|
Post by casualobserver on Sept 12, 2019 10:54:32 GMT
Sanders ahead of Warren in national Morning Consult poll conducted 2/9 to 8/9. Biden 33% Sanders 21% Warren 16% Harris 7% Buttigieg 5% Booker 3% O’Rourke 3% Yang 3% Bennet 1% Castro 1% de Blasio 1% Delaney 1% Gabbard 1% Klobuchar 1% Ryan 1% Steyer 1% Williamson 1% Bullock 0% Just because the list of Democrat hopefuls is gradually getting shorter, it doesn't make it more inspiring.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Sept 12, 2019 19:41:39 GMT
Isnt this basically a 3-horse race now. Top 3 seem to be the top 3 in every poll and by some margin in most.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Sept 12, 2019 19:56:44 GMT
Isnt this basically a 3-horse race now. Top 3 seem to be the top 3 in every poll and by some margin in most. We are still more than a year away from the election and late surges aren't uncommon. So Harris and Buttigieg are still considered to be in with a chance, especially if Biden collapses (or withdraw) and the Dem establishment starts looking for a replacement to stop Sanders/Warren.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Sept 12, 2019 20:25:23 GMT
Isnt this basically a 3-horse race now. Top 3 seem to be the top 3 in every poll and by some margin in most. We are still more than a year away from the election and late surges aren't uncommon. So Harris and Buttigieg are still considered to be in with a chance, especially if Biden collapses (or withdraw) and the Dem establishment starts looking for a replacement to stop Sanders/Warren. We still have no guarantee that a better Democrat candidate won't yet enter the fray.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 12, 2019 20:29:16 GMT
We are still more than a year away from the election and late surges aren't uncommon. So Harris and Buttigieg are still considered to be in with a chance, especially if Biden collapses (or withdraw) and the Dem establishment starts looking for a replacement to stop Sanders/Warren. We still have no guarantee that a better Democrat candidate won't yet enter the fray. Intruiging thought. did you have anyone in mind?
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 12, 2019 20:49:39 GMT
We still have no guarantee that a better Democrat candidate won't yet enter the fray. Intruiging thought. did you have anyone in mind? There’s only one who carries the name recognition and the financial ability to compete in Iowa and New Hampshire at this late stage, and Michelle Obama won’t run.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Sept 12, 2019 20:52:24 GMT
Intruiging thought. did you have anyone in mind? There’s only one who carries the name recognition and the financial ability to compete in Iowa and New Hampshire at this late stage, and Michelle Obama won’t run. Damn shame.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 12, 2019 21:26:17 GMT
Isnt this basically a 3-horse race now. Top 3 seem to be the top 3 in every poll and by some margin in most. We are still more than a year away from the election and late surges aren't uncommon. So Harris and Buttigieg are still considered to be in with a chance, especially if Biden collapses (or withdraw) and the Dem establishment starts looking for a replacement to stop Sanders/Warren. While there have been surges, in the post-reform era almost all have amounted to nothing. Hopefuls who like to cite Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain only put into perspective the dream of a ‘breakout moment’; they might get a surge, but never one that matters. By last month in the cycle, only two candidates were polling (amongst their *worst* 4 polls throughout the first 8 months of the year, that is) lower than 3% nationally and in Iowa who went on to become the nominee: Bush Senior and Jimmy Carter, the latter of whom relied on primary processes that no longer exist and an outdated campaigning environment (in the era of nationwide coverage by cable news and the internet) to build a winning coalition based on southern states. Of candidates consistently polling less than 5% nationally on average over the course of the second half of the year prior to election year, only Carter became the nominee. There are still three months of that year left in which Harris and maybe Buttigieg could realistically surge, but at least ten of the candidates have zero chance.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Sept 12, 2019 21:37:12 GMT
We are still more than a year away from the election and late surges aren't uncommon. So Harris and Buttigieg are still considered to be in with a chance, especially if Biden collapses (or withdraw) and the Dem establishment starts looking for a replacement to stop Sanders/Warren. While there have been surges, in the post-reform era almost all have amounted to nothing. Hopefuls who like to cite Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain only put into perspective the dream of a ‘breakout moment’; they might get a surge, but never one that matters. By last month in the cycle, only two candidates were polling (amongst their *worst* 4 polls throughout the first 8 months of the year, that is) lower than 3% nationally and in Iowa who went on to become the nominee: Bush Senior and Jimmy Carter, the latter of whom relied on primary processes that no longer exist and an outdated campaigning