• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

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.

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.
 
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 aren’t 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 doesn’t tells us an awful lot about who gets the young left leaning voters in PA or WI excited.
 
Head to head polling isn’t direct. It’s a small sample of people that you’re trying to generalize from. Again, if voter turnout and excitement is the big issue, the primary addresses that. It’s 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 that’s the wrong measure of electability if you’re most concerned about winning the presidency.

And again, LOL at your dismissive definition of polling. That’s literally the basis of all statistically analysis, Professor.
 
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 doesn’t 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.
 
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 I’ve seen, they all poll within the margin of error compared to Trump anyway. You’ve 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. That’s 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, I’ll 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:
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 I’ve seen, they all poll within the margin of error compared to Trump anyway. You’ve 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. That’s 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, I’ll 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.
 
Electability is all about whether they will beat Trump. Winning a primary doesn’t tell you anything about that.

This was your original point. You continued this point by saying head to head polling is the best way to determine electability. But if I claim you are saying that primary voters should just pick who polls best against Trump, that’s a straw man.

So what is your point?
 
This was your original point. You continued this point by saying head to head polling is the best way to determine electability. But if I claim you are saying that primary voters should just pick who polls best against Trump, that’s a straw man.

So what is your point?

I never said anything about how primary voters SHOULD do anything. Hence the straw man.

I was disagreeing with your and Chris’s assertion that winning a primary is a good measure of electability.
 
So what's your solution?
 
The problem that primaries aren't a good measure of electability. What other process should we use to select the most electable nominee? How would that process have changed past elections?
 
The problem that primaries aren't a good measure of electability. What other process should we use to select the most electable nominee? How would that process have changed past elections?

You seem to think I have a problem with the primaries. I realize people are voting for a variety of reasons- policies, electability, likability, hotness. Which is fine.

I actually think there’s too much emphasis on electability. Hence Biden.
 
I think electability is important but it’s not really defined besides winning the election.
 

In other breaking news, billionaires are scared of Elizabeth Warren, and doing everything they can to stop her from winning and creating a wealth tax. Further breaking news, most people who become billionaires are greedy, and would do anything to stay a billionaire.
 
In other breaking news, billionaires are scared of Elizabeth Warren, and doing everything they can to stop her from winning and creating a wealth tax. Further breaking news, most people who become billionaires are greedy, and would do anything to stay a billionaire.

Agreed, but I'd throw in ego and vanity as another reason for running. It's like Ross Perot - he spent something like $60 million on his 92 presidential campaign, which was still little more than pocket change to him. If Bloomberg can satisfy his immense ego and vanity by running for POTUS - and derail Warren's chances to boot - he'll consider it money well-spent.
 
Bloomberg fulfills his vanity by teasing a run. He's done it for years. Maybe it irks him the de Blasio actually did run.
 
Bloomberg fulfills his vanity by teasing a run. He's done it for years. Maybe it irks him the de Blasio actually did run.

I doubt he ultimately runs. And if he does, he isn't going anywhere. I don't dislike him or anything, but you can't go changing party affiliations and seriously expect to get a party's nomination. Probably an ego thing for him. Although I doubt de Blasio's aborted run is influencing him in any way. De Blasio registered about as much of an electoral pulse as Janet Snakehole Williamson did.
 
 
Back
Top