Page 425 of 677 FirstFirst ... 325375415420421422423424425426427428429430435475525 ... LastLast
Results 8,481 to 8,500 of 13538

Thread: 2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

  1. #8481
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    112,888
    I think the true story is that one person from the Biden campaign was just spouting off during a tough period and was trying to lower expectations and present a path forward after a hypothetical tough start.

    We are discussing all kinds of hypotheticals here and we are even paid to do it.

  2. #8482
    Judging ďelectabilityĒ based on a party primary is crazy.

  3. #8483
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    I think the true story is that one person from the Biden campaign was just spouting off during a tough period and was trying to lower expectations and present a path forward after a hypothetical tough start.

    We are discussing all kinds of hypotheticals here and we are even paid to do it.
    Or much more plausibly it wasn't from the biden camp at all.

  4. #8484
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    112,888
    Quote Originally Posted by DistrictDeacon View Post
    Judging ďelectabilityĒ based on a party primary is crazy.
    What better strategy to you have for judging electability than with elections?

  5. #8485
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    What better strategy to you have for judging electability than with elections?
    Presence (or lack thereof) of external genitalia

  6. #8486
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    What better strategy to you have for judging electability than with elections?
    Electability is all about whether they will beat Trump. Winning a primary doesnít tell you anything about that.

  7. #8487
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    112,888
    Quote Originally Posted by DistrictDeacon View Post
    Electability is all about whether they will beat Trump. Winning a primary doesnít tell you anything about that.
    Ok. So are you against primaries in general? What method do you have to determining electability?

  8. #8488
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Ok. So are you against primaries in general? What method do you have to determining electability?
    Of course not - primaries are necessary to pick a party candidate. But I donít think everyone who votes in a primary is thinking about if the person can beat the other partyís nominee.

    Head-to-head polling is the best measure of electability.

  9. #8489

    2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

    Maybe New Hampshire is an ok indicator of beating trump, but winning a Dem primary in Iowa and/or South Carolina, two very red states that the eventual Dem nominee has almost no chance of winning in the fall, is pretty useless.
    Birds are real.

  10. #8490
    THE quintessential dwarf dartsndeacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    46,030
    Trumps not winning again no matter who the nominee is. The silent majority already got their tax cuts, now they want the world not to end
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  11. #8491
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    112,888
    You all are thinking about voting as a choice between Dem nominee vs. Trump. The big issue for Dems is the choice between voting for the Dem nominee or not voting at all. The Dem primary is a very good way to determine who Dems are most likely to show up and vote for in November.

    The red state primary argument is ridiculous. States denote location not the type of people. Iowa voters arenít inherently different than voters in other states. Someone who can win in Iowa or SC can attract similar voters to who they do well with in other states. And voters in later primaries can use that information to determine who they support in their state. And of course red state primaries are the only way for Democrats in those states to cast a meaningful vote.

  12. #8492
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    You all are thinking about voting as a choice between Dem nominee vs. Trump. The big issue for Dems is the choice between voting for the Dem nominee or not voting at all. The Dem primary is a very good way to determine who Dems are most likely to show up and vote for in November.

    The red state primary argument is ridiculous. States denote location not the type of people. Iowa voters arenít inherently different than voters in other states. Someone who can win in Iowa or SC can attract similar voters to who they do well with in other states. And voters in later primaries can use that information to determine who they support in their state. And of course red state primaries are the only way for Democrats in those states to cast a meaningful vote.
    Primaries are an indirect measure of electability.

    Head to head polling is a direct measure.

    And LOL at saying voters arenít different in different states.

  13. #8493
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    112,888
    Head to head polling isnít direct. Itís a small sample of people that youíre trying to generalize from. Again, if voter turnout and excitement is the big issue, the primary addresses that. Itís pretty dumb to ask primary voters to choose who they think other people will show up to vote for instead of their favorite candidate.

  14. #8494
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    Maybe New Hampshire is an ok indicator of beating trump, but winning a Dem primary in Iowa and/or South Carolina, two very red states that the eventual Dem nominee has almost no chance of winning in the fall, is pretty useless.
    Really, it's all about a handful of states - PA, MI, WI, MN, VA, NH & NV, and maybe throw in AZ, NC & FL if the blue team is feeling frisky. Biden does the best job of widening the map because he polls best against Trump in reddish purple states - he's even led Trump in a couple of TX polls. Trouble is he hasn't run a good campaign, has gaffed as usual and of all the 70+ year olds he's shown his age the most. Warren and Buttigieg have run the best campaigns thus far, but I have questions about the electability of both. As a practical matter, Warren will likely be the nominee, and because I think she'll do well in the midwest, I think she can get to the 272-278 EV range, but that's the ceiling unless Trump or his red team successor is in complete disarray.

    Yes, we are at the point in this country where the president has trashed the constitution and committed treason, but at worst he's gonna lose by 6-18 EVs and could win. Thank you Fox and Facebook.

  15. #8495
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    You all are thinking about voting as a choice between Dem nominee vs. Trump. The big issue for Dems is the choice between voting for the Dem nominee or not voting at all. The Dem primary is a very good way to determine who Dems are most likely to show up and vote for in November.

    The red state primary argument is ridiculous. States denote location not the type of people. Iowa voters arenít inherently different than voters in other states. Someone who can win in Iowa or SC can attract similar voters to who they do well with in other states. And voters in later primaries can use that information to determine who they support in their state. And of course red state primaries are the only way for Democrats in those states to cast a meaningful vote.
    Ok, but you still want to select a candidate that can win in key Electoral College states, like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. The candidate that can win in the SC or Iowa primary doesnít tells us an awful lot about who gets the young left leaning voters in PA or WI excited.
    Birds are real.

  16. #8496
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Head to head polling isnít direct. Itís a small sample of people that youíre trying to generalize from. Again, if voter turnout and excitement is the big issue, the primary addresses that. Itís pretty dumb to ask primary voters to choose who they think other people will show up to vote for instead of their favorite candidate.
    Primaries measures turnout and excitement when going up against intra-party opponents. And thatís the wrong measure of electability if youíre most concerned about winning the presidency.

    And again, LOL at your dismissive definition of polling. Thatís literally the basis of all statistically analysis, Professor.

  17. #8497
    Quote Originally Posted by birdman View Post
    Ok, but you still want to select a candidate that can win in key Electoral College states, like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. The candidate that can win in the SC or Iowa primary doesnít tells us an awful lot about who gets the young left leaning voters in PA or WI excited.
    Yes, head to head polls versus Trump are the best indicator as to who can win the EC. Though I don't know that I'd include OH quite yet. OH & IA used to be purple, but they've both bought into Trump's totalitarian populism and seem a bit too far gone.

  18. #8498
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    112,888

    2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

    Which Dem gets more people excited is a pretty big part of winning a general.

    The idea that we should pick a nominee based on who polls higher against Trump is ridiculous. From what Iíve seen, they all poll within the margin of error compared to Trump anyway. Youíve got state polls with a +/- 3.5 margin in which Trump is 46 or 47 vs everyone and the Dems range from +4 to +7 on him or so. Thatís not a huge difference.

    Again the big question for Dems is if people will vote. The Dem who can get people to show up in a primary is a good indicator.

    If you want to make an argument for weighting swing states, Iíll listen to that. But states are where people live not who people are. And everybody deserves to have a say in who the nominee will be.
    Last edited by PhDeac; 10-12-2019 at 04:08 PM.

  19. #8499
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Which Dem gets more people excited is a pretty big part of winning a general.

    The idea that we should pick a nominee based on who polls higher against Trump is ridiculous. From what Iíve seen, they all poll within the margin of error compared to Trump anyway. Youíve got state polls with a +/- 3.5 margin in which Trump is 46 or 47 vs everyone and the Dems range from +4 to +7 on him or so. Thatís not a huge difference.

    Again the big question for Dems is if people will vote. The Dem who can get people to show up in a primary is a good indicator.

    If you want to make an argument for weighting swing states, Iíll listen to that. But states are where people live not who people are. And everybody deserves to have a say in who the nominee will be.
    Nice straw man.

  20. #8500
    Restricted Access
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    75,212
    I say we bring back Jimmy Carter...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •