|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 14, 2020 23:15:23 GMT
A caveat here - Biden tends to poll less favourably than Sanders, but people who dislike both Trump and [insert Democratic candidate] break for Biden (Sanders?) at a higher rate than they do for Sanders (Biden?) in their respective matchups with Trump. I'd mostly disagree, but it could be argued that Sanders has a higher floor and thus a more likely path to 270.No, Biden consistently polls better than Sanders in national polls (the difference is just a lot smaller than it used to be). The claim in the red part that Sanders may have a higher floor doesn't make sense unless you reverse their names in the first sentence. Did you switch their names? Biden polls better consistently, but his favourability ratings with the general public are lower in these same polls (that is, he leads Trump by a greater margin in voting intention, but tends to be less liked than Sanders). "I'd mostly disagree" is my opinion of the claim that his base is much weaker as a result of this, though I suspect Sanders' support is slightly more resilient.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 14, 2020 22:07:06 GMT
Morning Consult (with their usual big sample) have better numbers for the Democrats and Warren doing better than Bloomberg and Buttigieg. But they also have Biden and Sanders almost tied and given that Sanders support is likely to be more unevenly distributed that means he might be a safer bet in the decisive Upper Midwest states (at the moment..). But Biden has a chance to win AZ and FL (with lots of retirees), which gives him an alternative path and the groups he is leading among are a lot more reliable voters than the youth and "those who aren't interested in politics". So I'd still say Biden is more electable. "Sanders outperforms Biden against Trump among voters ages 18-29, those who are not interested in politics and self-described independents. Biden is the strongest candidate among college-educated whites, older people and suburban white women." morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/Why Bernie Sanders Is Electable, TooBiden 46 Trump 41 Sanders 46 Trump 42 Warren 43 Trump 41 Bloomberg 43 Trump 42 Buttigieg 42 Trump 42 A caveat here - Biden tends to poll less favourably than Sanders, but people who dislike both Trump and [insert Democratic candidate] break for Biden at a higher rate than they do for Sanders in their respective matchups with Trump. I'd mostly disagree, but it could be argued that Sanders has a higher floor and thus a more likely path to 270. Additionally, these figures tend to be based on respondents being asked about their preference whether they're likely to vote prior to all hypothetical matchups (the effect is probably minor given the state of polarisation today, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth considering). I've seen very few accounting for differential Republican or Democratic turnout in the event of a given candidate being the Democratic nominee, besides the 'I would not vote' option being included in some polls. I suspect this is an argument in favour of Sanders' candidacy, but it's quite possible he fires up the Republican base more than the Democratic one relative to e.g. Biden.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 14, 2020 5:58:02 GMT
A spat has been developing in the run-up to the last pre-Iowa debate (today). The Warren campaign claimed that over a year ago, Sanders told her privately that he thought a woman would not win against Donald Trump. Sanders denied this and attributed it to false statements from Warren staffers; Warren later affirmed her campaign's statement, and added that she didn't want to discuss it.
Animosity between these two campaigns, though currently very low for a primary contest, may well grow to limit the potential for transfers of support in the Iowa caucuses. I expect some fireworks tonight, at least.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 13, 2020 18:26:28 GMT
By shrinking to 12 candidates, the primary field's current size is no longer unprecedented in the post-reform era. It's still the largest of all time at this point in the cycle, but shares that dubious honour with the 2016 Republican primaries.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 12, 2020 18:28:41 GMT
Thats still a high % willing to vote for Sanders, and I think that could increase during an election. Biden is the one most known to them. Its not as if Sanders isn't sympathetic to their causes, and unlike Clinton, H, he is far more sympathetic to basic economic issues. I assume this is in reference to the poll of black voters? It's actually very good numbers for Sanders, he only trails Biden by half as much as he trailed Clinton in 2016. He has also gone from only being the preferred candidate among young black women to also leading among young black men. Older and middle aged churchy southern blacks aren't going to support him in the primary, but he only needs to keep the margin to Biden down to a reasonable level in those states. In a GE I think his ability to turn out black voters in the Midwest (less religious and less small c- conservative than in the South) will be bigger than Clinton's. Sanders doesn't really have a Sunbelt path anyway (too many old and/or moderate voters in FL and AZ), so that's what matters. He needs to win PA, MI and WI. That state is getting younger and if Mark Kelly is on the ballot for Senate, Sanders may get a fillip due to the support he brings (despite their ideological differences). NC is also worth considering as part of a potential path to 270 for Sanders, although I'd agree (this far out) that he'd most likely to achieve the biggest swings in the rust belt.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 12, 2020 16:51:42 GMT
It did in Scotland, but these places have electoral dynamics in part dictated by a FPTP electoral system handling most of their governance. You have five seats in Holyrood (all but one are FPTP seats), and have been relegated to 5th place. Not exactly a roaring success story. Sure, but the decline in LD fortunes at Holyrood can be traced directly back to a government resulting from a Westminster FPTP election. We'd have probably done even worse in 2011 if the system had been wholly FPTP.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 12, 2020 16:44:41 GMT
Why not? Electoral reform could have huge ramifications for the political system as it stands beyond the immediate effects of enhancing democracy, but one of the most likely outcomes would be a fragmenting of the two big churches. The Conservative Party as it stands would probably become several different, more coherent, groupings. It hasn't done much for the Lib Dems in Scotland or Wales, has it? It did in Scotland, but these places have electoral dynamics in part dictated by a FPTP electoral system handling most of their governance.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 12, 2020 16:32:23 GMT
If you look at the Ashcroft Poll the Lib Dems would have got about 18% if people had voted how they wanted, Tories maybe 40% and Labour maybe 25%. I happily accept that my Party is less popular than yours if you accept yours does not have a proper mandate to govern from the British people. That way we might make some progress in our system of government and the way people think about Parliament. I don’t care if you accept that your party is less popular than ours or not, we got 43%, you got 11%. A five year old could tell you which party is more popular. Electoral reform won’t change that.Maybe you should accept that people just didn’t like your manifesto instead of looking for other factors to blame? Why not? Electoral reform could have huge ramifications for the political system as it stands beyond the immediate effects of enhancing democracy, but one of the most likely outcomes would be a fragmenting of the two big churches. The Conservative Party as it stands would probably become several different, more coherent, groupings.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 10, 2020 16:13:48 GMT
Not the first, just the first national poll since the Nov 16-20 Change Research/Election Science poll in which Sanders and Warren were both at 23% and Biden at 22%. Prior to that, Sanders previously beat Biden nationally in a GW Politics/YouGov poll back in September (21% to 18% to Warren's 28% at the time) and two August polls. He otherwise hasn't outperformed Biden nationally since the latter officially entered the race. Okay, I stand corrected. CR is a "junk pollster", but YouGov can't be dismissed as such. They get a C from 538, which is mediocre, but not terrible. Rasmussen get a C+ despite a ridiculously pro-Republican weighting (they're on record as putting it down nationwide as 'Likely voters: Republican +7%'), because their polls are reliably biased and track swing reasonably well.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 10, 2020 14:09:06 GMT
Not the first, just the first national poll since the Nov 16-20 Change Research/Election Science poll in which Sanders and Warren were both at 23% and Biden at 22%. Prior to that, Sanders previously beat Biden nationally in a GW Politics/YouGov poll back in September (21% to 18% to Warren's 28% at the time) and two August polls. He otherwise hasn't outperformed Biden nationally since the latter officially entered the race.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 10, 2020 1:22:39 GMT
Bloomberg has planned to spend $500 mio. nationwide on ads before Iowa and "poor billionaire" Steyer half as much, that is unprecedented. It's a fifth of what Steyer was estimated to be worth a couple of years ago, IIRC, so serious business for him.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 9, 2020 19:02:30 GMT
The 538 primary projection (also for individual states). It's still quite primitive with very big intervals, but may be of some interest anyway. projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/Chance of getting a majority of delegates: Biden 42% Sanders 22% No one 13% Warren 12% Buttigieg 9% Somebody else 2% No one includes situations where the leading candidate will be quite close to clinching the nomination and will easily do so by getting support from unpledged delegates. Because unpledged delegates do not get to vote until the second round which takes place only if a majority of pledged delegates are not secured. At this point, all delegates become unpledged, and extreme horse trading begins. 'No one' is that scenario - a contested convention.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 5, 2020 17:56:41 GMT
If the poll is right Sanders will almost certainly win the Iowa caucus because there is 15% threshold within each precinct and supporters of non-viable candidates are then allowed to either support one of the remaining viable candidates in the precinct or merge with another non-viable group in order to become viable. Sanders should get most of Warren's support in the precincts where she isn't viable and since Buttigieg and Biden will be above the threshold everywhere and Klobuchar is in single digits (so it won't be decisive who her supporters back) that will be enough to win. His supporters are also the most motivated. If Sanders wins Iowa and is already leading in NH he should be able to win NH by a solid margin. The state-by-state weighted polling average has been live for weeks, but (to add a health warning) they're still working on the predictive model. Personally, I am slightly skeptical towards the idea that an Iowa bounce will materialise for anyone this time, but the precedent is there.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 5, 2020 15:24:45 GMT
"Iran may well have calculated that it's better off with a Democrat in the White House and not a Republican like President Donald Trump. Logically -- and Iran's leaders are intensely pragmatic in that far-sighted way -- Tehran will likely calibrate its vowed "harsh revenge" response to the killing of Qasem Soleimani in a bid to cost Trump re-election. Part of that calculation is likely to have Iran focus on targets inside the United States as well as in the Middle East, not just to embarrass Trump but to limit regional escalation." edition.cnn.com/2020/01/04/middleeast/trump-iran-revenge-analysis-intl/index.htmlHow would focusing on targets in the US make it more likely that the country would elect a Democrat?Would be likely to have the opposite effect. I find it hard to believe the Iranians are that daft. If Iraq is anything to go by (a fairly massive 'if'), a conflict which incurred US casualties would see a short-term boost to the incumbent's numbers followed by a long-term decline. They may be wondering under what circumstances the first phase would shift into the second.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 4, 2020 3:04:43 GMT
The Warren campaign raised $21.2 mio in Q4, so their final appeal seemingly paid off (they raised 1.5 mio on 31 December). Gabbard got $3.4 mio, which means she can keep going. Top 6 of donations in Q4 Sanders: $34.5 million Buttigieg: $24.7 million Biden: $22.7 million Warren: $21.2 million Yang: $16.5 million Klobuchar: $11.4 million Booker: $6.6m. His best quarter so far. Trump: $46m. His best quarter so far.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 2, 2020 22:52:33 GMT
Julian Castro has withdrawn. And apparently Marianne Williamson is laying off all her staff, which suggests she’s next out. Besides self-funding Delaney's efforts (and not counting the suspended campaigns of Castro, Joe Sestak and Tim Ryan), her campaign had the lowest cash on hand at the end of the third quarter. She and Castro also had very high burn rates when it came to fundraising at that time (total spent/amount raised): 93.7% and 88.2% respectively (courtesy of FiveThirtyEight). The average for a presidential campaign is, according to Echelon Insights, 67% (and this is including the failed efforts). Others with high burn rates included Booker and Klobuchar at 77% and 79%, but both have reportedly had good fundraising and Michael Bennet is more of a one to watch when it comes to potential early withdrawals (his donations probably dried up quickly, but the early effects of this would have been partially masked by a comparatively late entry into the race).
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jan 2, 2020 19:36:52 GMT
I was watching the Bloomberg channel this afternoon and the talking heads were discussing the possibility of Castro or Harris as VP picks to get some diversity on the ticket. They're always doing that, but the campaign proved (or confirmed) that Harris has major weaknesses (incl. not appealing to most black voters) and Castro is rather mediocre. Castro would be a decent VP pick for Warren, who has the whitest coalition of the three leading candidates and could use a younger non-white male, but her chances of wining the nomination are by now quite small. Sanders has promised to select a woman and Biden has also implied his running mate will be female, but there are better options for both of them than Harris (Klobuchar is a strong campaigner with appeal in the crucial swing states in the Upper Midwest, NV Senator Catherine Cortes Masto is razor sharp and very media savvy, Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth is strong on foreign policy and a veteran and Sen. Tammy Baldwin might deliver Wisconsin. Both Cortes Masto (Hispanic) and Duckworth (biracial Thai/White) are considered WoC and Baldwin ticks another "diversity box" as a lesbian. Sanders might also ask Stacy Abrams hoping to improve black turnout. Historically, VP picks tend to produce a 2% boost in their home states (and presumably some of that comes from voters who'd otherwise go Republican instead of staying at home or backing a third party, so the effect is a little greater). Picking someone from Georgia would be a smart move and make it a potential tipping point state, but there's probably even more electoral incentive to get a midwesterner or Floridian on one half of the ticket.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 20, 2019 21:29:46 GMT
Trump will need to add Black voters into his coalition if he is going to win in 2020. His White coalition is shrinking and the Hispanic vote will not be coming his way anytime soon, which leaves the Black vote. If Trump can maintain a strong economy through 2020 and keep Black unemployment levels at record lows then he has a shot at keeping Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania with those additional voters. Some commentators make out 2020 is a shoe in for Trump, while I feel it will be a very tough battle against someone like Biden or another moderate. If it is Warren I feel she will have the same effect as Corbyn and Trump should win again. Firstly I would say that, according to historical polling trends, this should be a shoe in for Democrats, not Trump.Ignoring that, though, what makes you think black voters will be more amenable than Hispanics? Would be extremely counter-intuitive. That depends on the nominee, and it doesn't seem clear for any of them yet. I'd guess any one of the top four besides Buttigieg would be odds-on if nominated at this point, but the disparity between the national vote and the electoral college is probably going to grow further and give Trump a fighting chance even if his US-wide numbers remain underwater.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 20, 2019 11:20:46 GMT
nelson Is a swing state (even one tipped to flip) worth considering in the context of the presidential if it couldn't conceivably end up as a tipping point state? If not, that would rule out Iowa and Georgia from consideration, but the Republicans' lack of ground game in Minnesota last time (presumably absent because the state was perceived to be such) could, if compensated for in 2020, allow them to claim a midwestern path to victory through MN while alienating southern states. Why do you think it's fools' gold?
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 19, 2019 14:44:08 GMT
With the impeachment trial set to start in early January Biden and Buttigieg will get an advantage as Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar will have to spend quite a lot of time off the campaign trail. In theory, yeah, but one might hope to get a viral moment in the Senate trial. It'll boost name recognition/familiarity with the public beyond early states, and be a godsend for Michael Bennet (whose candidacy is doomed anyway, but could do with a bump for the next presidential run/VP contest).
|
|