lol
And this is just awful campaign management even if you are expecting a poor result
And this is just awful campaign management even if you are expecting a poor result
Current Affairs 2020 Democratic Primary
- Thread starter abelard
- Start date
- Status
canuckblue
Player Valuation: £50m
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
In haste - no, the SDE numbers do not have any value, and are not the equivalent of the Electoral College.
The only thing that ultimately matters is the number of Iowa delegates for each candidate at the national convention. This number was tied at 13 the entire time that the media was (prematutely) reporting Buttigieg as the winner based on the SDE scores. But if the objective is to give viewers a sense of who performed best then the popular vote is a far more meaningful statistic than the SDE figure. The SDE is NOT the equivalent of the Electoral College - it is just a placeholder. The equivalent of the Electoral College is the final number of delegates from Iowa, but the media was reporting neither this nor the popular vote.
And as I was saying, Sanders has also in any case won the SDE count - which is why they are refusing the correct the systemic errors which are the only basis for the wrongful claim that Buttigieg is ahead.
I also think you're misreading the significance of rural voters in a closed caucus.
First, even in a general election, all campaigns have to choose targets. This is even more crucial in a primary, and especially a caucus. Unlike Buttigieg and to a lesser extent Warren, who bet the house on Iowa, Sanders is running a truly national campaign, and thus has to be shrewd about his target voters even given his far greater success at raising money. It would have been nice to see a better showing outside cities and towns, but campaigning in the countryside is far more expensive and time-consuming, and you contact far fewer voters that way.
With this in mind, he (probably wisely) opted to target young voters and first-time minority voters, and was very successful at both (Queue another round of "FIRST-TIME VOTERS??? THAT MEANS THEY DIDN'T VOTE FOR HILLARY IN 2016 SANDERS YOU COMMIE [Poor language removed]!!!) from our resident chorus of network news bots).
If he manages to repeat this performance with these two groups nationwide then he is the next President of the United States.
It is true that Buttigieg performed better than Sanders in rural areas, but in a closed primary I don't think it has much bearing on the final outcome of a general election. Voter turnout at the Iowa caucus is always pitiful, and the dynamic is completely different in a GE. Registered rural Democrats will mostly still vote for whoever wins the ticket. Sanders' great appeal in places like this is among independents and Trump voters, but this by definition is not reflected in the outcome of a closed election. And, in a general election, white urban college-educated voters are far less up for grabs than in a primary, so Sanders - in theory (tbd in practice) drawing on the support and resources of the entire party - can double-down on registering first-time minority voters in Iowa et al AND devote resources to wavering rural Trumplings and disgruntled types, where he can showcase the fact that, as you note, he has by far the best policy approach to address their concerns.
Last edited:
I agree what ultimately matters are the number of delegates for Iowa that each candidate gets but since, or at least as I understand this crazy process, this is proportionally based on SDEs I can’t see how you can dismiss SDE figures as a useful indicator of who will be the eventual winner of the most delegates.
Should other metrics like % vote be included or should the framing have been that it looked like a too close to call race most of the time the media (and Buttigeig) were claiming him the outright winner, well I would have but I don’t have the same hatred of inconclusive/delayed results that the media has (which I think drove a lot of the early analysis rather than an anti Sanders bias although I’m sure there is some).
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the significance of the rural voters results, if a Clinton supporter in 2016 had said “registered rural Democrats will still mostly vote for whoever wins the ticket” I suspect you might have said they were being complacent but nevertheless I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong.
I wish someone loved me as much as Abelard loves the BERN
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
So does Mme. Abelard ; )
In all seriousness, he is a flawed candidate, but in my opinion (need I say...) clearly the best of a dull bunch and by far the most (and probably only) electable choice against Trump.
Now watch the Klob take NH, or something even more insane...
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Trust me, there is not a single person who drove on snowy rural roads at night in the dead of winter to stand around in a gym for three hours for the sake of Pete Buttigieg, who is between now and November suddenly going to switch and start voting for Trump.
Rural voters do matter, a great deal, but not ^those^ ones.
I just cant get past the idea that most independents wont go for totally scrapping private insurance. Trump will have no problem painting Bernie as a socialist crank meaning he'll have to rely on a huge voter turn out to win. He could do it, I've mistakenly written him off before but he and his supporters have managed to alienate a lot of democratic voters. There are at least 3 other candidates who have a better chance of beating Trump.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Horsepie!
Warren and Bloomberg have a better chance and I reckon Amy K could if she picked the right running mate.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Warren's campaign was over even before Iowa.
I expect she'll drop out by Super Tuesday to avoid the indignity of losing Massachusetts.
She is also probably the weakest potential matchup against Trump.
And there we will have to disagree again lol Those very same voters are the ones that know who are the persuadable voters in the neighborhood and what arguments are most likely to be effective, they are the ones that hold the coffee mornings for their on the fence friends, who knock on doors and give lifts to the polling station.
My worry is less that their vote goes to Trump if Sanders is the candidate, which I agree is unlikely, but that they are sufficiently unenthusiastic they they stay home or don’t get out the other votes as much. Clinton bet a lot on anti-Trump feelings to get people who did not support her in the primary to the polls and it wasn’t very effective - I worry that Sanders supporters have the same blind spot. Perhaps I’m just a natural worrier!
I agree, she may not win the nomination.
She got caught between two stools on medicare for all and didn't preform well which cast all her plans in doubt.
It's a shame because if you know a bit about her, it's easy to see why she's the best placed person to actually get things done.
She definitely will stay in till super Tuesday, and she will have a harder time in Mass than alot of states but she should be ok here.
Of the main contenders, Sanders is the one Trump wants to run against.
It wont happen.
The insurance industry and the four big companies are huge. They are more groups of companies than single companies now. They all own a piece of each other too in many areas like the pharmacies. They make billions and hire hundreds of thousands of people. They wont cease to operate overnight if Sanders win nor will they go away quietly. He will need to work with them not against them.
Sanders is a dreamer when it comes to that. He will find out the hard way when he becomes president how hard it is to battle with them.
In what 15 states including California a big blue state even Obama had a tough time convincing people and those companies. I have many friends who were unsure of Obamacare and the affect it would have on their job. Later it was the cost of insurance. As much as lefties supported it and supported it being fixed it was still a sticking point.
If chosen I hope he wins. I will vote for him. Bit I hope he does not waste 4 years battling insurance companies
Do these rural voters matter as that seems a rather precipitous drop in support for Sanders from a place that previously was more keen on him 69% than the average 2016 NH result of 60%
- Status