Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 270: Bloomberg/Clinton 2020 Campaign HQ

(+) Yeah! (+)

pxlated posted...

you legitimately think biden has the second best odds in the field to beat trump?

yikes

I mean are you asking "do you believe all the data we have from months and months of polling?"

Yikes is right, I guess!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Bernie never would have taken off if Biden was in the race. Some of his support was from leftists, but he also needed people who were just anti-Clinton to hit critical mass. Remember that Bernie was not a household name before 2015.

Biden probably would have gotten closer than Bernie, but he still would have lost to Clinton. Afaik the main reason he didn't run was that his son had just died, though.

Most of the anti-Clinton people are not Democrats. They are Republicans and independents. Biden drops out early in 2016 after coming a clear 3rd place in all the early states.

---

Just looking at polling you'd conclude that Biden has the first best odds of beating Trump...!

---

biden has done nothing but underperform his polling by significant numbers. it's been obvious for basically ever that polling is always going to overperform certain kinds of candidates by the nature of how polling is conducted.

but i deleted that post because i failed to read the last chunk of your post where you said that biden would still lose anyway

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

The polls have been great for Trump lately

They have not.

---

Also, Bernie isn't popular because he's a household name. He's popular because he has ideas. And people like those ideas.

The Democratic Party is so lost because they have a million reasons for why elections are won and lost and they've forgotten all about the most important one - having good ideas the voters support!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Just looking at polling you'd conclude that Biden has the first best odds of beating Trump...!

I suppose that's a fair argument!

I think if he had more polling of the only three states that matter, it would be extremely close, but I'd give it to Sanders simply because of enthusiasm of his base. They are already fairly close there in head to head match ups against Trump (relative to each other, I mean).

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV4gqvWGELE

---

pxlated posted...

the fuck polls are you looking at?

These are currently on the weak side for Biden and he's only in first by a tiny bit, but historically he's had the clear electability edge on this metric:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/National.html

---

KamikazePotato posted...

They have not.

*looks at 538*

No, no they definitely have.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I think Sanders gives the best chance. Biden number 2. But I'd still give Trump a 80% shot (or 90%+ if Biden) of reelection at this point. I can't even imagine what else he could do that would even hurt him politically at this point.

strangely enough, war.
unusual answer but his base is very anti-war.

---

pxlated posted...

biden has done nothing but underperform his polling by significant numbers. it's been obvious for basically ever that polling is always going to overperform certain kinds of candidates by the nature of how polling is conducted.

but i deleted that post because i failed to read the last chunk of your post where you said that biden would still lose anyway

Yeah that's fine. I almost deleted my post too because I saw you had deleted yours, but LotM already referenced mine at that time so I just left it.

If you argue "not Biden", I have no clue who you would put in second place.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I suppose that's a fair argument!

I think if he had more polling of the only three states that matter, it would be extremely close, but I'd give it to Sanders simply because of enthusiasm of his base. They are already fairly close there in head to head match ups against Trump (relative to each other, I mean).

Yeah Sanders has been consistently the second strongest in those polls. This is getting away from the data, but my personal fear is that attacks on Bernie (which he hasn't really been taking) will hurt him a lot whereas we've basically already seen how Trump's going to attack Joe and it didn't really move the needle. I acknowledge that that's speculative, though.

---

Biden is at least not toxic in the eyes of the people. But really you people should know by now not to put your trust in Republican moderates who hem and haw and clutch pearls and vote GOP 100% of the time at the end of the day.

You need to win over people like Ulti and MWC, people who have actually voted for Democrats in the past and have a nonzero chance of doing so in the future, rather than people like SephG who there is basically zero chance of winning over.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

*looks at 538*

No, no they definitely have.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

It's a little better than it was before but still bad.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/

Most polls show him losing 1 v 1 against the eventual Dem candidate.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Yeah Sanders has been consistently the second strongest in those polls. This is getting away from the data, but my personal fear is that attacks on Bernie (which he hasn't really been taking) will hurt him a lot whereas we've basically already seen how Trump's going to attack Joe and it didn't really move the needle. I acknowledge that that's speculative, though.

Trump has nothing on Bernie. Everyone knows Bernie is incorruptible. What's he going to do, call him a socialist? Have Putin award Bernie the Hero of the Soviet Union medal?

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Yeah Sanders has been consistently the second strongest in those polls. This is getting away from the data, but my personal fear is that attacks on Bernie (which he hasn't really been taking) will hurt him a lot whereas we've basically already seen how Trump's going to attack Joe and it didn't really move the needle. I acknowledge that that's speculative, though.

yeah from the perspective of "who would be the first loser" it's probably biden, yeah

if the most recent poll has him barely 2 points over, that means in reality he probably finishes 4 points under, at least

also i would start throwing out any polling from much before the iowa caucus because it's just not relevant. and again, just by the very nature of how polls are conducted, they are *always* going to overperform candidates that have been around a long time and appeal to the kinds of people that can take 15-20 minutes out of the middle of their days to answer poll (by and large old people)

edit: i quoted the worng person here. I meant to quote @Suprak_the_Stud 's response to me

---

anyway. getting into this much more right now is kinda pointless. i apologize if some of my reactions were knee-jerk or with an insulting tone - long day.

gotta see how the nevada caucus turns out to really be able to say what the effect of this debate will be going forward.


---

Suprak the Stud posted...

*looks at 538*

No, no they definitely have.

Yeah. He has gained about a 1.5 in favorability in trends the past month or so. See if that trend continues. I think his trending number right now MAY be the best of his presidency. Definitely in the past year or so at least.

---

i agree with the sentiments that trump is as strong as ever, though.

all the more reason to believe that the only one with a shot of beating him is someone who actually inspires and motivates people.

if you think any of the candidates have actual, significant grass roots momentum other than bernie, you're pretty damn deluded

warren is the only one who could have ever come close to that and she's done her best at sabotaging that. i'd be willing to entertain the argument that her performance tonight might revive that, and we'll see. i think that would take a lot of openness and probably an "apology" of some sort for wavering on her principles over the last few months. I do believe she could do that convincingly, but i'm not sure she would be willing to do it, or would have the conviction to override the consultants all telling her not to

---

As far as Trump gaining approval goes, I think its almost all conservatives who dislike Trump shifting into election mode where theyre evaluating Trump in relative rather than absolute terms.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

As far as Trump gaining approval, I think its almost all conservatives who dislike Trump shifting into election mode where theyre evaluating Trump in relative rather than absolute terms.

That is how he won last time. He dominated the vote among people who disliked both him and Hillary. Quite honestly if you don't nominate Bernie that will happen again. Trump is never going to be the greater of 2 evils to the people who matter. The Dem will always be worse.

---

if the argument for biden is that he does well amongst people that, historically, actually go out and vote en masse(again, mostly older people), we already know that trump dominates that market so i don't think that really holds water

(this isn't directed at anyone in particular just kinda thinking out loud)

---

*reads topic*

sounds like i'm gonna enjoy the debate when i get to my late watch of it if Warren released all her limiters and went Ultra Instinct.

---

xp1337 posted...

*reads topic*

sounds like i'm gonna enjoy the debate when i get to my late watch of it if Warren released all her limiters and went Ultra Instinct.

just skip the last like half hour maybe. I missed all but that, and i was initially really pissed off until i saw coverage of the first hour and a half.

the last half hour was a fucking mess imo

---

https://twitter.com/w7voa/status/1230332155844341761?s=21

This dude had no business even being the ambassador to Germany, let alone DNI (not to mention the fact that this is yet another abuse of vacancy appointments to get around Senate confirmation). And hes going to be doing both jobs at once!?

---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1230376522663391232?s=20

Trump seems thrilled.

---

If this doesnt knock him out of the race, nothing will probably doesnt come across the way he meant it
---

I wonder if this is why Joe took that shot at Bernie, in response to this:

https://time.com/5787277/joe-biden-protesters-debate-nevada/

As former Vice President Joe Biden prepared his closing statement at the Nevada Democratic primary debate on Wednesday night, protesters began to yell You deported 3 million people.

---

In my mind this is a different phase of the race now.

They have flatly conceded Bernie is going to have the most delegates come the convention. Now we have to make sure we get as many as possible.

---

I don't think that's a given at all. It's probably the most likely scenario, but it's far from guaranteed.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

In my mind this is a different phase of the race now.

They have flatly conceded Bernie is going to have the most delegates come the convention. Now we have to make sure we get as many as possible.

yeah I had similar thoughts to this - I've been feeling for a little while now that the nevada debate/caucus is going to kinda be the turning point/set the stage for the rest of the process. we'll see how far the DNC is willing to let "incompetence" continue to undermine bernie at every turn. we'll see how viable bloomberg's strategy actually is, and we'll start to finally get an idea of which of the interchangeable status quo candidates is actually going to have anything resembling a path forward.

super tuesday's huge of course but i think after nevada the picture's going to be pretty clear.

i would also agree that the DNC is absolutely planning for/working towards a brokered convention at this point. bernie is more or less dominating the polling in *every* state except I think alabama? if anyone remotely intelligent is left in charge there, they would absolutely be trying to get to that second round super delegate vote instead of holding out hope one of the other nothing-candidates will become something.

