Who will be the Democrats' presidential candidate against Trump?

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Freeza wrote:Do people care about being employment rate when the opposition offers free tuition, debt cancellation and free healthcare?

Also Trump being unbeatable comes from where? Every data shows he’s wildly unpopular compared to most presidents going for reelection.

They don't care about the unemployment rate, not really. What they care is that they are employed at a job where they feel fulfilled, are paid well and that times are "good". If you feel satisfied with your economic situation you are unlikely to vote to change the ruling party. The unemployment rate is just a proxy for this.

And yeah there are a ton of people in the US that do not want public tuition, Healthcare, etc. Ironically it's usually the people that need these the most.

Yeah I don’t doubt any of this, at all.

The last part one of the reasons. People often vote against their own self interest because of what people would call identity politics. The southern strategy more precisely.

For the vast majority they don't care for their private insurance, honestly it is BS by the media. Most people care about their physicians, clinic, doctors, etc. They don't care about the middle man, who collect their money.

Healthcare is the #1 concern to voters, and education is near the top too.

I honestly think Bernie is the only one that can beat Trump; i just think Pete, Biden, and Bloomberg offer nothing that the regular US folks care about.

Polls are fine, they just have to poll the right places.

The polling in 2016 overall was good, but it was off in a few places (and those places were difficult because they were won by razor thin margins anyway -- WI, PA for example). That is what ultimately decided the election.

We already know this: if you want to predict the outcome of the election, poll candidates against Trump in WI, MI, PA, OH, and FL.

NY times did this and showed a couple months back positive things for Biden and Sanders IIRC, less good numbers for Warren.

Having thought about this more. I think Democrats' problem has been largely optical. Iowa was a bad look for all of them, no matter who ends up the winner, but it's far from fatal. What they need now is to move on to New Hampshire and South Carolina, which are primaries.

The best outcome here is this means the end of Iowa as the first state. It should also mean the death of the caucus process itself, which has always been silly, but is now antiquated and silly.

The other states have taken note (Nevada will have their primary later this month and have already scrapped their plans to use the same app that Iowa used). If all of the other primaries go well, Iowa will be a bad note, but just a distant one.

Super Tuesday (March 10th) will definitely help restore the Democrats image.

rincon wrote:Why is Pete a prick? I don't know that much about him.

What I have heard of him seems sensible enough.

As far as I can tell he wrote "pick", not "prick".

He seems sensible, absolutely; impressively articulate, accomplished young man, but the way he's been angling for that "centrist" and "common sense midwesterner" label doesn't make him more endearing to me

Trump has an approval rating of 40%, with 55% disapproving

yet he's the mega favourite apparently

McLewis wrote:Having thought about this more. I think Democrats' problem has been largely optical. Iowa was a bad look for all of them, no matter who ends up the winner, but it's far from fatal. What they need now is to move on to New Hampshire and South Carolina, which are primaries.

The best outcome here is this means the end of Iowa as the first state. It should also mean the death of the caucus process itself, which has always been silly, but is now antiquated and silly.

The other states have taken note (Nevada will have their primary later this month and have already scrapped their plans to use the same app that Iowa used). If all of the other primaries go well, Iowa will be a bad note, but just a distant one.

Super Tuesday (March 10th) will definitely help restore the Democrats image.

It will be lost in time. With that being said, I think the only good to come out of it is going to be a healthy skepticism over use of "apps" in these cases.

Iowa was already being questioned. This might help accelerate the death of Iowa as the first state (although we need to see if that will actually happen first). I also don't know that the caucus will die. That's a state decision. Iowa can choose to say fuck you to the haters and keep on with it. I imagine many Iowans feel this was a bad moment for them but that caucuses in the future will go well because they have done in the past.

