2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mother Jones has an article about how unfair the Iowa caucuses are. It's mostly what you'd expect, but I did find some interesting tidbits. For example did you know that not all the Iowa caucuses are going to be held in Iowa?

But the ones that aren’t in the state illustrate how the nice-sounding goal of expanding participation can easily create new forms of unequal access. Iowans living out of state volunteered to create and host the events; about a third are in places in Arizona, California, and Florida—communities popular with snowbirds, including a country club house, a resort, and a beachfront condo building. Three will take place in buildings affiliated with Ivy League universities. There’s one in Glasgow, and one in Tbilisi, Georgia—yes, a that’s a satellite caucus in a former Soviet satellite in the Caucasus—but none in Mexico City, London, or anywhere in Africa, Asia, or South America.
Click to expand...

There will be a change in the reported numbers:

The clearest boost to transparency will be the release of three official sets of numbers: Not just, as the state party has always made available, the smaller number of how many local delegates each candidate won on caucus night, but also much larger headcounts of caucus-going Iowans’ first and final choices. This could create the impression of two, or even three, separate winners on caucus night, triggering a debate about who really “won.”
Click to expand...
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Sanders is more popular with Democrats" is not proof of anything.

And Sanders just inched ahead of Biden in the last week or so. He's been second or even third since they started polling. Funny how the polls don't matter until the brief moment when your guy is in the lead.
Click to expand...

To be honest, hand wringing about primary polls is about to become irrelevant. Real voting starts soon.

Some people have speculated that Biden's popularity is in part due to his image as the frontrunner. A solid Bernie win in Iowa and New Hampshire might cause some second thoughts, especially if other centrist candidates sap his support.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Neither have Pete or Klobuchar but they live in hope.
Click to expand...

It's probably (almost surely) a UL but there's a recent meme of a crying politician from some country with the caption explaining that in the election he only got 8 votes and has 10 children of voting age (or something to that effect.)
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
"Sanders is more popular with Democrats" is not proof of anything.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the very point we were discussing? Amazing that you have to say it again.

And Sanders just inched ahead of Biden in the last week or so. He's been second or even third since they started polling. Funny how the polls don't matter until the brief moment when your guy is in the lead.
Click to expand...

Just like climate change deniers! ;)
 
I miss the days when John Ashcroft losing a Senate race, as an incumbent, to a Democrat who had been dead for 3 weeks on election night was the weirdest thing in politics.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Because I've yet to meet a Pete or Klobuchar supporter, much less a fervent one.

It's really down to Biden, Warren (maybe since she seems to have oddly cooled way off recently), and Sanders.
Click to expand...

Klobuchar was endorsed by the NYTimes, though they kinda spiked their own credibility by endorsing two candidates at once.

People have been attacking Bernie the entire election, including when his polling was much lower.

Warren, Pete, and Klobuchar all are less "electable" by all polling indications, yet the pundit class never complained like they do for Sanders.

It's almost as if their attacks are in bad faith.
 
Belz... said:
I don't remember him saying anything like that. I suppose it'd be pointless to ask you to quote him?

Let me save you some time: if you think "progressive candidates do more poorly in the general" is saying "if a candidate does well with progressive voters he will lose", then the issue isn't with dudalb.
Click to expand...


Why would you think it would be pointless to ask? :rolleyes:

Here ya go:

dudalb said:
What just happened just show how important it is that the Dems make removing Trump from office their first,and only, priority. All else is secondary.
If the Democrats nominate somebody who will hand Trump reelection on a silver platter..and I am looking at your, Bernie...they will be guilty of stupidity on a mounmentla level.
Click to expand...
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
People have been attacking Bernie the entire election, including when his polling was much lower.
Click to expand...

Because this isn't the first time we've been through this with Sanders and... his fervent supporters.

Maybe if we weren't still fighting insane conspiracy theories about the 2016 primaries being "rigged" (which I still argue is a stupid concept to even introduce in the concept of a primary which but that's another topic) we wouldn't so hostile to him.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
You know... and this, believe it or not, is 100% honest.

I'm at the end of my rope here in being branding the on call "pessimist" in political threads.

I'm not "thinking the Democrats will lose." I'm scared that the Democrats will lose because every single factor that lead to Trump winning in 2016 is still there yet their response to everything is "Keep doing the same but more so."

Trump was a reaction to whitebread flyover American being talked into the idea that the evil liberal socialist takeover of America was gonna happen any day. Maybe, just maybe, adjust for that.
Click to expand...


Man, you are oversimplifying it so so much.

Guess What, Part One: That pretty much describes every presidential election for literally decades.

Guess What, Part Two: They didn't all go against the candidate labeled "socialist".

Feel better?

Probably not.

You thrive on Negativity.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Sanders is more popular with Democrats" is not proof of anything.
Click to expand...


There you go with that same strawman again. :rolleyes:

Current polls shows Sanders with a lead over Trump in the general electorate.


IE, not just Democrats. :rolleyes:
 
Cabbage said:
Current polls shows Sanders with a lead over Trump in the general electorate.
Click to expand...

Again Sanders have been second or third (often distantly) until like a week or so ago.

You ignored the polls until your boy got in the lead and now want to treat them as Holy Writ.

You're picking and choosing data.

Or let me put it this way. If Sanders drops back below Biden next week are you gonna change your mind or will the polls magically not count anymore?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because this isn't the first time we've been through this with Sanders and... his fervent supporters.

Maybe if we weren't still fighting insane conspiracy theories about the 2016 primaries being "rigged" (which I still argue is a stupid concept to even introduce in the concept of a primary which but that's another topic) we wouldn't so hostile to him.
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with electability? My point is that I suspect these attacks of being unelectable are bad faith. These centrists just don't like Bernie and oppose his politics. That's fine, but dressing that up as "unelectable" is disingenuous.
 
JoeMorgue said:
You ignored the polls until your boy got in the lead and now want to treat them as Holy Writ.

You're picking and choosing data.

Or let me put it this way. If Sanders drops back below Biden next week are you gonna change your mind or will the polls magically not count anymore?
Click to expand...


I am referring to Sanders/Trump polls. Sanders has always been in the lead there.

I'm struggling to see how Sanders/Biden polls are indicative in any way of how Sanders would do against Trump.


ETA: I'm not claiming Sanders is a shoe in for the Democratic nomination. Biden may win. Warren may win. I don't know. My position is and always has been: None of you claiming that Sanders would automatically lose to Trump in the general (assuming Sanders wins the nomination) have the evidence to back your position up.

Not one of you.
 
Last edited:
Cabbage said:
Why would you think it would be pointless to ask?
Click to expand...

Because usually, when I just ask, people find ways to avoid providing quotes. I'm glad my specific wording brought about the expected result.

Here ya go:
Click to expand...

However, the quote is not equivalent in any way to what you claimed. Dudalb is saying Bernie would lose. He said nothing about his popularity among progressives. I think you're just adding connections and implications where none exist.
 
Last edited:
The "Bernie is not electable" attack has always been hollow. Bernie polls 2nd, close behind Biden and ahead of the rest, in "vs Trump polls". Those that poll worse in these matchups have not had the same criticism applied by these pundits and political elites.

It's a bad faith attack, a post-hoc rationalization for their opposition to Bernie, his followers, and his politics. They wish to hang this "unelectable" smear around Bernie's neck to scare away potential voters.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom