this is wishful thinking(aside from biden) more than it is realistic, but I do hope you are right.
If it ever comes down to Warren and anyone else who isn't biden(shit even Klobuchar), i'm Gucci.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
If it ever comes down to Warren and anyone else who isn't biden(shit even Klobuchar), i'm Gucci.
or, and stick with me here, she could do exactly what she did
If someone is taking Pete's words regarding religion that way, the problem isn't Pete, it's the person.
His twitter threads are not doing that. He's saying that if you want to topple Biden at all costs, Sanders probably isn't going to be the horse you want to back to do it. I'm glad someone is finally noticing that Bernie polling in the 15-25% range is terrible relative to 2016.
truth
generally agree with you list; but I'd say warren isn't a front runner right now. she could be, but I'd say Pete is more likely the #3 right now in terms of "front runners" than Warren going by most polls and talk about the primary
People also whined a lot when Nate was the most outspoken and insistent forecaster about the fact that Trump actually had a pretty good chance of winning in 2016. There was a lot of jeering towards 538 that they had Trump at a 30% chance of victory while others had him at like 1%. Pointing out the objective reality of what the numbers are showing isn't "stanning" a candidate.
Also, here's another correction on those bad donor gender gap numbers that got spread around the other day:
Yet in the primary he constantly acted like a pundit more than a statistician and got everything super wrong because of it.
This is him in pundit mode, not statistician mode.
some of the things he has said about Biden veer into pundit territory and less objective statistcian
Where's that set of pictures that shows him over the course of the election looking increasingly tired and strung-out when you need it?
Nate mental gymnastics against Bernie are so impressive and amusing.
Bernie is literally the second choice of Biden voters by a good margin. Bernie is to the furthest left of Biden. What are the other points the candidates will make against Biden that Bernie can't? Does Nate really believe that Kamala's argument will be "I am young, a woman and black!" during the debates? That Pete will say "well, I am ALSO young but GAY unlike you Kamala!"
Nate needs to shut up.
Bernie is literally the second choice of Biden voters by a good margin. Bernie is to the furthest left of Biden. What are the other points the candidates will make against Biden that Bernie can't? Does Nate really believe that Kamala's argument will be "I am young, a woman and black!" during the debates? That Pete will say "well, I am ALSO young but GAY unlike you Kamala!"
Nate needs to shut up.
There's a fundamental difference between Nate dismissing Trump in 2015 when he was a clear polling front-runner and Nate saying that Biden is currently by far the strongest candidate in the race when he's near 40% in a crowd of 20 candidates.
Biden is also the furthest right of everyone else in the primary bar Gabbard. That Biden/Bernie are the highest for each others supporters despite this shows just how much a) name value matters and b) many people don't vote ideologically.
A younger candidate can implicitly fight Biden on an age axes. A non-white candidate can fight on that axes. And no, it's not "vote for me, I'm black, that's not how It works. If Obama had been a white guy, he likely would have lost in 2008 because he couldn't have pulled enough black voters away from Hillary. If AOC had been a white woman, she would have likely lost in 2018 because she couldn't pull enough Latino support away from Crowley. iThere's a significant amount of conservative non-white people who vote Dem because of the racialized nature of class/politics/etc. in this country, and being a member of one of those groups helps significantly with winning that subgroup over when they won't be interested in a candidate based strictly on liberal/left policy. This is the big problem Cynthia Nixon faced in NY's primary that made building a coalition so hard- she was doing better in white upstate than in NYC, which was not the narrative that the media was pushing.
I'm mostly objecting to his reasoning for Bernie being in a bad position to beat Biden. It's a stab in the dark at why voters vote how they vote that is opposite what second choice and electability polls say.
It's going to be quite the slog whittling down to that final 7, isn't it? 😞
There are over 20 candidates this time dude. what the fuck is this point. You can talk about why 15% is poor for someone of his name recognition without completely shitting down the throat of your own point by comparing this race to 2016. what are you doing
Bernie got 43% of the vote in 2016. If he was a strong candidate, he would be maintaining a large chunk of that support. He is not doing that.
Getting upset that people are pointing out that losing over half your support year over year is a bad sign for a candidate says everything.
