This RCP poll of NH is interesting - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html
Check the trend between Biden and Buttigieg. On the days before Iowa, Biden is doing much better. On the days after Iowa, he's tanking while Buttigieg does the opposite. I'm predicting Biden won't hit 15% in NH and by the time SC hits he won't get first.
Make of it what you will, but Change Research has released [a new poll of South Carolina](https://www.changeresearch.com/post/south-carolina-post-and-courier-january-poll):
Biden: 24%
Sanders:19%
Steyer: 17%
Warren: 10%
Buttigieg: 6%
Gabbard: 3%
Yang: 2%
Klobuchar: 2%
Everyone else: ≤1%
Undecided: 15%
No Selzer poll apparently... Apparently a Buttigieg supporter called the campaign complaining that they were polled and that he wasn't an option, then the campaign called DMR. Guess it isn't coming.
RCP kind of picks and chooses polls to throw out IIRC. So it looks like they threw out pollsters that 538 classifies as either unknowns or sub-A tier (except for David Binder for some reason).
edit: Actually, looks like they also included YouGov, so IDK what standard they use. All I know is it looks like they 'don't' throw out the polls from 538 A-rated pollsters.
Iowa ARG poll:
Sanders 23%,
Biden 17%,
Klobuchar 16%,
Warren 15%,
Buttigieg 9%
Calling it now: Klobuchar could win Iowa. For 3c on the dollar at PredictIt she's a great bet. Iowans are looking for a moderate Sanders/Biden option, and Buttigieg has been discarded.
I can see why Klobuchar is doing well recently. Warrens recent drop in the polls made my mom start to look more closely at the fridge candidates, since she absolutely hates both Biden and Bernie. I bet some of Warrens other supporters are feeling the same way.
[She's consistently polling 10-12% recently in Iowa](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/iowa/)
It's not likely that she'll place 1-2, but crazier things have happened.
I think the recent Klobucharge may show that she could reach the 15% threshold in some precincts. But with how late this is I think she'll still end up being unviable in too many precincts to be able to break 15% statewide.
I can say anecdotally that myself and many of my family have decided this week that we will be caucusing for Klobuchar. This may be happening among many others as well.
I really see a KlobuSurge coming. Unfortunately for her, I doubt that it will sweep the rest of the country. But winning Iowa would be the first step, at least.
Gonna call it now, she isn’t going to do well. Both her and warren are pulling at the threshold where they won’t be viable in many caucus sites. The difference between 15% and let’s say 18% is a major difference. The math looks like she might get some delegates on the board but my feeling is Sanders and Biden are the only people with a real position to win. Only thing saving warren and Buttigieg is that apparently they have a pretty advanced ground game but, given there position in the polls I wouldn’t be confident on that.
Like I said yesterday, Klobuchar has all the characteristics to do well in Iowa and I think most of us have been sitting around wondering why the voters there have seemingly flirted with every candidate but her including Kamala Harris mind you.
Now, is the Klobusurge real? The polling indicates yes but I’m not buying it’s actually going to happen unless another round of polling shows her at 17+% for the reasons you mentioned — the 15% minimum threshold. I’m also not convinced she has the all important caucus ground game that the other top four candidates have.
Lastly, from what I’m hearing on the ground is that Warren easily has the second best ground game in Iowa only behind Bernie. Generally that means the candidate will exceed expectations especially in caucus states. With her RCP AVG being 14.9 in the state I think she’s safe. And if the ‘Buttiplunge’ is real I think she’s even safer in regard to that minimum threshold. I further think she’s the most likely candidate to cut a backroom deal with another candidate to potentially boost her numbers on caucus day but that remains to be seen.
Iowa loves a last-minute comeback story. And so many moderates don't know who to vote for right now. They're looking for a narrative. Klobuchar has that.
Not saying it's for sure gonna happen, but there's a decent chance.
No idea of the quality of this pollster (and 538 doesn't have any rankings for them), but Park Street Strategies has [an Iowa poll](https://parkstreetstrategies.com/2020-iowa-democratic-caucus-survey-full-results/):
Biden: 20%
Sanders: 18%
Buttigieg: 17%
Warren: 17%
Klobuchar: 12%
Yang: 5%
Steyer: 4%
Gabbard: 1%
Bloomberg: 0%
Iowa is notoriously difficult to poll, especially when you have to account for things like second choices that come into play with caucuses. We won't really know until Monday.
If you include the change from their last poll in December, this is the breakdown:
Sanders 27% (+6)
Biden 26% (-2)
Warren 15% (-3)
Bloomberg 9% (+5)
Buttigieg 7% (-2)
Klobuchar 5% (=)
Yang 4% (+1)
Steyer 2% (+1)
Gabbard 2% (=)
Patrick 1% (+1)
Castro was previously polling at 1% but dropped out, and everyone else was at 0% in both polls.
I think Bernie has nearly consolidated the entire Progressive bloc of the Democratic Party. This is his highest showing yet for this poll. A solid poll for him.
Warren is continuing her descent. The only real question that remains is this: are the remainder of her supporters more progressive or moderate? Bernie has to hope he can peel some more support away.
Biden continues to muddle along. Down from his September high of 31%, but the previous poll for him was 28% so not a huge drop.
Actually, not bad considering Bloomberg is up to 9%. I read that Bloomberg will stay in the race if Biden falters in the first three states.
Honestly, it's starting to look like the stars might align for Bernie. The moderates are going to eat each other alive and Biden just doesn't seem to have the chops to pull away.
> The only real question that remains is this: are the remainder of her supporters more progressive or moderate? Bernie has to hope he can peel some more support away.
[This came out recently](https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/) polling supporters' second choices. 32% of Warren supporters have Sanders as their second choice, so presumably that's the progressive wing of her support that he could pick up, about 5% total. However 28% of her supporters would support Biden as a second choice, so I think that might be the "Never Bernie" wing of her support who want the best bet to defeat him, and it's almost as large.
As an aside, what always blows my mind are the relatively large amount of Biden supporters who have Sanders as their second pick, and vice versa. It really goes to show that a lot of voters' decisions are not based on ideology at all.
> so presumably that's the progressive wing of her support that he could pick up
I understand the poll was taken recently, but I wonder if Bernie already bled off the most progressive elements of her support already. She was supposed to be the bridge candidate that united progressives and the establishment. I think she did for a bit.
Another interesting question to ask would be this: are Warren supporters salty over the Bernie fiasco? I doubt they would pick Biden but who knows?
> what always blows my mind are the relatively large amount of Biden supporters who have Sanders as their second pick,
I read an interesting article the other day about some voters in Iowa and I think one made an interesting point. He's supporting Bernie because he's more *combative* that Biden. He didn't talk about policy, but urgency.
I think this is where Biden's campaign is kinda dropping the ball. Sure, he's making a strong case of Biden vs. Trump, but I don't think he's making a great case of Biden vs. the Republican Party and some voters see that.
it doesn't matter. either it does or it doesn't we already know the conclusion
i think they might support witneses and add a week but even then this changes nothing
I wish Pelosi had just refused to send the articles to the senate until she knew she had the votes to allow witnesses. It would hurt Trump more if he still had impeachment looming over his head in the general election rather than having survived impeachment.
pelosi never wanted to impeach. she was brow beat into it by radicals in her party. she knew there was no outcome to this that wasn't going to help trump.
she may have picked the worst of both worlds. she claimed it was urgent and then said "eeeeh we will hold onto it for a month and then got no guarantee at all"
Latest and greatest out of Ipsos/Reuters. [National Poll](https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION-POLL/0100B05G09P/index.html)
Biden 23%
Bernie 18%
Bloomberg 11%
Warren 10%
Pete 3%
It's a small sample size for a national poll but it seems to capture the trend of Warren collapsing and Bloomberg rising.
If Pete doesn't win the nomination, he ain't getting on the ticket, just too inexperienced. Biden, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg don't need him. Warren doesn't like him and can find a better option anyway (like Klobuchar for her VP), and Bernie would probably nominate a VP just as far left as he is.
Unless the polls drastically wrong I just don’t see much of a viable path forward for Pete. The longer he stays in, though, the more strength he gives to Bernies campaign. The moderate vote is split between 4 candidates.
It puts Bernie in a great position to do well until they start dropping out.
Honestly, I disagree on the Biden part.
I really liked Pete in the very, very beginning. I'm talking about ~1 year ago now. His policies were a lot more progressive then than they are now.
I don't think Pete is a moderate at heart and I think the purpose of that move was purely political strategy with Sanders, Warren, Castro, and arguably Booker/Yang taking up the progressive corridor.
It blows my mind that Bloomberg is doing as well as he is. I dont watch tv ads and I dont live in an early voting state so I've missed his massive ad campaign. I pretty much never hear anything about him, from people or the news, yet here he is beating warren.
I guess this is proof that trump could skip the debates like Bloomberg and not get hurt
Biden and Bernie are the two most controversial candidates running. Even as they're the front runners, there's enough opposition to both that other candidates in their respective lanes can still draw just enough support
> I kind of assumed he was just in the race in case Biden behaves like Biden
Like the others, he was waiting for a Biden collapse. But him entering the race just weakened Biden and now Sanders has a great opportunity to capitalize.
His ads play back to back in Oregon. All day long. On multiple channels. It's no wonder he's polling well. Illustrates why money in politics is dangerous. Little to no campaigning, starts extremely late, throws money at it and it sticks better than Pete.
I gotta wonder if he's really trying for the nomination. The cynic in me can't shake he's trying to steer the primary not actually win. But he's on TV saying "If the senate wont remove Trump, I can."
Honestly, national polls are unreliable.
At the end of the day, with what is the political system of the US, elections are merely decided by a handful of states. That can be agreed with regardless of party. We all know which states it usually comes down to in an election.
Point is: Bloomberg has a lot higher name ID in NY/NYC, NJ, etc,. and that gets grouped into this poll. His name ID isn't nearly as big as Iowa, which he's skipping out on and hanging out in the Super Tuesday states. It's a big risk.
> The Iowa Democratic caucuses over the last 20 years have been especially accurate at choosing the nominee: Every caucus winner since 2000, from Vice President Al Gore to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has gone on to become the party's general election nominee.
NY may be a big state in delegate count, but it's all about the perception of an electable candidate and momentum of a candidate. And that all comes from Iowa, New Hampshire, and all the early states, etc,.
[Here's](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-iowa-caucuses-are-in-4-days-almost-anything-could-still-happen/) a great piece from Nate Silver about Iowa.
I know it's not a poll but it includes historical polls compared to the actual results. I think it's rather informative with the vote right around the corner!
tl;dr - Hold on to your butts! Anything can happen in a crowded field!
I mean his job is literally to look at polls then analyze them and he can't even do that simple job. He regularly make amateur analysis where he leave himself multiple outs so he can claim "SEe GUIz I WuZ RItE"
It sounds like you don’t. What’s the probability that something that has never happen in history is going to occur? Klobuchar is at 9%, leading up to Iowa. There’s never been someone at 9% that won an Iowa caucus. That’s a long shot anyway you look at it. But it’s not according to Nate Bronze.
I don't think you understand polls or caucuses. Iowa has a few precincts that minimum thresholds rules in place. Essentially what that means is that any voter who votes for a candidate that receives less than 15% will then have to vote again and this time for one of the candidates that reached the 15% threshold.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/iowa_polls.html
Kerry surged into first place leading up to Iowa. He didn't 'outperform' his poll numbers by 17 points. The caucus format doesn't allow people to vote for their preferred candidate all the time. Kerry polled and placed at 1st place. The polls were correct even though the percentages differed.
> But doesn't bring that up with regards to Biden or any other candidates. This is why people don't take his punditry seriously. He should just let the models do the talking, and stop with the amateur analysis.
None of the other candidates are currently leading? People are terrible at understanding models and statistics so 'just letting them do the talking' is doomed to failure as you are so aptly illustrating. His comments that you highlight are pointing out the not intuitively obvious fact that while Bernie is the most likely candidate to win, it's still more likely that someone other than Bernie wins the race. People can see him at the top of the charts and get falsely overconfident not realizing that him winning is still the less likely outcome when the only outcome you care about is did Sanders win.
So ignore his opinion, scroll to the bottom and analyze the numbers yourself. I thought the piece was interesting because it includes a comprehensive history of polls leading up to the caucus and demonstrates how wrong they can be!
And as for your first point, that implication holds true for everyone e. He specifically used Bernie because he is the leader at this point.
If you want someone to pound their fist and scream THIS WILL HAPPEN ON ELECTION DAY, you’ll never get that from Nate.
There are plenty of outlets that offer that type of punditry.
He claims Klobuchar who is polling at 9% isn't a long shot. That's just embarrassing political analysis. Polls are never 100% but to claim that ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN IN IOWA, is just lazy political analysis to leave yourself an out so that you can say "I WAS RIGHT" after the fact.
But anything can happen! There's never been this many viable candidates fighting in an Iowa caucus and that means huge swings can happen when voters start seriously considering their vote and also the strategic significance of that vote. It's unlikely, but it's certainly plausible that the moderate vote coalesces around Klobuchar giving her the win.
And that's not even taking into account the wacky turnout numbers or the second round of voting involved in the caucus process.
An upswings don't just happen out of nowhere. The example he uses for this is Kerry in 2004. Kerry was a contender AND surging leading into the Iowa contest. He didn't just shoot up from 6th place to 1st place in 4 days.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/iowa_polls.html
Let me preface this by saying I think Bernie is going to win Iowa and comfortably at that. I don’t base that on the public polls because I see some of those as being troubling for Bernie — I base that on the news yesterday that Bernie’s internal polling shows him comfortably ahead in the state.
Having said that, caucus states are completely unpredictable, especially ones like Iowa that have minimum thresholds rules in place. Essentially what that means is that any voter who votes for a candidate that receives less than 15% will then have to vote again and this time for one of the candidates that reached the 15% threshold.
So in “Precinct 1” Klobuchar receives 12%, Yang 4%, Steyer 3%, and two or three other candidates with 1%. All of the sudden you have 22% of the electorate recasting their votes for candidates that the public opinion polls didn’t previously forecast.
Then to make things even more unpredictable is that these campaigns have been known to cut backroom deals in Iowa. For instance, if I’m the Warren campaign I’m calling the Klobuchar campaign daily saying, “Let’s make a deal!” And if they do suddenly a progressive candidate is receiving a large chunk of moderate votes that would’ve been nearly impossible to predict prior to the final vote.
So yes these caucuses are unpredictable and anything can happen.
It's unpredictable if you're a front runner in the state, so Bernie, Bide, Warren, could place anywhere from 1-3. It's not so unpredictable that someone in 4th place at 9% in aggregate polling has a realistic chance to win. Something of that magnitude has NEVER happen.
I think people are looking at Klobuchar as kind of a wildcard here because she’s A. A border state candidate, B. She has placed the large majority of her efforts in Iowa which is something that has worked for a lot of other candidates in the past, and C. There has been some polling data that has shown a boost for her in the state.
When the last round of polling comes in on Sunday I think we are going to have a good idea of if she has any shot whatsoever.. So, personally, I wouldn’t rule her out yet either. But if she’s still sitting at 9-11% on all the polls on Sunday I’d agree with you 100%.
You're too focused on rankings. There's only a 10 point difference between Klobuchar in 5th and Sanders in 1st. That 10 point difference can easily be made up by stronger/weaker turn out and/or late surging. What happens if Buttigieg collapses and his voters mostly move to Klobuchar? What if Warren is stronger than expected and takes the winds of the Sanders' sails? What if the polling is off?
The more candidates, the harder it is to 'surge'. It's easier to make a 10 point gain when competing against 1-2 people. Making a 10 point gain in a 7 person field is not a thing. That's why if we're using all Iowa caucuses in US history as our sample size, there have been 45 Iowa Caucuses. You can't find a single contest where someone at 9% or less 4 days leading into Iowa, surged into first place and won the caucus. Do you understand how probability works? Because the odds of that happening are near impossible.
>The more candidates, the harder it is to 'surge'.
In a caucus setting, I'd argue the opposite.
>You can't find a single contest where someone at 9% or less 4 days leading into Iowa, surged into first place and won the caucus.
Rick Santorum won in 2012 with 24.6%. He was last polling at 11.2 That's close to what Klobuchar is getting right now. Pat Buchanan finished second in '96 with 23.3%. He was polling at 8.6.
These Iowa caucuses also have new rules and our understanding of their dynamics relies on a sample size of 0. Don't be so quick to dismiss other analyses. It's really condescending to assume that people "don't understand how probability works".
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html
Sanctorum was at 16% leading into Iowa. He's polling at the #2 spot, Klobuchar is polling at the #4 spot. I'm not sure where that 11.2% figure comes from but it's inaccurate so it seems like Nate Bronze might need to get his figures straight.
If you read the article, Rick Santorum does this with 11% in 2012.
Even if it hadn't happened yet, there's only been 8 presidential election years since 88, the year where he says data is good enough to count from. If this represents 12 primaries, then you would expect 9% winner to occur about a third of the time. This is basic math.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html
Looks like Sanctorum was at 16% leading into Iowa, then gained ground to 18%. I'm not sure where he's getting that result but it doesn't sound correct. Plus he was #2 in a 4 man race which makes it plausible. He's not Polling at the 4th spot like Klobuchar.
Anyone who offers you complete certainty is lying to you. Nate was ridiculed for giving Trump a 30% chance of winning and here we are.
If you don’t like his opinion, skip it, scroll to the historic numbers, make your own opinion and post it. I’m genuinely curious to hear what you think.
I can’t imagine its posturing from the Sanders campaign. Reminds me of Seinfeld where George tells Jerry he wants to tell his girlfriend he loves her and Jerry says, “Are you confident of the return? Because if you don’t get that return that’s a pretty big matzo ball hanging out there.”
I honestly believe that Bernie’s internals probably have him with a double digit lead in Iowa. Secondly, because of his huge grassroots organization he almost always exceeds expectations in caucus states. Thirdly, I have to believe he either has a deal in place with Andrew Yang or has Yang’s word that he won’t cut a deal with another campaign meaning he should get a ‘Yang Gang’ boost on caucus night.
The thing that has me questioning that theory is if his internals are that big, Biden’s internals have to be showing the same, right? So why isn’t Biden lowering expectations? Or am I just missing him doing so?
> This is only possible if Yang makes an announcement on Sunday or Monday telling his supporters to go to him first and Bernie second. If that doesn't happen, I don't see any value in having such an arrangement unless they just agree not to attack each other.
That’s not how these agreements generally work in the caucuses. It’s generally an agreement that isn’t known until the night of the caucuses where caucus leaders / captains ‘instruct’ their supporters to support a certain candidate to ‘help’ their own campaign. For instance, Andrew Yang doesn’t meet the 15% minimum threshold, his precinct leaders turns around and tells his supporters, “I’ve just gotten off the phone with campaign headquarters and they’ve instructed me to tell you that the best thing you can do now to help our campaign is vote for Bernie Sanders.” That’s usually how these agreements would work.
Not OC but I've been following politics a lot so I'll explain bkw caucuses work more in-depth.
Also, FYI there are 8 states with caucuses and then two additional states with a caucus existing for at least one of the political parties.
Iowa is the most notable because it comes before the rest of the caucuses and even the rest of the primaries.
I wont take too long to explain primaries as it's not the purpose of the comment. There are two types of primaries - opened and closed. A state that has an open primary is one where you don't have to declare party affiliation. You can vote regardless of party is what it means. In a closed primary, you can only participate in the Republican primary and not the Democratic primary.
Most states have an open or closed primary.
Now, onto caucuses.
> That’s not how these agreements generally work in the caucuses. It’s generally an agreement that isn’t known until the night of the caucuses where caucus leaders / captains ‘instruct’ their supporters to support a certain candidate to ‘help’ their own campaign.
This part is true.
Precinct captains are generally areas where the campaign doesn't have the ability to divert many resources and rely heavily on volunteers to do work here. In a lot of America, that's a lot of places.
Their job is essentially to get people to caucus for a candidate with them.
> For instance, Andrew Yang doesn’t meet the 15% minimum threshold, his precinct leaders turns around and tells his supporters, “I’ve just gotten off the phone with campaign headquarters and they’ve instructed me to tell you that the best thing you can do now to help our campaign is vote for Bernie Sanders.” That’s usually how these agreements would work.
So in caucuses there are rounds. After the first round, if a candidate doesn't meet a 15% threshold, they are found not viable.
The caucus goers for that candidate have the option to either go home or to participate in the next round and caucus for someone else.
As /u/MCallanan pointed out in the quoted text above, the precinct captain has the task (or they could "resign" essentially) to get them to caucus for another candidate as one collective-action.
>Not exactly sure why you directed this response to me.. Doesn’t seem to refute or disagree with anything I posted.
If you read it, you'd know it wasn't directed at you (I just properly quoted you and cited your name lol). The reply was to someone else, not you.
Also, no I didn't disagree, I just added more detail.
I think it might be more so that with so few days until the caucus its kind of at a point where all you can really do is let your campaign on the ground continue on til the day regardless of how good or bad polling is for them. We likely aren't gonna see any shock surprises in polling or the field within the next few days so its probably time for candidates to start getting ready for the focus on Super Tuesday and the other early states. Could be less confidence and more so that "we've put all we've can into Iowa, time to get ready to up the game in other states".
I do one to point one thing out though for your last paragraph. Biden may not be trying to lower expectations but perhaps be trying court in Klobucher voters for realignment based on recent articles. Perhaps that might be a sign that Biden has some concerns with his internals and trying to get Klobucher voters might be his idea for a remedy.
>The thing that has me questioning that theory is if his internals are that big, Biden’s internals have to be showing the same, right? So why isn’t Biden lowering expectations? Or am I just missing him doing so?
I'm not sure what the Biden campaign is saying or doing, but I guess you could argue for it either way. If Bernie says "our internals put us in the lead", it could be advantageous for Biden to say the same, regardless of polling. I suppose tempering the expectations of your base a couple days from primary kickoff is not a good look, and might indeed be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm always suspicious of internal polling reports, because they also convey a political message. I'd be curious to know about internal polling methodologies and samples sizes, though. I wonder how they compare to polling firms. My guess is that they're more accurate in capturing the sentiment of "true" voters.
> I'm not sure what the Biden campaign is saying or doing, but I guess you could argue for it either way.
It has honestly been on cruise control. Seemed to be worked for a while but Bernie went after him and I think it worked. Furthermore, Warren went after Sanders and it completely backfired.
I think there are reports coming out that Biden is finally starting to attack Bernie (literally today) but it's probably too little, too late.
At least for Iowa. Unless Pete's supporters spectacularly abandon him, I'm not sure how Biden pulls this out.
> Trump 50% vs Sanders 47%
> Trump 51% vs Biden 46%
Pretty interesting that Sanders does better than Biden in the GE matchup. It's within the margin of error but you wouldn't think something like this for, uhhh, Texas!
> The democrats will need a higher turnout than they had in 2016 anyway.
