|
Who will you vote for in 2020? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biden |
|
425 | 18.06% |
| Trump |
|
105 | 4.46% |
| whoever the Green Party runs |
|
307 | 13.05% |
| GOOGLE RON PAUL |
|
151 | 6.42% |
| Bernie Sanders |
|
346 | 14.70% |
| Stalin |
|
246 | 10.45% |
| Satan |
|
300 | 12.75% |
| Nobody |
|
202 | 8.58% |
| Jess Scarane |
|
110 | 4.67% |
| mystery man Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party |
|
61 | 2.59% |
| Dick Nixon |
|
100 | 4.25% |
| Total: | 2089 votes | ||
|
Pick posted:The official Drumpf position is that militarizing the police is good and reduces crime. 1.) Trump and his supporters don't ever hold him accountable for anything he says. 2.) Trump talked about it, but the Obama administration actually did it, to a disturbing degree.
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
Pick posted:Biden did not succeed in 2008, but he was selected for the Vice Presidency based on his performance and popularity. He was considered an asset to Obama, and his debate performance against Palin was a significant win in the Obama campaign. Biden’s “performance and popularity” was enough to earn him zero delegates in 2008. He had less popularity in the 2008 primary than Tulsi Gabbard had this year.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:Every presidential campaign he's ever had has imploded due to scandals. I'm not familiar with the scandal you are referring to in 2008. In 1988, the plagiarism scandal cost Biden his campaign. This scandal is so quaint now, that Trump hasn't even been able to use it and I'm not sure if he's ever mentioned it. Again, it was hardly crippling; if anything, that his peak support in the Senate elections occurred immediately after this scandal (in Senate terms, it was 1990) suggests that the electorate did not find it especially damning. By "key states" and "clear preference", I mean every swing state except New Hampshire (where his later rival, Sanders, underperformed as well, receiving 25.6%) and also most of the other ones.  In dark blue, I've marked the swing states Biden won, and in red, the swing state Sanders won. Though that doesn't show the margins, in some cases they are overwhelming--for example, Biden received 6.18% to Sander's 22.8% in Florida. It would be highly irregular to give the general election candidacy to a candidate who lost so severely, and across the states that need to be won to succeed in the general election. The above map is ultimately reflective of things we knew as early as mid-2019, including Biden's popularity with the Democratic electorate. 
Pick fucked around with this message at 19:17 on May 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Pick posted:It's not clear that this is likely to change voter preferences in swing states. The coverage in The Atlantic and Mother Jones is not supportive, but what percentage of suburban Wisconsinites would be likely to change their vote as a result of better understanding the contents of a crime bill that is over a quarter-century old, especially when the opposition is not opposed to this particular legislation either? It has a complicated legacy that has not been polled well among the general population. Voter turnout will be massively depressed by a pandemic, an economic depression, etc. Who cares what suburban Wisconsinites feel? You're going to be losing votes in the urban areas at an astonishing rate in those swing states. Saying a tough on crime stance worked with Trump is asinine precisely because of the people you're losing by being "tough on crime" as a Democrat. Having no major differentiator between Biden and Trump is the disadvantage. You've completely misread the situation and the post.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Pick posted:Primary candidate Bernie Sanders relied on this strategy and could not get more young person votes than Biden got old person votes, so Biden won the primary. Because primary votes are taken to be indicative of general election voting and preferences, the strategy is to use the person with the strategy that worked to get votes instead of the strategy that didn't work to get votes, because elections are decided by who has more votes than the other candidate. You're just conceding that Biden is doomed to fail, because the old vote is not sufficient to get him over the finish line. If young people cannot truly be reached, then it is over. You need something to get you over that hump and you aren't going to be making it up anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Voter turnout will be massively depressed by a pandemic, an economic depression, etc. Who cares what suburban Wisconsinites feel? You're going to be losing votes in the urban areas at an astonishing rate in those swing states. Saying a tough on crime stance worked with Trump is asinine precisely because of the people you're losing by being "tough on crime" as a Democrat. Having no major differentiator between Biden and Trump is the disadvantage. You've completely misread the situation and the post. There's no evidence voter turnout will be depressed because, among other things, we don't know for certain how many states will successfully institute vote by mail--an enormous wildcard in the election. There's also no evidence that urban voters are more afraid of the pandemic than suburban voters.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
Pick posted:There's no evidence voter turnout will be depressed because, among other things, we don't know for certain how many states will successfully institute vote by mail--an enormous wildcard in the election. There's also no evidence that urban voters are more afraid of the pandemic than suburban voters. You don't need evidence to assert that a pandemic and economic downturn will depress voter turn out. You need common sense. Vote by mail is largely irrelevant because most people will not bother to set it up for themselves and Biden has no infrastructure to achieve this. If you don't think people dying in the cities by the thousands has had an impact on people's psyche, then you aren't thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Judakel posted:You're just conceding that Biden is doomed to fail, because the old vote is not sufficient to get him over the finish line. If young people cannot truly be reached, then it is over. You need something to get you over that hump and you aren't going to be making it up anywhere else. The youth vote isn't necessary, or Trump would not have won, where Trump did not win the youth vote--Clinton did. Trump is not ahead in the youth vote currently, or with the elderly. So that is bad because that is both kinds of people (old people, and people who are not old).  Also I found the quote from earlier, quote:JAMES CARVILLE: First of all, I -- I won't mention names so I don't get any number of calls from panicked congressional incumbents. I know what's happening out there, I got a real good idea. The entire theory that by expanding the electorate is a -- increasing turnout so you can win an election is similar to a climate denial. When people say that, they're as stupid to a political scientist as a climate denier is to an atmospheric scientist. We did witness young people not turn out enough to vote for Sanders for Sanders to win, so it doesn't follow that more would inherently turn up in the general election. If so, young people need to understand that they need to be vote to be treated like voters. Pick fucked around with this message at 19:25 on May 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
welp, we're getting a preview of the line the biden administration will use against anti-police protestors this "outside agitator" poo poo being breathlessly repeated by the libs makes me want to vomit
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Pick posted:The youth vote isn't necessary, or Trump would not have won, where Trump did not win the youth vote--Clinton did. Trump is not ahead in the youth vote currently, or with the elderly. So that is bad because that is both kinds of people (old people, and people who are not old). The Democrats rely on youth turnout to get them over humps. The Republicans do not. The Republican base is a lot older than the Democratic one. It is a huge part of the reason that the Democratic Party is a dying party. The most reliable voters are simply not theirs.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
The analysis that “this voting group can’t be required to win, because the other party doesn’t need it to win!” has to be a joke right? That’s like saying Biden doesn’t need to win California because Trump won 2016 without it. I’m not sure how this argument could be advanced without a complete lack of understanding of how elections work.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Judakel posted:The Democrats rely on youth turnout to get them over humps. The Republicans do not. The Republican base is a lot older than the Democratic one. It is a huge part of the reason that the Democratic Party is a dying party. The most reliable voters are simply not theirs. They don't need "the youth vote". They need votes. Ultimately it won't matter where they come from. If Biden is ahead with all age demographics--as he currently is--then any combination of ages of participants in the electorate will result in more votes, thus winning.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Judakel posted:The Democrats rely on youth turnout to get them over humps. The Republicans do not. The Republican base is a lot older than the Democratic one. It is a huge part of the reason that the Democratic Party is a dying party. The most reliable voters are simply not theirs. Indeed, Biden is uniquely poor at inspiring them, not least as he had a pretty significant role in the ruination of that generation. It ain't worth risking bringing home a winter wave to vote for that, whereas the chuds will never be deterred. quote:this "outside agitator" poo poo being breathlessly repeated by the libs makes me want to vomit I am not looking forward to seeing how they take a poor black youth turnout. quote:They don't need "the youth vote". They need votes. Ultimately it won't matter where they come from. If Biden is ahead with all age demographics--as he currently is--then any combination of ages of participants in the electorate will result in more votes, thus winning. All you are saying is that you have a PV win, not that you have an electoral win. And dems only win when the base is energized. It isn't likely to be the case.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Pick posted:They don't need "the youth vote". They need votes. Ultimately it won't matter where they come from. If Biden is ahead with all age demographics--as he currently is--then any combination of ages of participants in the electorate will result in more votes, thus winning. What an asinine post. The youth vote is the only pool of disinterested voters you have any chance of mobilizing. No one else cares enough about anything. That point has been extremely clear for a while now both in this thread and the real world. Biden can be ahead in demographics, but it is not looking even as strong as 2016, so it won't be enough. This isn't a popular vote.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
Judakel posted:What an asinine post. The youth vote is the only pool of disinterested voters you have any chance of mobilizing. No one else cares enough about anything. That point has been extremely clear for a while now both in this thread and the real world. Biden can be ahead in demographics, but it is not looking even as strong as 2016, so it won't be enough. This isn't a popular vote. I don't know where you're getting this. Biden is polling better than 2008 Obama over the same period, far above Obama in 2012 over the same period, and is ahead among every age demographic (neither Obama nor Clinton managed this). He is vastly overperforming Clinton in GE polling over 2016.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:31
|
|
|
Judakel posted:What an asinine post. The youth vote is the only pool of disinterested voters you have any chance of mobilizing. No one else cares enough about anything. That point has been extremely clear for a while now both in this thread and the real world. Biden can be ahead in demographics, but it is not looking even as strong as 2016, so it won't be enough. This isn't a popular vote. This election is a race between trump riling folks up to vote against him and Biden energizing them, which isn't good when Trump has a reliable base. quote:I don't know where you're getting this. Biden is polling better than 2008 Obama over the same period, and is ahead among every age demographic (neither Obama nor Clinton managed this). He is vastly overperforming Clinton in GE polling over 2016. By whose polling? I can find, fairly easily, some pretty strong red flags on that front.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:By whose polling? I can find, fairly easily, some pretty strong red flags on that front. Why would you edit out my hyperlinks to ask this.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
Pick posted:Why would you edit out my hyperlinks to ask this. Because I was using copypaste to quote.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:Because I was using copypaste to quote. Well, it has the citations in it. That's what the hyperlinks are. The underlines mean that there is a link to another part of the internet.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
Pick posted:I don't know where you're getting this. Biden is polling better than 2008 Obama over the same period, far above Obama in 2012 over the same period, and is ahead among every age demographic (neither Obama nor Clinton managed this). He is vastly overperforming Clinton in GE polling over 2016. And how is he polling compared to 2016, which was my point? Exactly. This isn't even broken down by demographics, so what use is this in a discussion on the demos you will need to carry you over the hump? You think general polling is going to give you insight into who will win? After 2016?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Judakel posted:And how is he polling compared to 2016, which was my point? Exactly. This isn't even broken down by demographics, so what use is this in a discussion on the demos you will need to carry you over the hump? You think general polling is going to give you insight into who will win? After 2016? Yes. The general election polls were actually as accurate in 2016 as they have been for other general elections. If your stance is that data doesn't matter any more, then you and I have very little to discuss. My analysis and perspectives will be predicated on information.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
The myth that "all you need are votes, from anywhere and these polls show we've got em" will come crashing down fairly quickly when you realize how much enthusiasm varies and how unreliable some people are.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Pick posted:Yes. The general election polls were actually as accurate in 2016 as they have been for other general elections. Not regionally, only nationally. This isn't a popular vote. I say again. 538 doing clean up for their business model is a hell of a sight, though.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
Judakel posted:The myth that "all you need are votes, from anywhere and these polls show we've got em" will come crashing down fairly quickly when you realize how much enthusiasm varies and how unreliable some people are. Yeah, there's a big difference between someone telling you they'll vote for someone over the phone, and them actually making it to a polling location or requesting a mail-in ballot.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
Judakel posted:The myth that "all you need are votes, from anywhere and these polls show we've got em" will come crashing down fairly quickly when you realize how much enthusiasm varies and how unreliable some people are. The 2020 primary experienced elevated turnout that disproportionately turned out members of the most reliable voting blocks (African American women, older women, etc.) where they overwhelmingly voted for Biden.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
Pick posted:The 2020 primary disproportionately turned out members of the most reliable voting blocks (African American women, older women, etc.) where they overwhelmingly voted for Biden. Correct. And these are not enough to get you over the hump, or you wouldn't have Trump. Adding elevated changes nothing. These aren't majorities.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
I refuse to say that a corrupt rapist who will lead this nation to destruction, supports the genocide of the Palestinian people, supports the execution of Americans without trial, wants to worsen income inequality, and will directly cause untold suffering and harm is an acceptable leader. I’m done supporting monsters like that. And as the Democratic Party chooses to continue to support monsters they will continue to become more monstrous themselves. They’re already genocide deniers. That’s just the beginning.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Pick posted:I don't know where you're getting this. Biden is polling better than 2008 Obama over the same period, far above Obama in 2012 over the same period, and is ahead among every age demographic (neither Obama nor Clinton managed this). He is vastly overperforming Clinton in GE polling over 2016. Biden is not ahead among every age demo, that is disproved by an image you posted earlier.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:Yeah, there's a big difference between someone telling you they'll vote for someone over the phone, and them actually making it to a polling location or requesting a mail-in ballot. Hell, we saw this play out back in January with the Iowa caucus where Biden polled much better than he performed.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Not regionally, only nationally. This isn't a popular vote. I say again. 538 doing clean up for their business model is a hell of a sight, though. The regional polls were also fairly accurate, which is why Silver gave Trump about a 30% chance of winning.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
Pick posted:The regional polls were also fairly accurate, which is why Silver gave Trump about a 30% chance of winning. The regional polls were not accurate. Not even fairly. Silver gave Trump a higher chance of winning because his entire model is based around hedging his bets. I mean Jesus, one of the sections in that article is "State polls are more error-prone than national polls". Why are you even bothering to provide links when they contradict you?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
Also it’s another basic mistake about US Presidential politics to say Biden needs votes to win. He needs electoral college votes to win. So that’s why Biden’s lead in California or New York doesn’t help him beat Trump compared to Hillary.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
Eminai posted:Biden is not ahead among every age demo, that is disproved by an image you posted earlier. 50 to 64 is enveloped by the other categories.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Pick posted:The regional polls were also fairly accurate, which is why Silver gave Trump about a 30% chance of winning. Better than the chance he gave Trump in 2016 at this time.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Pick posted:Yes. The general election polls were actually as accurate in 2016 as they have been for other general elections. If you would like to talk about data and information, then what does the data say about the last time a candidate with Biden’s level of enthusiasm among supporters won the general? Does it say never?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also it’s another basic mistake about US Presidential politics to say Biden needs votes to win. He needs electoral college votes to win. But that's not where he's outperforming Clinton. He's outperforming Clinton's polling in the swing states 2016 vs. 2020. If anything, chasing far-left votes in far-left states is the strategy that Clinton used that lost her the election, that Biden is not using. For example, Trump was always ahead in Arizona. Biden has never not been.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
Pick posted:But that's not where he's outperforming Clinton. He's outperforming Clinton's polling in the swing states 2016 vs. 2020. If anything, chasing far-left votes in far-left states is the strategy that Clinton used that lost her the election, that Biden is not using. Clinton didn't do much chasing of far-left votes. Her platform was pretty down the middle.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
Judakel posted:The regional polls were not accurate. Not even fairly. Silver gave Trump a higher chance of winning because his entire model is based around hedging his bets. I mean Jesus, one of the sections in that article is "State polls are more error-prone than national polls". Why are you even bothering to provide links when they contradict you? State polls were accurate to the level state polls are accurate, where predictions have been made about them in the past and are made about them today.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
Pick posted:State polls were accurate to the level state polls are accurate, where predictions have been made about them in the past and are made about them today. That is meaningless drivel. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
Judakel posted:Clinton didn't do much chasing of far-left votes. Her platform was pretty down the middle. Clinton's 2016 was highly idpol-driven which is chasing far-left votes. And she didn't even visit key swing states, with no pandemic, instead visiting states that were further left and already more amenable. One reason you are seeing Biden strategizing differently is having seen the groups Clinton took for granted and how they reacted to being neglected and/or outright insulted.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2020 19:54
|
|