2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Dreams said:
Leaving her out of the debates is a huge disservice.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest here. All she had to do was get 2% in four polls, and if she can't do that then she's not going to win the nomination. Tom Steyer has four, and has qualified for the October debates. There's a pretty good chance Gabbard makes the October debates too, but she hasn't shown much in the previous debates to suggest she's going to surge past the 8+ candidates ahead of her off of it. She's interesting at least, I guess.

Drifter said:
They might just squeeze another one into the line up.
Click to expand...

Eleven people is too much. Ten is too much, but eleven is even more too much. And it might very well be twelve, or even thirteen. I reckon they'll do two debates.
 
Last edited:
nimic said:
Let's be honest here. All she had to do was get 2% in four polls, and if she can't do that then she's not going to win the nomination. Tom Steyer has four, and has qualified for the October debates. There's a pretty good chance Gabbard makes the October debates too, but she hasn't shown much in the previous debates to suggest she's going to surge past the 8+ candidates ahead of her off of it. She's interesting at least, I guess.



Eleven people is too much. Ten is too much, but eleven is even more too much. And it might very well be twelve, or even thirteen. I reckon they'll do two debates.
Click to expand...

the ABC poll said Steyer had zero.
I suppose that is one the DNC does not consider. They are cherry picking.
 
Red Dreams said:
the ABC poll said Steyer had zero.
I suppose that is one the DNC does not consider. They are cherry picking.
Click to expand...

Which ABC poll? It doesn't say he has to have above 2% in every poll, just in some polls. Gabbard has had 0% in a poll or two herself. It's might be possible to claim that the DNC stole it from Warren/Sanders if they lose (it probably won't be right, but it won't be a completely ridiculous claim), but the same is not true for Tulsi Gabbard. She just isn't popular. At all. It has nothing to with the DNC.
 
nimic said:
Which ABC poll? It doesn't say he has to have above 2% in every poll, just in some polls. Gabbard has had 0% in a poll or two herself. It's might be possible to claim that the DNC stole it from Warren/Sanders if they lose (it probably won't be right, but it won't be a completely ridiculous claim), but the same is not true for Tulsi Gabbard. She just isn't popular. At all. It has nothing to with the DNC.
Click to expand...

Look at 538 polls.
Watch the interview.
 
2020 Vision Monday: State by state, Warren is getting closer to the Democratic nomination

According to
the national polls, one candidate — Joe Biden — has been leading the Democratic presidential primary by 10 to 20 percentage points, on average, for the last nine months.

Yet a presidential primary isn’t decided by national polls, and this weekend — with a gathering of 19 (19!) Democratic candidates at the state party convention in Manchester, New Hampshire and a flurry of new data — made it clear that another candidate has all the momentum where it matters most: Elizabeth Warren.

It’s not that Warren is underperforming nationally. In fact, she is the only major candidate who has steadily ticked up in national surveys since the start of May, more than doubling her polling average, from 8 percent to 18, over that period of time. Everyone else has slipped.

But Biden, at about 30 percent, is still far enough ahead to be considered the national frontrunner. And that’s where things get interesting. Look beyond the topline national polling, and a more complex picture emerges, one that seems to be getting rosier for Warren by the day.

Take Saturday’s convention at Southern New Hampshire University Arena. Anecdotal evidence is only worth so much, but on that front, the coverage was unanimous.

“Elizabeth Warren Stands Out at New Hampshire Democratic Party Convention,” read the New York Times headline.

The Washington Post wrote: “In New Hampshire, Elizabeth Warren Shows Why She’s on the Rise.”

“The Massachusetts senator took the stage to a standing ovation that lasted around two minutes,” the Times went on, “and the thunderous applause that frequently interrupted her speech was amplified by the inflatable noisemakers that had been distributed to the crowd.”


We know what you’re thinking. Presidents aren’t elected by Clap-O-Meter. But state convention strength does measure something important: the ground game. And Warren is spending more money, hiring more staff, and opening more offices in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada than anyone else. As one Silver State operative put it last month, “Warren has built a monster.”

Even more convincing? The latest early-state data. Over the weekend, Politico asked 100 New Hampshire delegates which candidate they favor. Many remain undecided. But of those with a preference, a full third named Warren. Bernie Sanders finished second. Biden trailed in third. “Notably,” Politico added, “few undecided delegates named Biden when asked who they were leaning toward.”

New polling supports Politico’s findings. The last time CBS/YouGov surveyed New Hampshire, in July, Warren (18 percent) trailed Biden (27 percent) and Sanders (20 percent). Now, in a poll released over the weekend, she’s narrowly ahead, with 27 percent of the vote to Biden’s 26 and Sanders’s 25.

The CBS/YouGov poll also found Warren gaining ground across the early primary states. In July, she lagged more than early-state 150 delegates behind Biden. Now, by “gain[ing] delegate share as supporters of other, lower-tier candidates have been switching their preferences toward her,” Warren (with an estimated 545 delegates) is nipping at the heels of the former vice president (who only gained 19 delegates over the last two months, bringing his estimated total to 600).

Overall, 26 percent of early-state voters now list Warren as their first choice, according to CBS/YouGov, followed by Biden at 25 and Sanders at 19. Another 25 percent, meanwhile, list her as their second choice — far more than the 13 percent who say Biden. And Warren's second-choice advantage holds in each of the four earliest nominating contests, meaning that as the field narrows, she has a lot more room to grow.

There’s a reason, in other words, why the prediction markets currently give Warren a 33 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination, with Biden way behind at 22 percent. It’s because the Democratic nomination isn’t won nationally. It’s won in Iowa, then New Hampshire, then a whole host of other states. And that’s where Warren is picking up steam.
Click to expand...
 
nimic said:
What poll? What interview?
Click to expand...

Red Dreams said:
Look at 538 polls.
Watch the interview.
Click to expand...

Red Dreams said:
Cheers. Watching now.

Click to expand...


Red Dreams said:
the ABC poll said Steyer had zero.
I suppose that is one the DNC does not consider. They are cherry picking.
Click to expand...

link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...ws-poll/d4e18b36-79bf-492d-91e3-d1c7a49d37e2/
from: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/
 
berbatrick said:
link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...ws-poll/d4e18b36-79bf-492d-91e3-d1c7a49d37e2/
from: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/
Click to expand...

Top man.

Edit: not sure what I'm missing, seems like that poll has Gabbard at 1%, as in not enough to qualify for the debates. It doesn't really matter what Steyer has as long as he reached 2% in four other polls. I guess the answer might be in the interview, but suffice it to say I'm not going to watch a 1+ hour video just to find that out.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
What does this actually mean? Dems are going to end up nominating a person preferred by delegates vs other who has advantage in public polls (popular votes)? Is this Trump vs Hillary in reverse?
Click to expand...

It means that all these national polls end up being misleading and give a false impression because the nominee is not selected by a simultaneous popular vote but instead is conducted over a staggered period with weeks in between. Doing these national polls is more misleading than it is useful at this stage because it publicizes an impossible to verify perception that isn't reflective of how things will actually play out. For a front runner type like Biden, he is a lot weaker than these ultra-basic national polls indicate because if he loses momentum he is probably finished for good - in other words he loses Iowa and New Hampshire and his polling will probably drop through the floor.

This is why its important to look at other data sets like the donor maps and the election prediction betting because those indicators are just as important as the polling.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
It means that all these national polls end up being misleading and give a false impression because the nominee is not selected by a simultaneous popular vote but instead is conducted over a staggered period with weeks in between. Doing these national polls is more misleading than it is useful at this stage because it publicizes an impossible to verify perception that isn't reflective of how things will actually play out. For a front runner type like Biden, he is a lot weaker than these ultra-basic national polls indicate because if he loses momentum he is probably finished for good - in other words he loses Iowa and New Hampshire and his polling will probably drop through the floor.

This is why its important to look at other data sets like the donor maps and the election prediction betting because those indicators are just as important as the polling.
Click to expand...

Bernie will do well in the early states leading up to CA.
Why he is confident.
 
Red Dreams said:
Fading fast.....
Click to expand...
Not sure about that. Don’t think too many of her supporters will be turned off her by this. Also expect her to get a Harris bump when Kamala drops out (I hope she drops out). I think most who really care about this is likely to be Bernie over Warren already anyway.
 
Tulsi Gabbard Falls For Dave Rubin's Trap



Can we just drop this notion that Tulsi is a progressive.
 
Drifter said:
Tulsi Gabbard Falls For Dave Rubin's Trap



Can we just drop this notion that Tulsi is a progressive.
Click to expand...


Anna hates both Tulsi and Rubin so the segment doesn’t come as a surprise. They are correct that Tulsi likes to play on both sides of the fence.
 
Charlie Foley said:
Not sure about that. Don’t think too many of her supporters will be turned off her by this. Also expect her to get a Harris bump when Kamala drops out (I hope she drops out). I think most who really care about this is likely to be Bernie over Warren already anyway.
Click to expand...

She probably thinks she is compromising. But once they get their hooks into her, there is no going back.

Kamala dropping out will be good for the betterment of mankind.
 
Raoul said:
Anna hates both Tulsi and Rubin so the segment doesn’t come as a surprise. They are correct that Tulsi likes to play on both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...

Tulsi for me comes across as left of center. She is not a true progressive. But I like her anti war stance and her support of Medicare For All.
As you say, she may be looking for a VP spot or some other position in a Biden administration.

Good luck to her.
 
Drifter said:
Tulsi Gabbard Falls For Dave Rubin's Trap



Can we just drop this notion that Tulsi is a progressive.
Click to expand...

That was an incredibly stupid question from Rubin. Then again the moderators at the official debates ask just as stupid and disingenuous questions designed to trap certain candidates so it’s not just him (albeit they’re doing it from a corporatist point of view whereas he’s adopting this BS patriotism position),
 
Status
Not open for further replies.