environment (in the era of nationwide coverage by cable news and the internet) to build a winning coalition based on southern states. Of candidates consistently polling less than 5% nationally on average over the course of the second half of the year prior to election year, only Carter became the nominee. There are still three months of that year left in which Harris and maybe Buttigieg could realistically surge, but at least ten of the candidates have zero chance. I made it clear I was talking about Harris and Buttigieg, but Biden's advanced age, #MeToo vulnerability and other weaknesses combined with the fact that the two other main candidates are on the far left of the party (and in Sanders' case arguably outside of the party) presents a unique situation. Someone is going to be the Stop Sanders/Warren candidate.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Sept 12, 2019 21:47:56 GMT
While there have been surges, in the post-reform era almost all have amounted to nothing. Hopefuls who like to cite Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain only put into perspective the dream of a ‘breakout moment’; they might get a surge, but never one that matters. By last month in the cycle, only two candidates were polling (amongst their *worst* 4 polls throughout the first 8 months of the year, that is) lower than 3% nationally and in Iowa who went on to become the nominee: Bush Senior and Jimmy Carter, the latter of whom relied on primary processes that no longer exist and an outdated campaigning environment (in the era of nationwide coverage by cable news and the internet) to build a winning coalition based on southern states. Of candidates consistently polling less than 5% nationally on average over the course of the second half of the year prior to election year, only Carter became the nominee. There are still three months of that year left in which Harris and maybe Buttigieg could realistically surge, but at least ten of the candidates have zero chance. I made it clear I was talking about Harris and Buttigieg, but Biden's advanced age, #MeToo vulnerability and other weaknesses combined with the fact that the two other main candidates are on the far left of the party (and in Sanders' case arguably outside of the party) presents a unique situation. Someone is going to be the Stop Sanders/Warren candidate. Buttigieg is only just inching over 5% on average, so he would need those exceptional circumstances you mention. The problem with this idea that someone Will Be Anointed is that nobody is piling up the number of endorsements necessary for such a coronation to work. The endorsements are halfway to being as split as the primary field itself is, and that's exactly the sort of situation in which the party does not decide and the outsider wins with no unified 'never Trump/Sanders/George McGovern' candidate getting either momentum or unified anti-leftwing support behind them. Kasich and Cruz lambasted each other until the end, and I suspect that in the event that Biden does topple, that's exactly what we'll see amongst more establishment-leaning Democrats who try to seize his mantle. As it stands, Biden's campaign has a lot more strength than media coverage and crowd size would suggest, and he retains the highest favourability rating (though not the highest *net* favourability rating) out of any Democrat in the race. Iowa and New Hampshire are no longer as representative of the Democratic electorate as they once were, although he does seem to be *just* leading in them on average, and the voters most likely to be active (and thus the ones more surface-level coverage will pay disproportionate attention to) are also the ones who self-identify as 'very liberal' (in the American sense of the term). The chance for him to be #MeToo'd has been and gone, I think, and the failure of Kirsten Gillibrand does suggest there's not really an appetite for that sort of thing amongst primary voters, his Hyde Amendment blunder notwithstanding (that one actually cost him some real support).
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Sept 12, 2019 22:24:09 GMT
Yesterday there were polls published on the Democrat selection race from four respectable sources:
Economist/YouGov Biden 26, Sanders 16, Warren 26, Harris 6, Buttigieg 6, Yang 2, O'Rourke 1, Booker 2, Gabbard 1, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 0, Bennet 1 [not sure 9%; not voting 1%]
CNN Biden 24, Sanders 17, Warren 18, Harris 8, Buttigieg 6, Yang 2, O'Rourke 5, Booker 2, Gabbard 2, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 1, Bennet 1 [1% other; 3% no-one; 6% no opinion]
The Hill/HarrisX Biden 27, Sanders 15, Warren 12, Harris 7, Buttigieg 4, Yang 5, O'Rourke 3, Booker 3, Gabbard 1, Klobuchar 1, Castro 2, Steyer 1, Bennet 1 [unsure - 15%]
Reuters/Ipsos Biden 22, Sanders 16, Warren 11, Harris 4, Buttigieg 4, Yang 3, O'Rourke 2, Booker 3, Gabbard 1, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 1, Bennet 0 [also 2% other, 5% can't vote + 20% don't know]
Is there some factor which could reasonably explain Biden being tied with Warren in one poll. six points ahead in another, 11 points ahead of her in another and 15 points ahead of her in the fourth? I know we are very far out from the election, but do these polls have any validity at all, given the wide variation between them?
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 12, 2019 22:30:03 GMT
Yesterday there were polls published on the Democrat selection race from four respectable sources: Economist/YouGov Biden 26, Sanders 16, Warren 26, Harris 6, Buttigieg 6, Yang 2, O'Rourke 1, Booker 2, Gabbard 1, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 0, Bennet 1 CNN Biden 24, Sanders 17, Warren 18, Harris 8, Buttigieg 6, Yang 2, O'Rourke 5, Booker 2, Gabbard 2, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 1, Bennet 1 The Hill/HarrisX Biden 27, Sanders 15, Warren 12, Harris 7, Buttigieg 4, Yang 5, O'Rourke 3, Booker 3, Gabbard 1, Klobuchar 1, Castro 2, Steyer 1, Bennet 1 Reuters/Ipsos Biden 22, Sanders 16, Warren 11, Harris 4, Buttigieg 4, Yang 3, O'Rourke 2, Booker 3, Gabbard 1, Klobuchar 1, Castro 1, Steyer 1, Bennet 0 Is there some factor which could reasonably explain Biden being tied with Warren in one poll. six points ahead in another, 11 points ahead of her in another and 15 points ahead of her in the fourth? I know we are very far out from the election, but do these polls have any validity at all, given the wide variation between them? I think from 538.com the HarrisX poll is a daily tracking poll rather than a regular poll, so is likely to produce different numbers as they’re a three day average, and there are still an awful lot of credible, regarded as unbiased, analysts like Stu Rothenberg and Kyle Kondiik who don’t regard YouGov in America as credible.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Sept 12, 2019 22:35:08 GMT
there are still an awful lot of credible, regarded as unbiased, analysts like Stu Rothenberg and Kyle Kondiik who don’t regard YouGov in America as credible. YouGov are perfectly credible, even if some don't like the results of their polls. YouGov Blue, on the other hand, is an openly biased outfit wholly lacking credibility.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Sept 12, 2019 22:38:00 GMT
|
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Sept 12, 2019 23:52:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Sept 13, 2019 10:23:22 GMT
Not a really notable Democrat debate last night. Biden, for the first time, at least performed adequately (apart from the anachronistic reference to record-players). Warren was the most presidential candidate on stage, rising above the petty fray on several occasions. No-one really scored any knock-out blows or took any knock-out hits.
Biden's fundamentally a weak candidate, however, so I remain hopeful that he's selected. However, even Biden managed to expose Sanders' and Warren's profligacy last night, so there'd be plenty for Trump to latch onto whichever of the three is selected, assuming that one of the three current front runners is finally chosen. For those who don't accept Trump's sheer strength in elections, may I just remind you how, in the Republican primaries four years ago, he absolutely eviscerated his more experienced, more knowledgeable and more establishment opponents both on and off the debate stage (gleefully assisted, especially, by the New York Times which thought that promoting Trump would harm the Republicans in the General Election!). I just can't see any of the current Democrat candidates withstanding the entirely predictable Trump barrage that they will undoubtedly face once the election proper finally gets underway.
I'm not saying that I like Trump's tactics. I don't like Trump's public rudeness, blundering bluster and crudeness. But I recognise Trump's effectiveness electorally. And it's part of the problems the Democrats will face next year that they allow a hatred of Trump personally and his policies to blind themselves to how he has so far achieved success and to underestimate Trump's very real campaigning strengths. Unbelievably, Trump still gets away with portraying himself as the outsider candidate fighting against the established political class in the US!
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Sept 13, 2019 11:15:19 GMT
For those who don't accept Trump's sheer strength in elections, may I just remind you how, in the Republican primaries four years ago, he absolutely eviscerated his more experienced, more knowledgeable and more establishment opponents both on and off the debate stage (gleefully assisted, especially, by the New York Times which thought that promoting Trump would harm the Republicans in the General Election!). I just can't see any of the current Democrat candidates withstanding the entirely predictable Trump barrage that they will undoubtedly face once the election proper finally gets underway. I do not dispute Trump's electoral strengths but the counter to this is that there is overwhelming evidence that he seriously alienated a great number of moderate GOP voters, especially in suburbs, who held their nose and voted for him in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by gasman2019 on Sept 13, 2019 20:36:32 GMT
For those who don't accept Trump's sheer strength in elections, may I just remind you how, in the Republican primaries four years ago, he absolutely eviscerated his more experienced, more knowledgeable and more establishment opponents both on and off the debate stage (gleefully assisted, especially, by the New York Times which thought that promoting Trump would harm the Republicans in the General Election!). I just can't see any of the current Democrat candidates withstanding the entirely predictable Trump barrage that they will undoubtedly face once the election proper finally gets underway. I do not dispute Trump's electoral strengths but the counter to this is that there is overwhelming evidence that he seriously alienated a great number of moderate GOP voters, especially in suburbs, who held their nose and voted for him in 2016. That's why Warren is his perfect opponent. He can borrow the Conservatives 1992 posters and stick Warren's name on them. "Warren's Tax Bomb" filling the screens and social media pages will move moderate suburban GOP voters back on Trump's side.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Sept 14, 2019 0:03:27 GMT
Unfortunately, Biden's weakness as a candidate is gradually percolating through to Democrats, some of whom now openly articulate it: nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/democratic-debate-raises-questions-about-bidens-age.htmlIt's a bit of a chicken and egg situation: Biden's main selling point is his poll ratings. His poll ratings reflect Democrats' desire to pick the candidate with the best chance of beating Trump, and this is measured by the candidate's poll ratings. Biden's good poll ratings are sustained by Democrats' desire to pick the candidate with the best poll ratings. This unfortunate [for the Democrats] situation is exacerbated by Biden being the only "moderate" whose poll ratings in the Democrat contest exceed their shoe size.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Sept 17, 2019 12:34:50 GMT
Interesting that Donald Trump held a rally yesterday in Rio Rancho, New Mexico last night.
I know that there are those on this Forum who give Trump and his team credit for absolutely nothing. But I believe a more dispassionate view is that Trump, as tempered by his team, has a pretty astute eye to the political main chance, so it's noteworthy that he uses his valuable campaigning time in New Mexico.
At first glance, New Mexico looks further out of play than several other states which voted for Clinton in 2016. So what's his thinking here? New Mexico's new Democrat Governor has certainly fired up the more Conservative (mostly rural) elements of the state with the aggressive firearms measures passed at state level. I don't believe Trump is motivated by seeking to influence next year's House and Senate elections. The east of the State is riding an oil-fuelled boom the effects of which you really have to see to believe - and which the New Green Deal could threaten. The border issue is one that many southern communities still see as fundamental. And this most Hispanic of states has seen more than its fair share of economic advancement for Hispanic communities. Are Gary Johnson's former supporters more likely to break for Trump? To be honest, the metrics underlying Trump's decision to campaign here yesterday somewhat elude me.
I'm not saying that Trump's team have got it wrong - nor am I saying they're right. What I'm seeking to establish is why the Trump team are making this investment in New Mexico ….. what is possibly their thinking to justify treating New Mexico as being in play?
Rio Rancho is part of the Albuquerque metro area, and I've often felt that Albuquerque, like Phoenix in next-door Arizona, just doesn't have the "feel" of being a Democrat city - certainly not to the extent that election results indicate, with Bernalillo County having moved from a reliably Republican county more than 25 years ago to being a reliably Democrat county since. But Albuquerque is far too central in New Mexico for any real "leakage" of the effects of the rally into Texas or Arizona - so I ask the question again: why New Mexico?
|
|