Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Some of you are reading too much on weekly surveys which are bound to change slighly from week to week due to sheer brownian motion... as any statistician would tell you. Not to mention most of them come from low quality online-only pollsters (HarrisX, SurveyMonkey, Morning Consult, Zogby etc.) which tend to overestate the weight of younger voters, and infamously distorted the polling average of some recent elections.

This is the 2016 polling average without online pollsters of any sort, for instance.



 

 

 

 

 

Some people are not too happy with the DNC-definition of qualifying polls, as it leaves out quite a few polls from bigger publications, which could help push some candidates over the qualification line. The ones it would help are Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Steyer, Marianne Williamson, Kirsten Gillibrand and Jay Inslee.

Read (and see) more:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/21/gabbard_victimized_by_dncs_dubious_debate_criteria_141055.html

https://www.change.org/p/democratic-national-committee-include-economist-emerson-suffolk-polls-for-dnc-debates

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H6Puy43Ia0



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

jason1637 said:
tsogud said:

Apparently she just decided to attend the town hall due to the backlash.

Choosing money over the planet got us into this mess and was not a good initial decision.  Credit where credit is due though, I'm glad she made the right choice here.

Her flip-flopping illustrated in the video is still a valid critique nonetheless.

She didn't choose money over the planet. She's already a supporter of climate change bills and she's even co sponsored some. The timing of the two events aren't ideal but I don't think it's fair for her to get attacked on this. Raising money and going to a fundraiser is something you have to do.

That doesn't have to mean anything. After all, she just backed out a healthcare bill she co-sponsored with Sanders 2 years ago:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-says-shes-uncomfortable-with-bernies-health-care-plan-two-years-after-cosponsoring-it

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/20/20813658/kamala-harris-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-2020



jason1637 said:
tsogud said:

Apparently she just decided to attend the town hall due to the backlash.

Choosing money over the planet got us into this mess and was not a good initial decision.  Credit where credit is due though, I'm glad she made the right choice here.

Her flip-flopping illustrated in the video is still a valid critique nonetheless.

She didn't choose money over the planet. She's already a supporter of climate change bills and she's even co sponsored some. The timing of the two events aren't ideal but I don't think it's fair for her to get attacked on this. Raising money and going to a fundraiser is something you have to do.

Not really, if there's anything this primary showed us it's that is not the reality anymore. You can run a successful campaign without going to big donor fundraisers. If she went through with this and then got elected as president and push came to shove how could I, or most of the American people, believe that she'd choose the climate over her big donors if their interests conflicted?

Last edited by tsogud - on 21 August 2019

 

Bofferbrauer2 said:
jason1637 said:

She didn't choose money over the planet. She's already a supporter of climate change bills and she's even co sponsored some. The timing of the two events aren't ideal but I don't think it's fair for her to get attacked on this. Raising money and going to a fundraiser is something you have to do.

That doesn't have to mean anything. After all, she just backed out a healthcare bill she co-sponsored with Sanders 2 years ago:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-says-shes-uncomfortable-with-bernies-health-care-plan-two-years-after-cosponsoring-it

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/20/20813658/kamala-harris-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-2020

It's been two years and she has her own plan now. If the bill was up for vote two years ago she would have voted for it.

tsogud said:
jason1637 said:

She didn't choose money over the planet. She's already a supporter of climate change bills and she's even co sponsored some. The timing of the two events aren't ideal but I don't think it's fair for her to get attacked on this. Raising money and going to a fundraiser is something you have to do.

Not really, if there's anything this primary showed us it's that is not the reality anymore. You can run a successful campaign without going to big donor fundraisers. If she went through with this and then got elected as president and push came to shove how could I, or most of the American people, believe that she'd choose the climate over her big donors if their interests conflicted?

Harris is running aa traditional campaign and even though money does not play as big of a role as it used to be it's still very very important. i remember watching an interview with Yang and he was saying that one of his campaigns biggest worries pre 2nd debate was how much money they were going to bring in that day. Now Harris campaign is much larger than Yang's so they'd need more money.

I don't think Harris is dumb enough to take money from anti climate change activist so I don't think a conflict of interest would arise.




tsogud said: 

Not really, if there's anything this primary showed us it's that is not the reality anymore. You can run a successful campaign without going to big donor fundraisers. If she went through with this and then got elected as president and push came to shove how could I, or most of the American people, believe that she'd choose the climate over her big donors if their interests conflicted?

Harris is running aa traditional campaign and even though money does not play as big of a role as it used to be it's still very very important. i remember watching an interview with Yang and he was saying that one of his campaigns biggest worries pre 2nd debate was how much money they were going to bring in that day. Now Harris campaign is much larger than Yang's so they'd need more money.

I don't think Harris is dumb enough to take money from anti climate change activist so I don't think a conflict of interest would arise.

Money plays an incredible role in politics, it shouldn't, but it does. People are becoming increasingly aware of where a candidates bread is buttered and understand the importance of it. Speaking of Yang, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he has attended any big donor fundraisers and his campaign is more or less successful. I don't believe Gabbard has either and of course Sanders and Warren haven't as well.

Yeah you don't think she is and I don't think she really is dumb enough either but that's not something you want to leave on a whim of a select few. What if a piece of legislation proposed would be great for helping with the climate crisis but bad in some way or another for the special interests of the big donors? You can reasonably assume that if she chose the donors once she'll do it again, money talks.

Last edited by tsogud - on 21 August 2019

 

haxxiy said:

Some of you are reading too much on weekly surveys which are bound to change slighly from week to week due to sheer brownian motion... as any statistician would tell you. Not to mention most of them come from low quality online-only pollsters (HarrisX, SurveyMonkey, Morning Consult, Zogby etc.) which tend to overestate the weight of younger voters, and infamously distorted the polling average of some recent elections.

This is the 2016 polling average without online pollsters of any sort, for instance.

Well, while I post about the weekly Morning Consult numbers, I'm more interested into long-term developments. And I look at all the polls and just eliminate the crass outliners if there are any (mostly on state polls, less so on national polls).

And here, Biden has been practically on the way down since early June. First quickly (normalisation after the boost from his campaign announcement; the diss he got from Harris, from which he recovered) and since  mid July then slowly down since then.

At the same time, the only candidate who was consistently gaining votes was Warren, and at a relatively steady pace, even.

Those are changes over periods of months, not just single days. 



tsogud said:

Harris is running aa traditional campaign and even though money does not play as big of a role as it used to be it's still very very important. i remember watching an interview with Yang and he was saying that one of his campaigns biggest worries pre 2nd debate was how much money they were going to bring in that day. Now Harris campaign is much larger than Yang's so they'd need more money.

I don't think Harris is dumb enough to take money from anti climate change activist so I don't think a conflict of interest would arise.

Money plays an incredible role in politics, it shouldn't, but it does. People are becoming increasingly aware of where a candidates bread is buttered and understand the importance of it. Speaking of Yang, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he has attended any big donor fundraisers and his campaign is more or less successful. I don't believe Gabbard has either and of course Sanders and Warren haven't as well.

Yeah you don't think she is and I don't think she really is dumb enough either but that's not something you want to leave on a whim of a select few. What if a piece of legislation proposed would be great for helping with the climate crisis but bad in some way or another for the special interests of the big donors? You can reasonably assume that if she chose the donors once she'll do it again, money talks.

All campaigns have fundraising events. For people like Yang it's just a get together events with his supporters but at the end of the day the point of these events are to raise money because it's very hard to win without money. I'm not sure about Gabbard, Sanders or Warren cause I don't follow them closely but I lightly recall Warren having some backlash a while ago from taking money from big donors.

Like you said money talks and it does suck that money and politics have become so close but I'm not gonna hate on someone for raising money as long as they're not taking money from a bad cause. As far i'm aware Harris isnt taking money from any anti climate change groups so she's good in my books in this situation. Her supporters know she'll push for laws that will help our environment and I don't think her going to this even would have moved the needle much while the money from the fundraising could help spread more awareness for her campaign.



jason1637 said:
tsogud said:

Money plays an incredible role in politics, it shouldn't, but it does. People are becoming increasingly aware of where a candidates bread is buttered and understand the importance of it. Speaking of Yang, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he has attended any big donor fundraisers and his campaign is more or less successful. I don't believe Gabbard has either and of course Sanders and Warren haven't as well.

Yeah you don't think she is and I don't think she really is dumb enough either but that's not something you want to leave on a whim of a select few. What if a piece of legislation proposed would be great for helping with the climate crisis but bad in some way or another for the special interests of the big donors? You can reasonably assume that if she chose the donors once she'll do it again, money talks.

All campaigns have fundraising events. For people like Yang it's just a get together events with his supporters but at the end of the day the point of these events are to raise money because it's very hard to win without money. I'm not sure about Gabbard, Sanders or Warren cause I don't follow them closely but I lightly recall Warren having some backlash a while ago from taking money from big donors.

Like you said money talks and it does suck that money and politics have become so close but I'm not gonna hate on someone for raising money as long as they're not taking money from a bad cause. As far i'm aware Harris isnt taking money from any anti climate change groups so she's good in my books in this situation. Her supporters know she'll push for laws that will help our environment and I don't think her going to this even would have moved the needle much while the money from the fundraising could help spread more awareness for her campaign.

Yeah, I basically agree with your position. I don't hate on anyone for raising money in this political climate. The issue I and many others had and was illustrated in the video, was that had she gone through with it she would literally be choosing to hear big donors over the people's concerns with the climate crisis. And that's literally what big money in politics does, it takes the voice away from the people and gives it to the ones with the biggest pockets. I believe it would've been a bad PR move in it's own right and would've not helped her campaign regardless of how many donations she got due to attending that fundraiser.



 

On this topic I was wondering, does anyone know when the debates are going to start? And I mean the amusing ones, the ones where Reps and Dems duke it out in a live broadcast. By this time before the 2016 election, those debates had already started so what gives?



.

I'm in the zone, don't bother me!