Total posts: 934
-->
@HistoryBuff
I never equated those 2 things.
Amazing that you forget what your own thread is even about in the first place.
This entire thread you made is built on the guise of "bIdEn iSnT fUnDrAiSiNg wElL hE's iN bIg tRoUbLe SaNdErS 2020!".... If youre too much of a sniveling coward to even defend the primary argument you wanted to put forth in the first place, then really my business is concluded here since youve disavowed pretty much everything you set out to claim in the first place.
It is an empirical fact that Booker's numbers are up and Biden's are down
And I pointed out that context matters, namely that Booker went from almost having to drop out to getting back on track, while Biden has two and a half times the fundraising haul as Booker does and will likely increase once Booker's campaign goes back to floundering. "context" though is something you continue to misunderstand, which is why our conversations devolve into 90% me trying to explain things to you and the other 10% pointing out that you're hopeless.
I do remember what I said. I listed facts.
You listed what you perceived to be facts without the proper context of critical details that render your overall point thoroughly debunked.
If you could get over your bias one day, maybe you will be able to differentiate between what you perceive as reality and what is actually reality.
I wonder why you bother having debates at all
You tagged me in the post and invited me to debate this. If you dont like being ridiculed for failing to do or understand basic things necessitated to have a constructive conversation about something, then Im not going to waste my effort and give you more then what you are worth.
Created:
"It is if you want people to believe you are the front runner."
Fundraising haul =/= success in polls, just ask Jeb Bush what happened to him in the 2016 primary. He had maybe the biggest war chest out of nearly everybody else in the race yet he didnt last a day past the 4th contest and only got 3% in Iowa.
"I in no way said that booker was doing well. I said he earned more than last quarter. Booker has no chance. Please stop trying to straw man me by beating down things I didn't say."
First post
"While Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker are all way up"
You lumped in Booker with the guy who had the largest increase overall (Yang) and the guy with the overall lead (Sanders) immediately after saying Biden's numbers are way down, thus implying that Booker is doing well in addition to others while Biden is not.
Its pretty pathetic that you cant even remember what you say in your own posts, but thats not at all surprising knowing you.... Maybe instead of spamming three posts all at once and then trying to draw me into a debate just to be utterly embarrassed, you should calm down and get your emotions in order do that you remember what you say, boy
Created:
Posted in:
Update: In addition to Florida, Texas, South Carolina, and Georgia being strongly in Biden's corner, North Carolina has released its first state poll on the Dem Primary in quite a while, and in that state Biden enjoys a semi-comfortable lead 31% to 20% to 15% https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6874.html
That lead is far from a given to hold for him compared to what we've seen in other states, but North Carolina is far more purple and centrist then its neighbors such as South Carolina and Tennessee. If Biden continues to do well in the South, polls out of NC indicates that Biden could walk away with this state as well, adding another hefty prize to his delegate count since NC is the 9th biggest state in the US
Interestingly, recent polls in California, Ohio, and New Hampshire have also come out where Biden performs impressively as well. In California he is 1 point behind Warren and 1 point ahead of Sanders despite the liberal leftist reputation of the state ( https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/ ) and in Ohio's first released poll in almost forever, Biden leads Sanders by 2 points and Warren by 8 points ( https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/oh/ohio_democratic_presidential_primary-6873.html )
Most impressively, in the state of New Hampshire that borders both Sanders' home state of Vermont and Warren's home state of Massachusetts, Biden is safely in second and competing for first against Warren, where he averages 24% to Warren's 25% while Sanders is suffering with just 11%! https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html
With Biden's dominance in the south and surprising ability to hang around in both swing states and ultra liberal states, just a few surprise victories in these close contests would definitely be enough to put him over the top and give him the nomination barring an early withdrawal from Warren or Sanders.
Created:
"Between the polls now showing Warren in the lead consistently and Biden being out fund-raised by millions by 3 other candidates, it is not looking good for Biden."
Biden currently leads recent polls in Nevada 24% to 21% (Sanders) to 18% (Warren)
Biden continues to lead the polls in South Carolina 37% to 17% (Warren) to 8% (Sanders)
Biden continues to be in a 3 way tie in the ultra liberal state of California that people would normally believe would be solid Sanders or Warren territory, a state Sanders lost to Hillary last time in 2016 as a matter of fact
First polling out of Ohio for the first time ever Shows Biden leading over Sanders and Warren
North Carolina also is squarely in Biden's grasp where he leads 31% to 20% (Sanders) to 15% (Warren)
Georgia also released its first poll, with Biden holding nearly HALF of all voters in the state with a massive 41% lead
Maryland released its first poll and Biden leads there by double digits, 33% to 21% (Warren) to 10% (Sanders)
Meanwhile, there are two very important things you clearly missed by clinging to the 'Fundraising = definitive power' argument
1 - A large part of the money Warren and Sanders raised will be spent fighting over the more liberal wing of the party, while Biden has a built in base in centrists and moderates. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-17/a-tale-of-two-rallies-elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-have-similar-ideas-different-paths-to-victory " Some progressive voters attended both rallies, and said their biggest fear is that Warren and Sanders will split the left-wing vote and clear the way for the more centrist Joe Biden, the former vice president who is widely regarded as the front-runner for now.
“Both Bernie and Elizabeth say they can beat Trump, and I believe that,” said Nancy Strand, a Sanders supporter in 2016 from Bethlehem who is now inclined to back Warren. “But somebody has to beat Biden first. If they split the progressive vote, Biden gets through.”
And 2 - Bernie suffered a heart attack recently. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hospital.html Biden may not be at the front of the line when it comes to fundraising, but Sanders just had a flirt with death itself, and the first primaries dont start taking place until February.... There's a concerning chance that Bernie doesn't even live long enough to make it through the primary race, let alone the general election or through his first term should he win, and that could start causing voters to worry if they think theyre giving money to a quite possibly dead-man-walking
Good try, better luck next time, kid.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Lol, It's adorable that you try to use facts to back up your case for once yet still aren't even smart enough to even post a link to an actual website you pull your numbers from.... I understand you're a beginner at things like 'citing evidence', but come on, these are just rookie mistakes that even a normal idiot would try not to make.
Ill humor you this one time before leaving the thread, since arguments with you tend to devolve to you ignoring evidence when it suits you the most
"It is also worth noting that Sanders has not done any large dollar fundraisers. His average donation size was $18. It takes a whole lot of donations to get to $25.3 million when you are doing it $18 dollars at a time. "
Check the analytics, Sanders has a habit of pumping unspent and leftover money from his previous campaigns both as president and Senator into whatever current campaign he is operating..... In Q2, $7.6 million of the money that came as 'donations' was money he donated to his own campaign from his previous campaigns, putting his actual fundraising total from small donors for the quarter at around $18 million, much closer to what Biden averaged this quarter from almost entirely small donor donations. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-primary/candidates/fundraising-and-campaign-finance-tracker/
Check the analytics, Sanders has a habit of pumping unspent and leftover money from his previous campaigns both as president and Senator into whatever current campaign he is operating..... In Q2, $7.6 million of the money that came as 'donations' was money he donated to his own campaign from his previous campaigns, putting his actual fundraising total from small donors for the quarter at around $18 million, much closer to what Biden averaged this quarter from almost entirely small donor donations. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-primary/candidates/fundraising-and-campaign-finance-tracker/
"Biden is now a distant 4th in fundraising"
Being in 4th place with $15.2 million is hardly "distant" in a race with 2 dozen candidates who are mostly struggling and gasping for air. You list Booker as an example of a candidate whose fundraising numbers are way up ironically. Did you completely miss out on the fact that a leaked email from his campaign showed his candidacy was in dire straights, causing a surge of donations because his candidacy was on the brink of death, not because of skillful fundraising?: https://www.newsweek.com/cory-booker-campaign-finance-trouble-1460613
With multiple candidates desperately just trying to stay in the game (Castro is the most recent one to publicly plead for donations), a $15+ million haul for a single quarter is a pretty healthy sign for a campaign, contrary to what you wish it signified. You would only be able to consider Biden a "distant" fourth if you narrow your view to the part of the field you want to focus on, which is naturally your calling card since looking at things objectively is a foreign concept to you.
"Biden is relying on large cash donations, which means that many of his donors have likely hit their cap already and cannot donate again. I haven't seen a percentage for this quarter, but in his reporting for the previous quarter he reported that 38% of the $22 million Biden raised (in Q2) came from donors who gave the maximum amount possible to give in the primary. Which means that 38% of his donors from Q2 cannot donate any more money"
Relevant link: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-raised-less-than-sanders-buttigieg-over-last-three-months
I'll go ahead and just post the part that is most relevant here: "Biden revealed his haul during a fundraiser in Palo Alto, California. The former vice president's team then officially disclosed his numbers ahead of the mid-October deadline, noting 98% of all donations were less than or equal to $200 for an average contribution of $44"
While Biden does indeed do high-donation events, he does not 'rely' on them as the central force for his campaign. If we assume for a moment that those max donation givers all blew their load in the second quarter (They havent since donors dont all make huge donations as early as possible in a primary), then it means that 98% of the $15+ million he raised this quarter came from regular voters from small donations...... $15+ million in donations in a quarter from small donors is hardly a sign of a weak campaign, no matter how badly you would like to spin it as.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Oh come on, what giant testicle DOESNT have ties to the Clinton Foundation at this point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
While I concede that relying on an acronym like BLT that has a more common meaning that has nothing to do with left testicle to get inducted into the HoF is dirty, the simple truth is that you are simply throwing away your vote if you support any third testicle candidates.... The only testicles with any chance of winning are Left Testicle and Test Testicle, by trying to go third testicle, you are simply making your vote meaningless and opening up the chance for an even inferior testicle to become leader of the entire ballsack!
Created:
Johnson was attempted to be impeached because he removed an official from his office that was in charge of a cabinet position that currently no longer exists, and did so in a way that didnt strictly meet protocol... Arguing impeachment over who a president wants or doesnt want to have in his cabinet wouldnt even crack the list of top 15 serious things Trump has done during his administration, partly because Trump goes through incompetent cabinet officials he selects himself almost more then he goes through wives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Wait are we nominating testicles or entire ballsacks now?
I am very much a supporter of inducting Test Testicle into the HoF, but I would like additional time to evaluate nominated ballsacks if we're doing that instead.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I honestly dont get the level of hatred that Ivanka and Melania have received.... Theyre both at least 90% smarter and better as people than Trump or any of the guys in the bloodline, and overall first ladies and first daughters have zero influence or impact on presidential administrations and dont deserve any blowback over decisions those administrations make in the first place..... Melania, Ivanka, Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, all of them have caught varying levels of shit in their careers and all of them arguably would be better presidents than their husbands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
To answer the main question: I dont necessarily believe that Biden is 'better' than Warren..... While Warren may certainly have and support policies I prefer over what Biden campaigns on, the only reasons I support him more are 1) Because his policies are more likely to get implemented since on average he is more centrist than Warren. 2) Tulsi Gabbard and Amy Klobuchar, who I like more than Biden, have only slightly above 0% chance of winning the nomination, and 3) My free time on thsi site is so sporadic I cant commit myself o a lengthy debate...... Sometimes I am on here a decent amount of time, other times I am on between the hours of midnight and 2am every 4th day.
