2020 Presidential Election

[-jk]

Buttigeig suspending campaign, per CNN

-jk

[OldPhiKap]

Smart for Pete. He has a future and getting blanked on Super Tuesday doesn’t help.

Nate’s view:

Buttigieg dropping out is harmful to Sanders in 2 ways. Per the economist, relatively few Buttigieg voters were also considering Bernie. But, his voters will now help Biden, Warren and Bloomberg to hit 15% in more states and districts.

[pfrduke]

Buttigieg is suspending his campaign. Whoa...

When you get roughly 3 minorities voting for you in the first 4 states (exaggerated for effect), you’re probably not going to win the democratic primary. Surprised he dropped out tonight when the cost of staying in through Tuesday seems pretty small, but this seemed inevitable once Nevada voted.

[bundabergdevil]

Smart for Pete. He has a future and getting blanked on Super Tuesday doesn’t help.

Nate’s view:

Pete also has some big money backers and seems to have a clear POV on which of the remaining viable candidates should be POTUS. Maybe help Biden with his $$$ woes.

[Troublemaker]

Right but I meant Bloomberg might stay in if he sensed that Biden could not stop Bernie on his own. Having a 3rd candidate makes it harder for anyone to get to 50% of the delegates. While it seems likely that most of Bloomberg's support comes at Biden's expense, if even 10% of Bloomberg supporters would otherwise back Bernie then Bloomberg could see a calculus in staying in. Bloomberg hasn't just spent his money on TV ads. He's got an incredibly sophisticated analytics team telling him exactly how their models (you think Nate is the only one who can build a model?) are projecting the race. Bloomberg likely knows exactly what his presence in the contest means for every other candidate.

Lets says Bloomberg's team projects a post-Super Tuesday 2 way race as Sanders 55%, Biden 45%. And lets say they project a 3 way race as Sanders 48%, Biden 30%, Bloomberg 22%... there could be a case for staying in and holding down Sanders delegate count and preventing him from having any hope of getting to 50% of the delegates. I'm not saying it is a perfect strategy, but it is not an entirely foolish one either.

That said, I suspect that if Biden competes fairly well on Super Tuesday I think Bloomberg's analytics guys may tell him the best move is to drop out and form a Super Pac to support Biden. I actually think Bloomberg's post-Super Tuesday activities will tell us a lot about how viable Biden is in a nation-wide race against Sanders.

-Jason "political watchers I know tell me Bloomberg's analytics team is vastly superior to what Clinton or Obama ever had" Evans

That makes lots of sense. Thanks.

Yes, that is actually what Bloomberg's campaign is saying, according to Axios.

The Bloomberg campaign's internal data suggests if he dropped out now, it actually would improve Sanders' delegate path, one adviser told Axios. The explanation goes that Bloomberg draws votes away from Sanders as well as Biden and that in places where Biden polls too low to be eligible for delegates, Bloomberg only hurts Sanders.

Pete also has some big money backers and seems to have a clear POV on which of the remaining viable candidates should be POTUS. Maybe help Biden with his $$$ woes.

I'm always cynical, so I think cause and effect is backwards here. His donors told Pete to get out, I'm guessing.

[bundabergdevil]

Yes, that is actually what Bloomberg's campaign is saying, according to Axios.

The Bloomberg campaign's internal data suggests if he dropped out now, it actually would improve Sanders' delegate path, one adviser told Axios. The explanation goes that Bloomberg draws votes away from Sanders as well as Biden and that in places where Biden polls too low to be eligible for delegates, Bloomberg only hurts Sanders.



I'm always cynical, so I think cause and effect is backwards here. Donors told him to get out, I'm guessing.

Both things can be true. That'd be my guess, anyway.

[OldPhiKap]

I'm always cynical, so I think cause and effect is backwards here. His donors told Pete to get out, I'm guessing.

Campaigns don’t end, they just run out of money.

[JasonEvans]

Campaigns don’t end, they just run out of money.

I know that is the saying, and I am sure it is largely true, but Steyer dropped out and he certainly had plenty of money to keep going if he wanted to.

[OldPhiKap]

I know that is the saying, and I am sure it is largely true, but Steyer dropped out and he certainly had plenty of money to keep going if he wanted to.

True, but he’s burning his own money and not donor’s dollars.

[sagegrouse]

Amy Klobuchar is staying in because, for one reason, Minnesota is a Super Tuesday state. We'll see how she does, but I expect her to "announce her future plans" on Wednesday.

[JasonEvans]

Amy Klobuchar is staying in because, for one reason, Minnesota is a Super Tuesday state. We'll see how she does, but I expect her to "announce her future plans" on Wednesday.

I'm not sure Warren is exactly the same in terms of being done on Wednesday, but the fact that Mass votes on Super Tuesday also means she has to stay in for a few more days, at least. It is telling that Warren is staying in because if she dropped out, it is likely that Sanders would win Mass in a landslide.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I'm curious to see what Mayor Pete's next step is. One of the Indiana senate seats is up in 2022. Historically the state has been fairly purple but it seems like it has swung pretty clearly to the Republicans where he would have trouble winning statewide office. I assume he would like a cabinet seat if a Democrat wins the White House. He is an incredibly bright guy who will make sure to do something that will keep him in play for future runs for the White House while trying not to seem to calculating.

