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.
How much of that social media traffic was bot networks, though? Mueller was clear about this, and not all of it was pro-Trump, alot of it was false flag bullshit from "As a Democrat/black person/ woman" garbage.
Then there's the millions of dollars of free airtime Trump got- Trump's fullscreen empty podium vs Clinton's immigration speech being muted box in the corner on CNN is a part of this.
A lot of that can't actually be fought against or replicated by Democrats.At least until Trumpnis gone, anyway.
+3
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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
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.
I mean you can just do ranked-choice voting if you want. There is in fact such a mechanism, you're free to implement it.
And the point isn't that in this specific instance there is a split group choice that makes Biden winning unfair, it's that there very well could be and that this system does not protect against it. The 40% candidate could be the least preferable option to the other 60% and still win the nomination. You don't need to presume anything because this is a hypothetical to point out the faults of the system.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.
I don't think those other candidates slapped everything up on their website day 1. I'll take PantsB's word for it that Harris released her Disability plan six months ago and Castro and Buttigieg in November because I'm lazy, but I'm pretty sure I recall candidates releasing plans about other topics later than their announcements about running.
I don't think Warren is the only one who came up with the idea of rolling out plans so they get individual attention.
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.
I don't think those other candidates slapped everything up on their website day 1. I'll take PantsB's word for it that Harris released her Disability plan six months ago and Castro and Buttigieg in November because I'm lazy, but I'm pretty sure I recall candidates releasing plans about other topics later than their announcements about running.
I don't think Warren is the only one who came up with the idea of rolling out plans so they get individual attention.
No, she's just much better at executing it then the rest of them.
+1
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
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.
I know at least one of them was 538, and it was fairly recent. I spent a couple minutes searching and couldn't find it offhand, so you may disregard it accordingly as "this one dude i know says he read a thing".
I will maintain that perceived electability is more of a factor than name recognition, but I would love to be wrong.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
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.
I don't think those other candidates slapped everything up on their website day 1. I'll take PantsB's word for it that Harris released her Disability plan six months ago and Castro and Buttigieg in November because I'm lazy, but I'm pretty sure I recall candidates releasing plans about other topics later than their announcements about running.
I don't think Warren is the only one who came up with the idea of rolling out plans so they get individual attention.
No, she's just much better at executing it then the rest of them.
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.
I don't think those other candidates slapped everything up on their website day 1. I'll take PantsB's word for it that Harris released her Disability plan six months ago and Castro and Buttigieg in November because I'm lazy, but I'm pretty sure I recall candidates releasing plans about other topics later than their announcements about running.
I don't think Warren is the only one who came up with the idea of rolling out plans so they get individual attention.
No, she's just much better at executing it then the rest of them.
Well her poll numbers are falling so
I'm not sure what you think one has to do with the other. She is still, as some of y'all keep gripping about, known as "the candidate with the plans".
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.
I don't think those other candidates slapped everything up on their website day 1. I'll take PantsB's word for it that Harris released her Disability plan six months ago and Castro and Buttigieg in November because I'm lazy, but I'm pretty sure I recall candidates releasing plans about other topics later than their announcements about running.
I don't think Warren is the only one who came up with the idea of rolling out plans so they get individual attention.
No, she's just much better at executing it then the rest of them.
Well her poll numbers are falling so
Not as quickly as some people's odds at surviving the campaign trail
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
As far as where Warren's plans came from, I don't much care. It's not like the president's job is to sit in the Oval Office and will policy plans into existence from first principles; they all come from somewhere external, and the job of the president is to say, "Oh, I like that plan, let's do that" and then push for it.
Warren is consistently presenting plans that seem well thought out and that I really agree with. I don't care where they came from, I just care that they're good and that she seems willing to fight for them.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+42
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.
Since you invoked it, Clinton ignored Wisconsin (0 appearances!) and Michigan, two states that went Obama twice, and Trump didn't. Her ground game sucked, even if it didn't cost her the election.
I don't think it's just different for a primary, I think it's different for Democrats than Republicans in the general too. Republicans got their own propaganda channel, and qua demographics their voters have an easier time voting. The ground game is far more important for Democrats. And I'd think that goes double for something that isn't even an election.
also Biden is polling 3rd in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so it's weird to conclude Biden is inevitable when quoting someone pointing out 2008.
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
I think there is a growing consensus that the biggest mistake the Democratic Party/DNC made was to basically dissolve the Obama election campaign. And it does indeed sound dumb to have a new candidate need to build everything from scratch.
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.
Since you invoked it, Clinton ignored Wisconsin (0 appearances!) and Michigan, two states that went Obama twice, and Trump didn't. Her ground game sucked, even if it didn't cost her the election.
I don't think it's just different for a primary, I think it's different for Democrats than Republicans in the general too. Republicans got their own propaganda channel, and qua demographics their voters have an easier time voting. The ground game is far more important for Democrats. And I'd think that goes double for something that isn't even an election.
also Biden is polling 3rd in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so it's weird to conclude Biden is inevitable when quoting someone pointing out 2008.
And she was all over Pennsylvania's ass and lost it too. These kind of examples don't prove anything in either direction.
+5
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.
I don't think those other candidates slapped everything up on their website day 1. I'll take PantsB's word for it that Harris released her Disability plan six months ago and Castro and Buttigieg in November because I'm lazy, but I'm pretty sure I recall candidates releasing plans about other topics later than their announcements about running.
I don't think Warren is the only one who came up with the idea of rolling out plans so they get individual attention.
No, she's just much better at executing it then the rest of them.
Oh sure. But I think she is also helped by the media seeing her as the candidate with plans and therefore highlighting her.
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
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.
Since you invoked it, Clinton ignored Wisconsin (0 appearances!) and Michigan, two states that went Obama twice, and Trump didn't. Her ground game sucked, even if it didn't cost her the election.
I don't think it's just different for a primary, I think it's different for Democrats than Republicans in the general too. Republicans got their own propaganda channel, and qua demographics their voters have an easier time voting. The ground game is far more important for Democrats. And I'd think that goes double for something that isn't even an election.
also Biden is polling 3rd in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so it's weird to conclude Biden is inevitable when quoting someone pointing out 2008.
And she was all over Pennsylvania's ass and lost it too. These kind of examples don't prove anything in either direction.
It's hard to tell at this map's scale, but it feels like her campaign had less invested in field offices and the like, particularly when related with the initial Obama campaign:
It seems like Infrastructure is going to be key to your success, moreso than, say, rallies?
EDIT: To note, that's from the Vox article
Lanz on
+4
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.
Since you invoked it, Clinton ignored Wisconsin (0 appearances!) and Michigan, two states that went Obama twice, and Trump didn't. Her ground game sucked, even if it didn't cost her the election.
I don't think it's just different for a primary, I think it's different for Democrats than Republicans in the general too. Republicans got their own propaganda channel, and qua demographics their voters have an easier time voting. The ground game is far more important for Democrats. And I'd think that goes double for something that isn't even an election.
also Biden is polling 3rd in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so it's weird to conclude Biden is inevitable when quoting someone pointing out 2008.
And she was all over Pennsylvania's ass and lost it too. These kind of examples don't prove anything in either direction.
i mean not going there is surely proof of her ground game not being great? Even Nate Silver said it was bad.
I'm not trying to argue that her bad ground game shows that ground game is more important, just that hers is not an example of a good ground game not mattering. Because it was not good.
+2
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
It's usually more cultural signifiers than anything else.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
If you dont pay a lot of attention or arent ideologically committed to liberalism Warren looks a lot like just another Democrat promising to do a lot of things and there's a good chance that hasnt worked out for you so far.
Policy differences aside, Sanders's campaign is cathartic for a lot of people. He's talked at length before about how they specifically want people to realize that their suffering isnt theirs alone, its everyone's.
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.
Since you invoked it, Clinton ignored Wisconsin (0 appearances!) and Michigan, two states that went Obama twice, and Trump didn't. Her ground game sucked, even if it didn't cost her the election.
I don't think it's just different for a primary, I think it's different for Democrats than Republicans in the general too. Republicans got their own propaganda channel, and qua demographics their voters have an easier time voting. The ground game is far more important for Democrats. And I'd think that goes double for something that isn't even an election.
also Biden is polling 3rd in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so it's weird to conclude Biden is inevitable when quoting someone pointing out 2008.
And she was all over Pennsylvania's ass and lost it too. These kind of examples don't prove anything in either direction.
i mean not going there is surely proof of her ground game not being great? Even Nate Silver said it was bad.
I'm not trying to argue that her bad ground game shows that ground game is more important, just that hers is not an example of a good ground game not mattering. Because it was not good.
WTF does Nate Silver know about how to run a ground game operation in a campaign? Unless he's crunching stat numbers, he's just a mediocre pundit.
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
It's usually more cultural signifiers than anything else.
Yeah, even "I have a plan" is not really about having plans so much as the image it projects. The extent to which actual policy or positions matter is generally overstated.
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
It's usually more cultural signifiers than anything else.
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
It's usually more cultural signifiers than anything else.
Can you elaborate
People don't really care much about policy, but they do care about cultural stuff. That's the easiest way to understand the Biden voters, for example.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
+2
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
If you dont pay a lot of attention or arent ideologically committed to liberalism Warren looks a lot like just another Democrat promising to do a lot of things and there's a good chance that hasnt worked out for you so far.
Policy differences aside, Sanders's campaign is cathartic for a lot of people. He's talked at length before about how they specifically want people to realize that their suffering isnt theirs alone, its everyone's.
If you don't pay attention, they all look like generic Democrats promising to do a lot of things, but each with one superficial trait. Except for the weird ones like Williamson.
But Biden is the seasoned one, Bernie is the loud one, Warren is the girl one, Pete is the young one, Yang is the business one.
...oh god, they're a boy band.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
It's usually more cultural signifiers than anything else.
Can you elaborate
People don't really care much about policy, but they do care about cultural stuff. That's the easiest way to understand the Biden voters, for example.
What do you think the cultural values are that drive college educated liberals to Warren and working class people to Sanders? How are those expressed on their campaign?
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
It's usually more cultural signifiers than anything else.
Can you elaborate
People don't really care much about policy, but they do care about cultural stuff. That's the easiest way to understand the Biden voters, for example.
What do you think the cultural values are that drive college educated liberals to Warren and working class people to Sanders? How are those expressed on their campaign?
Warren's promises require a lot of reading to even start to understand, so it turns off people who don't want to bother. Sanders's promises sound like "we'll make everything perfect for white people which in turn will make things better for people of color" so the people who'll benefit from that the most trend towards him (and those who will still be left behind stay far away).
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
If you dont pay a lot of attention or arent ideologically committed to liberalism Warren looks a lot like just another Democrat promising to do a lot of things and there's a good chance that hasnt worked out for you so far.
Policy differences aside, Sanders's campaign is cathartic for a lot of people. He's talked at length before about how they specifically want people to realize that their suffering isnt theirs alone, its everyone's.
If you don't pay attention, they all look like generic Democrats promising to do a lot of things, but each with one superficial trait. Except for the weird ones like Williamson.
But Biden is the seasoned one, Bernie is the loud one, Warren is the girl one, Pete is the young one, Yang is the business one.
...oh god, they're a boy band.
Girl, you need a shot of DNC-12
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
It's usually more cultural signifiers than anything else.
Can you elaborate
People don't really care much about policy, but they do care about cultural stuff. That's the easiest way to understand the Biden voters, for example.
What do you think the cultural values are that drive college educated liberals to Warren and working class people to Sanders? How are those expressed on their campaign?
Warren's promises require a lot of reading to even start to understand, so it turns off people who don't want to bother. Sanders's promises sound like "we'll make everything perfect for white people which in turn will make things better for people of color" so the people who'll benefit from that the most trend towards him (and those who will still be left behind stay far away).
.....huh
+3
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Im not super surprised though that "The candidate with plans" has been a message thats done well with college educated liberals but steuggled with working class voters.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
It's usually more cultural signifiers than anything else.
Can you elaborate
People don't really care much about policy, but they do care about cultural stuff. That's the easiest way to understand the Biden voters, for example.
What do you think the cultural values are that drive college educated liberals to Warren and working class people to Sanders? How are those expressed on their campaign?
Warren's promises require a lot of reading to even start to understand, so it turns off people who don't want to bother. Sanders's promises sound like "we'll make everything perfect for white people which in turn will make things better for people of color" so the people who'll benefit from that the most trend towards him (and those who will still be left behind stay far away).
I think these are both media portrayals that don't actually reflect reality much, but are still accepted narratives. In Warren's case, her policies are there in detail if you want to read them, but she also does a good job putting it in bullet points where everyone can understand what she's going for. In Bernie's, he used to come off as "race doesn't matter, everything is class", though i think he's been better recently at understanding racial issues need to be directly addressed.
In both cases, though, the inaccurate narratives are there and hard to combat.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+3
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.
Since you invoked it, Clinton ignored Wisconsin (0 appearances!) and Michigan, two states that went Obama twice, and Trump didn't. Her ground game sucked, even if it didn't cost her the election.
I don't think it's just different for a primary, I think it's different for Democrats than Republicans in the general too. Republicans got their own propaganda channel, and qua demographics their voters have an easier time voting. The ground game is far more important for Democrats. And I'd think that goes double for something that isn't even an election.
also Biden is polling 3rd in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so it's weird to conclude Biden is inevitable when quoting someone pointing out 2008.
And she was all over Pennsylvania's ass and lost it too. These kind of examples don't prove anything in either direction.
i mean not going there is surely proof of her ground game not being great? Even Nate Silver said it was bad.
I'm not trying to argue that her bad ground game shows that ground game is more important, just that hers is not an example of a good ground game not mattering. Because it was not good.
WTF does Nate Silver know about how to run a ground game operation in a campaign? Unless he's crunching stat numbers, he's just a mediocre pundit.
man he is crunching stat numbers there pointing out she neglected states that could be tipping points and saying the narrow range she had was dumb given the reliability of polls. bad pundit he may be, he is no worse than anyone else at seeing that a candidate making less campaign stops and campaigning in fewer states is not a solid strategy.
The point is that saying she had "by all accounts, a very strong ground game" is simply not true. By most accounts, even Silver's, she had a bad to mediocre one. fuck man, she had less campaign offices than Obama during his re-election campaign! You can't have a good ground game if you make less of an effort than an incumbent president.
+5
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Fair enough, it looks like she had a bad ground game in taking certain states for granted.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
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.
Since you invoked it, Clinton ignored Wisconsin (0 appearances!) and Michigan, two states that went Obama twice, and Trump didn't. Her ground game sucked, even if it didn't cost her the election.
I don't think it's just different for a primary, I think it's different for Democrats than Republicans in the general too. Republicans got their own propaganda channel, and qua demographics their voters have an easier time voting. The ground game is far more important for Democrats. And I'd think that goes double for something that isn't even an election.
also Biden is polling 3rd in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so it's weird to conclude Biden is inevitable when quoting someone pointing out 2008.
And she was all over Pennsylvania's ass and lost it too. These kind of examples don't prove anything in either direction.
i mean not going there is surely proof of her ground game not being great? Even Nate Silver said it was bad.
I'm not trying to argue that her bad ground game shows that ground game is more important, just that hers is not an example of a good ground game not mattering. Because it was not good.
WTF does Nate Silver know about how to run a ground game operation in a campaign? Unless he's crunching stat numbers, he's just a mediocre pundit.
man he is crunching stat numbers there pointing out she neglected states that could be tipping points and saying the narrow range she had was dumb given the reliability of polls. bad pundit he may be, he is no worse than anyone else at seeing that a candidate making less campaign stops and campaigning in fewer states is not a solid strategy.
The point is that saying she had "by all accounts, a very strong ground game" is simply not true. By most accounts, even Silver's, she had a bad to mediocre one. fuck man, she had less campaign offices than Obama during his re-election campaign! You can't have a good ground game if you make less of an effort than an incumbent president.
He isn't crunching any numbers, beyond pointing out some tipping point states. There's literally nothing in there about "ground game", just some comments much milder then you are claiming in your posts about where she herself spent her time. You are wholely misrepresenting the piece. Literally the only part that's in his wheelhouse there is commenting on what count as tipping point states.
And it again, runs into the same fucking problem I just pointed out. Pennsyl-fucking-vania.
This was, it would turn out, pretty much exactly the strategy that swung the Electoral College to Trump. The national race tightened by a percentage point or two — actually a bit more than that after Comey’s letter to Congress — and Trump found a soft spot in Clinton’s support in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
And what's the chart in the article say about where she spent her time?
(time spent is Clinton, then Trump) Pennsylvania 11.4 11.4 Michigan 4.3 5.7 Wisconsin 0.0 2.9
So the same as Trump in PA, a little less in MI and a decent chunk less in WI cause she didn't go but Trump barely went either.
The end result? She lost all 3. Almost like the correlation here is non-existent or at best very weak.
And fuck, Silver even opens the fucking piece with this:
This very probably didn’t cost Clinton the election, however — and the importance of Electoral College tactics is probably overstated in general.
This entire line of argument is just full of it and does not support much of anything about ground game in the upcoming election one way or the other.
Biden is the only one who has released a statement that I can find and it is pretty strong. I think Sanders and Warren et al are making a mistake letting him take the lead here.
When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the region. That fear unfortunately turned out to be true.
The U.S. has lost approximately 4,500 brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we’ve spent trillions.
Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars.
Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one.
And Warren's one was not coming up on @Ewarren for some reason.
Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war.
When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the region. That fear unfortunately turned out to be true.
The U.S. has lost approximately 4,500 brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we’ve spent trillions.
Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars.
Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one.
Yeah he has a vote on the record and he's best able to set himself apart from Biden on this because of it.
Obama didn't have a vote against Clinton but there were multiple appearances he had in the lead-up where he was on a mic and speaking against the specter of war so that was enough.
It's not just having the right opinion at the right time but being able to prove it that makes it a weapon.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Those are good responses, but i'm skeptical voters care much about foreign policy at the moment. Or, you know, ever.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Those are good responses, but i'm skeptical voters care much about foreign policy at the moment. Or, you know, ever.
They rarely have much a choice to choose between.
+5
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
That should be a strong statement from Biden, and he has the resume that would let it carry water for me. Warren's was very similar but not as strong. What Sanders said was good but definitely read more like part of a campaign than the other two.
All three of them made the mistake of not putting their thesis at the beginning and that weighs each one down in a different way.
"Trump is a crazy child who just wrecked everything. The guy was a murderer but we can't trust Trump to think things through or have a plan and he's going to get everyone dead and not care and this is too important."
"This was reckless and is just going to make more war. Even though the guy was a murderer we have to prioritize having less war."
"Trump said he wouldn't bring more war, and he just did it anyway. It's going to cost lives and resources on top of those we've already lost. I voted against it then, I was right, and I'm speaking out again now."
There you go, somebody hire me on as an editor.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
+3
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I thought Warren's was bad since it started off with "Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans." If you're going to condemn a killing, don't start out with how the victim was a garbage person who probably had it coming.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Posts
How much of that social media traffic was bot networks, though? Mueller was clear about this, and not all of it was pro-Trump, alot of it was false flag bullshit from "As a Democrat/black person/ woman" garbage.
Then there's the millions of dollars of free airtime Trump got- Trump's fullscreen empty podium vs Clinton's immigration speech being muted box in the corner on CNN is a part of this.
A lot of that can't actually be fought against or replicated by Democrats.At least until Trumpnis gone, anyway.
I mean you can just do ranked-choice voting if you want. There is in fact such a mechanism, you're free to implement it.
And the point isn't that in this specific instance there is a split group choice that makes Biden winning unfair, it's that there very well could be and that this system does not protect against it. The 40% candidate could be the least preferable option to the other 60% and still win the nomination. You don't need to presume anything because this is a hypothetical to point out the faults of the system.
I don't think those other candidates slapped everything up on their website day 1. I'll take PantsB's word for it that Harris released her Disability plan six months ago and Castro and Buttigieg in November because I'm lazy, but I'm pretty sure I recall candidates releasing plans about other topics later than their announcements about running.
I don't think Warren is the only one who came up with the idea of rolling out plans so they get individual attention.
No, she's just much better at executing it then the rest of them.
I know at least one of them was 538, and it was fairly recent. I spent a couple minutes searching and couldn't find it offhand, so you may disregard it accordingly as "this one dude i know says he read a thing".
I will maintain that perceived electability is more of a factor than name recognition, but I would love to be wrong.
Well her poll numbers are falling so
I'm not sure what you think one has to do with the other. She is still, as some of y'all keep gripping about, known as "the candidate with the plans".
Not as quickly as some people's odds at surviving the campaign trail
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Warren is consistently presenting plans that seem well thought out and that I really agree with. I don't care where they came from, I just care that they're good and that she seems willing to fight for them.
Since you invoked it, Clinton ignored Wisconsin (0 appearances!) and Michigan, two states that went Obama twice, and Trump didn't. Her ground game sucked, even if it didn't cost her the election.
I don't think it's just different for a primary, I think it's different for Democrats than Republicans in the general too. Republicans got their own propaganda channel, and qua demographics their voters have an easier time voting. The ground game is far more important for Democrats. And I'd think that goes double for something that isn't even an election.
also Biden is polling 3rd in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so it's weird to conclude Biden is inevitable when quoting someone pointing out 2008.
I think there is a growing consensus that the biggest mistake the Democratic Party/DNC made was to basically dissolve the Obama election campaign. And it does indeed sound dumb to have a new candidate need to build everything from scratch.
And she was all over Pennsylvania's ass and lost it too. These kind of examples don't prove anything in either direction.
Oh sure. But I think she is also helped by the media seeing her as the candidate with plans and therefore highlighting her.
It's hard to tell at this map's scale, but it feels like her campaign had less invested in field offices and the like, particularly when related with the initial Obama campaign:
It seems like Infrastructure is going to be key to your success, moreso than, say, rallies?
EDIT: To note, that's from the Vox article
i mean not going there is surely proof of her ground game not being great? Even Nate Silver said it was bad.
I'm not trying to argue that her bad ground game shows that ground game is more important, just that hers is not an example of a good ground game not mattering. Because it was not good.
I guess i'm not surprised either, but it's sad that voters prefer "I feel your pain" to "here is specifically what i'm going to do to alleviate that pain."
It's usually more cultural signifiers than anything else.
If you dont pay a lot of attention or arent ideologically committed to liberalism Warren looks a lot like just another Democrat promising to do a lot of things and there's a good chance that hasnt worked out for you so far.
Policy differences aside, Sanders's campaign is cathartic for a lot of people. He's talked at length before about how they specifically want people to realize that their suffering isnt theirs alone, its everyone's.
WTF does Nate Silver know about how to run a ground game operation in a campaign? Unless he's crunching stat numbers, he's just a mediocre pundit.
Yeah, even "I have a plan" is not really about having plans so much as the image it projects. The extent to which actual policy or positions matter is generally overstated.
Can you elaborate
People don't really care much about policy, but they do care about cultural stuff. That's the easiest way to understand the Biden voters, for example.
If you don't pay attention, they all look like generic Democrats promising to do a lot of things, but each with one superficial trait. Except for the weird ones like Williamson.
But Biden is the seasoned one, Bernie is the loud one, Warren is the girl one, Pete is the young one, Yang is the business one.
...oh god, they're a boy band.
What do you think the cultural values are that drive college educated liberals to Warren and working class people to Sanders? How are those expressed on their campaign?
Warren's promises require a lot of reading to even start to understand, so it turns off people who don't want to bother. Sanders's promises sound like "we'll make everything perfect for white people which in turn will make things better for people of color" so the people who'll benefit from that the most trend towards him (and those who will still be left behind stay far away).
Girl, you need a shot of DNC-12
Come Overwatch with meeeee
.....huh
I think these are both media portrayals that don't actually reflect reality much, but are still accepted narratives. In Warren's case, her policies are there in detail if you want to read them, but she also does a good job putting it in bullet points where everyone can understand what she's going for. In Bernie's, he used to come off as "race doesn't matter, everything is class", though i think he's been better recently at understanding racial issues need to be directly addressed.
In both cases, though, the inaccurate narratives are there and hard to combat.
man he is crunching stat numbers there pointing out she neglected states that could be tipping points and saying the narrow range she had was dumb given the reliability of polls. bad pundit he may be, he is no worse than anyone else at seeing that a candidate making less campaign stops and campaigning in fewer states is not a solid strategy.
The point is that saying she had "by all accounts, a very strong ground game" is simply not true. By most accounts, even Silver's, she had a bad to mediocre one. fuck man, she had less campaign offices than Obama during his re-election campaign! You can't have a good ground game if you make less of an effort than an incumbent president.
He isn't crunching any numbers, beyond pointing out some tipping point states. There's literally nothing in there about "ground game", just some comments much milder then you are claiming in your posts about where she herself spent her time. You are wholely misrepresenting the piece. Literally the only part that's in his wheelhouse there is commenting on what count as tipping point states.
And it again, runs into the same fucking problem I just pointed out. Pennsyl-fucking-vania.
And what's the chart in the article say about where she spent her time?
(time spent is Clinton, then Trump)
Pennsylvania 11.4 11.4
Michigan 4.3 5.7
Wisconsin 0.0 2.9
So the same as Trump in PA, a little less in MI and a decent chunk less in WI cause she didn't go but Trump barely went either.
The end result? She lost all 3. Almost like the correlation here is non-existent or at best very weak.
And fuck, Silver even opens the fucking piece with this:
This entire line of argument is just full of it and does not support much of anything about ground game in the upcoming election one way or the other.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3652
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Steyer did not have a strong answer
(Iowa starting line is a political reporting org)
Biden is the only one who has released a statement that I can find and it is pretty strong. I think Sanders and Warren et al are making a mistake letting him take the lead here.
(Biden campaign manager)
edit
Sanders now has a pair of tweets
And Warren's one was not coming up on @Ewarren for some reason.
This is probably a good response by Warren because it's not pabulum but it doesn't linger to try to go toe to toe with Biden on FP.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Elizabeth Warren, US Senator
Bernie Sanders, US Senator
Yeah he has a vote on the record and he's best able to set himself apart from Biden on this because of it.
Obama didn't have a vote against Clinton but there were multiple appearances he had in the lead-up where he was on a mic and speaking against the specter of war so that was enough.
It's not just having the right opinion at the right time but being able to prove it that makes it a weapon.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
They rarely have much a choice to choose between.
All three of them made the mistake of not putting their thesis at the beginning and that weighs each one down in a different way.
"Trump is a crazy child who just wrecked everything. The guy was a murderer but we can't trust Trump to think things through or have a plan and he's going to get everyone dead and not care and this is too important."
"This was reckless and is just going to make more war. Even though the guy was a murderer we have to prioritize having less war."
"Trump said he wouldn't bring more war, and he just did it anyway. It's going to cost lives and resources on top of those we've already lost. I voted against it then, I was right, and I'm speaking out again now."
There you go, somebody hire me on as an editor.