US Politics: Pandemic Political Petard

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Let's look at the following scenario for Texas, based on the thresholds on 538.

Buttigieg in race:  Sanders 30%, Biden 30%, Bloomberg 14%, Warren 13%, Buttigieg 8%, others 5%.

Approximate Delegates:  Biden 114, Sanders 114

Buttigieg drops out:  Sanders 32%, Biden 32%, Bloomberg 16%, Warren 15%, others 5%

Approximate Delegates:  Biden 76, Sanders 76, Bloomberg 38, Warren 38

 

That's a big difference. 

This is based on a whole lot of assumptions and why, as I've said repeatedly, I don't give Silver's primary model much credence whatsoever.  What happens if Bloomberg or Biden make the threshold anyway, which is very likely in most of the states in which they're polling around 15%?  Then it didn't really have an effect anyway.  And again, the assumption this will change many votes in the ~ 48 hours between the time he drops out and when polls close is a dicey one to begin with.  Not only due to many early voters, but also because a lot of Buttigieg voters might express their support for him anyway - he's still on the ballot - or not even be aware that he dropped out.

Now, this has changed in the past hour with Klobuchar dropping out as well - I was going to mention what if much of Buttigieg's support goes to Klobuchar as many polls suggest, but that seems unlikely now.  So, the compounded effect of each dropping out is pretty big - that's basically the equivalent of Bloomberg or Biden dropping out, right?  But the caveats above still exist.  

Finally, and most importantly, the Texas example you cite actually is not much of a difference, other than for the "contested convention" diehards.  Biden and Sanders still end up with an equal amount of delegates with strong leads over the other two.  So..who cares?

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Also, Harry Reid is endorsing Biden. Not sure how much that matters, especially since Nevada already voted, but it is another sign of consolidation. Guess we'll see if "the party decides" still holds true or not for Democrats.

Yeah I like how Reid endorsed Biden after Nevada.  Just a nice reminder of his years of incompetence as floor leader.

And no, the party doesn't decide anymore.  Most of the authors of that book acknowledge that.

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Finally, and most importantly, the Texas example you cite actually is not much of a difference, other than for the "contested convention" diehards.  Biden and Sanders still end up with an equal amount of delegates with strong leads over the other two.  So..who cares?

One of Sanders biggest advantages in Super Tuesday was that his appeal was sufficiently wide that he was expected to reach the 15% delegate threshold in every single state/district.  Biden could not say the same.  Now that there are only four people left in the race, Biden has a much better chance of clearing the 15% hurdle virtually everywhere, which makes a huge difference in the expected Biden vs Sanders delegate race. 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

One of Sanders biggest advantages in Super Tuesday was that his appeal was sufficiently wide that he was expected to reach the 15% delegate threshold in every single state/district.  Biden could not say the same.

Considering Biden's expected strength in the south, this wouldn't have really mattered from a delegate perspective anywhere but California.  Which, yeah, if he missed that that'd be a big dropoff all on its own.  But I figured he was gonna hit it before anyone dropped out, so guess that's why I'm inclined to be pretty meh about it.

[illrede]

Well, whether or not it was competently done by the party and the motives of the individuals creditable, it certainly was done practically in both respects. Folks deserve a nod for trying and putting their plan into effect, even if all that is accomplished is the bragging rights of this half of the political establishment going down on an even keel.

[Paladin of Ice]

30 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Snivelry.

I hope 1.5 million Americans die to death with the ailment.

Eh, you do you, Jace, and I’ll do me.

*Insert work inappropriate joke about the above sentence here*

*Insert joke about inserting things here*

[DMC]

Just a general point of clarification - there are tons of recent examples of candidates maintaining considerable support after they drop out, particularly right after they drop out.  This notion that pretty much all Buttigieg or Klobuchar voters choosing in the next 30 hours will vote for someone else is not well-founded  Many or most of them?  Sure, but there's still a healthy percentage that will probably stick with their first choice.  And I doubt Silver's model accounts for that.

[Ran]

 

Quote

Sure, but there's still a healthy percentage that will probably stick with their first choice.  And I doubt Silver's model accounts for that.

They updated the model last night to account more for that, with a particular emphasis on states with early voting.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

 And I doubt Silver's model accounts for that.

The primary is moving far too fast for Silver's model to track at this point.  There is essentially no polling since Biden won SC by more than expected on Saturday, and since then two candidates have dropped out.  Not to mention Coronavirus, which I don't know what impact it will have on Super Tuesday, but it is probably not nothing. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

They updated the model last night to account more for that, with a particular emphasis on states with early voting.

Did they account for early voting, or specifically how much they expected Buttigieg's support to stick with him going forward?  If he's trying to account for the latter, he's really pulling numbers out of his ass.  I don't know how you could possibly operationalize a metric for that.

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The primary is moving far too fast for Silver's model to track at this point.

Sure he's been stressing this for about a week now from what I've read.

[Ran]

Just now, DMC said:

Did they account for early voting, or specifically how much they expected Buttigieg's support to stick with him going forward?  If he's trying to account for the latter, he's really pulling numbers out of his ass.  I don't know how you could possibly operationalize a metric for that.

The way he phrased it is that the states with early voting would leave the dropouts with a "larger share" than the previous model, which to me implies that that they were going to have some sort of share calculation even when early voting isn't a factor. They haven't yet updated Klobuchar's Minnesota results factoring her dropout and endorsement of Biden, so we'll have to see what they come up with. Right now it forecast 29 delegates for her.

 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

which to me implies that that they were going to have some sort of share calculation even when early voting isn't a factor.

Yeah I just don't see how you could possibly estimate this statistically - there's simply not enough data to base such a metric on in any way.  So, like I said, while it's likely to be a substantial portion (if still small) that sticks with Buttigieg or Klobuchar even after they dropped out tomorrow, there's no way to construct even a remotely reliable variable to institute into your model to account for this.  Maybe he did!  But if so, it's pretty much purely based on a "this is what Nate Silver imagines" scale.

[ThinkerX]

so...despite all the dropouts, Sanders is slated to win Super Tuesday big time?  

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

so...despite all the dropouts, Sanders is slated to win Super Tuesday big time?  

Sanders is still widely expected to win the plurality of delegates on Super Tuesday.  But there is a lot of uncertainty on exactly how that lead will look.  If he has a great night, he could put himself in an almost unassailable 250+ delegate lead.  In contrast, it's possible the combination of Biden's big win in SC, Buttigieg+Klobuchar dropping out and the establishment/center-left factions of the party coalescing around Biden means that Sanders comes out of Super Tuesday with only a modest win of less than 100 delegates.  In that case, he's still the frontrunner, but not overwhelmingly so. 

[Zorral]

Are the models accounting for states like Texas which shut down so many voting stations, the ones in the sites where Dems and particularly Latin Americans and African Americans vote?  Making it very hard to get to the polling place, and then very long lines.

This is as much a consideration in the primaries as in the general.

[Ran]

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah I just don't see how you could possibly estimate this statistically - there's simply not enough data to base such a metric on in any way.  So, like I said, while it's likely to be a substantial portion (if still small) that sticks with Buttigieg or Klobuchar even after they dropped out tomorrow, there's no way to construct even a remotely reliable variable to institute into your model to account for this.  Maybe he did!  But if so, it's pretty much purely based on a "this is what Nate Silver imagines" scale.

538 just updated. Klobuchar went from 29 delegates to their estimating 12 delegates, and give her a 20% chance of winning Minnesota, FWIW. I expect there'll be some explanation somewhere about how they came to that.

[lancerman]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

538 just updated. Klobuchar went from 29 delegates to their estimating 12 delegates, and give her a 20% chance of winning Minnesota, FWIW. I expect there'll be some explanation somewhere about how they came to that.

There’s not enough data to credibly to model all that’s happened in 3 days. It could be anything from minimal change to game changing 

[ThinkerX]

Meanwhile, lost in the Super Tuesday buildup...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-will-once-again-consider-fate-of-affordable-care-act/ar-BB10DnGm?ocid=msnclassic

 

Goodbye ACA?  Or does this really empower the Sanders crowd? (M4A)

The court’s review will come in the term that begins in October, which would not leave time for a decision before the November presidential election. The law remains in effect during the legal challenges.

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post 

Democrats are eager to keep public attention on the fate of the act, sometimes called Obamacare, which has features voters value, such as required coverage for preexisting conditions. Health care is a leading concern, especially among Democratic voters, and many considered it a persuasive argument when the party won control of the House in 2018.

The House and Democratic-led states asked the court to review a decision last year by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

Hearing a challenge from Texas and other Republican-led states and backed by the Trump administration, the panel struck down the law’s mandate that individuals buy health insurance but sent back to a lower court the question of whether the rest of the statute can stand without it. The lower court had said the entire law must fall.

 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Goodbye ACA?  Or does this really empower the Sanders crowd? (M4A)

It's very unlikely SCOTUS is going to overturn all of the ACA after Roberts has already upheld most of it twice already.  That just doesn't make sense.  Maybe the mandate gets chucked, but it's already toothless anyway.

[ThinkerX]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's very unlikely SCOTUS is going to overturn all of the ACA after Roberts has already upheld most of it twice already.  That just doesn't make sense.  Maybe the mandate gets chucked, but it's already toothless anyway.

either way, the Sanders crew would have a damn powerful argument for M4A, given skyrocketing health costs.  Pressed correctly, it might even cost a few republican senators their seats - just keep hammering over and over again that these people are scum who want to watch people die and call them liars over and over again when they deny the allegation.