Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

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

Jaicee said:
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.

As I said before: Obama took over Clinton in polls only in February 2008. She had higher polls than Biden has now. She had more endorsements than Biden has now. In 2016 everyone was soooo convinced Hillary Clinton already had it in the bag.

So, has Biden a better chance to win the nomination than everyone else? Sure! Has he a good chance, even at least a 50% chance? Eh, I think not. The 538-data implies historically he would end up in 40% of cases as the nominee. That is below even 50%. Would I be surprised if he made it in the end? No. But I wouldn't be surprised either if Sanders or Warren get the nomination. Or even Harris, she does very well in endorsements.

The historical data 538 took into consideration says Biden has an about 40% chance to win the nomination. Well, it's flimsy data but it is an educated guess. Let's say he has a 50% chance. So it still means in half the worlds he loses the nomination. It is reasonable to say he ends up not being the nominee.

The model (so much more detailed) 538 had for the 2016 election gave Hillary a 70% chance to win the presidency, and she still lost. Because even 10% is still a reasonable likely chance. If we go inot 1% territory, that is quite unlikely, but still not impossible.



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

Around the Network
Jaicee said:

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.

I'll wait until the first full week of Morning consult (since they have the largest number of people polled by far, so probably the most realistic nation-wide mean value) to fully judge, but from what I see from their 4-day poll compared to late June is as followed:

Biden lost quite a bit (he was at 38% on June 17-23, while now he's at about 33% Not a huge amount, but it brought him certainly down a peg), Sanders and Warren won a bit (1 and 3% respectively), Harris didn't totally fall back yet (she's still 3% up compared to late June, but down 4% from her height after the first debate), Beto lost a point (down to 3) and Yang is now pretty consistently at 2%, behind Booker's 3%. Pretty much no changes for the other candidates. Bit of a pity for someone like Castro who really did well on both debates but gets drowned out by the mass of better-known candidates.

Jaicee said:
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.

I'll have to look to find the article again, can't seem to find it right now. But It's actually very rare that the early frontrunner in the democratic primaries won the primaries - and even rarer that he won the election afterwards. The article I was looking for was going back until the 70's and only twice was the early frontrunner (who wasn't a sitting president running for re-election, of course) also running for presidency later on.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 08 August 2019

Jaicee said:
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.

I'm not one to ask your age but I've voted in 6 presidential elections. I've seen enough to know the early stage front runner is almost always the most recognized name and doesn't always end up with the nomination.

This is still very early. Polling random people right now is basically a popularity contest.  Call a random person, list 20+ candidates at them and they are going to more often than not say the name they know the best. That's Biden. Most people do not follow the debates as we are.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Jumpin said:

But why? It's not logical to think that receiving extra campaign donations will change their views.

I agree the system is broken and needs to be redone, but it's because it gives a lopsided advantage to your Trumps, Howard Schultzs, and Romneys because their large donors are much more numerous. I don't see how on earth more money to the donations of their campaigns will do anything to impact Warren or Sanders; other than give them more lawn signs and banner advertisements. The only reason they would get large donations is that the people giving those donations really want them to win.

The irony is that the campaigns of Warren and Sanders are VOLUNTARILY even more compromised now because now they're not just playing the game handicapped, but with a greater handicap. They're cutting off worker unions and leftist organizations from making big money donations to their own campaigns, while not doing ANYTHING to prevent corporations from making big money donations to their candidates.

What you're suggesting here is kind of like saying that bribery and lobbying have no affect on politicians or anyone else, in which case why do they exist?

Don't be naive. Who foots a candidate's bills definitely has an impact on what policy ideas they're willing to advance and immediate evidence of this fact can be found in the simple reality that all of the politicians who are attending high-dollar fundraisers, etc. are going qualitatively and noticeably softer on corporate America at the expense of poor and working people and consumers than are Warren and Sanders, as I pointed out before.



https://www.thedailybeast.com/andrew-yang-qualifies-for-third-debate-beating-several-governors-and-senators

Yang will be back!



Around the Network
HylianSwordsman said:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/andrew-yang-qualifies-for-third-debate-beating-several-governors-and-senators

Yang will be back!

He had a really good sit down with H3H3 yesterday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otEbT0l_Hbg



Here's a poll showing Biden BEHIND Warren:

https://www.changeresearch.com/post-debate-poll-august-2-4-2019

I know it's just one poll, but still, we're already seeing this happen. That never happened in 2016 with Clinton and Sanders. The best we ever saw was a tie in some polls.



Some post debate analysis by Nate Silver. I think (also in past editions with his tiers) that he is too pessimistic about Sanders and too optimistic about Kamala Harris (I mean she polls now half of Sanders but that just moves her and Sanders in the same tier). But I agree with him on Warren. I am very optimistic about her upwards movement in polls. Ever so slightly, but steady. And in difference to other candidates that saw changes after the debates but bounced back, her upwards momentum is always there.



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

Could there still be hope for anyone who isn't Diamond Joe?

Not sure about this folks. Imagine Trump leaving a 7 - 2 SC majority as his legacy if he gets reelected.

Also: Tom Steyer will likely be in the next debates. Getting 3% polls in early states, pretty insane for someone most people probably don't even know. Since Castro is a lock-in and Gabbard and Gillibrang have better than even odds, that could be another 2 night debate after all.



 

 

 

 

 

haxxiy said:

Could there still be hope for anyone who isn't Diamond Joe?

Not sure about this folks. Imagine Trump leaving a 7 - 2 SC majority as his legacy if he gets reelected.

Also: Tom Steyer will likely be in the next debates. Getting 3% polls in early states, pretty insane for someone most people probably don't even know. Since Castro is a lock-in and Gabbard and Gillibrang have better than even odds, that could be another 2 night debate after all.

How does Steyer stands with unique donors? I have no info about that.

But I agree, it could be two nights again, but each being smaller. 9 are qualified currently and Castro seems inevitable. We could look at around 12 overall.

The fourth debate in October could be stage even more. DNC said it has the same criteria, but gives more time into october. So some who fail to qualify for the third debate might get to the fourth.



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