Continuing to Discuss the [2020 Primary] and Not Other Stuff

2456755

Posts

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Athenor wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Joe also may very well have to step down or even die before his term is up. Having Warren as the fallback neuters a lot of my concern if Joe cant go the distance.

    As a Warren supporter and donor, she's not exactly youthful representation being old enough to be Pete's mom.

    My mom just turned 70 and is often the smartest, most aware person in the room.

    I get that we need some younger representation, but there is something to be said for experience and wisdom in the position.

    There's not a lot to be said for dying of old age in office (not a lot of risk for Warren who is your mom's age but 79+8 = 87)

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Yeah, in order for Warren or Sanders to win I think one or the other would have to drop out. But they are so close I dont see either doing so.

    Plus Biden might actually GAIN supporters.

    Someone can educate on me on this if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure if one of them drops out before the convention and endorses the other, they can get their delegates right?

    I'm assuming we won't end up in a situation where 60% of the delegates are for Sanders or Warren but all the superdelegates coronate Biden anyway

    I think it would be electoral suicide if the candidate who won the most delegates/voters was denied the nomination due to a deal between #2 and #3.

    It shouldn't be. Over half of voters didn't want the "frontrunner" and if the people they chose to represent them agree more with each other than it is reasonable that they decide on a compromise between them

    You don't choose someone to represent you, you choose a candidate. Party activists/delegates who go to the convention are not on the ballot and are often not even decided until well afterwards. For instance in Massachusetts the signups run over a month after the primary.

    Especially the way the Democratic nomination process is set up, it's almost impossible to get a majority in a three+ person race. The primary loses its little-d democratic legitimacy if it bypasses a clear popular vote/delegate winner. One of the reasons the super delegates exist is that if that scenario happens barring extraordinary conditions (like Biden has a heart attack or something) they will rightfully push him over the line. Hell, imagine the case where Warren wins 40% but Biden and Buttigieg each have 30 and they make it a Biden-Buttigieg ticket. The only way something like that can appear just is if you rationalize it because you want the eventually winner.

    It's not even clear that if Warren/Sanders dropped out the survivor would bypass Biden (I think the evidence is actually better that his lead would not be substantially cut) but it certainly wouldn't be just to presume that's the case after the primaries. Most candidates drop out once it's clear they aren't going to win because they don't want to waste political money and extend the acrimony in way that hurts the party for this very reason. Without ranked choice or something similar this is how it works.

    No?

    That would be 60% voting one way, 40% voting the other. A Biden/Buttigieg alliance of some sort would make perfect sense in that case as the winner.

    Everything you are trying to defend here is exactly the problem with FPTP systems that people complain about.

    Julius
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Yeah, in order for Warren or Sanders to win I think one or the other would have to drop out. But they are so close I dont see either doing so.

    Plus Biden might actually GAIN supporters.

    Someone can educate on me on this if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure if one of them drops out before the convention and endorses the other, they can get their delegates right?

    I'm assuming we won't end up in a situation where 60% of the delegates are for Sanders or Warren but all the superdelegates coronate Biden anyway

    I think it would be electoral suicide if the candidate who won the most delegates/voters was denied the nomination due to a deal between #2 and #3.

    It shouldn't be. Over half of voters didn't want the "frontrunner" and if the people they chose to represent them agree more with each other than it is reasonable that they decide on a compromise between them

    You don't choose someone to represent you, you choose a candidate. Party activists/delegates who go to the convention are not on the ballot and are often not even decided until well afterwards. For instance in Massachusetts the signups run over a month after the primary.

    Especially the way the Democratic nomination process is set up, it's almost impossible to get a majority in a three+ person race. The primary loses its little-d democratic legitimacy if it bypasses a clear popular vote/delegate winner. One of the reasons the super delegates exist is that if that scenario happens barring extraordinary conditions (like Biden has a heart attack or something) they will rightfully push him over the line. Hell, imagine the case where Warren wins 40% but Biden and Buttigieg each have 30 and they make it a Biden-Buttigieg ticket. The only way something like that can appear just is if you rationalize it because you want the eventually winner.

    It's not even clear that if Warren/Sanders dropped out the survivor would bypass Biden (I think the evidence is actually better that his lead would not be substantially cut) but it certainly wouldn't be just to presume that's the case after the primaries. Most candidates drop out once it's clear they aren't going to win because they don't want to waste political money and extend the acrimony in way that hurts the party for this very reason. Without ranked choice or something similar this is how it works.

    No?

    That would be 60% voting one way, 40% voting the other. A Biden/Buttigieg alliance of some sort would make perfect sense in that case as the winner.

    Everything you are trying to defend here is exactly the problem with FPTP systems that people complain about.

    No it's 40% voting for Warren, 30% for Biden, 30% for Buttigieg. The presumption that there are "sides" is fallacious.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited January 2
    PantsB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Yeah, in order for Warren or Sanders to win I think one or the other would have to drop out. But they are so close I dont see either doing so.

    Plus Biden might actually GAIN supporters.

    Someone can educate on me on this if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure if one of them drops out before the convention and endorses the other, they can get their delegates right?

    I'm assuming we won't end up in a situation where 60% of the delegates are for Sanders or Warren but all the superdelegates coronate Biden anyway

    I think it would be electoral suicide if the candidate who won the most delegates/voters was denied the nomination due to a deal between #2 and #3.

    It shouldn't be. Over half of voters didn't want the "frontrunner" and if the people they chose to represent them agree more with each other than it is reasonable that they decide on a compromise between them

    You don't choose someone to represent you, you choose a candidate. Party activists/delegates who go to the convention are not on the ballot and are often not even decided until well afterwards. For instance in Massachusetts the signups run over a month after the primary.

    Especially the way the Democratic nomination process is set up, it's almost impossible to get a majority in a three+ person race. The primary loses its little-d democratic legitimacy if it bypasses a clear popular vote/delegate winner. One of the reasons the super delegates exist is that if that scenario happens barring extraordinary conditions (like Biden has a heart attack or something) they will rightfully push him over the line. Hell, imagine the case where Warren wins 40% but Biden and Buttigieg each have 30 and they make it a Biden-Buttigieg ticket. The only way something like that can appear just is if you rationalize it because you want the eventually winner.

    It's not even clear that if Warren/Sanders dropped out the survivor would bypass Biden (I think the evidence is actually better that his lead would not be substantially cut) but it certainly wouldn't be just to presume that's the case after the primaries. Most candidates drop out once it's clear they aren't going to win because they don't want to waste political money and extend the acrimony in way that hurts the party for this very reason. Without ranked choice or something similar this is how it works.

    No?

    That would be 60% voting one way, 40% voting the other. A Biden/Buttigieg alliance of some sort would make perfect sense in that case as the winner.

    Everything you are trying to defend here is exactly the problem with FPTP systems that people complain about.

    No it's 40% voting for Warren, 30% for Biden, 30% for Buttigieg. The presumption that there are "sides" is fallacious.

    At best you are arguing for a run-off election of some sort where people get their second pick at a candidate.

    Just deciding Warren must have it, even though she's only got 40% of the vote is, again, exactly the problem with FTPT that people are trying to get rid of it over. The idea that "The only way something like that can appear just is if you rationalize it because you want the eventually winner" is like easily demonstratively false. This specific situation is frequently discussed electoral systems with more then 2 parties all the damn time.

    shryke on
    Man in the MistsBucketmanJulius
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited January 2
    For instance, using the Morning Consult poll
    https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

    31% of Sanders supporters have Warren as their second choice, 29% have Biden, 9% Yang
    32% of Warren supports have Bernie, 22% Biden, 11% Buttigieg.

    Or Q
    Sanders supporters 2nd choice = 35 17 10 Warren Biden Yang
    Warren supporters 2nd choice = 33 21 13 Sanders Biden Buttigieg

    Or the Economist "considering" tally
    jz9j1czfqbtw.png


    Take a 40-30-30 split with Biden in the lead split on those lines. In a 40-30-30 split you'd need 70% of one of the 30% candidates to go for the other to crack 50%. And in reality delegates aren't going to want a messy damaging convention fight 3 months before the general election.
    edit
    shryke wrote: »

    At best you are arguing for another vote where people get their second pick. Just deciding Warren must have it, even though she's only got 40% of the vote is, again, exactly the problem with FTPT that people are trying to get rid of it over.

    Not really because there isn't such a mechanism. I think the winner should win. You're still presuming that Warren and Sanders are some kind of group choice being split and that Biden winning would be unfair.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    jmcdonald
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    I feel like if Warren unconditionally endorsed Sanders, or if Sanders unconditionally endorsed Warren, those numbers would change significantly.

    Stabbity StyleMan in the MistsBucketmanEmperorSethQuidToxAthenorkimeJaysonFourLord_Asmodeus38thDoeKristmas KthulhuAbsurdPropositionElvenshaenever die
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Joe also may very well have to step down or even die before his term is up. Having Warren as the fallback neuters a lot of my concern if Joe cant go the distance.

    There's no suggestion of that, medically. So far, the only candidate that is statistically quite likely to die in office is Bernie.

    jmcdonald
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Joe also may very well have to step down or even die before his term is up. Having Warren as the fallback neuters a lot of my concern if Joe cant go the distance.

    There's no suggestion of that, medically. So far, the only candidate that is statistically quite likely to die in office is Bernie.

    Just got a clean bill of health

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Man in the MistsJuliusDee Kae
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I think there’s going to have to be a fundamental shift in this race for anybody but Biden to win. Somebody is going to have to drop out and endorse someone else or another major thing shakes it up. Nobody is drinking Joe’s milkshake to the point that he’s in danger. Yeah there haven’t been any votes cast yet but I can read a poll.

    Depends on early primaries. Theyre hardly on lock for Biden and if Sanders or Pete do well that could be the game.

    That's gonna be interesting to see. I really wonder how much the media narrative from those first few states can effect the race. I think it's entirely up in the air whether it matters or not anymore. We just don't know.

    Gut instinct says Biden is holding mostly on name recognition and thats a soft foundation for a lead.

    I agreed with this sentiment in the summer, but if his pre-vote support was going to collapse it would have happened by now.

    Think of everything that's happened since June, when we all thought segregation and bussing was going to be the end of him, and we assumed Kamala was going to eat his lunch.

    CptKemzik
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Joe also may very well have to step down or even die before his term is up. Having Warren as the fallback neuters a lot of my concern if Joe cant go the distance.

    There's no suggestion of that, medically. So far, the only candidate that is statistically quite likely to die in office is Bernie.

    Just got a clean bill of health

    mhm

    Let me just say that I don't recall any President or Presidential candidate in the history of this nation ever getting less than a clean bill of health. So while I don't have any hard evidence, I do have statistics on my side and Bernie is probably going to have another "incident" in the next 8 years.

    eMoanderjmcdonaldCelestialBadgerLabelButtersKayne Red RobeSmrtnikDarkewolfekimeGnome-Interruptus
  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2
    spool32 wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Joe also may very well have to step down or even die before his term is up. Having Warren as the fallback neuters a lot of my concern if Joe cant go the distance.

    There's no suggestion of that, medically. So far, the only candidate that is statistically quite likely to die in office is Bernie.

    Just got a clean bill of health

    He’s still 78 and recently had a heart attack. I’m sure he’s in supreme health, but statistically speaking those factors work against him.

    Marathon on
    eMoanderCelestialBadgerBucketmanMild ConfusionMvrckNo-QuarterCommander ZoomDarkewolfeNobeardkimeGnome-Interruptus
  • ceresceres When the last moon is cast over the last star of morning And the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited January 2
    I'm a little uncomfortable with the way Sanders is being campaigned for at this point, maybe because I don't need to be sold on thinking he's great, or maybe just because of the way things have played out over time. I've been on some of these email lists for years, and for quite a while they were "look at this great amazing thing he did/said/recognizes," and that stuff is awesome to hear. I love hearing about how he's awesome, it makes me feel happy.

