US Presidential Election 2020

is_that_so

spacecoyote wrote: »

Its a bit of a weird one though, as the rules for qualification for debate 4 are identical to debate 3.

So technically, a lot of the guys that just missed out on this one, have a chunk more time to get the same number of Qualifying polls/Donors (can't remember which candidate exactly, but one of them met the donor numbers, but only had 3 qualifying polls, where 4 are necessary)

So even though only 10 are in now, the number could jump back up for the next one (arguably without the platform of the 3rd debate it might be difficult to get donors or polling numbers up)

If they are already down at such low numbers they will have no impact. Some may push on but common sense should tell them to call it a day.

peddlelies

Biden is coming out with major gaffes on a daily basis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-he-campaigns-for-president-joe-biden-tells-a-moving-but-false-war-story/2019/08/29/b5159676-c9aa-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html

Joe Biden painted a vivid scene for the 400 people packed into a college meeting hall. A four-star general had asked the then-vice president to travel to Kunar province in Afghanistan, a dangerous foray into “godforsaken country” to recognize the remarkable heroism of a Navy captain.

“He said, ‘Sir, I don’t want the damn thing!’ ” Biden said, his jaw clenched and his voice rising to a shout. “’Do not pin it on me, Sir! Please, Sir. Do not do that! He died. He died!’ ”

The room was silent.

“This is the God’s truth,” Biden had said as he told the story. “My word as a Biden...

Except almost every detail in the story appears to be incorrect. Based on interviews with more than a dozen U.S. troops, their commanders and Biden campaign officials, it appears as though the former vice president has jumbled elements of at least three actual events into one story of bravery, compassion and regret that never happened."

eagle eye

Biden is too old, Sanders is too old and easy for Trump to attack policy wise. Sanders has no hope, only real shot of the four leading candidates is Warren and I don't like her chances.
Is it too late for someone else to throw their hat in the ring? Joe Kennedy is a bit young imo but he would beat Trump easily.

Hande hoche!

One of the "tinfoily" suggestions was that no one would be on track to win the primary and Michelle Obama would be selected.

Water John

The Dem primary could go all the ways to convention if 3 are close. But the candidate almost certainly would come from the 3.

Loafing Oaf

eagle eye wrote: »

Biden is too old, Sanders is too old.

In contrast to the young hotshot they're up against

Ash.J.Williams

The polls suggesting trump is gonna lose are wrong

Fr Tod Umptious

eagle eye wrote: »

Biden is too old, Sanders is too old and easy for Trump to attack policy wise. Sanders has no hope, only real shot of the four leading candidates is Warren and I don't like her chances.
Is it too late for someone else to throw their hat in the ring? Joe Kennedy is a bit young imo but he would beat Trump easily.

When this election is over I'm going to do a count on how many times that was said on this thread and about how many different people

Cody montana

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The polls suggesting trump is gonna lose are wrong

Because?

eagle eye

Cody montana wrote:

Because?

As hateful as he has a he has some charisma about. He will get people to the polls to vote for him.
The Democratic party is fractured, it's like two or even three parties under one umbrella. If you are pro-socialist you will go out and vote for Bernie if he's the candidate but if you are a Biden fan it's likely.you won't bother voting.
There is a possibility that people do go out and vote due to their hate for Trump but it's also possible that many stay at home if it's not their candidate up for election due to strong disagreements over policy.

eagle eye

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

When this election is over I'm going to do a count on how many times that was said on this thread and about how many different people

Well I named two and neither went for the nomination. Really I just named one who I thought might go for the nomination and that was Martin Heinrich.

eagle eye

Loafing Oaf wrote:

In contrast to the young hotshot they're up against

Biden looks and acts really old. Bernie sticks to his policy talk but once he gets pulled outside what he knows he looks old and out of touch.
Trump comes across like he knows what he is going on about.

Cody montana

eagle eye wrote: »

As hateful as he has a he has some charisma about. He will get people to the polls to vote for him.
The Democratic party is fractured, it's like two or even three parties under one umbrella. If you are pro-socialist you will go out and vote for Bernie if he's the candidate but if you are a Biden fan it's likely.you won't bother voting.
There is a possibility that people do go out and vote due to their hate for Trump but it's also possible that many stay at home if it's not their candidate up for election due to strong disagreements over policy.

