GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 21 19, 6:58 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: September 3 19, 2:17 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
I get that, but me being me I'll still chip in another two cents here.

Check out that bar graph that ghost posted:

Image

We can draw a lot of suppositions out of that, but the main one really is that at this point polls are more confusing than clarifying other than as a very general overview of name recognition.

But. While Sanders and Warren land pretty close on the issues and are widely and correctly perceived as being in line on most issues, we see that the Sanders voter is far more likely to abandon the Dems and vote Trump--according to this poll of almost 1500 registered voters, at least--than a Warren voter. Every single bar is higher for Sanders including Sanders.

There is a certain political psychology or bucket of wants/needs in the Sanders camp that is not in line with the other Dem candidates. Considering that he is the most opposite of Trump--a socialist vs Trump's fascism--it's pretty crazy that his voters are more likely to jump ship and vote for his polar opposite than it is a Warren voter to do that. It speaks, IMO, to the populism and socialism (two different things) that come with Sanders and those are both things that are not popular with a wide swath of the country who see Warren as not carrying those labels. You can also account some or most of it to Sanders' status as Outsider. He's not a Dem, he's a Dem by necessity. No one would take him seriously as a third-party candidate and he'd have no debate platform during primaries and if he started four years ago running for POTUS as an Indie he'd have received a fraction the national media. It's important, IMO, to remember he's crashing someone else's party. He's doing a great job of it, lots of people have loved talking to him over the punch bowl and I totally saw Joe's girl flirting with him, but he's still kind of crashing a party.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 3 19, 3:03 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
This is kinda interesting from 538 today: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-most-plugged-in-voting-bloc-seems-to-be-coalescing-behind-warren/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 3 19, 4:38 pm 
Offline
Don't tone police me bro!
User avatar

Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Posts: 10486
Location: Lost in the Cloud
33anda3rd wrote:
I get that, but me being me I'll still chip in another two cents here.

Check out that bar graph that ghost posted:

Image

We can draw a lot of suppositions out of that, but the main one really is that at this point polls are more confusing than clarifying other than as a very general overview of name recognition.

But. While Sanders and Warren land pretty close on the issues and are widely and correctly perceived as being in line on most issues, we see that the Sanders voter is far more likely to abandon the Dems and vote Trump--according to this poll of almost 1500 registered voters, at least--than a Warren voter. Every single bar is higher for Sanders including Sanders.

There is a certain political psychology or bucket of wants/needs in the Sanders camp that is not in line with the other Dem candidates. Considering that he is the most opposite of Trump--a socialist vs Trump's fascism--it's pretty crazy that his voters are more likely to jump ship and vote for his polar opposite than it is a Warren voter to do that. It speaks, IMO, to the populism and socialism (two different things) that come with Sanders and those are both things that are not popular with a wide swath of the country who see Warren as not carrying those labels. You can also account some or most of it to Sanders' status as Outsider. He's not a Dem, he's a Dem by necessity. No one would take him seriously as a third-party candidate and he'd have no debate platform during primaries and if he started four years ago running for POTUS as an Indie he'd have received a fraction the national media. It's important, IMO, to remember he's crashing someone else's party. He's doing a great job of it, lots of people have loved talking to him over the punch bowl and I totally saw Joe's girl flirting with him, but he's still kind of crashing a party.


So what I'm hearing you say is that we need to nominate Sanders to minimize the risk of a Trump presidency


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 3 19, 4:44 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
Schlich wrote:
So what I'm hearing you say is that we need to nominate Sanders to minimize the risk of a Trump presidency


I'm saying that I can do with hearing less from morally self-elevated Sanders voters, esp the % of them that would be like "Yay, socialism!" then go vote for fascism/corporatism.

If we want to ensure a Trump presidency by putting up a candidate with a LOT of unpopular policies with people who vote, and who will get torn to shreds by Koch dollars damning him as Socialist Devil, then yeah let's nominate Sanders.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 5 19, 7:24 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
33anda3rd wrote:
Tier 1: Top choice - Warren

Tier 2: Contenders for my top choice - Yang, Castro, Sanders

Tier 3: Only if my top contenders are not in it - Buttigieg, Booker, Harris

Tier 4: Only if they are the last one standing - I'm voting Blue no matter what, so: Field

Tier N/A: I do not know enough about these candidates to place them in a tier yet - N/A


After the CNN Climate Crisis Town Hall last night, I think I'd take Yang out of my second tier. He wouldn't make tiers 3-4 either. He came across very much like Williamson Lite on climate, talking about space mirrors and geoengineering and carbon capturing and not enough on aggressively ending carbon use.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 5 19, 9:47 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: April 20 06, 8:43 pm
Posts: 8606
Location: Please use blue font for the sarcasm impaired.
Tier 1: Top choice (1 candidate)
Warren

Tier 2: Contenders for my top choice (up to 3 candidates, no minimum)
Bernie, Pete, Harris

Tier 3: Only if my top contenders are not in it (no limit)
Castro, O'Rourke, Yang

Tier 4: Only if they are the last one standing (up to 3 candidates,
Biden, Booker, Klobuchar


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 5 19, 10:39 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19756
Location: Low A Minors
33anda3rd wrote:
Schlich wrote:
So what I'm hearing you say is that we need to nominate Sanders to minimize the risk of a Trump presidency


I'm saying that I can do with hearing less from morally self-elevated Sanders voters, esp the % of them that would be like "Yay, socialism!" then go vote for fascism/corporatism.

If we want to ensure a Trump presidency by putting up a candidate with a LOT of unpopular policies with people who vote, and who will get torn to shreds by Koch dollars damning him as Socialist Devil, then yeah let's nominate Sanders.



I thought the swing voters that would decide the election were all the well-off, white suburban voters? So if we end up with a Bernie vs Trump matchup, and then Trump wins...Wouldn't it be all those white suburban voters' fault? Aren't they the ones who would rather support a fascist than Bernie?

The thing is, as we've already said a million times, Republicans will tear apart Warren or Kamala or anyone the Dems put out there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 5 19, 12:19 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7462
Location: Chicago, IL
pioneer98 wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
Schlich wrote:
So what I'm hearing you say is that we need to nominate Sanders to minimize the risk of a Trump presidency


I'm saying that I can do with hearing less from morally self-elevated Sanders voters, esp the % of them that would be like "Yay, socialism!" then go vote for fascism/corporatism.

If we want to ensure a Trump presidency by putting up a candidate with a LOT of unpopular policies with people who vote, and who will get torn to shreds by Koch dollars damning him as Socialist Devil, then yeah let's nominate Sanders.



I thought the swing voters that would decide the election were all the well-off, white suburban voters? So if we end up with a Bernie vs Trump matchup, and then Trump wins...Wouldn't it be all those white suburban voters' fault? Aren't they the ones who would rather support a fascist than Bernie?

The thing is, as we've already said a million times, Republicans will tear apart Warren or Kamala or anyone the Dems put out there.


Right, except I said educated female suburban voters. Gender matters in there because more women vote than men, like 60-40.

Quote:
Average support among men and women for Democratic candidates who average 5 percent or more among all voters, according to national polls conducted Aug. 1 through Sept. 1
Code:
CANDIDATE   WOMEN   MEN   GENDER GAP
Elizabeth Warren   17.3%   14.4%   +2.9
Kamala Harris   7.9   7.2   +0.7
Joe Biden   28.8   28.6   +0.2
Pete Buttigieg   4.9   5.7   -0.8
Bernie Sanders   15.5   17.9   -2.4


If Trump goes all-in on anti-women stuff or Pocahontas/black stuff on Warren/Harris, there’s an easy defense: he’s a misogynistic racist. If he calls Sanders a socialist, what does Sanders say to that? Sanders is a socialist. The suburban working moms with college degrees of the rust belt are not lining up for the polar extreme of Trump via Sanders socialism, they’re more into the idea of moderate and not Trump. So there’s a balance, a tightrope to walk. Those suburban white educated women who are moderate and voted Trump last time: Warren and Harris are more likely to pull them blue than Sanders. We gotta get past this idea of Sanders as Very Popular.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 5 19, 1:00 pm 
Offline
gone fission
User avatar

Joined: December 11 07, 4:15 pm
Posts: 7965
Location: Twin Cities, MN
33anda3rd wrote:
Quote:
Average support among men and women for Democratic candidates who average 5 percent or more among all voters, according to national polls conducted Aug. 1 through Sept. 1
Code:
CANDIDATE         WOMEN     MEN       GENDER GAP
Elizabeth Warren  17.3%     14.4%     +2.9
Kamala Harris     7.9       7.2       +0.7
Joe Biden         28.8      28.6      +0.2
Pete Buttigieg    4.9       5.7       -0.8
Bernie Sanders    15.5      17.9      -2.4


Here's that code formatted and aligned so it's easier to read.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 12 19, 4:13 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 24339
Avoided this thread but I think I’m leaning more toward Bernie now. My uncertainty over his filibuster stance is balanced out by my uncertainty over Warren’s Medicare stance. Her plan came out today and was light and pro Medicare for All yet also seemed to contradict it. Bernie’s plan covers mental health, hers (which she usually implies is his) seems not to.

I’m also kind of anxious to have a real debate within the party and I’m not sure Warren’s quite left/different enough to force that.

I may continue to flip back and forth on this, and will probably donate to both. And again, I expect this will be decided for me by the time Indiana’s primary comes up. Still down to these two and then the field.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group