Created:
By that logic, I myself could run for president and have a high chance of winning due to the astounding rate of F'ing up that the current president has done
Well the example wouldn't qualify for in this case since you're equally as brainless and unknowledgeable as Trump is based on your responses.
Created:
Posted in:
"Just because a percentage of people believe something, does not make that thing reality"
When it comes to indicating who is doing the best in a primary contest that is decided by what people believe, it does.
Retard
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
No test testicle isnt Gary Johnson because unlike Gary Johnson, test testicle actually has a shot at winning something
Created:
-->
@thett3
how do you reconcile the reality of crime and victimization in the United States with the narrative that white people are oppressing black people?
I think the narrative isnt that white people oppress blacks, the narrative is that black people are far less likely to be given the benefit of the doubt or shown leniency compared to white people who are accused of similar crimes, that black people are more likely to be arrested, charged, imprisoned, etc then white people who commit a similar action, and that black people are more likely to have to deal with these hardships simply because they are black....
Its not that white people as a whole or even in general oppress blacks, its that the justice system we have in place is noticeably less merciful and more punitive towards black people than towards white people in similar circumstances. The reasons for this vary from flaws in police training, historical biases in laws and their enforcement that have not been corrected/legislated out of the system, the worrying amount of privatization in the penal system that actively lobbies for tougher enforcement of laws and steeper penalties for crimes, misguided objectives in the past such as steep penalties for minor possession of drugs, etc.....
The media itself also plays a role in this since the biggest flashpoints of this issue revolves around instances of white on black crime, because historically there is about a 50-50 chance that the offender gets off, which can drive a media cycle for months and translates into free money for media outlets.... Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Grey, Walter Scott, Eric Garner... All of these cases are a month's worth of free talking points for news stations (4 months if its a 24 hour program), which can feed into the perception that they all have a particular bias towards the same agenda when in reality they're just chasing free money and losing out on it if they decide not to talk about it when every other station does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"You showed more polls. That is not evidence he did well"
If a sampling of people all over America were directly asked about candidates and their performances in debates, and they felt that he did well enough, then that is literally all the evidence that is needed to prove that he did well and is doing well in the opinion of Americans who are paying attention.
Congratulations, youre actually a complete dipshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
The test testicle is clearly the superior testicle of all three candidates though.... Polls show it has the best head-to-head matchups against right testicle, test testicle doesnt accept Super PAC money, he was Vice President under Shaft, and has the most sexual experience out of all three candidates.
#ImWithTest
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"tRuMp WiLl WiPe ThE fLoOr WiTh BiDeN, vOtErS dOnT lIkE hIm"
(Presents the closest thing to tangible and factual evidence available showing Biden does well in debates, Trump doesnt, and that voters continue to support Biden at massive rates
"yOu ArE iGnOrInG iNfOrMaTiOn!!!"
You know what, go be a massive retard somewhere else HistoryBuff.... Its utterly pathetic that you refuse to incorporate reality and evidence into your opinions despite being given multiple opportunities to do so all while trying to claim that its others who are ignoring evidence and not your pathetic self.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I just find it an amazing idea that our first official tribute to the new society we've created here on DA be an enshrinement of someone's left nut because of a typo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Oh hey welcome back
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Im pondering a 'Who will win the NFC East: Cowboys or Eagles" debate right now but still on the fence, both teams performed way the fuck differently then I thought they would over the weekend, as did damn near every other team in the league (Rams gave up 50+ to the Bucs of all teams)
Created:
Posted in:
I guess it depends the situation.
Fantasy Football team loses by 1 point because the Bengals cant stop a fucking run game, glass half empty
Getting higher up on the waiver wire and being able to claim TY Hilton because I lost a game by 1 point, glass half full.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I nominate bsh1 test testicle because the right one seems to be smaller, and I like my mods to have big balls, not little balls
HERE HERE, ALL HAIL THE BSH1 TEST TESTICLE
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Translation: "You seem to be looking only at tangible facts and evidence and ignoring my own personal biased opinion" XDYou seem very set on looking only at polling and completely ignoring the reality of the candidate.
Thats because how a large sample of American society itself feels about particular candidates taken repeatedly and over extensive periods of time tends to be a more accurate reflection of how they are doing then the opinions of a some random wingnut like you who regularly substitutes his own bias and opinion as reality that can and has been repeatedly disproved..... You claim Biden is falling apart and is senile and that the people will see that, the reality is that people who watch the debates thinks he does okay enough to get by and his support is still massive.... You claim that the DNC will pull it out for Warren and act on her behalf, the reality is that the DNC's hands are tied on this due very much in part to the bitching of Sanders supporters who are still salty about 2016....... You claim Trump can wipe the floor with Biden in a debate, previous results from debate performances shows that Biden does pretty decent in 1v1's, and that Trump would struggle wiping his own ass with anything other then a fellow Republican.
Created:
Posted in:
Went ahead and filtered out the responses that are built on conspiracy theories such as 'the Media will support Warren' and 'The DNC will back Warren' again to keep the conversation at least somewhat sensible.
If you look at people's 2nd choices, they are rarely anywhere close to the ideology of their 1st choice.
That's because in this case there aren't many viable choices for moderate centrists outside of Biden..... If Biden were to suddenly drop dead and then his supporters had to pick someone to go against Trump, then their second choice of Warren or Sanders is made simply because they too are the only other viable candidates in the race who have any amount of support north of 8%, and there is actually proof that this is the case.
When Kamala Harris was considered a viable candidate, where she rivaled Sanders and Warren in polls following the first debate, Biden supporters far and away selected Harris as their second option by a 10 point margin over both Sanders and Warren back in July-August. https://www.people-press.org/2019/08/16/most-democrats-are-excited-by-several-2020-candidates-not-just-their-top-choice/. Since Harris was closer to Biden then Sanders or Warren, it made sense that Biden voters would flip to her if Biden suddenly fell off the face of the earth, but now that Harris has slid back into irrelevance, Biden supporters now consider Warren or Sanders just because theyre the only other real options.
Outside of Biden disappearing into thin air, it's going to be very difficult for candidates on the liberal left to poach voters who are only moderately left, especially since the biggest issues such as healthcare have stark divisions along political leanings of what should be done. Biden is the luckiest candidate with perhaps the easiest path to the nomination since he has effectively cornered the market on being the centrist/moderate candidate.
Well informed voters will vote on the policy and ideology of the candidate. The other 85% of people will not.
And that primarily benefits Biden, since a majority of Dem voters care about supporting a candidate who can win, and Biden currently has the best numbers in head-to-head contests against Trump.
He absolutely crushed the republicans in the primary debates. He crushed hillary too
This is where your ignorant bias and general lack of understanding is showing.
Polls taken after literally every debate in 2016 indicated that people believed Hillary won, all of them.
- 1st debate, people believed Hillary won 68% to 32% = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_debates#Reception
- 2nd debate, people believed Hillary won 42% to 28%, the remainder believing it a tie = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_debates#Reception_3
- 3rd debate, people believed Hillary won 43% to 26%, again the remainder considering it a tie = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_debates#Reception_4
The performance in GOP debates by Trump could be in part because of how many candidates were mashed into debates forcing whoever would say the craziest thing to shine and stand out, but in 1 on 1 debates Trump repeatedly failed in beating Hillary, directly contradicting your supposed 'facts' and invalidating a vast chunk of your arguments.
When Biden announced he was running, he was polling at like 35-40%. He is now polling at 25-30%
And in the 4 to 5 months prior to announcing he was polling at almost the exact same range he is polling at now between 25% to 31%..... The bump up to 40% after announcing he was running you can see clearly came from Sanders supporters since his numbers took an almost identical hit in proportion to Biden's surge.... Once Biden began settling back to his base where it was to begin with, those who dropped Sanders then fueled Warren's rise, in addition to a large chunk of the support Harris once had: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
(Click the MAX button at the bottom to show numbers all the way back to the very earliest days of the race and you can see the trends)
It's not like Biden started out at 40% and then has been downhill ever since, he simply has a built-in support of 25% to 30% of voters since thats what his campaign averaged, before it spiked following his initial entry into the race. Even now the latest national poll has Biden near 32% and Warren at 21%
Created:
Posted in:
I went ahead and filtered out the parts of your response that were either biased opinion or gross over-exaggeration for the sake of keeping the topic somewhat on the rails
alot of the powers in the democratic party are now pushing for Warren
That might have helped her if she ran in 2016, but its not going to matter this time around since the Dems kneecapped the power that superdelegates have in determining the outcome of events... A lot of them are now required and even mandated to support whoever their state ultimately votes for, which ironically was a rule that was made because Sanders supporters bitched about superdelegates so much in the last primary in 2016.
Political ideology will not keep people supporting Biden as his supports continues to slide.
The gap between Biden with Sanders/Warren ensures that it will though, and the fact that you label Biden as a 'right wing candidate' proves that... People who are to the center or moderate faction of the party aren't going to leap all the way over to the far left part of the party to support Warren just because Biden isn't perfect. Voters will support an imperfect candidate who is kind of in the neighborhood of policies they support over candidates who clearly and articulately promise policies that they don't agree with...
Trump would eat him alive on a debate stage and talk circles around him
1 - Trump can barely speak complete sentences, dont make him out to be some sort of master debater when he cant even hold a thought throughout a whole talking point
2 - When Biden debated Paul Ryan in 2012 as part of the VP debate he was credited to be the decisive winner. Same against Palin in 2008 and you could argue that Palin and Trump have similar debating styles since both of them have brain cells in the single digits.
3 - Biden has already been in 3 debates now and only really got hammered in the first one before his poll numbers bounced back. He's the most attacked candidate by a far margin out of everyone in the entire field and yet his numbers only slid once before swiftly recovering, testifying to his resilience.... If Biden was 1/10th as incompetent as you make him out to be, he would have already lost all of his support after the first batch of debates and gone the way of Jeb Bush, but he is still in the contest and still leads in 9 out of 10 polls.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
First off: This came after the Trump administration withheld more than $400 million dollars in aide that was meant to go to Ukraine to help them bolster their resistances to Russian aggression.There was no mention of any funds or money in the call. Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden
By withholding funding for no given reason whatsoever, and then asking the Ukrainians to do a favor for him that directly targets his chief political adversary, strongly implies that he was using his power as president to try to bend foreign governments to his will to get dirt on a political opponent...... Not only is that beyond unethical, it is almost by definition a fit for the term 'abuse of power', which has been used as an excuse to impeach presidents in the past..... President Andrew Johnson came within one vote of being impeached primarily because he was viewed to have abused presidential power when he attempted to fire the Secretary of War
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson ) So even though there was no explicit mention of the funding, anyone with a brain can reasonably conclude that Trump was willing to use the foreign aide as leverage.
Second: The whole reason Trump tried to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Biden's was over a theory that was already debunked
The alleged prosecutor that "Joe Biden had forced out of Ukraine to protect his son" is a completely false narrative that was manufactured... Biden was sent there as part of the Obama administration to deliver the message that the IMF and a number of organizations within the EU wanted the prosecutor fired because he was NOT investigating instances of corruption of large companies within the country, including not investigating the company that Biden's son worked for. Ukraine was notorious for corruption just a few years ago which was annoying a lot of powerful people in the western world, so pressure was put on Ukraine to appoint a prosecutor who would really tear in to corruption in the country, which the current person wasn't doing..... This wasn't so much as Biden making a move as VP as it was him just delivering requests from other organizations and administrations.
On top of that, the guy who ultimately replaced the prosecutor went on and investigated the company that Hunter Biden worked at, and he found that Hunter Biden wasn't doing anything wrong.... Since it was a natural gas company and Hunter Biden has never had any experience in natural gas economics,he naturally wasn't put in charge of anything important and was likely just hired so that the company could have larger name-brand recognition by being able to wave the 'Biden' flag around every now and then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
As more people actually pay attention to the things Biden is saying and not just saying they support him because he was Obama's VP his polls will continue to slide
There's two giant things in the way of that happening though which Biden massively benefits from......
The first is that In 2016 for the GOP there was a constant shuffling of standings in the polls because a lot of candidates had similarities to other candidates.... If you wanted a political outsider who would approach things differently, you could pick from Trump, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson.... If you wanted a super christian conservative candidate, you had ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Mike Fuckabee and Shit Santorum..... If you wanted a moderate who would be a bit bipartisian, you had Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Chris Christie..... A lot of candidates bounced back and forth throughout the primary because a lot of candidates were very similar to others and seemingly everyone had a shot at catching lightning in a bottle to become the nominee.
In the Dem primary though, there are really only 3 who have a shot at winning: Biden, Sanders and Warren..... Since Warren and Sanders are the furthest to the left, the more moderate and centrist faction of the party have ONLY Biden as their option to support, since all the other centrists and moderates poll below 3%...... Hell the reason I support Biden is mainly because Tulsi Gabbard and Amy Kolbuchar dont have a shot at winning the nomination. If either of them did i'd probably be shifting my support between them every other week, but only Biden has a chance at winning the nomination, which is why centrists and moderates will gravitate towards him.
Its very rare for a massive number of people to all at once shift their political beliefs further to the right or left within a primary cycle. Warren nor Sanders is going to convince a lot of centrist democrats who dont like the idea of Medicare for All or Universal healthcare to suddenly drop their support of Biden and support Warren or Sanders. People will more likely support Biden simply because he -seems- more in line with what their political beliefs are, even if he doesnt explicitly say so
The second thing that shields Biden is the fact that he performs better then either Sanders or Warren in head-to-heads against Trump. Voters in this cycle value a candidate's ability to beat Trump more then valuing candidates who advocate policies they agree with. Because Biden is notably stronger in faceoffs against Trump also causes people to gravitate towards him, and this is in SPITE of the fact that for over 10 years now Biden has been prone to gaffes and questionable remarks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Im operating at like 5% because im tired af so ill make this brief to answer ya:
Political leanings: centrist/moderate democrat. Voted Obama and Hillary in 2012 and 2016. Was open to voting for Kasich or Rubio in 2016, would have considered McCain back in 2008 before he picked Palin as his running mate.
Best Nominee: While I liked Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard the most, they simply have no shot at winning the nomination. Biden is the next closest thing in terms of platform who has a shot at winning, so I currently support him.
Created:
Posted in:
One could also assume that, as Obama's VP, Biden has a very good shot at winning the massive state of Illinois, which is Obama's main home at this point. With Texas, Florida, and Illinois in his pocket, along with a majority of the South, he would only need wins in a handful of other states outside the region such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, or New Jersey (States where Hillary did very well over Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries ) to win the nomination.
Created:
Posted in:
I thought about making this a general 'predictions thread' where people can post their theories and outcomes of 2020 electoral stuff, but there was something else I wanted to talk about instead that I didn't want to shove into my primary thread that I update every now and then.
While on RCP, the site I use to check on primary polls, I found out that the home page only lists the primaries from Iowa through Massachusetts at the top, since those are the first primaries that will actually take place and therefore have substantial influence and importance on the rest of the race.... https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Turns out though that the site still collects polling data from other states outside of the first primaries, which you can find in the general ongoing section shown here:https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
It was while prowling through this list that I found polls from other states and noticed a remarkable trend, hence leading to the title of this thread. Joe Biden holds such massive leads in the southern states that I am willing to believe he will ultimately win the nomination, due to the size of his lead in these states as well as the size of the states as well.
The four states I want to highlight are arguably the three most important states in the south that will be voting.... Florida, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina. Whlie South Carolina is hardly the largest state in the south, because it's one of the first primaries to be held, it still holds great importance.
In South Carolina, Biden has regularly averaged around 40% in the three polls that were taken between September and October. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6824.html Both Warren and Sanders in the same polls are hovering only slightly above 15%, meaning that their combined support if one of them dropped out would still be far short of enough to beat Biden in the state..... Regardless of how close or badly Biden might lose in Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada, he can almost certainly bank on a strong win in South Carolina to revamp his campaign and prepare to stay in the race for a long time.
In Texas, which actually is two states after South Carolina and is fairly early in the primary contest, Biden is somewhere between 25% and 30%.... https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-6875.html This normally would make it competitive since Sanders and Warren also poll in that range in some states, but Texas is different because another candidate is standing in the way: Beto O'Rourke, who is polling at around the same rate as Sanders and Warren near 15%.... While Sanders and Warren will do well enough in the early states to hang around in the primary, Beto might not.... Beto only polls around 3% max in national polls and only gets a bump in Texas because it's his home state..... If he falters early in some states, and hard too, he could pull out of the race before Texas comes up to vote.... Even Jeb Bush pulled out right after South Carolina in 2016, and he had a far bigger war chest and name recognition than O'Rourke..... If Beto drops out, his support liekly goes towards Biden. If he tries to stay in, his same supporters may see him doing poorly in earlier states and transfer to Biden anyways. If nothing at all happens, Biden still holds double digit leads over the rest of the competition, and will be able to score a massive haul of delegates by winning the state.
