Democrat 2020

[Montmorency]

I dont disagree with you, if future polling in those states change I will happily change my opinion.

My point is that you're trying to extract a certain predictive value that probably isn't there beneath the surface.

Look at the polling for Clinton vs. Trump and Sanders vs. Trump in 2016. In March-April 2016, the period in which Sanders had any hope of securing a lead over Clinton, both candidates had some of their best-ever leads over Trump. Sanders' lead was bigger than Clinton's. That doesn't mean he was more electable at the time, since he was not in fact nominated. There would have been no reason to believe that Clinton's polling would narrow again but Sanders' wouldn't. You should also note that against both candidates throughout primary season, Trump had the same floor in the high 30s, which is probably more suggestive than the spread on any given day.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nton-5491.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ders-5565.html

Speaking of spread, let's look at the actual polling for the 2020 general. If you refer to the post-Iowa polls (there are three of them) then the spread between Democratic candidates against Trump is 47-51 vs. 43-45.

On the basis of even this polling, the candidates are indistinguishable from each other against Trump. If you think these polls can tell you something about Election Day performance, they are telling you that the Democratic candidates are tied with one another. The tautologies of electability are just that, axiomatic circular reasoning with no independent validity.

If you still want to lean on these matchups, you can't do more than project Trump to have a ceiling of 45% in the general. Disaggregating that tentative projection to the state level will be entirely unattainable for a while. Trends in Trump's state-level approval may be more instructive than his head-to-head polling against hypothetical opponents.

Polling in one context (i.e. candidate vs. candidate) cannot responsibly be extrapolated to a different context (nominee vs. nominee). This is even more the case with state-level polls that are fewer in number and have higher margins of error. If you were presenting some kind of well-developed theory backed by data, that would be one thing, but to reason along the lines of 'Klobuchar is ipso facto more electable than Buttigieg because she polls 1% higher in matchups as of now' is fallacious. You just can't do that.

Bloomberg's money has achieved some results -- and not just in poaching staff.

His poaching staff probably cost Democrats a special election in Vermont Connecticut a month ago. A political newcomer was running for a state assembly seat, but Bloomberg hired her campaign manager out from under her less than 3 weeks before the election and she lost by 79 votes (1.6%). I mean, it doesn't affect the legislative math - Dems hold 3/5 of the seats - but it's got to sting the contender who got screwed by a distant, indifferent, behemoth. It's a veritably-Lovecraftian tale.

Bloomberg qualifies for next Dem debate

The qualifications have differed for each debate, and the party has consistently erred on the side of having (too) many candidates on stage. With his current polling it's not unreasonable that Bloomberg should have an appearance. I expect he gets savaged by a united front.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...If you still want to lean on these matchups, you can't do more than project Trump to have a ceiling of 45% in the general. Disaggregating that tentative projection to the state level will be entirely unattainable for a while. Trends in Trump's state-level approval may be more instructive than his head-to-head polling against hypothetical opponents.

Reasonable. As you note, it is way too early to predict the state-by-state likelihoods on a head to head basis -- at least until the field of Dems narrows substantially. Trump's 'approval' rating state-by-state is probably the best yardstick for the moment.

His poaching staff probably cost Democrats a special election in Vermont Connecticut a month ago. A political newcomer was running for a state assembly seat, but Bloomberg hired her campaign manager out from under her less than 3 weeks before the election and she lost by 79 votes (1.6%). I mean, it doesn't affect the legislative math - Dems hold 3/5 of the seats - but it's got to sting the contender who got screwed by a distant, indifferent, behemoth. It's a veritably-Lovecraftian tale.

The NPR and CNN analysts I hear talking about this are having mixed reactions. They do NOT like his stealing key staff at a crucial juncture in that campaign but are finding it hard to fault the political staffers who are taking offers for some of the biggest paychecks they will earn in their careers. I suspect a lot of the lasting reaction will hinge on how well Bloomberg does and how accepting Dem rank-and-file are of his candidacy. I get a sense of "we'll see how things are in a month" from those analysts.

The qualifications have differed for each debate, and the party has consistently erred on the side of having (too) many candidates on stage. With his current polling it's not unreasonable that Bloomberg should have an appearance. I expect he gets savaged by a united front.

As he should be. If you are going to jump in late and attempt to pass the other racers as they come out of the back stretch, you have to expect them to try to keep you outside and block the inside line as a group. Bloomberg either proves he can hang...or doesn't.

I should also note, however, that the next few weeks are just as much of a make or break for Biden as they are for Bloomberg. "Uncle Joe" hasn't exactly covered himself in laurel so far.

[Montmorency]

We all know this, but to reinforce the message:

Regular Democrats Just Aren’t Worried About Bernie

But polls of Democratic voters show nothing of the sort. Among ordinary Democrats, Sanders is strikingly popular, even with voters who favor his rivals. He sparks less opposition—in some cases far less—than his major competitors. On paper, he appears well positioned to unify the party should he win its presidential nomination.

So why all the talk of civil war? Because Sanders is far more divisive among Democratic elites—who prize institutional loyalty and ideological moderation—than Democratic voters. The danger is that by projecting their own anxieties onto rank-and-file Democrats, party insiders are exaggerating the risk of a schism if Sanders wins the nomination, and overlooking the greater risk that the party could fracture if they engineer his defeat.

Strange as it sounds, Sanders may be the least polarizing candidate in the presidential field, at least according to surveys of ordinary Democrats. A Monmouth University poll last week found not only that Sanders’s favorability rating among Democrats nationally—71 percent—was higher than his five top rivals’, but also that his unfavorability rating—19 percent—was tied for second lowest. Sanders’s net favorability rating was six points higher than Elizabeth Warren’s, 16 points higher than Joe Biden’s, 18 points higher than Pete Buttigieg’s, 23 points higher than Amy Klobuchar’s, and a whopping 40 points higher than that of Michael Bloomberg, whom more than a third of Democratic voters viewed unfavorably. (By contrast, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn—whom Sanders’s critics often cite as a cautionary tale—enjoyed the support of only 56 percent of his own party members in the months leading up to December’s British election.)

A Quinnipiac poll earlier this month found similarly favorable results for Sanders. Among Democrats nationally, only Warren enjoyed higher net favorability ratings; on that measure, Sanders outpaced Biden, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg. (The pollsters didn’t ask about Klobuchar.) And according to a recent USA Today/IPSOS survey, Sanders is the candidate who Democrats say best shares their values.

While socialism is still a relatively unpopular label overall, polling repeatedly indicates that Sanders is treated by voters as sui generis. To riff off Pannonian on Blair, Sanders repackages left rhetoric as center-left rhetoric, and uses that center-left rhetoric as cover for left policies. Republicans would blow their loads on the socialism angle during a general campaign against Sanders, but Sanders has a deft and appeasing counter:

"In many respects, we are a socialist society today. ... Donald Trump, before he was president, as a private businessperson, he received $800 million in tax breaks and subsidies to build luxury housing in New York. ... The difference between my socialism and Trump's socialism is I believe the government should help working families, not billionaires."

He continued: "I believe that health care is a human right. I believe we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage of $15 an hour. I believe, in fact, that the rich must start paying their fair share of taxes when you have massive levels of income and wealth inequality."

Phil, listen to Bloomberg, he's your man.
https://twitter.com/AnnaKellyWI/stat...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

[edyzmedieval]

There's a significant difference between democratic socialism and socialism, Montmorency, it's clearly not the same. Unfortunately a lot of the voters, particularly those who don't vote Democratic, do not know the difference, and hence portray the Democratic party under one big "communist" brush.

Also ironic is that Democratic is blue and Republican (socialist red) is red.

[edyzmedieval]

New update - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-led-them-all/

Sanders leading - but a big problem lies ahead. Very probable he will not get a complete majority, only a plurality, and it's very possible the Super Delegates will sway the election to either Biden / Buttigieg / Bloomberg. Which would cause an absolute disaster.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's a significant difference between democratic socialism and socialism, Montmorency, it's clearly not the same. Unfortunately a lot of the voters, particularly those who don't vote Democratic, do not know the difference, and hence portray the Democratic party under one big "communist" brush.

Also ironic is that Democratic is blue and Republican (socialist red) is red.

Since Warren entered the race Sanders has been espousing more overtly socialist policies. Reading a recent BBC article the comments of some of his supporters it was apparent they didn't apprehend the difference. It's also worth pointing out that American socialists have never had to live under a socialist government or even live next door to them, unless they're post-Iron Curtain immigrants.

IF Sanders actually wants to win he'll need to do it as a social democrat because a socialist isn't going anywhere fast in the US - hell look at what just happened in the UK.

[Montmorency]

There's a significant difference between democratic socialism and socialism, Montmorency, it's clearly not the same. Unfortunately a lot of the voters, particularly those who don't vote Democratic, do not know the difference, and hence portray the Democratic party under one big "communist" brush.

Also ironic is that Democratic is blue and Republican (socialist red) is red.

Republicans have portrayed Democrats as socialists for a century. Thankfully or not, voters don't tend to be educated enough to wonder why Sanders sounds like a thorough social democrat of the old school.

New update - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-led-them-all/

Sanders leading - but a big problem lies ahead. Very probable he will not get a complete majority, only a plurality, and it's very possible the Super Delegates will sway the election to either Biden / Buttigieg / Bloomberg. Which would cause an absolute disaster.

Again, how is it going to happen that way?

1. Sanders gets 1/3 i Nevada and smashes the competition, leading to a victory in South Carolina, leading to a majority of delegates on Super Tuesday, leading to an easy majority through the rest of the primaries.
2. Even if that doesn't happen and Sanders ends the primaries with a leading plurality, one of two possibilities unfolds:
2.a. He has a strong plurality and after some conference regarding staffing decisions and campaign strategy he is duly awarded the nomination.
2.b. The candidates who hold the majority of pledged delegates award them to someone in exchange for influence and that candidate now has the majority of delegates and is duly awarded the nomination.

[a completely inoffensive name]

1. Sanders gets 1/3 i Nevada and smashes the competition, leading to a victory in South Carolina, leading to a majority of delegates on Super Tuesday, leading to an easy majority through the rest of the primaries.
2. Even if that doesn't happen and Sanders ends the primaries with a leading plurality, one of two possibilities unfolds:
2.a. He has a strong plurality and after some conference regarding staffing decisions and campaign strategy he is duly awarded the nomination.
2.b. The candidates who hold the majority of pledged delegates award them to someone in exchange for influence and that candidate now has the majority of delegates and is duly awarded the nomination.

But the superdelegates have to vote after the first round. So even if the pledged delegates coalesce after the first round, the impression will be based around how the superdelegates voted.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Republicans have portrayed Democrats as socialists for a century. Thankfully or not, voters don't tend to be educated enough to wonder why Sanders sounds like a thorough social democrat of the old school.

Most of them, at least from 1932 on. Pretty much all of them from 1968 onwards.