Who will the Democratic nominee be?

[Habitat]

9 minutes ago, and then said:

The thing that baffles me still is that I think they actually believed their own lies.  They were so caught up in their rhetoric they forgot to be scientific with polling - just to be sure.  I'll never believe polling again.

Polling can no longer be relied on. One wonders why, but it has becoming thoroughly discredited. In the recent Australian federal election, the incumbents were available to bet at 10/1 on the polling day, yet were re-elected !

[+and-then]

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Polling can no longer be relied on. One wonders why, but it has becoming thoroughly discredited. In the recent Australian federal election, the incumbents were available to bet at 10/1 on the polling day, yet were re-elected !

I think the answer to this enigma is purely political.  At a time in our history when polling should be nearly perfected, it has become blatantly unreliable and it's because those that craft the polls do so to create opinion, not measure it.  It bit them hard in 2016 and my guess is they'll begin to give more accurate results as 2020 unfolds and we get closer to the real election.  They can't afford to lie to their minions a second time if they want to retain any credibility.  Unless, of course, their purpose is to stage another 4 years of resistance on the fable of interference. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by and then

[F3SS]

I dunno andthen. I have the feeling they're up for anything. They lack humility or any ability to be honest with themselves or their constituents. They won't quit until they're locked in a round room and a straight jacket screaming at the sky for all eternity. 

As for polling they always tell us the polls were accurate because she won the popular vote but they're actually not accurate if they cannot also predict the electoral college. 

[Big Jim]

1 hour ago, and then said:

I think the answer to this enigma is purely political.  At a time in our history when polling should be nearly perfected, it has become blatantly unreliable and it's because those that craft the polls do so to create opinion, not measure it. 

I agree with that but I think it's only a partial answer.  The other part is that due to a history of dirty tricks people are becoming suspicious of anything political.  I used to answer political polls, but not anymore.  I still get calls occasionally but I don't participate because I don't know who is doing the polling or what it will be used for.  How they identify themselves doesn't matter since I don't trust them.  I'm just ordinary enough that if I feel a certain way, millions of others probably do too.  There is also likely to be a group that, instead of ignoring them, decides to play with their head to deliberately skew the results.

[Stardrive]

5 hours ago, acidhead said:

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447972-biden-leads-trump-by-landslide-proportions-in-new-national-poll

Yeah that's it, make an emotional wreck out them, again.

[+and-then]

3 minutes ago, Stardrive said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447972-biden-leads-trump-by-landslide-proportions-in-new-national-poll

Yeah that's it, make an emotional wreck out them, again.

Yep... they'll be LOSIN' THEIR MIIINNDS...   

[+DieChecker]

6 hours ago, acidhead said:

 

These polls are always skewed because Trump voters have better things to do then talk to a pollster for 25 minutes, and so they hang up on them.

I can't believe these guys are doing exactly as they did in 2016 and are expecting to be taken seriously? What exactly did they change since last time round? 

[+DieChecker]

45 minutes ago, and then said:

Yep... they'll be LOSIN' THEIR MIIINNDS...   

The build up, the expectation, followed by crying and counciling.

[Big Jim]

7 hours ago, Stardrive said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447972-biden-leads-trump-by-landslide-proportions-in-new-national-poll

Yeah that's it, make an emotional wreck out them, again.

I have to wonder who they are asking.  Warren couldn't get 49% in her own tribe.

[Stardrive]

33 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

I have to wonder who they are asking.  Warren couldn't get 49% in her own tribe.

Metropolitan Los Angeles and New York would be my guess. 

[aztek]

i do not think they asked anyone, i'm pretty sure they just made numbers up.  

 

[acidhead]

This woman is a U.S. Senator(D) and candidate for President

 

[Vorg]

15 hours ago, and then said:

I think the answer to this enigma is purely political.  At a time in our history when polling should be nearly perfected, it has become blatantly unreliable and it's because those that craft the polls do so to create opinion, not measure it.  It bit them hard in 2016 and my guess is they'll begin to give more accurate results as 2020 unfolds and we get closer to the real election.  They can't afford to lie to their minions a second time if they want to retain any credibility.  Unless, of course, their purpose is to stage another 4 years of resistance on the fable of interference. 

Exactly, or  try to sway opinion.

[Tatetopa]

15 hours ago, and then said:

I think the answer to this enigma is purely political.  At a time in our history when polling should be nearly perfected, it has become blatantly unreliable and it's because those that craft the polls do so to create opinion, not measure it.  It bit them hard in 2016 and my guess is they'll begin to give more accurate results as 2020 unfolds and we get closer to the real election.  They can't afford to lie to their minions a second time if they want to retain any credibility.  Unless, of course, their purpose is to stage another 4 years of resistance on the fable of interference. 

Yes indeed.  I worked with statistical process control for 30 years.  You can reveal facts or you can hide them.  The folks grinding the numbers generally know what is going on.  Their managers, the ones that got the contracts with the clients may want to put a spin on things.  The clients may want to do that too. 

We seem to live in an age where "Fake it til you make it"  is the motto  Sometimes they get away with it.  Sometimes facts and circumstances in the real world blow up in the faces of the fakers.

[Tatetopa]

No clue who the nominee will be.

I can predict the cheer at Harris rallies:  "Lock him up!"

[Tatetopa]

More political rally cheers.

Biden:  "Elect Joe, he'll cure cancer!"