In Florida, Biden pulled in a whopping 34% in the most recent poll, and topped 40% several months earlier https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/fl/florida_democratic_presidential_primary-6847.html While Warren has polled better in the state going from 14% to 24%, Sanders has been flatlining at 14%, and did about as shitty as that the last Florida primary in 2016 where Hillary won 64% to 33% when it was just her and Sanders...... Seince Biden polls very well with older voters, Florida being a giant retirement state favors Biden in this contest, meaning that the massive number of delegates to be won in Florida is Biden's to lose, which he likely wont.
Finally in Georgia, the lead Biden holds in that state mirrors his lead margin in South Carolina. A recent poll showed Biden getting 41% of the vote in the whole state whlie Warren only gets 17% and Sanders falls to 8% https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ga/georgia_democratic_primary-6953.html
The South belongs to Biden, which is remarkably similar to the last Dem Primary between Hillary and Sanders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries In 2016, Hillary cleaned up in southern states, cleaning up across the board while Sanders struggled. If we assume Georgia and South Carolina are similar to other states nearby such as Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, etc, then we can assume that Biden will clean up in those states given his massive leads he holds in states similar to those ones (Georgia and South Carolina in particular)..... Due to the population size in southern conservative states, Biden's ownership of races in these states could very well deliver him the nomination since other states that swing more liberal could be divided between Sanders, Warren, or even Biden himself if he pulls off a surprise win every now and then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I actually just had a convo abut this with a bunch of guys I know in Law School at the University of Miami who im in a fantasy football group with.
Consensus among all of us (approx 8) was that a Warren nomination wouldn't really push people out of the party or to the GOP, but that Sanders might. While both of them are pretty similar in terms of politics and policies, Warren seems to present herself and conduct herself in a more reasonable fashion, while Sanders only has ever sounded like a loud radical.....
Basically people could forget Warren is pretty leftist, but Bernie would be a constant reminder, which could push people out of the party
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Hall of Fame stuff back on DDO was 95% less dramatic then any presidential election on DDO ever, and 95% less drama might be lowballing it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If we're lucky enough, the more radical ones will move further to the left at a faster race then the rest who are closer to the center, and splinter themselves off into their own corner where they can have their own coalition/party that is well defined but still too small to do anything.
A far left party, a sort of left party, a sort of right party, and a far right party.... That would be the ideal result in my book where the two minority radical parties at both extremes remind the larger more moderate parties that theyre not crazy and incentivize collaboration
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
RM blocked me so I cant tag him in my response, but I think he wants to discuss your previous claim that real progressives don't like Warren and are essentially fake.
Post 153, just a bit higher up, have fun.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh that wasnt me saying something I believe in, I was just repeating what HistoryBuff said, in response to a point Greyparrot made
Post 134 is where its from
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Found it
"Warren's base is largely white, upper middle class people. They don't want to see massive change. They like warren because she will make some improvements but, ultimately, will leave intact the corrupt system those upper middle class white people benefit from..... Real progressives don't like Warren. Warren's white, upper middle class base don't like sanders"
It's going to be really entertaining to see which base of Warren or Sanders supporters flings the most shit at the other candidate but then has to try to justify an about-face when one of those two drops out and then goes up against Biden for the remainder of the primary.... It's pretty quiet for now since the upper candidates have mainly just been playing defense against smaller candidates with 0 chance of actually gaining the nomination, but when we get to the point where theres only 4 or 5 candidates left, shit is going to get HEATED.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This is the same guy who thinks that Warren supporters aren't real progressives and are just kidding themselves.
I still catch myself believing that what Bernie did in 2016 to the party is what Palin helped do with the GOP in 2008 =Try to appeal to the more radical aspect of the party and weaponize it to increase turnout in the hopes that it will return them to power but ultimately cause fissures within the base that start to fracture things instead..... It's not a perfect comparison, but I think its still happening (fractures within the party), just not to the point that there are full-blown factions seceding from central party authority like with what the Freedom Caucus tried to pull off a few times around 2012-2015
Part of me kind of hope the fracturing in both parties keeps happening though. It will be shitty and lead to nothing getting done a lot of the time at first, but If the ultra conservative wing of the GOP breaks off, and the ultra liberal faction of the Democrats break off, it could cause a possible middle-moderate centralized parties to form and reconfigure the two-party system the US has suffered through for centuries.... That could then pry open the door for rank voting in presidential elections where people can list candidates in order of preference, and really change things for the better.... A 3 or 4 party system divided by how much people value government intervention into economic affairs or personal liberties would strike the ideal balance between best representation and cohesiveness to act together in true times of crisis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thanks <3
The 21st century will still belong to the US, at least the first half. Im 80% sure the second half will to depending on a few factors
Created:
Posted in:
While they have the population and resource capacity to rival the US, theyre going to get turbofucked by inner government corruption and their population demographics.
The one child policy is going to bite China HARD when the population ages to the point that a large share of society is no longer useful. That combined with widespread environmental and urban planning failures, an economy that thrives more from knocking off US tech than innovating on their own, their tying of reforms to whoever the current president is rather then trying to de-chain themselves from centralized authority will hinder them enough to keep them behind the US for at least the next 30 years or so.
Created:
Posted in:
You clearly have no intention of discussing this with any level of maturity
There's no point in trying to be civil with someone who is too incompetent to see reality or see even the most basic of facts, because conversations about complex issues require at least a rudimentary understanding of the world around us, which is something you lack and likely will continue to lack for the foreseeable future.
Fix your bias, maybe bash your head against a pole several times to see if something loosens up in your brain and somehow kickstarts it into working again, and then I'll be able to discuss events civilly with you.... I wont hold my breath
Created:
Posted in:
(TLDR version)
Does it rise to impeachment? I believe so, this is somewhat similar to what happened with Watergate which would have resulted with impeachment
Do I think an impeachment will happen? Probably not, it depends on if Trump even survives reelection in 2020 which i am willing to bet against, and even if he wins re-election the Senate will be still be fairly Republican and could serve as a firing wall against any attempt at actual impeachment
Created:
Posted in:
The whole Russia thing I never considered something impeachable... Russia did not tamper with voting machines like some are led to believe, they mainly just sponsored misinformation to try to dupe the dumber half of society into thinking stuff like Democrats will take away your freedoms, Millions of refugees will flood into the country if Trump loses, stuff like that.... There was never an active coordination between Trump and Russia on this, Russia just did it anyways and Trump figured 'well it benefits me so ill just let them continue and not call them out on it'.... Is it immoral and somewhat corrupt, sure, but its not really an impeachable thing.
The Ukraine thing on the other hand, is much more problematic. Using presidential power to threaten to withhold funding to a nation unless they provide political dirt on a primary opponent is disturbingly close in comparison to using presidential power to hire guys to break into the office of your primary opponent to get political dirt on them (The exact thing that happened with Watergate which Nixon 100% would have been impeached over)...
I still only think there's 30% odds impeachment actually takes place though, for a couple reasons:
1 - If Trump loses in 2020, there wont be a need for impeachment.
Democrats are inquiring about information as part of a possible impeachment indictment, but there sure as shit wont be an attempt to remove Trump from office before the next election takes place. Its much easier for Dems to frame the election as a referendum on Trump's presidency as a whole, rather then making it a referendum on whether what he did with Ukraine is acceptable or not. Since we are still in the infancy stage of the investigation, it's highly unlikely something truly damming will be uncovered soon enough to justify a full on impeachment process. If Trump wins re-election, then there might be an impeachment process in his second term, but there def wont be one before then.
2 - Im not sure how loyal/disloyal congressional Republicans are.
While Dems control the house, the GOP still controls the senate and probably will still control the Senate after 2020.... The odds of Dems getting a supermajority 60 seats in the Senate is damn near impossible, meaning that in order for Trump to be impeached, several GOP senators would have to be willing to risk their political careers by voting against their own party, which I dont see them doing.
Romney might support impeachment out of Utah since his career has already peaked, Cory Gardner in Colorado might support impeaching just to preserve his seat he holds in Colorado which grows bluer by the day, Susan Collins in Maine has been a swing vote on a few issues before..... I don't see anyone else flipping though at the current stage....
If there is going to be an attempt at an impeachment, Democrats will have to figure that there is enough potential Republican Senators who would flip their support and agree with impeachment, and I don't think there will be enough to even be considered potential flippers, let alone senators who actually would vote to overthrow a member of their own party.
3 - I dont think a lot of people would like Mike Pence as president
For the longest time, I considered Trump to be only the second worst possible candidate to become president out of the GOP primary field in 2016, Ted Cruz being the worst.... Trump could be manipulated and corrupt, but Cruz arguably believes he has the support of God himself and would see himself as the leader of a religious crusade to restore his idea of morality back to the country..... Id accept a manipulative trainwreck as president over a religious zealot almost any day. Mike Pence is kind of in the same boat as Trump, a super Christian ball of dough who would cling to faith as strength rather then show any chance to compromise and consider things outside his rigid state of beliefs. A Pence administration would be far more stable and less scandalous than a trump administration, and would make things a lot easier for congressional Republicans to campaign on their own stances rather then defending Trumps daily fuckups, but Pence's ultra-conservative beliefs on issues may also be just as problematic to defend to congressional senators who hold office in more liberal swing states, and I think a few senators would rather deal with Trump as president over Pence just because theyve managed to survive with Trump as president up to this point already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The ad hominem attacks just make you look weaker.
Your repeated inability to use facts and logic and actual sources are the bigger issue, which is why the ad-hominem attacks are all your responses are worth responding with.
tied for 1st is, by definition, in 1st
And Bernie is not tied for first, which is something you are not cognitively developed enough to understand. Cherrypicking two polls from almost a month ago showing Bernie doing half okay does not equate to him being tied for first, especially when 90% of other polls you continue to ignore due to your inability to negate your bias show him doing substantially poorer then either Warren or Biden.
You asked for polls where bernie was in 1st. I provided some and you proceed to attack me personally
I asked for you to proof behind your wildly asinine claims you made in the thread. You failed to provide a single link to an actual poll, failed to comprehend that doing well in a single poll you cherrypick from several taken at the same time does not constitute Sanders being in the lead or in the top 2, and continue to be dumb enough to regard your own warped bias as genuine fact just because its your opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Polls fluctuate naturally over time and 100% accuracy is always elusive since how vocal people are in expressing their opinions compared to who actually turns out for the race and votes are never one in the same.... People also change their minds since, especially more recently, numerous candidates have enough in common where a single voter could struggle picking 1 of 3 or 4 different candidates to fully back in a field of a dozen..... Polls never ends an argument of who will get how much since only the actual election/primary does that.
The useful things about polls is that it gives us a rough estimate of what to expect. We can all expect Sanders, Warren, and Biden will be the big three candidates once the primaries start taking place, Castro, Booker, Klobuchar, and others will start dropping out due to lack of support, Harris, Buttigieg, and Beto may do well enough in a few early contests to raise eyebrows and make people recosnider their support...... And some of the more in depth polls that dont just take a survey question and post it on their site to make talking points (CNN, Fox) can add insights into which candidates get the most of their support from which segments of society.
