Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by AgelessDrifter, Dec 31, 2018.
TRUTH HURTS BRO
So here's some evidence that name recognition matters, and the "people know who Warren is and hate her!!!!!" counterargument might not be as straightforward as it's often presented (this is of course, just one interpretation of the numbers and shouldn't be taken too seriously. It's also net favourability, not election polling):
And here's some more evidence that Biden's popularity is strongest among the dinosaur population of the Democratic Party:
Although his numbers are still quite strong amongst the irreligious, even if not as dominant as they are against the religious.
Both polls brought to you by 538, who I like to rely on to do all my thinking for me.
I don't think that anyone was arguing that Warren was particularly unpopular with Democrats. More that she's not very well liked more broadly.
Realclearpolitics has her at -5% favourability, compared to Bernie's -2% and Biden's +8%.
It's not about whether she's popular or unpopular. When people talk about early poll numbers being strongly related to name recognition, she is often cited as a counter-example. But she is bundled right near 538's trend line (like every other major candidate) among Democrats (edit: again, this is only for favourability, not overall polling numbers).
Net favourability among GOP members doesn't matter all that much, but that's a good point about independents, and I don't know if the same name recognition patterns hold for them. We'd have to see. But we would expect her overall net favourability to be lower than Biden's simply because he favourability among Democrats is lower (a 13-15 point difference among dems probably doesn't explain a 13 point difference overall, though).
I'm less concerned with who is and isn't popular than why they are or aren't popular, and if the numbers can change. In terms of the primary, there is room for optimism that some of Biden's enormous lead can be evaporated *if* other candidates can start getting media attention. Biden is currently stomping everyone in that area, though.
Let's hope this is the start of a trend away from Sleepy Joe Biden: https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/08/po...gieg-harris/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
Liz Warren is continuing to eat away at Sanders (I think one of them needs to get out of the other one's way) and is up to 12%. Too bad she drew the Junior Varsity debate, because it would be her chance to show up Biden and Sanders.
Uncle Nate ran a bulletpoint article today talking about Liz Warren getting a plurality of the vote when the hazy "electability" question (i.e. the Who Is A Moderate White Guy question) is eliminated from the equation. The source article suggests that gender is one of the primary drivers of the "electability" equation (rather than purely ideology). I'm not sure how much I believe the source article, but it's an interesting read.
Man I love Big Bernie I just wish he wasn't 4000 years old
I wish people would just vote for who they like, instead of making lazy, vague assumptions about who OTHER PEOPLE will or will not vote for ("electability"). Some people likely won't vote for a woman, or gay guy, or minority, or socialist, but we really have no idea how many, and have even less of an idea how to weight that against other variables associated with each particular candidate. It's basically discrimination rooted in a fear of how shitty the rest of the country is.
"Do I like this person or not" is (slightly and ostensibly) more concrete than "Will other people like this person or not?!?!".
I don't think there is a candidate mainstream enough to pull the masses outside of Biden, and the progressives aren't a fan. The problem is that the traditional liberals aren't supporting progressive candidates, so I think this will be a battle for the heart of the democratic party. If the progressives consolidate, they'll get their pick. If not, it will be Biden, barring a major screw up.
Gotta be honest, though, so far, Biden is looking very low energy. As much as I believe what I wrote above, I'm not sure his campaign can keep momentum without an enthusiastic base, and that's just not happening. The most passionate people seem to be split between Bernie and Warren.
I still believe Biden has a better chance of winning than Warren or Sanders, only because more progressives will hold their nose and vote for Biden than moderate liberals will turn out for Sanders or Warren.
I think that is possibly true (moderates have had a quantifiable historic advantage), but I don't think we can say it with enough accuracy for it to be a good primary selection criteria. There are too many variables at play, we are too far away from the general election, and even if it *is* true how much of a "better chance" to win does he actually have (70% vs 65%? 82% vs 34%?), and how big does the gap need to be to justify someone weighting electability over actual preference? Maybe if Sanders and Warren stop cannibalizing each other, northern swing state voters
would rally behind them in GE since, you know, they actually care about the working class not getting continually fisted.