And the republicans are what exactly?
Another gop member retiring today.
That makes 14 so far.

It’s August 2019.
Election is ages away.
When the Democrats are left with their candidate, then they become united at beating trump.
They’ve plenty of ammo to defeat him.
He’s accomplished very little.

Cody montana

eagle eye wrote: »

Biden looks and acts really old. Bernie sticks to his policy talk but once he gets pulled outside what he knows he looks old and out of touch.
Trump comes across like he knows what he is going on about.

And you were doing so well till the last point!

pixelburp

eagle eye wrote: »

Biden looks and acts really old. Bernie sticks to his policy talk but once he gets pulled outside what he knows he looks old and out of touch.
Trump comes across like he knows what he is going on about.

"Comes across" being the operative word, because Trump's confidence is easily batted back at him when you replay clips of him boasting about knowing more about ISIS than the generals, knowing more about the environment than anyone, nobody being less racist than him, raking forest floors etc. etc.

His braggadocio was enticing when he was the hurler in the ditch, with no political record, but he's had 3 years of lies, exaggerations and a less than spectacular list of achieved goals.

I wouldn't say this is a shoe-in for the Democrats; Biden is a disaster waiting to happen and Sanders ... well he could go either way. But Trump IMO has shown himself to be an empty vessel making the most noise.

Water John

'Trump comes across like he knows what he is going on about.' Quote.

This statement could well win, the best joke, at the Edinburgh Festival.

StringerBell

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The polls suggesting trump is gonna lose are wrong

Well Jesus why didn't someone just say this!?

Sure that's that so, job done. 4 more years.

Ash.J.Williams

Cody montana wrote: »

Because?

Gawd...here we go again

StringerBell

Yes, to be asked to flesh out a declarative statement is indeed an unreasonable request.

StringerBell

Yes, to be asked to flesh out a declarative statement is indeed an unreasonable request.

is_that_so

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Gawd...here we go again

I think most of us assumed that was the title of the essay as we're not inside your head so please elaborate ...

For example
I'm not entirely sure at present, as an incumbent usually get the benefit of the doubt. However, he's not popular, is not exactly demonstrating full faculties and driven by utter narcissism. Even so, if the Dems don't get their candidates right he could get right back in.

MadYaker

eagle eye wrote: »

Biden looks and acts really old. Bernie sticks to his policy talk but once he gets pulled outside what he knows he looks old and out of touch.
Trump comes across like he knows what he is going on about.

The guy can barely string a coherent sentence together and you think he sounds like he knows what’s he’s talking about? He can’t even talk properly he just rants.

Manic Moran

I just came across on the PBS website an interesting survey entitled "Do you live in a bubble?". It's designed to help you understand whether or not you understand the majority of what the electorate are like and why they may not agree with what seems obvious to you.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2

It won't cross over to you guys entirely, as some of the questions simply won't apply. The questions are also a couple years old (It's a 2016 survey), but still generally valid. If you are wondering why some of the questions are asked, which are often a little surprising, there is a little popup for each question, but the basic gist of it is that they all refer to extremely common things in the US which a very large portion of the population does or is affected by.

In my case, at 26 points, I was only one step down from "I live in a complete bubble." It's out of a hundred. 100 is "Common or garden working class person".

FatherTed

Manic Moran wrote: »

I just came across on the PBS website an interesting survey entitled "Do you live in a bubble?". It's designed to help you understand whether or not you understand the majority of what the electorate are like and why they may not agree with what seems obvious to you.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2

It won't cross over to you guys entirely, as some of the questions simply won't apply. The questions are also a couple years old (It's a 2016 survey), but still generally valid. If you are wondering why some of the questions are asked, which are often a little surprising, there is a little popup for each question, but the basic gist of it is that they all refer to extremely common things in the US which a very large portion of the population does or is affected by.

In my case, at 26 points, I was only one step down from "I live in a complete bubble." It's out of a hundred. 100 is "Common or garden working class person".

Got 23(I live in the US). So if I fish or go to the Waffle house or watch Nascar and drive a pickup truck, I'd be more in the Bubble?

Manic Moran

Less in a bubble.

rossie1977

Latest Wisconsin poll, a vital state as I see little path to 270 for the Dem candidate should they not win this..

Biden leads Trump by 9
Sanders leads Trump by 4
Trump vs Warren and Harris is a tie.

4068ac1elhodqr

Wonder is Joe's health is of concern, already plagued with health issues, his left eye filled up with blood during a CNN debate, wonder how common is such an incident.
Certainly not a good image on live tv.



Out to 3rd fav now on the markets, a better candidate is Mr.Yang who is now now up to 6th Fav for POTUS, overtaking Pete & Pence.

spacecoyote

Despite only 10 making the 3rd debate, it'll be at least 11 by the look of things for the 4th. Steyer has now met the required criteria to qualify.

Seems there is a bit of controversy around Gabbard too. She is claiming that she has a third qualifying poll, but the Dems are saying that the poll didn't meet the required criteria, so it doesn't count.

If its at 11/12, assuming none of the current top 10 drop out, that would mean they're back to a 2 night debate again I assume.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/at-least-11-candidates-will-make-the-fourth-democratic-debate/

Rjd2

Tulsi has been very poorly treated regarding this debate, but to be expected as the DNC loath her. Its very odd as she has zero chance of winning.

The Phantom Jipper

Rjd2 wrote: »

Tulsi has been very poorly treated regarding this debate, but to be expected as the DNC loath her. Its very odd as she has zero chance of winning.

How has she been poorly treated? The rules are the same for everyone and she has struggled to get over the pitifully low bar that has been set. I don't think any of them have cause for complaint if they can't get over 2% in a handful of the dozens and dozens of polls that are in scope.

rossie1977

Latest ABC polls
Biden leads Trump nationally by 15
Sanders leads Trump by 9
Warren and Harris lead him by 7

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/sept-2-5-2019-washington-post-abc-news-poll/d4e18b36-79bf-492d-91e3-d1c7a49d37e2/

Emerson poll in New Hampshire isn't good news for Warren. She is currently losing to Trump there whereas Biden +10 and Sanders +5 both beating Trump head to head there. Yang amazingly enough enough is beating Trump by 8 in NH. Its a conservative enough state and one Trump almost won in 16 so that's a very strange number. Maybe an anomaly we will wait and see I guess.

peddlelies

Latest economist/yougov poll has Warren and Biden tied.

"The 2020 candidate pulled off a rare showing in an Economist/YouGov poll published Wednesday, tying the largely untouchable former Vice President Joe Biden with 26 percent support among registered voters. It marks one of the few polls where Biden is within danger of losing his frontrunner status, and contains a dismal prediction for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)."

https://theweek.com/speedreads/864229/joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-are-tied-26-percent-new-poll

4068ac1elhodqr

Live markets have Warren as the lead contender (for DN), some shortening for HC@26avg, which is curious indeed.

SJW Lover

StringerBell wrote: »

Well Jesus why didn't someone just say this!?

Sure that's that so, job done. 4 more years.

The polls were hilariously incorrect the last time. So much so, i remember people in the politics forum here openly scoffing at anyone who suggested Clinton wasnt going to win. There was a silent Trump vote from people who were afraid of ridicule if they said who they were going to vote for. Think anything has changed in this respect? So, why trust any polling now?

rossie1977

SJW Lover wrote: »

The polls were hilariously incorrect the last time. So much so, i remember people in the politics forum here openly scoffing at anyone who suggested Clinton wasnt going to win. There was a silent Trump vote from people who were afraid of ridicule if they said who they were going to vote for. Think anything has changed in this respect? So, why trust any polling now?

Polls weren't. The average of polls had Clinton winning nationally by 3.2 point and she won by 2.1.

There was a handful of state polls off like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

pixelburp

SJW Lover wrote: »

The polls were hilariously incorrect the last time. So much so, i remember people in the politics forum here openly scoffing at anyone who suggested Clinton wasnt going to win. There was a silent Trump vote from people who were afraid of ridicule if they said who they were going to vote for. Think anything has changed in this respect? So, why trust any polling now?

Simply untrue. As said already Trump was polling at good odds, while even 538's own aggregates gave Trump a 33% chance. The media focused on Trump as underdog vs. Clinton, the manifestation of the Establishment, but the polls always said it was a closer race than reported. The chatter might have been wrong - the ODDS ultimately were not.

And the difference now is simple: Trump was the hurler on the ditch in 2016, promising to MAGA. He has 4 years of decisions, failures, controversies and quantifiable results to pick apart. Not so easy to promise big when he's finally where the buck stops. No Mexican wall, no super-improved and repealed healthcare, and so on.

And in any case, even if the pollsters were wrong: a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but that doesn't mean you then go around scoffing at watchmakers for telling the wrong time either

4068ac1elhodqr

Trump was 9/1 even on election night when they were counting the votes, terrific value.

So far he's avoided any major new wars (HC may have went into Syria), some would say allowed peace to prosper in Korea and now has rightfully removed a dangerous hawk.
The economy is booming, reckon it's fairly safe to say he has another 4yrs from 2020, but this time the odds are too short to bother with at evens.

pixelburp

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Trump was 9/1 even on election night when they were counting the votes, terrific value.

So far he's avoid any major new wars, some would say allowed peace to prosper in Syria and NK and now has rightfully removed a dangerous hawk.
The economy is booming, reckon it's fairly safe to say he has another 4yrs from 2020, but this time the odds are too short to bother with at evens.

You don't get praise for removing a hawk you installed. Come on now.

As for his foreign impact, it may not involved wars, but when it his behaviour has: involved stripping back the State Dept; destabilised established alliances bordering on friendships (eg, with the EU); coming down in favour of Brexit, despite the danger it poses to the GGA; tearing up international treaties like the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran deal & the nuclear proliferation treaty with Russia, then no. Maybe there has been no new war in the Middle East, but it's both reductionist and naive to think his effect on the global scale has been a net positive.

In any case, none of these items will come up in the 2020 election, because the average US voter will not care - bar perhaps some military families at a pinch.

everlast75

SJW Lover wrote: »

The polls were hilariously incorrect the last time. So much so, i remember people in the politics forum here openly scoffing at anyone who suggested Clinton wasnt going to win. There was a silent Trump vote from people who were afraid of ridicule if they said who they were going to vote for. Think anything has changed in this respect? So, why trust any polling now?

rossie1977 wrote: »

There was a handful of state polls off like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Were they the three states for which Manafort handed polling data to a russian operative by any chance?

They were

rossie1977

Yes they aren't the issues people are interested in.

Fact is Trump is deeply unpopular in the rust belt right now. At last count he was -14 in Wisconsin, -13 in Michigan and -9 in Pennsylvania. Compare that to January 17 where he was +6 in Wisconsin, +7 in Michigan and +10 in Pennsylvania.

Trump's own team know they have a problem. They are targetting places like Oregon and Colorado if numbers don't improve in rust belt

SJW Lover

pixelburp wrote: »

Simply untrue. As said already Trump was polling at good odds, while even 538's own aggregates gave Trump a 33% chance. The media focused on Trump as underdog vs. Clinton, the manifestation of the Establishment, but the polls always said it was a closer race than reported. The chatter might have been wrong - the ODDS ultimately were not.

And the difference now is simple: Trump was the hurler on the ditch in 2016, promising to MAGA. He has 4 years of decisions, failures, controversies and quantifiable results to pick apart. Not so easy to promise big when he's finally where the buck stops. No Mexican wall, no super-improved and repealed healthcare, and so on.

And in any case, even if the pollsters were wrong: a stopped clock may be right twice a day, but that doesn't mean you then go around scoffing at watchmakers for telling the wrong time either

Nope that isnt true. All of the polls had Clinton winning. Hence the utter shock everywhere when Trump won. Nate Silver's reputation has been ruined because of it.

SJW Lover

rossie1977 wrote: »

Polls weren't. The average of polls had Clinton winning nationally by 3.2 point and she won by 2.1.

There was a handful of state polls off like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Pretty expensive handful of states wasnt it? So much of a handful that Clinton didnt win at all.

SJW Lover

everlast75 wrote: »

Were they the three states for which Manafort handed polling data to a russian operative by any chance?

They were

Ah here :pac:

pixelburp

SJW Lover wrote: »

Nope that isnt true. All of the polls had Clinton winning. Hence the utter shock everywhere when Trump won. Nate Silver's reputation has been ruined because of it.

Look, the data's right here if you want to peruse; the news narrative might have spoken of Clinton as shoe-in, but the polls were not so cut & dry, nor were the overall odds given for a Clinton victory:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/updates/

538 did a post-mortem and on the eve of the election still gave Trump a 29% - ok, not exactly 1/3 - chance of the Presidency. That was still not a guaranteed Clinton victory, and Vegas continues to make money because people mistake 71% chance of winning as 100%.

That there was shock spoke more about Trump being a loud, shocking candidate whose campaign - and Presidency - was a weekly series of outrageous comments and claims. And that included me: I thought Establishment money would rule, and Clinton would get the nod. I honestly didn't imagine someone as crass and obviously "making it up as he went along" as Trump would get elected, but I underestimated the level of disenfranchisement the Rust Belt had for Washington, and just how hated Clinton was in those same parts.

However, it is not 2016 anymore, and as I said Trump has to stand over actions, instead of cribbing about Obama playing golf from the comfort of Twitter.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/

rossie1977

SJW Lover wrote: »

Nope that isnt true. All of the polls had Clinton winning. Hence the utter shock everywhere when Trump won. Nate Silver's reputation has been ruined because of it.

Clinton won nationally by 3 million votes and majority of polls were predicting national vote not state by state

Clinton's poll numbers dropped dramatically after the comey e-mail stuff. This ABC poll has Trump winning nationally a week or so out https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-leads-clinton-point-poll-enthusiasm-declines/story?id=43199459

Ibd had him winning a few days out
https://www.investors.com/politics/trump-holds-2-point-lead-over-clinton-as-election-day-arrives-final-ibd-tipp-poll-results/

Brian?

SJW Lover wrote: »

Nope that isnt true. All of the polls had Clinton winning. Hence the utter shock everywhere when Trump won. Nate Silver's reputation has been ruined because of it.

You actually couldn't be more wrong here.

All of the polls were withing the margin for error, Clinton won the popular vote as predicted. She lost it in the rust belt by a fraction of 1%.

Nate Silver's state by state model was pretty accurate. I remember everyone praising him on election night for calling the states so well.

Just because people repeat this lie ad nauseam, it doesn't make it true.

eagle eye

There's at least one poll every day and we'll see different results regularly. It's pointless posting all these poll results. What we need to do is look at the one poll which has been consistently most accurate and stick with that one.

pixelburp

Getting back to the specific topic at hand, and in case people aren't aware, the third debate is on tonight. Mercifully just the one night with only 10 candidates, and I'm looking forward to it for no other reason than it should - SHOULD! - be a more substantive look at the candidates pitted against each other. All in one room, no loss of exposure, should be interesting.

Hande hoche!

Interesting to see what Yang gets up to, his campaign manager seems to be hinting at something. Curious as to how any sparring takes place between Biden and Warren.

4068ac1elhodqr

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Interesting to see what Yang gets up to, his campaign manager seems to be hinting at something. Curious as to how any sparring takes place between Biden and Warren.

All Yang (6th fav for POTUS) needs to do is deliver his USP, perhaps by wearing a t-shirt with 'vote for me, and get yourself $1,000 for free every month'. Job done.

If Biden & Warren get into a load of nasty spats, it will help all the underdogs even more.

Biden will be hoping his eyeball won't fill up with blood (as per a recent CNN live TV debate), it's really not a good look and might get the CT's tweeting that he's shapeshifting or something.