2020 Democratic Nomination Process Mega-thread

[JohnStOnge]

Another encouraging output from the Gold Standard ABC News/Washington Post Poll. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted October 27 - 30. It's described at https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... ection.pdf.

Among registered voter respondents:

Biden beat Trump by 56% to 39% (17 percentage points)
Sanders beat Trump by 55% to 41% (14 percentage points)
Warren beat Trump by 55% to 40% (15 percentage points)
Buttigieg beat Trump by 52% to 41% (11 percentage points)
Harris beat Trump by 51% to 42% (9 percentage points)

To get my own idea as to how this A+ rated poll has performed recently, I looked at how its estimates compared to actual results in national elections going back through 2006 (House and Presidential elections).

I used the Real Clear Politics site and was able to find 7 instances during the period when this poll was conducted close enough to the election to be counted in the Real Clear Politics average. The average of the extent to which it was off with respect to the margin between two candidates (President) or Parties (House) for those 7 polls is 1.4 percentage points. The MAXIMUM extent to which it was off 2.8 percentage points.

Looking at that and also looking at the 538 summary on how this poll performed in the 63 of its testable efforts included in the 538 analysis that was JUST updated today, I am very encouraged.

If the election were held tomorrow, I am confident that Trump would not just lose the popular vote to any of those candidates. He would get blown out. The poll is of registered voters. But polling likely voters would not make nearly enough difference to change the basic picture in this case. Is it possible he could win the Electoral College while losing by popular vote by double digits or close to it? Yes. Is it likely? I don't think so.

The candidate that's won the popular vote has won the Electoral College 92% of the time. Also, the biggest margin by which a candidate has lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College is 3 percentage points. What we're seeing here suggests that if the election were held tomorrow Trump would lose the popular vote by a lot more than that.

[JohnStOnge]

Just adding this to put the performance of the ABC News/Washington Post poll into perspective by comparing it to a poll conservatives like: The Rasmussen poll.

I looked at instances in which results for each poll appeared in those used to calculate Real Clear Politics averages in national elections 2006 through 2018. I found 7 instances for each poll.

Unbiased is 0. The bias of the ABC News/Washington Post poll 0.4 towards the Democrats. The bias of the Rasmussen poll is 2.8 towards Republicans. Check one for the ABC News/Washington Post poll.

The simple average error...the average of the extent to which a poll is off regardless of direction...of the ABC News/Washington Post poll is 1.4. The simple average error of the Rasmussen poll is 3.4. Check two for the ABC News/Washington Post poll.

The MAXIMUM absolute error...how far off a poll is regardless of direction...of the ABC News Washington Post poll is 2.8 percentage points. The maximum absolute error for the Rasmussen poll is 9.4 percentage points. Emphatically check three for the ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Also, if we use just the point estimate of each poll, the ABC News/Washington Post poll was correct in all 7 instances. The Rasmussen poll was correct in 4 instances and incorrect in two. In one instance it predicted a tie.

Remember that sort of thing when you're trying to decide whether to believe something like the ABC News/Washington Post poll or believe something like the Rasmussen poll.

[Col Hogan]

But, both polls only mean something if there is no Electoral College...

[UNI88]

You keep touching on the real reason Trump won, and might win again, and yet you don't see it.

You would vote for an abhorrent candidate because that candidate is, by your perception, the lesser of two evils. You say it over and over yourself. Your mindset is the same as those who voted for Trump.

No, because I am correct when I identify the lesser of two evils. The People who voted for Trump on that basis were not correct. Also, I think an awful lot of people who voted for Trump voted for him as a matter of affirmative support for a jackass like that. They were not thinking in terms of the lesser of two evils. Those people are a problem for this country.

You are having a difficult time understanding the difference between your opinion and fact. Maybe you should check yourself into a mental hospital where they might be able to help you manage your rage and understand the difference.

[HI54UNI]

Another encouraging output from the Gold Standard ABC News/Washington Post Poll. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted October 27 - 30. It's described at https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... ection.pdf.

Among registered voter respondents:

Biden beat Trump by 56% to 39% (17 percentage points)
Sanders beat Trump by 55% to 41% (14 percentage points)
Warren beat Trump by 55% to 40% (15 percentage points)
Buttigieg beat Trump by 52% to 41% (11 percentage points)
Harris beat Trump by 51% to 42% (9 percentage points)

To get my own idea as to how this A+ rated poll has performed recently, I looked at how its estimates compared to actual results in national elections going back through 2006 (House and Presidential elections).

