Jump to content
ryanlammi

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

I haven't looked back at the polling 4 weeks out from Iowa in the past, but this primary, to me, seems like it will really test the idea of national polling vs. early states (and especially Iowa and NH).

 

-Nationally (RCP / 538):

1) Biden: 29.3% / 27.5%

2) Sanders: 20.3% / 18.2%

3) Warren: 14.8% / 15.6%

4) Buttigieg: 7.5% / 7.2%

5) Bloomberg: 5.8% / 5.2%

 

-Iowa

1) Sanders: 22% / 20.3%

2) Buttigieg: 21.7% / 18.7%

3) Biden: 20.3% / 21.8%

4) Warren: 15.3% / 13.9%

5) Klobuchar: 7% / 6.9%

 

-New Hampshire

1) Sanders: 22.7% / 21%

2) Biden 18.7% / 21%

3) Buttigieg 17.7% / 15.1%

4) Warren 14.7% / 15.1%

5) Klobuchar: 4% / 4.8%

 

-Nevada (where there's been no polling since late November, huge caveats)

1) Biden 29% / 28.3%

2) Warren 20% / 15.3%

3) Sanders 19.8% / 21.2%

4) Buttigieg 7.3% / 6.2%

 

-South Carolina

1) Biden 35% / 38.5%

2) Warren 16.3% / 10.2%

3) Sanders 15.3% / 14.2%

4) Buttigieg 7.7% / 4.8%

 

If these hold, what will be interesting to watch is if Biden's numbers nationally - or specifically, in states on Super Tuesday - drop if he does come in around 20% or a little less in Iowa and New Hampshire and places 3rd in each state.  Historically, those kinds of finishes don't then lead to a spring board the rest of the primary season.  Sanders, meanwhile, has been persistently stuck around 20% nationally, but he has a good chance to win both of the early states and perhaps Nevada where there has been no polling for two months.  If he goes 1, 1, and even 2 - do his numbers bump up in the rest of the states?  Same goes for Buttigieg where he's poised to outperform his national numbers in IA and NH.  The election is really only being run in half a dozen states (or less) right now, so it will be intriguing to see how much sway, if any, the early state results have on the rest of the primary.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Sanders camp is hoping that most voters will follow the lead of the early primaries. They are feeling good about Iowa and NH. NV looks like a toss up (hard to tell, little recent data). SC would be shocking but not impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next-level trolling....

 

 


"Most of us have been conditioned to regard military combat as exciting and glamorous -- an opportunity for men to prove their competence and courage. Since armies are legal, we feel that war is acceptable; in general, nobody feels that that war is criminal or that accepting it is a criminal attitude. In fact, we have been brainwashed. War is neither glamorous nor attractive. It is monstrous. Its very nature is one of tragedy and suffering" --Dalai Lama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory Booker is out.  (Also, Marianne Williamson dropped out this weekend.)  So the field is down to 12, including candidates I forgot were in the race - Deval Patrick and John Delaney.

 

The 7th debate is tomorrow night in Iowa and will feature 6 candidates.  The top 4 + Klobuchar and...Tom Steyer snuck in via early state polling.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replace Steyer with Yang and I think we'd have the best debate of the primary season.  Yang needs to have less people on stage since he isn't assertive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be a huge debate Tuesday night in Iowa. With only 6 candidates there is more time to make points but also gaffs. I think Klobuchar is getting some momentum. In the latest Monmouth poll she has now 8%. She probably needs to be polling at closer to 12% to realistically be considered having a chance to be valid in all the various precincts. Its possible that people that liked Booker will move to her come Caucus night. Also likely are people that like Yang and Steyer not being validated at 15%.  So that is like 13-15% of caucusers will be free agents to choose or re-choose if they don’t want the first four. 
  With Klobuchar being from Minnesota next door to Iowa and seeing that she is the only other non-millionaire centrist left in race besides Biden, I think she has a chance to sneak past Warren and Mayor Pete. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

 

538 model predicts a pretty good chance of a brokered convention.

