1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Ready The Clown Car: The First Batch of Democrats Are Ready To Announce Their 2020 Bids

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by MojoMan, Jan 1, 2019.

  1. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    It is probably not a campaign transforming endorsement for Mr. Yang, that is for sure.

    Of course we need to remember that only candidates that get 15% of the votes in these primaries are eligible to receive delegates. So in Iowa, if the polls are anywhere close to right, then Yang will not be getting any delegates, even with Ms. Williamson's help.

    The only candidates who appear to be reasonably likely to be able to walk out of Iowa with delegates, according to the Iowa RCP poll average, are Sanders (24.2), Biden (21.0), Buttigieg (16.8) and Warren (14.7). Both Warren and Buttigieg appear to be close to the line. No other candidate is currently polling over 10% in Iowa (Klobuchar is fifth with 9.2%)
     
    Nook likes this.
  2. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
  3. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    21,011
    Likes Received:
    16,853
  4. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    Here were the national RCP poll average numbers that I posted here on January 5, 2020.

    As already posted several times, today Biden is at 28.1% in the current RCP national poll average. Using skills that I mastered no later than the second grade, I can tell you with confidence that 28.1 is a lower or smaller number than 29.3. But perhaps you are using some a method of evaluating and calculating this difference that I am not familiar with.

    In any case, you are mistaken.
     
  5. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    43,346
    Honestly, I wouldn't nitpick over a percent or two. If you look at the averages and how they have an EKG line, it's because of certain polls that are released at different times. The hill/harris, harvard/harris, survery USA have all consistently had Biden in double-digit leads, none have released a current poll yet and when they do Biden's lead will shoot up again, then newer polls from other organizations will come out and Bernie will shoot up again.

    It's better zoom out a little and look at the macro scale to see, right now Bernie is trending up into the low 20's, Biden is staying the same in the high 20's. This is the closest Bernie has every been to Biden. Warren has halted around 15%, Bloomberg is trending up to 8%, Buttigieg in decline to below 7% (lowest since Nov), Yang trending up into mid 4's (highest of campaign), Amy trending up into low 4's (highest of campaign).
     
    jiggyfly likes this.
  6. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    I have no problem with that analysis.

    Probably more relevant right now is whether Bernie can hang on and win in Iowa next Monday. If he does (and even if he doesn't) those national numbers are likely to change. There will be more candidates getting out of the race after Iowa and New Hampshire. If Biden and Sanders come out of those two contests in the lead, there is a strong chance that they both pick up support. But if one of these two wins both of those first two contests, that person may very well pick up more.
     
  7. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    43,346
    They are (IMO) a pretty great nonprofit that works to protect endangered species, wildlife, public lands etc. I guess they are technically a special interest group, like domestic violence groups, cancer groups, child hunger/abuse groups, animal rescue groups etc are all special interest groups that do really good honest work.

    I know there can be a gray area within many of these organizations, but if you look into the center for biological diversity specifically I think you wouldn't be disappointed.

    If they were giving their opinion on anything other then their field of expertise I'd agree with you they should keep their opinions to themselves, but this is specifically about the candidate's records regarding endangered species, public lands, climate change, and handling of environmental injustices. These are some of the issues I hold closest to my heart so I thought I'd share, they give a rationale for each candidate's grade based of decisions/votes/campaign comments they have made if you click the link.
     
    JuanValdez likes this.
  8. mick fry

    mick fry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    19,343
    Likes Received:
    6,875
    Avenatti appeared on CNN and MSNBC 108 times so yes one was a definite and the other is debatable.
     
  9. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,469
    Likes Received:
    110,430
  10. mick fry

    mick fry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    19,343
    Likes Received:
    6,875
  11. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    Os Trigonum likes this.
  12. fchowd0311

    fchowd0311 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    47,156
    Likes Received:
    36,003
    How many times did Corey lewandowski appear on CNN?

    But hey, the literal CEO of Fox News had to resign due to 23 claims of sexual harassment from his employees.
     
    Nook likes this.
  13. mick fry

    mick fry Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    Messages:
    19,343
    Likes Received:
    6,875
    And yet Don Lemon keeps his job after his sexual harassment charges.
     
