Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 271: Two Turds With One Stone

(+) Yeah! (+)

This is a situation where all of the options suck, but having State overrule the CDC seems like a bad approach:

https://twitter.com/nycjim/status/1230675095426871298?s=21

...actually on second thought Im giving State too much of the benefit of the doubt here. Even if they insisted on bringing back infected patients, theres no excuse for not using a second plane.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

This is a situation where all of the options suck, but having State overrule the CDC seems like a bad approach:

https://twitter.com/nycjim/status/1230675095426871298?s=21

I've also read that Trump is a huge germophobe who was going to overreact and close all our borders. The media have lost all credibility.

---

red sox 777 posted...

I've also read that Trump is a huge germophobe who was going to overreact and close all our borders. The media have lost all credibility.

I mean there was a ton of reason to think that; he was screaming it from the rooftops during the Ebola scare.

---

Lots of polls came out recently. Only one that's post-debate is the first one I'll be listing.

Emerson, Nevada
https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/nevada-2020-sanders-with-comfortable-lead-heading-into-caucus-tight-race-for-second-place
Sanders 30%
Buttigieg 17%
Biden 16%
Warren 12%
Klobuchar 11%
Steyer 10%
Gabbard 2%

Nevada...from a different source
https://twitter.com/USA_Polling/status/1229544912196177922
Sanders: 35%
Warren: 16%
Buttigieg: 15%
Biden: 14%
Steyer: 10%
Klobuchar: 9%
Gabbard: 2%

South Carolina
https://www.winthrop.edu/winthroppoll/current-findings.aspx
Biden 24%
Sanders 19%
Steyer 15%
Buttigieg 7%
Warren 6%
Klobuchar 4%

South Carolina...from a different source
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483577-biden-sanders-tied-for-first-place-in-south-carolina-poll
Sanders 23%
Biden 23%
Steyer 20%
Buttigieg 15%
Warren 9%
Klobuchar 8%

Minnesota
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1230603157757136896
Klobuchar 27%
Sanders 21%
Warren 16%
Buttigieg 10%
Biden 9%
Bloomberg 9%
Gabbard 4%
Steyer 0% (lol)

Massachusetts
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1229961523868635136
Sanders 17%
Warren 16%
Klobuchar 14%
Buttigieg/Biden/Bloomberg 13%
Gabbard 3%
Steyer 2%

Texas
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1230602483535405056
Sanders 23%
Biden 20%
Bloomberg 18%
Warren 14%
Klobuchar 9%
Buttigieg 7%
Gabbard 4%
Steyer 3%

North Carolina
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1230602947693862920
Sanders 23%
Bloomberg 19%
Biden 16%
Warren 13%
Buttigieg 10%
Klobuchar 7%
Gabbard 3%
Steyer 3%

North Carolina...from a different source
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1229878367991795713
Bloomberg 22%
Sanders 22%
Biden 20%
Buttigieg 11%
Warren 8%
Klobuchar 5%

Monmouth, Virginia
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_va_021820.pdf/
Sanders 22%
Bloomberg 22%
Biden 18%
Buttigieg 11%
Klobuchar 9%
Warren 5%
Gabbard 1%

California
https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/crosstabs-time-trends-methodology-0220.pdf
Sanders 32%
Biden 14%
Warren 13%
Buttigieg 12%
Bloomberg 12%
Klobuchar 5%
Steyer 3%
Gabbard 1%

Oklahoma
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2020/Sooner_Survey_Feb_18_2020.pdf
Bloomberg - 18%
Sanders - 17%
Biden - 11%
Buttigieg - 9%
Warren - 8%
Klobauchar - 7%

Vermont
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1229749523129327616?s=20
Sanders 51%
Buttigieg 13%
Warren 9%
Bloomberg 7%
Biden 5%
Klobuchar 4%
Yang 2%
Gabbard 1%
Patrick 0%
Stewart 0%
Steyer 0%

And now, for the finale...

Florida (Man)
http://stpetepolls.org/files/StPetePolls_2020_State_DEMprimaryFebruary19_Z8U3J.pdf
Bloomberg 32%
Biden 27%
Sanders 11%
Buttigieg 8%
Klobuchar 7%
Warren 5%
Steyer 2%

---

LOL Florida. Well please just go ahead and give your 29 electoral votes to President Trump please.

