Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mlle. Zabzie

US Politics - Primary Numbers

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

As far as Sanders being a divisive figure goes, and how the eventual nominee will need to unite the party, that morning consult site that DMC linked in the last thread shows that he has the highest favorability rating among likely Dem primary voters.  Just a statistic, but we keep hearing about how divisive he is.  If he's so divisive, wouldn't any of the other candidates be just as divisive, since they are seen even less favorably?  

Larry please stop using facts. They confuse me.   :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Well, if the question is posed only to likely Democratic primary voters, that might be a big part of the answer right there. Someone who’s likely to vote in the primaries is generally among the more motivated, dedicated, and informed voters in their party, as there are literal hordes of voters that never show up except for the general election for president. You might also be excluding independents depending on whether the state has a closed primary or not. (And to not have to deal with that state by state variance, Morning Consult may have only stuck to questioning Democrats, someone with a chance to look at the methodology would be able to take a look at some of these questions.)

Or it could be that the fears are overblown. Or that most are resolved to vote against Trump and/or Republicans no matter what. Or that they’re not willing to say it, at least so far. Etc., etc.

Absolutely, my point is just that we're hearing so much of "Sanders is too divisive", though in fact it seems he's the most favorably viewed primary candidate.  I'm just saying that these complaints seem kind of hollow if the idea is to beat Trump.  

If the argument is that Bloomberg or Klobuchar or Buttigieg is going to bring out more people in the general, fine.  I'd just be interested to see how the math works on that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

You might also be excluding independents depending on whether the state has a closed primary or not. (And to not have to deal with that state by state variance, Morning Consult may have only stuck to questioning Democrats, someone with a chance to look at the methodology would be able to take a look at some of these questions.)

All those "second choice" numbers - not just Morning Consult - are going to be reported from likely Dem primary voters, yes.  That's just kinda SOP, but I agree is an important thing to acknowledge.

Edited by DMC
likely not like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

As far as Sanders being a divisive figure goes, and how the eventual nominee will need to unite the party, that morning consult site that DMC linked in the last thread shows that he has the highest favorability rating among likely Dem primary voters.  Just a statistic, but we keep hearing about how divisive he is.  If he's so divisive, wouldn't any of the other candidates be just as divisive, since they are seen even less favorably?  

'Highest favourability rating' is still only 25%, and it tells us nothing about the strength and depth of the feeling against a candidate, which is more pertinent to my point. In any case, my point was about the party, not likely voters: I'm talking about having the party all pulling in the same direction. Candidates, workers, volunteers, all enthusiastically campaigning and backing the nominee in public. One of Corbyn's major problems was people in the party grumbling, which drowned out a lot of his campaign messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mormont said:

'Highest favourability rating' is still only 25%, and it tells us nothing about the strength and depth of the feeling against a candidate, which is more pertinent to my point. In any case, my point was about the party, not likely voters: I'm talking about having the party all pulling in the same direction. Candidates, workers, volunteers, all enthusiastically campaigning and backing the nominee in public. One of Corbyn's major problems was people in the party grumbling, which drowned out a lot of his campaign messages.

No, that's not the statistic I'm referring to. Scroll down and you'll see "Tracking Name Recognition and Favorability Among Dem Primary Voters" and you'll see

Sanders 74

Biden 68

Warren 63

Bloomberg 61

Etc.  

Sorry it's not the exact statistic you want, but it's also not the "first choice candidate" you seem to be making it out to be.  Yes, the party infrastructure is against him.  But please look at the link and see what I'm actually referring to.  

If you want someone the party won't grumble about but will leave a bunch of voters sitting at home come November, just pick Bloomberg.

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

If you want someone the party won't grumble about but will leave a bunch of voters sitting at home come November, just pick Bloomberg.

Imagine the conversation if the roles were reversed and Bloomberg instead of Sanders was well positioned to win the nomination. Concerns about Sanders ability to unify the party are considered straightforwardly valid, but any conversation about Bloomberg's ability to do so (like Clinton's in 2016) would consist mostly of blistering criticism of the left-wing voters who resisted falling in line. 

Edited by OnionAhaiReborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Imagine the conversation if the roles were reversed and Bloomberg instead of Sanders was well positioned to win the nomination. Concerns about Sanders ability to unify the party are considered straightforwardly valid, but any conversation about Bloomberg's ability to do so (like Clinton's in 2016) would consist mostly of blistering criticism of the left-wing voters who resisted falling in line. 

I disagree.  Sanders is the most left leaning candidate in the race, and Bloomberg is the most right leaning.  Both raise potential concerns amongst both Democratic voters and the party itself on whether these men are the best choices for a big tent party.  I'm sure there are portions of the party that would be quite comfortable with Bloomberg, but the same could be said of Sanders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bloomberg angle is pretty straightforward. He’ll eat the middle and he’s the lesser of two evils for the left. If the middle and left can accept him, he’ll walk over Trump. That might be a big if though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The Bloomberg angle is pretty straightforward. He’ll eat the middle and he’s the lesser of two evils for the left. If the middle and left can accept him, he’ll walk over Trump. That might be a big if though.

How'd that lesser of two evils for the left work out last time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

How'd that lesser of two evils for the left work out last time?

Accepting the lesser of two evils is a lot easier once you experience just how evil the greater evil is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The Bloomberg angle is pretty straightforward. He’ll eat the middle and he’s the lesser of two evils for the left. If the middle and left can accept him, he’ll walk over Trump. That might be a big if though.

If voters chose logically, sure.  But who is excited about Bloomberg?  Anybody?  Because there's a huge portion of the country that is excited about Trump. 

Just being the lesser of two evils is not enough for Democrats.   I think Bloomberg would be fairly easy for Trump to vilify and defeat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:
Quote

"To have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job," Barr said

What's the sound I hear?  Why it's the world's smallest violin! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

If voters chose logically, sure.  But who is excited about Bloomberg?  Anybody? 

As I discovered this weekend, my dad. He thinks Bloomberg is smarter than the candidates, would hire better people than the other candidates, and is more pragmatic than the other candidates. He thinks Bloomberg was a good NYC mayor and that he'd be a steady, normalizing force in the White House. No idea if he is representative of the aging, liberal, Jewish New Yorker vote, but there you go.

And for reference, he thinks Sanders has "some great ideas" but would "get killed" in an election against Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fez said:

As I discovered this weekend, my dad. He thinks Bloomberg is smarter than the candidates, would hire better people than the other candidates, and is more pragmatic than the other candidates. He thinks Bloomberg was a good NYC mayor and that he'd be a steady, normalizing force in the White House. No idea if he is representative of the aging, liberal, Jewish New Yorker vote, but there you go.

And for reference, he thinks Sanders has "some great ideas" but would "get killed" in an election against Trump.

I'm not sure that the tiny subset of people who lived in NYC and had Blloomberg as mayor is a very meaningful metric.  Going to be hard to form a winning coalition out of that group. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maithanet said:

I'm not sure that the tiny subset of people who lived in NYC and had Blloomberg as mayor is a very meaningful metric.  Going to be hard to form a winning coalition out of that group. 

Lol, true. Though there are a lot of them that live in Florida now, so that's two important states. But I wasn't trying to claim that there's a huge amount of legitimate Bloomberg support out there. Rather just an interesting anecdote. Especially since I'd have expected my dad to support Sanders (or Yang or Williamson if we count minor candidates who dropped out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

What's the sound I hear?  Why it's the world's smallest violin! 

I’m just floored he criticized Trump.  I didn’t think I’d see the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m just floored he criticized Trump.  I didn’t think I’d see the day.

Get ready to see five thousand think pieces about Barr's "bravery", his "convictions", and his "conscience."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

No, that's not the statistic I'm referring to. Scroll down and you'll see "Tracking Name Recognition and Favorability Among Dem Primary Voters" and you'll see

Sanders 74

Biden 68

Warren 63

Bloomberg 61

Etc.  

Sorry it's not the exact statistic you want, but it's also not the "first choice candidate" you seem to be making it out to be.  Yes, the party infrastructure is against him.  But please look at the link and see what I'm actually referring to.  

If you want someone the party won't grumble about but will leave a bunch of voters sitting at home come November, just pick Bloomberg.

My apologies, that was me reading in a hurry. :)

Talking about what I 'want' is missing my point. It's not about which candidate I want. And Bloomberg is an odd example to pick, since he has equal unfavourability ratings with Sanders, and given his unorthodox approach to the primaries and history of donations to Republicans, is also unlikely to be someone who inherently has the party on-side. (I mean, unless by 'the party' you understand me to mean the nebulous cabal of wealthy elites that some like to attribute all ills to.)

I don't think it's controversial - it's almost banal - to say that Sanders would face a challenge in unifying the party behind him as the nominee. My point was that he has to take positive steps to do this, rather than (as many Sanders supporters I've seen suggest) simply demanding that the party fall into line: and that if he doesn't, he himself risks leaving a lot of voters sitting home in November.

I think a number of the potential nominees face similar problems - Biden, for example, would have no trouble with members of the party grumbling about his candidacy but would definitely fail to enthuse them. Bloomberg would piss a lot of the party off, too. Buttigieg has few enemies in the party, as he's too new to the national scene, but few allies either, and a lot of the party may be wary of him. The point is that whoever wins, they have to ensure party unity. They can't just expect it as a right.

As for Barr:

Quote

I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me

tr - Donald, I can't do what you need me to do if you're talking about it publicly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m just floored he criticized Trump.  I didn’t think I’d see the day.

So Barr to be dismissed tomorrow.

If you want a tip for the bookie on next AG, let's just say Jared has succesfully solved the middle East problem, so he has earnt a rest can now deal with less urgent matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×