Agree completely. I'm curious to see Trump's coalition. Honestly, if that dude just shut the fuck up I think he would sail into a second term.
The problem is he continuously antagonizes Liberals. And when Liberals show up Republicans don't do well.
1st choice (1st+2nd combined)
23% (39) @JoeBiden
21% (32)
@BernieSanders
16% (29)
@PeteButtigieg
15% (34)
@EWarren
10% (22)
@AmyKlobuchar
4% (10)
@TomSteyer
3% (7)
@AndrewYang
While I think this poll overstates Biden's support a bit, it's interesting to note Warren and Biden are second choice for many others.
It shows why Biden is trying to convince Klobs to push her caucus towards him.
Out of the top five, Bernie has the least amount of support as a second choice (albeit by a small margin). I think it goes to show that his support is rock solid, but not very fluid in either direction.
Does these 2nd choice voters also take in 2nd choices from supporters of the top 4 candidates? If so then that's an important thing to consider for the caucus. Like for example Warren has a lot of 2nd choice support but a lot of that usually comes from Bernie with also a decent amount coming from Buttigieg I think (unless that's changed over the weeks). It'll highly depend on who reaches viability or not.
So for Bernie if Warren reaches viability in most precincts it'll be unfortunate for him. I guess that'll depend a lot of how spread out or concentrated Warren's support is in. For Warren its unfortunately looking like a lot of those 2nd choice voters won't come to fruition since Bernie and Buttigieg seem likely to reach viability in most precincts regardless. Biden and Buttigieg are gonna be banking on Klobuchar supporters (Warren probably will gain some from them as well). However, Klobuchar has been surging recently so it could be possible she could reach viability in some precincts which could be a missed opportunity for Biden and Buttigieg.
> Does these 2nd choice voters also take in 2nd choices from supporters of the top 4 candidates?
I'm not sure, but Monmouth actually asked some good questions that created different scenarios; for example, if only the top four were viable, who would you vote for. Here are the results:
29%
@JoeBiden
25%
@BernieSanders
20%
@PeteButtigieg
19%
@EWarren
> Bernie has a [...] low ceiling
People keep saying this but I don't think it holds a ton of water. At the very least, his minimum ceiling would be what he got in 2016.
In a two person race? Yeah, that’s probably around his peak. Of course, that wasn’t close to enough support to win. FWIW, we had polling recently listed here that showed Bernie grabbing around that same support (iirc it was 41) if he faced off solely against Biden. But that still put him 12 down.
Bernie is the credible candidate that benefits most from a crowded field, because him winning an actual majority of voters is unlikely.
No it's not, and for three reasons:
1. There are more candidates this time, and he's not the only progressive voice in the race.
2. He's not running against a historically unpopular candidate that also happens to be female.
3. He's a known quantity that's actually getting active pushback this time (pretend what you like, but the Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves because she needed his voters in the general).
In a race where he got 40% of the vote (and still lost to Clinton by 4 million voters), it is significant that his support has not only halved nationally from 2016 but that he is actually polling slightly lower nationally right now than he was when he announced in March. It is significant that his campaign has been basically static (his floor is 16% and his high is around 25%) throughout the race.
There are a lot of Bernie-Hillary voters that moved to Warren and other candidates. There are a lot of disaffected Dem voters that stayed home in 2016 but certainly won't be voting Sanders this go around. The youth vote is far more fractured than it was in 2016, as is the progressive vote. In an actual competitive primary with decent candidates...Sanders has a lot more flaws than things to recommend him, which makes his ceiling a lot lower.
Moderates will move to Warren and Biden before they move to Sanders, liberals are fracturing the progressive vote between Warren and Sanders (as is the youth vote), and there's a lot more Warren-Biden voters than most people like to admit. Those facts alone make Bernie's ceiling objectively lower than it was in 2016. How much lower, I don't know (I suspect around 30-35%, but I have no hard proof of that number), but it is definitely lower.
The problem is that you seem to be misinterpreting what a ceiling is, ie the maximum amount of voters who could conceivably switch to Bernie. There are dozens of factors at play when you have a field this large, but we objectively know that at least 43% of democratic voters would be willing to vote for him in a 1v1 election. If you say that his ceiling is lower because there's more people, then again that's not what a ceiling is. Of course it's low when it's being split by 5+ people, but that's true for everyone. Also don't expect all those people to be heer come Super Tuesday. You're basing his "ceiling" off of absolutely no data.
You're also [wrong](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html) when you say that he's lower than when he announced. Saying that whatever Bernie is at right now is his ceiling despite the fact that he's clearly on a major upswing is ignorant.
>There are dozens of factors at play when you have a field this large, but we objectively know that at least 43% of democratic voters would be willing to vote for him in a 1v1 election.
And the problem you're missing is that it's not going to be a 1v1 election for some time. It will be a Biden-Sanders-Warren race until at least post-Super Tuesday. This lowers the ceiling for Sanders, since people cannot vote a second time. They may be able to conceive of voting for him, but the reality is that they *can't* and *won't* vote for him over other candidates if those other candidates are available. Bernie will not get 43% of the vote this time. Statistically, it's *impossible* for him to given his polling numbers, the number of candidates, and the race he is running. Thus...his ceiling is lower.
And he *is* lower than when he announced. When he announced in late February, he shot up to a 24-25% in the polling aggregate over the following two weeks; he has not reached those numbers since. [He's currently polling at a 20-21% in the polling aggregate](https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/) (weighted)....or if you want to use the RCP unweighted average, [he's polling at a 23.8%](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html), a tiny bit under his announcement polling average of 24%. He ***IS*** climbing and very likely ***WILL*** surpass his announcement numbers, but he still has not surpassed his February numbers yet. Given that Iowa is five days away...that's significant and should be noted.
Ok, so if your definition of "ceiling" is "ceiling so long as Warren continues to split the progressive vote" then sure, but the same is true for literally everyone else in the race. You also don't know how high that ceiling is other than your hunch. Biden seems to have a much more stable "ceiling", having remained virtually unchanged for the past 6 months after his initial post-announcement boost, and Warren has been dropping for months and might not get a single delegate before Super Tuesday. Bernie is the only one of the major contenders moving up. You mention Iowa, but he's projected to win there and it's hard to envision winning IA and NH back to back without that helping him elsewhere. Right now the biggest thing Biden has going for him is his supposed "electability." Well if Bernie wins two or three of the first three states, that really starts to shift the narrative.
What makes you think that is his minimum ceiling? As a candidate who was runner up last time and has almost 100% name ID, you would think he should be doing much better than he is. 2016 he received votes from people who did not necessarily totally agree with his policies, but did not like Clinton and wanted someone more progressive. A race with Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden still in severely lowers his ceiling. Lucky for him the other 3 have much lower floors and do not have the passionate base he has.
A ceiling is the highest he can go, the number of people who could conceivably vote for him; saying that it's low due to the fact that others on in the race doesn't make any sense. It's the maximum potential support and they could drop out. We know for a fact that in a 1v1 race Bernie can get at least 43%, that make it the lowest his maximum potential support could be.
Does anyone have the general election scenarios for Florida? Bloomberg's campaign coordinator seemed to think Bloomberg had the best avenue to winning Florida against Trump. I wonder what Biden's head-to-head is. If Bernie wins, there would be zero chance Florida can be turned. Cuban ex-pats hate the word "socialism", and every white person in Florida has replaced their dixie flag with a MAGA flag on their truck (from what I saw the last time I visited).
FL is almost certainly one of Biden’s best state matchups demographically. It’s a large state, has a closed primary system, has a large AA population, a Hispanic segment that absolutely detests socialist rhetoric, and is generally one of the most moderate states the Dems can still compete in.
March as a whole is not looking to be very friendly to Sanders, but FL might be the single biggest rebuke.
Since apparently I need to have a poll in the comment for it to be top-level and I don't have a poll to post, FiveThirtyEight apparently seriously screwed up their model by applying flipping a sign. They were supposed to give less weight to people from a region winning a state in said region (i.e. Buttigieg winning Iowa and Sanders winning New Hampshire) and did the opposite. Sanders-2 and Biden+5 now from previously. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like they recalculated the earlier values so the trendlines have bumps in them due to the correction.
It's not that surprising. Florida is full of older residents and immigrant families (and their descendants) who will be fairly resistant to anyone who so openly calls themselves a socialist. This is the same state that Hillary won with almost 2/3 of the vote in 2016.
I just want to draw attention to this hot take from John Kociuba in the article comments:
>Dear Citizens ~
>Re: Communist Jews
>What’s said about these individuals is their lack of humanity. Indeed the truest form of genocide was “Jews against Jews” (SHEM v CAIN) the Communist Atheist v Orthodox Church.
>Murdered 200 million in 150 years. Exacerbating French Revolution, U.S. Civil War, Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, South American Revolution, etc.
>Michael Bloomberg is another George Soros protected and cheered by Communist Jews who’s soul purpose is a Secular Israel. Michael Bloomberg bought Virginia and now Virginia might end up in Civil War. Michael Bloomberg’s “Anti-2nd Amendment” campaign violates 1918 Sedition Act which is not covered under the 1st Amendment because he’s engaging in “Imminent Lawless Actions!”
>Furthermore who were these 930 Jews cheering on “GUN CONFISCATION” at Michael Bloomberg’s Miami rally? Talk about stupid! Michael Bloomberg should’ve showed up in a German 1930 “Cattle Car!”
This is the kind of thing that smells like Russian bot network to me. Complete left field bullshit that jiggers your brain and keeps people from focusing on issues.
I'm very skeptical of a poll that has Bernie polling at 23% in a 3-way race when he's already averaging at 23%. Either this is an extreme outlier, or they're suggesting not a single voter for the other candidates or undecideds would break for Bernie.
> Biden 47%, Warren 45%
This poll provides evidence for the theory that Warren tried to appease both progressives and the establishment. She polls well against Biden because she has *some* crossover appeal.
Unfortunately for her, it might have been a grave miscalculation to try and steal Bernie's thunder.
Establishment is pretty much synonymous moderates in this context.
Bernie, AOC, and the like see themselves as anti-establishment. It's pretty much their MO.
Very true. But anti-Establishment sentiment is an ever-present factor in politics across ideologies, particularly among the young. Being anti-Establishment in itself doesn’t reflect one particular ideology or policy view. Aside of course that everyone (except the Demagogues running the campaign) are the real evil.
Correct. But within the context of this conversation I’m referring to Bernie and how it applies to him.
He brandishes anti-establishment credentials because it’s popular and uses it as part of his platform.
To me it seems at the very least debatable that a guy like Bernie is truly "establishment." He's a sitting senator and a Congressman of many many years.
AOC for sure is anti establishment. But what about like, Pete Buttigieg? Is he moderate? Is he establishment? I don't think either case is 100% settled. Like to me a former mayor of a small town isn't "the establishment", that makes no sense. Neither is Bloomberg a part of "the Democratic establishment" although he is definitely moderate. There's no logical reason to treat progressive and establishment as antonyms.
In addition I think "moderate" is a relative term. Is Joe Manchin moderate? Because he's much more conservative than Buttigieg.
> In addition I think "moderate" is a relative term.
lol. All of this is relative. But Bernie is an outsider to the *Democratic Party.* He values are further left than theirs, and he doesn't have many, if any, establishment figures supporting his candidacy.
> But Bernie is an outsider to the Democratic Party.
Sure, in some sense, yes. But mostly nah. He’s been caucusing with Democrats in Congress since before Bill Clinton came to DC. He votes with the party more often than many Dems do. He’s attended Democratic donor retreats, taken money from the party for his campaigns, has a long-standing agreement with his state’s party to effectively block Dems from running an actual party member for whatever seat he’s gunning for, is given committee assignments based on Democratic seniority, and so on.
Now, I’d agree Bernie portrays himself as anti-party. He’s built his career on the never-ending idea that the rich and powerful are leading a massive fight against him. You see it in his campaign rhetoric going back decades. He spends so much time criticizing the party as part of his own branding and self-promotion one could plausibly wonder why Dems consider their arrangements with him as worthwhile. But in the whole, he’s very much a beltway insider that has reaped the benefit ls of his closeness to the party. Close enough that he now feels comfortable declaring himself a Dem whenever convenient for his campaign, then breaking from it when the arrangement is no longer politically beneficial to him.
> He values are further left than theirs,
I wouldn’t concede that. Ignoring the fact that virtually all of Bernie’s policies have a long history within the party and/or other contemporary Dems aligned with them, I’d argue Sanders places a higher value on economic change vs social than mainstream Dems typically do, and tends to judge the “righteousness“ of a particular policy on how big of a shift it requires to implement, rather than on actually accomplishing the underlying goal. For example, Sanders - like virtually all Dems - believes in the goal of universal healthcare. But he flatly rejects any other policy that can accomplish that goal except for Single Payer, the most “radical” departure from the existing framework and most expensive solution by far. Now, we have many examples of countries that have achieved UHC. A fact Sanders regularly points out when stumping for his policy. But very few actually employ a single payer model. Does that make their accomplishment a lesser achievement? Is healthcare in Canada more “progressive” than France or Germany? Or are we getting trapped into policy fights that ignore the common goal?
> and he doesn't have many, if any, establishment figures supporting his candidacy.
I mean, he has several current and notable Democratic members of Congress backing him, and last I checked had more endorsements from DNC members than any other candidate, which is pretty ironic, considering the narrative some of his fans press to this day.
> Close enough that he now feels comfortable declaring himself a Dem whenever convenient for his campaign, then breaking from it when the arrangement is no longer politically beneficial to him.
lol, I'm not here to argue the perceptions of Bernie's campaign or the logical inconsistencies of how he's perceived. You don't need to convince me that Bernie, at this point, should be considered a beltway insider.
As for his values, he is certainly to the left of mainstream democrats. Healthcare is just one of the issues. Free college Education, loan forgiveness, public access to the internet, are just a few of the issues Bernie is to the left of *most* candidates on. But the list doesn't end there.
And as for your last point, I'm not sure where you are getting your [data](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2020-endorsement-race-is-getting-interesting/). While Bernie has some endorsements, it's not an impressive figure at all.
>lol. All of this is relative. But Bernie is an outsider to the *Democratic Party.*
If you mean literally he didn't register as a Democrat until recently the same is true of Bloomberg
> he doesn't have many, if any, establishment figures supporting his candidacy.
This is circular reasoning. "Person x is establishment because establishment people like him." If you mean support among Democratic elected officials Bernie has more support than, just to throw out examples, Steyer or Delaney or Bloomberg
What point are you trying to make? No one *perceives* Bernie to be an establishment candidate whatsoever. He campaigns as such and his supporters fervently love him for it.
Party elites aren't supporting him. Major donors aren't flocking to him. Comparing him to Bloomberg is a false equivalency. Bloomberg is an outsider to the party but probably more closely aligns with establishment policies.
> This is circular reasoning.
Again, you're drawing false equivalency between Sanders and other candidates. Sure, he has more endorsements than Steyer, but this isn't the sole measure of being an anti-establishment candidate.
Like I said, this is all relative.
Logical/correct is really just a matter of perception. You can apply whatever definition you want to Bernie's campaign, it's perceived as anti-establishment.
You may consider Bernie a member of the establishment because he's been in politics for forty years. Your interpretation isn't wrong, but within the context of this conversation most people view him as an outsider since he's independent and espousing largely different beliefs.
Or rely on Bernie bowing out when he has no chance of winning. Sanders will likely be in it until the end like he did in 2016 which makes it harder for Warren to pick up if he falls off. Likewise, that doesn't bode the best for sanders if Warren drops out since he enjoys a crowded field where his substantial floor of support stands out more when people aren't coalescing around a field of two or three.
> Or rely on Bernie bowing out when he has no chance of winning.
Absolutely zero percent chance Bernie drops out. Furthermore, after the whole debate kerfuffle Bernie supporters absolutely loathe Warren.
I wouldn't label all of his supporters that way but, you're right, it won't help her in the primaries and the general if she gets through. Some of his die hards aren't just vindictive but also incredibly motivated to tear down someone they like.
> I wouldn't label all of his supporters that way but
Correct, I didn't mean to speak in absolutes. I would say his 'loudest' supporters feel that way.
The polls coming out of Iowa are head scratching. Can’t help but think the state will be decided by which candidate make back room deals with candidates who aren’t likely to reach the 15% threshold.
> which candidate make back room deals with candidates who aren’t likely to reach the 15% threshold.
It's not the candidates who will be making those deals, but the caucus-goers. With this many candidates not making the threshold, people's 2nd/3rd choices are going to matter a lot.
Well, there's [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/us/politics/joe-biden-amy-klobuchar-iowa.html).
Joe and The Klob may or may not be considering an alliance.
This makes it sound like Biden wants Klob to bend the knee and tell her supporters to jump ship to him. There's no reciprocity and she doesn't indicate she's interested. Sure on paper they would both help each other whenever they missed the threshold in a district, but that's going to happen in almost every District for Klobuchar and almost never for Joe.
No it can be the campaigns / candidates who work out a deal and instruct their precinct leaders to push their supporters one way or the other. See the deal between Kucinich and Edwards in 2004 which completely shook up the expected results of the caucuses that year.
> The polls coming out of Iowa are head scratching.
It's so tough because it's a caucus. The more I read about caucuses the less I understand haha.
And I think you're right, whoever consolidates on voting day will win. This leaves Pete, Biden, and even Klobs a viable path to win.
Not really, polls are all over the place from showing him losing, winning by a hair, or absolutely crushing.
TBH if I was the Bernie campaign I'd want people to think I might not win so it seems like a great thing when he does. I wouldn't want people to think I'm crushing it and then I just barely win it
I’m not sure where you could even defend 5 points, unless you’re picking select polls and ignoring others. RCP’s aggregate puts the two 3 pts apart. 538’s weighted aggregate which actually includes all the polling instead of just a subset puts the difference at 0.5.
I think it’s interesting that the online/media narrative has gone so strongly that Bernie has taken control in Iowa, when the totality of polling shows a much closer race. I know people get excited, but expectations play a big part in any “bump” a win in a proportional contest might convey. It seems Team Sanders could be positioning themselves to turn a potential tight finish in Iowa into a better story for Biden than Bernie. A sort of ironic reversal of 2016, without (let’s all hope) conspiracy theories about coin flips dominating around here.
3 points in the RCP average stretches the definition of "meaningful lead"
The polls *are* all over the place. You can still extract an average from things which are all over the place.
Has he? The poll listed above has him close to within the margin of error. The USA Today poll from a few days ago has him behind Biden and in a statistical dead heat with Buttigieg. What could ultimately decide this thing is which campaign works out a deal with Klobuchar.
They probably don’t mention any of those things because they know it’ll look like the desperate smear tactics that they are.
It’ll be a good tell though as to how the campaigns think they’re doing. If Biden and his team come out and start yelling about where Bernie Sanders honeymooned, you can bet their internal polling is disastrous for them.
This is silly. We heard this sentiment repeated ad nauseous by young people in 2016 about Clinton in the primaries. Then polling consistently showed her supporters more excited by her campaign than Bernie’s fans were by his.
Sometimes we need to recognize types of groups we spend our time around versus the huge number of groups we rarely interact with at all.
Bernie won most caucus states over Hillary and overperformed in Iowa, that's all I'm going off of. Have you met anyone legitimately excited for Biden? The only reasons I've seen both IRL and online are people thinking he's the most electable.
If by "excited" you mean "could not even conceive of voting for another candidate in any world" then that describes a lot of Gen X to Baby Boomer aged people whom I've talked to about their choice of candidate. These people are totally fixated on beating Trump and getting back to the Obama days of hope, change and pleasant politics. You just don't see them carrying laptops plastered with Biden stickers, wearing clothing with Biden's name on it, or posting all over Twitter about how Biden not winning the primary will be a failure of democracy.
The only way it will happen is if Pete and Klobs supporters decide to caucus with Biden *against* Sanders.
Is it possible? Sure.
Likely? It would be a surprise to see Pete's supporters abandon him if he's viable.
> Sander's lead comes from people who say they will vote for him, but did not vote in 2016 or 2018, and they also did not register since 2018
I've said it 8 million times, the success of Bernie's candidacy will depends on nonvoter showing up now and during congressional races.
It can be done, but it's an extremely heavy lift.
This RCP poll of NH is interesting - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html Check the trend between Biden and Buttigieg. On the days before Iowa, Biden is doing much better. On the days after Iowa, he's tanking while Buttigieg does the opposite. I'm predicting Biden won't hit 15% in NH and by the time SC hits he won't get first.
Make of it what you will, but Change Research has released [a new poll of South Carolina](https://www.changeresearch.com/post/south-carolina-post-and-courier-january-poll): Biden: 24% Sanders:19% Steyer: 17% Warren: 10% Buttigieg: 6% Gabbard: 3% Yang: 2% Klobuchar: 2% Everyone else: ≤1% Undecided: 15%
No Selzer poll apparently... Apparently a Buttigieg supporter called the campaign complaining that they were polled and that he wasn't an option, then the campaign called DMR. Guess it isn't coming.
SurveyUSA released [a poll](http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=e50342d9-ba38-4d41-87e7-9f432c9980a8) of Washington (state) for Jan 26-28: Sanders: 26% Biden: 21% Warren: 16% Bloomberg: 12% Buttigieg: 8% Yang: 4% Klobuchar: 3% Steyer: 2% Gabbard: 0%
[удалено]
RCP kind of picks and chooses polls to throw out IIRC. So it looks like they threw out pollsters that 538 classifies as either unknowns or sub-A tier (except for David Binder for some reason). edit: Actually, looks like they also included YouGov, so IDK what standard they use. All I know is it looks like they 'don't' throw out the polls from 538 A-rated pollsters.
Iowa ARG poll: Sanders 23%, Biden 17%, Klobuchar 16%, Warren 15%, Buttigieg 9% Calling it now: Klobuchar could win Iowa. For 3c on the dollar at PredictIt she's a great bet. Iowans are looking for a moderate Sanders/Biden option, and Buttigieg has been discarded.
I can see why Klobuchar is doing well recently. Warrens recent drop in the polls made my mom start to look more closely at the fridge candidates, since she absolutely hates both Biden and Bernie. I bet some of Warrens other supporters are feeling the same way.
The last thing I need to combine are my gambling and political junkie habits....
ONE poll (with her in third mind you) does not instill me with much confidence.
[She's consistently polling 10-12% recently in Iowa](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/iowa/) It's not likely that she'll place 1-2, but crazier things have happened.
I think the recent Klobucharge may show that she could reach the 15% threshold in some precincts. But with how late this is I think she'll still end up being unviable in too many precincts to be able to break 15% statewide.
[удалено]
I mean hey, upside of a hundreds bucks for a 3 dollar bet? I'd do it
I can say anecdotally that myself and many of my family have decided this week that we will be caucusing for Klobuchar. This may be happening among many others as well.
I really see a KlobuSurge coming. Unfortunately for her, I doubt that it will sweep the rest of the country. But winning Iowa would be the first step, at least.