I used the Real Clear Politics site and was able to find 7 instances during the period when this poll was conducted close enough to the election to be counted in the Real Clear Politics average. The average of the extent to which it was off with respect to the margin between two candidates (President) or Parties (House) for those 7 polls is 1.4 percentage points. The MAXIMUM extent to which it was off 2.8 percentage points.

Looking at that and also looking at the 538 summary on how this poll performed in the 63 of its testable efforts included in the 538 analysis that was JUST updated today, I am very encouraged.

If the election were held tomorrow, I am confident that Trump would not just lose the popular vote to any of those candidates. He would get blown out. The poll is of registered voters. But polling likely voters would not make nearly enough difference to change the basic picture in this case. Is it possible he could win the Electoral College while losing by popular vote by double digits or close to it? Yes. Is it likely? I don't think so.

The candidate that's won the popular vote has won the Electoral College 92% of the time. Also, the biggest margin by which a candidate has lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College is 3 percentage points. What we're seeing here suggests that if the election were held tomorrow Trump would lose the popular vote by a lot more than that.

D +6 poll.

[AZGrizFan]

Another encouraging output from the Gold Standard ABC News/Washington Post Poll. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted October 27 - 30. It's described at https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... ection.pdf.

Among registered voter respondents:

Biden beat Trump by 56% to 39% (17 percentage points)
Sanders beat Trump by 55% to 41% (14 percentage points)
Warren beat Trump by 55% to 40% (15 percentage points)
Buttigieg beat Trump by 52% to 41% (11 percentage points)
Harris beat Trump by 51% to 42% (9 percentage points)

To get my own idea as to how this A+ rated poll has performed recently, I looked at how its estimates compared to actual results in national elections going back through 2006 (House and Presidential elections).

I used the Real Clear Politics site and was able to find 7 instances during the period when this poll was conducted close enough to the election to be counted in the Real Clear Politics average. The average of the extent to which it was off with respect to the margin between two candidates (President) or Parties (House) for those 7 polls is 1.4 percentage points. The MAXIMUM extent to which it was off 2.8 percentage points.

Looking at that and also looking at the 538 summary on how this poll performed in the 63 of its testable efforts included in the 538 analysis that was JUST updated today, I am very encouraged.

If the election were held tomorrow, I am confident that Trump would not just lose the popular vote to any of those candidates. He would get blown out. The poll is of registered voters. But polling likely voters would not make nearly enough difference to change the basic picture in this case. Is it possible he could win the Electoral College while losing by popular vote by double digits or close to it? Yes. Is it likely? I don't think so.

The candidate that's won the popular vote has won the Electoral College 92% of the time. Also, the biggest margin by which a candidate has lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College is 3 percentage points. What we're seeing here suggests that if the election were held tomorrow Trump would lose the popular vote by a lot more than that.

Here’s the piece you continue to swing and miss on, John: Registered voters who intend to vote for Trump won’t SAY SO. They know if they do they’ll get harassed, blackballed, called a racist, sexist, Nazi, misogynist, etc., etc. They LIE. The don’t answer truthfully. Or they refuse to answer altogether.

How people responded and margin of error in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 or 2014 is virtually irrelevant to the accuracy of THIS poll. It’s a brave new world. Better get used to it. #KAG.

[SDHornet]

Heard an interesting tidbit on the radio today. With the impeachment inquiry being formalized, all the senators will have to ditch the campaign trail to sit in on the proceedings...all except the gay dude and Gil's gal...

And Biden. And Steyer.

Having no one around to distract from what Biden says probably isn't a good thing.

[AZGrizFan]

And Biden. And Steyer.

Having no one around to distract from what Biden says probably isn't a good thing for democrats.

FIFY

[SDHornet]

Having no one around to distract from what Biden says probably isn't a good thing for democrats.

FIFY

[BDKJMU]

Another encouraging output from the Gold Standard ABC News/Washington Post Poll. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted October 27 - 30. It's described at https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... ection.pdf.

Among registered voter respondents:

Biden beat Trump by 56% to 39% (17 percentage points)
Sanders beat Trump by 55% to 41% (14 percentage points)
Warren beat Trump by 55% to 40% (15 percentage points)
Buttigieg beat Trump by 52% to 41% (11 percentage points)
Harris beat Trump by 51% to 42% (9 percentage points)

To get my own idea as to how this A+ rated poll has performed recently, I looked at how its estimates compared to actual results in national elections going back through 2006 (House and Presidential elections).

I used the Real Clear Politics site and was able to find 7 instances during the period when this poll was conducted close enough to the election to be counted in the Real Clear Politics average. The average of the extent to which it was off with respect to the margin between two candidates (President) or Parties (House) for those 7 polls is 1.4 percentage points. The MAXIMUM extent to which it was off 2.8 percentage points.