---

The DNC isn't some scheming group of masterminds trying to control the process

---

As someone watching the process from afar, and just catching up on the debate after only looking at a few highlights of others:

I finally understand why they call Pete a rat. I normally dont condone those kind of attacks, but Jesus...

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The DNC isn't some scheming group of masterminds trying to control the process

that's not at all what i said or implied!

what i meant, and what should be clear to anyone, is that they're clearly okay with widespread incompetence in the primary and caucus process. and while i don't believe that they're being instructed to turn every instance of a mistake into somethign that hurts bernie, i do believe that the people running these things are by and large outspokenly *against* bernie's candidacy and, when forced to make quick decisions under pressure (IE when things are going wrong during the caucus process because no one was properly trained, or there's a dumb app being used, or whatever), they're subconsciously much more likely to do things that do not favor bernie.

'

---

if the DNC or state-level democratic parties were worried about being competent, we wouldn't be getting reports that no one was trained on the new reporting systems in nevada, and that most of the administrators didn't even *know* of the changes until the public press release about it, despite having had a meeting about everything a day or two before then.

you'd think, after iowa, they'd be scrambling to do everything they could so as to not have a repeat of that. instead, they make decisions like the above.

there's never a nefarious villian masterminding everything. it's the culmination of a lot of small, quick decisions made under pressure by people that, consciously or not, want to maintain power.

the DNC isn't carefully constructing these disaster scenarios. but they definitely aren't working too hard to prevent them.

---

Pokewars posted...

Yeah Pete is robotic but Elizabeth just said she was a capitalist while simultaneously trying to be the most socialist/progressive/whatever. She really doesn't know which lane she ought to get in.

pretty sure warren never explicitly said she's a socialist (only bernie ever does so) but capitalism and socialism aren't mutally exclusive anyway.

---

red sox 777 posted...

You need to win over people like Ulti and MWC, people who have actually voted for Democrats in the past and have a nonzero chance of doing so in the future, rather than people like SephG who there is basically zero chance of winning over.

...MWC has voted for a democrat in the past? when?

---

I think he claims to have voted for Obama maybe ?
---

i find that hard to believe. ulti seems to base his vote more on people he just likes personally ("obama and trump seem like cool guys") while MWC seems to be more die hard conservative. he's one of those "REAGAN WAS GOD TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS WAS THE BEST POLICY EVER" people.

then again, it's MWC so who knows.

---

ulti's definitely a populist. the man loves AOC.

---

https://twitter.com/datacrat/status/1229547427767570433

The average journalist on Twitter has politics that place them somewhere between Bernie and AOC.

There are more journalists to the left of AOC than there are to the right of Mitt Romney.

Journalists are enemies of the people. Everyone with a blue check should be assumed to be lying to you, at all times.

---

Spelling bee champion Donald Trump checking in:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1230471520553598976?s=21

---

I followed the a link to the actual paper, but I cant make sense of how theyre measuring the liberalness of a twitter network. they mention some formula, but I cant figure out what exactly is being factored into the formula.

anyway your post is funny because the overall study was actually positive about journalists, finding that they didnt let their ideology affect the news they reported

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ifmpw7fr7w9p8q6/HHM_Media_Bias_Science_Submission.pdf?dl=0
---

alright, this is definitely one of my favorite clips this election season.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1230324564355428354

---

I cant understand how he didnt have a better answer prepared for that. Like it would be hard to give a *good* answer, but jesus

---

Warren treated Bloomberg like Bloomberg treats black people.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Journalists are enemies of the people. Everyone with a blue check should be assumed to be lying to you, at all times.

Oh look, facism!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I cant understand how he didnt have a better answer prepared for that. Like it would be hard to give a *good* answer, but jesus

i think it's a combination of his own arrogance (not listening to the people trying to prepare him for these things because obviously he knows better), the people working for him being afraid to challenge him because of that arrogance, and probably a lot of the people he has hired not really wanting him to be the nominee and are just in it for the money, and as a result are just doing the bare minimum.

especially when it seems pretty obvious that a lot of his recent hires are more about keeping those people away from other campaigns than it is him actually wanting or needing them

---

theoretically I guess there was a more tactful response possible, but im not sure Bloomberg could deliver any response without it sounding slimy anyway
---