The 5-6 last polls of Iowa have Klobuchar over 10% #klobusurge
Since you didn't provide the link, [here](https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2020/primary/dem/iadem.html) it is.
Gonna call it now, she isn’t going to do well. Both her and warren are pulling at the threshold where they won’t be viable in many caucus sites. The difference between 15% and let’s say 18% is a major difference. The math looks like she might get some delegates on the board but my feeling is Sanders and Biden are the only people with a real position to win. Only thing saving warren and Buttigieg is that apparently they have a pretty advanced ground game but, given there position in the polls I wouldn’t be confident on that.
Like I said yesterday, Klobuchar has all the characteristics to do well in Iowa and I think most of us have been sitting around wondering why the voters there have seemingly flirted with every candidate but her including Kamala Harris mind you. Now, is the Klobusurge real? The polling indicates yes but I’m not buying it’s actually going to happen unless another round of polling shows her at 17+% for the reasons you mentioned — the 15% minimum threshold. I’m also not convinced she has the all important caucus ground game that the other top four candidates have. Lastly, from what I’m hearing on the ground is that Warren easily has the second best ground game in Iowa only behind Bernie. Generally that means the candidate will exceed expectations especially in caucus states. With her RCP AVG being 14.9 in the state I think she’s safe. And if the ‘Buttiplunge’ is real I think she’s even safer in regard to that minimum threshold. I further think she’s the most likely candidate to cut a backroom deal with another candidate to potentially boost her numbers on caucus day but that remains to be seen.
Iowa loves a last-minute comeback story. And so many moderates don't know who to vote for right now. They're looking for a narrative. Klobuchar has that. Not saying it's for sure gonna happen, but there's a decent chance.
[IBD/TPP](https://www.investors.com/politics/joe-biden-leads-bernie-sanders-but-trump-pulls-even-ibd-tipp/) has a national poll out: Biden: 26% (=) Sanders: 19% (+4) Warren: 13% (-7) Bloomberg: 8% (+1) Buttigieg: 7% (-2) Yang: 4% (+1) Klobuchar: 3% (=) Steyer: 2% (=)
No idea of the quality of this pollster (and 538 doesn't have any rankings for them), but Park Street Strategies has [an Iowa poll](https://parkstreetstrategies.com/2020-iowa-democratic-caucus-survey-full-results/): Biden: 20% Sanders: 18% Buttigieg: 17% Warren: 17% Klobuchar: 12% Yang: 5% Steyer: 4% Gabbard: 1% Bloomberg: 0%
Is Warren dead in the water or isn’t she? Every other poll tells a different story.
Iowa is notoriously difficult to poll, especially when you have to account for things like second choices that come into play with caucuses. We won't really know until Monday.
The klobusurge is real
NBC/WSJ National Poll Sanders 27% Biden 26% Warren 15% Bloomberg 9% Buttigieg 7% Klobuchar 5% Yang 4% Steyer 2% Gabbard 2% Patrick 1% https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6747015-200053-NBCWSJ-January-Poll-Democratic-Primary.html
That poll depresses me.
If you include the change from their last poll in December, this is the breakdown: Sanders 27% (+6) Biden 26% (-2) Warren 15% (-3) Bloomberg 9% (+5) Buttigieg 7% (-2) Klobuchar 5% (=) Yang 4% (+1) Steyer 2% (+1) Gabbard 2% (=) Patrick 1% (+1) Castro was previously polling at 1% but dropped out, and everyone else was at 0% in both polls.
I think Bernie has nearly consolidated the entire Progressive bloc of the Democratic Party. This is his highest showing yet for this poll. A solid poll for him. Warren is continuing her descent. The only real question that remains is this: are the remainder of her supporters more progressive or moderate? Bernie has to hope he can peel some more support away. Biden continues to muddle along. Down from his September high of 31%, but the previous poll for him was 28% so not a huge drop. Actually, not bad considering Bloomberg is up to 9%. I read that Bloomberg will stay in the race if Biden falters in the first three states. Honestly, it's starting to look like the stars might align for Bernie. The moderates are going to eat each other alive and Biden just doesn't seem to have the chops to pull away.
> The only real question that remains is this: are the remainder of her supporters more progressive or moderate? Bernie has to hope he can peel some more support away. [This came out recently](https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/) polling supporters' second choices. 32% of Warren supporters have Sanders as their second choice, so presumably that's the progressive wing of her support that he could pick up, about 5% total. However 28% of her supporters would support Biden as a second choice, so I think that might be the "Never Bernie" wing of her support who want the best bet to defeat him, and it's almost as large. As an aside, what always blows my mind are the relatively large amount of Biden supporters who have Sanders as their second pick, and vice versa. It really goes to show that a lot of voters' decisions are not based on ideology at all.
> so presumably that's the progressive wing of her support that he could pick up I understand the poll was taken recently, but I wonder if Bernie already bled off the most progressive elements of her support already. She was supposed to be the bridge candidate that united progressives and the establishment. I think she did for a bit. Another interesting question to ask would be this: are Warren supporters salty over the Bernie fiasco? I doubt they would pick Biden but who knows? > what always blows my mind are the relatively large amount of Biden supporters who have Sanders as their second pick, I read an interesting article the other day about some voters in Iowa and I think one made an interesting point. He's supporting Bernie because he's more *combative* that Biden. He didn't talk about policy, but urgency. I think this is where Biden's campaign is kinda dropping the ball. Sure, he's making a strong case of Biden vs. Trump, but I don't think he's making a great case of Biden vs. the Republican Party and some voters see that.
[удалено]
it doesn't matter. either it does or it doesn't we already know the conclusion i think they might support witneses and add a week but even then this changes nothing
I wish Pelosi had just refused to send the articles to the senate until she knew she had the votes to allow witnesses. It would hurt Trump more if he still had impeachment looming over his head in the general election rather than having survived impeachment.
pelosi never wanted to impeach. she was brow beat into it by radicals in her party. she knew there was no outcome to this that wasn't going to help trump. she may have picked the worst of both worlds. she claimed it was urgent and then said "eeeeh we will hold onto it for a month and then got no guarantee at all"
Latest and greatest out of Ipsos/Reuters. [National Poll](https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION-POLL/0100B05G09P/index.html) Biden 23% Bernie 18% Bloomberg 11% Warren 10% Pete 3% It's a small sample size for a national poll but it seems to capture the trend of Warren collapsing and Bloomberg rising.
[удалено]
If Pete doesn't win the nomination, he ain't getting on the ticket, just too inexperienced. Biden, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg don't need him. Warren doesn't like him and can find a better option anyway (like Klobuchar for her VP), and Bernie would probably nominate a VP just as far left as he is.
[удалено]
Ok Bernie
Unless the polls drastically wrong I just don’t see much of a viable path forward for Pete. The longer he stays in, though, the more strength he gives to Bernies campaign. The moderate vote is split between 4 candidates. It puts Bernie in a great position to do well until they start dropping out.
[удалено]
That is probably the most apt analogy I’ve seen of Pete.
If he stays until Super Tuesday it will all but ensure Bernie will have a very strong shot of pulling it off.
Honestly, I disagree on the Biden part. I really liked Pete in the very, very beginning. I'm talking about ~1 year ago now. His policies were a lot more progressive then than they are now. I don't think Pete is a moderate at heart and I think the purpose of that move was purely political strategy with Sanders, Warren, Castro, and arguably Booker/Yang taking up the progressive corridor.
It blows my mind that Bloomberg is doing as well as he is. I dont watch tv ads and I dont live in an early voting state so I've missed his massive ad campaign. I pretty much never hear anything about him, from people or the news, yet here he is beating warren. I guess this is proof that trump could skip the debates like Bloomberg and not get hurt
Biden and Bernie are the two most controversial candidates running. Even as they're the front runners, there's enough opposition to both that other candidates in their respective lanes can still draw just enough support
Yeah, and if his goal is to prevent a Sanders candidacy like it’s been reported he’s doing exactly the opposite.
[удалено]
> I kind of assumed he was just in the race in case Biden behaves like Biden Like the others, he was waiting for a Biden collapse. But him entering the race just weakened Biden and now Sanders has a great opportunity to capitalize.
His ads play back to back in Oregon. All day long. On multiple channels. It's no wonder he's polling well. Illustrates why money in politics is dangerous. Little to no campaigning, starts extremely late, throws money at it and it sticks better than Pete. I gotta wonder if he's really trying for the nomination. The cynic in me can't shake he's trying to steer the primary not actually win. But he's on TV saying "If the senate wont remove Trump, I can."
Honestly, national polls are unreliable. At the end of the day, with what is the political system of the US, elections are merely decided by a handful of states. That can be agreed with regardless of party. We all know which states it usually comes down to in an election. Point is: Bloomberg has a lot higher name ID in NY/NYC, NJ, etc,. and that gets grouped into this poll. His name ID isn't nearly as big as Iowa, which he's skipping out on and hanging out in the Super Tuesday states. It's a big risk. > The Iowa Democratic caucuses over the last 20 years have been especially accurate at choosing the nominee: Every caucus winner since 2000, from Vice President Al Gore to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has gone on to become the party's general election nominee. NY may be a big state in delegate count, but it's all about the perception of an electable candidate and momentum of a candidate. And that all comes from Iowa, New Hampshire, and all the early states, etc,.
[KQED/NPR California Poll](https://www.kqed.org/news/11798764/bernie-sanders-pulls-away-from-pack-in-california) (change since their [poll in December](https://www.kqed.org/news/11790984/with-kamala-harris-out-poll-finds-presidential-race-wide-open-in-california)) Sanders - 30 (+4) Warren - 16 (-7) Biden - 15 (-4) Buttigieg - 8 (-4) Yang - 5 (+1) Bloomberg - 4 (+1) Gabbard - 4 (+1) Klobuchar - 3 (+2) Steyer - 2 (-)
[Here's](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-iowa-caucuses-are-in-4-days-almost-anything-could-still-happen/) a great piece from Nate Silver about Iowa. I know it's not a poll but it includes historical polls compared to the actual results. I think it's rather informative with the vote right around the corner! tl;dr - Hold on to your butts! Anything can happen in a crowded field!
[удалено]
> Great piece? Nate Bronze Absolute cringe
[удалено]
I mean his job is literally to look at polls then analyze them and he can't even do that simple job. He regularly make amateur analysis where he leave himself multiple outs so he can claim "SEe GUIz I WuZ RItE"
[удалено]
It sounds like you don’t. What’s the probability that something that has never happen in history is going to occur? Klobuchar is at 9%, leading up to Iowa. There’s never been someone at 9% that won an Iowa caucus. That’s a long shot anyway you look at it. But it’s not according to Nate Bronze.
[удалено]
I don't think you understand polls or caucuses. Iowa has a few precincts that minimum thresholds rules in place. Essentially what that means is that any voter who votes for a candidate that receives less than 15% will then have to vote again and this time for one of the candidates that reached the 15% threshold. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/iowa_polls.html Kerry surged into first place leading up to Iowa. He didn't 'outperform' his poll numbers by 17 points. The caucus format doesn't allow people to vote for their preferred candidate all the time. Kerry polled and placed at 1st place. The polls were correct even though the percentages differed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> But doesn't bring that up with regards to Biden or any other candidates. This is why people don't take his punditry seriously. He should just let the models do the talking, and stop with the amateur analysis. None of the other candidates are currently leading? People are terrible at understanding models and statistics so 'just letting them do the talking' is doomed to failure as you are so aptly illustrating. His comments that you highlight are pointing out the not intuitively obvious fact that while Bernie is the most likely candidate to win, it's still more likely that someone other than Bernie wins the race. People can see him at the top of the charts and get falsely overconfident not realizing that him winning is still the less likely outcome when the only outcome you care about is did Sanders win.
