one goes down. It was going to end up a Bernie or Biden vs. Liz or Harris battle in the end. 

i guess i see it as the opposite.  kamala/biden and bernie/warren are staking out the same issues/territory, and it would seem to be a zero sum game because of it.  but at this point, when those polls come out with "their second choice" it does have a lot of bernie/biden overlap so who knows.  i just assumed name recognition.

[henrygandorf 29194]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The guy who is #2 in the polls and has the most donors and volunteers by far should drop out already.

i haven't seen most of the latest polls, i've been busy.

i don't think anyone is saying bernie should drop out, but you don't have to think too hard to imagine a scenario where bernie essentially acts as a 3rd party candidate that fouls it up for someone who loses a close race.

looks like we're all just thinking of the best way for biden to not be the nominee.

Edited August 8, 2019 by henrygandorf

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

On mobile but Harris/Warren and Bernie/Biden are competing for the same voters. Obviously you need crossover to win. But in the long run, very difficult for all 4 to exist simultaneously.  One goes up, one goes down. It was going to end up a Bernie or Biden vs. Liz or Harris battle in the end. 

The younger voters do not like Biden and he’s so out of touch I don’t think he can peel any 18-34s from Bernie.  However, I think Bernie might be able to pull some older voters off Biden if he goes after them.   

I don’t know what to make of Harris.  She has her moments but she can’t sustain anything it seems.  

Warren is easily running the most effective campaign thus far but we’re not even out of the first quarter. 

Beto and Pete will probably keep canceling each other out and remain on the outside looking in.

[bad_teammate 13219]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

but you don't have to think too hard to imagine a scenario where bernie essentially acts as a 3rd party candidate that fouls it up for someone who loses a close race.

Yeah, you have to think REALLY hard to do that. Well, "think" isn't the word for it. We have a demonstrated history of Bernie dropping out and working harder for the candidate who beat him than the candidate did for her own campaign.

The idea that Bernie would run as a 3rd party independent against ANY of these candidates is fucking stupid and without any basis or merit. The idea that he would do that if Liz won is even more insane.

It's just ahistorical bullshit used by center/center-right people who don't like Bernie's politics and need to justify it by pretending they aren't center/center-right.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just let it go.

[Js1 85446]

K cool

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Dude whines like a Republican 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yeah, you have to think REALLY hard to do that. Well, "think" isn't the word for it. We have a demonstrated history of Bernie dropping out and working harder for the candidate who beat him than the candidate did for her own campaign.

The idea that Bernie would run as a 3rd party independent against ANY of these candidates is fucking stupid and without any basis or merit. The idea that he would do that if Liz won is even more insane.

It's just ahistorical bullshit used by center/center-right people who don't like Bernie's politics and need to justify it by pretending they aren't center/center-right.

I think he means in the primary.   That is, that Biden becomes the nominee because Warren and Bernie split some of the vote that one or the other would have gotten if they weren't both there. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

That is one of my concerns. I like Warren, but my oldest is excited because this will be her first presidential election. She is leaning toward Warren as well but her preference was for one of the other candidates. At this point, she is thinking that her candidate won't make it far enough and she really wants Trump out so she is going with the idea of voting for whomever she thinks can pull in enough votes. I will have to ask her more about her peer group to learn more about which candidates they are talking about.

[bad_teammate 13219]

6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I think he means in the primary.   That is, that Biden becomes the nominee because Warren and Bernie split some of the vote that one or the other would have gotten if they weren't both there. 

How would we even know which Bernie voters would go Warren in that circumstance? MorningConsult show that Bernie voters overall have Biden as #2.

[henrygandorf 29194]

17 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I think he means in the primary.   That is, that Biden becomes the nominee because Warren and Bernie split some of the vote that one or the other would have gotten if they weren't both there. 

uh, yeah.  i thought that was pretty obvious.

[bad_teammate 13219]

Are primaries supposed to be 2-person affairs? lol what?

[henrygandorf 29194]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How would we even know which Bernie voters would go Warren in that circumstance? MorningConsult show that Bernie voters overall have Biden as #2.

we don't.  i even mentioned this specifically - that polls have shown a high number of people with bernie 1 have biden 2 and vice-versa.  i said (and i believe) this is due to name recognition.  it's still relatively early, and there are plenty of pollsters talking to folks who really only know two of the candidates well.

i think many on this board vote for beliefs and policy and issues, not so much with personality.  i would bet a lot of people on this board have bernie and warren close to each other on their personal lists.  but to js1's point, america may not really see it that way.

there are probably plenty of idiots walking around saying, "i don't much like trump, so i'll probably vote for one of the old white guys or one of the women."

in short, bernie and biden - basically the same exact person/candidate.

[henrygandorf 29194]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Are primaries supposed to be 2-person affairs? lol what?

since your guy is the clear #2 and clear #1 in terms of individual donors and volunteers, i would think you'd welcome a 2-person affair.

it's august.  still plenty of fun to be had around here as it plays out.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How would we even know which Bernie voters would go Warren in that circumstance? MorningConsult show that Bernie voters overall have Biden as #2.

Well, we'd know from polling.  And he didn't say it would definitely happen, just that it wouldn't be hard to imagine such a scenario.  In February, Bernie's second choice percentages per Morning Consult were 26% Biden, 16% Warren, 7% Harris.   This week, it's 31% Biden, 26% Warren, 8% Harris.   So Warren has cut the gap in half.   I think she has much more upside than Biden among Bernie voters, and if that continues, we'll reach a point where Bernie's presence is costing Warren to Biden's advantage. 

By the same token, the second choice for Warren supporters is 25% Bernie, 22% Kamala, 17% Biden.   So Warren's presence is arguably helping Biden at Bernie's expense in the same way. 

[Js1 85446]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

we don't.  i even mentioned this specifically - that polls have shown a high number of people with bernie 1 have biden 2 and vice-versa.  i said (and i believe) this is due to name recognition.  it's still relatively early, and there are plenty of pollsters talking to folks who really only know two of the candidates well.

i think many on this board vote for beliefs and policy and issues, not so much with personality.  i would bet a lot of people on this board have bernie and warren close to each other on their personal lists.  but to js1's point, america may not really see it that way.

there are probably plenty of idiots walking around saying, "i don't much like trump, so i'll probably vote for one of the old white guys or one of the women."

in short, bernie and biden - basically the same exact person/candidate.

My point was it’s breaking down by education instead of race/age - Bernie and Biden are both competing for non-college educated democrats and Harris/Warren appeal to the college-educated. Polls show that to be true. 

Demographically, Biden is winning due to black voters and old voters. Reliable primary voters. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Interesting Amash variable

 

[bad_teammate 13219]

34 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

since your guy is the clear #2 and clear #1 in terms of individual donors and volunteers, i would think you'd welcome a 2-person affair.

I'm not looking for pre-built excuses when/if my chosen candidate loses. So... no.

 

35 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think many on this board vote for beliefs and policy and issues, not so much with personality.

lol

Personality is the only reason Pete Buttigieg or Beto O'Rourke exist as candidates that people talk about, yet both Pete & Beto had more Shag votes than Bernie or Biden (in Pete's case, 10x as many). These aren't policy or substance heavy candidates. They flatter the senses.

Edited August 8, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Biff Tannen 45694]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

K cool

 

This shit doesn't help.  STFU and get out then.

[bad_teammate 13219]

If you interviewed the mayor of Philadelphia, you would be interviewing someone who represents 50% more Americans than Steve Bullock, who has a 0.7% average in RCP's average of polls.

[bolverk 29694]

The data geek side of me compulsively checks these charts on a regular basis.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/voters/

Scroll down to the "How Trump compares with past presidents" section, glance to the right of that title and click four years.

At this point in their presidencies, only Reagan and Obama had comparable approval ratings and were able to pull off a second term. Not so coincidentally, their low approval ratings were likely caused by sluggish economies that were emerging from recessions and were at this point on the cusp of rising.

This leads me to believe that the next few months will be the critical point in whether or not Trump will likely succeed in being re-elected, given past data trends. If his numbers don't begin to swing upward by September or October,  I think he's doomed to be a one-termer barring any external factors.

[Larry T. Spider 1746]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Interesting Amash variable

 

I have no doubt that the democratic nominee will win the popular vote by more than HRC did. Wisconsin giving the electoral college to trump scares the shit out of me.

I also wonder if we will see a Bradley effect in polls. People know trump is a terrible human and might be reluctant to say they are voting for him. I’m not talking about the true believers but the right leaning people that just can’t pull the lever for a D. 

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm not looking for pre-built excuses when/if my chosen candidate loses. So... no.

assuming you’re unfamiliar with the phrase “tongue-in-cheek”?

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Personality is the only reason Pete Buttigieg or Beto O'Rourke exist as candidates that people talk about, yet both Pete & Beto had more Shag votes than Bernie or Biden (in Pete's case, 10x as many). These aren't policy or substance heavy candidates. They flatter the senses.

lulz at legitimizing the surly poll. i bet you believe online football polls about aggy as well. 

[gmr548 16588]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

The data geek side of me compulsively checks these charts on a regular basis.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/voters/

Scroll down to the "How Trump compares with past presidents" section, glance to the right of that title and click four years.

At this point in their presidencies, only Reagan and Obama had comparable approval ratings and were able to pull off a second term. Not so coincidentally, their low approval ratings were likely caused by sluggish economies that were emerging from recessions and were at this point on the cusp of rising.

This leads me to believe that the next few months will be the critical point in whether or not Trump will likely succeed in being re-elected, given past data trends. If his numbers don't begin to swing upward by September or October,  I think he's doomed to be a one-termer barring any external factors.

The opposite is true in Trump's case - the economy is the only keeping his approval rating as high as it is. Positive economic news isn't going to move the needle much for him because it's been the norm for five plus years. Get some real movement towards a recession and you will see that approval rating hit its floor in the low-mid 30s real fast.

Also, if your assertion is true (not saying I agree), it is unlikely he sees a major upward swing and therefore very unlikely he gets reelected. Because Trump has had a remarkably narrow band of approval relative to other Preisdents. Part of it is due to general increases in partisanship, but part of it is his own doing. He's never been above 50 percent, not once, and for the vast majority of his Presidency he has been in the high 30s to low 40s. He is very polarizing and if someone doesn't approve of him at this point it's very unlikely they are changing their mind. Conversely, if he hasn't made someone jump ship yet, there isn't anything aside from a direct hit to the wallet that will do it.

[bolverk 29694]

^ Pretty much sums up the rest of my thoughts.

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

Also, this poll qualifies Yang for the next debate. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

15 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Also, this poll qualifies Yang for the next debate. 

I thought the qualifying polls were all national, not state polls like this one.  Also, I had read last week that Yang already got the polls to qualify for debates 3 and 4:  https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455207-yang-qualifies-for-third-and-fourth-democratic-debates

[David Dennison 18938]

Ugh.

Biden train full steam ahead.

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

All the pundits on Twitter are saying he's now qualified after the Iowa poll. Just going off what others are saying. 

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Weird.  Then I guess that's a qualifying poll for Steyer and Gillibrand, too. 

[Todd Gack 432]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I thought the qualifying polls were all national, not state polls like this one.  Also, I had read last week that Yang already got the polls to qualify for debates 3 and 4:  https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455207-yang-qualifies-for-third-and-fourth-democratic-debates

"In an email sent to campaigns by the DNC on Tuesday that was obtained by The Hill, the committee argued that a July 11 poll from NBC and The Wall Street Journal and a July 19 poll by NBC and SurveyMonkey, would only count as one poll because they were conducted by the same sponsor — NBC."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/455337-exclusive-dnc-rejects-yang-poll-leaving-him-off-september-debate-stage

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Weird.  Then I guess that's a qualifying poll for Steyer and Gillibrand, too. 

It is. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

No doubt in my mind that we'll have over 10 candidates for 3rd debate. Which I actually hope happens, so we can let 5-6 candidates have some breathing room and actually debate over 2 nights. 

 

 

[Todd Gack 432]

FYI

 

Candidates who have qualified for the September debates in both polling and fundraising:

1. Former Vice President Joe Biden
2. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker
3. Mayor Pete Buttigieg
4. California Sen. Kamala Harris
5. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
6. Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke
7. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
8. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
9. Businessman Andrew Yang

 

There are now 11 Democrats who say they received contributions from at least 130,000 individuals, coming from at least 400 unique donors in 20 or more states.

Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii have reached their fundraising threshold, but still need to hit their polling minimum to qualify. Castro and billionaire Tom Steyer have each received three of their four necessary polls. Gabbard and former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper each have one. All other candidates haven't reached above 2% in any qualifying polls.

The DNC requires that all polls be conducted by an approved pollster, released between June 28 and August 28, 2019, conducted nationally or in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and/or Nevada, and fit a certain question structure.

The candidate must get above 2% support in four or more polls of this nature, and they cannot be conducted by the same pollster in the same region. There is still a month for candidates who have not yet hit the polling threshold to do so.

[BradInATX 9208]

No doubt in my mind that we'll have over 10 candidates for 3rd debate. Which I actually hope happens, so we can let 5-6 candidates have some breathing room and actually debate over 2 nights. 

 

 

Hopefully those get separated into adult table/kid table vs. two random draws. I want to see the actual contenders (Sanders, Warren, Biden, Harris and I guess Pete by default) on one stage. I think everyone does.

 

[Hank Kingsley 20991]

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

15 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

No doubt in my mind that we'll have over 10 candidates for 3rd debate. Which I actually hope happens, so we can let 5-6 candidates have some breathing room and actually debate over 2 nights. 
 
 

Hopefully those get separated into adult table/kid table vs. two random draws. I want to see the actual contenders (Sanders, Warren, Biden, Harris) on one stage. I think everyone does.

Yeah, unfortunately I don't think that will happen. But I'd still rather see 2 nights with 5-6 candidates instead of 1 night with 10 candidates limited to 30 second soundbites.

Tom Perez and the DNC completely fucked this whole thing up. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Js1 85446]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Also, this poll qualifies Yang for the next debate. 

Warren and Harris up, Sanders down is not in line with the post-debate polling. 

Very interesting.

LOL Hickenlooper, Gabbard and Bullock going from 0 to 1. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Ugh.

Biden train full steam ahead.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Good looking out, Texas.

[henrygandorf 29194]

6 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Good looking out, Texas.

every time he said he wasn't interested in campaigning right now, that he was there with his people for as long as it took, i wanted to send him money.

i don't live in texas, but still.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Watching Chuck Todd:  “Holy shit Joe Biden’s electability numbers are off the chart!”

Switches to CNN after puking:

CNN:  “And what will you do to bring the country together as president Mr. Delaney?”

(Throws remote through television, calls DirectTV to cancel) 

[NowThis 931]

strange though, every post debate town meeting shows exactly no one saying Biden is their #1 

[bad_teammate 13219]

Everyone shut the hell up about whether or not this poll is legit it makes me happy

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Weak

[Js1 85446]

Like the media would have the balls. It took them 2+ years to start calling them “lies”

[bad_teammate 13219]

5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Weak

"I AM A TOUGH COP WHO WILL PUT DONALD TRUMP IN JAIL!"

- "Is he racist?"

"Well, you see, I don't know his soul."

[Pancho 44861]

Are warren and Beto the only candidates to call out the murders of black trans women?