 

Nobody with a majority doesn't necessarily mean a brokered convention. In the case that someone has a clear plurality then others will likely direct their delegates to cast their vote for the leader. Or, another possibility, would be two people with a clear lead over the others and the other candidates getting behind one. So in a situation where Bernie has 40% of the delegates and Biden has 40% of the delegates, maybe Warren would get behind Bernie and instruct her delegates to put him over the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Nobody with a majority doesn't necessarily mean a brokered convention. In the case that someone has a clear plurality then others will likely direct their delegates to cast their vote for the leader. Or, another possibility, would be two people with a clear lead over the others and the other candidates getting behind one. So in a situation where Bernie has 40% of the delegates and Biden has 40% of the delegates, maybe Warren would get behind Bernie and instruct her delegates to put him over the edge.

 

Yeah, sorry - my wording was poor.  Meant to say their model predicts a good chance no one candidate getting to a majority of delegates by the end of the primaries.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

An actual brokered convention is probably the worst overall outcome.

 

Maybe, maybe not.  A brokered convention could be very contentious (and that's why one of the strongest reasons why it should be avoided).  But after the convention there will be a twist -- a VP candidate to potentially add to the nominated candidate.  Even if you aren't very happy with the nominee, you could be happy with the VP candidate, and combined with Trump's failings that might be enough to get you energized about the vote. 

 

I get the feeling that a lot of people have a preferred candidate but they aren't super-passionate about it and won't be too heartbroken if their preferred candidate falls to the side -- they want to defeat Trump more.  Which suggests they'll get behind whoever the nominee is.  At least, I hope that's the right read.  Getting the base to turn out is going to be key, and more enthusiasm for the ticket would be welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

Doubtful. Have the Dems had a good VP nominee in our lifetime? Tim Kaine brought in 0 additional votes.

People don't vote for VP. Having a dynamic VP candidate or a dud will earn you the same amount of votes.

How many times have people said they voted for X because they really love his VP and cant wait for 8 more years when that VP will run and ascend to the presidency? Never.

Just as many people have also said they are not voting for candidate X because he really chose a dud of a running mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

People don't vote for VP. Having a dynamic VP candidate or a dud will earn you the same amount of votes.

How many times have people said they voted for X because they really love his VP and cant wait for 8 more years when that VP will run and ascend to the presidency? Never.

Just as many people have also said they are not voting for candidate X because he really chose a dud of a running mate.

Disagree. I think Pence helped win over the evangelicals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

Disagree. I think Pence helped win over the evangelicals.

He may have placated them a bit so that evangelicals would be enthusiastic about Trump instead of holding their nose, but choosing someone like a Marco Rubio or Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski would not have translated to any evangelical votes for Hillary.  The VP choice is overblown and only something that matters to the media as something to talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I agree she could have done a lot of things differently, but her VP choice had little to do with it. Failing to Spend time in Wi, MI, NC etc before the election was far more significant

 

He probably won her Virginia.

 

In a competent campaign, Kaine would have helped elsewhere as well.  The former governor of a southernish swing state, currently their sitting senator, with a moderate record and image.

 

I still think he's a far stronger general election candidate than any of the current contenders.   He's a younger, less creepy Biden with gubernatorial experience.   But he isn't even bothering to try to get the nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

He probably won her Virginia.

 

 

 

No way she would've lost Virginia. It's too educated and too densely populated. Republicans have lost it until they change their platform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

No way she would've lost Virginia. It's too educated and too densely populated. Republicans have lost it until they change their platform. 

 

No way she'd lose the 2106 national election, correct?   

Unless the Virginia Dems back off on the gun thing (they are beginning to) it is likely to bounce right back.

People overestimated her appeal to the educated, and underestimated Trump's.   That's why he won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

No way she'd lose the 2106 national election, correct?   

Unless the Virginia Dems back off on the gun thing (they are beginning to) it is likely to bounce right back.

People overestimated her appeal to the educated, and underestimated Trump's.   That's why he won.

I'm not sure what you're talking about at this point. She did very well with more educated people. Problem is that there are a lot more people without degrees than people with them, and Clinton+the Dems alienated those people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

I'm not sure what you're talking about at this point. She did very well with more educated people. Problem is that there are a lot more people without degrees than people with them, and Clinton+the Dems alienated those people.

 

Not just them.   A lot of people I know with degrees, even advanced degrees, held their nose and voted for him.   I didn't, but some of those who did surprised even me.

 

Her appeal was greatly oversold and I see this happening once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

No way she'd lose the 2106 national election, correct?   

 

Who said that? Not me. If you want to have a debate, please debate my actual point. 

 

4 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

People overestimated her appeal to the educated, and underestimated Trump's.   That's why he won.

 

That's absolutely not why he won. He did more poorly with college educated voters than any Republican in the modern era. He won because of a surge in non-college educated whites. And there are fewer and fewer of those in the Virginia electorate every year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

Not just them.   A lot of people I know with degrees, even advanced degrees, held their nose and voted for him.   I didn't, but some of those who did surprised even me.

 

Her appeal was greatly oversold and I see this happening once again.

 

 

And yet, despite you knowing some of the few people with degrees that voted for him, he did WAY worse with that group than Romney or McCain or Bush. He did especially bad with people with advanced degrees, which is always a group that leans Democratic. But Trump said "hold my beer" and really got blown out of the water there. 

It was, as Trump says, the "poorly educated" that brought him his victory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Who said that? Not me. If you want to have a debate, please debate my actual point. 

 

 

That's absolutely not why he won. He did more poorly with college educated voters than any Republican in the modern era. He won because of a surge in non-college educated whites. And there are fewer and fewer of those in the Virginia electorate every year. 

 

Yeah the Right is still fetishizing Galax and Wytheville while discounting NOVA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

It's weaksauce though. I don't think people are going to buy it.

 

I'll admit, I've been very surprised by Warren/her campaign getting stuck in the mud for many weeks - first all of the back and forth with Pete and now trying to drum up a fight with Bernie.  She and her campaign had run a disciplined campaign for months and they've been going very small for quite awhile now.  Not too surprised, though, given her fall in the polls and Pete and Bernie rising.

 

There are tactful ways to draw contrasts with other candidates.  Bringing up a private conversation with your "friend" from 2018 to paint him as a sexist (he's on record as early as 1988 stating he thinks a woman can be President) just weeks before the Iowa caucus is not one of those ways.

 

Just a very surprising fizzling out of her campaign given how well she had been running it for most of 2019.  I think she's showing her weaknesses and vulnerabilities and I'm not sure it's going to give voters confidence if she were to face off against Trump in the general.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

I think she's showing her weaknesses and vulnerabilities and I'm not sure it's going to give voters confidence if she were to face off against Trump in the general.

 

Post-2016 she was my favorite potential candidate to run.  Once she took that DNA test and tried to brag about it I completely flipped on her.  That was a gigantic miscalculation and you let Troll Supreme get the best of you.  Looks like that side of her is showing again. 

 

In the end, its a good thing, because her winning the nom means that the senate is impossible to grab in 2020 with the MA governor appointing a Republican to her seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Not just them.   A lot of people I know with degrees, even advanced degrees, held their nose and voted for him.   I didn't, but some of those who did surprised even me.

 

Her appeal was greatly oversold and I see this happening once again.

 

I guess education doesn't account for taste or good sense.  Are all those educated people regretting it, or are they part of the 1% fine with everything so long as their stock portfolios are doing ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 10albersa said:

 

Post-2016 she was my favorite potential candidate to run.  Once she took that DNA test and tried to brag about it I completely flipped on her.  That was a gigantic miscalculation and you let Troll Supreme get the best of you.  Looks like that side of her is showing again. 