---

red sox 777 posted...

LOL Florida. Well please just go ahead and give your 29 electoral votes to President Trump please.

I would never want to count on Florida, but with a moderate it could be in play. No way Bernie wins it though.

---

I've been to Florida many times. I know the people there. I'll just say that I'm confident in Bernie's ability to capture the hearts of 'moderate' states, but Florida will NOT be one of them.

---

all those Bloomberg voters second choice is definitely sanders because Florida is 90% old jews, well be fine !
---

I am going to do my best to put Florida on my back.

---

The most intriguing poll in that batch to me is the California one because if that was the actual result, only Sanders is above viability.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I am going to do my best to put Florida on my back.

abandon all hope ye who enter here

---

It's so scary though. If President Trump loses Florida he has to run the table of swing states pretty much or we could be in for disaster.

---

Also, if Bernie wins, he better not compromise with the centrists on his VP. We do not want to elect Bernie and get Hillary. Ideally Bernie should nom a fellow socialist like himself who is not a Democrat.

---

xp1337 posted...

The most intriguing poll in that batch to me is the California one because if that was the actual result, only Sanders is above viability.

abandon all hope ye who enter here

Allocating undecideds pushes it up a bit and if a candidate is just below 15% they'll be viable in some districts, but ugh yeah

---

xp1337 posted...

The most intriguing poll in that batch to me is the California one because if that was the actual result, only Sanders is above viability.

How does that work, exactly? As far as awarding delegates goes.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Allocating undecideds pushes it up a bit and if a candidate is just below 15% they'll be viable in some districts, but ugh yeah

Yeah, I didn't meant to imply Sanders would win every last delegate simply because only he is above 15% but that's a very dangerous number for anyone who wants to overtake Sanders (or conversely very great news for those supporting him!) because that's probably going to be a lot of districts he does just take everyone.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

How does that work, exactly? As far as awarding delegates goes.

If replicated across all districts, Bernie would get 100% of delegates.

---

Yeah looks like my vote might be eaten for my district given how badly Biden is doing in the bay area :(

---

What's the cutoff for candidates just...not receiving delegates in a state?

---

KamikazePotato posted...

What's the cutoff for candidates just...not receiving delegates in a state?

If you're below 15 in every district (which also of course implies being below 15 overall).

---

So in this first Nevada poll, assuming it holds:

Sanders 30%
Buttigieg 17%
Biden 16%
Warren 12%
Klobuchar 11%
Steyer 10%
Gabbard 2%

Warren and below receive no delegates? If so, Nevada has 48 delegates to give. How is it split up between the remaining three?

---

Don't states also award part of the delegates based on the overall result? So everyone failing to break 15% except Sanders overall would be bad news, even if they pick up district delegates.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Yeah looks like my vote might be eaten for my district given how badly Biden is doing in the bay area :(

Were you forced by the UC to move your voter registration here?

I've found voting in CA so depressing. Like what I imagine voting in the USSR to be like. Many offices where I there isn't a Republican on the ballot.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

So in this first Nevada poll, assuming it holds:

Sanders 30%
Buttigieg 17%
Biden 16%
Warren 12%
Klobuchar 11%
Steyer 10%
Gabbard 2%

Warren and below receive no delegates? If so, Nevada has 48 delegates to give. How is it split up between the remaining three?

No because there are both statewide delegates (of which yes, she would get none) and delegates for each district; if she's at 12 she probably has a decent shot of being above 15 in some of them.

I'm not sure what the precise allocation algorithm is though.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Were you forced by the UC to move your voter registration here?

I've found voting in CA so depressing. Like what I imagine voting in the USSR to be like. Many offices where I there isn't a Republican on the ballot.

It was strongly recommended that we did in order to get state residency for tuition purposes. I gave up a much more valuable VA vote...!

I more than likely will stay here after graduating, though.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

How does that work, exactly? As far as awarding delegates goes.

California has 53 Congressional Districts. Each will have a handful of California's 415ish delegates.