Polls dont dictate results at all, but they give us an idea of what the result will be, which is where their value is.
(As for 2016, that election was interesting because it drove out different levels of turnout than initially expected or anticipated from poll takers, who often limit their results to responses from 'likely voters' rather then just anyone who responds to their questions, where more rural voters in Swing states benefited Trump)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Im going to go ahead and do a step by step breakdown of why youre being competely retarded. Dont bother responding to me afterwards because youve already wasted everyones time already with your rampant stupidity.
Lets begin
An emerson poll had bernie tied with biden for 1st at 26% in California
1) 'Tied' doesnt mean Bernie is in the lead or that Biden's campaign is imploding as you suggest, as evidenced by the next point:
2) The poll you cite was one of only three polls taken around the same time period that you cherry picked to try to support your dumb claim..... Of all three of the polls taken from California, Biden beats Sanders in the other 2 you opted to ignore because they didnt confirm to your bias, and overall Sanders is in third place behind Biden and Warren which directly undermines your claims. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-6879.html
2) The poll you cite was one of only three polls taken around the same time period that you cherry picked to try to support your dumb claim..... Of all three of the polls taken from California, Biden beats Sanders in the other 2 you opted to ignore because they didnt confirm to your bias, and overall Sanders is in third place behind Biden and Warren which directly undermines your claims. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-6879.html
A yougov poll put sanders in the lead in Nevada.
The poll was from almost a month ago now and more recent data has been released with updates figures, showing Sanders with almost HALF the support that Warren or Biden has. Of all three of the most recent available polls for Nevada, you again cherrypick the one poll you like the most because it fits your bias while blatantly ignoring the other two showing Bernie struggling to stay above 10%
All three candidates are in a tight race in New Jersey
Now you're just being pathetic....
1 - Being THIRD PLACE in a 'tight race' by almost double digits doesnt equate to Bernie being in the lead or doing better than Biden... Sanders is down nearly 10 points compared to Biden... Furthermore, New Jersey's primary is so late in the year that it holds no strategic relevance to the race either now, in the short term future, or for almost the entire first half of 2020..... It's primary is June 2nd, which is one of the last contests that will take place where someone may have already clinched the nomination for all we know.
1 - Being THIRD PLACE in a 'tight race' by almost double digits doesnt equate to Bernie being in the lead or doing better than Biden... Sanders is down nearly 10 points compared to Biden... Furthermore, New Jersey's primary is so late in the year that it holds no strategic relevance to the race either now, in the short term future, or for almost the entire first half of 2020..... It's primary is June 2nd, which is one of the last contests that will take place where someone may have already clinched the nomination for all we know.
And there are alot of races where biden leads and bernie is a close 2nd while warren trails.
In Iowa Biden has around 20% whereas Bernie struggles to stay north of 10%, Warren leads both of them
In New Hampshire Bernie has half the support Biden currently does based on the most recent and up to date data, 25% to 12%, Warren also leads
In New Hampshire Bernie has half the support Biden currently does based on the most recent and up to date data, 25% to 12%, Warren also leads
In Nevada Biden has a 9 point lead over Bernie 23% to 14%, Warren has 19%
In South Carolina Biden routinely pushes up near 20% while Bernie and Warren struggle to maintain 20%
In California a number of polls when averaged out have both Biden and Warren ahead of Sanders
In Texas Sanders is in FOURTH PLACE behind Bernie, Warren, and Beto o'Rourke.
In Massachusetts, perhaps the most liberal state in the US, Sanders clocked in at 8% in the only recent and up-to-date poll.
( https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html <- links to all individual states referenced above )
In North Carolina Biden is almost at 40% while Bernie cannot even get to 20% https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-6874.html
In Florida, Biden is at 35% and Warren is at 24% while sad old Sanders is only at 14% https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/fl/florida_democratic_presidential_primary-6847.html
If you go through the list of all the polls that have been taken at state levels, Sanders gets whipped in nearly all of them https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/ Here are two more highlights that I havent touched on up to this point that only further proves your stupidity
Georgia Polls = Biden is at 41%, Warren is at 17%, Sanders is at 8%
Maryland Polls = Biden is at 33%, Warren is at 21%, Sanders is at 10%
An overwhelming majority of polls taken by many different sources in many different states and also nation wide all repeat the same common consensus: Biden and Warren are the leaders, Bernie is usually in third place behind both, and by a large enough margin that to claim that Biden is leaking oil badly or that Bernie is performing better than Biden to even a slight degree is utterly inaccurate..... You either cannot wrap your head around this because:
1 - Youre too stupid to know how numbers work and what polls indicate
1 - Youre too stupid to know how numbers work and what polls indicate
2 - You genuinely dont know what constitutes a 'fact' and are unable to separate fact from opinion or speculation
3 - You are so consumed in your ass-backwards bias that you are literally unable to see that you are wrong on so many levels because of how clouded your vision is from your own ignorance
Or 4 - You purposefully intend to push a false narrative because you do not know how to convince people to support your viewpoint using things like reason and common sense.
Created:
Posted in:
Sanders is in 1st in several states
These are all empirical facts. Everyone has biases, i don't pretend i am immune. But my opinions are based on hard facts.
You have no idea what a 'fact' is do you?
i made several points based in facts
You havent posted a single source for literally anything you've claimed, dumbass.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You may want to re-evaluate whether your biases are spilling into your opinions.
That's HILARIOUS coming from you, every single one of your initial claims and even responses are seeped in your own bias.
If you even had the ability to separate bias from reality we wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place XD
Created: