Page 332 of 349 FirstFirst ... 232282322330331332333334342 ... LastLast
Results 6,621 to 6,640 of 6973
  1. #6621
    One side story that I find fascinating is the fact that Bernie Sanders is really the first viable major party Presidential candidate who is Jewish and Jewish voters overwhelmingly are voting AGAINST him. Last poll I saw said 11% of Jewish voters support Bernie. And it's not like this is a Herman Cain situation where it's a more fringe candidate running in the party that none of his same demography votes in (i.e. very few black voters in Republican primaries). Seems lilke this story is pretty small though given the Jewish vote is pretty small so people don't see it as huge impact, but it could make a difference in the general election against Trump in a state like Florida.

    Apparently, while Jewish voters are very consistently Democrats, they are typically more moderate. Obviously, Sanders doesn't fit that bill and his support of certain governments have given some Jewish voters pause. Of course, it's not a single voting bloc that all thinks the same (which I do find it annoying when polls try to suggest that with any group...), but still the delta between Bernie's support among general Democrats and Jewish Democrats is noteworthy. Instead of getting a bounce due to identity politics/background/pride, he is actually grossly underperforming among that group.

    Here's an interesting piece to read but don't really want to get into the policy analysis of it, just the polling and impacts:
    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-...rnie-vs-trump/

    As as Duke connection, it was written by Yossi Klein Halevi who is the co-director of the Muslim Leadership Initiative (MLT) with Imam Abdullah Antepli of Duke!

  2. #6622
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    One side story that I find fascinating is the fact that Bernie Sanders is really the first viable major party Presidential candidate who is Jewish and Jewish voters overwhelmingly are voting AGAINST him. Last poll I saw said 11% of Jewish voters support Bernie. And it's not like this is a Herman Cain situation where it's a more fringe candidate running in the party that none of his same demography votes in (i.e. very few black voters in Republican primaries). Seems lilke this story is pretty small though given the Jewish vote is pretty small so people don't see it as huge impact, but it could make a difference in the general election against Trump in a state like Florida.

    Apparently, while Jewish voters are very consistently Democrats, they are typically more moderate. Obviously, Sanders doesn't fit that bill and his support of certain governments have given some Jewish voters pause. Of course, it's not a single voting bloc that all thinks the same (which I do find it annoying when polls try to suggest that with any group...), but still the delta between Bernie's support among general Democrats and Jewish Democrats is noteworthy. Instead of getting a bounce due to identity politics/background/pride, he is actually grossly underperforming among that group.

    Here's an interesting piece to read but don't really want to get into the policy analysis of it, just the polling and impacts:
    https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-...rnie-vs-trump/

    As as Duke connection, it was written by Yossi Klein Halevi who is the co-director of the Muslim Leadership Initiative (MLT) with Imam Abdullah Antepli of Duke!

    He would also be the first major presidential candidate who has openly admitted to eschewing organized religion. That's still a pretty big 'no-no' in American public life, though I'm certain we've had agnostic, atheist, or ambivalent presidents before, including the last two. Back in the day JFK was attacked as a Catholic for having allegiance to the Pope over the U.S...Romney's Mormonism was used to some impact by those distrustful of the religion. I don't think Sanders will be attacked for having allegiance to Israel over the U.S. or for other Jewish stereotypes, that's for sure. I could see an attack on Sanders for being "Godless" and a "Socialist" though.

    Sanders:

    “I am Jewish,” Sanders told the Times’ (of Israel) editorial board when asked whether he believes in God. “I am proud to be Jewish. I was bar mitzvahed from the Kings Highway Jewish Center, a long time ago. I am not actively involved in organized religion.”

  3. #6623
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    Not sure why their is so much anti-Bloomberg snark around here. I thought the polls were supposed to guide our commentary.
    You are 100% correct and the comment that inspired you to write that came within inches of getting a fairly serious infraction. But, it was clear that it was a joke and did not seem too malicious to me, so I decided to use it as a warning for the community at large instead. I implore everyone to be very careful and not cross the partisan line, even to make what is clearly a joke. If your post does not adhere to the "dispassionate analysis of the race" standard, the odds are excellent that you will get an infraction.

    This thread is not for everyone. Tread carefully...
    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.

  4. #6624
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Here's a scenario that I would be interested in hearing from everyone about...

    Let's say Bernie has about 42% of the delegates. Bloomberg has 30% and Buttigieg has 22% (you can change the name of the two "moderates" to whoever you want, Bloom, Buttig, Biden, Klobuchar). If the two moderates decided to form a ticket together, Bloom for President and Buttigieg for VP, would that be a problem for the Democratic party in terms of the party rigging the game against Bernie?

    Similarly, even if they did not form a ticket but Buttigieg instructed his delegates to vote for Bloomberg, putting Bloom above 50%, would that be a problem?

    -Jason "you either convince 50%+1 to vote for you or you don't. That feels like what democracy is all about" Evans
    I think that would be a disaster simply because Bernie and his supporters wouldn't get behind it fully. "The system is rigged" will be ringing loud and clear all over the place. And in spite of what some others here have stated, I do believe the Bernie supporters are a MUST if the Dems want to take back the WH. Ideally, whoever is the Dem candidate would have a vast majority of support from all the other candidates and their supporters in an effort to beat Trump. But if 2016 is an indication, that simply can't be counted on. And that would be disastrous - IMHO - for chances of taking back the WH.

    Something I've not seen commented on much because we are all rightly discussing the Democratic Primaries presently, is that there are actually more Trump supporters now than in 2016. Back then there was an element of the GOP that didn't trust Trump at all and either didn't vote or wrote in other candidates. But over the past 4 years many of those folks have coalesced behind him. The "NeverTrumpers" (from the conservative side of things) are far fewer than they were in 2016. Therefore the Dems can't just count on getting slightly more than the 100,000 or so that lost them the race in 2016. Especially if Bernie is the nominee. It's true that Trump benefited greatly from candidate Clinton being disliked by so many. But he'll also benefit from Bernie due to the "Socialist" threat/fear. It's going to be a real issue that will galvanize a heck of a lot of folk behind Trump, including many independents who might otherwise have voted for the moderate Democrat over Trump.

    As I said above, the Dems are in a real pickle. Bernie seems to energize the Millennials like no other Dem candidate, but he'll also energize Trump's base and probably even expand it. Seems like the old adage about who can get their base out in larger numbers will be true in a greater way than ever before this coming Election.

  5. #6625
    I've mentioned before that Bernie is probably the second-strongest (at least) of all the D candidates with racial minorities. Here are some links / polls supporting that.

    This Newsweek article analyzes some recent polls. Monmouth has Bernie ahead of Biden 28% to 20% among all minorities while Morning Consult says that among just black voters, it's Biden 35% to Bernie 27%.


    As for results from NH and IA...

    See the last column of the following 538 graphic from their post-NH analysis, showing Bernie as way out in front with 32% of the non-white vote, according to exit polls.





    Likewise, a UCLA study of the Iowa caucus results shows that Bernie was dominant in the majority-Latino caucus locations:






    This is why I've been saying the D establishment needs Biden to stay in the race for the time being, i.e. through Super Tuesday at least. Biden's probably (probably!) still stronger than Bernie among black voters in the southern states, and until Pete, Amy, or Mike can prove their bona fides to those voters, the establishment needs Biden to prevent those votes from defecting to Bernie (if Biden is capable enough to do so).

  6. #6626
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Bloomberg is campaigning in Winston, Raleigh, and Greensboro today.
    A New York Times columnist referred to Bloomberg and his advertising as "the Geico of political candidates." I thought that was pretty amusing.
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  7. #6627
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by mattman91 View Post
    Right, I'm just surprised that I have seen so few other presidential candidate signs, given the number of (somewhat) viable Dem candidates still in the race.
    The number is likely part of the problem. I think (based on anecdotal evidence) that a lot of Dems are keeping their powder dry waiting to see who the presumptive nominee is. Once they know, then the signs will come out.

  8. #6628
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by Phredd3 View Post
    The number is likely part of the problem. I think (based on anecdotal evidence) that a lot of Dems are keeping their powder dry waiting to see who the presumptive nominee is. Once they know, then the signs will come out.
    Iíve said before that I live in what should be Biden country but see very few Biden signs. Bernie gets the most bumper sticker play for now. Iíve seen more Trump flags and banners going up the past few months, some never came down. 2018 should have had both Democrats and Republicans knocking on our door but we only saw the Dems canvassing so I expect once the nominee is selected the outreach will begin in earnest.

    In other news, Barr appears ready for a change of scenery.

  9. #6629
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post

    In other news, Barr appears ready for a change of scenery.
    It will be interesting to see how the public, and polling, responds to this. Is it legit, or a bit of Kabuki Theater? Iíve heard both opinions already on the news. Will have to see how it plays out.

  10. #6630
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    In other news, Barr appears ready for a change of scenery.
    Wait, you think Barr's going to get fired or something?

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    It will be interesting to see how the public, and polling, responds to this. Is it legit, or a bit of Kabuki Theater? I’ve heard both opinions already on the news. Will have to see how it plays out.
    Today should be the end of it. As for polling, I'm sure Trump will still have unfavorable ratings that won't move, and I'm sure he'll still be the oddsmakers' favorite to win in November.

  11. #6631
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Barr's not going anywhere.

  12. #6632
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Wait, you think Barr's going to get fired or something?



    Today should be the end of it. As for polling, I'm sure Trump will still have unfavorable ratings that won't move, and I'm sure he'll still be the oddsmakers' favorite to win in November.

    Not necessarily but he must know that criticizing or appearing to criticize Trump - particularly in public - hasn't been good for anyone who has ever worked for the man. Barr has played things so close to the vest that I was surprised to see him make those remarks, in an ABC interview of all venues.

    I don't think anything will come of the record-setting turnover in Trump's administration but a lot of his political headaches have come from his own officials incompetence, corruption, or inability to work for Trump. Barr would almost certainly have, let's say, poor optics information on Trump so if he were to leave, there's always the risk he'd make it public. As we near the election, I am curious to see if any past officials actively argue against Trump's re-election. In addition to Barr's comments today, John Kelly recently made some pointed remarks in defense of Vindman. At the least, that sort of thing will get under Trump's skin and be a distraction --- at the most, it could provide some decent fodder for his opponents.

  13. #6633
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    For the first time since he took the popular vote in Iowa, Sanders has fallen behind in terms of likelihood of getting the majority of delegates... to ďnobody.Ē

    The interesting part is that - much like his rise in probability - his drop has little to do with his numbers. Those have remained fairly steady throughout the last month. What has happened is that Bloomberg has started polling well enough nationally that fivethirtyeight now predicts him to get the second most delegates (though he still is the third most likely actual candidate to get a majority at the moment.

    Still important to note that the models are really noisy. Still very limited polling data, and the data that are available conflict with the first two states. So it is hard to say whether the models under/overestimate Sanders, Buttigieg, and especially Bloomberg. The models give Warren very little chance and Klobuchar next to no chance.

    It will be interesting to see what happens in Nevada. Biden needs a bounceback, but Nevadaís caucus doesnít bode well for a candidate with broad but tepid support. Buttigieg has another chance to prove he is for real before Bloomberg enters the fray (Bloomberg isnít eligible in NV), while a Warren is on life support and Klobuchar tries to keep her foot in the door.

  14. #6634
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Central New York state

    Would like to see some data/analysis that speaks to this observation...

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post

    ... is that there are actually more Trump supporters now than in 2016. Back then there was an element of the GOP that didn't trust Trump at all and either didn't vote or wrote in other candidates. But over the past 4 years many of those folks have coalesced behind him. The "NeverTrumpers" (from the conservative side of things) are far fewer than they were in 2016.
    I'm not well read on this, but we've clearly witnessed President Trump convert detractors among the Republican elected class (politicians). And for voters, I've heard a few anecdotes that could support this assertion.

    However, is there data/polling/reporting that supports a meaningful growth in Trump's base - due to a conversion from anti to pro?

  15. #6635
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueTeuf View Post
    I'm not well read on this, but we've clearly witnessed President Trump convert detractors among the Republican elected class (politicians). And for voters, I've heard a few anecdotes that could support this assertion.

    However, is there data/polling/reporting that supports a meaningful growth in Trump's base - due to a conversion from anti to pro?
    I’m sure that I saw some polling within the last year that supported this. I’ll see if I can find it. I realize if I can’t then it’s more anecdotal talk, which I’m not trying to engage in. I’m confident I did see this.


    EDIT: This is not the one I was thinking of, but here’s some reporting on it.

    https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/47...e-high-in-poll
    Last edited by SouthernDukie; 02-13-2020 at 08:22 PM.

  16. #6636
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Central New York state
    I also have seen anecdotal reporting. But think we agree it's a pretty important question.

    Conversely, how big is the cohort that voted for President Trump, but are disinclined to do so again? Haven't seen any discussion - I could be convinced, but am not ready to presume it's negligible.

  17. #6637
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Central New York state
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    Iím sure that I saw some polling within the last year that supported this. Iíll see if I can find it. I realize if I canít then itís more anecdotal talk, which Iím not trying to engage in. Iím confident I did see this.


    EDIT: This is not the one I was thinking of, but hereís some reporting on it.

    https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/47...e-high-in-poll
    The poll is relevant (especially if you equate "approve" to "will vote for") - but I'd like to see comparisons of POTUS support prior to 2016 election against 2020 intentions.

  18. #6638
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    Not necessarily but he must know that criticizing or appearing to criticize Trump - particularly in public - hasn't been good for anyone who has ever worked for the man. Barr has played things so close to the vest that I was surprised to see him make those remarks, in an ABC interview of all venues.
    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.

  19. #6639
    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.
    FWIW, this is the way I see it is playing out as well. The key is no Trump twitter response chastising Barr. No way POTUS lets that go without a response otherwise. It’s just not his MO. Therefore, it’s unlikely to move the needle at all on either side.

  20. #6640
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northwest NC
    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.
    "The future ain't what it used to be."

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Presidential Race
    By CameronBornAndBred in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 16487
    Last Post: 11-15-2016, 11:52 PM
  2. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:19 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
  •