Except kirblar's right. A lot of Bernie's support wasn't in support of a bright social democratic future, but because he was the other person on the ballot as opposed to Hillary, especially later on. In addition, a lot of people who supported Bernie because of his policies now have moved to other candidates because they now support some of Bernie's policies and they feel closer to those candidates for various reasons, including, gasp, identity related reasons.
Yes, Bernie gained a lot of support in the 2016 primaries. But, a lot of that support would've went to anybody who wasn't Hillary, just like a lot of non-libertarians suddenly started voting for Ron Paul in later primaries in 2012, because he was the only opposition to Romney at the end.
are we gonna pretend you earnestly think there's a plausible scenario where a 2016 candidate would maintain anything close to that number in a field this large, diverse and impressive. give me a fucking break, dude
Yes, because Biden's doing it and he didn't even run in 2016.
Bernie got propped-up by being the only alternative to Hillary in 2016. The biggest reason Bernie did so well in 2016 wasn't anything Bernie specifically did, it was being the only alternative to Hillary, much like Labour's gains a year or two back were not attributable to Corbyn, but were international demographic trends pushing educated voters to left/liberal parties alongside people voting against Theresa May.
Joe Biden's already somehow close to that number, already. Despite such a large, diverse, and impressive field.
Trump got up to 30-35% support almost immediately despite a field that was almost as large in 2016.
So yes, if a candidate actually has a large base of support is and is well known, they can get to those numbers.
Biden was the vice for our incredibly popular first black president. to imagine this is a fair comparison is embarrassing.
Bernie was polling a few points off of Biden's current average only a couple weeks ago. Was he a good candidate then? Is Elizabeth Warren a good candidate now?
trump got 24% percent of the vote behind Ted Cruz in the first iowa caucus. The eventual support he got came with a substantial shrinking of the gop field
Yes Trump did just that. As long as Biden can keep a sizable base of 25-35% of the vote he can consistently meet delegate thresholds to amass a delegate lead early on. Made even easier with a split big field.
No, he was not. And I've been saying as much for weeks/months. the underlying weakness in the polling numbers was obvious if you looked at the crosstabs..When I say "Bernie's losing a ton of white and Hispanic voters while maintaining his (bad) numbers among black voters to the point where his demographics are evening out", it's data that implies he's losing massive amount of support from anti-Hillary voters (who are largely white) while maintaining his core ideological supporters (because his low black voter % has been pretty consistent and hasn't gone up or down, while the white/Hispanic %s now look exactly like the black ones.)
Bernie won 25% of the black vote in 2016. His current black vote % is about 17-18%. He won about half of the white vote in 2016, so if you were to shave a quarter off, you'd be looking at ~37% as your expected value after attrition. But it's not at 37%. It's at 17-18% as well. And that same pattern holds for Hispanic voters.
There's also something really important in the history, going back to '92, '00, '04, '08, and '16. The candidate who has won the Democratic Primary in all modern Democratic Primaries has won the black vote. This is even true of Kerry. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-fact-kerry-strong-with-blacks/ Not being competitive in that subgroup is something that will doom a candidacy.
I think history has shown undecided voters and second choice voters of any candidate falls along very similar lines as the current opinion. A popularity spike on any other candidate would have to be quite huge to counteract this, because that popularity spike likely comes about equally from all other candidates, so biden wouldn't lose as many biden voters to that spike. The difference between Bernie spiking up and Harris spiking up might be enough to swing a close race, but right now we're talking about needing double digit changes for anyone to take out biden, and these small head to head advantages is pointless.
Those same dynamics also makes that 35% Biden has way bigger than it looks, because as voters decide and candidates drop, Biden is going to get most of those voters for the same reasons he's in first right now, whatever the hell those reasons are. It seems very unlikely to me for Biden to lose to anyone unless there's a large shift in how people view Biden. And if that happens, Bernie would be the defacto leader by getting most of Biden's voters. It puts us in a situation where Bernie just needs Biden to become unpopular, while everyone else needs biden to become unpopular and to get a popularity spike themselves or for Bernie to lose popularity. The one that needs the least amount of change from the status quo is most likely to win.
