Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

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

haxxiy said:

Chances of nomination according to 538 based on historical data. Blue line is 100% name recognition, red line 50% name recognition. According to Morning Consult, all candidates are above 50% name recognition except for someone called "Seth Moulton". Sanders, Biden, Warren, Harris are around or above 90%. Looking pretty good for Uncle Joe - mind that primaries usually have smaller fields, as well, so his chances are higher than the graph suggests on all likehood.

That reads weird.

For instance, if you had high name recognition with early polling at 30%, you'd have a 40% chance of nomination. But if you had low name recognition with early polling at 30%, you'd have a 90% change of nomination?  How the hell?  Are they saying at the same early polling rate, the lower name recognition candidate has a much higher chance at nomination?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
haxxiy said:

Chances of nomination according to 538 based on historical data. Blue line is 100% name recognition, red line 50% name recognition. According to Morning Consult, all candidates are above 50% name recognition except for someone called "Seth Moulton". Sanders, Biden, Warren, Harris are around or above 90%. Looking pretty good for Uncle Joe - mind that primaries usually have smaller fields, as well, so his chances are higher than the graph suggests on all likehood.

That reads weird.

For instance, if you had high name recognition with early polling at 30%, you'd have a 40% chance of nomination. But if you had low name recognition with early polling at 30%, you'd have a 90% change of nomination?  How the hell?  Are they saying at the same early polling rate, the lower name recognition candidate has a much higher chance at nomination?

Why, of course. Because it means people are far more likely to vote for a given candidate once they know about them.

Imagine if someone has 30% of the vote with 50% name recognition. Do you believe they'll be stuck there once everyone knows about them?

Now, the opposite situation - what happened with Jeb!. Evidently, Jeb! polling at 3% is a far greater failure, and far less likely to become a nominee, than someone like Gabbard with 62% recognition polling at 3%.



 

 

 

 

 

SpokenTruth said:

That reads weird.

For instance, if you had high name recognition with early polling at 30%, you'd have a 40% chance of nomination. But if you had low name recognition with early polling at 30%, you'd have a 90% change of nomination?  How the hell?  Are they saying at the same early polling rate, the lower name recognition candidate has a much higher chance at nomination?

In another way:

Say everyone knew about candidate A.  30% of people like him.  He doesn't have anywhere to go because everyone already knows about him.  He can't appeal to new people.  So he will end up with around 30% of the vote.

Say 50% knew about candidate B.  30% of people like him.  He has 50% of the population to work on appealing to.  His fanbase can grow, and he might well end up with 60% of the vote.  



Jaicee said:

Here's a more detailed prediction of how I think the primary season will go:

1) All but perhaps the top-polling seven or eight candidates drop out before the Iowa Caucus.

2) Biden and Sanders win the Iowa and New Hampshire contests.

3) Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg drop out, benefiting Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders respectively.

4) Biden wins in South Carolina.

5) Cory Booker drops out, benefiting Kamala Harris.

6) Biden wins in California and Texas.

7) Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke drop out, mostly benefiting Biden and ensuring his victory.

I see step 1 happening, and 4, and eventually 5, but there's no way Warren drops out before California. I recall her campaign indicating something to this effect back when she was fading in the polls and nowhere near Bernie, so now that she's tied for or possibly straight up second place, that plan will definitely hold. If O'Rourke hangs in until Texas, I foresee him eating into Biden's potential vote there, pulling Biden down enough that he doesn't win Texas. Multiple polls have shown that Kamala Harris dropping out would benefit Warren more than Biden or Sanders. I'd guess this is because she tends to attract a certain kind of "progressive" that really wants a woman in the white house regardless of her economic policy preferences, and are only voting Kamala over Warren because they'd rather see a woman of color for intersectionality reasons, but would vote Warren if Kamala dropped out. If Warren holds until California as I believe she will, I think she'll stand a genuine chance of beating Kamala, which would probably make Kamala drop out, and if the polls I've seen are correct, this would be to Warren's benefit and provide a second wind for the campaign. As for the first contests, I don't see Biden or Sanders as shoe-ins for them yet.



Jumpin said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

I disagree on the whole thing.

I mean, who would you rather vote for? Somebody who got financed through small donors or somebody who's in the pockets of corporations and their lobbies and thus will do their bidding, good or bad?

I am not even sure how that question is relevant. If you were to ask, would I vote for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, the answer is yes, and it wouldn't be relevant to me how they got their campaign finance dollars. The reason big donation campaign finance is broken is because it gives a lopsided advantage to the wealthy to donate to candidates to serve their interests; but there are a few who WILL donate against their interests because it is the right thing to do. To make a choice to not accept large campaign donations to appease people who are, frankly, uneducated in the political system, I am not in favour of; it puts the candidates I want to win at an even larger disadvantage in the broken system. I think this is probably the most foolish thing Warren and Sanders are doing; it means worker unions can't make big donation to them, but the big corporations can donate to their opponents; the only situation that would be a better case would be if Warren and Sanders decided not to accept ANY donations at all!

