And then there were three.

1
Harry Enten
Poll of the week: A new Fox News poll of Democratic primary voters nationwide finds that 32% want former Vice President Joe Biden to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren comes in at 22%. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders stands at 17%. No one else polls better than 5%. An average of polls taken since the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump began have Biden at 29%, Warren at 25%, Sanders at 15% and no one else above 5%.

What's the point: Right now, there's little doubt that Biden and Warren are the top tier in the Democratic primary fight. With the exception of Sanders, no one is even close to Biden and Warren nationally. The question now is how likely are we to be looking at the potential nominee when focusing on the top three at this point. A look back at history suggests there is a high likelihood that either Biden, Sanders or Warren will be the Democratic nominee.

There have been 16 primaries in the modern era in which an incumbent was not running in said primary. For those 16, I looked at the polling averages for each candidate who ultimately ran or was running in the second half of the year before the primary. These averages were calculated by FiveThirtyEight. There have been a number of candidates not close to leading in the polls at this point who went on to win the nomination. A trailing candidate has gone on to win 7 of 16 times (44%). You may recall Barack Obama was trailing Hillary Clinton at this point in the 2008 Democratic primary. Of course, Obama was running second to Clinton.


When you look outside the top three polling candidates in past primaries, there really hasn't been a lot of success. Only three times has a candidate not in the top three at this point won a nomination. Those were George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and John Kerry in 2004. Another way to look at this is to look at the percentage everyone was polling at. When the leader in the national polls in the second half of the year before the primary was at greater than 20% (12 times), there has been just one instance of someone polling below 15% going on to win the nomination: McGovern in 1972. And even he was polling at 6%, which is greater than all the Democrats outside of the top three at this point in the 2020 cycle. We can formalize this analysis through a simple model looking at where candidates were polling and whether they won the nomination. When one candidate is polling at about 30% and another is polling at about 25% in contests with no incumbent running, together they have about 75% chance of winning the nomination. Add in a candidate polling at about 15%, the chance that one of the top three wins is about 85%.

Indeed, the average of our three statistical exercises suggest there's about an 85% chance Biden, Warren or Sanders wins the nomination. This means that the national polls indicate the chance that someone not named Biden, Sanders or Warren wins the nomination is about 15%. Now, 15% isn't nothing. It leaves open the possibility that one of the candidates at 5% or below may end up strongly challenging for the nomination. The fact that there are so many of them this year perhaps heightens the chance of a non-top three polling candidate wins this year. Perhaps, it will be someone like South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who is polling very close to the top three in Iowa. Still, the most likely outcome is that the Democratic nominee will be Biden, Sanders or Warren, with Biden and Warren having particularly strong chances.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/12/politics ... index.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: And then there were three.

5
Jesus, listening to the debates (first time) and Biden sounds like a drunk. Harris sounds like a smug assed, self entitled actress that can't keep her vernacular in line, Warren sounds like she's an East coast lecturer ready to rap the knuckles with a ruler. Sanders sounds like Sanders. Gabbard sounds the best, but not convinced of the message. Lots of arguing about not arguing. We're fucked if this is the best we can produce.

Re: And then there were three.

7
Flipped over to the debate for a few minutes. Amy K was savaging Warren about healthcare bankruptcy like an insurance lobbyist- as if Amy K is the expert on healthcare. Saw that the question asked was if "Warren and Sanders healthcare plans were realistic" and asked Biden to weigh in. In other words, they were asking the other candidates to provide quotes for GOP ads if Warren or Sanders were to win the nomination. It ticked me off, so I decided to not watch the debate at all.

I saw an Iowa poll that had the top three tied around 21% each with Mayor Pete at 14% I think. I agree that it is more realistic.

I assume the rest are hanging around in case Biden implodes?
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: And then there were three.

8
featureless wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:53 pm Jesus, listening to the debates (first time) and Biden sounds like a drunk. Harris sounds like a smug assed, self entitled actress that can't keep her vernacular in line, Warren sounds like she's an East coast lecturer ready to rap the knuckles with a ruler. Sanders sounds like Sanders. Gabbard sounds the best, but not convinced of the message. Lots of arguing about not arguing. We're fucked if this is the best we can produce.
Amen. As already stated, we are fucked anyway. Not a lot to choose from but I can easily vote for Warren or Sanders over the Orange Man. Biden?

I'll try. I find the man reprehensible and can't believe he's the front runner in any poll *but* I really don't believe the polls are accurate anyway. So I'm double quadruple screwed. :roflmao:

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: And then there were three.

9
Was out last night so missed the debate, reading the news this morning I don't think I missed much. The three Democratic septuagenarians are in the lead and Warren is the only one younger than Trump. Younger candidates haven't gained traction among Democratic voters: Buttigieg, Harris, O'Rourke, Yang, Booker, Klobuchar.... November, December and January ahead, February starts with the Iowa Caucuses.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: And then there were three.

11
I listened to a bunch of sound bites and watched replay/overview of most of it this morning. Mostly a gang bang on Warren. Target seems to be off Joe's back for now as Warren is perceived as the candidate to burn now.

Mostly they seem to want to get to the bottom of how Warren intends to pay for Medicare for All was my take away from it.

If ever I was skeptical about whether Americas problems will be solved by electing Democrats all 'round in 2020 I am no longer skeptical. I truly think the United States Government and 90% of it's politicians and employees are completely out of control. I am convinced we are screwed beyond hope now. We have rich old people calling the shots and we need young passionate people who want to fix it....not roll in it. Revolution is the only Way now. Hopefully it will be peaceful. I have no faith in anyone but Bernie and I think he's done now. So let's just vote already and get on with it....everyone pretty much has their minds made up already. They are either gonna vote for Trump or vote for Democrats no matter what.

Get on with it.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: And then there were three.

12
highdesert wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:08 am Was out last night so missed the debate, reading the news this morning I don't think I missed much. The three Democratic septuagenarians are in the lead and Warren is the only one younger than Trump. Younger candidates haven't gained traction among Democratic voters: Buttigieg, Harris, O'Rourke, Yang, Booker, Klobuchar.... November, December and January ahead, February starts with the Iowa Caucuses.
I think that state-by-state, things are different. Iowa polls have Warren/Sanders/Biden tied and Mayor Pete close behind. That matters more than the national polls right now because most Dems would vote for any of them.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: And then there were three.

13
shinzen wrote: Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:29 am Some of these folks polling at 1% need to start clearing the field after the debate on Tuesday. Like most of them- I think it's time.
My dream scenario would be to have Warren ally with Booker and start running as a ticket ASAP, potentially setting Booker up to succeed her as POTUS in 2028. They would make a great package deal demographically, and they seem personally less fake than the average politician. Maybe I'm just naive...

Why Biden has persistent support is a mystery to me. In addition to the creepy groper angle, any pol from "America's Cayman Islands" Delaware just screams "corporate-owned" to my ear.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: And then there were three.

14
Many people support Biden because he was Obama's VP. World leaders know him. His supporters believe they can trust him. He has strong support in the south because he has proven himself to not hate minorities, migrants, and refugees. He is the anti-Trump because his supporters know everything about him - good and bad.

Business leaders also like him. That scares the progressives, but it would keep America center-right. That is what they want.

He isn't my first choice, but I would vote for him or Warren or Sanders or Pete (I donate to those three) over Trump.
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Re: And then there were three.

15
K9s wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:28 pm Many people support Biden because he was Obama's VP. World leaders know him. His supporters believe they can trust him. He has strong support in the south because he has proven himself to not hate minorities, migrants, and refugees. He is the anti-Trump because his supporters know everything about him - good and bad.

Business leaders also like him. That scares the progressives, but it would keep America center-right. That is what they want.

He isn't my first choice, but I would vote for him or Warren or Sanders or Pete (I donate to those three) over Trump.
I agree with everything except Biden isn't center-right but yes he could help attract Independents and maybe an odd Republican. Mitt Romney is center-right.

It's up to Biden, Warren and Sanders to win or lose, doubtful at this stage that another candidate can dethrone them. A lot of East Coasters: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Booker and Yang. Harris , Gabbard and Steyer from the West Coast. And Klobuchar, Buttigieg, O'Rourke and Castro from the middle. This is a lopsided cycle, top heavy with senators and only one sitting governor (Bullock who didn't make the October debate). .

Wish we could clone a candidate with the best of Biden, Warren and Sanders to create a candidate guaranteed to win. Each one has strengths and weaknesses.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 1 guest