|
Who do you want to be the 2020 Democratic Nominee? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe "the liberal who fights busing" Biden |
|
27 | 1.40% |
| Bernie "please don't die" Sanders |
|
1017 | 52.69% |
| Cory "charter schools" Booker |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Kirsten "wall street" Gillibrand |
|
24 | 1.24% |
| Kamala "truancy queen" Harris |
|
59 | 3.06% |
| Julian "who?" Castro |
|
7 | 0.36% |
| Tulsi "gay panic" Gabbard |
|
25 | 1.30% |
| Michael "crimes crimes crimes" Avenatti |
|
22 | 1.14% |
| Sherrod "discount bernie" Brown |
|
21 | 1.09% |
| Amy "horrible boss" Klobuchar |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Tammy "stands for america" Duckworth |
|
48 | 2.49% |
| Beto "whataburger" O'Rourke |
|
32 | 1.66% |
| Elizabeth "instagram beer" Warren |
|
284 | 14.72% |
| Tom "impeach please" Steyer |
|
4 | 0.21% |
| Michael "soda is the devil" Bloomberg |
|
9 | 0.47% |
| Joseph Stalin |
|
287 | 14.87% |
| Howard "coffee republican" Schultz |
|
10 | 0.52% |
Jay "nobody cares about climate change  " Inslee |
|
13 | 0.67% |
| Pete "gently caress the homeless" Butt Man |
|
17 | 0.88% |
| Total: | 1930 votes | ||
|
Pinterest Mom posted:The Buttigieg take of "anything we say on policy doesn't matter - we have to focus on fixing the institutions", I guess. Again, how? If "work across the aisle" and "engage enough people who aren't democrats to come to your side" are both so hopelessly naive, what is the option? I am not debating whether either of those are actually possible (though I tend to have far more hope for Bernie's approach than Biden's). But how do you "fix the institutions," or get all those fancy Warren proposals passed, in the current political context?
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:70% of their sample was over 45. In the 2016 primary electorate, ~61% were over 45. People have aged since then (despite the demographic changes in the parties, the Dem party is still aging on average). It's a bit of an oversample, but not dramatic. Yeah I mean what we're relying on for Bernie to win is a surge in younger turnout in the Democratic primary but there's no way to estimate just what the age breakdown is going to be in this primary, the best guess pollsters can use is using past primaries as a guide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:70% of their sample was over 45. In the 2016 primary electorate, ~61% were over 45. People have aged since then (despite the demographic changes in the parties, the Dem party is still aging on average). It's a bit of an oversample, but not dramatic. Not saying they're completely wrong or anything; I have no doubt that Biden is in the lead and would win if we voted tomorrow. But I would posit that, continuing on from 2018, younger voters are going to be a larger share of the cohort this time around and a poll that doesn't reflect that potential reality isn't telling the whole story. Also I get grumpy whenever a poll lacks a sample that permits cross tabs. Give me my cross tabs. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I'm saying that the theory "Warren is just lying and adopting popular leftist policies to win votes" is undercut by "Warren hasn't adopted the leftist policy that polls the best and is the most broadly popular". If your goal is "say a bunch of leftist stuff to win votes", you *start* with M4A, which is what other bullshitter candidates are doing. Like either Warren is REALLY stupid when it comes reading polls, or there's something else happening (like she is deeply skeptical of large public works programs on an ideological level). You could make the same argument about Obama, his 2008 campaign wasn't perfectly calculated to triangulate the highest-polled stance on every last issue, therefore he must definitely be sincere about fighting for a public option and card check (narrator: "he wasn't"). There are plenty of alternative explanations for Warren's M4A stance, if you really need me to lay them out I will. You're trying to do this thing where you assume politicians share your estimates of policy and polling and then try to deduce what they're thinking secretly in their heart by applying game theory to their actions, and it doesn't work because that's not how humans work. Remember when you compared everyone who didn't trust the Chicago PD to 9/11 truthers because it wouldn't be in the cops' long-term enlightened rational self-interest to lie and fake evidence in a high profile case against someone rich enough to fight back? And yet it turned out they did exactly that because surprise cops are humans with all the biases and reasoning errors of meat-brains evolved to spot predators on the savanna and find the ripe fruit in the trees; they're not hyperrational robots flawlessly executing their Nash perfect subgame equilibrium strategy. Did you learn nothing from that, when the people you accused of being Alex Jones crazy turned out to be right all along? (E: before a million racists/homophobes dog-pile me, I'm not saying I know for a fact Smollet didn't fake the attack, I'm saying we know for a fact that the cops fabricated all the evidence that he did it. It remains theoretically possible that he did do it, but the cops couldn't prove it so they faked it to put away the guy they "knew" "had to" be guilty. Don't @ me) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Apr 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Bernie needs a historically unreliable voting base to become reliable to win, which I think he actually has a good chance at doing, but he's going to need some of these other milquetoast Dems like Beto/Harris/Butt to step the gently caress up and stop sucking so bad that they actually siphon some Biden votes away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:Bernie needs a historically unreliable voting base to become reliable to win, which I think he actually has a good chance at doing, but he's going to need some of these other milquetoast Dems like Beto/Harris/Butt to step the gently caress up and stop sucking so bad that they actually siphon some Biden votes away. Part of the problem is Democratic primary voters are so stupid they think the biggest loser in presidencial politics is the most electable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:This is normal and the responsible thing to do Yes, but it's also reasonable to question their turnout model, which is the most unreliable component of polling and is basically just someone's hunch. It's reasonable to say that if primary turnout is similar to 2016 Biden is the front-runner, but hey assuming static turnout has failed many times so it's also reasonable to say that anyone telling you Biden is inevitable is full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:44
|
|
. Most Dem primary voters are over 50!
|
joepinetree posted:Again, how? If "work across the aisle" and "engage enough people who aren't democrats to come to your side" are both so hopelessly naive, what is the option? I'm not sure! I think a possible avenue is "win the Senate, prioritize DC+PR statehood, voting rights, then burn the court system down and then see how things shake out", but I have no idea how effective that would be. It's more of a plan than "Lamar Alexander, now there's someone I like to hang out with" or "we're going to have a political revolution", but it does mean that the first few years don't deliver anything materially tangible. I don't think there are any good answers here. I think nihilism towards what's doable in the legislative context should lead people to Warren, though. She's the only person running who has the skills and inclination to do conduct bureaucratic trench warfare, which might be the main tool the next Democratic president has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
Radish posted:Part of the problem is Democratic primary voters are so stupid they think the biggest loser in presidencial politics is the most electable. Dem primary voters have only had their fingers on the pulse twice in my lifetime, Bill Clinton and Obama. They consistently don't have any clue what the gently caress is going on in the country at a given moment the vast majority of the time because most of them are comfortable enough to be able to ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I think nihilism towards what's doable in the legislative context should lead people to Warren, though. She's the only person running who has the skills and inclination to do conduct bureaucratic trench warfare lmbo I'm sure Republicans will change their tune once they read this white paper. E: The only way to win is to win like LBJ, run on a bold program, convince voters, and get elected with a substantial majority. Then implement your agenda with pure might. That's it. There is no other way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:Dem primary voters have only had their fingers on the pulse twice in my lifetime, Bill Clinton and Obama. They consistently don't have any clue what the gently caress is going on in the country at a given moment the vast majority of the time because most of them are comfortable enough to be able to ignore it. Al Gore won in 2000. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
The scariest thing to me isn’t just that Bernie needs younger turnout, but that he needs unified younger turnout. Biden’s biggest strength is that he’s positioned himself as the Boomer candidate and has the over-50 vote sewn up, while the under-50 demo is split between a whole lot of candidates. Biden is reaping the benefits of a divided field as much, if not more so, than Bernie
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Al Gore won in 2000. Who cares, he was still a bad choice. Having your finger on the pulse of the electorate doesn't equate to "won by 500 votes in Florida"
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:lmbo LBJ could also physically intimidate Senators in the halls and have loud conversations about his huge hog before asking why they weren't letting black people vote. A different time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:LBJ could also physically intimidate Senators in the halls and have loud conversations about his huge hog before asking why they weren't letting black people vote. A different time. Trump is basically doing this now but in reverse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:The Buttigieg take of "anything we say on policy doesn't matter - we have to focus on fixing the institutions", I guess. He reframed this on the Daily Show yesterday (sucessfully). He's "establishing context" for the policy papers that are to come. You all know I like him. But even I think he's only got about a month for "to come" to become here they are. That's the one that "sticks" if he doesn't respond to it fully. Decision window is pretty drat short for politics, if he takes too long he'll miss it. All the other criticisms he can make go away by being in public, I don't think they stick. Personally i think this is because they are distortions that dont hold up to exposure to the actual person. He explictly talk about leadership as being-for-others, in a way the showed he really fully understands it and that the challenge is to communicate it. My wife went from Warren to Pete last night. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Apr 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:LBJ could also physically intimidate Senators in the halls and have loud conversations about his huge hog before asking why they weren't letting black people vote. A different time. I'm talking about Medicare, which was a real threat to corporations in a way that segregation wasn't, and which failed again and again until LBJ won huge liberal congressional majorities in 1964 that had the might to force it through regardless of what conservative Dems and Republicans thought about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're trying to do this thing where you assume politicians share your estimates of policy and polling and then try to deduce what they're thinking secretly in their heart by applying game theory to their actions, and it doesn't work because that's not how humans work. Remember when you compared everyone who didn't trust the Chicago PD to 9/11 truthers because it wouldn't be in the cops' long-term enlightened rational self-interest to lie and fake evidence in a high profile case against someone rich enough to fight back? And yet it turned out they did exactly that because surprise cops are humans with all the biases and reasoning errors of meat-brains evolved to spot predators on the savanna and find the ripe fruit in the trees; they're not hyperrational robots flawlessly executing their Nash perfect subgame equilibrium strategy. Did you learn nothing from that, when the people you accused of being Alex Jones crazy turned out to be right all along? We really need to abandon the rational actor model in politics and society in general. I've seen it used all across the political spectrum for everything from defending Assad ("why would he gas his own people, he's winning the war!") to defending Trump ("You see, by destroying American agriculture, Trump is playing chess, while everyone else is playing checkers") to defending a variety of odious decisions by neolibs ("By caving into Republican demands to show their hypocrisy, Obama was secretly trying to win a moral victory"). Some of it is clearly just deflective partisan ideology, but some of it is the more deeply ingrained propaganda around the Homo Economicus - the rational decision maker of capitalist economics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm talking about Medicare, which was a real threat to corporations in a way that segregation wasn't, and which failed again and again until LBJ won huge liberal congressional majorities in 1964 that had the might to force it through regardless of what conservative Dems and Republicans thought about it. The difference is that in 1964, Americans reacted to Republicans nominating a crazy racist reactionary rear end in a top hat by voting for liberals en masse while in 2016 they elected the crazy racist reactionary rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I think nihilism towards what's doable in the legislative context should lead people to Warren, though. She's the only person running who has the skills and inclination to do conduct bureaucratic trench warfare, which might be the main tool the next Democratic president has. Shame about that polling, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Isn't using 1964 as a baseline for Dems kind of like using 2002 as a model for Republicans? There was a national outpouring of goodwill towards the party for reasons beyond political control. Maybe LBJ’s civil rights platform is popular without the memory of JFK hanging over the election, but it can’t just be ignored.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
"This man with no history of doing for others, truly understands doing for others."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1123200189265797120?s=20
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Biden has been building relationships with unions and black communities for years, where Bernie was essentially a local Vermont phenomenon until 2016. Purity tests only matter for a specific type of online Dems. Joe "RaHoWa" Biden
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
the people all-in on mayor pete are way weirder to me than the biden backers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
I'm not convinced that Biden's poll bump is anything but a big rush of name recognition and nostalgia for Obama from the announcement. Biden is clearly the frontrunner (even without this bump) , but let us see how much of this bump sticks before panicking. There's still a lot of time in the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:We really need to abandon the rational actor model in politics and society in general. I've seen it used all across the political spectrum for everything from defending Assad ("why would he gas his own people, he's winning the war!") to defending Trump ("You see, by destroying American agriculture, Trump is playing chess, while everyone else is playing checkers") to defending a variety of odious decisions by neolibs ("By caving into Republican demands to show their hypocrisy, Obama was secretly trying to win a moral victory"). Some of it is clearly just deflective partisan ideology, but some of it is the more deeply ingrained propaganda around the Homo Economicus - the rational decision maker of capitalist economics. Yeah I think it's also responsible for people misunderstanding money in politics. If you point out a politician is taking money from an industry and therefore they'll be more inclined toward that industry's interests people react like you're accusing that politician of being mustache-twirling evil, secretly cackling to themselves as they lie and lie and lie. When the mundane reality is that people engage in motivated reasoning and if the people funding your campaign come with reasonable-sounding arguments for why what they want is actually in the country's best interest it's very easy to rationalize yourself into agreeing with them because hey you need to win don't you, they've got the cash, but you're not selling out you're a good person just accepting a sound argument from an ally right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
That’s a disastrously bad poll, Bernie needs to be handily winning NH
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:That’s a disastrously bad poll, Bernie needs to be handily winning NH Funny how your "don't read too much into one poll" mentality goes flying out the window whenever it suits you. It's April 30th of 2019. quote:The 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary is expected to take place on Tuesday, February 11, 2020, as the second nominating contest in the Democratic Party presidential primaries for the 2020 presidential election, following the Iowa caucuses the week before. We all knew Biden was going to get an announcement bump just like everyone else did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Funny how your "don't read too much into one poll" mentality goes flying out the window whenever it suits you. Weird how you didn’t say anything a week ago when I said “wow this Emerson poll is great for Bernie” Saying “poll X is good” or “poll Y is bad” is not reading too much into it, Jesus Christ, it’s just literally describing the poll (And for the record the really bad part of that poll isn’t Biden, it’s Buttigieg tied with Bernie in his 2nd most favorable state)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Pakled posted:The difference is that in 1964, Americans reacted to Republicans nominating a crazy racist reactionary rear end in a top hat by voting for liberals en masse while in 2016 they elected the crazy racist reactionary rear end in a top hat. What's the alternative to winning. Convincing Republican congressmen to vote for your ideas because you have a white paper is hopeless. Republicans voted against their own health care and carbon tax plans because a Democrat agreed to pass them. If you don't think winning the country over is possible then it doesn't matter who is president we are hopelessly hosed. Mellow Seas posted:Isn't using 1964 as a baseline for Dems kind of like using 2002 as a model for Republicans? There was a national outpouring of goodwill towards the party for reasons beyond political control. Maybe LBJ’s civil rights platform is popular without the memory of JFK hanging over the election, but it can’t just be ignored. It doesn't matter why, what matters is that it's the only way for a Democrat to pass any policy whatsoever (unless they go Bill Clinton and rubber-stamp Republican legislation). If you think it's impossible to win congressional majorities in favor of overwhelmingly popular policy like M4A and Green New Deal then electoral politics has failed and you should be prepping for uh alternatives to the ballot-box, not navel-gazing over which Democrat will be occupying an ineffective presidency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:He reframed this on the Daily Show yesterday (sucessfully). He's "establishing context" for the policy papers that are to come. You all know I like him. But even I think he's only got about a month for "to come" to become here they are. That's the one that "sticks" if he doesn't respond to it fully. Decision window is pretty drat short for politics, if he takes too long he'll miss it. All the other criticisms he can make go away by being in public, I don't think they stick. Personally i think this is because they are distortions that dont hold up to exposure to the actual person. He explictly talk about leadership as being-for-others, in a way the showed he really fully understands it and that the challenge is to communicate it. My wife went from Warren to Pete last night. I'm going to make a quick prediction about his economic policies. They're all going to be bitshifting, MVT nonsense about : - Retraining - Tax credits - Very mild regulation - Corporate incentives None will fundamentally address the broken parts of the system or propose any heavy regulation or nationalization of any industry. None will fundamentally challenge capitalism, the profit motive, rentiership or consumerism. At best, they'll involve small things to make the lives of a few groups marginally easier. At worst, they're going to blame consumers for the various ills of our society and propose MVT-style solutions to everything ("if only water cost a bit more per gallon, maybe Nestle wouldn't be draining every aquifer"). Basically, another overly-complicated scheme to make sure that everything pretty much remains the way it is. His civic policies may be better, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:the people all-in on mayor pete are way weirder to me than the biden backers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Developing a weird, fanatical fanbase seems to be part and parcel of winning a national election at this point, so Buttgieg is doing the right thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Funny how your "don't read too much into one poll" mentality goes flying out the window whenever it suits you. weird innit hey that reminds me where are all those people who were so interested in Bernie's taxes two weeks ago, maybe they are still too busy rapturously reading every subschedule to talk about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Developing a weird, fanatical fanbase seems to be part and parcel of winning a national election at this point, so Buttgieg is doing the right thing. yeah all those people who thought Hillary Clinton was the Mother Of Dragons carried her to victory right
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Weird how you didn’t say anything a week ago when I said “wow this Emerson poll is great for Bernie” I don't really post "Wow, great point" when I read posts I agree with because that's white noise posting that clogs up the thread. You're the one who always claims to be taking the long haul data-driven view and are more focused on overall trends than reading too much into any one poll, but now all of a sudden you're predicting Bernie will lose New Hampshire. Z. Autobahn posted:That’s a disastrously bad poll, Bernie needs to be handily winning NH I'm just asking for some consistency, Z. Autobahn, you can't claim to be objectively data driven and also start trying to play Nostradamus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:When the mundane reality is that people engage in motivated reasoning and if the people funding your campaign come with reasonable-sounding arguments for why what they want is actually in the country's best interest it's very easy to rationalize yourself into agreeing with them because hey you need to win don't you, they've got the cash, but you're not selling out you're a good person just accepting a sound argument from an ally right. Agreed. The human brain is particularly well-suited (evolved?) for self-rationalization to maintain internal narrative consistency. Anyone will leap through a million mental hoops to avoid fracturing their internal narratives and constructs of themselves. Money just widens those hoops by a significant amount.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
I don’t really get what point you’re trying to make, WampaLord. What do you think Z. autobahn is trying to do with his poll analysis? Why is it a problem? I found that poll relatively concerning, short term; did you not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Agreed. The human brain is particularly well-suited (evolved?) for self-rationalization to maintain internal narrative consistency. Anyone will leap through a million mental hoops to avoid fracturing their internal narratives and constructs of themselves. Money just widens those hoops by a significant amount. Yeah. Game theory isn't even great at predicting human behavior under controlled conditions where every aspect of the game is perfectly known and there's no room for biased reasoning or imperfect information, because people still have motivations that aren't accounted for in the nominal objective of the game (for example "spite" or "justice", which makes people act "irrationally" in the Ultimatum Game yet paradoxically do better than the perfect equilibrium strategy is capable of doing). And in the real word people don't even agree on the rules of the game or the facts at hand or have all the information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:18
|
|