Looking at that and also looking at the 538 summary on how this poll performed in the 63 of its testable efforts included in the 538 analysis that was JUST updated today, I am very encouraged.

If the election were held tomorrow, I am confident that Trump would not just lose the popular vote to any of those candidates. He would get blown out. The poll is of registered voters. But polling likely voters would not make nearly enough difference to change the basic picture in this case. Is it possible he could win the Electoral College while losing by popular vote by double digits or close to it? Yes. Is it likely? I don't think so.

The candidate that's won the popular vote has won the Electoral College 92% of the time. Also, the biggest margin by which a candidate has lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College is 3 percentage points. What we're seeing here suggests that if the election were held tomorrow Trump would lose the popular vote by a lot more than that.

Why do you keep citing national polls? Worthless as titties on a bull. Its not a national election. Its 50 separate state ones. The only polls that matter are the Battleground states. Just out today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upsh ... polls.html

[Ibanez]

And Biden. And Steyer.

Having no one around to distract from what Biden says probably isn't a good thing.

That’s a good point. An unintended consequence could be the elevation of other candidates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bluehenbillk]

Another encouraging output from the Gold Standard ABC News/Washington Post Poll. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted October 27 - 30. It's described at https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... ection.pdf.

Among registered voter respondents:

Biden beat Trump by 56% to 39% (17 percentage points)
Sanders beat Trump by 55% to 41% (14 percentage points)
Warren beat Trump by 55% to 40% (15 percentage points)
Buttigieg beat Trump by 52% to 41% (11 percentage points)
Harris beat Trump by 51% to 42% (9 percentage points)

To get my own idea as to how this A+ rated poll has performed recently, I looked at how its estimates compared to actual results in national elections going back through 2006 (House and Presidential elections).

I used the Real Clear Politics site and was able to find 7 instances during the period when this poll was conducted close enough to the election to be counted in the Real Clear Politics average. The average of the extent to which it was off with respect to the margin between two candidates (President) or Parties (House) for those 7 polls is 1.4 percentage points. The MAXIMUM extent to which it was off 2.8 percentage points.

Looking at that and also looking at the 538 summary on how this poll performed in the 63 of its testable efforts included in the 538 analysis that was JUST updated today, I am very encouraged.

If the election were held tomorrow, I am confident that Trump would not just lose the popular vote to any of those candidates. He would get blown out. The poll is of registered voters. But polling likely voters would not make nearly enough difference to change the basic picture in this case. Is it possible he could win the Electoral College while losing by popular vote by double digits or close to it? Yes. Is it likely? I don't think so.

The candidate that's won the popular vote has won the Electoral College 92% of the time. Also, the biggest margin by which a candidate has lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College is 3 percentage points. What we're seeing here suggests that if the election were held tomorrow Trump would lose the popular vote by a lot more than that.

Why do you keep citing national polls? Worthless as titties on a bull. Its not a national election. Its 50 separate state ones. The only polls that matter are the Battleground states. Just out today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upsh ... polls.html

This post pretty much sums up where we're at. Democrats are afraid if they go too far progressive that Bernie & Warren will lose to Trump. They're worried about how bad Biden has looked in the race so far as he has the best shot from their party to defeat Trump. Interesting months ahead....

[Ibanez]

All polls are worthless at this point.


And if they aren’t getting the uneducated whites to speak, then they’re flawed like they were in 2016.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Remember -

At this point in the last Presidential campaign most of us considered Trump’s candidacy to have zero chance

Hell I even considered the possibility that he was running to benefit Hillary and had no chance to win the nomination


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Welp, stick a fork in Medicare for All.... I've seen a few clips of Warren being asked difficult questions and she doesn't handle them very well.

"Senator Warren, how will you get your Medicare for All proposal passed when at least three Senate Democrats have vowed not to nuke the filibuster?"

I'd bring popcorn to hear that answer... by executive order? By having the Sgt at Arms sequester the Senate on bread and water until they relent? Get the Clintons to suicide Manchin and Tester? Help me out here Treepklam.... what's a Neo Soviet to do in a situation like this?

Democrats in the Senate are already saying no way not gonna happen. So what's left for the 1/1400th Cherokee Maiden?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/ ... ilibuster/

[SDHornet]

Another encouraging output from the Gold Standard ABC News/Washington Post Poll. An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted October 27 - 30. It's described at https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conte ... ection.pdf.

Among registered voter respondents:

Biden beat Trump by 56% to 39% (17 percentage points)
Sanders beat Trump by 55% to 41% (14 percentage points)
Warren beat Trump by 55% to 40% (15 percentage points)
Buttigieg beat Trump by 52% to 41% (11 percentage points)
Harris beat Trump by 51% to 42% (9 percentage points)

To get my own idea as to how this A+ rated poll has performed recently, I looked at how its estimates compared to actual results in national elections going back through 2006 (House and Presidential elections).

I used the Real Clear Politics site and was able to find 7 instances during the period when this poll was conducted close enough to the election to be counted in the Real Clear Politics average. The average of the extent to which it was off with respect to the margin between two candidates (President) or Parties (House) for those 7 polls is 1.4 percentage points. The MAXIMUM extent to which it was off 2.8 percentage points.

Looking at that and also looking at the 538 summary on how this poll performed in the 63 of its testable efforts included in the 538 analysis that was JUST updated today, I am very encouraged.

If the election were held tomorrow, I am confident that Trump would not just lose the popular vote to any of those candidates. He would get blown out. The poll is of registered voters. But polling likely voters would not make nearly enough difference to change the basic picture in this case. Is it possible he could win the Electoral College while losing by popular vote by double digits or close to it? Yes. Is it likely? I don't think so.

The candidate that's won the popular vote has won the Electoral College 92% of the time. Also, the biggest margin by which a candidate has lost the popular vote while winning the Electoral College is 3 percentage points. What we're seeing here suggests that if the election were held tomorrow Trump would lose the popular vote by a lot more than that.

Why do you keep citing national polls? Worthless as titties on a bull. Its not a national election. Its 50 separate state ones. The only polls that matter are the Battleground states. Just out today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upsh ... polls.html

Where is Ohio in this poll? Isn't Ohio always a battleground state?

[BDKJMU]

Why do you keep citing national polls? Worthless as titties on a bull. Its not a national election. Its 50 separate state ones. The only polls that matter are the Battleground states. Just out today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upsh ... polls.html

Where is Ohio in this poll? Isn't Ohio always a battleground state?

They were using the 6 closest states that went Republican in 2016..maybe OH was 7th.

[tribe_pride]

And just to mess with things, Bloomberg may be coming in to the race. Has to upset Biden if true because he'll take Biden's voters more than Warren/Sanders voters.

[Col Hogan]

Has anyone noticed that Bernie and Warren have stoped going after “millionaires “ and only talk about taxing billionaires?

Guess they don’t want to be hit by the the wealth theft...

[Ibanez]

Has anyone noticed that Bernie and Warren have stoped going after “millionaires “ and only talk about taxing billionaires?

Guess they don’t want to be hit by the the wealth theft...

Yup. And those millionaires and billionaires have been vocal in their opposition towards Warren. At least from what I've read. Talk about having bad ideas.

[mainejeff2]

Has anyone noticed that Bernie and Warren have stoped going after “millionaires “ and only talk about taxing billionaires?

Guess they don’t want to be hit by the the wealth theft...

Yup. And those millionaires and billionaires have been vocal in their opposition towards Warren. At least from what I've read. Talk about having bad ideas.

They don't seem to be so interested in attacking Sanders......I guess that old white men stick together no matter what their party affiliation.

[tribe_pride]

Yup. And those millionaires and billionaires have been vocal in their opposition towards Warren. At least from what I've read. Talk about having bad ideas.

They don't seem to be so interested in attacking Sanders......I guess that old white men stick together no matter what their party affiliation.

Or the belief is that this is really between Warren and Biden and Sanders isn't likely to win.

[Ibanez]

Yup. And those millionaires and billionaires have been vocal in their opposition towards Warren. At least from what I've read. Talk about having bad ideas.

They don't seem to be so interested in attacking Sanders......I guess that old white men stick together no matter what their party affiliation.

Well Sanders didn't recently come out with a plan and began pegging the billionaires' bank accounts as the way it'll get paid for so you're a bit wrong.

[GannonFan]

Yup. And those millionaires and billionaires have been vocal in their opposition towards Warren. At least from what I've read. Talk about having bad ideas.

They don't seem to be so interested in attacking Sanders......I guess that old white men stick together no matter what their party affiliation.

Sanders is a no go for the Democratic establishment. They made sure he couldn't win the nomination in 2016 and there's no way he's going to win it in 2020. The Democratic Party won't allow it. They just need to find a way not to piss his supporters off so much this time so that they still come back and vote in the general election in November.

[89Hen]

Yup. And those millionaires and billionaires have been vocal in their opposition towards Warren. At least from what I've read. Talk about having bad ideas.

They don't seem to be so interested in attacking Sanders......I guess that old white men stick together no matter what their party affiliation.

Did Jeff just say only old, white men are millionaires? I can't decide if that's more sexist or racist.