When people overvalue "electability" they are basing it on a very hazy set of assumptions. I worry that people won't vote for Sanders' socialism, too, but the reality is I have no reason to have high confidence in that opinion - I can't quantify it in any meaningful way whatsoever. If I could vote in your terrible country's shitty primary elections, I wouldn't be dissuaded from voting for Sanders based on some electability construct that few people (especially myself) seem to understand very well.
The majority of Democrat voters already failed at gauging "electability" in 2016. I feel like they didn't factor in momentum at all and just kind of stupidly regurgitated this line about how Clinton was more pragmatic and Bernie was too socialist. So yeah, it is hazy and subjective criteria, but then again so is just blindly voting for someone based on policy. I felt that Bernie was electable, so my criteria was obviously not the same as others. The best case scenario is that you "vote for who you like" and you believe that person also has a realistic chance of winning the election, since they're not mutually exclusive.
Bernie and Warren both poll well with the same demographic of voters: white people who identify as "very liberal". Generally speaking, I think that's the least important demographic to have popular support in when it comes to swing states.
Florida poll: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2629
There are a few notable differences between Bernie and Warren that jumped out at me:
-They're on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to support based on income levels. Bernie has strong support with low-income voters (<50k) while Warren has the >100k demographic.
-Sanders has support with younger voters (at almost a 6:1 ratio). Warren is about 50/50 here, and Biden obviously has more support with older voters.
-In head-to-head polling against Trump, Sanders polls better than Warren in every demographic (independents, white, hispanic, black, etc) albeit by only 1-4%.
I don't put too much stock into any of this preliminary polling, though. Like most people, I'm waiting to see them debate and actually run their campaigns before I have a strong opinion one way or another.
Quinnipiac needs to hire a data visualization intern. That link made my brain cry.
There’s an easy measure of electability and that’s how the candidates stack up against Trump in a general poll, and Biden’s clearly ahead in that too. On average he’s 8% ahead of Trump compared to 6% for Bernie and 3% for Warren. That may change, of course, but it’s also been a pattern for a while now.
A lot of assumptions are being made, some of them out of wishful thinking; for example, that there’s a lack of enthusiasm for Biden, but no evidence for this is ever presented. The fact that people think he’s the most electable doesn’t mean that they’re not also enthusiastic about him.
For example, the WP today has an article that points out that enthusiasm for Biden is higher than for Bernie and Warren, even after name recognition is taken into account.
Just because you’re not enthusiastic about someone doesn’t mean that everyone else is the same.
I'm talking about stuff like his applause meter and audience turn out. He only got like 5k in support at a conference in philly. Contrast that with 20k for a trump rally in Orlando. I watched him speak and he was barely moving the needle. When you watch that stuff, it feels low energy. The debates will give me a different impression, I'm sure, but nothing he's been doing looks strong.
To be fair, I feel like this is common with a few exceptions. Maybe it's just the quiet before the storm, but the people turning it for his events have seemed unenthusiastic.
General election polls this far out are so unreliable that I don't think they can even be taken as a rough guideline for electability.
As far as Biden - I don't question whether or not he can win. I think he is the most likely Dem nominee, and if he wins, I think he has a good shot at beating Trump. What I question is how well we actually understand electability, and how much it should be a primary selection criteria.
this is my intuition as well, but has anyone seen/posted any figures on by how much candidates' favorability ratings tend to vary over time? seems like the exact sort of thing someone else will have already done for us
538 analyzed head-to-head polls a few months out from the General Election and found that they had an average rate of error by like 12% or some shit. I'll dig up the article later. That's not exactly what you're asking, but it helps.
For my dearest @Agrul:
That's not exactly what we're talking about here, but I have no reason to think that head-to-head polls even FURTHER out from the election in a situation with MORE potential candidates are somehow more accurate (although the 2016 and 2012 polls were among the more accurate, which may or may not be a coincidence. I suspect it's largely due to increased partisanship and more baked-in support, but I have no idea if that's true or not)
This thread needs stronger fundamentals and more white papers
Separate names with a comma.