Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

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

tsogud said:
SpokenTruth said:

UPDATE: Marianne Williamson has officially suspended her campaign.

Steyer has qualified for the 7th debate.  He took a different approach than practically all other candidates for any debate.  He gained state polls rather national polls.

Today is the last day to qualify but it is highly unlikely that anyone else does. That finalizes the debate to Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Sanders and Warren.

Poor Williamson... I enjoyed having her voice in the race. All those "crystal lady" dismissive attacks were unfair tbqh. Did she endorse anyone?

I haven't read any endorsements yet.  In fact, very few that have dropped have immediately endorsed another candidate. 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

UPDATE: Marianne Williamson has officially suspended her campaign.

Steyer has qualified for the 7th debate.  He took a different approach than practically all other candidates for any debate.  He gained state polls rather national polls.

Today is the last day to qualify but it is highly unlikely that anyone else does. That finalizes the debate to Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Sanders and Warren.

Dammit, I was hoping no more would be added to the debate.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 said:
SpokenTruth said:

UPDATE: Marianne Williamson has officially suspended her campaign.

Steyer has qualified for the 7th debate.  He took a different approach than practically all other candidates for any debate.  He gained state polls rather national polls.

Today is the last day to qualify but it is highly unlikely that anyone else does. That finalizes the debate to Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Sanders and Warren.

Dammit, I was hoping no more would be added to the debate.

Me too.  I was looking forward to a smaller 5 candidate stage presence.  Steyer snuck in at the last minute with the state polls.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
zorg1000 said:

Dammit, I was hoping no more would be added to the debate.

Me too.  I was looking forward to a smaller 5 candidate stage presence.  Steyer snuck in at the last minute with the state polls.

I guess Steyer is fine, he talks for about 3 minutes each debate



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 said:
SpokenTruth said:

Me too.  I was looking forward to a smaller 5 candidate stage presence.  Steyer snuck in at the last minute with the state polls.

I guess Steyer is fine, he talks for about 3 minutes each debate

Lol.  He'll get more this time simply due to smaller group.  But if we have to have a billionaire pay-your-way candidate up there, I'd far prefer him than Bloomberg.

Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 10 January 2020

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network

Steyer is white noise that I simply filter.



Mnementh said:

538 now has a model for the outcome of the democratic primaries: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

They currently predict an average of 1484 pledged delegates for Biden (1990 are needed to snatch the nomination). 1018 are predicted for Sanders, 634 for Warren, 536 for Buttigieg. They give the odds of a candidate winning the majority (1990) of pledged delegates at 40% for Biden, 22% for Sanders, 14% for no one, 12% for Warren and 10% for Buttigieg.

They also have the states. I am surprised on the high variation of the model. To explain this a bit, they model the electorate and then run thousands of simulation with different paramters based on uncertainty in the data. So they have different outcomes and can give a probability. But for instance in 80% of these simulations gets Biden in Iowa between 4% and 49% of the votes, meaning there are 10% chance he gets even lower than 4% and 10% he gets higher than 49%. That is an incredibly broad range and shows a high level of uncertainty. Because of the 15% rule, for the allocation of the delegates there is a bit more certainty.

Remember, this will be updated as new data (polls, endorsements, financials, …) rolls in.

There is an explanation how the model works: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fivethirtyeight-2020-primary-model-works/

Now:

Biden 1429

Sanders 1077

Warren 679

Buttigieg 535

Sanders gaining



the-pi-guy said:
Mnementh said:

538 now has a model for the outcome of the democratic primaries: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

They currently predict an average of 1484 pledged delegates for Biden (1990 are needed to snatch the nomination). 1018 are predicted for Sanders, 634 for Warren, 536 for Buttigieg. They give the odds of a candidate winning the majority (1990) of pledged delegates at 40% for Biden, 22% for Sanders, 14% for no one, 12% for Warren and 10% for Buttigieg.

They also have the states. I am surprised on the high variation of the model. To explain this a bit, they model the electorate and then run thousands of simulation with different paramters based on uncertainty in the data. So they have different outcomes and can give a probability. But for instance in 80% of these simulations gets Biden in Iowa between 4% and 49% of the votes, meaning there are 10% chance he gets even lower than 4% and 10% he gets higher than 49%. That is an incredibly broad range and shows a high level of uncertainty. Because of the 15% rule, for the allocation of the delegates there is a bit more certainty.

Remember, this will be updated as new data (polls, endorsements, financials, …) rolls in.

There is an explanation how the model works: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fivethirtyeight-2020-primary-model-works/

Now:

Biden 1429

Sanders 1077

Warren 679

Buttigieg 535

Sanders gaining

Yeah, there were a few polls coming in.



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

the-pi-guy said:
Mnementh said:

538 now has a model for the outcome of the democratic primaries: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/

They currently predict an average of 1484 pledged delegates for Biden (1990 are needed to snatch the nomination). 1018 are predicted for Sanders, 634 for Warren, 536 for Buttigieg. They give the odds of a candidate winning the majority (1990) of pledged delegates at 40% for Biden, 22% for Sanders, 14% for no one, 12% for Warren and 10% for Buttigieg.

They also have the states. I am surprised on the high variation of the model. To explain this a bit, they model the electorate and then run thousands of simulation with different paramters based on uncertainty in the data. So they have different outcomes and can give a probability. But for instance in 80% of these simulations gets Biden in Iowa between 4% and 49% of the votes, meaning there are 10% chance he gets even lower than 4% and 10% he gets higher than 49%. That is an incredibly broad range and shows a high level of uncertainty. Because of the 15% rule, for the allocation of the delegates there is a bit more certainty.

Remember, this will be updated as new data (polls, endorsements, financials, …) rolls in.

There is an explanation how the model works: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fivethirtyeight-2020-primary-model-works/

Now:

Biden 1429

Sanders 1077

Warren 679

Buttigieg 535

Sanders gaining

So does Warren. I think she bottomed out, at least for now.

Even though the establishment Democrats want the new left out of the Party, they are both showing that the new left is the new base of the party and the establishment is waning fast - even though they rush supporting Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar now as they fear for their seats. So if AOC, Sanders, and so on would leave the party, the democratic party would be very much weakened, which would pretty much ensure future Republican victories under winner takes all since the former Democratic vote would be split between two or even several candidates.

Edit: Adding this Video about the establishment Democrats starting to shit themselves because Bernie is rising higher and higher:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmXdqJStp9g

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 11 January 2020

Since I'm in an unhappy mood tonight, I thought I'd post on this thread.

We need to talk about something I find disturbing: the rise of Michael Bloomberg. Most of the recent polls show him at at least 7% support now, and one by The Hill shows him in double-digits, with the support of 11% of Democratic voters, tied with Elizabeth Warren for third place. That's not bad for somebody who didn't even make last month's Democratic debate and won't make this one either for lack of donors! This is becoming a serious thing that merits our attention.

Bloomberg is literally just buying his way to relevance in this campaign. And it's working! He's spent many tens of millions of dollars on TV and other advertising already. I myself have seen lots of his TV commercials. Why hasn't this same strategy worked for Tom Steyer? *shrugs* Prolly because he had less name recognition than the former mayor of New York City, I think. Steyer's politics are mainly known in activist circles. Bloomberg's are familiar to probably most Americans.

Bloomberg isn't a neoliberal candidate, he's a cliche. He's a billionaire. He's white. He's male. He virtue signals. He speaks in a corporate-sounding, non-specific language. He wears khakis on a regular basis. He's from New York. He's even Jewish just for good measure. And he's deeply concerned about his tax rate above all, which is why he's running for president. You could not ask for a more archetypal neoliberal politician than Michael Bloomberg. Which is perhaps why he has found an audience. The question I have for you today, America, is...whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy???!

I am hereby declaring myself the first NeverBloomberger. This is one Democratic candidate I will never vote for under any circumstances. If he becomes the nominee, I will sit out this election. Defeating Trump is important and everything, but...there are limits. There has to be a limit somewhere! I simply cannot stand the guy or the urban gentrification for which he stands. Just say no to Bloomberg, America, please. Can you please at least do me that favor?

Also, I've noticed what others are saying around here: Bernie Sanders is rising in the polls lately too! That I find a lot more exciting. The specific reason for the Sanders rise appears to be that he's starting to win the debate on health care policy not only within the Democratic Party, but also just generally. There was a point earlier this year where the idea of single-payer health care enjoyed the support of less than 30% of Americans. Recent polling, however, puts it in the 44 to 46% range, which suggests that Sanders has been effective at highlighting the benefits of specifically a single-payer system (e.g. no premiums, no deductibles, no co-pays) and that rivals (including Elizabeth Warren) have made a mistake in attempting more complicated positions on how Medicare should be expanded.

I think one of the main takeaways from all this, this whole primary battle, I've had so far has been that candidates fare better these days when they pick a camp, progressive or neoliberal, and stick to it. Trying to find an agreeable space between those two poles appears to get you less support. It's why Warren was more popular earlier on, among other things. She once was quite clearly running as the leftmost candidate in the race. When she came out with her two-stage health care plan, by contrast, that was clearly something else, and that's the point when she lost a lot of support that has since been made up by Sanders. Just as an example.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 12 January 2020