    Fast forward to maybe about 5-6 months ago, and the tone has shifted a lot since then to "they don't think we can do it," "they don't want us to win," "the establishment is scared" etc. I get that it's a lot of his appeal, that he is so different and so focused on the people where the Dems as a political party in many ways definitely aren't. It's certainly what appeals to me. But hearing about how he is great made me feel infinitely better than the sinister tone of "they are out to get us." It's true to a degree, but also people still need vote Dem after the Primaries whether or not he gets the nomination.

    I have absolutely no idea how the other candidates are being campaigned for or what their fundraising emails look like because I'm not on those lists, but this is starting to bring back some very unpleasant memories I'd rather leave in the past. Note that for the most part it's not his campaign specifically, but I think his fundraisers are feeding on the sentiment. It's fine to be happy or sad about who ultimately gets the nomination, even devastated because the promises of a truly progressive President are so profoundly different, but focusing on tearing down the party internally rather than the things that differentiate him from the other candidates pits the Democrats as the opposition in the general and that leads down some some bad roads.

    ceres on
    And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
    MarathonAnsagoCelestialBadgerTarantioGnome-InterruptusSpoit
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    His clean bill of health was as convincing as any President's bill of health in that it is made up.

    eMoanderCelestialBadgerspool32Commander ZoomKayne Red RobesyndalisSmrtnikDarkewolfekimeJaysonFourKetar
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think there’s going to have to be a fundamental shift in this race for anybody but Biden to win. Somebody is going to have to drop out and endorse someone else or another major thing shakes it up. Nobody is drinking Joe’s milkshake to the point that he’s in danger. Yeah there haven’t been any votes cast yet but I can read a poll.

    Depends on early primaries. Theyre hardly on lock for Biden and if Sanders or Pete do well that could be the game.

    That's gonna be interesting to see. I really wonder how much the media narrative from those first few states can effect the race. I think it's entirely up in the air whether it matters or not anymore. We just don't know.

    Gut instinct says Biden is holding mostly on name recognition and thats a soft foundation for a lead.

    I agreed with this sentiment in the summer, but if his pre-vote support was going to collapse it would have happened by now.

    Think of everything that's happened since June, when we all thought segregation and bussing was going to be the end of him, and we assumed Kamala was going to eat his lunch.

    His fundraising was been kinda shit last quarter. I have doubts it'll be even better the next quarter either. And there's a lot of voters who aren't fully committed yet out there. I'm not saying he's a paper tiger or anything, but I think it's not clear yet that his support will be unchangeable. I think too many things may have changed for us to be sure either way.

    Julius
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think there’s going to have to be a fundamental shift in this race for anybody but Biden to win. Somebody is going to have to drop out and endorse someone else or another major thing shakes it up. Nobody is drinking Joe’s milkshake to the point that he’s in danger. Yeah there haven’t been any votes cast yet but I can read a poll.

    Depends on early primaries. Theyre hardly on lock for Biden and if Sanders or Pete do well that could be the game.

    That's gonna be interesting to see. I really wonder how much the media narrative from those first few states can effect the race. I think it's entirely up in the air whether it matters or not anymore. We just don't know.

    Gut instinct says Biden is holding mostly on name recognition and thats a soft foundation for a lead.

    I agreed with this sentiment in the summer, but if his pre-vote support was going to collapse it would have happened by now.

    Think of everything that's happened since June, when we all thought segregation and bussing was going to be the end of him, and we assumed Kamala was going to eat his lunch.

    His fundraising was been kinda shit last quarter. I have doubts it'll be even better the next quarter either. And there's a lot of voters who aren't fully committed yet out there. I'm not saying he's a paper tiger or anything, but I think it's not clear yet that his support will be unchangeable. I think too many things may have changed for us to be sure either way.
    I think if he doesn't win early primaries then his support will evaporate completely. I think this year it's going to be very important because so many people want to see the quality of winning and electibility as fast as possible to alleviate their "Trump could win" anxiety.

    Julius
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    edited January 2
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think there’s going to have to be a fundamental shift in this race for anybody but Biden to win. Somebody is going to have to drop out and endorse someone else or another major thing shakes it up. Nobody is drinking Joe’s milkshake to the point that he’s in danger. Yeah there haven’t been any votes cast yet but I can read a poll.

    Depends on early primaries. Theyre hardly on lock for Biden and if Sanders or Pete do well that could be the game.

    That's gonna be interesting to see. I really wonder how much the media narrative from those first few states can effect the race. I think it's entirely up in the air whether it matters or not anymore. We just don't know.

    Gut instinct says Biden is holding mostly on name recognition and thats a soft foundation for a lead.

    I agreed with this sentiment in the summer, but if his pre-vote support was going to collapse it would have happened by now.

    Think of everything that's happened since June, when we all thought segregation and bussing was going to be the end of him, and we assumed Kamala was going to eat his lunch.

    Eh, we're still out earlier enough that things could shift enough. We still have over a month for the first primary contests to happen. There are a ton of voters that haven't really fully checked in because the race isn't a priority over their other concerns. This is especially true voters in states that vote later, little point in learning who a ton of these candidates are before the first contest, since a sizable chunk won't be an option when they vote. I have to wonder if this will finally be the race that breaks the democratic party of the idea that Iowa must go first. It's not very representative of country or the party. Also if they pick Pete as their winner, I can see that really sinking the idea permanently because Pete's numbers will collapse because he has been fully scrutinized and he is being propped up by the media's bullshit. Pete is a pretty fucking garbage candidate, when it comes to his track record.

    I do hope they drop the whole fundraising number bullshit because it's pretty clear it doesn't achieve anything positive, but does allow wealthy dudes with no business in the primary to get a seat at the debate table. Also I'm pretty sure it's not just here that is looking at the idea very unfavorably.

    Mill on
    SleepMan in the MistsJuliusGnome-Interruptus
  • ceresceres When the last moon is cast over the last star of morning And the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderator mod
    The fundraiser number thing is just about the most garbage way I can think of to measure voter appeal and it takes us down strange roads where everything can be a polar + or - depending on how you say it.

    And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
    JuliusKayne Red RobeElvenshaeTarantioGnome-Interruptus
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited January 2
    ceres wrote: »
    The fundraiser number thing is just about the most garbage way I can think of to measure voter appeal and it takes us down strange roads where everything can be a polar + or - depending on how you say it.

    Nate Silver rated it as less important than polling but about as important as endorsements for whatever that might be worth to people.

    Edit: of youre talking about the debates, carry on

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Julius
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I think there’s going to have to be a fundamental shift in this race for anybody but Biden to win. Somebody is going to have to drop out and endorse someone else or another major thing shakes it up. Nobody is drinking Joe’s milkshake to the point that he’s in danger. Yeah there haven’t been any votes cast yet but I can read a poll.

    Depends on early primaries. Theyre hardly on lock for Biden and if Sanders or Pete do well that could be the game.

    That's gonna be interesting to see. I really wonder how much the media narrative from those first few states can effect the race. I think it's entirely up in the air whether it matters or not anymore. We just don't know.

    Gut instinct says Biden is holding mostly on name recognition and thats a soft foundation for a lead.

    I agreed with this sentiment in the summer, but if his pre-vote support was going to collapse it would have happened by now.

    Think of everything that's happened since June, when we all thought segregation and bussing was going to be the end of him, and we assumed Kamala was going to eat his lunch.

    Eh, we're still out earlier enough that things could shift enough. We still have over a month for the first primary contests to happen. There are a ton of voters that haven't really fully checked in because the race isn't a priority over their other concerns. This is especially true voters in states that vote later, little point in learning who a ton of these candidates are before the first contest, since a sizable chunk won't be an option when they vote. I have to wonder if this will finally be the race that breaks the democratic party of the idea that Iowa must go first. It's not very representative of country or the party. Also if they pick Pete as their winner, I can see that really sinking the idea permanently because Pete's numbers will collapse because he has been fully scrutinized and he is being propped up by the media's bullshit. Pete is a pretty fucking garbage candidate, when it comes to his track record.

    I do hope they drop the whole fundraising number bullshit because it's pretty clear it doesn't achieve anything positive, but does allow wealthy dudes with no business in the primary to get a seat at the debate table. Also I'm pretty sure it's not just hear that is looking at the idea very unfavorably.

    It only lets you buy your way in indirectly actually. Cause it's not amount, it's number of individual donors. It's not that bad a measure because of that. The way the rich dudes have bought their way in is by spending a stupid amount of money on getting donations. Losing money in the process, but qualifying for the debates. In that sense the main problem imo is as a metric it just encourages massive amounts of wasted money.

    KaputaJuliusGnome-InterruptusSpoit
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    I don't have real issues with the nature of the fundraising requirements for the debates - if anything, it gives people a meaningful reason to donate even just a single dollar to a candidate they want to help push to the debate stage, and that's a pretty positive incentive structure. Aside from the candidates who struggle with that low bar - almost all of which are polling in negligibly small amounts - the campaign operations also get something out of it, with a low barrier to entry means of pumping up their mailing lists.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    His clean bill of health was as convincing as any President's bill of health in that it is made up.

    Sanders had a heart attack this year. That's not a clean bill of health in any reasonable way. He's not currently dying, I guess. That's something. But no human is immortal, and Sanders is approaching the age where you get one final exit poll.

    I hope we get more younger candidates next time.

    jmcdonaldHexmage-PASmrtnikDarkewolfekimeJaysonFourMegaMek
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing To Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    Obama stole Clinton's thunder with Iowa. Either Bernie or Liz needs to replicate that feat to unseat Joe's "inevitable" narrative. If Joe (or even Pete) have an inordinately strong showing in Iowa, I think that's the ballgame.

    CantidoJragghenSmrtnik
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    His clean bill of health was as convincing as any President's bill of health in that it is made up.

    Sanders had a heart attack this year. That's not a clean bill of health in any reasonable way. He's not currently dying, I guess. That's something. But no human is immortal, and Sanders is approaching the age where you get one final exit poll.

    I hope we get more younger candidates next time.

    I mean like three doctors, with medical degrees, looked at his stuff and said hes doing fine and hes not on most of the medication he needed any more.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    spool32Dee KaeMan in the MistsNobeardMagell
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited January 2
    .
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Obama stole Clinton's thunder with Iowa. Either Bernie or Liz needs to replicate that feat to unseat Joe's "inevitable" narrative. If Joe (or even Pete) have an inordinately strong showing in Iowa, I think that's the ballgame.

    Were about to find out if TV or ground game is more important in the midwest.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
    No-QuarterQanamil
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    .
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Obama stole Clinton's thunder with Iowa. Either Bernie or Liz needs to replicate that feat to unseat Joe's "inevitable" narrative. If Joe (or even Pete) have an inordinately strong showing in Iowa, I think that's the ballgame.

    Were about to find out if TV or ground game is more important in the midwest.

    Money on ground game, every time.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    MillMan in the Mists
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited January 2
    PantsB wrote: »

    Speaking of people I thought dropped out ages ago...

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
    shrykeTofystedethCommander ZoomKayne Red RobeAthenorMan in the MistsJaysonFour
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »

    Not clownshoes, just grifting.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    CantidoTicaldfjamSmrtnikMorganVJaysonFour
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Cantido wrote: »
    .
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Obama stole Clinton's thunder with Iowa. Either Bernie or Liz needs to replicate that feat to unseat Joe's "inevitable" narrative. If Joe (or even Pete) have an inordinately strong showing in Iowa, I think that's the ballgame.

    Were about to find out if TV or ground game is more important in the midwest.

    Money on ground game, every time.

    At the risk of invoking That Year, Clinton had, by all accounts, a very strong ground game while Trump was Yakety Sax, and it meant pretty much fuckall.

    It's possible that it's markedly different for a primary, but i'm kinda done trying to second guess polling. The numbers are the numbers and they look grim for people who aren't Biden.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    ButtersVishNubjmcdonaldCommander ZoomCelestialBadgerFuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudNo-QuarterDarkewolfeMrMistersilence1186
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    .
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Obama stole Clinton's thunder with Iowa. Either Bernie or Liz needs to replicate that feat to unseat Joe's "inevitable" narrative. If Joe (or even Pete) have an inordinately strong showing in Iowa, I think that's the ballgame.

    Were about to find out if TV or ground game is more important in the midwest.

    Money on ground game, every time.

    At the risk of invoking That Year, Clinton had, by all accounts, a very strong ground game while Trump was Yakety Sax, and it meant pretty much fuckall.

    It's possible that it's markedly different for a primary, but i'm kinda done trying to second guess polling. The numbers are the numbers and they look grim for people who aren't Biden.

    The big thing that people keep ringing alarm bells about and that the Democratic Party keeps ignoring is social media.

    Trump dumped TONS of money into that and it seems to be the primary method by which your average vote gets their political opinions now.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudMan in the MistsGnome-Interruptus
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited January 2
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    .
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Obama stole Clinton's thunder with Iowa. Either Bernie or Liz needs to replicate that feat to unseat Joe's "inevitable" narrative. If Joe (or even Pete) have an inordinately strong showing in Iowa, I think that's the ballgame.

    Were about to find out if TV or ground game is more important in the midwest.

    Money on ground game, every time.

    At the risk of invoking That Year, Clinton had, by all accounts, a very strong ground game while Trump was Yakety Sax, and it meant pretty much fuckall.

    It's possible that it's markedly different for a primary, but i'm kinda done trying to second guess polling. The numbers are the numbers and they look grim for people who aren't Biden.

    The big thing that people keep ringing alarm bells about and that the Democratic Party keeps ignoring is social media.

    Trump dumped TONS of money into that and it seems to be the primary method by which your average vote gets their political opinions now.

    According to Vox, the ground game last time around dropped off compared to Obama’s

    https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/mischiefs-of-faction/2017/11/16/16665756/shrinking-democratic-ground-game

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Julius
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Also, name recognition isn't driving Biden's numbers. He's disproportionately the choice of people who are paying a lot of attention to the primary. (I recall Bernie being most popular among those paying little attention, but don't cite me.)

    Biden is popular because he is seen as electable, and electability is the number one issue for primary voters this time around. The only thing that will change that is either some major scandal (unlikely) or Biden being trounced so badly in Iowa and New Hampshire that it worries Biden supporters in South Carolina. If Biden performs as expected in the first four contests, I think that's probably ballgame, unless Super Tuesday goes way weird.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
    No-QuarterjmcdonaldCelestialBadgerMazzyxDarkewolfeMild ConfusionBhownever dieGnome-Interruptus
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited January 2
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    .
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Obama stole Clinton's thunder with Iowa. Either Bernie or Liz needs to replicate that feat to unseat Joe's "inevitable" narrative. If Joe (or even Pete) have an inordinately strong showing in Iowa, I think that's the ballgame.

    Were about to find out if TV or ground game is more important in the midwest.

    Money on ground game, every time.

    At the risk of invoking That Year, Clinton had, by all accounts, a very strong ground game while Trump was Yakety Sax, and it meant pretty much fuckall.

    It's possible that it's markedly different for a primary, but i'm kinda done trying to second guess polling. The numbers are the numbers and they look grim for people who aren't Biden.

    Polls are what they are but like Iowa is nearly a 3 way tie per 538. Sanders and Biden are tied in New Hampshire per the same.

    National numbers are one thing, but we've seen what some early primary wins or losses can mean. Biden might be the favorite to win, but its not a substantial or untouchable lead.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    Julius
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    .
    No-Quarter wrote: »
    Obama stole Clinton's thunder with Iowa. Either Bernie or Liz needs to replicate that feat to unseat Joe's "inevitable" narrative. If Joe (or even Pete) have an inordinately strong showing in Iowa, I think that's the ballgame.

    Were about to find out if TV or ground game is more important in the midwest.

    Money on ground game, every time.

    At the risk of invoking That Year, Clinton had, by all accounts, a very strong ground game while Trump was Yakety Sax, and it meant pretty much fuckall.

    It's possible that it's markedly different for a primary, but i'm kinda done trying to second guess polling. The numbers are the numbers and they look grim for people who aren't Biden.

    The big thing that people keep ringing alarm bells about and that the Democratic Party keeps ignoring is social media.

    Trump dumped TONS of money into that and it seems to be the primary method by which your average vote gets their political opinions now.

    It's the primary method that your average Trump voter gets their opinions. FOX News is by far the most shared media news source on Facebook and has been for years. The GOP blitz on social media isn't about expanding their base it's about maintaining it.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    CantidojmcdonaldGnome-Interruptus
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Is being arguably derivative bad? I don't really think so, good policy is good policy (if perhaps it would be better to credit it in an ideal world, but this isn't an ideal world). But somehow Warren became the candidate with PLANS while very little other policy is even referenced. I am not positive how she did that, but it has served her well, because every time she releases a plan people notice.

    Yeah it's interesting that she became the "plans for everything" candidate while releasing plans later than many other candidates. I think part of it may be that her plans tend to be extensive long-reads compared to other candidates (Sanders' plan is a pretty short summary for example), but part of it is also that media labelled her as such and now every time she releases a plan later than other candidates it gets promoted.

    To be clear I see the merit in giving more details, but it also just feels like the thing many people primarily like is that she has all the details and not what the details actually are.

    Styrofoam SammichDee Kae
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, name recognition isn't driving Biden's numbers. He's disproportionately the choice of people who are paying a lot of attention to the primary. (I recall Bernie being most popular among those paying little attention, but don't cite me.)

    Biden is popular because he is seen as electable, and electability is the number one issue for primary voters this time around. The only thing that will change that is either some major scandal (unlikely) or Biden being trounced so badly in Iowa and New Hampshire that it worries Biden supporters in South Carolina. If Biden performs as expected in the first four contests, I think that's probably ballgame, unless Super Tuesday goes way weird.

    And the idea that he wins because he's expected to win is infuriating.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    ElJeffeJuliusMan in the MistskimeMild ConfusionLord_AsmodeusNobeard38thDoeKristmas KthulhuAbsurdPropositionAistannever die
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Is being arguably derivative bad? I don't really think so, good policy is good policy (if perhaps it would be better to credit it in an ideal world, but this isn't an ideal world). But somehow Warren became the candidate with PLANS while very little other policy is even referenced. I am not positive how she did that, but it has served her well, because every time she releases a plan people notice.

    Yeah it's interesting that she became the "plans for everything" candidate while releasing plans later than many other candidates. I think part of it may be that her plans tend to be extensive long-reads compared to other candidates (Sanders' plan is a pretty short summary for example), but part of it is also that media labelled her as such and now every time she releases a plan later than other candidates it gets promoted.

    To be clear I see the merit in giving more details, but it also just feels like the thing many people primarily like is that she has all the details and not what the details actually are.

    She's been rolling them out so each one gets individual attention. She's been at this game with the plan releases all year. That does mean sometimes they come out later then candidates who slapped everything up on their website day 1.

    RedTideEinzelGnome-Interruptus
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Also, name recognition isn't driving Biden's numbers. He's disproportionately the choice of people who are paying a lot of attention to the primary. (I recall Bernie being most popular among those paying little attention, but don't cite me.)

    Biden is popular because he is seen as electable, and electability is the number one issue for primary voters this time around. The only thing that will change that is either some major scandal (unlikely) or Biden being trounced so badly in Iowa and New Hampshire that it worries Biden supporters in South Carolina. If Biden performs as expected in the first four contests, I think that's probably ballgame, unless Super Tuesday goes way weird.

    Do you have a cite on that polling? Because for months it was among people paying a lot of attention it was Warren leading, Harris (then Buttigieg) second and among those not paying attention it was Biden and Sanders.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Julius
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    I'm already sick of the grumbling about inevitability in this race.

    A big part of the picture here is that the not-Biden vote - which exists and is substantial - is split among so many candidates. That the territory to the left of Biden is so firmly cut in half by Bernie and Warren has a lot to do with it. If either one of them dropped out, we'd have a pretty competitive primary.

    This fact will not prevent people from crying about what a rigged, rerun this race is, if Biden gets the nod.

    Man in the MistsSmrtnik
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    edited January 2
    Athenor wrote: »
    So far, none of the primary debates have been on network TV, right?
    There’s been debates on PBS, NBC, and ABC

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates

    wandering on
    5z4ibbn0fcua.jpg
This discussion has been closed.