Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[RaikouLover]

The 2016 and 2018 election poll forecasts aggregated by FiveThirtyEight.com were both within 1% of the final results. Disregard polls at your peril.

As of right now Bernie is polling poorly when adjusting for name recognition.

 

[Sam]

The 2016 and 2018 election poll forecasts aggregated by FiveThirtyEight.com were both within 1% of the final results. Disregard polls at your peril.

As of right now Bernie is polling poorly when adjusting for name recognition.

There was a lot more data though by the time those predictions were accurate. It's definitely too far out for polls to be useful strictly by numbers but they're useful for trends.

 

[MikeDawg]

polls show one moment, like a single still of an image from a movie. They show us a moment in a scene, but not the overall development of that scene.

But, we can look at multiple polls over time to track overall development, no?

For example, this set of polls shows us that (surprisingly, tbh) Kamala and Pete are the only two candidates who have gained net approval since January:

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmouthpoll_us_042319.pdf/


Here's another set of polls showing opinions of weed legalization from 1969 to 2018:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/


Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say (if so, I'm sorry), but you can easily track "overall development" if you want to.

 

[Myzozoa]

you can't track change before it has actually happened, and closely tracking the poll can obfuscate the substantive events that occurred to cause change in perceptions. showing the utility of a decades long chart only proves my point about the triviality of any single poll and bears out my point about polls as not mere trackers of opinion, but vehicles to cement opinion themselves: when people learn that something is popular they may be more open to considering it. Since the circulation of sentiment can accelerate so quickly, we should be wary of making predictions or foreclosing strategies based on newscycle pollings.

 

[MikeDawg]

you can't track change before it has actually happened, and closely tracking the poll can obfuscate the substantive events that occurred to cause change in perceptions. showing the utility of a decades long chart only proves my point about the triviality of any single poll and bears out my point about polls as not mere trackers of opinion, but vehicles to cement opinion themselves: when people learn that something is popular they may be more open to considering it. Since the circulation of sentiment can accelerate so quickly, we should be wary of making predictions or foreclosing strategies based on newscycle pollings.

My slightly tangential counterpoint to that is machine learning, which lets us do stupid shit like using an Xbox Live poll to predict presidential elections with comparable accuracy to typical representative polling, or guessing whether someone will vote with 90% accuracy using census data.

That doesn't disprove what you're saying considering you are talking about traditional polling, but it does suggest that politics is ultimately predictable if we use the right metrics to predict it. Would be a fun project to try and build a solid model for 2020.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

As of right now Bernie is polling poorly when adjusting for name recognition.

What does this mean?

 

[Bughouse]

Both Biden and Bernie can only improve their polling by changing the minds of voters who already know them. Other candidates can improve in polling by winning over people who don’t have an opinion already. ie Buttigieg can gain 20 points of approval by 20% more people learning who he is and liking him. Biden and Bernie are much more locked in. Warren probably the next most so but as a distant third.

 

[UncleSam]

Uh isn’t there an obvious line between violent and non-violent criminals.

I don’t see any reason for violent offenders to vote or non-violent offenders to not vote (I guess you could make the argument that some non-violent offenders like Bernie Madoff shouldn’t be able to vote but imo they are the small minority of non-violent offenders and do not deserve a carve-out).

Is there any reason to allow violent offenders to vote?

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Uh isn’t there an obvious line between violent and non-violent criminals.

I don’t see any reason for violent offenders to vote or non-violent offenders to not vote (I guess you could make the argument that some non-violent offenders like Bernie Madoff shouldn’t be able to vote but imo they are the small minority of non-violent offenders and do not deserve a carve-out).

Is there any reason to allow violent offenders to vote?

Because it's the duty of every citizen to vote?

 

[UncleSam]

Because it's the duty of every citizen to vote?

Should’ve been more clear, my bad.

I don’t see any reason to allow violent criminals to vote or to disallow nonviolent criminals. Obviously if you have the right to vote you ought to vote.

 

[Myzozoa]

if only criminalization was a fair and impartial process in this country and 'violent criminal' wasn't a code word for black person. taking away voting rights for violent offenders is a new way of practicing a 3/5ths compromise, since the places where these people are incarcerated get to count them in their population totals for determining representation. again, 3/5ths compromise, history, study that shit instead of replying to me ty

 

[GatoDelFuego]

Violent criminals are still citizens. Why should some citizens be allowed to vote and some not?

 

[RaikouLover]

Both Biden and Bernie can only improve their polling by changing the minds of voters who already know them. Other candidates can improve in polling by winning over people who don’t have an opinion already. ie Buttigieg can gain 20 points of approval by 20% more people learning who he is and liking him. Biden and Bernie are much more locked in. Warren probably the next most so but as a distant third.

This 100%.

Bernie and Biden at this juncture are front runners almost entirely due to name recognition. Biden however has significantly higher favorability compared to Bernie among such Democratic voters. FiveThirtyEight.com’s analysis so far has Bernie deadlocked with Mayor Pete when the name recognition adjustment is taken into account. This means as the cycle heats up, Bernie has the most ground to lose where as the other serious candidates will inevitably make gains.

 

[verbatim]

you can't track change before it has actually happened, and closely tracking the poll can obfuscate the substantive events that occurred to cause change in perceptions. showing the utility of a decades long chart only proves my point about the triviality of any single poll and bears out my point about polls as not mere trackers of opinion, but vehicles to cement opinion themselves: when people learn that something is popular they may be more open to considering it. Since the circulation of sentiment can accelerate so quickly, we should be wary of making predictions or foreclosing strategies based on newscycle pollings.

If you aren't tracking things before (and after) change then you can't track the change itself. Lots of the grevances about how polling information is misrepresented in order to push political points can be attributed to the groups doing the misrepresenting, i.e., cnn/fox/msnbc, not Monmouth University.

 

[Blazade]

This has moved away from Bernie's comments and into increasingly off discussion on policy. If you want make a thread on felony voting rights, that'd be a better place.

I've also been noticing people toeing the line on personal attacks, so please back off on that.

 

[tcr]

last time i checked this thread is for dnc candidates and their positions

why are you policing this thread and telling us to pigeonhole that conversation in another thread, prison reform and disenfranchisement is a major policy position currently affecting the 2020 DNC candidates

 

[Blazade]

I'm not trying to be strict about this kind of thing and I'm sorry for coming off that way, I just don't want things to escalate. Like with the General News Thread it can be really easy to get disorganized and get into fights if one topic takes over too much when there's enough content there to be it's own thread.

The policy discussion isn't an issue if it's handled respectfully, and I should have been more clear about that.

I'll also resort to public statements like this less often. It's something I try to do when I don't think people are trying to escalate but I want to reign it in a bit, but it's too much of a wet blanket.

If you want to speak to me further I'll be happy to talk in private

 

[Chou Toshio]

In other news, an unexpected early endorsement from one of the most pivotal and anticipated voices of the Democratic primary season:

:DDDDD Tulsi! Tulsi! Tulsi! Wahine Warrior! *shakka*

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

Are you trying to say an endorsement from Joe Rogan doesnt mean anything? Hes probably like the most famous internet personality outside of PewDiePie and Alex Jones. I dont know how much it means, but it does mean something. This guy influences a lot of people.

 

[Chou Toshio]

Are you trying to say an endorsement from Joe Rogan doesnt mean anything? Hes probably like the most famous internet personality outside of PewDiePie and Alex Jones. I dont know how much it means, but it does mean something. This guy influences a lot of people.

I’m trying to give Joe props and fanboy for Tulsi and Joe without triggering the normies by implying the endorsement means more than it does or triggering progressives by making it seem that I’m insensitive to Joe’s over-platforming of rightwingers.

But the episodes with Kyle Kulinski and Jimmy Dore are probably some of the best in the podcast.

 

[Princess Bubblegum]

Gravel Gang all the way baby, for $4.20 dollars to get an octogenarian on stage to shit on all the neo-libs

 

[Chou Toshio]

So I finally got around to watching some of Marianne Williamson. She's clearly a progressive and I probably align with her immensely on most issues-- but she kind of fails to give me confidence that she really understands the issues and policies and means of addressing them.

I've tended to put more emphasis on message and populist loyalty over competence in most of my posts, but most of the progressive candidates give me a strong sense of how studied and strong they are on the issues-- competency matters. It's great that she speaks to the problem of American Imperialism, but she doesn't have the depth to speak to how the military industrial complex works and how foreign policy works that Tulsi has. She speaks about the problems of the capitalist class, but again she's not able to frame the issues or the solutions like Elizabeth Warren. I'm glad that she supports Medicare for All, but if she says she's not familiar with the content of Bernie's proposal and doesn't understand why maintaining ACA exchanges isn't really compatible with moving to a single payer system, than she's got a lot of catching up to do on progressive policy brass tacks.

I do like the perspective that she brings as someone focused on healing and spirituality, and has some impressive ideas like pointing out that "health care" should be something far more holistic than "sickness treatment" or even "medical care," but those strong ideas need to be backed up with stronger policy and political understanding.

 

[Myzozoa]

im still waiting to see tulsi gabbard insightfully critique us imperialism rather than just the usual lines about how we need to work w russia to defeat islamic terrorism that only amateurs cant see right thru

if u dont think she is another washington consensus pro-interventionist it's hopeless imo youll never get it. she is pro-intervention if 'islam' is involved, i.e just a typical christian savior complex interventionist ready to destroy the world to get back the holy land. another big clue is her lack of understanding of progressive domestic programs

 

[MikeDawg]

So I finally got around to watching some of Marianne Williamson. She's clearly a progressive and I probably align with her immensely on most issues-- but she kind of fails to give me confidence that she really understands the issues and policies and means of addressing them.

I've tended to put more emphasis on message and populist loyalty over competence in most of my posts, but most of the progressive candidates give me a strong sense of how studied and strong they are on the issues-- competency matters. It's great that she speaks to the problem of American Imperialism, but she doesn't have the depth to speak to how the military industrial complex works and how foreign policy works that Tulsi has. She speaks about the problems of the capitalist class, but again she's not able to frame the issues or the solutions like Elizabeth Warren. I'm glad that she supports Medicare for All, but if she says she's not familiar with the content of Bernie's proposal and doesn't understand why maintaining ACA exchanges isn't really compatible with moving to a single payer system, than she's got a lot of catching up to do on progressive policy brass tacks.

I do like the perspective that she brings as someone focused on healing and spirituality, and has some impressive ideas like pointing out that "health care" should be something far more holistic than "sickness treatment" or even "medical care," but those strong ideas need to be backed up with stronger policy and political understanding.

Just curious: all of your compliments except prioritizing imperialism (but tulsi passionately supports the war on terror, so...) apply to Kamala as well, and none of your criticisms except foreign policy experience (which is also the case with bernie, warren, and almost every other candidate) apply to Kamala. So how can you be so ideologically for Marianne but against Kamala?

Deliberately ignoring the "holistic healthcare" point, because lmao ffs.

im still waiting to see tulsi gabbard insightfully critique us imperialism rather than just the usual lines about how we need to work w russia to defeat islamic terrorism that only amateurs cant see right thru

if u dont think she is another washington consensus pro-interventionist it's hopeless imo youll never get it. she is pro-intervention if 'islam' is involved, i.e just a typical christian savior complex interventionist ready to destroy the world to get back the holy land. another big clue is her lack of understanding of progressive domestic programs

"She summarized her philosophy neatly in 2016, telling West Hawaii Today that 'when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk.'"

I'm so confused as to where this non-interventionist rumor started in the first place. It certainly didn't come from her. lol

 

[Chou Toshio]

im still waiting to see tulsi gabbard insightfully critique us imperialism rather than just the usual lines about how we need to work w russia to defeat islamic terrorism that only amateurs cant see right thru

she is pro-intervention if 'islam' is involved, i.e just a typical christian savior complex interventionist ready to destroy the world to get back the holy land.

Mmm... I don't agree man. I mean...
She's been extremely critical of our involvement in Venezuela (where Biden is openly defending Trump's moves there...), she's focused on not racheting up tension with Russia (which is what Russiagate is doing), she's the only major candidate in the race to full-stop support Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, she's extremely focused on North Korea because she's from Hawaii, and she's critiqued overthrowing of a democratically elected government in Iran and many other interventions in the Middle East as part of the problematic regime-change legacy by the US that perpetuates the problem with North Korea. Even heavy socialist critics of her like Michael Brooks were impressed with her defense of Ilhan Omar. I could go on. I don't think this critique holds.

if u dont think she is another washington consensus pro-interventionist it's hopeless imo youll never get it.

If she's another Washington consensus politician, why is the entire political establishment fighting her candidacy so fiercely?

And if Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are both backing her candidacy, you’ll have to admit that better minds than mine in the anti war movement also “don’t get it.”

another big clue is her lack of understanding of progressive domestic programs

She's the only candidate besides Bernie to unequivocally back Medicare for All and she's spoken to the policy more intelligently than any candidate in the race besides Bernie and arguably Kamala Harris. She is uncomfortable with the Green New Deal's vagueness, but the OFF Act she introduced is probably the strongest detailed proposals to address the issue. She was one of only 3 house dems alongside AOC and Rho Khanna to vote against Pay-Go. And while every other politician (including Bernie frankly) raged about Russian Election interference, Tulsi was the one who introduced a paper ballot backed voting solution and has aggressively pointed out that the states that have paper ballots and more robust election procedures are dispproportionately states that went to Bernie Sanders in the primary (she's been saying that the 2016 primary had a lot of election fraud that needs to be addressed).


Even more than any of the points I've outlined here about her actions though, I don't know why you are so overly concerned about my support for Tulsi's Candidacy as my 2nd favorite because at the end of the day, her campaign isn't going anywhere. If Elizabeth Warren cannot successfully take over Bernie's lane, than Tulsi certainly can't. At the end of the day, Tulsi's future in the 2020 administration is almost entirely dependent on the success of Bernie's campaign, and whether or not he believes she should be part of his administration.

And while Tulsi is a favorite potential VP pick for Sanders by many progressive circles, he could just as easily pick Warren, Nina Turner, Rho Khanna or even Kamala Harris. I'd be fine with any of those picks (even Harris). It will be entirely his call whether Tulsi is a progressive and whether she is THE progressive to run by his side as VP or represent the US as Secretary of State. And I trust Bernie's judgement on that too.