Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

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

tsogud said:
uran10 said:

Alright, I'll bite for a bit. Time to put the Berniecrat and Tulsicrat theory in the heads of everyone here. Let's start with the basic premises that lead to the overall theory.

1) Tulsi Endorsed Bernie in 2016

2) Tulsi is a member of the Sanders Institute

3) Tulsi Met with Bernie (and only Bernie) before her presidential bid was announced.

Now that we have the factors that lead to the theory let me actually explain what the theory is along side the evidence to back up said theory. The Theory is that Bernie and Tulsi are members of the same team and that when the convention reaches around they will pool their delegates together. Most Bernie and Tulsi supports (especially the crossover which is a hell of a lot from the tulsi side) think this is the case, and even Mike Gravel says that this is the absolute best ticket for taking down Donald Trump and fixing the country. (I'd much prefer her as sec of state than VP tho, I'm on the Nina VP train). Another factor to back this up comes in the form of point 3 above. Tulsi met with Bernie and told him that she was thinking about running and do you know what bernie did? He told her to run, he pushed her to run.

2nd point and the thing that actually makes me believe a bit more is watching where they focus on. She isn't going for the Bernie crowd, she's not targeting or purposely trying to bring us over to her. Her focus is entirely different to Bernie, the demographic she's going for are people who wouldn't actually vote or don't even trust democrats and to an extent some of that group is like "screw bernie" cause of 2016 when he endorsed hillary. She's expanding the electorate in a very different way than Bernie and is trying not to overlap support unlike someone else whose taking his entire campaign, watering it down and then claiming to be the "same".

Short and sweet version, she's working with Bernie in expanding the electorate, has his blessings to run, and isn't targeting his core supporters with his message unlike another "progressive" in the race. There's also other things that Bernie supporters and Tulsi supporters point out such as when they come back on stage during debates one has their hand on the others back, and when they meet at dem meet ups you see him shake hands etc with others then he meets with Tulsi and its a big hug. This is essentially the Bernie/tulsi conspiracy theory that the intersection believes in and it also helps that unlike another person in the race Tulsi would defend Bernie and Tulsi wouldn't attack or make claims such as "America doesn't want a white man" etc.

In other words here's my belief. I trust Bernie and Tulsi to pool together their delegates, and I'm 100% sure Warren is a part of the stop Bernie coalition and you can point out that she also met up with Bernie, but I'm also going to point out she met up with the head of the neoliberal wing and the stop bernie chief of staff, Hillary Clinton as well before announcing her run and after as well. That's all I'm saying.

Ehh, I mean even if that were the case she's not really polling that well at all so how much will it actually help... My guess, not that much but we'll see though.

Also, I must say, that Warren remark is ridiculous. You can talk with neoliberals and not be a neoliberal you know. Sanders has closely WORKED with prominent Republicans in the past to make sure bills/amendments got through, and describes most of the primary field as his friends. By your logic Bernie would be a secret republican/neoliberal agent. And that's just not true.

part 1: refer to my feelings about polling and waiting for votes to come in

part 2: I'm not saying its wrong to talk to neo-libs and Bernie has not compromised on his values while doing this and working with republicans. However, coming off of a rigged primary in 2016 where you're meeting with the person who rigged it while knowing they rigged it before the same party's primary doesn't sound some alarm bells? I'd love to be wrong on this but I don't think I am. She's a team player and that's why I 100% think if it comes down to it she will go against Bernie if there is a contested convention. "Just a player in the game"



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD

Around the Network


So if the race was a 4 way 52% of the vote would go to the moderate candidates and 43% to the progressives. In 2016 Clinton got just over 55% and Sanders 43% of the primary vote so not that far off from a few years ago.



A ranking of the democratic primary contenders

It is time to have another overview about the field, after the fifth debate and the entry of even more candidates.

I made some overviews in the past:

This ranking/overview looks at the typical key indicators for successful runs. The commonly accepted key indicators are: polls (duh), endorsements and campaign finance. As the DNC has this year so clear criteria for the qualification for the debates, I include that as another criteria. Also I think media coverage both in traditional and in social media is important. And I have a 'other' category for some other data.

As before, I rank the data on the scale from A to E, with an occasional X for extaordinary values. For aggregated values I added a + or -, for cases in which the removal of the best or worst value changed the ranking.

All data is avaliable in a spreadsheet (the format is for the free program gnumeric).

debates

Debate qualification is pretty straightforward. I count how often each candidate qualified and how many of the single criterias were fulfilled. The data comes from Wikipedia. A-rank is only available for reaching all qualifications or criteria.

Only Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren so far have met all qualification criteria, although Harris and Klobuchar still have a bit of time to meet the early states criteria for the sixth debate. Everyone else missed out on something. It is no coincidence too, that the four named first are generally considered the top-tier currently.

polling

I gathered the polling averages of multiple sources: 270 to win, Realclearpolitics, The Economist, The New York Times and 10@10. 270 to win and Realclearpolitics have also polling averages of the four early states, so I included that too.

As 15% is a hurdle set by the rules, I used that to determine B-rank. A-rank is 30%, as someone above that has a good chance to win. X-rank is set at 50%, because only ever one candidate can reach that.

No candidate consistently polls above 30%, although Biden manages this feat in South Carolina. He, Warren and Sanders are the only ones consistently polling above the 15% threshold. Buttigieg polls in his own tier, the others follow.

endorsements

Endorsements are a sign of support from party officials. I use the 538 endorsement-tracker, but does not only look for point-values, but also the raw number of endorsements. I also included this time the number of unpledged delegates (= superdelegates) for the convention, which indicated their voting preference. According to the new rules the superdelegates only come into play if the first ballot has no majority, but still they exist and show a party preference. The data for this comes from Wikipedia.

For the ranking I use the percentage of the total endorsement-pool. For instance there are 766 superdelegate votes.

As you can see, nobody reached more than C-rank (I put B-rank at 5%). Overall only 20% of possible endorsements so far are set, and that includes the ones for candidates that already dropped out. So the majority of endorsees is still on the sidelines.

campaign finance

This category I updated with the data from the third quarter.

The above graph shows how each candidate gets his money. Delaney and Steyer both are self-financing, in Steyers case it only comes through a candidate committee, which is why it is in red. As you can see, Bernie Sanders is the king of small donations, while Buttigieg has overtaken Biden in bigger donations. Biden himself fell back, now nearly overtaken by Harris in total.

This graph shows how much each candidate raised in each quarter. You can see which campaign is slowing down or accelerating in fundraising this way. As you can see, both Sanders and Warren raised more in the third quarter, Kamala Harris stayed constant, while Bidens fundraising slowed. For the lower-tiered candidates it is notable how Andrew Yang could practically explode his fundraising.

For the ranking I used total money raised, money raised by donations (instead through transfers or self-financing), cash on hand and third quarter fundraising (as indicator for newer developments).

Bloomberg and Patrick haven't yet filed any report, as they entered so late. Clearly Sanders is leading in the money race, followed by Warren and Buttigieg. Biden is fallen behind in that regard.

media attention

This category contains the media attention the different candidates get. For that I looked how many big media had listed the candidate in their lists of major candidates, looked at cable new mentions for the year and the last three months. I also looked at social media, and there how many followers had the candidates on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

As you can see, it is a bit divided between cable news and social media. While Bernie Sanders is strong on social media, Joe Biden dominates the cable news mentions. Elizabeth Warren follows in both categories, everyone else falls behind.

other

The other-category is a wild mix of other stuff that I thought interesting. It contains a count of how many of the qualifying polls for each debate the candidates reached the threshold, net favorability and name recognition calculated from Morning Consult data, the betting odds of different betting sites gathered by Realclearpolitics and the unique donors each candidate had in june as compiled for the NYT donor map.

This category is lead by the three frontrunner, followed by Buttigieg and Harris. Yang is in a strange in-between place.

result

Well, taken together, we arrive at this:

I included the ranking from August for comparison. As you can see, Sanders and Biden are leading, followed by Warren, Buttigieg and Harris.



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

Soooooo many stats... O.o



@Mnementh A+ work.  Thanks for putting in that work and effort.  I love seeing that data like that.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

@Mnementh A+ work.  Thanks for putting in that work and effort.  I love seeing that data like that.

Amen to that. Great work!



tsogud said:

I always found it interesting how the term sjw is being used as an insult nowadays, like pursuing social justice is somehow bad or something.

Technically an sjw is just someone who promotes socially progressive views, so most of us would be put in that category.

Colloquially, it's seen as a pejorative now because it's been co-opted by socially conservative individuals and more often then not it's used by them to undermine substantive socially progressive claims/arguments. I've seen it almost always used by the socially conservative against feminists to discredit feminism entirely as just a vapid, self-aggrandizing ideology.

Don't throw fuel to the conservative fire, imo being a sjw ain't really a bad thing.

I think it depends who is using the term and in what context. I know plenty of feminist women who use the term SJW.

SJW is a term that I associate with condescending opportunists who don't legitimately believe in the social equality-oriented causes they purport to so much as they enjoy appearing to be more cultured and sophisticated than say people who lack a college degree and reporting people on the internet for disagreeing with them. An SJW, at least in my mind, can be identified by their frequent use of terms like "intersectionality"  and "cisgender" like Jane Average knows what the hell you're talking about and condemnation of people who don't embrace politically correct lifestyles like veganism that ordinary working class people might not be able to afford.

AVERAGE PERSON: We need to support Planned Parenthood and other women's health providers...
SJW (WHO IS NOT TRANS): Watch your cis!
AVERAGE PERSON: What does that mean?
SJW: Educate yourself!

Of course, I get called one too from time to time too, but it's always by guys with underdressed "waifu" and/or Pepe the Nazi frog avatars who use terms like "gynocentrism" in casual conversation and assume normal, rational people who follow credible news sources not only understand what that means but furthermore agree with them and also once used the #gamergate hashtag, so...you know, I recognize that any concept can be abused by people who are so far out there on the right that everyone looks like Stalin to them.

ME: I like Star Wars.
MRA: I do too except they should bring George Lucas back bcuz of all this gynocentrism.
ME: What does that mean? Like there are too many women on-screen for you or something?
MRA: Don't call me a sexist. I believe the sexes are equal, it's just women today have pink hair and want special treatment.
ME: ...

Last edited by Jaicee - on 28 November 2019

Jaicee said:
tsogud said:

I always found it interesting how the term sjw is being used as an insult nowadays, like pursuing social justice is somehow bad or something.

Technically an sjw is just someone who promotes socially progressive views, so most of us would be put in that category.

Colloquially, it's seen as a pejorative now because it's been co-opted by socially conservative individuals and more often then not it's used by them to undermine substantive socially progressive claims/arguments. I've seen it almost always used by the socially conservative against feminists to discredit feminism entirely as just a vapid, self-aggrandizing ideology.

Don't throw fuel to the conservative fire, imo being a sjw ain't really a bad thing.

I think it depends who is using the term and in what context. I know plenty of feminist women who use the term SJW.

SJW is a term that I associate with condescending opportunists who don't legitimately believe in the social equality-oriented causes they purport to so much as they enjoy appearing to be more cultured and sophisticated than say people who lack a college degree and reporting people on the internet for disagreeing with them. An SJW, at least in my mind, can be identified by their frequent use of terms like "intersectionality"  and "cisgender" like Jane Average knows what the hell you're talking about and condemnation of people who don't embrace politically correct lifestyles like veganism that ordinary working class people might not be able to afford.

AVERAGE PERSON: We need to support Planned Parenthood and other women's health providers...
SJW (WHO IS NOT TRANS): Watch your cis!
AVERAGE PERSON: What does that mean?
SJW: Educate yourself!

Of course, I get called one too from time to time too, but it's always by guys with underdressed "waifu" and/or Pepe the Nazi frog avatars who use terms like "gynocentrism" in casual conversation and assume normal, rational people who follow credible news sources not only understand what that means but furthermore agree with them and also once used the #gamergate hashtag, so...you know, I recognize that any concept can be abused by people who are so far out there on the right that everyone looks like Stalin to them.

ME: I like Star Wars.
MRA: I do too except they should bring George Lucas back bcuz of all this gynocentrism.
ME: What does that mean? Like there are too many women on-screen for you or something?
MRA: Don't call me a sexist. I believe the sexes are equal, it's just women today have pink hair and want special treatment.
ME: ...

It seems all the more extreme groups try to set themself apart with a special language. if you need a dictionary to talk to one of these people, something is probably wrong. And even if they are well-intentioned… if you fail to communicate with normal persons your ideology will probably not win.



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

Jaicee said:
tsogud said:

I always found it interesting how the term sjw is being used as an insult nowadays, like pursuing social justice is somehow bad or something.

Technically an sjw is just someone who promotes socially progressive views, so most of us would be put in that category.

Colloquially, it's seen as a pejorative now because it's been co-opted by socially conservative individuals and more often then not it's used by them to undermine substantive socially progressive claims/arguments. I've seen it almost always used by the socially conservative against feminists to discredit feminism entirely as just a vapid, self-aggrandizing ideology.

Don't throw fuel to the conservative fire, imo being a sjw ain't really a bad thing.

I think it depends who is using the term and in what context. I know plenty of feminist women who use the term SJW.

SJW is a term that I associate with condescending opportunists who don't legitimately believe in the social equality-oriented causes they purport to so much as they enjoy appearing to be more cultured and sophisticated than say people who lack a college degree and reporting people on the internet for disagreeing with them. An SJW, at least in my mind, can be identified by their frequent use of terms like "intersectionality"  and "cisgender" like Jane Average knows what the hell you're talking about and condemnation of people who don't embrace politically correct lifestyles like veganism that ordinary working class people might not be able to afford.