 

In the end, its a good thing, because her winning the nom means that the senate is impossible to grab in 2020 with the MA governor appointing a Republican to her seat.

 

How can something as insignificant as a DNA test make anyone sour on someone politically?  I mean, who gives a sh**.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't give a crap about a DNA test or the results, but I do give a crap about being able to defeat Trump, and her handling of that situation is proof enough she isn't equipped to win against him. That's what soured me on her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

 

And yet, despite you knowing some of the few people with degrees that voted for him, he did WAY worse with that group than Romney or McCain or Bush. He did especially bad with people with advanced degrees, which is always a group that leans Democratic. But Trump said "hold my beer" and really got blown out of the water there. 

It was, as Trump says, the "poorly educated" that brought him his victory. 

 

I know it is common to knock Trump's "uneducated" voters and to look at the college/non college divide. But think about this. The majority of people in this country ages 25-70 do not have college degrees. It is only about 1/3. Therefore, 2/3 of the electorate is not college educated, even less have advanced degrees. It can be hard to fathom sometimes when we are in our social circles and bubbles of highly educated people, but the misconception that I hear a lot, especially from those on the left, but also the more establishment GOP class is that Trump won because he pandered to the bottom feeders and uneducated of the country and the "smart" people did not come out in force against him.

 

The fact of the matter is, no matter who wins, you ultimately need to pander to the less or uneducated voter because they outnumber the college educated voter by a 2/1 margin. Both sides have their base of under educated voters, so no one has a monopoly on the uneducated side. However, elections will always be won by pandering one way or another to the undereducated voter simply because they are the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^The internet has “democratized” the electorate in that people on the internet can surf and get their news from any source that they care for. The problem is there is ever more dis- and mis-information. Facebook and google have helped monetize salacious, slanderous, or shocking websites.  There is insane amounts of clickbait on the internet and that to me is what gets facebook their valuation as so many people end up clicking on that because users are so well targeted. 
  So people who swing right nowadays think that uncle lou dobbs is only slightly wacky and maybe a bit crotchety. Whereas the rest of the US knows he’s been off his rocker for several years.  I don’t know that it is educational attainment totally. But anyone that is able to do their own research and cut through bs and sales jobs is more immune to the curl up in the flag cult. 
  Anyone that understands that we are all being marketed towards 24/7 whether its the pastor down the street or the pizza shop or internationally is going to handle how marketing is just marketing.  
   I suppose it makes the Maga snowflakes sad that trumpy is a bald faced liar that they voted for.  So they avoid sites that have news and go to sites that still say that he is the greatest president ever.  Anything else is fake news. That world seems to have been created on the internet like a North Korean approved internet Potemkin village of idiots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 10albersa said:

I don't give a crap about a DNA test or the results, but I do give a crap about being able to defeat Trump, and her handling of that situation is proof enough she isn't equipped to win against him. That's what soured me on her.

 

What about that incident indicates she can't win?  I'm not following how one has anything to do with the other.  Could you elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump mocks her for her past (and slightly unethical) use of Native American on applications throughout her life, she feels the need to validate that, gets a test, shows that she's barely Native American and she felt the need to brag about her slight Native American ethnicity to Trump.  That's the scenario.

 

Most importantly, she fell right into a trap, where she should have ignored this whole situation.  Her needing to validate it left not only Trump laughing at her, but Native Americans were insulted.  No one was better off having seen that, it's a horrible decision.  She can't stoop to his level, she'll lose, not only because she's a woman and that looks worse, but because he will always win the poop-flinging contests. Previously, I had always has the impression she was calculated in her decisions, this was a gigantic miscalculation. 

 

It's the primary, and a miscalculation like that with other options on the table absolutely can sour me on a candidate.  When I say sour, I mean that within the context of the primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...