CBS did just a horrific job from the 45 minutes I watched. Moderators completely unprepared.

Good luck doctoring silence this time Bloomberg!

jerseyhoya wrote:Bernie Sanders looks electable in surveys — but it could be a mirage

Good write up on Vox. And there's absolutely a pro-Bernie side of the case, but it's one that requires some creative interpretation.

Also, god knows where things are on electability come November. Maybe the Coronavirus will kill enough old Republican leaning people and crashed the economy so bad that the Dems could've nominated even Warren and won. But think this reads like about as good of a measurement as we can have at this point, and it probably doesn't point to nominating Bernie Sanders if one's chief concern is the Dems winning the White House, even if Bernie's nomination would piss irrelevant types like me off the most.

I read this but still am a tad unclear-- are the polls that have Sanders beating Trump, are their models predicting an 11 percent increase in young voter turnout? Also, John Kerry saw an 11 percent rise in young voter turnout but their thesis is it is impossible and no one can or has done it?

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Bernie Sanders looks electable in surveys — but it could be a mirage

Good write up on Vox. And there's absolutely a pro-Bernie side of the case, but it's one that requires some creative interpretation.

Also, god knows where things are on electability come November. Maybe the Coronavirus will kill enough old Republican leaning people and crashed the economy so bad that the Dems could've nominated even Warren and won. But think this reads like about as good of a measurement as we can have at this point, and it probably doesn't point to nominating Bernie Sanders if one's chief concern is the Dems winning the White House, even if Bernie's nomination would piss irrelevant types like me off the most.

Polling data is what we have to describe the current state, the probability that something will happen if an election was held today. But the election is not today. The election is in November. Honestly, i don't believe many of the claims that I see in the polls that a supporter will vote for 1 candidate only, and not vote otherwise if someone else wins the nomination. With a current President at 50+% unfavorability, they will come out.

This article from 2016, which I randomly googled from years ago, reminds me that Kerry and Hillary Clinton were nominated when primary voters sought to be smart, and Obama was nominated when electability was ignored.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/2/11 ... nald-trump

I think your first paragraph makes things worse for Sanders relative to the rest of the field based on the article, not better, though not sure that was what you were arguing.

On the second point, if you're suggesting voters may not be the best judges of which candidates are more or less electable, I would not disagree (some polls currently have them saying Sanders is the most electable, after all). But if you're trying to put your finger on the main difference between 2004/2016 and 2008, it's not that the Democrats picked an 'electable' candidate, but the former were years where fundamentals favored Republicans and the latter was a year where they strongly favored the Democrats.

Felt like all of Pete’s answers sounded like shitty responses to job interview questions.

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Bernie Sanders looks electable in surveys — but it could be a mirage

Good write up on Vox. And there's absolutely a pro-Bernie side of the case, but it's one that requires some creative interpretation.

Also, god knows where things are on electability come November. Maybe the Coronavirus will kill enough old Republican leaning people and crashed the economy so bad that the Dems could've nominated even Warren and won. But think this reads like about as good of a measurement as we can have at this point, and it probably doesn't point to nominating Bernie Sanders if one's chief concern is the Dems winning the White House, even if Bernie's nomination would piss irrelevant types like me off the most.

I read this but still am a tad unclear-- are the polls that have Sanders beating Trump, are their models predicting an 11 percent increase in young voter turnout? Also, John Kerry saw an 11 percent rise in young voter turnout but their thesis is it is impossible and no one can or has done it?

My read was their polling experiment showed, based on self reported vote intention, youth turnout would be significantly higher if Sanders was the nominee than one of the moderates, and the level of increase (along with them preferring him to a 3rd party candidate when the other options were a moderate Dem) would be about enough to offset the votes he loses from voters who prefer Trump to Sanders but prefer the other Dems to Trump. They don't say it's impossible for such a thing to materialize, but that it would be unprecedented given the baseline. It's easier to build off a dip than a bounce, there's more slack.

Forget about the national polls. He has zero chance in Florida, so assuming Bernie can win PA, VA, Nev, and MI, his only path to beating Trump is winning Wisconsin or Arizona. That's it (and that really just means Wisconsin probably). Bernie isn't winning in NC, Texas, Georgia, Iowa, or Ohio.