You would also think the US would have moved on from the electoral college by now, too, but we persist with it despite it being fucking horrific

Hapless_Hans wrote:Trump has an approval rating of 40%, with 55% disapproving

yet he's the mega favourite apparently

https://www.electionbettingodds.com/

56% likelihood of being the next president as per the betting markets, which are generally far more accurate than any poll-based method

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">“The security of your vote was being sent to unknown locations”: <a href="https://twitter.com/DanPatterson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DanPatterson</a> reports on the glitch that caused a major delay in the Iowa caucus results, causing mistrust among voters <a href="https://t.co/lIrymCQZJ7">https://t.co/lIrymCQZJ7</a> <a href="https://t.co/rPIPmb6EAl">pic.twitter.com/rPIPmb6EAl</a></p>— CBS News (@CBSNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1225142415092256770?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 5, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1225142415092256770

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:Trump has an approval rating of 40%, with 55% disapproving

yet he's the mega favourite apparently

https://www.electionbettingodds.com/

56% likelihood of being the next president as per the betting markets, which are generally far more accurate than any poll-based method

So he's not the overwhelming favorite.

CBarca wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:Trump has an approval rating of 40%, with 55% disapproving

yet he's the mega favourite apparently

https://www.electionbettingodds.com/

56% likelihood of being the next president as per the betting markets, which are generally far more accurate than any poll-based method

So he's not the overwhelming favorite.

Also odds were way more wrong last time than the polls (which were correct).

Odds aren’t better at predicting. Especially not at this point. The more people bet on something the lower the odds will be. Trump has the lowest odds in any case because he still not has a direct opponent.

Let’s see if bookmakers still has him above 50% when his direct rival is actually picked.

https://www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures

Just see how big a favourite Hillary was at the start of the night.

Betting odds are a dumb way to judge a candidate's chances, because once someone has bad enough odds, the payout becomes huge, and people will start betting on it on the off chance they get a huge payout, so it's a bit self-correcting to center all odds;
cold-hearted polls actually end up being far close to the end result.

CBarca wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:Trump has an approval rating of 40%, with 55% disapproving

yet he's the mega favourite apparently

https://www.electionbettingodds.com/

56% likelihood of being the next president as per the betting markets, which are generally far more accurate than any poll-based method

So he's not the overwhelming favorite.

A 16% gap (at least) in February is significant

Freeza wrote:Also odds were way more wrong last time than the polls (which were correct).

Odds aren’t better at predicting. Especially not at this point. The more people bet on something the lower the odds will be. Trump has the lowest odds in any case because he still not has a direct opponent.

Let’s see if bookmakers still has him above 50% when his direct rival is actually picked.

Polls measure percentages, odds chances of winning. They're different things (although you can derive the same results from it) so can't be compared apples to apples.

Talk to any modeller and they'll all tell you that betting markets are exceedingly hard to beat, no need to look any further than all the people who try to outsmart the stock market (in essence, an elaborate betting market) and fail.

VivaStPauli wrote:Betting odds are a dumb way to judge a candidate's chances, because once someone has bad enough odds, the payout becomes huge, and people will start betting on it on the off chance they get a huge payout, so it's a bit self-correcting to center all odds;
cold-hearted polls actually end up being far close to the end result.

This is not how betting markets work. If the payout becomes huge and people all start betting on that on the off chance that they'll get it in droves, that will bring the payout down as the demand will exceed the supply, bringing the payout down to what the 'market' expects it to be.

Forget Trump, The DNC is more corrupt at this point. Trump has never rigged an election, while the DNC is doing it in Iowa. There is verified evidence that there is errors with state equilivants delegates being rewarded and they are doing nothing to correct it. CNN is mentioning it just as a footnote that there are errors, while on TV declaring Buttiigieg as the winner.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:
This is not how betting markets work. If the payout becomes huge and people all start betting on that on the off chance that they'll get it in droves, that will bring the payout down as the demand will exceed the supply, bringing the payout down to what the 'market' expects it to be.

Yeah which is the 2nd part of the equation, as I described the 1st part. Betting markets are self-correcting towards the middle ground, and are as such only secondarily tied to likelihood of result. Which means betting markets tell you what people expect, while polls give you actual data on what might happen. And those two are often correlated, but are not in a causal dependence.

Blue wrote:Forget Trump, The DNC is more corrupt at this point. Trump has never rigged an election, while the DNC is doing it in Iowa. There is verified evidence that there is errors with state equilivants delegates being rewarded and they are doing nothing to correct it. CNN is mentioning it just as a footnote that there are errors, while on TV declaring Buttiigieg as the winner.

Bernie won Iowa by 6000 votes, doesn't matter what Buttigieg or CNN thinks.

A lot of the same people who complained about the electoral college when Hillary lost sure seem silent about this caucus not being about popular voting.

Freeza wrote:A lot of the same people who complained about the electoral college when Hillary lost sure seem silent about this caucus not being about popular voting.

Bernie won the state delegate count too by now.

Blue wrote:Forget Trump, The DNC is more corrupt at this point. Trump has never rigged an election, while the DNC is doing it in Iowa. There is verified evidence that there is errors with state equilivants delegates being rewarded and they are doing nothing to correct it. CNN is mentioning it just as a footnote that there are errors, while on TV declaring Buttiigieg as the winner.

Calm down. This is not "rigged". It's just incompetent with loads of negligence and a good dash of corruption (outsourcing the election counting to an app produced by a company connected to DNC campaign officials).
This whole disaster surely wasn't a plot to put a lid on Bernie. It damaged everyone, in the long run possibly Biden the most (being seen as the party establishment candidate)

They’re tied AFAIK

Blue wrote:Forget Trump, The DNC is more corrupt at this point. Trump has never rigged an election, while the DNC is doing it in Iowa. There is verified evidence that there is errors with state equilivants delegates being rewarded and they are doing nothing to correct it. CNN is mentioning it just as a footnote that there are errors, while on TV declaring Buttiigieg as the winner.

This is the difference between dems and the brogressives.

Forget the guy who has children literally sleeping in cages at the border because people feel St. Bernard has been slighted.

Bernie not even outright winning in a state that closely mirrors the demographics of his own spells trouble going forward.

I am not gonna reward some half baked dropout from the 60's who did nothing but run away to lilly white Vermont when others stayed to struggle. Bernie is ignorant and incompetent and will destroy what is left of our democracy

— Stellaa aka yiayia (@stellaaaa) February 6, 2020

Biden got blown the fuck out lol, guess his electibility argument is down the toilet now.

i thought i read the other day that everybody in iowa voted for trump or was that more fake news.

Unique wrote:i thought i read the other day that everybody in iowa voted for trump or was that more fake news.

Each party hold their separate elections to determine their candidate for November. Trump ran virtually unchallenged, which is why everyone voted for him.

@Young Kaz

Some people are absolutely incapable of critical thinking. You realize what is going on at the border happened under Obama too. There is a reason Obama was called "Deporter in Chief" and you also realize that more than a few months ago the Dems approved Trump border budget without making amends or demands on how they threat people at the border.

Sanders has the highest support among non-white voters in the Dems primary. Again if you look at any data and polls you would know this, but i guess it is much better having weirdos on twitter crating narrative for you.

Seriously what is wrong with some people, that they show no concern about election interference and undermining our democracy. Clear corruption is being displayed, but they don't care because the target is someone they don't like.

I remember thinking early on when i first got into politics, how tribal and mindless those conservative were supporting clear corruptions from the republican party. I thought Liberals were much better and higher standard because they were more intelligent and cultured. Thought facts, truth, data, etc mattered. But i have come to realize for a long time actually they are no different, they can't overcome their tribality and see things for what they are.

Blue wrote:@Young Kaz

Some people are absolutely incapable of critical thinking. You realize what is going on at the border happened under Obama too. There is a reason Obama was called "Deporter in Chief" and you also realize that more than a few months ago the Dems approved Trump border budget without making amends or demands on how they threat people at the border.

Sanders has the highest support among non-white voters in the Dems primary. Again if you look at any data and polls you would know this, but i guess it is much better having weirdos on twitter crating narrative for you.

Seriously what is wrong with some people, that they show no concern about election interference and undermining our democracy. Clear corruption is being displayed, but they don't care because the target is someone they don't like.

I remember thinking early on when i first got into politics, how tribal and mindless those conservative were supporting clear corruptions from the republican party. I thought Liberals were much better and higher standard because they were more intelligent and cultured. Thought facts, truth, data, etc mattered. But i have come to realize for a long time actually they are no different, they can't overcome their tribality and see things for what they are.

obama sent them home he didnt keep them in cages split up from their parents. The idea that he did is fake news.

We are gonna see if Sanders have minority support when we get to the south where minorities run things...guess what. He will be slaughtered there.

Sanders succeeds where there are a bunch of white people sitting around thinking about how they can give each other free stuff, while giving nothing to people who dont look like them. Hence the reason he had to run to a white area to have any sort of political career.