Page 333 of 826 FirstFirst ... 233283323331332333334335343383433 ... LastLast
Results 6,641 to 6,660 of 16502
  1. #6641
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by DUKIECB View Post
    538 now has "no one" with the same chance as Sanders winning at 37% each. The next closest is Biden at a distant 13%. A lot can happen but I tend to agree with this assessment and think it's either Bernie or on to the convention. The timing of how things play out will be paramount as to how many delegates are won. If the dems did it like the R's we wouldn't be having this discussion I don't think.
    Just to be clear, I don't think the current polls agree with you. They give the rest of the field (mainly Biden, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg) about a 1 in 4 chance of winning the majority of delegates, let alone getting the plurality (which is probably closer to 50%). That may not seem like much, but remember that fivethirtyeight (whose model was more favorable towards Trump's chances than most models) gave Trump a similar chance of winning as of November 2016.

    I would also caution reading too much into that model in general. Silver has already stated that "the model is a bit confused" right now. We haven't gotten much polling, and the polling we HAVE gotten has generally been inconsistent with the results of the first two states. So it's really hard to say what is going on. It could be that Buttigieg is being underestimated. It could be that Bloomberg is being over- or underestimated. It could be that Biden is being over- or underestimated.

    The model is also assuming that all of the candidates stay in the race throughout, which of course won't happen. That's not a slam of the models - it's just the reality that you can't assume away a candidate for modeling purposes. Once candidates drop, that will of course have implications for all of the other candidates.

    I tend to agree with the math at this point, in that if I had to choose between "the rest of the field" and "Sanders or a plurality", I'd choose the latter. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the field has no shot at reaching a majority. There is still a LOT of noise in the model, and a lot can happen between now and the convention.

    I do agree though that if they were doing a winner-take-all approach we'd likely not be in this position. But that is an ideologic choice that the DNC has made to try to force the nominee to earn a majority of support.

  2. #6642
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    It seems fairly likely that Barr coordinated his remarks with Trump and the White House beforehand as they attempt to take the heat off the situation. He wouldn't use Fox News for the interview because Fox viewers already believe Stone is the victim of lawfare against allies of the President. Barr used ABC to reach independents and the like.

    Barr isn't getting fired. He's as solid in Trump World as anyone that's not the inner circle or family.
    Trump agreeing to a public admonishment by someone he considers a subordinate seems unlikely to me but I guess we’ll see. He’s already tweeting in response to Barrs’s remarks this morning.

  3. #6643
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northwest NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Just to be clear, I don't think the current polls agree with you. They give the rest of the field (mainly Biden, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg) about a 1 in 4 chance of winning the majority of delegates, let alone getting the plurality (which is probably closer to 50%).
    What current polls? 538's? Am I reading the graph wrong? 538 isn't giving anyone outside of Sanders above a 12% chance of earning more than 50% of the delegates and Biden is in 2nd on the plurality graph at 20%. I realize this is an imperfect model but at this point I do believe it's Bernie or the convention. Just my opinion.
    "The future ain't what it used to be."

  4. #6644
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by DUKIECB View Post
    What current polls? 538's? Am I reading the graph wrong? 538 isn't giving anyone outside of Sanders above a 12% chance of earning more than 50% of the delegates and Biden is in 2nd on the plurality graph at 20%. I realize this is an imperfect model but at this point I do believe it's Bernie or the convention. Just my opinion.
    Sorry for poor wording - yes, fivethirtyeight's model. Fivethirtyeight gives Biden a 12% chance, Bloomberg 8%, Buttigieg 4%, and Warren 2% of getting a majority of delegates. That's a 26% chance that someone other than Sanders gets the majority of delegates. They give those 4 a combined 47% chance of getting the plularity (sanders has a 53% chance of that).

    You are more than welcome to believe that it's Bernie or convention of course. I'm just saying that's not what the math says right now. "Bernie or convention" is the most likely outcome right now, but there's currently a 1 in 4 chance that this isn't the case. And a 1 in 2 chance that someone other than Bernie has the plurality of delegates.

  5. #6645
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    Trump agreeing to a public admonishment by someone he considers a subordinate seems unlikely to me but I guess we’ll see. He’s already tweeting in response to Barrs’s remarks this morning.
    To use Trump's own language, that's a pretty "low energy" response tweet directed at Barr compared to what we generally see when someone contradicts the President. Not much teeth in that one, imho.

  6. #6646
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by DUKIECB View Post
    What current polls? 538's? Am I reading the graph wrong? 538 isn't giving anyone outside of Sanders above a 12% chance of earning more than 50% of the delegates and Biden is in 2nd on the plurality graph at 20%. I realize this is an imperfect model but at this point I do believe it's Bernie or the convention. Just my opinion.
    Statistical modeling of nomination contests is fraught with peril. It's more gang warfare than a horse race, in that once a candidate gets momentum ("the Big Mo"), his or her support tends to snowball. In other words, everyone wants to be with the winner -- the strongest gang. Therefore, it is not so much a matter of figuring out state-by-state delegate totals as it is guessing on the broad trends likely to develop.

    This year is particularly interesting because the current leader appears to be Bernie, who is anathema to many establishment Democrats for policy, political and personal reasons. And then there's Bloomberg -- a campaign like we've never seen before -- standing in the wings and letting his surrogate billions do the talking via ads, although he has stepped up his public appearances, as others in this thread have noted. The other four or more candidates have some strong attributes but also weaknesses.

    If a "horse race," it is a very tough one to handicap.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  7. #6647
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Couple developments on the Trump strategy front:

    - NYTimes with a summary of what the campaign would like to achieve: Take back the suburbs, court black voters, and expand the electoral map.

    - Larry Kudlow says a new round of tax cuts focused on the middle class will "will probably come out sometime in September", not long before the election.

    - With Buttigieg becoming a viable threat, commentary on his sexuality has ramped up among surrogates and in the conservative media.

  8. #6648
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    Couple developments on the Trump strategy front:

    - With Buttigieg becoming a viable threat, commentary on his sexuality has ramped up among surrogates and in the conservative media.
    Who didn't see that strategy coming from a mile away? Seems like there's some ready-made attack strategies POTUS (or his surrogates) can/will use with every candidate. Real or perceived, the Democrats will have to come up with some counter-strategy for whoever the eventual nominee is. Can they attach something to the GOP incumbent that will stick like he will do to them? Serious war room strategists will have to do some deep thinking over the next several months, on both sides.

    Right now in Texas Trump beats every Dem, but never by very much.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02...ttt-poll-says/

  9. #6649
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post

    Right now in Texas Trump beats every Dem, but never by very much.

    https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02...ttt-poll-says/
    Interesting. Although we are a ways out and a lot of it is margin of error stuff, I find it interesting that Bernie has moved into the "closest to beating Trump" category. For folks like me who have thought that Bernie's appeal was mainly on the coasts but that he lags in more conservative areas, this is fair evidence that this assumption is wrong. Or, at least worth greater scrutiny.

  10. #6650
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Interesting. Although we are a ways out and a lot of it is margin of error stuff, I find it interesting that Bernie has moved into the "closest to beating Trump" category. For folks like me who have thought that Bernie's appeal was mainly on the coasts but that he lags in more conservative areas, this is fair evidence that this assumption is wrong. Or, at least worth greater scrutiny.
    I too was taken aback by Bernie's numbers in a head-to-head with Trump in Texas. Definitely defies conventional wisdom. But I'd need to see a lot more before I'd be ready to believe such a result were really possible in Texas. One poll doesn't convince me.

  11. #6651
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    I too was taken aback by Bernie's numbers in a head-to-head with Trump in Texas. Definitely defies conventional wisdom. But I'd need to see a lot more before I'd be ready to believe such a result were really possible in Texas. One poll doesn't convince me.
    It's been discussed on this thread before but the alternate thesis to the conventional wisdom is that Trump and Sanders are both populists and tapping into demographics that cross conventional party lines. Bannon is one of the Trump campaign architects that sees things this way. I don't know that I necessarily buy into the narrative but for Sanders, who is not a Democrat, it could help explain some of his broader appeal --- we want to draw an ideological straight line from voters to candidates but Trump made the bet in 2016 the line between Republican voters and the Republican party apparatus was a figment of the party's imagination. Turned out he was right. Could be the same with regard to Sanders? Here's Bannon with a few thoughts:

    “We’ve turned the Republican party into a working-class party,” said Bannon, relaxing at a table with an autographed photo of Trump behind him. “Now, interestingly, we don’t have any elected representatives who believe that, but that’s a legacy issue. We’ll get over that. We’ve got to find our AOCs.”

    The Democrats and their supporters have “better casting”, Bannon admitted. “They did an amazing job in 18. I keep saying I admire AOC. I think her ideology’s all f***ed up, but I want her. I want to recruit bartenders. I don’t want to recruit any more lawyers. I want bartenders.”

  12. #6652
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    It's been discussed on this thread before but the alternate thesis to the conventional wisdom is that Trump and Sanders are both populists and tapping into demographics that cross conventional party lines. Bannon is one of the Trump campaign architects that sees things this way. I don't know that I necessarily buy into the narrative but for Sanders, who is not a Democrat, it could help explain some of his broader appeal --- we want to draw an ideological straight line from voters to candidates but Trump made the bet in 2016 the line between Republican voters and the Republican party apparatus was a figment of the party's imagination. Turned out he was right. Could be the same with regard to Sanders? Here's Bannon with a few thoughts:

    “We’ve turned the Republican party into a working-class party,” said Bannon, relaxing at a table with an autographed photo of Trump behind him. “Now, interestingly, we don’t have any elected representatives who believe that, but that’s a legacy issue. We’ll get over that. We’ve got to find our AOCs.”

    The Democrats and their supporters have “better casting”, Bannon admitted. “They did an amazing job in 18. I keep saying I admire AOC. I think her ideology’s all f***ed up, but I want her. I want to recruit bartenders. I don’t want to recruit any more lawyers. I want bartenders.”
    Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the Populism angle from both Trump and Sanders is a real thing and it must be considered. I'm just saying that at the end of the day I'm still not convinced in Red Texas that people will vote for an avowed "Democratic Socialist" like Sanders in numbers that bring him within 2% points of Trump. But hey, that's what elections are all about and I won't be utterly shocked if it happened. After 2016, no one should be shocked by anything that happens in elections going forward.

  13. #6653
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the Populism angle from both Trump and Sanders is a real thing and it must be considered. I'm just saying that at the end of the day I'm still not convinced in Red Texas that people will vote for an avowed "Democratic Socialist" like Sanders in numbers that bring him within 2% points of Trump. But hey, that's what elections are all about and I won't be utterly shocked if it happened. After 2016, no one should be shocked by anything that happens in elections going forward.
    I agree. The demographic trends in Texas do favor Dems over the long-term though. You want to terrify a Texas Republican, show them this:

    New-York-and-Austin-Pop-Growth-to-2100-1024x574.jpg

    If you've ever seen an electoral map of Texas, you'll get the joke...

  14. #6654
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Bloomberg leading the field in Florida?

    https://floridapolitics.com/archives...florida-survey

    Margin of error, etc. But a not insubstantial result.

  15. #6655
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    I agree. The demographic trends in Texas do favor Dems over the long-term though. You want to terrify a Texas Republican, show them this:

    New-York-and-Austin-Pop-Growth-to-2100-1024x574.jpg
    I get that there are a million real life reasons the stats behind that chart are flawed, but the part that makes me laugh is that the chart extends out until 2100 or so. The number of Republicans who worry about what their party will be like in 2030 is close to zero... let along 2050 or 2100. Heck, based on the demographics of the two parties, I bet 50% of the current GOP will be dead by 2035 or 40.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  16. #6656
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I get that there are a million real life reasons the stats behind that chart are flawed, but the part that makes me laugh is that the chart extends out until 2100 or so. The number of Republicans who worry about what their party will be like in 2030 is close to zero... let along 2050 or 2100. Heck, based on the demographics of the two parties, I bet 50% of the current GOP will be dead by 2035 or 40.
    Tim Riggins said it best: Texas forever.


    The chart was definitely meant as a joke. As someone who grew up in Texas, I can attest that the “keep Austin weird” versus rest of Texas tension is real. Long, long history of Texas state Republicans trying to bring Austin to heel and Austin just Austin-ing.

  17. #6657
    With the talk about the possibility about a brokered convention, some of you may find this interesting. From Wikipedia:

    The 1924 Democratic National Convention, held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, 1924, was the longest continuously running convention in United States political history. It took a record 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate. It was the first major party national convention that saw the name of a woman, Lena Springs, placed in nomination for the vice president. John W. Davis, a dark horse, eventually won the presidential nomination on the 103rd ballot, a compromise candidate following a protracted convention fight between distant front-runners William Gibbs McAdoo and Al Smith.

  18. #6658
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    The Nevada Culinary Union (a big deal in the state and especially Vegas) says they are endorsing...Nobody!
    That guy's gaining traction.

    They have major issues with Bernie's health insurance views, and while Biden was expected to be the front runner for getting their stamp of approval, his dismal showings in Iowa and NH have had an effect on the endorsement.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/nevada-cu...211054174.html
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  19. #6659
    Texas is a purple state under Trump because the state is not nearly as rural as people imagine it to be (the influence of TV/film depicting cowboys and the like): https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...out_texas.html Trump struggles in big metropolitan areas and rakes in rural areas.

    Also, we've been hearing about the mass migration of Californians to Texas for years now, and I wonder if that has any effect on the blue-ing of Texas.

    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    The Nevada Culinary Union (a big deal in the state and especially Vegas) says they are endorsing...Nobody!
    That guy's gaining traction.

    They have major issues with Bernie's health insurance views, and while Biden was expected to be the front runner for getting their stamp of approval, his dismal showings in Iowa and NH have had an effect on the endorsement.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/nevada-cu...211054174.html
    I've seen speculation that the Culinary Union had to call a press conference to announce neutrality because a lot of union members were mad at the union for seemingly going anti-Bernie. It wouldn't surprise me. The union has lots of Latino members, and Latinos loooove Bernie.

  20. #6660
    First poll out of Nevada in awhile has:

    Sanders 25
    Biden 18
    Warren 13
    Steyer 11
    Buttigieg 10
    Klobuchar 10

    If representative, not good news for Pete and Amy, who don't receive much of a bump for their strong NH performances. Good news for Joe as he didn't experience a slide. Meh for Bernie.

    BTW, the PredictIt market for SC has Biden in the lead and over 50 cents again. It was probably a good call to buy him low after NH.

Similar Threads

  1. MLB 2020 HOF Election
    By Blue in the Face in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-24-2020, 11:28 AM
  2. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 10:19 AM

Posting Permissions

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