|
I'm sorta expecting Pete "Bread Prices" Buttigieg to have a surprisingly strong finish in Iowa, maybe even climbing into second place at Biden's expense, and getting a bounce from that to become competitive going forward (again, at Biden's expense). Either that or he gets owned in Iowa and drops out before Super Tuesday. But I wouldn't be too surprised if he got a small bounce and gets to hang in there a while longer picking up disaffected Biden supporters.
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
oxsnard posted:This impeachment thing has me more depressed than I thought it would. The good news is that we get another selzer poll tomorrow, the Chiefs win the super bowl on Sunday and then Bernie snags 50% or more of Iowa delegates on Monday I've decided not to really pay any attention to the impeachment trial. We knew going in that the Republicans have decided that Trump is above the law and there was never even the smallest chance of a real trial happening. Watching it unfold won't help anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
Somehow I'm not blocked by the horse despite having insulted him repeatedly in his mentions over the last month or so. Guess I need to try harder.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:shutupshutupshutupshutupshutup I hope she never shuts up because every time she does this it's functionally another cool million for Bernie's campaign
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Also, Cool Nerd Nathan (not Bad Nerd Nate) has an important warning thread This is why I'm bracing for a disappointing surprise in Iowa. We needed to shut out Warren and we didn't seem to get there in time so now we just really really have to hope she underperforms polling.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 17:30
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I would be devastated if the butt took iowa or new hampshire. Is he really doing that well? I want him to lose almost as badly as I want bernie to win. He's polling well in Iowa and nowhere else, to my knowledge. It's unlikely he'd come in first in Iowa unless Biden's support has fallen much more severely than public polling shows. He stands a very good chance of winning delegates, though. Even then, if Biden's support has fallen to the point that he fails to make viability in some places, his support is roughly evenly split between Bernie, Warren, and loving Bloomberg of all people as second choices so a lot of it wouldn't go to Pete necessarily. If Biden crumbles, Bernie's the main beneficiary.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 17:50
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:I'm more worried of scenarios where the first round presents only two viable candidates and Bernie loses a presinct 65/35 or some other margin only possible because a whole bunch of sour grapes flee to not-bernie when their first choice isn't viable. Be more worried about Warren hitting viability. Bernie's a popular second choice for Warren, Yang, Gabbard, and even Biden supporters. In precincts where any of them don't hit viability, their caucusers are possible pickups for Bernie. Meanwhile, Buttigieg and Klobuchar supporters tend to have Biden as their second choice. So, let's say in a precinct, three candidates are viable in the first round: Bernie, Biden, and Warren. This is a bad setup for Bernie. Warren's supporters are locked in and Buttigieg's supporters mostly go to Warren and Biden, probably making Bernie slip into third. But if instead it's Bernie, Biden, and Buttigieg who are viable in the first round, this is great for Bernie, because he picks up most of the Warren supporters and Buttigieg's are locked in to support him. But it's also not quite that simple. Non-viable candidates can band together to make one of them viable. In that first scenario (Bernie, Biden, and Warren viable) it's possible that Buttigieg's caucusers are able to convince Klobuchar supporters to go to them instead of teaming up to go to Biden, which could net Buttigieg a delegate and then have it split four ways rather than handing anyone a clear victory. What I'm saying is that caucuses are loving wild and as much as I'm prone to arzy over their outcomes, the fact is we really can't predict how it'll go.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:I predict that Buttigieg will place ahead of Biden because his campaign staff is filled with same exact type of rules lawyering pols that understand the caucus system. Here's hoping, because that's just the kind of embarrassment that would send Biden's numbers elsewhere into freefall.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
overmind2000 posted:Have any of the Iowa polls included a question about how likely people are to leave if their candidate is nonviable in the first round? I feel like that's a possibility that gets overlooked. Yeah, though I can't find it right now. I saw it in a poll last week. The only thing I clearly remembered is that like 50% of Tulsi supporters plan to leave if she isn't viable lol
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
PepsiOverCoke posted:Can you show a link with the second choice thing? What I"m seeing a lot of is Buttigieg being the second choice of almost everyone, followed by Warren. And second choices for Buttigeig were Warren or Sanders, not Biden. I will have to dig for those polls though I think they were from like November/December. The rest is anecdotal from talking to people here and gauging things like yard signs, social media discussions, etc. This isn't Iowa-specific but: https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/ It shows that Biden supporters are about equally split between Bernie, Warren, and (lol) Bloomberg as their second choice, with Bernie in the lead. A third of Warren supporters have Bernie as their second choice, followed by Biden, and then Pete and Klob tied for third. The last actual Iowa poll I saw with second choices showed like 50% of Warren supporters having Bernie as their second choice, same for Yang supporters, but I can't find that one right now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
The other thing is that all of this isn't just done in wordless silence with people just shuffling around a room. Supporters can and will try to make the case for their candidate and convince people to their side. People who are only soft supporters of one candidate can even be convinced to caucus for another in the first round, though who knows whether that'll happen in any meaningful number. And of all the "polling above viability" candidates, Bernie's support is the most committed, and Biden's the least.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
I think they're just throwing it out
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:2- the results were outliers in such a way that they were concerned about their credibility if they were wrong. Given that it was a campaign complaining, it likely was a case where the results for that campaign were much worse than expected and so they were afraid that if they got it massively wrong, they'd get called out pretty openly. Like, they wouldn't be spiking it if it showed Buttigied way ahead of other polls, because they wouldn't be called out by the Buttigieg campaign after the fact if they got it wrong. But in the other direction... Completely hypothetical question: would there ever be a reason for a campaign to want to spike a poll that shows them unrealistically ahead? Let's say Pete's internal polling is fairly consistent and a poll shows up that's a clear outlier with him way ahead. His campaign knows he'd vastly underperform that poll which would look bad. Would they want to bury that poll or would the good press in the moment be worth the risk? This is just out of curiosity, not because I think it's realistic, really.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:They would not bury a good poll. No way. It was definitely bad for team Butt's narrative Oh I don't think it's a realistic scenario I'm just sort of curious if there would ever be a reason to bury a poll that was a clear outlier that you knew you'd wildly underperform. But maybe that wouldn't happen anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:At this point, absolutely not. The good press in the moment would be incredibly valuable right now, because polling well helps convince voters that the candidate is viable, which will have a positive impact on the actual voting. It's the same reason Iowa and NH are make-or-break moments - performing well helps convince voters that a candidate is capable of performing well, which increases their confidence that the candidate is worth picking. Yeah, that makes sense. People like winners so the perception of winning increases your chance of winning.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
They gotta know how fishy this poll thing looks right
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 06:54
|
|
|
Is their argument that his campaign announcing a strong showing in the first round will influence the second round? We knew going into this that the first round results would be publicly announced so it's not like Bernie's campaign is going to be revealing any information they're not allowed to. Kinda sounds like they're being a bunch of whiners.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2020 15:32
|
|
|
Awful CompSloth posted:It'll actually be pretty bad if Warren gets second place. If she stays in for Super Tuesday then she's gonna sap votes from Bernie and could cause him to not get a majority. Make no mistakes, she wants to be Bidens VP and to be president in 2024. Yeah, these polls showing Warren gaining have been worrying. Warren being in and reasonably strong on Super Tuesday would be really bad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
gandlethorpe posted:I'm a little concerned that anyone still in the Yang boat at this point would even consider changing their vote. They might just leave, after being told for like the 50th time they can't still vote for Yang. Something like 50% of Yang supporters report Bernie as their second choice. Apparently it's the Tulsi fans who are most likely to just go home.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2020 05:51
|
|
|
Donut Twitter is motivated almost entirely by spite. They were KHive before there was KHive
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:How is butt going to "gain momentum" into Nevada? Reid's political machine could've probably rallied the restaurant union for Biden, but there's no way they can pull it off for the butt. That's a solid 5-10% of voters who are all but guaranteed to go to Bernie in overwhelming numbers He doesn't need to win literally every early state, though. He can take a hit in Nevada if he has the narrative that he came from nowhere and "won" Iowa and New Hampshire in upset victories. If Biden drops out before Super Tuesday that's a ton of "I just want the safe white moderate" support he can hoover up and maybe take a couple Super Tuesday states, too. If he loses in New Hampshire that story's a lot harder to sell, but gently caress I just have this creeping, horrible feeling that he's gonna somehow pull it off there. Of course the big elephant in the room is the contested convention. Pete and Bloomberg don't need to win--they just need Bernie not to win. I don't think anyone serious thinks Pete would walk out of the convention with the nomination in that case, but I bet he could negotiate himself either a VP pick or some prominent job that he could use to launch a presidential run later.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:You sure about this? People know Iowa was sketch, but we can’t do anything about it. I don't think VitalSigns is saying "Iowa was so obvious that they can't do it again." Rather, they're saying that Iowa was so obvious that if they keep doing it, even soft/moderate Bernie supporters and maybe even some Warren supporters will permanently lose their trust in the Democrats and their nominee is even more likely to be crushed by Trump when they can't whip up the enthusiasm they need to get people to come vote.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
Chef Boyardeez Nuts posted:My theory on Bloomberg and Steyer is that money can buy support, but the kind of support it buys is the Joe Biden "yeah I know that dude" soft-as-poo poo variety. It will hold with a voter absent any other information but will collapse when poo poo gets real and other candidates come to town. Has there been any South Carolina polling post-Iowa? I'm curious to see if Biden's collapse is feeding Steyer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
Chinese Gordon posted:Disputing it also doesn't help. It sucks, but the thing to do is move on and win NH and NV convincingly. I might agree with this if there weren't well-documented and highly public errors that even the New York Times is reporting on. If the errors were more obscure then calling for a recanvass might look like sore loser behavior, but given that even mainstream media are willing to report on the still-uncorrected errors, I don't think it looks that way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
Cowcaster posted:some of the mainstream media. some of them have been more than happy to declare unequivocally that butt won uncontested. Isn't that just CNN at this point?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 18:07
|
|