I think that's how you have to look at things mathematically. It's a roundabout way to say second place is second most likely to win, but it seems like some people underestimate how true that statement is. I think what's frustrating me about Nate in these wide fields is he's missing that head to head dynamics don't matter in wide fields because the chaos cancels out everything like that.
Those same dynamics also makes that 35% Biden has way bigger than it looks, because as voters decide and candidates drop, Biden is going to get most of those voters for the same reasons he's in first right now, whatever the hell those reasons are. It seems very unlikely to me for Biden to lose to anyone unless there's a large shift in how people view Biden. And if that happens, Bernie would be the defacto leader by getting most of Biden's voters. It puts us in a situation where Bernie just needs Biden to become unpopular, while everyone else needs biden to become unpopular and to get a popularity spike themselves or for Bernie to lose popularity. The one that needs the least amount of change from the status quo is most likely to win.
I think that's how you have to look at things mathematically. It's a roundabout way to say second place is second most likely to win, but it seems like some people underestimate how true that statement is. I think what's frustrating me about Nate in these wide fields is he's missing that head to head dynamics don't matter in wide fields because the chaos cancels out everything like that.
"Bernie won 25% of the black vote in 2016. His current black vote % is about 17-18%"
I dont know where you're coming from when this isn't a completely expected result for him. I don't know how many times I can say there are ten times more candidates for that to make more sense to you.
when its down to the final four or so, and Sanders has just under 30% of support, he will then be what only the most savvy of political experts call 'a good candidate'
The issue is that second place here is unlikely to win if first place falters. Bernie's really, really, really bad weakness with black voters is something he hasn't managed to course correct on and he shows no signs of being able to do so.
It is very true that right now, if things stay the same, Biden will cruise to victory. It's something everyone should be mentally prepared for because it absolutely could happen.
In the event that Biden falters over the next 9 months, however, the next question would be "who is prepared to leverage that and push their polling numbers up. And I think the answer to that is In the field of candidates below Sanders. Warren, O'Rourke, Harris, but probably not Pete. I exclude Pete for a simple reason: his donor/polling numbers look like a lot of failed candidates before him. Upper-income, educated, white, and....not much else. I think Pete, like Sanders, will have a lot of trouble winning over black voters, and you can't win the nomination without them. Both Sanders and Buttigieg suffer from coming from states/backgrounds that aren't demographically similar to the national party and have a lack of experience in an environment where minority voters make up a massive % of the electorate. Unfortunately for Pete, this is the sort of thing you solve by moving up the career ladder politically and actually having to engage with these groups in primaries and in governance, but in Indiana, all the rungs are missing on the ladder.
Lols first the Manchin take now this Era is on a roll.
Are either of you actually able to engage with the point that I'm making? I'm not flatly transcribing it, I'm looking at the underlying data beyond just the 18% and finding a big problem for him there.
Bernie's Black vote: 25% in 2016, 17-18% now. This would fall under expected attrition, losing about a quarter of the voters.
Bernie's White vote: 50% in 2016, 17-18% now. This is not just normal attrition. He's lost more than half of his prior support from this subgroup.
What are you trying to extrapolate from this? His white supporters have several alternatives to Sanders now and many are currently leaning towards the alternatives. How does this relate to your original claim that Sanders is a bad candidate? These numbers are completely normal for a field this large. This was entirely expected.
If Sanders was a good candidate he wouldn't be losing so many white voters in a multi-way field.
If Sanders was a good candidate he'd be improving his numbers with black voters relative to 2016.
This combination is a strong sign of "you don't have the potential to win."
counterpoint: that's complete bullshit.
The actual candidates on offer this time around relative to 2016 matter. Forget that Sanders approval rating with black people is quite high, we have multiple people of color running, some of which have backed reparations and Joe Biden running and it's supposed to be devastating that sanders is getting 7% less of the black vote than last time? We're just not on the same planet, man.
not really. Bill De Blasio has been traveling early primary states for months now
No, whats devastating is that we've seen nothing to indicate that Sanders is capable of pulling together a winning coalition in either 2016 or 2020.
Why is it losing white support from quarter less voters and not gaining black voters with half less voters? Why is 2016 demographics entirely about bernie and not about hillary? Where are you getting these baselines to compare to?
- Status