AVERAGE PERSON: We need to support Planned Parenthood and other women's health providers...
SJW (WHO IS NOT TRANS): Watch your cis!
AVERAGE PERSON: What does that mean?
SJW: Educate yourself!

Of course, I get called one too from time to time too, but it's always by guys with underdressed "waifu" and/or Pepe the Nazi frog avatars who use terms like "gynocentrism" in casual conversation and assume normal, rational people who follow credible news sources not only understand what that means but furthermore agree with them and also once used the #gamergate hashtag, so...you know, I recognize that any concept can be abused by people who are so far out there on the right that everyone looks like Stalin to them.

ME: I like Star Wars.
MRA: I do too except they should bring George Lucas back bcuz of all this gynocentrism.
ME: What does that mean? Like there are too many women on-screen for you or something?
MRA: Don't call me a sexist. I believe the sexes are equal, it's just women today have pink hair and want special treatment.
ME: ...

Then for you, I believe you'd do well to stop using the term SJW as a pejorative as it detracts from the actual concerns social justice activists raise and fight for. You're actively fanning the conservative flame there.

If those bolded terms are your identifiers of a sjw (which is completely ridiculous btw) then I guess you could categorize me as one because they're needed in some cases to describe the systemic oppression different groups face and how we can change that through political involvement and social activism. And I hope you're intention was not to insult me by insinuating I am one (as in your context you'd be using it pejoratively) because I have used those terms with you on numerous occasions. That'd be extremely rude.

Cisgender isn't like some type of vague concept that's hard to grasp or something and a lot of people know what it means and if they don't it takes a literal 5 seconds to describe it. Feminism is inherently intersectional, as most sects address the different factors of oppression women face in differing cultures, places, religious doctrines, etc. There's a reason prominent feminists adhere to intersectionality, even if it's not explicitly stated, and not white feminism.

But overall I do see and understand your point it's that for you, basically a sjw is a vapid, hypocritical, self-aggrandizing social activist. They don't really believe and adhere to what they preach and are only in it for clout not for actual change. Would that be correct?

Last edited by tsogud - on 29 November 2019

 

Mnementh said:
Jaicee said:

I think it depends who is using the term and in what context. I know plenty of feminist women who use the term SJW.

SJW is a term that I associate with condescending opportunists who don't legitimately believe in the social equality-oriented causes they purport to so much as they enjoy appearing to be more cultured and sophisticated than say people who lack a college degree and reporting people on the internet for disagreeing with them. An SJW, at least in my mind, can be identified by their frequent use of terms like "intersectionality"  and "cisgender" like Jane Average knows what the hell you're talking about and condemnation of people who don't embrace politically correct lifestyles like veganism that ordinary working class people might not be able to afford.

AVERAGE PERSON: We need to support Planned Parenthood and other women's health providers...
SJW (WHO IS NOT TRANS): Watch your cis!
AVERAGE PERSON: What does that mean?
SJW: Educate yourself!

Of course, I get called one too from time to time too, but it's always by guys with underdressed "waifu" and/or Pepe the Nazi frog avatars who use terms like "gynocentrism" in casual conversation and assume normal, rational people who follow credible news sources not only understand what that means but furthermore agree with them and also once used the #gamergate hashtag, so...you know, I recognize that any concept can be abused by people who are so far out there on the right that everyone looks like Stalin to them.

ME: I like Star Wars.
MRA: I do too except they should bring George Lucas back bcuz of all this gynocentrism.
ME: What does that mean? Like there are too many women on-screen for you or something?
MRA: Don't call me a sexist. I believe the sexes are equal, it's just women today have pink hair and want special treatment.
ME: ...

It seems all the more extreme groups try to set themself apart with a special language. if you need a dictionary to talk to one of these people, something is probably wrong. And even if they are well-intentioned… if you fail to communicate with normal persons your ideology will probably not win.

Most sects of feminism are intersectional even if not explicitly stated. And feminists aren't an extreme group. Feminism, usually within communities of color, use intersectionality to describe different ways we're systemically oppressed. A queer latin transwomen will have different struggles than a straight white cis women. It's just common sense.

Learning new words are a part of life and the definitions of intersectionality and cisgender aren't difficult to learn. Saying a group is extreme because in your personal vocabulary you don't know words they do is mind boggling. I'm sure most people didn't know what Trans meant or pansexual but that doesn't mean they were an extreme group. And people eventually adjusted to using those terms.

And I'll just add, every trans person knows what cisgender means because that's part of realizing you're trans. It's like "okay I'm trans but what are people who're born with their gender matching their sex?? Cis. Okay they're cis." Obviously that's not how it goes but it's the best illustration I could come up with rn lol I'm tired.

Last edited by tsogud - on 29 November 2019