Anyway, I think you're conflating two different issues. Receiving a donation from someone doesn't mean you're "In the pockets of corporations and their lobbies and thus do their bidding." since that money doesn't belong to them, it belongs to their campaign. What I think you're mixing up is the revolving door political circuit whereby corporations literally give paycheques to politicians who do their bidding. And I would be highly in favour of any politician who swears an oath to NOT take any corporate job or paycheque after their term.

True. But for a company, a PAC is an investment, and they expect a return of their investment. Mostly in the lines of: I gave you x amount of money that helped you win the election, now can you please do something for me in return? It's a more subtle way of influencing someone or their policies.

Not accepting big dollars means nor risking having to do something for those companies. And in most of the the rest of the world, the money for the campaign is given from the state explicitly to avoid companies and rich individuals to influence or outright buy elections.



Around the Network

UPDATE: I finally got time to make some updates to the OP.  Gravel has been moved from the Active to Dropped Candidates. Added Michael Avenatti to the Potential Candidate list (yeah, I know...). Color coded the Active Candidates list based on Debate 3 qualifications. Revised the Debate Schedule from two lists to one list. Altered the Debate Qualifications tables using Spoiler Tags to reduce post size and updated who has qualified for Debate 3.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

haxxiy said:

Chances of nomination according to 538 based on historical data. Blue line is 100% name recognition, red line 50% name recognition. According to Morning Consult, all candidates are above 50% name recognition except for someone called "Seth Moulton". Sanders, Biden, Warren, Harris are around or above 90%. Looking pretty good for Uncle Joe - mind that primaries usually have smaller fields, as well, so his chances are higher than the graph suggests on all likehood.

OK, so Biden has a 40% chance of the nomination, leaving 60% for the other candidates.



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

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

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

SpokenTruth said:
haxxiy said:

Chances of nomination according to 538 based on historical data. Blue line is 100% name recognition, red line 50% name recognition. According to Morning Consult, all candidates are above 50% name recognition except for someone called "Seth Moulton". Sanders, Biden, Warren, Harris are around or above 90%. Looking pretty good for Uncle Joe - mind that primaries usually have smaller fields, as well, so his chances are higher than the graph suggests on all likehood.

That reads weird.

For instance, if you had high name recognition with early polling at 30%, you'd have a 40% chance of nomination. But if you had low name recognition with early polling at 30%, you'd have a 90% change of nomination?  How the hell?  Are they saying at the same early polling rate, the lower name recognition candidate has a much higher chance at nomination?

If an unknown candidate already polls high it is a very bullish indicator that others that learn about the candidate may like him too.



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

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

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

SpokenTruth said:

Poll numbers this early are largely just name recognition and don't have a great record for predicting the final nominee.

Thou DOUBTEST the Janice?! Ye shall learn!!

In seriousness, I love how optimistic some of you are that there's still a realistic chance that someone other than Joe Biden could win the nomination, but I've seen enough of these now to know that you're just simply wrong. For example, people keep repeating the same above line that Biden's only winning at present due to superior name-recognition no matter how late in the race it gets. I imagine somebody may still be trying that argument in December even. The fact is that, in the long run, the polls aren't moving, or at least not much. It doesn't seem to especially matter how much people get to know the other candidates; it's not changing the way they intend to vote, or at least not appreciably.

The details of my prediction that I posted a couple pages ago are debatable and could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that my prediction Joe Biden will win in the end isn't.



Okay, we now have a roster of four major post-debate national polls in and here's the average of them:

Biden: 31%
Sanders: 15.8%
Warren: 15.5%
Harris: 8.3%
Buttigieg: 5.5%
Others: 2.5% or less

The bottom line here is that Kamala Harris's poll numbers have now largely reverted back to where they were before the first Democratic debate (she was averaging 7% then) and Biden has regained essentially all ground he lost to her in that debate as a result. It's impossible to tell whether the second debate round had any affect that on that trend because it was already ongoing anyway. Regardless, it's looking like she was just a passing fad at this point.

It also appears that Elizabeth Warren may have benefited from the debate at the margins, catching back up to Bernie Sanders as a result, having been averaging about 2.5 percentage points behind him just before. This is her best polling average to date. Still, she didn't catch up.

That's the only "movement" here. Biden is leading by a margin of 15.2 percentage points, which is almost equivalent to his nearest rival's entire base of support. This contest is clearly set in stone.