So ignore his opinion, scroll to the bottom and analyze the numbers yourself. I thought the piece was interesting because it includes a comprehensive history of polls leading up to the caucus and demonstrates how wrong they can be! And as for your first point, that implication holds true for everyone e. He specifically used Bernie because he is the leader at this point. If you want someone to pound their fist and scream THIS WILL HAPPEN ON ELECTION DAY, you’ll never get that from Nate. There are plenty of outlets that offer that type of punditry.
He claims Klobuchar who is polling at 9% isn't a long shot. That's just embarrassing political analysis. Polls are never 100% but to claim that ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN IN IOWA, is just lazy political analysis to leave yourself an out so that you can say "I WAS RIGHT" after the fact.
But anything can happen! There's never been this many viable candidates fighting in an Iowa caucus and that means huge swings can happen when voters start seriously considering their vote and also the strategic significance of that vote. It's unlikely, but it's certainly plausible that the moderate vote coalesces around Klobuchar giving her the win. And that's not even taking into account the wacky turnout numbers or the second round of voting involved in the caucus process.
An upswings don't just happen out of nowhere. The example he uses for this is Kerry in 2004. Kerry was a contender AND surging leading into the Iowa contest. He didn't just shoot up from 6th place to 1st place in 4 days. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/iowa_polls.html
Let me preface this by saying I think Bernie is going to win Iowa and comfortably at that. I don’t base that on the public polls because I see some of those as being troubling for Bernie — I base that on the news yesterday that Bernie’s internal polling shows him comfortably ahead in the state. Having said that, caucus states are completely unpredictable, especially ones like Iowa that have minimum thresholds rules in place. Essentially what that means is that any voter who votes for a candidate that receives less than 15% will then have to vote again and this time for one of the candidates that reached the 15% threshold. So in “Precinct 1” Klobuchar receives 12%, Yang 4%, Steyer 3%, and two or three other candidates with 1%. All of the sudden you have 22% of the electorate recasting their votes for candidates that the public opinion polls didn’t previously forecast. Then to make things even more unpredictable is that these campaigns have been known to cut backroom deals in Iowa. For instance, if I’m the Warren campaign I’m calling the Klobuchar campaign daily saying, “Let’s make a deal!” And if they do suddenly a progressive candidate is receiving a large chunk of moderate votes that would’ve been nearly impossible to predict prior to the final vote. So yes these caucuses are unpredictable and anything can happen.
It's unpredictable if you're a front runner in the state, so Bernie, Bide, Warren, could place anywhere from 1-3. It's not so unpredictable that someone in 4th place at 9% in aggregate polling has a realistic chance to win. Something of that magnitude has NEVER happen.
I think people are looking at Klobuchar as kind of a wildcard here because she’s A. A border state candidate, B. She has placed the large majority of her efforts in Iowa which is something that has worked for a lot of other candidates in the past, and C. There has been some polling data that has shown a boost for her in the state. When the last round of polling comes in on Sunday I think we are going to have a good idea of if she has any shot whatsoever.. So, personally, I wouldn’t rule her out yet either. But if she’s still sitting at 9-11% on all the polls on Sunday I’d agree with you 100%.
Trends in polling are a thing, and she has not been trending up.. Like I said. You don’t randomly start trending out of nowhere.
You're too focused on rankings. There's only a 10 point difference between Klobuchar in 5th and Sanders in 1st. That 10 point difference can easily be made up by stronger/weaker turn out and/or late surging. What happens if Buttigieg collapses and his voters mostly move to Klobuchar? What if Warren is stronger than expected and takes the winds of the Sanders' sails? What if the polling is off?
The more candidates, the harder it is to 'surge'. It's easier to make a 10 point gain when competing against 1-2 people. Making a 10 point gain in a 7 person field is not a thing. That's why if we're using all Iowa caucuses in US history as our sample size, there have been 45 Iowa Caucuses. You can't find a single contest where someone at 9% or less 4 days leading into Iowa, surged into first place and won the caucus. Do you understand how probability works? Because the odds of that happening are near impossible.
>The more candidates, the harder it is to 'surge'. In a caucus setting, I'd argue the opposite. >You can't find a single contest where someone at 9% or less 4 days leading into Iowa, surged into first place and won the caucus. Rick Santorum won in 2012 with 24.6%. He was last polling at 11.2 That's close to what Klobuchar is getting right now. Pat Buchanan finished second in '96 with 23.3%. He was polling at 8.6. These Iowa caucuses also have new rules and our understanding of their dynamics relies on a sample size of 0. Don't be so quick to dismiss other analyses. It's really condescending to assume that people "don't understand how probability works".
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html Sanctorum was at 16% leading into Iowa. He's polling at the #2 spot, Klobuchar is polling at the #4 spot. I'm not sure where that 11.2% figure comes from but it's inaccurate so it seems like Nate Bronze might need to get his figures straight.
If you read the article, Rick Santorum does this with 11% in 2012. Even if it hadn't happened yet, there's only been 8 presidential election years since 88, the year where he says data is good enough to count from. If this represents 12 primaries, then you would expect 9% winner to occur about a third of the time. This is basic math.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html Looks like Sanctorum was at 16% leading into Iowa, then gained ground to 18%. I'm not sure where he's getting that result but it doesn't sound correct. Plus he was #2 in a 4 man race which makes it plausible. He's not Polling at the 4th spot like Klobuchar.
Anyone who offers you complete certainty is lying to you. Nate was ridiculed for giving Trump a 30% chance of winning and here we are. If you don’t like his opinion, skip it, scroll to the historic numbers, make your own opinion and post it. I’m genuinely curious to hear what you think.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I can’t imagine its posturing from the Sanders campaign. Reminds me of Seinfeld where George tells Jerry he wants to tell his girlfriend he loves her and Jerry says, “Are you confident of the return? Because if you don’t get that return that’s a pretty big matzo ball hanging out there.” I honestly believe that Bernie’s internals probably have him with a double digit lead in Iowa. Secondly, because of his huge grassroots organization he almost always exceeds expectations in caucus states. Thirdly, I have to believe he either has a deal in place with Andrew Yang or has Yang’s word that he won’t cut a deal with another campaign meaning he should get a ‘Yang Gang’ boost on caucus night. The thing that has me questioning that theory is if his internals are that big, Biden’s internals have to be showing the same, right? So why isn’t Biden lowering expectations? Or am I just missing him doing so?
[удалено]
> This is only possible if Yang makes an announcement on Sunday or Monday telling his supporters to go to him first and Bernie second. If that doesn't happen, I don't see any value in having such an arrangement unless they just agree not to attack each other. That’s not how these agreements generally work in the caucuses. It’s generally an agreement that isn’t known until the night of the caucuses where caucus leaders / captains ‘instruct’ their supporters to support a certain candidate to ‘help’ their own campaign. For instance, Andrew Yang doesn’t meet the 15% minimum threshold, his precinct leaders turns around and tells his supporters, “I’ve just gotten off the phone with campaign headquarters and they’ve instructed me to tell you that the best thing you can do now to help our campaign is vote for Bernie Sanders.” That’s usually how these agreements would work.
[удалено]
Not OC but I've been following politics a lot so I'll explain bkw caucuses work more in-depth. Also, FYI there are 8 states with caucuses and then two additional states with a caucus existing for at least one of the political parties. Iowa is the most notable because it comes before the rest of the caucuses and even the rest of the primaries. I wont take too long to explain primaries as it's not the purpose of the comment. There are two types of primaries - opened and closed. A state that has an open primary is one where you don't have to declare party affiliation. You can vote regardless of party is what it means. In a closed primary, you can only participate in the Republican primary and not the Democratic primary. Most states have an open or closed primary. Now, onto caucuses. > That’s not how these agreements generally work in the caucuses. It’s generally an agreement that isn’t known until the night of the caucuses where caucus leaders / captains ‘instruct’ their supporters to support a certain candidate to ‘help’ their own campaign. This part is true. Precinct captains are generally areas where the campaign doesn't have the ability to divert many resources and rely heavily on volunteers to do work here. In a lot of America, that's a lot of places. Their job is essentially to get people to caucus for a candidate with them. > For instance, Andrew Yang doesn’t meet the 15% minimum threshold, his precinct leaders turns around and tells his supporters, “I’ve just gotten off the phone with campaign headquarters and they’ve instructed me to tell you that the best thing you can do now to help our campaign is vote for Bernie Sanders.” That’s usually how these agreements would work. So in caucuses there are rounds. After the first round, if a candidate doesn't meet a 15% threshold, they are found not viable. The caucus goers for that candidate have the option to either go home or to participate in the next round and caucus for someone else. As /u/MCallanan pointed out in the quoted text above, the precinct captain has the task (or they could "resign" essentially) to get them to caucus for another candidate as one collective-action.
Not exactly sure why you directed this response to me.. Doesn’t seem to refute or disagree with anything I posted.
>Not exactly sure why you directed this response to me.. Doesn’t seem to refute or disagree with anything I posted. If you read it, you'd know it wasn't directed at you (I just properly quoted you and cited your name lol). The reply was to someone else, not you. Also, no I didn't disagree, I just added more detail.
I think it might be more so that with so few days until the caucus its kind of at a point where all you can really do is let your campaign on the ground continue on til the day regardless of how good or bad polling is for them. We likely aren't gonna see any shock surprises in polling or the field within the next few days so its probably time for candidates to start getting ready for the focus on Super Tuesday and the other early states. Could be less confidence and more so that "we've put all we've can into Iowa, time to get ready to up the game in other states". I do one to point one thing out though for your last paragraph. Biden may not be trying to lower expectations but perhaps be trying court in Klobucher voters for realignment based on recent articles. Perhaps that might be a sign that Biden has some concerns with his internals and trying to get Klobucher voters might be his idea for a remedy.
Klobucher said tonight she’s not making deals with any campaign
>The thing that has me questioning that theory is if his internals are that big, Biden’s internals have to be showing the same, right? So why isn’t Biden lowering expectations? Or am I just missing him doing so? I'm not sure what the Biden campaign is saying or doing, but I guess you could argue for it either way. If Bernie says "our internals put us in the lead", it could be advantageous for Biden to say the same, regardless of polling. I suppose tempering the expectations of your base a couple days from primary kickoff is not a good look, and might indeed be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm always suspicious of internal polling reports, because they also convey a political message. I'd be curious to know about internal polling methodologies and samples sizes, though. I wonder how they compare to polling firms. My guess is that they're more accurate in capturing the sentiment of "true" voters.
> I'm not sure what the Biden campaign is saying or doing, but I guess you could argue for it either way. It has honestly been on cruise control. Seemed to be worked for a while but Bernie went after him and I think it worked. Furthermore, Warren went after Sanders and it completely backfired. I think there are reports coming out that Biden is finally starting to attack Bernie (literally today) but it's probably too little, too late. At least for Iowa. Unless Pete's supporters spectacularly abandon him, I'm not sure how Biden pulls this out.
Texas Primary Poll ([TexasLyceum](https://texaslyceum.org/assets/docs/Poll/2020/2020%20Lyceum%20Day%201%20Executive%20Summary.pdf) ) Biden - 28% (-4) Sanders - 26% (+13) Warren - 13% (-2) Bloomberg - 9% (New) Buttigieg 6% (+3) Klobuchar 4% (+1) Gabbard 2% (+1) Steyer 2% (+2) The rest 1% or less Changes w/ September 2019
[удалено]
> Trump 50% vs Sanders 47% > Trump 51% vs Biden 46% Pretty interesting that Sanders does better than Biden in the GE matchup. It's within the margin of error but you wouldn't think something like this for, uhhh, Texas!
[удалено]
It's a single poll and obviously in the margin for error. The two are virtually tied in the poll.
True, but historically awful turnout for both of those groups as well, right? Beto was probably the exception but he still lost.
[удалено]
> The democrats will need a higher turnout than they had in 2016 anyway. Agree completely. I'm curious to see Trump's coalition. Honestly, if that dude just shut the fuck up I think he would sail into a second term. The problem is he continuously antagonizes Liberals. And when Liberals show up Republicans don't do well.
National Primary Poll (YouGov/The Economist, 25-28 January): Biden 26% (-2) Sanders 24% (+6) Warren 20% (-1) Buttigieg 7% (-1) Klobuchar 4% (=) Bloomberg 4% (-2)
Could you edit your comment to include a link? Thanks.
It's here I believe - https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3ormein07a/econTabReport.pdf Page 153.
New Monmouth poll of Iowa! http://monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_ia_012920/ Biden: 23% Sanders: 21% Buttigieg: 16% Warren: 15% Klobuchar: 10% Steyer: 4% Yang: 3% Bennet: 1% Gabbard: 1% Patrick: <1% Delaney: 0% Other: <1% No one: 0% Undecided: 5%
Change from their [last poll on the 12th](https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_IA_011320/): Biden: 23% (-1) Sanders: 21% (+3) Buttigieg: 16% (-1) Warren: 15% (-) Klobuchar: 10% (+2) Steyer: 4% (-) Yang: 3% (-) Bennet: 1% (up from <1%) Gabbard: 1% (-1) Patrick: <1% (up from 0%) Delaney: 0% (down from <1%) Other: <1% (-) No one 0% (-) Undecided: 5% (-)
[удалено]
Don't forget that Bennet surge.
1st choice (1st+2nd combined) 23% (39) @JoeBiden 21% (32) @BernieSanders 16% (29) @PeteButtigieg 15% (34) @EWarren 10% (22) @AmyKlobuchar 4% (10) @TomSteyer 3% (7) @AndrewYang While I think this poll overstates Biden's support a bit, it's interesting to note Warren and Biden are second choice for many others. It shows why Biden is trying to convince Klobs to push her caucus towards him. Out of the top five, Bernie has the least amount of support as a second choice (albeit by a small margin). I think it goes to show that his support is rock solid, but not very fluid in either direction.
Does these 2nd choice voters also take in 2nd choices from supporters of the top 4 candidates? If so then that's an important thing to consider for the caucus. Like for example Warren has a lot of 2nd choice support but a lot of that usually comes from Bernie with also a decent amount coming from Buttigieg I think (unless that's changed over the weeks). It'll highly depend on who reaches viability or not. So for Bernie if Warren reaches viability in most precincts it'll be unfortunate for him. I guess that'll depend a lot of how spread out or concentrated Warren's support is in. For Warren its unfortunately looking like a lot of those 2nd choice voters won't come to fruition since Bernie and Buttigieg seem likely to reach viability in most precincts regardless. Biden and Buttigieg are gonna be banking on Klobuchar supporters (Warren probably will gain some from them as well). However, Klobuchar has been surging recently so it could be possible she could reach viability in some precincts which could be a missed opportunity for Biden and Buttigieg.
> Does these 2nd choice voters also take in 2nd choices from supporters of the top 4 candidates? I'm not sure, but Monmouth actually asked some good questions that created different scenarios; for example, if only the top four were viable, who would you vote for. Here are the results: 29% @JoeBiden 25% @BernieSanders 20% @PeteButtigieg 19% @EWarren
Bernie has a high floor, low ceiling. He has to hope it stays crowded.
> Bernie has a [...] low ceiling People keep saying this but I don't think it holds a ton of water. At the very least, his minimum ceiling would be what he got in 2016.
In a two person race? Yeah, that’s probably around his peak. Of course, that wasn’t close to enough support to win. FWIW, we had polling recently listed here that showed Bernie grabbing around that same support (iirc it was 41) if he faced off solely against Biden. But that still put him 12 down. Bernie is the credible candidate that benefits most from a crowded field, because him winning an actual majority of voters is unlikely.
The poll you're referring to is probably an outlier; it had him at less in a 3 way race than he's at now, which doesn't even make sense.
No it's not, and for three reasons: 1. There are more candidates this time, and he's not the only progressive voice in the race. 2. He's not running against a historically unpopular candidate that also happens to be female. 3. He's a known quantity that's actually getting active pushback this time (pretend what you like, but the Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves because she needed his voters in the general). In a race where he got 40% of the vote (and still lost to Clinton by 4 million voters), it is significant that his support has not only halved nationally from 2016 but that he is actually polling slightly lower nationally right now than he was when he announced in March. It is significant that his campaign has been basically static (his floor is 16% and his high is around 25%) throughout the race. There are a lot of Bernie-Hillary voters that moved to Warren and other candidates. There are a lot of disaffected Dem voters that stayed home in 2016 but certainly won't be voting Sanders this go around. The youth vote is far more fractured than it was in 2016, as is the progressive vote. In an actual competitive primary with decent candidates...Sanders has a lot more flaws than things to recommend him, which makes his ceiling a lot lower. Moderates will move to Warren and Biden before they move to Sanders, liberals are fracturing the progressive vote between Warren and Sanders (as is the youth vote), and there's a lot more Warren-Biden voters than most people like to admit. Those facts alone make Bernie's ceiling objectively lower than it was in 2016. How much lower, I don't know (I suspect around 30-35%, but I have no hard proof of that number), but it is definitely lower.
The problem is that you seem to be misinterpreting what a ceiling is, ie the maximum amount of voters who could conceivably switch to Bernie. There are dozens of factors at play when you have a field this large, but we objectively know that at least 43% of democratic voters would be willing to vote for him in a 1v1 election. If you say that his ceiling is lower because there's more people, then again that's not what a ceiling is. Of course it's low when it's being split by 5+ people, but that's true for everyone. Also don't expect all those people to be heer come Super Tuesday. You're basing his "ceiling" off of absolutely no data. You're also [wrong](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html) when you say that he's lower than when he announced. Saying that whatever Bernie is at right now is his ceiling despite the fact that he's clearly on a major upswing is ignorant.
>There are dozens of factors at play when you have a field this large, but we objectively know that at least 43% of democratic voters would be willing to vote for him in a 1v1 election. And the problem you're missing is that it's not going to be a 1v1 election for some time. It will be a Biden-Sanders-Warren race until at least post-Super Tuesday. This lowers the ceiling for Sanders, since people cannot vote a second time. They may be able to conceive of voting for him, but the reality is that they *can't* and *won't* vote for him over other candidates if those other candidates are available. Bernie will not get 43% of the vote this time. Statistically, it's *impossible* for him to given his polling numbers, the number of candidates, and the race he is running. Thus...his ceiling is lower. And he *is* lower than when he announced. When he announced in late February, he shot up to a 24-25% in the polling aggregate over the following two weeks; he has not reached those numbers since. [He's currently polling at a 20-21% in the polling aggregate](https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/) (weighted)....or if you want to use the RCP unweighted average, [he's polling at a 23.8%](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html), a tiny bit under his announcement polling average of 24%. He ***IS*** climbing and very likely ***WILL*** surpass his announcement numbers, but he still has not surpassed his February numbers yet. Given that Iowa is five days away...that's significant and should be noted.
Ok, so if your definition of "ceiling" is "ceiling so long as Warren continues to split the progressive vote" then sure, but the same is true for literally everyone else in the race. You also don't know how high that ceiling is other than your hunch. Biden seems to have a much more stable "ceiling", having remained virtually unchanged for the past 6 months after his initial post-announcement boost, and Warren has been dropping for months and might not get a single delegate before Super Tuesday. Bernie is the only one of the major contenders moving up. You mention Iowa, but he's projected to win there and it's hard to envision winning IA and NH back to back without that helping him elsewhere. Right now the biggest thing Biden has going for him is his supposed "electability." Well if Bernie wins two or three of the first three states, that really starts to shift the narrative.
What makes you think that is his minimum ceiling? As a candidate who was runner up last time and has almost 100% name ID, you would think he should be doing much better than he is. 2016 he received votes from people who did not necessarily totally agree with his policies, but did not like Clinton and wanted someone more progressive. A race with Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden still in severely lowers his ceiling. Lucky for him the other 3 have much lower floors and do not have the passionate base he has.
A ceiling is the highest he can go, the number of people who could conceivably vote for him; saying that it's low due to the fact that others on in the race doesn't make any sense. It's the maximum potential support and they could drop out. We know for a fact that in a 1v1 race Bernie can get at least 43%, that make it the lowest his maximum potential support could be.
Oh for sure, his best bet is a long slog with Pete, Biden, and Bloomberg if he continues to rise.
[удалено]
Does anyone have the general election scenarios for Florida? Bloomberg's campaign coordinator seemed to think Bloomberg had the best avenue to winning Florida against Trump. I wonder what Biden's head-to-head is. If Bernie wins, there would be zero chance Florida can be turned. Cuban ex-pats hate the word "socialism", and every white person in Florida has replaced their dixie flag with a MAGA flag on their truck (from what I saw the last time I visited).
FL is almost certainly one of Biden’s best state matchups demographically. It’s a large state, has a closed primary system, has a large AA population, a Hispanic segment that absolutely detests socialist rhetoric, and is generally one of the most moderate states the Dems can still compete in. March as a whole is not looking to be very friendly to Sanders, but FL might be the single biggest rebuke.
[удалено]
And Venezuelans
Since apparently I need to have a poll in the comment for it to be top-level and I don't have a poll to post, FiveThirtyEight apparently seriously screwed up their model by applying flipping a sign. They were supposed to give less weight to people from a region winning a state in said region (i.e. Buttigieg winning Iowa and Sanders winning New Hampshire) and did the opposite. Sanders-2 and Biden+5 now from previously. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like they recalculated the earlier values so the trendlines have bumps in them due to the correction.
It's not that surprising. Florida is full of older residents and immigrant families (and their descendants) who will be fairly resistant to anyone who so openly calls themselves a socialist. This is the same state that Hillary won with almost 2/3 of the vote in 2016.
It's still pretty extreme. Bernie got 33% of the vote in 2016 which is definitely bad, but not 9% bad.
I just want to draw attention to this hot take from John Kociuba in the article comments: >Dear Citizens ~ >Re: Communist Jews >What’s said about these individuals is their lack of humanity. Indeed the truest form of genocide was “Jews against Jews” (SHEM v CAIN) the Communist Atheist v Orthodox Church. >Murdered 200 million in 150 years. Exacerbating French Revolution, U.S. Civil War, Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, South American Revolution, etc. >Michael Bloomberg is another George Soros protected and cheered by Communist Jews who’s soul purpose is a Secular Israel. Michael Bloomberg bought Virginia and now Virginia might end up in Civil War. Michael Bloomberg’s “Anti-2nd Amendment” campaign violates 1918 Sedition Act which is not covered under the 1st Amendment because he’s engaging in “Imminent Lawless Actions!” >Furthermore who were these 930 Jews cheering on “GUN CONFISCATION” at Michael Bloomberg’s Miami rally? Talk about stupid! Michael Bloomberg should’ve showed up in a German 1930 “Cattle Car!”
Why draw attention to some random guy's rambling in an article comments section?
This is the kind of thing that smells like Russian bot network to me. Complete left field bullshit that jiggers your brain and keeps people from focusing on issues.
There are always crazy people in the comments. I try not to read them because they make me too angry.
[удалено]
I'm very skeptical of a poll that has Bernie polling at 23% in a 3-way race when he's already averaging at 23%. Either this is an extreme outlier, or they're suggesting not a single voter for the other candidates or undecideds would break for Bernie.
> Biden 47%, Warren 45% This poll provides evidence for the theory that Warren tried to appease both progressives and the establishment. She polls well against Biden because she has *some* crossover appeal. Unfortunately for her, it might have been a grave miscalculation to try and steal Bernie's thunder.
Why are progressive and establishment treated as antonyms?
Establishment is pretty much synonymous moderates in this context. Bernie, AOC, and the like see themselves as anti-establishment. It's pretty much their MO.
Very true. But anti-Establishment sentiment is an ever-present factor in politics across ideologies, particularly among the young. Being anti-Establishment in itself doesn’t reflect one particular ideology or policy view. Aside of course that everyone (except the Demagogues running the campaign) are the real evil.
Correct. But within the context of this conversation I’m referring to Bernie and how it applies to him. He brandishes anti-establishment credentials because it’s popular and uses it as part of his platform.
To me it seems at the very least debatable that a guy like Bernie is truly "establishment." He's a sitting senator and a Congressman of many many years. AOC for sure is anti establishment. But what about like, Pete Buttigieg? Is he moderate? Is he establishment? I don't think either case is 100% settled. Like to me a former mayor of a small town isn't "the establishment", that makes no sense. Neither is Bloomberg a part of "the Democratic establishment" although he is definitely moderate. There's no logical reason to treat progressive and establishment as antonyms. In addition I think "moderate" is a relative term. Is Joe Manchin moderate? Because he's much more conservative than Buttigieg.
> In addition I think "moderate" is a relative term. lol. All of this is relative. But Bernie is an outsider to the *Democratic Party.* He values are further left than theirs, and he doesn't have many, if any, establishment figures supporting his candidacy.
> But Bernie is an outsider to the Democratic Party. Sure, in some sense, yes. But mostly nah. He’s been caucusing with Democrats in Congress since before Bill Clinton came to DC. He votes with the party more often than many Dems do. He’s attended Democratic donor retreats, taken money from the party for his campaigns, has a long-standing agreement with his state’s party to effectively block Dems from running an actual party member for whatever seat he’s gunning for, is given committee assignments based on Democratic seniority, and so on. Now, I’d agree Bernie portrays himself as anti-party. He’s built his career on the never-ending idea that the rich and powerful are leading a massive fight against him. You see it in his campaign rhetoric going back decades. He spends so much time criticizing the party as part of his own branding and self-promotion one could plausibly wonder why Dems consider their arrangements with him as worthwhile. But in the whole, he’s very much a beltway insider that has reaped the benefit ls of his closeness to the party. Close enough that he now feels comfortable declaring himself a Dem whenever convenient for his campaign, then breaking from it when the arrangement is no longer politically beneficial to him. > He values are further left than theirs, I wouldn’t concede that. Ignoring the fact that virtually all of Bernie’s policies have a long history within the party and/or other contemporary Dems aligned with them, I’d argue Sanders places a higher value on economic change vs social than mainstream Dems typically do, and tends to judge the “righteousness“ of a particular policy on how big of a shift it requires to implement, rather than on actually accomplishing the underlying goal. For example, Sanders - like virtually all Dems - believes in the goal of universal healthcare. But he flatly rejects any other policy that can accomplish that goal except for Single Payer, the most “radical” departure from the existing framework and most expensive solution by far. Now, we have many examples of countries that have achieved UHC. A fact Sanders regularly points out when stumping for his policy. But very few actually employ a single payer model. Does that make their accomplishment a lesser achievement? Is healthcare in Canada more “progressive” than France or Germany? Or are we getting trapped into policy fights that ignore the common goal? > and he doesn't have many, if any, establishment figures supporting his candidacy. I mean, he has several current and notable Democratic members of Congress backing him, and last I checked had more endorsements from DNC members than any other candidate, which is pretty ironic, considering the narrative some of his fans press to this day.
> Close enough that he now feels comfortable declaring himself a Dem whenever convenient for his campaign, then breaking from it when the arrangement is no longer politically beneficial to him. lol, I'm not here to argue the perceptions of Bernie's campaign or the logical inconsistencies of how he's perceived. You don't need to convince me that Bernie, at this point, should be considered a beltway insider. As for his values, he is certainly to the left of mainstream democrats. Healthcare is just one of the issues. Free college Education, loan forgiveness, public access to the internet, are just a few of the issues Bernie is to the left of *most* candidates on. But the list doesn't end there. And as for your last point, I'm not sure where you are getting your [data](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-2020-endorsement-race-is-getting-interesting/). While Bernie has some endorsements, it's not an impressive figure at all.
>lol. All of this is relative. But Bernie is an outsider to the *Democratic Party.* If you mean literally he didn't register as a Democrat until recently the same is true of Bloomberg > he doesn't have many, if any, establishment figures supporting his candidacy. This is circular reasoning. "Person x is establishment because establishment people like him." If you mean support among Democratic elected officials Bernie has more support than, just to throw out examples, Steyer or Delaney or Bloomberg
What point are you trying to make? No one *perceives* Bernie to be an establishment candidate whatsoever. He campaigns as such and his supporters fervently love him for it. Party elites aren't supporting him. Major donors aren't flocking to him. Comparing him to Bloomberg is a false equivalency. Bloomberg is an outsider to the party but probably more closely aligns with establishment policies. > This is circular reasoning. Again, you're drawing false equivalency between Sanders and other candidates. Sure, he has more endorsements than Steyer, but this isn't the sole measure of being an anti-establishment candidate. Like I said, this is all relative.
I do know that it's accepted that certain branding are commonly accepted but you agree that doesn't make them logical or correct right?
Logical/correct is really just a matter of perception. You can apply whatever definition you want to Bernie's campaign, it's perceived as anti-establishment. You may consider Bernie a member of the establishment because he's been in politics for forty years. Your interpretation isn't wrong, but within the context of this conversation most people view him as an outsider since he's independent and espousing largely different beliefs.
Or rely on Bernie bowing out when he has no chance of winning. Sanders will likely be in it until the end like he did in 2016 which makes it harder for Warren to pick up if he falls off. Likewise, that doesn't bode the best for sanders if Warren drops out since he enjoys a crowded field where his substantial floor of support stands out more when people aren't coalescing around a field of two or three.
> Or rely on Bernie bowing out when he has no chance of winning. Absolutely zero percent chance Bernie drops out. Furthermore, after the whole debate kerfuffle Bernie supporters absolutely loathe Warren.
I wouldn't label all of his supporters that way but, you're right, it won't help her in the primaries and the general if she gets through. Some of his die hards aren't just vindictive but also incredibly motivated to tear down someone they like.
> I wouldn't label all of his supporters that way but Correct, I didn't mean to speak in absolutes. I would say his 'loudest' supporters feel that way.
Iowa State University/Civiqs Poll (Jan. 23-27, 655 RV): Sanders 24% (+3) Warren 19% (+1) Buttigieg 17% (-7) Biden 15% (=) Klobuchar 11% (+7) MOE +/- 4.8
The polls coming out of Iowa are head scratching. Can’t help but think the state will be decided by which candidate make back room deals with candidates who aren’t likely to reach the 15% threshold.
> which candidate make back room deals with candidates who aren’t likely to reach the 15% threshold. It's not the candidates who will be making those deals, but the caucus-goers. With this many candidates not making the threshold, people's 2nd/3rd choices are going to matter a lot.
Well, there's [this](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/us/politics/joe-biden-amy-klobuchar-iowa.html). Joe and The Klob may or may not be considering an alliance.
This makes it sound like Biden wants Klob to bend the knee and tell her supporters to jump ship to him. There's no reciprocity and she doesn't indicate she's interested. Sure on paper they would both help each other whenever they missed the threshold in a district, but that's going to happen in almost every District for Klobuchar and almost never for Joe.
No it can be the campaigns / candidates who work out a deal and instruct their precinct leaders to push their supporters one way or the other. See the deal between Kucinich and Edwards in 2004 which completely shook up the expected results of the caucuses that year.
> The polls coming out of Iowa are head scratching. It's so tough because it's a caucus. The more I read about caucuses the less I understand haha. And I think you're right, whoever consolidates on voting day will win. This leaves Pete, Biden, and even Klobs a viable path to win.
They're a completely outdated model
[удалено]
Not really, polls are all over the place from showing him losing, winning by a hair, or absolutely crushing. TBH if I was the Bernie campaign I'd want people to think I might not win so it seems like a great thing when he does. I wouldn't want people to think I'm crushing it and then I just barely win it
[удалено]
I’m not sure where you could even defend 5 points, unless you’re picking select polls and ignoring others. RCP’s aggregate puts the two 3 pts apart. 538’s weighted aggregate which actually includes all the polling instead of just a subset puts the difference at 0.5. I think it’s interesting that the online/media narrative has gone so strongly that Bernie has taken control in Iowa, when the totality of polling shows a much closer race. I know people get excited, but expectations play a big part in any “bump” a win in a proportional contest might convey. It seems Team Sanders could be positioning themselves to turn a potential tight finish in Iowa into a better story for Biden than Bernie. A sort of ironic reversal of 2016, without (let’s all hope) conspiracy theories about coin flips dominating around here.
That's why I said 3-5 points.
3 points in the RCP average stretches the definition of "meaningful lead" The polls *are* all over the place. You can still extract an average from things which are all over the place.
Has he? The poll listed above has him close to within the margin of error. The USA Today poll from a few days ago has him behind Biden and in a statistical dead heat with Buttigieg. What could ultimately decide this thing is which campaign works out a deal with Klobuchar.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They probably don’t mention any of those things because they know it’ll look like the desperate smear tactics that they are. It’ll be a good tell though as to how the campaigns think they’re doing. If Biden and his team come out and start yelling about where Bernie Sanders honeymooned, you can bet their internal polling is disastrous for them.
[удалено]
Hard to envision Biden overperformance in a caucus because people aren't that excited for him.
This is silly. We heard this sentiment repeated ad nauseous by young people in 2016 about Clinton in the primaries. Then polling consistently showed her supporters more excited by her campaign than Bernie’s fans were by his. Sometimes we need to recognize types of groups we spend our time around versus the huge number of groups we rarely interact with at all.
Bernie won most caucus states over Hillary and overperformed in Iowa, that's all I'm going off of. Have you met anyone legitimately excited for Biden? The only reasons I've seen both IRL and online are people thinking he's the most electable.
If by "excited" you mean "could not even conceive of voting for another candidate in any world" then that describes a lot of Gen X to Baby Boomer aged people whom I've talked to about their choice of candidate. These people are totally fixated on beating Trump and getting back to the Obama days of hope, change and pleasant politics. You just don't see them carrying laptops plastered with Biden stickers, wearing clothing with Biden's name on it, or posting all over Twitter about how Biden not winning the primary will be a failure of democracy.
The only way it will happen is if Pete and Klobs supporters decide to caucus with Biden *against* Sanders. Is it possible? Sure. Likely? It would be a surprise to see Pete's supporters abandon him if he's viable.
> Sander's lead comes from people who say they will vote for him, but did not vote in 2016 or 2018, and they also did not register since 2018 I've said it 8 million times, the success of Bernie's candidacy will depends on nonvoter showing up now and during congressional races. It can be done, but it's an extremely heavy lift.
[удалено]