2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
Given the slate of candidates, I think it's too early to call anything.
Click to expand...
I'm fine calling this. I can't see any way of getting the exposure he'd need to catch up without buying it outright and coming off like a rich jerk in the process.
 
New Quinnipac poll

If the 2020 presidential election were held today, 54 percent of registered voters say that they would vote for former Vice President Joe Biden, while only 38 percent would vote for President Trump. Matchups against other top Democrats show:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders topping Trump 53 - 39 percent;
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren ahead of Trump 52 - 40 percent;
California Sen. Kamala Harris beating Trump 51 - 40 percent;
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg leading with 49 percent to Trump's 40 percent.
Click to expand...

The argument that we should choose any particular candidate just because of electability is... probably fine to discard.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
New Quinnipac poll
If the 2020 presidential election were held today, 54 percent of registered voters say that they would vote for former Vice President Joe Biden, while only 38 percent would vote for President Trump. Matchups against other top Democrats show:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders topping Trump 53 - 39 percent;
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren ahead of Trump 52 - 40 percent;
California Sen. Kamala Harris beating Trump 51 - 40 percent;
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg leading with 49 percent to Trump's 40 percent.
Click to expand...

The argument that we should choose any particular candidate just because of electability is... probably fine to discard.
Click to expand...

Probability of Hillary Clinton having beaten Trump in the popular vote in 2016: 100%
Percentages of the overall electorate are interesting, but not what really matters.
 
Aridas said:
New Quinnipac poll



The argument that we should choose any particular candidate just because of electability is... probably fine to discard.
Click to expand...

As much as I'd like to feel some security in those numbers, I can't help but remember this:

The poll put Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, at 51% and Trump, the Republican nominee, at 41% in a head-to-head matchup.

"We are starting to hear the faint rumblings of a Hillary Clinton landslide as her 10-point lead is further proof that Donald Trump is in a downward spiral as the clock ticks," Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, said in a statement.
Click to expand...
https://www.businessinsider.com/quinnipiac-poll-clinton-trump-landslide-2016-8

Never forget the very real chances of the electoral system, once again, screwing over the majority of Americans.
 
Aridas said:
New Quinnipac poll

The argument that we should choose any particular candidate just because of electability is... probably fine to discard.
Click to expand...

1. Whenever you hear that a poll is of registered voters instead of likely voters, assume it is skewed somewhat towards the Democrats.

2. You curiously failed to mention that the same poll showed Joe Biden crushing the Democratic primary field, with 32% to Warren's 19% and Bernie's 15%.

3. Arguing that electability doesn't matter by referencing polls 14 months out seems a bit fraught with risk.

4. Sanders drew markedly less support as the age of the respondents increased. He started out with a terrific 31% support level among 18-31 year-olds. But he drew 13% among 35-49 year-olds and it got worse; among seniors (Democratic seniors) he's getting 4%.

5. Warren on the other hand draws about 15-20% of every age group.

6. It's Warren and Biden.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
As much as I'd like to feel some security in those numbers, I can't help but remember this:


https://www.businessinsider.com/quinnipiac-poll-clinton-trump-landslide-2016-8

Never forget the very real chances of the electoral system, once again, screwing over the majority of Americans.
Click to expand...

Venom said:
yeah....I wouldn't be so confident.
Click to expand...

To be quite clear, I wasn't using those numbers to make the point that a Democrat will have a sure win. Given the Republican Party and their tactics, that's not even remotely close to a certainty. Rather, the better takeaway from that is that the difference in electability between the Top Democratic Party contenders is... small.


Brainster said:
1. Whenever you hear that a poll is of registered voters instead of likely voters, assume it is skewed somewhat towards the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Of course! And, quite frankly, it's well known that Democrat-leaning folk are less likely to vote, overall, before getting to the redshift in Republican-controlled states that fairly certainly results from lots of Democratic Party-leaning voters getting purged from the voting rolls without their knowledge.

Brainster said:
2. You curiously failed to mention that the same poll showed Joe Biden crushing the Democratic primary field, with 32% to Warren's 19% and Bernie's 15%.
Click to expand...

Why would that be curious? It's not remotely new news and had little to do with the point made, though thank you for making additional points.

Brainster said:
3. Arguing that electability doesn't matter by referencing polls 14 months out seems a bit fraught with risk.
Click to expand...

Not really what I said. To put it a bit differently, I said that picking a candidate "just" because of the perception that they're the most electable is an increasingly poor reason. That doesn't remove it from consideration completely, just pulls it off the pedestal that it's been put on.

Brainster said:
4. Sanders drew markedly less support as the age of the respondents increased. He started out with a terrific 31% support level among 18-31 year-olds. But he drew 13% among 35-49 year-olds and it got worse; among seniors (Democratic seniors) he's getting 4%.
Click to expand...

And seniors, of course, are likely the most likely to actually vote group.

Brainster said:
5. Warren on the other hand draws about 15-20% of every age group.

6. It's Warren and Biden.
Click to expand...

Increasingly so, yes.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
To be quite clear, I wasn't using those numbers to make the point that a Democrat will have a sure win. Given the Republican Party and their tactics, that's not even remotely close to a certainty. Rather, the better takeaway from that is that the difference in electability between the Top Democratic Party contenders is... small.




Of course! And, quite frankly, it's well known that Democrat-leaning folk are less likely to vote, overall, before getting to the redshift in Republican-controlled states that fairly certainly results from lots of Democratic Party-leaning voters getting purged from the voting rolls without their knowledge.



Why would that be curious? It's not remotely new news and had little to do with the point made, though thank you for making additional points.



Not really what I said. To put it a bit differently, I said that picking a candidate "just" because of the perception that they're the most electable is an increasingly poor reason. That doesn't remove it from consideration completely, just pulls it off the pedestal that it's been put on.



And seniors, of course, are likely the most likely to actually vote group.



Increasingly so, yes.
Click to expand...

Okay, very good response. On the electability thing--I do think that saying Joe's probably more electable than Sanders or Warren is both obvious and ignoring the obvious. Obvious because Biden is an easier sell to the middle than the others. Ignoring the obvious because that argument probably hurts him in the primaries.
 
Brainster said:
Okay, very good response. On the electability thing--I do think that saying Joe's probably more electable than Sanders or Warren is both obvious and ignoring the obvious. Obvious because Biden is an easier sell to the middle than the others. Ignoring the obvious because that argument probably hurts him in the primaries.
Click to expand...

It's too early to start with state-by-state strategies, but were this, say, December......

I think it may be a wash in the primaries. If he draws that consistent "middle" pool (absent any converted conservatives, e.g. Gillibrand anyone considered moderate will get any blue dog party voters who vote) and Sanders/Warren split the prog and lefty vote, then he still fares well. This was partially the working model for Trump's ride to the GOP victory. Don't win any states outright but have enough of a solid base that you still take 30/40% while three or four parties split the remaining votes. He may not win big anywhere but he may win enough that the others defray each others' strengths.

The schedule does not favor Biden because Iowa is not his turf and NH has two almost-favorite-son(daughter) candidates in Sanders and Warren, but if his people downplay expectations in those states they need only survive those two for the numbers to start working in their favor.
 
If Biden's so electable why hasn't he been elected yet? This is what, his fourth or fifth attempt? He hasn't even gotten the nomination. Biden's electability is what TV tropes would term an informed characteristic: we're told he's electable, he's just never demonstrated it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
If Biden's so electable why hasn't he been elected yet? This is what, his fourth or fifth attempt? He hasn't even gotten the nomination. Biden's electability is what TV tropes would term an informed characteristic: we're told he's electable, he's just never demonstrated it.
Click to expand...
He is doing best in the States the Democrats need to do well in.

He might not poll as high as Sanders in California, but we aren't likely to lose California with any of the candidates on display.

That he does not scare the voters in MI, OH, and PA is his biggest selling point.

What freighters me is the seemingly very real possibility that his physical and mental capacity fails him to an extent that cannot be glossed over as the next 12 months go by.

Warren seems considerably riskier in a head to head against Trump, but she also seems considerably more vibrant than Biden.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
He is doing best in the States the Democrats need to do well in.

He might not poll as high as Sanders in California, but we aren't likely to lose California with any of the candidates on display.

That he does not scare the voters in MI, OH, and PA is his biggest selling point.

What freighters me is the seemingly very real possibility that his physical and mental capacity fails him to an extent that cannot be glossed over as the next 12 months go by.

Warren seems considerably riskier in a head to head against Trump, but she also seems considerably more vibrant than Biden.
Click to expand...

How did he perform in those states when actual voting occurred during primaries?
 
Distracted1 said:
What freighters me is the seemingly very real possibility that his physical and mental capacity fails him to an extent that cannot be glossed over as the next 12 months go by.

Warren seems considerably riskier in a head to head against Trump, but she also seems considerably more vibrant than Biden.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's easily explained: Warren is still alive. Biden shuffled off the mortal coil years ago, he's just too out of touch to have noticed yet.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Biden's offering a token woman or black VP if he's elected in the Primary. It's pitiful.
Click to expand...

And apparently he also told a war story that turned out to be false in every detail. (I like the way that he keeps saying “this is true” while he makes **** up; the mark of an honest guy!)

https://nationalpost.com/news/world...ng-war-story-and-nearly-every-detail-is-false

But isn’t that missing the point? Remember, the best candidate in terms of electability is not necessarily the best candidate in terms of actual qualities. They need to find someone who can get the most votes (in the right places) from an electorate who voted Donald Trump.

Big dumb, senile Joe might be the best you can expect and maybe the best the electorate deserves right now. Of course Sanders or Warren would be better but the electorate is far too stupid. They would rather have an orange baboon than Medicare. You can’t dish up a quality candidate to those people. It’s like trying to take a pig that wants to eat out of a trough to a fancy French restaurant.
 
angrysoba said:
Also, look at the favourability ratings. Warren is actually lower than Trump!
Click to expand...
But!
When you look at "very unfavorable", you see:

Trump:
46%

Warren:
25%

___________

When you look at "very favorable" you get:
Biden
18%

Trump:
27%
 
OMG, Ninja'd by minutes. :p

Echoes of Clinton's bravery under fire:

National Review via Yahoo (slants GOP) We Need to Talk about Joe Biden
Joe Biden is a plagiarist and a liar, among other things. In the most recent example, detailed by the Washington Post, Biden made up a story in which he as vice president displayed personal courage and heroism in traveling to a dangerous war zone in order to recognize the service of an American soldier who had distinguished himself in a particularly dramatic way. It was a moving story. “This is the God’s truth,” he concluded. “My word as a Biden.”...

But his word as a Biden isn’t worth squat, as the Post showed, reporting that “Biden got the time period, the location, the heroic act, the type of medal, the military branch and the rank of the recipient wrong, as well as his own role in the ceremony.” Which is a nice way of saying: Biden lied about an act of military heroism in order to aggrandize his own role in the story.

Like Hillary Rodham Clinton under fictitious sniper fire, Biden highlighted his own supposed courage in the face of physical danger: “We can lose a vice president. We can’t lose many more of these kids.”
Click to expand...

He'll get killed on this **** regardless the other choice is the liar in chief.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom