Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Inslee and Hickenlooper out

2019 WR Democratic Straw Poll (Pick Up to 3)

  • John Delaney (US Congressman MD)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jay Islee (Former Governor WA)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Marianne Williamson (Entrepreneur)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wayne Messam (Mayor Miramar, FL)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael Bennet (Senator CO) *Hasn't decided yet*

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bill DeBlasio (Mayor New York, NY) *Hasn't decided yet*

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (Please Post)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Depending on the criteria that you allow for "meddling" or "tampering" and all the hubbub about those darn "Rooskies", wouldn't you be able to charge Canada, Mexico, and all of Europe for tampering in the Gore-Bush election in favour of Gore?
I'm as skeptical of the "Russian meddling" angle as you are, but what's the Canada/Mexico/Europe connection to the 2000 election?
 
I'm as skeptical of the "Russian meddling" angle as you are, but what's the Canada/Mexico/Europe connection to the 2000 election?

Sorry, I came in a little hot there.

I don't get all the American media, but it seems like the Russian allegations were being presented as very serious, and the criteria for tampering was fairly vague.

I can remember specifically my country, and I would assume others as well, had a very prominent, vocal "don't vote for Bush, he's a hick stereotype dumbass, vote for the other guy" etc, etc, presented during that campaign in our media. Even though it's your country, not ours.

Based on how loosely the tampering label was, it seemed as though if you Americans saw those presentations, we'd be tampering in your elections technically, yet nothing was really said then. Is it because it was alleged to have come from the Russian government level? Or is there something else to it?
 
I gotta say I liked most of Bernie Sanders talk on Joe Rogan. Don’t agree with him on banning more guns though.
 
I can remember specifically my country, and I would assume others as well, had a very prominent, vocal "don't vote for Bush, he's a hick stereotype dumbass, vote for the other guy" etc, etc, presented during that campaign in our media. Even though it's your country, not ours.

Based on how loosely the tampering label was, it seemed as though if you Americans saw those presentations, we'd be tampering in your elections technically, yet nothing was really said then. Is it because it was alleged to have come from the Russian government level? Or is there something else to it?

I think you're pretty confused here. The Russian gov't illegally hacked the communications of American citizens and disseminated the information in a misleading way to try to influence the election, they helped organize rallies in America, they bought ads, they sent an army of trolls out, they attempted to hack into voting machines, and more. It wasn't just prominent Russians saying that they believed that Trump was better for America or something.
 
Sorry, I came in a little hot there.

I don't get all the American media, but it seems like the Russian allegations were being presented as very serious, and the criteria for tampering was fairly vague.

I can remember specifically my country, and I would assume others as well, had a very prominent, vocal "don't vote for Bush, he's a hick stereotype dumbass, vote for the other guy" etc, etc, presented during that campaign in our media. Even though it's your country, not ours.

Based on how loosely the tampering label was, it seemed as though if you Americans saw those presentations, we'd be tampering in your elections technically, yet nothing was really said then. Is it because it was alleged to have come from the Russian government level? Or is there something else to it?
The allegation is that the Russian government, acting through the Internet Research Agency 1) hacked into the Democratic National Committee e-mail server, downloaded all e-mails, and transferred them to Wikileaks. Wikileaks then released them to the public. No such hacking/publishing occurred against the Republicans. 2) used social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) in the run-up to the 2016 election to both a) benefit the Trump campaign (e.g., by posting anti-Clinton materials) b) attempt to divide the American public against itself (e.g., by organizing a fake "Black Lives Matter" rally in which real Americans on both sides of that debate gathered in the streets).

You can argue that e.g., the CBC's anti-Trump bias was a form of election interference. However, few Americans watch CBC and I've seen no evidence of the Canadian government stealing and publishing internal political party materials as in 1) above or anything like 2).

So I think you can argue that biased CBC coverage is a form of interference, but some people will say it's not biased, coverage bias is not the same as stealing 1) or creating fake groups to fight each other 2), and the impact should be less than 1) or 2) in terms of influencing voters since Americans don't usually watch that programming.
 
Liberal candidates right now are pushing to raid peoples' retirement accounts via a Tobin Tax to pay for student loan debt. That one policy would cause me to vote for Trump.
 
Canadian checking in, are your polls going to attempt to be accurate this time? Or will we get 70/30 prediction again?

Depending on the criteria that you allow for "meddling" or "tampering" and all the hubbub about those darn "Rooskies", wouldn't you be able to charge Canada, Mexico, and all of Europe for tampering in the Gore-Bush election in favour of Gore? Assuming the criteria is identically pathetic.
American checking in. Polls were accurate last time. They predicted the popular vote within the margin of error. Polls don’t offer handicaps of outcomes (ie. Clinton has a 70% chance of winning)— pundits do that, so it sounds like your issue is with pundits, not polls.

Also, a 30% chance is not a 0% chance.

Also, remember in America, we have a delightful system that lets the candidate who loses the vote we the election. That’s not the polls’ fault, either.

Liberal candidates right now are pushing to raid peoples' retirement accounts via a Tobin Tax to pay for student loan debt. That one policy would cause me to vote for Trump.
Source?
 
Last edited:
American checking in. Polls were fairly accurate last time. They predicted the popular vote within the margin of error. Polls don’t offer handicaps of outcomes (ie. Clinton has a 70% chance of winning). Pundits do that, so it sounds like your issue s with polls, not pundits.

Also, remember in America, we have a delightful system that lets the candidate who loses the vote we the election. That’s not the polls’ fault, either.


Source?
Swing state polls were not accurate last time. They were waaaay off in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
 
Swing state polls were not accurate last time. They were waaaay off in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
So, a few things, state polls generally are not as accurate as national polls because national polls pull from broader pools.

That being said, it’s not true that polls were way off in all those states.

388471_5_.jpg


In those states you mentioned, only Ohio and Wisconsin were outside the margin of error, so you can say the polls were off there— but it’s normal for the polls to be off some places. It would be unusual if the polls were not off anywhere.

As you can see, taken as an aggregate, state polls were just as accurate in 2016 as they were when they correctly predicted Obama’s 2012 victory.

There are two main reasons why Trump outperformed his polls in the Rust Belt: 1) undecided voters broke for Trump at an unusual rate in this region and 2) state polls don’t generally adjust for education gap (which national polls do). It is a well known phenomenon that more educated voters are more likely to complete polls; this isn’t usually a huge deal (which is why state polls haven’t typically bothered with it), but Trump ended up crushing Clinton among non-college white voters in the Rust Belt and vice versa with Clinton and college educated voters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/...y-key-state-polls-were-wrong-about-trump.html

So, the polls weren’t off by as much as people make out, and there are some known factors to explain why some of them were off in the same direction.

As always, it’s worth bearing in mind that Trump won his FOUR decisive states by fewer voters total than it would take to fill a pro football stadium.
 
Last edited:
It seems that Sanders and Warren don't have that much supporter overlap. Warren's supporters are much whiter, older, and more educated.

PP_2019.08.16_2020-democratic-candidates_0-06-1.png
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I came in a little hot there.

I don't get all the American media, but it seems like the Russian allegations were being presented as very serious, and the criteria for tampering was fairly vague.

I can remember specifically my country, and I would assume others as well, had a very prominent, vocal "don't vote for Bush, he's a hick stereotype dumbass, vote for the other guy" etc, etc, presented during that campaign in our media. Even though it's your country, not ours.

Based on how loosely the tampering label was, it seemed as though if you Americans saw those presentations, we'd be tampering in your elections technically, yet nothing was really said then. Is it because it was alleged to have come from the Russian government level? Or is there something else to it?

Russians hacked numerous democratic and I think even some republican voter lists. They also tried getting into state voting systems. Russia helped perpetuate numerous conspiracy theories that low iq individuals eat up.

There is a reason Russia wanted Trump to win.
 
Liberal candidates right now are pushing to raid peoples' retirement accounts via a Tobin Tax to pay for student loan debt. That one policy would cause me to vote for Trump.

And the conservatives want to raid social security to pay for more corporate tax breaks. That alone would cause me to vote democrat. Can you post a link to your accusation? I mean, how would a politician raid my personal retirement account? Explain that

Wouldn’t it make more sense for the republicans to raid a government program like social security? Money they actually have access to?
 
It seems that Sanders and Warren don't have that much supporter overlap. Harris's supporters are much whiter, older, and more educated.

PP_2019.08.16_2020-democratic-candidates_0-06-1.png
"But can Bernie win the minorty vote" -2016

"But can Bernie win the white vote" -2020

So much for the Bernie bro narrative
 
It seems that Sanders and Warren don't have that much supporter overlap. Harris's supporters are much whiter, older, and more educated.

Voters mostly don't care or even know about ideology. It's weird how people who think they rank candidates on that basis often can't seem to even comprehend anyone not doing it.
 
"But can Bernie win the minorty vote" -2016

"But can Bernie win the white vote" -2020

So much for the Bernie bro narrative

It was Bernie Bro when he was supposedly drawing only from idealistic white college kids.

Now that he's continued to solidify that his true base is the urban working class, I'm not sure what the next moniker will be.

Voters mostly don't care or even know about ideology. It's weird how people who think they rank candidates on that basis often can't seem to even comprehend anyone not doing it.

Huh? I'm not sure what this is in response to.
 
It was Bernie Bro when he was supposedly drawing only from idealistic white college kids.

Now that he's continued to solidify that his true base is the urban working class, I'm not sure what the next moniker will be.
Bernie Hombres
 
Huh? I'm not sure what this is in response to.

If you look at the second-choice preferences, it's clear that the model that we see from a lot of posters here doesn't work at all to describe voter thinking. And yet people who do buy the "votes are based on ideology" model also aren't aware that other people exist. Also note how you have people simultaneously arguing that Gabbard is a True Progressive and a Sensible Moderate. Even people who think of themselves as using ideology to rank candidates are clueless about ideology.
 
If you look at the second-choice preferences, it's clear that the model that we see from a lot of posters here doesn't work at all to describe voter thinking. And yet people who do buy the "votes are based on ideology" model also aren't aware that other people exist. Also note how you have people simultaneously arguing that Gabbard is a True Progressive and a Sensible Moderate. Even people who think of themselves as using ideology to rank candidates are clueless about ideology.

I don't think there is an expressed model for predicting voter preference based on ideology. I do think there has been a prevailing presumption that Sanders and Warren would pull from similar groups based on the fact that their class-oriented rhetoric is most similar to one another's. That is, if you're a person who thinks corruption and greed are the biggest problems facing the country, you're likely to vote either Warren or Sanders. If you think the biggest problem is political polarization, you're likely to vote Biden. If you think the biggest problem is discrimination based on race and sex, you're likely to vote Booker or Harris.

Bernie Hombres

By the way, there was actually a piece on this today:

The Quiet Death of the “White Bernie Bro” Attack

Bernie Sanders faced ferocious criticism in the media throughout the 2016 primaries — and central to that critique was what the Washington Postcalled Bernie Sanders’s big black voter problem. Black voters, we were told, decisively rejected Sanders’s politics — and, by extension, left flank challenges to the Democratic establishment. And the proof was in the polls: overwhelming majorities of black voters preferred Hillary Clinton.

It’s impossible to overstate how much coverage this narrative received in just about every major outlet you can name: the New York Times, the Washington Post (again), Vox, Slate, Time, MSNBC, In These Times, the Atlantic, and so on. In all of these articles, we find variations on the same argument that Joan Walsh rehearsed in the Nation:

Sanders has won whites by crafting a class-based appeal that minimizes, and sometimes even diminishes, the role that racism plays in creating American social and economic inequality . . .  In 2016, all of these calculations have hurt him with the Democratic base.

Was it this — something about his politics — that explained his polling among black voters? That was certainly conventional wisdom among almost all of the media. But in the New Republic, Jamil Smith flagged a different explanation: the Sanders campaign insisted that he was “simply less familiar to voters of color than Clinton.” And this, I noted at the time, was borne out by the data, which showed Bernie’s favorability and preference among black voters rising in direct proportion to his name recognition:

cb.png


The upshot of this argument, of course, is that black voters were not rejecting Sanders’s message, and that as his name recognition continued to climb, his favorability and preference numbers would climb with it.

The rest is history. By January of this year, it had already become clear that enthusiasm for another Sanders run was remarkably inflected by race — with comparatively strong support coming from black voters. And Friday, a poll from Pew confirms the trend: only 49% of Sanders supporters are white, compared with 56% of Biden voters, 59% of Harris voters, and a remarkable 71% of Warren voters.

The explicit, constantly invoked basis for the 2016 critique of Sanders on race — his strong support among white voters and weak support among black voters — has completely vanished. All of the polling arguments made against him in 2016 now largely apply to his opponents, and the polling arguments made in favor of Hillary Clinton now overwhelmingly apply to Bernie Sanders.

From here, it seems like honest pundits have two options:

  1. They can admit that preference polls are not actually a sound basis for evaluating a candidate’s credibility on the issues, and admit that their reliance on this to critique Sanders in 2016 was unfair and misleading; or
  2. They can insist that Sanders and his politics are legitimized by the demographics of his coalition; that his opponents and their supporters are champions of privilege and white supremacy; and they can make these arguments as forcefully and persistently as they did in 2016.
Neither, of course, will actually happen. Presumably, some critics of Sanders will continue to live in denial, and pretend that the demographic coalitions of 2016 map directly onto 2019. More often, however, we can probably expect more of what we’ve already seen: conspicuous silence from critics who never really cared what the polls said either way.
 
Yes it should. You have to pay for life to stay alive, whereas you can kill in an instant.

Think about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top