Democrat 2020

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am not certain, but operating from an anecdotal sample of about a half dozen under 25's in my family and their friend groups, the youth do NOT seem truly captured by this nomination process to date.

I think it was comparatively easy for youth to avoid Clinton in favor of Sanders in the immediate post-Obama nomination process. 2016 was a year for outsiders, more or less, and such tend to appeal to the disaffected such as the Trump deplorables and to the younger crowd who tend toward the idealistic and toward major change. Those inclined towards the dem set of policies and preferences had either an establishment choice or an outsider -- and the rest of the field was never really involved and were quickly shunted aside. Made for a nice appealing horse-race that got a fair amount of media play.

This time around, the Dems are still in the throws of what the GOP was doing in 2016 -- winnowing a huge field of potential choices down. As the field narrows, perhaps we shall then see a candidate capture the youthful element of the potential dem voter base. I think it is too early to dismiss the youth factor yet -- I just don't think they are finding anything compelling enough to bother about as yet.

In 2016 Bernie seemed like a lone voice crying in the wilderness, and his age made him into the sort of alternative role model young people love. Similar effect to Corbyn. Now, however, Bernie is an old man with a bad heart, as opposed to an older man, and he's no longer alone with Warren and "the squad" crowding him in a space he's been used to occupying alone. Clinton was also a charisma vacuum, and you shouldn't underestimate the ability of your opponent to mobilise your base.

[Hooahguy]

In 2016 Bernie seemed like a lone voice crying in the wilderness, and his age made him into the sort of alternative role model young people love. Similar effect to Corbyn. Now, however, Bernie is an old man with a bad heart, as opposed to an older man, and he's no longer alone with Warren and "the squad" crowding him in a space he's been used to occupying alone. Clinton was also a charisma vacuum, and you shouldn't underestimate the ability of your opponent to mobilise your base.

Probably also explains why there was a 35 point drop for Bernie in NH from 2016 to 2020.

[Montmorency]

Probably also explains why there was a 35 point drop for Bernie in NH from 2016 to 2020.

If the poll images in my post above are representative, then Sanders could very well seize the advantage in any head-to-head race. While his numbers in a divided field don't have much legitimacy, the same conditions do make him a favorite to coast ahead while the other candidates are eliminated - at which point he should, in theory, begin carrying majorities.

If this theory is correct, he actually has more baseline support than he did in 2016.

Let's watch how it plays out.

[Hooahguy]

Bernie definitely profits from a divided "moderate" field. Less than 4,000 votes separated Bernie and Pete in NH. Bloomberg got almost 5,000 votes even though he wasnt even on the ballot. Had those people voted for Pete, he would have won. Or if Steyer's folk (all 10k of them) voted for Pete.. If Bernie does win the nomination, it will be because people like Steyer who despite polling really low are still in the race because of vanity.

I think we are going to see exactly what happened to the GOP in 2016 happen again. Trump in the 2016 primary had a plurality and that is what I imagine will repeat itself.

[Montmorency]

Bernie definitely profits from a divided "moderate" field. Less than 4,000 votes separated Bernie and Pete in NH. Bloomberg got almost 5,000 votes even though he wasnt even on the ballot. Had those people voted for Pete, he would have won. Or if Steyer's folk (all 10k of them) voted for Pete.. If Bernie does win the nomination, it will be because people like Steyer who despite polling really low are still in the race because of vanity.

I think we are going to see exactly what happened to the GOP in 2016 happen again. Trump in the 2016 primary had a plurality and that is what I imagine will repeat itself.

According to the Yougov poll I've referred to a couple of times, source of the charts above, Warren beats every candidate in a head-to-head and ties Sanders. Same with Sanders (though he ties Biden in a head-to-head). Buttigieg and Klobuchar get swamped. If Sanders does well up to Super Tuesday then there may no longer be much of a moderate vote to consolidate around any survivor (except, ideally, Warren).

But fuck, Bloomberg hired himself a good team. Watch this ad (I wish we could embed Twitter videos).
https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/st...69357471551488

[Hooahguy]

Personally Id like to see the primary between just Biden and Sanders. Using RCP polling averages, they are the only ones who can actually win in the states where it matters. I ignore national polling because only the electoral college matters so who cares if a million more people vote Dem in California.

In Wisconsin, only Biden and Sanders beat Trump. Same for Nevada. In Florida, only Biden beats Trump (with Sanders at a statistical tie). In North Carolina, Biden beats Trump and so does Sanders, but barely. And in Arizona, its the same thing, except that Sanders gets shellacked. And everyone seems to lose in Iowa. But the pattern is pretty clear: both Warren and Pete get regularly beaten by Trump in the states that are critical for winning.

To say that I am nervous about this election is an understatement. I really wish Bloomberg wasnt running, but I agree, his team is good.

[Montmorency]

Personally Id like to see the primary between just Biden and Sanders. Using RCP polling averages, they are the only ones who can actually win in the states where it matters. I ignore national polling because only the electoral college matters so who cares if a million more people vote Dem in California.

In Wisconsin, only Biden and Sanders beat Trump. Same for Nevada. In Florida, only Biden beats Trump (with Sanders at a statistical tie). In North Carolina, Biden beats Trump and so does Sanders, but barely. And in Arizona, its the same thing, except that Sanders gets shellacked. And everyone seems to lose in Iowa. But the pattern is pretty clear: both Warren and Pete get regularly beaten by Trump in the states that are critical for winning.

To say that I am nervous about this election is an understatement. I really wish Bloomberg wasnt running, but I agree, his team is good.

Choosing a candidate on the basis of pre-nomination head-to-head polling with Trump that has always tracked name recognition and position in national polling is an exercise in recursive tautology. If you look at the 2016 polling on head-to-heads with Trump he improved his numbers in every battleground state by the end. Polling is by nature a cross-section of a time and place, a snapshot. Expect it to change over time. I am not aware of any statistical evidence in political science that would support choosing Biden because of favorable head-to-heads that precede even the first primaries. And Biden of course has a demonstrable problem with sustaining his polling in practice, which seems like more relevant evidence toward electability than anything else.