Warren:  "Vote for Elizabeth, she has comprehensive policies that would remake the economy all the way  from tax policies to student debt relief and preventing big lenders from screwing consumers with implications on foreign investment and American policy abroad.  Hooray!" 

Bernie:  "He's a great guy and Hillary stole his turn."

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I still think it'll be the gay mayor. plenty of time.

[docyabut2]

I was a Democrat until the 60`s when they all started abortion and open sexuality. The Nazi feminists were down on marriage and mother hood convinced all women to work. Well in the 80 `s, the over population  of jobs were given to women bashing out all jobs for men and even the poor black men had to go the drugs to support their families.( its got to stopped the Democrats to bashing the rich when the rich can give many jobs.  

[Farmer77]

On 6/6/2019 at 9:34 AM, DieChecker said:

I have to disagree. The 2018 midterms were Democrat successes, not because those that won were liberal enough, but because most of them appealed to centrist Democrats and Independents. The truth about US elections is that it is the Independents that cause the win. In 2016 about as many Independents went with Trump as went with Clinton. 

Again though I think what the 40% of the nation who is on the right views as centrist and what the rest of the nation views as centrist are two wholly (and becoming radically) different things.

I keep hearing this argument from folks on the right, hell go and look at foxnews.com  Ill bet you can find at least 25 different op-ed articles explaining why the democrats will lose if their candidate is a "leftist" , there seems to be some real data suggesting the opposite however

There is hard data that shows that a centrist Democrat would be a losing candidate

Quote

The Republican Party has earned a reputation as the anti-science, anti-fact party — understandably, perhaps, given the GOP's policy of ignoring the evidence for global climate change and insisting on  the efficacy of supply-side economics, despite all the research to the contrary. Yet ironically, it is now the Democratic Party that is wantonly ignoring mounds of social science data that suggests that promoting centrist candidates is a bad, losing strategy when it comes to winning elections. As the Democratic establishment and its pundit class starts to line up behind the centrist nominees for president — mainly, Joe Biden, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris — the party's head-in-the-sand attitude is especially troubling.

 

[+DieChecker]

58 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Again though I think what the 40% of the nation who is on the right views as centrist and what the rest of the nation views as centrist are two wholly (and becoming radically) different things.

I keep hearing this argument from folks on the right, hell go and look at foxnews.com  Ill bet you can find at least 25 different op-ed articles explaining why the democrats will lose if their candidate is a "leftist" , there seems to be some real data suggesting the opposite however

There is hard data that shows that a centrist Democrat would be a losing candidate

 

Says the just about most bias site that exists.... 

I'll read it though. 

Quote

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Meh. Perhaps. We'll have to wait and see.

I can see partial confirmation in that some Sanders voters swung over and supported Trump. Perhaps as many as 15%, which would easily have turned the numbers in some battleground states over for Trump, which otherwise would have gone to the Democrats.

Still, I do know a LOT of Portland liberal Democrats who voted for Clinton, and she was a liberal darling, because she was the "first woman president". So....

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Still, I do know a LOT of Portland liberal Democrats who voted for Clinton, and she was a liberal darling, because she was the "first woman president". So....

I'd like to say something grand about 2020 being a referendum on the whole thing but im afraid personality may just be the deciding factor for many this time around.

 

[+DieChecker]

12 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Warren:  "Vote for Elizabeth, she has comprehensive policies that would remake the economy all the way  from tax policies to student debt relief and preventing big lenders from screwing consumers with implications on foreign investment and American policy abroad.  Hooray!" 

People say Trump is trying to be a tyrant. Warren wants to reshape the entire politics of the USA!! How is that messianic (my opinion on liberal opinion), and not tyrannical? Given as much as 50% of the people wouldn't want those changes.

Trump wants to spend 10 billion to build a wall... TYRANT!!

Warren wants to remove all Healthcare except what the government will control. And.. Wants to control Education entirely also. And... Remove the Electoral College. And... Establish a "net worth" tax.

How tyrannical would those be if Trump wanted them?

[+DieChecker]

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I'd like to say something grand about 2020 being a referendum on the whole thing but im afraid personality may just be the deciding factor for many this time around.

 

Usually is.

I wrote Trump off in 2015 as a joke candidate, like Beto...   But somehow he reached the top of the pile. Still not sure how....

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

Trump wants to spend 10 billion to build a wall... TYRANT!!

Oh come on! Do you really believe that is the only reason Trump is accused of wanting to be a tyrant?

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

Warren wants to reshape the entire politics of the USA!!

Isnt that exactly what Trump ran on doing?That also points back to my first sentence.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Farmer77

[+DieChecker]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

Oh come on! Do you really believe that is the only reason Trump is accused of wanting to be a tyrant?

What else? Being a sexist, racist, liar? That's being a douche, not a tyrant. What has he done that was tyrannical? Obama did a lot more projects using just his pen then Trump has. Though Obama had 8 years to do so.

Immigration ban? Was blown way out of context. Don't even hear about it now, do we?

The Wall? A couple billion dollars. Hardly what Warren wants to do... Hundreds of trillions of dollars moved over to government control.... Forever.

The Russians? Trying to get his way by being stupid in his pick of people, and trying to defend himself against unfair media attacks? Understandable, if perhaps technically criminal.

Quote

Isnt that exactly what Trump ran on doing?

I thought he wanted to remove the corruption, not remodel the way government is run.