    #2473 mick fry, Jan 30, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2020
  14. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,469
    Likes Received:
    110,430
  15. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    The DNC has dropped the donor requirement at the last minute for their upcoming debates. The motivation for this appears to be to make a way for Michael Bloomberg to become eligible, as he has said he is not taking donations

    DNC drops donor requirement for debates, opening door for Bloomberg

    The Democratic National Committee eliminated Friday a fundraising requirement to qualify for the February debate in Las Vegas, potentially paving the way for former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg to make the stage for the first time.

    Under the new criteria, candidates can meet either a delegates threshold or a polling threshold to qualify for the Feb. 19 debate in Las Vegas, just three days before the Nevada caucuses. Specifically, candidates must have been allocated at least one pledged delegate at the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary.

    Candidates can also qualify by reaching 10 percent support in at least four national polls or surveys of South Carolina and Nevada released between Jan. 15 and Feb. 18. Alternatively, a candidate can qualify for the debate by reaching 12 percent support in two sanctioned national or early-state surveys.

    Bloomberg has been self-funding his campaign and has failed to reach the fundraising thresholds for previous debates. But now with fundraising barrier removed, Bloomberg might join Democrats on stage for the first time.​

    Someone among the Democrat leaders might decide to tag Bloomberg as the "Citizens United" candidate. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    Also, there have been other candidates that have earlier failed to qualify to participate in earlier debates because they did not achieve the donor threshold. But apparently since Bloomberg has a donor base of one, with an effectively unlimited budget, that is different.

    Bernie Sanders weighs in. And you can bet the Bernie Bros are all over this one.

    Bernie Sanders Campaign Calls New Debate Criteria a 'Rigged System' After DNC Removes Donor Threshold
     
  16. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    43,346
    In order to get a delegate, you have to have at least 15% right?

    So 10% in 4 national polls OR state SC/NV polls

    or

    12% in 2 national polls or early state polls? (is early state just SC/NV or does this expand to other states?)

    And in both scenarios the only polls that count are between Jan 15 through feb 18th? I wish this was written a bit better, maybe I'm slow but it's taking me a minute to piece it together. I take all this as the next debate likely featuring

    Biden, Bernie, Warren, Bloomberg, Steyer, Pete?

    Klobuchar very likely out, Yang, Gabbard, Bennet, Delaney, Duval all still very likely to be out. You know looking at it, if Pete doesn't hit 15% in Iowa or NH (if that is indeed to min to get a delegate), he could very well be out as well, he's not polling high in NV/SC, and he hasn't polled at 10% or 12% nationally in a while either.

    Didn't expect Steyer to stick around, guess that's what throwing a 100 million into ads will do though as he has had some high polls in SC/NV.
     
  17. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    It appears to be either national polls or NV/SC polls. From the article:

    Under the new criteria, candidates can meet either a delegates threshold or a polling threshold to qualify for the Feb. 19 debate in Las Vegas, just three days before the Nevada caucuses.
    1. Specifically, candidates must have been allocated at least one pledged delegate at the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary.
    2. Candidates can also qualify by reaching 10 percent support in at least four national polls or surveys of South Carolina and Nevada released between Jan. 15 and Feb. 18. Alternatively, a candidate can qualify for the debate by reaching 12 percent support in two sanctioned national or early-state surveys.
    So based on the current RCP poll averages for these two states and nationally, only Biden, Bernie, and Warren appear to be locks to get in.
    • Bloomberg is currently at 8.1% nationally.
    • Steyer is at 8.3 in SC and 7.3 in NV.
    • Pete is at 7.0 nationally, 7.7 in NV and 6.3 in SC.
    Maybe Bloomberg makes a run at the national polls somehow, with his big fat wallet. But I do not think I had noticed until just now how weak Pete is after the first two states. Maybe that changes if he does well in Iowa and New Hampshire. But even still, it seems very possible that Steyer is out by New Hampshire and Pete is out by SC, before Super Tuesday.