Nothing else matters.

Bernie's upside is that he could be the Dem most likely to win Wisconsin, but he has zero margin of error. But in reality, Bernie is unlikely to provide you any marginal electoral votes beyond a generic candidate. A monkey could get you to 230ish.

The strategic argument for Biden (and to a lesser extent, Bloomberg) is that he puts Florida back in play.

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Bernie Sanders looks electable in surveys — but it could be a mirage

Good write up on Vox. And there's absolutely a pro-Bernie side of the case, but it's one that requires some creative interpretation.

Also, god knows where things are on electability come November. Maybe the Coronavirus will kill enough old Republican leaning people and crashed the economy so bad that the Dems could've nominated even Warren and won. But think this reads like about as good of a measurement as we can have at this point, and it probably doesn't point to nominating Bernie Sanders if one's chief concern is the Dems winning the White House, even if Bernie's nomination would piss irrelevant types like me off the most.

I read this but still am a tad unclear-- are the polls that have Sanders beating Trump, are their models predicting an 11 percent increase in young voter turnout? Also, John Kerry saw an 11 percent rise in young voter turnout but their thesis is it is impossible and no one can or has done it?

My read was their polling experiment showed, based on self reported vote intention, youth turnout would be significantly higher if Sanders was the nominee than one of the moderates, and the level of increase (along with them preferring him to a 3rd party candidate when the other options were a moderate Dem) would be about enough to offset the votes he loses from voters who prefer Trump to Sanders but prefer the other Dems to Trump. They don't say it's impossible for such a thing to materialize, but that it would be unprecedented given the baseline. It's easier to build off a dip than a bounce, there's more slack.

Got it. Will be helpful to know more next week, after Tuesday. A lot more data to dissect. Looking forward to that.

Not sure how good youGov is but here are some new numbers-- I do think the hand wringing over Bernie having the worst shot at beating Trump is mostly media and elites talking. It just does not *feel* that way if you see how many people he has on the ground and the type of campaign he has run thus far. 30 percent is a pretty good number for him in the second question. He had been in the mid 20s for a good bit.

Percent of Democratic voters who say they'd be disappointed if ___ won the nomination:

Bloomberg: 44%
Gabbard: 43
Steyer: 27
Biden: 25
Buttigieg: 23
Sanders: 23
Klobuchar: 19
Warren: 17

% support among likely voters (change vs last week)

Sanders: 30 (5)
Biden: 20 (1)
Warren: 16 (0)
Bloomberg: 11 (0)
Buttigieg: 9 (-2)
Klobuchar: 4 (-3)
Gabbard: 4 (1)
Steyer: 1 (-1)

One other insane scenario would be if Bernie could take both of two Maine district-based electoral votes, and lose Wisconsin and Arizona, resulting in a 269-269 tie, which would through it the House of Representatives vote, but not the current one....the one that would be elected in November 2020.

Trent Steele wrote:Forget about the national polls. He has zero chance in Florida, so assuming Bernie can win PA, VA, Nev, and MI, his only path to beating Trump is winning Wisconsin or Arizona. That's it (and that really just means Wisconsin probably). Bernie isn't winning in NC, Texas, Georgia, Iowa, or Ohio.

Nothing else matters.

Bernie's upside is that he could be the Dem most likely to win Wisconsin, but he has zero margin of error. But in reality, Bernie is unlikely to provide you any marginal electoral votes beyond a generic candidate. A monkey could get you to 230ish.

The strategic argument for Biden (and to a lesser extent, Bloomberg) is that he puts Florida back in play.

Gillum ran on Medicare for all, iirc, and nearly won- margin of .6. HRC lost Florida by 1.2 points.

CalvinBall wrote:Not sure how good youGov is but here are some new numbers-- I do think the hand wringing over Bernie having the worst shot at beating Trump is mostly media and elites talking. It just does not *feel* that way

A good way for one of Sanders' rivals to show they have a better shot at winning the election would be to beat him in an election

Trent Steele wrote:One other insane scenario would be if Bernie could take both of two Maine district-based electoral votes, and lose Wisconsin and Arizona, resulting in a 269-269 tie, which would through it the House of Representatives vote, but not the current one....the one that would be elected in November 2020.

But it's a state delegation vote...one per state. Not a full vote so...dems likely lose this or at the very least no candidate gets 26 and it goes to the Senate where Dems lose.

JUburton wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:One other insane scenario would be if Bernie could take both of two Maine district-based electoral votes, and lose Wisconsin and Arizona, resulting in a 269-269 tie, which would through it the House of Representatives vote, but not the current one....the one that would be elected in November 2020.

But it's a state delegation vote...one per state. Not a full vote so...dems likely lose this or at the very least no candidate gets 26 and it goes to the Senate where Dems lose.

Right. Forgot about that. So thats a loss

I think an important, though ultimately very thin, part of the "Sanders is electable" argument is "look at Trump!"

I have a bad theory about Presidential elections, one that does not really cover 2020. I call it the "novelty" factor. That is, in aPresidential election, ca ndidate who look "different" in some way get a boost. Kennedy over Nixon, (Nixon over Humphrey would I think be a wash) Carter over Ford, Reagan over Carter (Mondale-Reagan would be something of a wash I guess) Clinton over Bush, Clinton over Dole, Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry, Obama over McCain, Obama over Romney, and of course Trump over Clinton.

Elections with an incumbent are different--my "novelty" score may be a factor, but other factors, retrospective voting, are far more important. And of course, to add to the dumbness of my theory, you can certainly argue with my account over which candidate was really more novel in many of these cases.

Also, I really don't know which of Trump or Sanders is more novel.

Grotewold wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Not sure how good youGov is but here are some new numbers-- I do think the hand wringing over Bernie having the worst shot at beating Trump is mostly media and elites talking. It just does not *feel* that way

A good way for one of Sanders' rivals to show they have a better shot at winning the election would be to beat him in an election

If there were less of them then someone might have a good shot at doing that.

JUburton wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:One other insane scenario would be if Bernie could take both of two Maine district-based electoral votes, and lose Wisconsin and Arizona, resulting in a 269-269 tie, which would through it the House of Representatives vote, but not the current one....the one that would be elected in November 2020.

But it's a state delegation vote...one per state. Not a full vote so...dems likely lose this or at the very least no candidate gets 26 and it goes to the Senate where Dems lose.

Senate picks the VP, House picks the president, can split the decision, but a tie doesn't filter up

GOP very likely to have a majority of state delegations in the House

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Bernie Sanders looks electable in surveys — but it could be a mirage

Good write up on Vox. And there's absolutely a pro-Bernie side of the case, but it's one that requires some creative interpretation.

Also, god knows where things are on electability come November. Maybe the Coronavirus will kill enough old Republican leaning people and crashed the economy so bad that the Dems could've nominated even Warren and won. But think this reads like about as good of a measurement as we can have at this point, and it probably doesn't point to nominating Bernie Sanders if one's chief concern is the Dems winning the White House, even if Bernie's nomination would piss irrelevant types like me off the most.

Polling data is what we have to describe the current state, the probability that something will happen if an election was held today. But the election is not today. The election is in November. Honestly, i don't believe many of the claims that I see in the polls that a supporter will vote for 1 candidate only, and not vote otherwise if someone else wins the nomination. With a current President at 50+% unfavorability, they will come out.

This article from 2016, which I randomly googled from years ago, reminds me that Kerry and Hillary Clinton were nominated when primary voters sought to be smart, and Obama was nominated when electability was ignored.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/2/11 ... nald-trump

I think your first paragraph makes things worse for Sanders relative to the rest of the field based on the article, not better, though not sure that was what you were arguing.

On the second point, if you're suggesting voters may not be the best judges of which candidates are more or less electable, I would not disagree (some polls currently have them saying Sanders is the most electable, after all). But if you're trying to put your finger on the main difference between 2004/2016 and 2008, it's not that the Democrats picked an 'electable' candidate, but the former were years where fundamentals favored Republicans and the latter was a year where they strongly favored the Democrats.

I have a hard time believing that, over the course of 4 months or whatever between the nomination and the election, that any meaningful portion of liberals or moderates would talk themselves into voting for Trump. Or be so displeased with the nomination that, in a swing state, they wouldn't bother to vote. I see that happening in CA perhaps, or in DC, but not in PA. "Eh, Sanders views healthcare as a human right. I'm voting for Trump." Or "Eh, Pete doesn't have sufficient foreign policy experience... Let's go with Trump."

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Bernie Sanders looks electable in surveys — but it could be a mirage

Good write up on Vox. And there's absolutely a pro-Bernie side of the case, but it's one that requires some creative interpretation.

Also, god knows where things are on electability come November. Maybe the Coronavirus will kill enough old Republican leaning people and crashed the economy so bad that the Dems could've nominated even Warren and won. But think this reads like about as good of a measurement as we can have at this point, and it probably doesn't point to nominating Bernie Sanders if one's chief concern is the Dems winning the White House, even if Bernie's nomination would piss irrelevant types like me off the most.

Polling data is what we have to describe the current state, the probability that something will happen if an election was held today. But the election is not today. The election is in November. Honestly, i don't believe many of the claims that I see in the polls that a supporter will vote for 1 candidate only, and not vote otherwise if someone else wins the nomination. With a current President at 50+% unfavorability, they will come out.

This article from 2016, which I randomly googled from years ago, reminds me that Kerry and Hillary Clinton were nominated when primary voters sought to be smart, and Obama was nominated when electability was ignored.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/2/11 ... nald-trump

I think your first paragraph makes things worse for Sanders relative to the rest of the field based on the article, not better, though not sure that was what you were arguing.

On the second point, if you're suggesting voters may not be the best judges of which candidates are more or less electable, I would not disagree (some polls currently have them saying Sanders is the most electable, after all). But if you're trying to put your finger on the main difference between 2004/2016 and 2008, it's not that the Democrats picked an 'electable' candidate, but the former were years where fundamentals favored Republicans and the latter was a year where they strongly favored the Democrats.

I have a hard time believing that, over the course of 4 months or whatever between the nomination and the election, that any meaningful portion of liberals or moderates would talk themselves into voting for Trump. Or be so displeased with the nomination that, in a swing state, they wouldn't bother to vote. I see that happening in CA perhaps, or in DC, but not in PA. "Eh, Sanders views healthcare as a human right. I'm voting for Trump." Or "Eh, Pete doesn't have sufficient foreign policy experience... Let's go with Trump."

Trump won the election in 2016 because working class people who had voted Democrat their entire lives flipped over and voted for him. The Obama x2 / Trump voter as I am. Sanders running on the platform of eliminating private health insurance will continue that trend, especially among union members who certainly won't want to give up their cadillac plans (health care is the one major benefit of unions that is still left). Sanders wanting to ban all fracking also will hurt him in PA. As Andrew Yang said on CNN last week, the blue collar working class voter is basically gone from the Dems at this point. Furthermore, Trump is going to pull a higher percentage of african american vote than any Republican presidential candidate in modern history.....especially if Sanders is the nominee.

It's the lifelong Dems that have moved away from the party that will once again decide the election.

also don't believe the polls when it comes to a general election against trump. other than faux news and some radio stations, the news, media, and entertainment industry has done a fantastic job going all in anti-trump (granted most of it is well deserved) but they have shamed and ridiculed those who would vote for him or share some of his ideas. this ridicule may even go to friends, family, workplace or let's say even a message board where they may be called insignificant. these people have gone underground, there is a significant amount of individuals that will vote for trump who won't admit it to some random pollster anonymously over the phone for fear of embarrassment or backlash.

be very cautious of the numbers, because the same confidence that hillary had just minutes before voting began predicting a near landslide, will happen again. so if the polls say sanders may have a chance against trump, i hate to say it don't believe it. i wouldn't trust anything unless it was double digits.

even with all that being said... anyone but sanders, does beat trump. to lose to trump is quite an accomplishment actually.