Delegates are awarded (in all states on the Democratic side) proportionally among viable candidates (as opposed to winner-take-all which is much more common in Republican primaries) To be considered viable you need to reach 15% in either the particular congressional district or statewide. If you're not viable you receive no delegates. So suppose you had a 100 delegates and a primary result of: Sanders - 50%, Warren - 25%, Biden - 10%, Klobuchar - 10%, Buttigieg - 5% Instead of each candidate getting that number of delegates, only Sanders and Warren would be considered viable so all 100 delegates would be awarded proportionally to them. In this case Sanders would get 67 and Warren 33. Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg come up empty.

Now, say you get a 14% statewide result. You're still statistically likely to have broken 15% in a fair amount of congressional districts so you're not coming away empty-handed... but you're also likely to have a fair number of districts where you failed to reach viability so you would be coming out with nothing there.

---

Yeah me too, gave up a way more valuable NH vote. Though given I work in CA now maybe it wouldn't be credible to say my residence is in a state I am in 10ish days a year. Although Bloomberg seems to think it's no big deal to just transfer his domicile to Florida because he says so.

---

Thanks for the explanation. This seems a lot weirder than just giving candidates proportional to their score even if they scored low, but hey, I'm not the DNC.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Thanks for the explanation. This seems a lot weirder than just giving candidates proportional to their score even if they scored low, but hey, I'm not the DNC.

I think it's technically a little more complicated than that so you might some weird numbers at times. Like looking it up Nevada has 36 pledged delegates (+12 superdelegates) but only 23 are awarded at precinct/CD level, 5 are party leaders and elected officials, and the remaining 8 are "at-large" and I don't think it's clear if they're going to be awarded proportionally or not (these are the state-level delegates I presume, emphasis on "I presume") but I would err on the side that they are.

But generally speaking that's how it's supposed to go.

---

https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/1230709910322606080

Don't know if this is better or worse than Grenell, but Doug Collins is the guy who claimed that Jesus had more due process than Donald Trump

---

Different California poll:
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_ca_022020/

Bernie Sanders - 24%
Joe Biden - 17%
Mike Bloomberg - 13%
Elizabeth Warren - 10%
Pete Buttigieg - 9%
Tom Steyer - 5%
Amy Klobuchar - 4%
Tulsi Gabbard - 2%

---

Well, not ideal, but I certainly like that one better...!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/1230709910322606080

Don't know if this is better or worse than Grenell, but Doug Collins is the guy who claimed that Jesus had more due process than Donald Trump

Ugh fuck mixed him up with Barry Loudermilk (a fellow GA Republican House member)

Collins was one of the biggest asskissers for Trump during impeachment, though.

---

So, I took the polls I listed and estimated how many total delegates each candidate will receive from them (with the two already-finished states' results added in).

Sanders - 558 (37.99%)
Biden - 403 (27.43%)
Bloomberg - 293 (19.95%)
Warren - 105 (7.15%)
Klobuchar - 66 (4.49%)
Buttigieg - 29 (1.97%)
Steyer - 15 (1.02%)
Gabbard - 0

Might see if there's polls for some of the other major delegate states and factor those in. Looking like a brokered convention at the moment.

P.S. These results are the 'worst case' for Sanders. I assumed that Biden reaches viability in California (only candidate other than Sanders that did) and that Sanders doesn't manage to reach viability in Florida. Either of those aspects reversing tips the scales significantly in Sanders' favor.

---

That's actually not as bad as I would have thought. With those numbers Biden would probably still be in a two person race (though it would be quite an uphill climb).

---

Also, doing this put the last two primaries in perspective. They counted for basically nothing outside of momentum. Buttigieg is slated to get delegates from Nevada and then literally nothing else I listed.

---

These are some of the major states I didn't factor in:

New York - 274
Pennsylvania - 186
Illinois - 155
Ohio - 136
New Jersey - 126
Georgia - 105

Only Illinois and New Jersey have a poll that was conducted within the last week. For the others, I used the 538 expected numbers - which is much murkier because it bases predictions on future trends, but it's better than nothing. New York has so little data on it that 538 didn't bother making a prediction for it.

