• It's the most wonderful time of the year! Make your list and check it twice. The ResetEra Games of the Year 2019 Voting Thread is now live. Voting will be open for the next 7 days, 6 hours, 40 minutes, 57 seconds, and will close on Jan 26, 2020 at 9:00 AM.

US PoliEra 2019 |OT10| Go Absent Yourself

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Namekian

Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,826
New York City
Like let’s say I agree with this. It doesn’t really matter because Biden is doing everything in his power to project the opposite

The most successful politicians who win tough elections are better at getting weirdos with varying views on the spectrum to project their beliefs onto them even if the facts dont back it up.

Obama did this. Back up QB Biden did it too but he’s losing his touch here. Young left leaning people aren’t gonna go crazy for him the way they did for Obama because hes doing whatever he can to correct the record that people like them won’t get anything of value out of a Biden presidency
I agree with this 100%. If Biden wanted to win the nomination and the presidency he would take the public school stance Warren has and it would be over. Instead he’s gone out his way (multiple times) to call Millennials cry babies and made a point to say he isn’t giving them shit. It’s insane....
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,726
If there's a moral victory to be had, I think if the Senate has a simple majority for conviction, it would basically be the equivalent of a censure. So even if Trump is acquitted, but there are at least 51 votes to remove him, then it would still be a substantial stain on his legacy.

In the Senate vote, Clinton received 45-55 on perjury and 50-50 on obstruction of justice. I'm hoping Trump can get at least 51-49 on Obstruction of Congress. It would take 4 GOP Senators flipping. The three obvious ones would be Mittens, Collins, and Murk. The fourth vote gets more tricky. Maybe Cory Gardner? But it seems he enjoys cutting himself and regularly take votes to show fealty to Trump over his constituents.
 

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,252
I don’t even know why. She’s had zero missteps besides her dumbass Medicare question dodges
She had the misstep right when pete started surging, and can't seem to get the momentum back from the voters they share. Maybe when it's clear he's not taking it all the way to the nomination she can get some back, but it could easily be too late by then.
 

Pooh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,108
The Hundred Acre Wood
Like let’s say I agree with this. It doesn’t really matter because Biden is doing everything in his power to project the opposite

The most successful politicians who win tough elections are better at getting weirdos with varying views on the spectrum to project their beliefs onto them even if the facts dont back it up.

Obama did this. Back up QB Biden did it too but he’s losing his touch here. Young left leaning people aren’t gonna go crazy for him the way they did for Obama because hes doing whatever he can to correct the record that people like them won’t get anything of value out of a Biden presidency
Yeah it's hard to get excited for "Hey millennials! i'm a really old white guy who is gonna make-believe that republicans haven't been the way they have been for your entire adult lives, the change we need isn't possible, so you cry-babies can shut up about your college debt and hard times, but be cool i was friends with obama btw"
 

Toth

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,279
So Trump's rally was..something tonight. Read the whole thread for more chilling soundbites.

 

Soul Skater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,911
I don’t even know why. She’s had zero missteps besides her dumbass Medicare question dodges
Sometimes you don’t need to just avoid missteps, you need leaps forward, which she hasn’t really had.

like i think every candidate not Bernie or Biden has done a bad job of convincing voters with similar beliefs to vote for them instead of Bernie and Biden
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,302
She had the misstep right when pete started surging, and can't seem to get the momentum back from the voters they share. Maybe when it's clear he's not taking it all the way to the nomination she can get some back, but it could easily be too late by then.
If Pete actually wins Iowa/NH like he's polled to, he will eat the rest of Warren's voters.
Pete is eating into her share with wonky whites.
So is Bloomberg.
 

Soul Skater

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,911
Also let’s collectively agree that it doesn’t matter at all how much Trump shits on Wray going forward. I don’t care if he moans about him every day for the entire year leading up to the election.

if we win fire that cunt the second you get into the White House.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,302
Sometimes you don’t need to just avoid missteps, you need leaps forward, which she hasn’t really had.

like i think every candidate not Bernie or Biden has done a bad job of convincing voters with similar beliefs to vote for them instead of Bernie and Biden
This implies that Bernie and Biden have people with similar views as their voters and all other voters are just somehow confused. When it's really a matter of none of them by and large really knowing or caring about specifics of ideology. Like, poll most Biden voters and they'll probably be for marijuana legalization, poll Bernie voters and you'll probably find that they really don't care if M4A is single payer or a public option, and they're probably more pro gun control than Bernie is.

It's just people liking traits. Voters as a whole are basically essentialist. Biden has the essence of the Obama years to voters, Bernie has the essence of an outsider raging against the machine, Warren, Buttigieg and Bloomberg have the essence of well educated wonkiness. They don't have interest in digging deeper than that.

Also let’s collectively agree that it doesn’t matter at all how much Trump shits on Wray going forward. I don’t care if he moans about him every day for the entire year leading up to the election.

if we win fire that cunt the second you get into the White House.
Yup.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,726
I don’t even know why. She’s had zero missteps besides her dumbass Medicare question dodges
But those were pretty big missteps because it made her look dishonest and not capable of telling the hard-truths, which was very off-brand. She supposedly had plans for everything but on probably the biggest domestic policy issue, she refused to get into the details. It made her plans seem more like paper tigers.

I also think a lot of progressives came to the realization that things like M4A have no chance at becoming law as long as there is a Republican Senate. In the Spring/early summer, M4A was kind of a vague concept that just about everyone on the Left agreed with at least on principle. But as the details started to get hashed out more and put under a microscope, then a lot of people realized "Oh, this is going to be nearly impossible to pass and/or I want to keep my insurance/doctor!" Warren got caught up in that whirlwind since she went out on the ledge with M4A, which was a misstep in itself.
 

Seeya

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,667
So Bernie is surging and Warren is falling now?
Sanders isn’t quite surging but his position has improved as he has picked up a good chunk of voters he lost to Warren. He has gone from a solid but distant third to a pretty solid overall 2nd place. Pete is starting to peak in Iowa/NH so things are looking decent for Sanders in those upcoming states. It’s still too early to say anything definitive.
 

Tiger Priest

Member
Oct 24, 2017
307
New York, NY
Sanders isn’t quite surging but his position has improved as he has picked up a good chunk of voters he lost to Warren. He has gone from a solid but distant third to a pretty solid overall 2nd place. Pete is starting to peak in Iowa/NH so things are looking decent for Sanders in those upcoming states. It’s still too early to say anything definitive.
I mean, Sanders hasn’t really gained whatsoever. Him and Biden effectively haven’t seen their positions change at all for months. He hasn’t expanded his support and I don’t see any sign that he will be able to. Everyone knows who he is and what he stands for already.

As things stand, this is Biden’s primary to lose.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,361
Let's just cut to the chase and do the pundit thing: If you could be any campaign's spot right now, regardless of their platform or whatever, who would you want to be? Who here would want to be in anyone's shoes other than Biden's?
 

Seeya

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,667
I mean, Sanders hasn’t really gained whatsoever. Him and Biden effectively haven’t seen their positions change at all for months. He hasn’t expanded his support and I don’t see any sign that he will be able to. Everyone knows who he is and what he stands for already.

As things stand, this is Biden’s primary to lose.
You can’t look at only the % of votes and not the relative position, especially as candidates rise, drop out, or jump in. Even then Sanders raw % have on average dipped following his heart attack, come back (very slowly), gotten depressed during Pete’s rise and Bloomberg’s entrance, and ticked up from there. If Sanders had ‘stayed where he was and nothing more’ he’d have been squeezed of raw % and not recovered. Sanders is getting close to 18% on RCP after hitting a low of 13% earlier in the year.

These things are even reflected, if ever so slightly, in the economist model that was linked earlier.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
15,225

Apparently this The Hill headline is a smoking gun of some media conspiracy to make people think Bernie Sanders does not exist or whatever.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,302
Throw it on the pile. The Sanders blackout is very real, just not in complete uniformity. This isn’t conspiracy but measurable.
If Sanders is still polling in his 14-20% range depending on the pollster, then what's there to report? "Biden still in first, Warren drops to third, thus making Sanders second by default" Like, Warren is still close enough to Sanders that we might see her in second in a weeks time just from jitters. That wouldn't even deserve to be reported because it'd likely be a MOE difference between who's in third and second and double digits between those and first.

Sanders isn’t quite surging but his position has improved as he has picked up a good chunk of voters he lost to Warren. He has gone from a solid but distant third to a pretty solid overall 2nd place. Pete is starting to peak in Iowa/NH so things are looking decent for Sanders in those upcoming states. It’s still too early to say anything definitive.
He hasn't picked up voters from Warren at all, Butti and Blomberg's been the ones eating them.
 

Seeya

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,667
If Sanders is still polling in his 14-20% range depending on the pollster, then what's there to report? "Biden still in first, Warren drops to third, thus making Sanders second by default" Like, Warren is still close enough to Sanders that we might see her in second in a weeks time just from jitters. That wouldn't even deserve to be reported because it'd likely be a MOE difference between who's in third and second and double digits between those and first.
What about when Sanders is surging in California according to a new poll? Seems Juicy right?


%I don't want to spend too much time on this, but I can link endless exam% (yet>les if need be. He's unique among the candidates to the degree that he is 'mistakenly'

Leading NH?


What about when he's beating Donald Trump head to head?

Poll: Trump beats Warren, Biden in Iowa match-ups

Alternate headline: Only Sanders Leads Trump in Iowa

Left out of lineups


Has his images altered to appear sick and ill


The thing is, I can keep going because this isn't even enough to form a proper sample, it's too all over the place to be truely convincing. I haven;t even touched on how selectively the you'll see 'it's a tight race' when Sanders is leading but within MOE and how other Candidates are named in the headlines when they are leading but within the MOE. There's a deliberate pattern of omission and marginalization with Sanders that exceeds reasonable doubt. It's unique to Sanders in terms of frequency and intensity. This isn't fairy dust and tin foil hats. You won't be able to find another candidate that comes close to this as Sanders does, especially for a top 3 candidate.

He hasn't picked up voters from Warren at all, Butti and Blomberg's been the ones eating them.
Warrens fall doesn't cover the degree that Butti and Bloomberg rose. Sanders did gain back votes from her, it's pretty much mathematically impossible that he didn't.. Sanders and Warren routinely place highly with one another when it comes to being a second choice. So where are Sanders improved numbers coming from if not in part Warren? The drop Bernie had while Warren rose was very similar, and Warren disenfranchised the leftist block with how she handled M4A.

Thirdly, Sanders has grown in raw %, not beating your previous ceiling of 19.5% (yet?) doesn't mean that marginal improvement in raw % and substantive improvement in poll positioning isn't in fact improvement.



His numbers have shown considerable improvement in an even more split race, this is more impressive than it would otherwise appear and why some outlets are starting to call it a surge.
 
Last edited:

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,302
What about when Sanders is surging in California according to a new poll? Seems Juicy right?

Considering the last 3 polls in California in around the same time period, all with massive MoEs are Biden +1, Biden +10 and Sanders +2 drawing any conclusion is just horse racing is up in general.

I don't want to spend too much time on this, but I can link endless examples if need be. He's unique among the candidates to the degree that he is 'mistakenly'

Leading NH?

They... Literally say he's in the lead? It's also within MOE (reminder that state polls have 4+% margin of errors)?
What about when he's beating Donald Trump head to head?

Poll: Trump beats Warren, Biden in Iowa match-ups

Alternate headline: Only Sanders Leads Trump in Iowa
Alternative headline:
Iowa 2020: Biden and Sanders neck and neck in Democratic Field, Mayor Pete jumps to double digits

Like, you realize when reporters basically copy and paste news stories from other places they change up the title for novelty right? Not to mention, you're clinging to an Emerson poll, outlier of outliers. The only poll to show Biden on top in Iowa among many many many other outlierly things.


This simply isn't true. First of all Warrens fall doesn't cover the degree that Butti and Bloomberg rose. Sanders did gain back votes from her, it's pretty much mathematically impossible that he didn't.
Warren's peak was between October 6th and 12th in the RCP average, during which time she ranged between 26.8% and 25.6%. At which point Bernie was between 14.3% on october 7th and 16.5% on october 12th (Which, hey, is within the range he was bounding between because margin of error is a thing). And Biden went from 26 to 29% as usual (like, it's on schedule since RCP aggregates some wildly different polls and some are much better for Biden/Bernie and much worse for Warren/Butti and vice versa).

So, Warren was about at 26%. She's at about 15% percent now in the RCP. and Sanders is at about 17% now, off from his low of 15%. Biden's where he always is, on the upswing of his sine wave at 28.7. So, your point is that Buttigieg and Bloomberg don't account for Warrens drop when... Buttigieg is 9% and Bloomer is 5.7%. Which more than accounts for Harris's disappearance and Warren's decline.

Secondly Sanders and Warren routinely place highly with one another when it comes to being a second choice. So where are Sanders improved numbers coming from if not in part Warren? The drop Bernie had while Warren rose was very similar, and Warren disenfranchised the leftist block with how she handled M4A.
The trick here is that Sanders doesn't actually have improved numbers. You're using margin of error jitters to justify your thought that he's surging.
Thirdly, Sanders has grown in raw %,


So, Quinnipiac. They've done 5 polls the entire primary. The poll before one the you just posted was an outlier in their own dataset (Also, keep in mind that all the Quinnipiac polls have a 3.8% margin of error with likely primary voters). Don't believe me? Let's look at it.

Bernie in Quinni:
Current: 17%
Last poll 11/21-11/25: 13% with Butti at 16% (buttigieg's best poll by 5% ever)
During that time the RCP average had Bernie at 19% so this was absolutely an outlier.
Poll before that 10/17-10/21: Bernie 15% while this is Warren's second best poll ever with her at 28%

Which is to say, them having him at 13% was the outlier, 15-17% is closer to the truth.

You're trying to unskew and cherry pick the polls here, it's not healthy. Trying to read the jitters that come from margin of error will go both ways. Bernie will likely be at 18% in the next week, then he'll likely be back to 14%. A 2% margin of error accounts for that (it'd mean he's actually been at 16% the entire time), and margin of errors are higher than that.
 

Seeya

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,667
Considering the last 3 polls in California in around the same time period, all with massive MoEs are Biden +1, Biden +10 and Sanders +2 drawing any conclusion is just horse racing is up in general.


They... Literally say he's in the lead? It's also within MOE (reminder that state polls have 4+% margin of errors)?

Alternative headline:
Iowa 2020: Biden and Sanders neck and neck in Democratic Field, Mayor Pete jumps to double digits

Like, you realize when reporters basically copy and paste news stories from other places they change up the title for novelty right? Not to mention, you're clinging to an Emerson poll, outlier of outliers. The only poll to show Biden on top in Iowa among many many many other outlierly things.



Warren's peak was between October 6th and 12th in the RCP average, during which time she ranged between 26.8% and 25.6%. At which point Bernie was between 14.3% on october 7th and 16.5% on october 12th (Which, hey, is within the range he was bounding between because margin of error is a thing). And Biden went from 26 to 29% as usual (like, it's on schedule since RCP aggregates some wildly different polls and some are much better for Biden/Bernie and much worse for Warren/Butti and vice versa).

So, Warren was about at 26%. She's at about 15% percent now in the RCP. and Sanders is at about 17% now, off from his low of 15%. Biden's where he always is, on the upswing of his sine wave at 28.7. So, your point is that Buttigieg and Bloomberg don't account for Warrens drop when... Buttigieg is 9% and Bloomer is 5.7%. Which more than accounts for Harris's disappearance and Warren's decline.


The trick here is that Sanders doesn't actually have improved numbers. You're using margin of error jitters to justify your thought that he's surging.

So, Quinnipiac. They've done 5 polls the entire primary. The poll before one the you just posted was an outlier in their own dataset (Also, keep in mind that all the Quinnipiac polls have a 3.8% margin of error with likely primary voters). Don't believe me? Let's look at it.

Bernie in Quinni:
Current: 17%
Last poll 11/21-11/25: 13% with Butti at 16% (buttigieg's best poll by 5% ever)
During that time the RCP average had Bernie at 19% so this was absolutely an outlier.
Poll before that 10/17-10/21: Bernie 15% while this is Warren's second best poll ever with her at 28%

Which is to say, them having him at 13% was the outlier, 15-17% is closer to the truth.

You're trying to unskew and cherry pick the polls here, it's not healthy.
Thanks for the reply. It's late for me so I'll get back to you tomorrow. Just to be clear, and correct me if I’m wrong, but : you are positing that Sanders overall ‘real’ numbers haven’t increased at all, even by say 1-2 points? Nor has his relative position improved?
 
Last edited:

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,302
Thanks for the reply. It's late for me so I'll get back to you tomorrow. Just to be clear, and correct me if I’m wrong, but : you are positing that Sanders overall ‘real’ numbers haven’t increased at all, even by say 1-2 points? Nor has his relative position improved?
His relative position has gone from 3rd to 2nd not by movement on his part. And that second place comes with the caveat of being within MoE so, technically he could be tied or behind Warren. And I am positing that 1-2 percentage changes are well within margin of error and mean nothing, even 4% changes are within a 2% margin of error (the actual number being between the peak and bottom) and most polls have greater MOEs than that. Biden swings 4 points every week between 26% and 30% and it's not because 4% of the primary population is swinging between voting for Biden one week and against the next only to turn back and be for him again.
 

acheron_xl

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,065
MSN, WI
It's amazing what one campaign season can accomplish. Pete has gone from near the top of my list to near the bottom.

Don't know who if I'd prefer him over Biden though. He's political tofu, just absorbing the flavor of the money he's been marinating in.
 

Rupetta

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,011
Boston/Helsinki
Can I get an illustration from PoliEra of a voter who switches from Warren to Bloomberg - is there an age, race, gender, class profile that makes sense on any level?
 

Snowy

Member
Nov 11, 2017
1,111

Apparently this The Hill headline is a smoking gun of some media conspiracy to make people think Bernie Sanders does not exist or whatever.
It’s not a “conspiracy”, nobody thinks they’re colluding, but there certainly does seem to be a shared understanding in the media class that Bernie is not a serious candidate and shouldn’t be covered like he is. There is a rather clear and consistent pattern of him getting only brief, belated mentions in coverage of polling shifts when he does anything to gain in relative position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.