[bundabergdevil]

With SC's final numbers in looks like the Palmetto State came close to matching 2008's record primary turnout. That's what makes Biden's victory particularly impressive. Sanders has been pitching that he can excite turnout and get new voters engaged but I'm not sure we're seeing strong evidence of that yet. But if Biden can win a few more states on Obama-level numbers, well, that's a strong argument he can energize turnout more than HRC. It bears repeating but 4/5 million Obama voters sat out on HRC so if Biden can re-capture or get them back out, that would be trouble for Trump in the general.

We'll have a clear sense after Super Tuesday but it's safe to say Iowa's depressed turnout was a blip. Curious to see if Trump's high primary turnout continues as well.

If a Dem wins in 2020, I have to believe Buttigieg ends up in the administration. He's in politics for the long haul so a run against one of Indiana's Republican Senators in 2022 or 2024?

[sagegrouse]

With SC's final numbers in looks like the Palmetto State came close to matching 2008's record primary turnout. That's what makes Biden's victory particularly impressive. Sanders has been pitching that he can excite turnout and get new voters engaged but I'm not sure we're seeing strong evidence of that yet. But if Biden can win a few more states on Obama-level numbers, well, that's a strong argument he can energize turnout more than HRC. It bears repeating but 4/5 million Obama voters sat out on HRC so if Biden can re-capture or get them back out, that would be trouble for Trump in the general.

We'll have a clear sense after Super Tuesday but it's safe to say Iowa's depressed turnout was a blip. Curious to see if Trump's high primary turnout continues as well.

If a Dem wins in 2020, I have to believe Buttigieg ends up in the administration. He's in politics for the long haul so a run against one of Indiana's Republican Senators in 2022 or 2024?

An exit survey on election day in SC indicated that the 18-29 YO voters were only 10 percent of those voting. Haven't seen an update.

[bundabergdevil]

An exit survey on election day in SC indicated that the 18-29 YO voters were only 10 percent of those voting. Haven't seen an update.

It wouldn't surprise me if those numbers hold. SC isn't where the kids these days are moving, lots of retirees though. While Sanders has been dominating in the youth vote, the youth vote as a % of the Democratic turnout hasn't changed in the other primary states. Now, that doesn't mean if he's the nominee he wouldn't change the math and turnout is high in most of the primary contests so that does translate to an absolute number of youth voters...

- From Tufts on Nevada ---- The youth share of all caucusgoers in the Democratic contest (16%) was slightly lower than in 2016 (18%) and higher than in 2008 (13%).

- From an overview by Vox of NH - Older people are simply a bigger part of the electorate. In New Hampshire’s Democratic primary, people 45 and older made up 63 percent of voters, according to the exit polls. People aged 18 to 29 made up just 14 percent.

[YmoBeThere]

- From an overview by Vox of NH - Older people are simply a bigger part of the electorate. In New Hampshire’s Democratic primary, people 45 and older made up 63 percent of voters, according to the exit polls. People aged 18 to 29 made up just 14 percent.

This is lousy stats work. Of course an open ended time framed group is going to be much larger than the time bound to one quarter the size group.

[OldPhiKap]

This is lousy stats work. Of course an open ended time framed group is going to be much larger than the time bound to one quarter the size group.

True, but I do think it is important to note that only 14% of the voters were under 29, Bernie’s supposed hot zone. If his argument is that he brings a sea wave of new voters into the party, that does not seem to have materialized in the first four states. Rather, as SC’s huge turnout shows, the base is still the base.

[bundabergdevil]

True, but I do think it is important to note that only 14% of the voters were under 29, Bernie’s supposed hot zone. If his argument is that he brings a sea wave of new voters into the party, that does not seem to have materialized in the first four states. Rather, as SC’s huge turnout shows, the base is still the base.

Yes, this was my broader point. We keep reading the tea leaves of these primaries trying to determine if Bernie's claim that he's going to energize and bring into the fold hordes of new - mostly young - voters. So far, turnout is up and Sanders is dominating the youth but traditional demographic breakdowns are mostly holding, which makes me skeptical of Sanders' primary election thesis.

[luburch]

I'm curious to see what Mayor Pete's next step is. One of the Indiana senate seats is up in 2022. Historically the state has been fairly purple but it seems like it has swung pretty clearly to the Republicans where he would have trouble winning statewide office. I assume he would like a cabinet seat if a Democrat wins the White House. He is an incredibly bright guy who will make sure to do something that will keep him in play for future runs for the White House while trying not to seem to calculating.

There's at least a faction of the state that wants him to run for Governor.

[Acymetric]

True, but I do think it is important to note that only 14% of the voters were under 29, Bernie’s supposed hot zone. If his argument is that he brings a sea wave of new voters into the party, that does not seem to have materialized in the first four states. Rather, as SC’s huge turnout shows, the base is still the base.

And yet we talk endlessly about the importance of other demographics that comprise an even smaller percentage of voters (~10% each for black and Hispanic in 2016). Which isn't to say that those groups aren't important, obviously they are. It is to scoff at the idea of dismissing the youth vote because it is too small.