| Jaicee said: Also, it looks like Liz Warren's rally in New York City on Monday drew some 20,000 attendees, which would mark not only her most-attended rally of the campaign so far, but also possibly the largest rally to date in the whole 2020 Democratic contest. Boom. |
I was there it did not look like 20,000 people. Probably half of that imo.
| Jaicee said: Also, it looks like Liz Warren's rally in New York City on Monday drew some 20,000 attendees, which would mark not only her most-attended rally of the campaign so far, but also possibly the largest rally to date in the whole 2020 Democratic contest. Boom. |
I was just watching a video on this:
Trumplestiltskin is freaking out
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-let-crowd-sizes-mislead-you/
This is not in disagreement on the whole Warren argument, but crowd sizes are not a scientific way to gauge front-runner status.
Along with the surge in the size of her crowd, since the last debate, Elizabeth Warren has been surging in the polls. She's moved from the mid-high teens up into the 20s. Both the Wall Street Journal and Economist have her gaining quickly on Biden. I'll also note that Yang is picking up steam as well - not in absolute growth, but percentage-wise he went from a less than 1% guy up to the 3-4% range and closing in on the top 5. I can see him overcoming Harris soon. Great times for economic progressives, especially after a few dropouts.
The Economist
1. Biden - 26%
2. Warren - 21%
3. Sanders - 14%
4. Buttigieg - 9%
5. Harris - 6%
6. Yang - 3%
The Wall Street Journal
1. Biden - 31%
2. Warren - 25%
3. Sanders - 14%
4. Buttigieg - 7%
5. Harris - 5%
6. Yang 4%
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
Jumpin said:
I was just watching a video on this: Trumplestiltskin is freaking out _________ |
Don't you mean TrumpleTHINskin?
Jaicee said:
I would provide some, but it looks like you've already done so yourself, lol! *slaps head* |
That doesn't mean Bernie supporters hate Warren as you've stated. She's literally their second choice. You should stop generalizing groups especially with no data to back it up, it's problematic.
Last edited by tsogud - on 18 September 2019 
| Jumpin said: Along with the surge in the size of her crowd, since the last debate, Elizabeth Warren has been surging in the polls. She's moved from the mid-high teens up into the 20s. Both the Wall Street Journal and Economist have her gaining quickly on Biden. I'll also note that Yang is picking up steam as well - not in absolute growth, but percentage-wise he went from a less than 1% guy up to the 3-4% range and closing in on the top 5. I can see him overcoming Harris soon. Great times for economic progressives, especially after a few dropouts. |
Yeah she's been doing extremely well. Warren has the most to gain when the lower-tier candidates drop out or start slipping in the polls. Sanders too but not nearly as much as Warren. If Sanders wants the nomination he needs to take down Biden.
Last edited by tsogud - on 18 September 2019
Jaicee said:
While donor numbers are always significant, they're not necessarily THE most reliable gauge of support. Usually just asking people who they support is the most reliable gauge of that. That's what polls do. When it comes to who working class voters favor most in the Democratic primary contest, it depends on the individual survey. For example, the most recent Economist/YouGov poll finds Elizabeth Warren to be the preferred candidate of more low-income voters than Bernie Sanders. Among Voters Making Less Than $50,000/Year: Biden: 27% (See page 98.) This data might not help the narrative you and a couple others are setting up here that Bernie Sanders is the favored candidate of working class people. In fact, on page 95 of the same survey results, you'll find that 53% of low-income voters say they're considering voting for Elizabeth Warren, as compared with 49% who say they're considering Joe Biden and 48% who say they're considering Bernie Sanders. This latter metric suggests that Warren also has the most room for growth in support among working class voters, as more low-income Americans are open to her campaign than to any other. |
Pfft, yeah, I'll trust the data from opensecrets, based on a comprehensive study of all the millions of donors who've submitted money to the campaigns, based on data filed by the candidates themselves over a single poll of a few hundred people. Thank you very much.
| morenoingrato said: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-let-crowd-sizes-mislead-you/ This is not in disagreement on the whole Warren argument, but crowd sizes are not a scientific way to gauge front-runner status. |
Interesting. From this article:
"And this actually might go a long way toward explaining the difference between Warren’s massive mobs and Biden’s smaller crowds. Polls say Warren performs especially well among college-educated, white, liberal voters, while Biden’s support is largely concentrated among groups that might not show up at rallies as often — black voters, moderates and working-class voters. So the next time you see a story about crowd size in the Democratic primary, remember that crowd sizes can mislead you if you let them. Don’t let them."
Trust me, if crowd sizes meant you were the real frontrunner, Bernie would have crushed Clinton in a landslide in 2016. He was getting 30,000+ crowds back then.
Looking at polls from ANY new source is a waste of time. They all have interest and biases to try to sway the elections. With that in mind, if you really want to know who is going to win the democratic nomination you should look at Las Vegas odds. Vegas betting is the only true unbias poll. So with that in mind, in Vegas betting Warren has been upfront for a while so you can pretty much call it in.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