Pennsylvania
Sanders - 21.6%
Biden - 18.0%
Bloomberg - 16.5%
Buttigieg - 10.1%
Warren - 9.2%
Klobuchar - 5.1%
Steyer - 1.6%
Gabbard - 1.1%

Illinois
Sanders - 22%
Bloomberg - 17%
Biden - 14%
Buttigieg - 13%
Klobuchar - 8%
Warren - 6%
Yang - 1%
Steyer - 1%

Ohio
Sanders - 27.0%
Bloomberg - 19.3%
Biden - 19.1%
Warren - 10.4%
Buttigieg - 10.3%
Klobuchar - 4.2%
Steyer - 2.6%
Gabbard - 1.2%

New Jersey
Sanders - 25%
Bloomberg - 23%
Biden - 16%
Buttigieg - 10%
Warren - 8%
Klobuchar - 3%
Steyer - 2%
Gabbard - 0%

Georgia
Biden - 26.1%
Sanders - 19.7%
Bloomberg - 17.8%
Warren - 7.4%
Buttigieg - 7.1%
Klobuchar - 4.5%
Steyer - 1.7%
Gabbard - 1.1%

---

On one hand those results would suggest everyone outside of Sanders/Biden/Bloomberg should drop out. On the other hand, a brokered convention becomes quite likely at that point meaning there's less reason to do so.

---

Keep in mind all of these polls are pre-Bloomberg debate. Can't imagine his numbers go up from here!

---

Chris when you did your Medicare for all tax calculation, you said I would lose like $1500 a year. How did you get that number?

---

Thread demonstrating exactly what lesson Trump learned from the GOP's failure to hold him accountable:

https://twitter.com/HeidiNBC/status/1230500719041687553

---

hey @LordoftheMorons how do you feel about biden's repeated lying about his involvement in the civil rights movement?

---

pxlated posted...

hey @LordoftheMorons how do you feel about biden's repeated lying about his involvement in the civil rights movement?

Not familiar; can you give me a link?

---

https://shaunking.substack.com/p/2-truths-and-31-lies-joe-biden-has

been doing it since the 80s! even admitted none if it was true! and then started doing it *again* this election cycle

the article also covers his plagiarism problem, I believe. if it doesn't, one of the links in the article definitely did

---

it's honestly pretty frustrating that these stories have gotten almost 0 play this election because they're big reasons why his previous runs failed.

---

Is there a less biased source than King?

I did vaguely know that he had some history with plagiarism from a long time ago, which I agree is bad but if he paid the price for that and hasnt done it in 30 or 40 years I look at that as being in the past. As far as the new allegations go its pretty hard to tell from this whether Biden has actually been blatantly making stuff up or is exaggerating and Kings interpreting it in the worst possible light. I do know that Biden has a tendency to exaggerate and mix up facts (Ive seen several Daniel Dale fact checks of him). I dont like it, but I havent seen anything so egregious to make me jump ship.

---

he cites so many sources directly in that article, man.

he might be biased but he isn't making up facts.

---

there's a quote from biden where he admits he was not in the civil rights movement even

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Is there a less biased source than King?

I did vaguely know that he had some history with plagiarism from a long time ago, which I agree is bad but if he paid the price for that and hasnt done it in 30 or 40 years I look at that as being in the past. As far as the new allegations go its pretty hard to tell from this whether Biden has actually been blatantly making stuff up or is exaggerating and Kings interpreting it in the worst possible light. I do know that Biden has a tendency to exaggerate and mix up facts (Ive seen several Daniel Dale fact checks of him). I dont like it, but I havent seen anything so egregious to make me jump ship.

He did not pay the price. He got his degree, he got his law license, he got to be senator and vice president.

---

I mean, I don't really care about it for voting purposes. It was decades ago and from what I remember, not a malicious thing. It does confirm what a lot of other things suggest, which is that Biden isn't one of the brightest people around.

And that is......actually a quality I really want in a president. Not necessarily that they are highly knowledgeable or even all around smart. But that they have insight and creativity and are not just going to do what a bunch of advisors tell them to do. If presidents were supposed to just listen to their advisors, we really wouldn't need elections at all.

---

pxlated posted...

he cites so many sources directly in that article, man.

he might be biased but he isn't making up facts.

What I mean is that some of his evidence is stuff like "I talked to this prominent civil rights historian and they don't remember ever reading about Joe Biden's participation." That's consistent with Joe lying, sure, but it's also consistent with him participating in some minor way and then exaggerating.

---