2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Atheist said:
I just had a look at betting odds for Dem nomination and was surprised to see Liz favourite to take it.

Clearly, what money there is, is going on her right now.

https://www.paddypower.com/politics?tab=usa
Click to expand...

Wouldn't let me look at it, but this article has fairly recent odds (last three days) that show Warren as the current favorite as well.

She appears to have finally shaken off the whole Pocahontas thing. I had her as the chalk long ago, and then was surprised when she made that stupid DNA move.

If she can get the race down to her and Biden, she'll win the nomination. If Bernie hangs on again to the bitter end (and this time the end is very obvious) then I could see Biden squeaking out a victory.

Of course, all this is pending the arrival of the greatest political army the world has never seen in support of Tom Steyer.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. Looks like there's some interesting polling that happened in fair part because of that jab at AOC and the Squad that claimed extremely low polling numbers for her.

For the key findings...
On net, among voters in battleground districts, Ocasio-Cortez polls at least as well as other major Democratic figures. Although all political figures had negative net favorability, Ocasio-Cortez is viewed roughly as favorably on net as Joe Biden, and more favorably on net than President Donald Trump and Democratic leadership.
-“Clean-energy companies” and “climate activists” both poll more favorably than “fossil fuel companies.”
-Senator Elizabeth Warren had the highest net favorable ratings among the presidential candidates we tested.
-Each member of “the Squad”—Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib—has a higher net favorability than President Donald Trump, Senator Mitch McConnell, and the Republican Party in battleground districts. While Trump’s net favorability is lower, we note that his raw favorability is higher than each member of “the Squad.”
Click to expand...

Warren was at -2 net. AOC at -6. Biden was at -10. Pelosi was at -17, for comparison.

Also of note -

Harris and Warren are strongly correlated, contrary to the general view that either candidate represents particularly divergent “lanes” of the Democratic party. While Warren and Sanders are usually clustered together in popular discourse, the results here show that Sanders is not very strongly associated with any other Democratic figure—the lighter shading across his horizontal and vertical lines convey this finding. Biden, usually associated with Harris, appears in another section of the graph altogether, clustering with establishment organizations and figures like the Democratic Party, Pelosi, and Senator Chuck Schumer.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Wouldn't let me look at it, but this article has fairly recent odds (last three days) that show Warren as the current favorite as well.

She appears to have finally shaken off the whole Pocahontas thing. I had her as the chalk long ago, and then was surprised when she made that stupid DNA move.

If she can get the race down to her and Biden, she'll win the nomination. If Bernie hangs on again to the bitter end (and this time the end is very obvious) then I could see Biden squeaking out a victory.

Of course, all this is pending the arrival of the greatest political army the world has never seen in support of Tom Steyer.
Click to expand...

I think the only thing stupid about the DNA move was that she didn't do it many years earlier and put it to bed.
 
Trebuchet said:
I think the only thing stupid about the DNA move was that she didn't do it many years earlier and put it to bed.
Click to expand...

It couldn't have been done much before (ETA: because of the technology required). And the results were entirely consistent with her family history. Despite the smoke and mirrors tried by various Trump supporters.

I am bleakly amused at Trump supporters attacking anyone else on anything other than policy, as their preferred candidate is so deeply unattractive as a person, but at least it is possible, albeit with a lot of effort and as an intellectual exercise, to come up with worse policies than Trump at the moment.
 
jimbob said:
It couldn't have been done much before (ETA: because of the technology required). And the results were entirely consistent with her family history. Despite the smoke and mirrors tried by various Trump supporters.

I am bleakly amused at Trump supporters attacking anyone else on anything other than policy, as their preferred candidate is so deeply unattractive as a person, but at least it is possible, albeit with a lot of effort and as an intellectual exercise, to come up with worse policies than Trump at the moment.
Click to expand...
I disagree that if is consistent. It requires a few incredulous convenient outcomes to be consistent.
 
Aridas said:
Hmm. Looks like there's some interesting polling that happened in fair part because of that jab at AOC and the Squad that claimed extremely low polling numbers for her.

For the key findings...


Warren was at -2 net. AOC at -6. Biden was at -10. Pelosi was at -17, for comparison.

Also of note -
Click to expand...
I assumed they were debunking the "Unsourced polling leaked to Axios suggested that white, likely voters without college degrees view Ocasio-Cortez overwhelmingly unfavorably—". It was tl;dr.

Honestly, "unsourced polling"? Talk about fake news. With all the legit polling out there, why would anyone want to hear about unsourced polls?
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
The concept seems pretty obvious. Build more than enough power to replace all the old plants and the utility companies will be left in the position of selling the power to end users but not in generating their own (unless, one presumes, they have a lot of renewable energy of their own). Ergo the government takes a monopoly position on energy generation, effectively nationalizing that part of the industry.
Click to expand...

Aren't most current renewable projects privately held?

I think all wind power in Texas is privately owned, even if subsidized.

What makes you think that Bernie would change that?
 
Dr. Keith said:
Aren't most current renewable projects privately held?

I think all wind power in Texas is privately owned, even if subsidized.

What makes you think that Bernie would change that?
Click to expand...

Here's Gizmodo's summary of the plan:

Among the outlays, Sanders would commit $2.37 trillion to renewable energy and storage, which the plan says would be enough of an investment to meet the country’s energy needs. Any renewable energy the government generates would be publicly owned, and a Sanders administration would prioritize selling it to publicly owned utilities and cooperatives at current rates to keep costs down.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
Here's Gizmodo's summary of the plan:
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for the link. It still doesn't stop the fact that all current growth in the industry is private and he is not planning on outlawing that. So private renewables will still be possible.

Frankly, I think he could get more bang for our buck by encouraging investment in renewable energy, but it seems like he is trying to do something bigger.

I hope he isn't the eventual candidate, but if he is, I'll vote for him.
 
There are ten candidates who have qualified for the Democratic debates. If it stays that way, there will be one debate night on Sept 12 and if any more qualify, there will be two nights, with Sept 13 included. They have to get at least four polls (and a certain number of donors) by Wednesday apparently which leaves things a bit tight.

As things stand, it looks like Gabbard, Gillibrand and Williamson will be out. Steyer may squeak in.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-for-the-third-debate-and-whos-on-the-bubble/
 
Delvo said:
Monmouth now has a poll with Biden 1 point behind both Bernie and Betty.
Click to expand...
The Economist and YouGov have one now that's pretty close to the same, with Biden still on top but only 2-or-3-point gaps between them with a 2.6 margin of error. And Politico has one that contradicts them, still looking about the same as before (Biden over 30, B&B under 20 apiece).
 
Looks like Steyer has failed to make the debates.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/tom-steyer-september-debates/index.html

I offered two possibilities for his poor polling performances up to now which are:

a) lack of name recognition
b) not offering a vision that was attractive to voters

Of course, it could also be:

c) people don’t want the Democratic candidate to be a billionaire

All those suggestions were poo-pooed before, so I would be interested to know what the real reason could have been.
 
My guess is that Booker, Beto, Klobuchar and even Harris will have to see the forthcoming debate as their last chance to make an impression. I expect they will come out swinging.

Yang has held in there longer than many predicted. I think he will stick around because he has an original message and I think he will pick up votes from others who will either drop out or become to be seen as no-hopers such as Gabbard and maybe even Williamson. Eventually Yang’s supporters will probably end up in the Sanders/ Warren bloc.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
 
angrysoba said:
Looks like Steyer has failed to make the debates.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/tom-steyer-september-debates/index.html

I offered two possibilities for his poor polling performances up to now which are:

a) lack of name recognition
b) not offering a vision that was attractive to voters

Of course, it could also be:

c) people don’t want the Democratic candidate to be a billionaire

All those suggestions were poo-pooed before, so I would be interested to know what the real reason could have been.
Click to expand...

"A" is fairly certainly the biggest single factor... with the addendum that people like, say, me, have heard exactly nothing about the platform he's running on, likely in fair part because of how late he's started. Going past that, he doesn't exactly have a record in politics to work with that I know of, let alone one that's remotely comparable to any of the front-runners. Going even further, I've noted before that being a billionaire is a negative, but is a relatively minor factor for me. In a field that's been as crowded as this one, negatives like that matter, though. Of course, there's pretty much no doubt whatsoever that he's dramatically better than the whiner-in-chief.

Also, looks like Gillibrand's the next one to bow out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom