US politics - sometimes political jokes get elected

[Fragile Bird]

Just a note about the markets.

The coronavirus is a real concern, and people are waiting to see if there is a leap in new cases and more deaths over the next week or so, since the longer-length estimates of the incubancy period will have gone through a cycle. If numbers at least stabilize, the markets will be happy.

The other risk is Iowa results today. If Sanders does well, there'll be concern, and even though everyone expects him to do well in New Hampshire next week, that will upset the market further. This is new, since politics haven't really dented the markets at all over the past three years. Stuff is getting real now, though.

So expect volatility for a while.

And if you missed the news, Amazon lagged the other FANG stocks, but great numbers meant buyers played catch up and the stock price leapt up almost $400 dollars. But it's an expensive stock, $2,016.

Tesla, on the other hand, had lots and lots of bad news last year and a huge number of detractors. Great numbers last week knocked out many doubters and seems to have brought in new, serious money (as opposed to just fans of the car). That stock jumped over $100 in a day and is up another $100 today, to $757.

[Kalbear]

Interesting. I dont know if it means sanders has more support among people who COULD vote but havent registered yet, or it's mostly non us citizens. 

 

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

@mormont

I was thinking about what you asked in the last thread about what's different for Sanders now than in 2016. I think the idea is that if Sanders were to win the primary, then Democrats fall in line behind him, and what he brings is pulling in independent voters who aren't registered democrats so they can't vote in the primaries (though they can vote in the general election). Especially the upper mid-west states that Obama won, but then went to Trump.

I think the bigger issue, and someone brought it up already, is assuming all Democrats will fall behind Bernie. The vitriol in this divide on the left runs pretty, pretty deep.

Edit: P.S., I'm not blaming one side or the other for the vitriol. It's just a very real problem.

OK, but that just leads me to further questions. Like, aren't many of the primaries open to these voters already? And how many voters out there aren't registered Dems but are left-wing enough to vote for Sanders? Again, I believe you that they're out there - but it seems to me there's an act of faith in believing in this untapped well of Sanders voters that exists in all the right constituencies. Like, those fabled white working class voters in the upper mid-west - is there much evidence that they're really keen to vote for Sanders, or is this a case of Sanders supporters thinking 'well, those types of voters should vote for Sanders, it's in their interests, so of course they will!'

Remember what I said about voting being emotional as much as it is rational. That, it seems to me, is both the opportunity and the danger for Sanders. He can engage voters' emotions strongly - in both directions.

[SpaceChampion]

Not really a #NeverBernie situation.  The woman was a paid field organizer for Warren, and had no one to organize.  Doubtful any of the organizers would switch.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Like, aren't many of the primaries open to these voters already?

See here.  The NCSL is usually pretty accurate, albeit that page hasn't been update in a year and a half.  Anyway, they've got 9 states that are "totally" closed, and another 7 that are "partially closed."  All remaining states/systems, yes, would be open to unaffiliated voters.

[Fez]

New Morning Consult polling has Bloomberg running best against Trump, at +7; Biden and Sanders are both at +4; Warren and Buttegieg are both at +1.

This isn't the first poll with Bloomberg showing what the power of essentially unlimited resources can get you.  And since my sole criteria is still who has the best shot at beating Trump, I'm getting real close to declaring myself a Bloomberg supporter in the primary.

They also did a national primary poll, which found Bloomberg tied with Warren for third place at 14%, Biden had 28% and Sanders 24%. Buttegieg was down to 6%.

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

New Morning Consult polling has Bloomberg running best against Trump, at +7; Biden and Sanders are both at +4; Warren and Buttegieg are both at +1.

This isn't the first poll with Bloomberg showing what the power of essentially unlimited resources can get you.  And since my sole criteria is still who has the best shot at beating Trump, I'm getting real close to declaring myself a Bloomberg supporter in the primary.

Quick question. As a practical matter isn't this election going to come down to voters in about 11 or 12 states? And how are the various candidates doing in those states.

[DMC]

29 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And how are the various candidates doing in those states.

That's one reason why I don't start looking at who is "viable" until pollsters start doing state-by-state head-to-head matchups for the general.  That usually start around now - when primary voting starts.  But I dunno this time, polling has weirdly been much less frequent this cycle than I remember since at least..2004.

[aceluby]

Is Vermont as extreme left as people in this thread make out Sanders voters?  Because it seems like a pretty mainstream state, if not a bit more rural than your typical blue state.  I mean, he's won by 20+ points, and even in the bluest of states you still have to convince a lot of moderates, independents, and even conservatives to get to those numbers.

Just seems to me that maybe this notion that he only attracts the craziest of left voters might not be accurate.

[sologdin]

I'm afraid its simply going to push those who fear "socialism" further into their echo chambers.
 

i think we should assume that no one is immune to education.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, DMC said:

That's one reason why I don't start looking at who is "viable" until pollsters start doing state-by-state head-to-head matchups for the general.  That usually start around now - when primary voting starts.  But I dunno this time, polling has weirdly been much less frequent this cycle than I remember since at least..2004.

I was hoping you would give me an answer.

The reason I didn't research it myself? I'm extremely lazy. Very, very lazy.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The reason I didn't research it myself? I'm extremely lazy. Very, very lazy.

I can empathize...

8 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Is Vermont as extreme left as people in this thread make out Sanders voters? 

Uh, yes, by basically any objective measure, Vermont is one of the most "liberal," "progressive," leftist, what have you states in the country.  Just look here - it has the highest amount of respondents identifying as liberal among all 50 states - just behind DC.

That being said, sure, Sanders isn't just attracting the leftist voters in Vermont that nationally compose most of his constituency.  That's going to be the case for any incumbent that's won 11 statewide elections, as Sanders has.

[Ormond]

7 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Is Vermont as extreme left as people in this thread make out Sanders voters?  Because it seems like a pretty mainstream state, if not a bit more rural than your typical blue state.  I mean, he's won by 20+ points, and even in the bluest of states you still have to convince a lot of moderates, independents, and even conservatives to get to those numbers.

Just seems to me that maybe this notion that he only attracts the craziest of left voters might not be accurate.

According to census bureau definitions, Vermont is tied with Maine as the most rural state (61% of the population living in "rural" areas), so it's more than just a "bit" more rural. 

https://gis-portal.data.census.gov/arcgis/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=7a41374f6b03456e9d138cb014711e01

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, sologdin said:

I'm afraid its simply going to push those who fear "socialism" further into their echo chambers.
 

i think we should assume that no one is immune to education.

I agree on an individual basis.  In aggregate has that ever been the case?

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Quick question. As a practical matter isn't this election going to come down to voters in about 11 or 12 states? And how are the various candidates doing in those states.

There basically hasn't been individual state general election polling yet, especially by the better pollsters around. There are a handful here and there, but not enough to establish any trendlines.

Also, I think the election this far out has the potential to scramble the map a bit more than you'd expect. There's about 20 states that I wouldn't be absolutely shocked to see either side win, depending on how things shake out. There's enough different competing trends happening that I think there's a larger number of potential tipping point states than usual.

There was a state poll last month showing Biden winning Delaware in a blowout, but the other candidates only narrowly beating Trump. Conversely, I think any of the more suburban Republican states have the potential to flip if its a good night for Democrats.

[Freshwater Spartan]

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Democrats are more or less unanimous that Biden is an unimpressive and past his prime candidate.  There are some that still like him, and will still vote for him, but very few are really fired up about Biden (even fewer than Clinton in 2016).  That is extremely worrisome, because the 2020 election is going to be a hard, hard fight, and if the candidate isn't someone who inspires people, then the slog of this campaign is going to be brutal. 

In contrast, Democrats are very split on Sanders.  He clearly has a contingent of very enthusiastic supporters, who will no doubt come out for him in the campaign season.  But there is also a large contingent of the party that is extremely concerned that Sanders lefty positions and socialist history will make him unpalatable to independents and conservative democrats, potentially making him a far worse candidate than Biden. 

And for some reason, Democrats are coalescing around these two septuagenarians instead of just rallying around one of the many better candidates who are running or who have already dropped out.  Because Democrats...like name recognition?  I dunno, it seems very, very stupid to me, and I'm definitely bitter about it. 

Excellent analysis of the race so far. Another thing to add has been how skittish the non Sanders and non Biden's have been. Think where we would have been in October had these voters stuck by Warren instead of being thrown off the mfa debate. Or a month later when Buttigieg was surging then got piled on in that debate. Stick to your guns people! Now this race is going to be decided by the blind fanatics and the uninformed.

[DMC]

In good news for the day:

 

[sologdin]

not good news. i loathe his politics, but malignancy is absolutely hostis humani generis.

[DMC]

oh, you're no fun.

[sologdin]

au contraire.  i envision, after the revolution, a dialectical materialism theme park, whereat we can all recreate with educational demonstrations regarding the history of the manufacture of steel bolts for mid-century machine tools set to shostakovich, ride mass transit while singing l'internationale, and enjoy moments of respectful silence in reverence for defeated ideological adversaries.  these exciting events will be followed by raw fruitarian barbecue and scholarly contemplation for dessert.