    If that turns out to be right, then the Dems will go into Super Tuesday down to three candidates, Biden, Sanders and Warren.
     
    Corrosion likes this.
  18. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    43,346
    Bloomberg doesn't have to poll at 10% nationally, just hit 4 polls at 10%, he's already done this, but I'm not sure if it's only specific DNC approved polls or what, but if you look at the polls starting at 1/15 on RCP, he has 4 at 10% +

    Steyer has one poll at 12% is SC and one at 15% in NV, both are before 1/15 so wouldn't count, but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of him making the debate off of hitting two 12% polls within in SC/NV


    So I think Bloomberg will be a lock based off his national polling, on top of the already locked Bernie/Biden/Warren, and I think Steyer and Pete could be viewed as likely through Petes 15% in one of Iowa/NH, and Steyer hitting 12% in two polls between SC/NV.

    Klobuchar seems likely to be done baring an upset in Iowa, as well as Yang, Gabbard, and everyone else not listed above. These candidates should all drop out after NH if none hit 15% mark.
     
    joshuaao, Corrosion and MojoMan like this.
  19. MojoMan

    MojoMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,746
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    DNC Members are apparently discussing a change to the convention voting rules to reverse the reforms made a couple of years ago with regards to superdelegates. There has been discussion of re-allowing superdelegates to vote on the first ballot - I think they account for about 15% of all delegates - apparently for the purpose of stopping Sanders from winning the nomination.
    DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention

    A small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and head off a brokered convention.

    In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested.

    “I do believe we should re-open the rules. I hear it from others as well,” one DNC member said in a text message last week to William Owen, a DNC member from Tennessee who does not support re-opening the rules. Owen, who declined to identify the member, said the member added in a text that “It would be hard though. We could force a meeting or on the floor.”

    Even proponents of the change acknowledge it is all but certain not to gain enough support to move past these initial conversations. But the talks reveal the extent of angst that many establishment Democrats are feeling on the eve of the Iowa caucuses.​

    No decision has been reached, but surely they will not do this. Will they? The stench of corruption will be so intense that the DNC would not be able to cleanse themselves of it for a very long time.
    And many Bernie supporters would surely refuse to support the nominee for the Democrats if it was someone other than Sanders in these circumstances. It would be a pyrrhic victory for the DNC establishment, that is for sure. And what would the longer term damage be to party?
     
  20. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    72,469
    Likes Received:
    110,430
    "Democrats—voters as well as politicians—suffer from cultural insularity."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-democratic-majority-hasnt-emerged-11580673938?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

    Why the Democratic Majority Hasn’t Emerged
    The party’s geographic concentration causes candidates to lose touch and become complacent.
    By
    Michael Barone
    Feb. 2, 2020 3:05 pm ET

    The Democrats lost to Donald Trump and may do it again. How did the world’s oldest political party, which has won four of the past seven presidential elections and received popular-vote pluralities in two more, find itself in this pickle?

    One symptom of the party’s ailment is that its four top-polling presidential candidates in national surveys are in their 70s and No. 5 is a 38-year-old former mayor of a city of 102,000. Why haven’t others risen? Where are the candidates with demonstrated appeal to critical segments of the electorate? One answer is that over the past decade the Democrats have had a tough time electing candidates beyond heavily Democratic constituencies.

    The decision to enact ObamaCare in 2010 despite its obvious unpopularity—forced through by Speaker Nancy Pelosi over President Obama’s doubts—not only cost Democrats the House but helped prevent the election of Democratic senators and governors in marginal states and produced Republican legislative majorities that dominated redistricting after the 2010 census. It may be reasonable for a party to risk seats to achieve a major policy goal. But the 2010 losses were massive, and current Democratic complaints about health care suggest ObamaCare hasn’t been a policy success.

    The Democratic Party has always been a coalition of out-groups. For almost a century after the Civil War it was an awkward alliance of Southern segregationists and Catholic immigrants. Until the 1930s, it had a hard time finding plausible presidential candidates because most of its prominent officeholders were Southerners or Catholics, then considered unelectable nationally. But in 1932 they had a New York governor who was firmly Protestant and a fifth cousin of the popular Republican President Theodore Roosevelt.

    Today, with its four top contenders from the heavily Democratic Northeast—Delaware, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York—it has a similar problem. Delaware and Vermont were competitive states when Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders first sought office in the 1970s. But neither man has faced a competitive statewide race in decades.

    Representing a one-party constituency tends to breed habits of complacency, which have been exacerbated by widely circulated prophecies that demographic changes will give the Democrats a reliable national majority. A careful reading of these “ascendant America” prophets— Ruy Teixeira and John Judis in 2002, the Atlantic’s Ron Brownstein and pollster Stanley Greenberg more recently—makes clear that these trends don’t operate automatically.

    To prosper from demographic change, a party has to address the issues of the day convincingly and field candidates with appropriate strengths. It also needs to avoid unnecessarily alienating old constituencies. An acquaintance with history shows that when a party gains support from one growing group, the opposition party can gain even more from groups with opposing views even if they’re getting smaller.

    That’s what happened in 2016. Rising percentages of Hispanics and Asians and the increasing liberalism of college graduates and unmarried women were supposed to help carry Hillary Clinton to easy victory. Instead they were offset by sharp declines in Democratic support from white voters without college degrees in Rust Belt states from Pennsylvania through Iowa, and in Florida with its many Rust Belt retirees. And as the New York Times’s Nate Cohn argued persuasively that year, noncollege whites are a significantly larger share of the electorate than exit polls have indicated—even if their numbers are slowly declining.

    Democratic strategists—especially whoever advised Hillary Clinton to attack voters as “deplorables”—seem to have assumed that noncollege whites in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa would continue to vote as heavily Democratic as they had between 1992 and 2012. That made some sense: Recent elections had shown unusually small changes in partisan preferences. But the “blue wall” in these states was never very high, and treating voters with contempt was no way to shore it up.

    The assumption was that the Democrats could keep these voters in line with promises of economic redistribution, appeals to the little guy, and attacks on big corporations. But 21st-century Democratic presidential candidates have raised and spent more money than Republicans and have run even with or ahead of them among the highest-income voters. Target-state voters may feel confident that Democrats will raise taxes on the rich, but they doubt benefits will flow to them. They might have noticed that the costs of subsidized college and health care have exploded over the years, while food and clothing, left to the market, have gotten cheaper. And for voters with modest incomes, cultural issues may be more important than economic self-interest. The same is true for affluent supporters of abortion and gay rights.

    Democrats—voters as well as politicians—suffer from cultural insularity. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues have shown that conservatives are better at understanding liberal views than the converse. That’s not surprising: Whereas liberal views permeate the news media and popular culture, liberals can easily avoid exposure to conservative views. That distorts their view of the world and produces oversensitivity to leftist social-media mobs along with overconfidence in demographic trends.

    All this tends to heighten the geographic overconcentration of Democratic votes in central cities, university towns and some suburbs. Republicans are spread more evenly. For the first time in American history, the most populous state is a political outlier. Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 margin in California was 30 points.

    A party with such concentrated support is at a disadvantage in the Senate and the Electoral College, as well as in the House and state legislatures, especially when the other party controls the redistricting process. The last two presidents were re-elected with 51% of the popular vote. But George W. Bush carried 255 congressional districts, Barack Obama only 209.

    Faced with this disadvantage, some Democrats are talking about rewriting the rules to abolish or bypass the Electoral College. Others want to do away with equal representation of the states in the Senate, although under Article V of the Constitution, that would require the consent of every state.

    If the Democrats don’t beat Mr. Trump, sooner or later they’ll alight on the sensible course—take more-centrist positions and adopt conciliatory rhetoric. Bill Clinton did it in 1992: change your position on some issues and modify your rhetoric on others to win over the voters you need. That would enrage the mobs on campus and Twitter, and it’s contrary to the approach taken by this year’s leading contenders. But it had the distinct advantage of taking voters seriously—and winning.

    Mr. Barone is senior political analyst at the Washington Examiner, a resident fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “How America’s Political Parties Change (and How They Don’t).”

     
    MojoMan likes this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now