Sanders And Warren Rising In The Polls, But Biden Still Dominates
It's time once again to don an ascot, pick up the binoculars, and turn our attention back to the horses running around the 2020 Democratic presidential racetrack. Enough time has passed from the second debate round that the public has had a chance to digest the results and react accordingly. So let's dive right back in to parsing the poll numbers.
Campaign News
The 2020 Democratic presidential field shrunk today, as John Hickenlooper dropped out of the race. He becomes the fourth such candidate to do so (after Richard Ojeda, Eric Swalwell, and Mike Gravel), but even with four gone there are still a whopping 23 candidates left in the running.
A little over a week ago, I took a cursory look at the polling after the second debate, and introduced a contest to name which candidates would drop out before the third debate. I have to pat myself on the back a little, because my guess was (in the order of when they would drop out): John Hickenlooper, Steve Bullock, Michael Bennet, Seth Moulton, and Bill de Blasio. So far I'm one for one, in other words.
I probably won't go five for five, though, if Bill de Blasio is to be believed. He was asked whether he'd drop out before the next debate round recently, and said he'd stick around until at least the fourth debate, so if that's true that knocks 20 percent of my list out of the running.
What is being heavily speculated about is Hickenlooper making a run for the Senate seat in Colorado that's up for election next year. He's pretty much a shoo-in if he decides to run, as polling now indicates that he'd not only wipe out the Democratic field for the nomination but he'd also soundly beat the Republican currently holding the seat. Colorado has gotten a lot bluer since Cory Gardner won in 2014, so while any Democrat might have a decent chance, Hickenlooper would easily have the best shot of any of them. Hickenlooper hasn't said he's running yet, but he may make his announcement within a few weeks, after he recuperates from his presidential bid.
There are many who are urging other presidential candidates to consider taking the same route: quit the presidential race and run for Senate instead. Steve Bullock of Montana and both Beto O'Rourke and Julián Castro of Texas are also being urged to consider this possibilities. Bullock may decide to jump races, but it's more doubtful that either of the two Texans will, at this point.
It's August, so all eyes are turning to Iowa, as the candidates run the gauntlet of deep-fried-food-on-a-stick and speaking to an ad hoc audience on top of hay bales. Nobody stumbled badly during all of this, and two candidates were favorably mentioned by most of the media for having excellent ground games in the state: Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.
Donald Trump's self-serving visits to Dayton and El Paso gave the Democratic candidates a rare gift, because they served to focus the political world on how awful Trump is, thus allowing Democrats to speak with one voice once again. This killed off yet another round of "Democrats In Disarray" stories in the press.
There will be no debates in August, but one deadline is fast approaching, as the official cutoff for qualifying in the polls is looming. Many candidates have already qualified on one criteria (donations received), but the polling one is a higher hurdle and in this round of debates the candidates must clear both hurdles, not just one of them. We'll soon know who will make it onto the stage next time around, though. So far, there are eight or nine who seem likely to qualify, as well as two or three others who might squeak by. This means there might just be one debate, although if the number goes above 10 we may get two debates once again.
With that to look forward to, let's break down where the candidates currently stand in the polling. As usual, our figures are taken from the Real Clear Politics poll-of-polls rolling daily average page.
[Editorial Note: We took down these numbers earlier in the day, but by the time we started editing the article, Real Clear Politics had added another poll into the mix. This means that all the numbers below are slightly off, because they don't include the latest Fox News poll. But it was too late to go back and entirely rewrite the article, so we'll hope you'll forgive the minor discrepancies.]
First Tier
Joe Biden continues to dominate the polling, although his numbers have moved around a bit. However, to keep things in perspective, Biden's movement in the polls up or down is larger than most candidates' absolute polling value -- because Biden is so far ahead, he can weather a lot more hits to his polling, in other words.
Biden currently stands at 30.4 percent, which is down roughly two points from the bump he got after the second debate. He's had a string of minor gaffes in the past few weeks, which might be causing some second thoughts among the voters. But he still absolutely dominates the polling, resting with a comfortable double-digit lead over his nearest challengers.
The other two candidates in the top tier this time around both seem to have gotten some solid gains after the second debate, and this trend may not have topped out quite yet. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are now running neck-and-neck, both climbing in the polls. Today, Sanders is up over Warren, 17.2 percent to 16.8 percent, but Warren has been up over Bernie for most of the previous week (just a few days back, Warren was at 18.5 percent). As noted, both of these trendlines seem to be holding for now, so it'll be interesting to see whether either of them (or both, for that matter) can top 20 percent.
What's interesting statistically is that Sanders and Warren together now equal more voters than support Biden. Adding the two candidates' poll numbers gives 34.0 percent, over three points higher than where Biden is polling. This is an interesting measure if you believe that eventually either Warren or Sanders is going to have to bow out if either one of them is going to have a chance to beat Biden. It's a pretty easy assumption to make that if one of the two progressive candidates drops out, almost all of their voters will flock to the other. And if that happened now, whichever one was left in the race would currently be beating Biden.
That's all mostly speculation, though, because it will be a long time before either Warren or Sanders considers ending their campaign. I wouldn't expect either one of them to do so until after Super Tuesday, in fact. So this is all premature to speculate about, really. But this is the first time Sanders plus Warren has equalled more than Biden, so it's worth pointing out in the abstract, for now.
Second Tier
As always, it's tough to draw the dividing lines between the tiers, and since the last full rundown of the race we wrote, Kamala Harris has slipped back to the second tier once again. It's tough to draw the line at the bottom of this tier as well, but for now we're going to do so at around 1.5 percent in the polls, which lets in Cory Booker but excludes a few others who may actually be on the third debate stage.
While Harris is at the top of this second tier, Pete Buttigieg is close behind her. Then there's a big gap before we get to Beto O'Rourke and Booker, who are hovering just above the entire pack of the third tier.
Kamala Harris has seen the most movement in the polls after a debate performance, but unfortunately for her while this rocketed her up after the first debate, ever since then it's been heading right back down. She now stands at only 8.0 percent, quite a fall from being briefly in second place (behind Biden) after the first debate. Nobody's quite sure why Harris hasn't been able to hold onto her post-debate bump, though. Her second debate performance wasn't as good as her first, but then again it was far from terrible. She held her own and survived many attacks from minor candidates on the stage. But her polling drop began even before the second debate, and has continued ever since. In the past week or so, Harris has seemed to hit a plateau at around eight percent, which would mean (if it continues) that she has only held onto a single percent of her rise (she was polling around seven percent before the first debate). Harris is doing better in Iowa, though, so perhaps a third solid debate performance will gain her back some of the ground she's lost.
Pete Buttigieg saw a small bounce after the second debate round, but it only put him up above six percent. He's now fallen back a bit, to 5.6 percent. This puts him squarely in the range he's been hovering in for the past few months. He's got a core of supporters that love him, but he hasn't been able to expand that base much at all. He does well in the debates, but in a rather non-flashy way that obviously hasn't convinced many that he's the guy to take on Trump next year.
While both Buttigieg and Harris are comfortably in the range between five and ten percent, Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker are fighting it out to lead the pack of candidates consistently polling below five percent. Both had an opportunity to show some leadership after the mass shootings, O'Rourke because he's from El Paso and Booker because gun control has always been one of his key issues. O'Rourke essentially suspended his campaign, missing out on many events in Iowa, in order to travel back home and help his community heal. He re-entered the race today with a strong speech on gun safety laws that included a buyback program for assault weapons -- a stance not every Democrat has taken. Booker has also been a strong voice on gun safety legislation since the shootings as well, but neither one of them has had any breakout moments as a direct result. O'Rourke's polling slipped while he was away from the campaign trial, but is back up to 3.0 percent today. Booker is holding steady at only 1.8 percent.
Third Tier
Then there's everyone else. Minus Hickenlooper, now.
Only four of the third tier candidates are even polling above a single percentage point: Amy Klobuchar (1.2 percent), Andrew Yang (1.2), Julián Castro (1.0), and Tulsi Gabbard (1.0). All the rest of them are polling in fractions of a percent at best, and zero percent at worst. For the record, here is the list of the other dozen candidates still running: Michael Bennet, Steve Bullock, Bill de Blasio, John Delaney, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jay Inslee, Wayne Messam, Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, Joe Sestak, Tom Steyer, and Marianne Williamson.
Now, some of these will make the third and fourth debate stages, but most will not. The bar for entry is still pretty low -- only chalking up four approved polls with two percent support or better -- and due to the fluctuating nature of the absolute lowest end of the polling, some of these candidates have already qualified. But most of them will have to make a clear decision within the next few weeks. Do they stay in even if they won't be on the next debate stage and continue to hope for a miracle in the polls, or do they follow Hickenlooper's lead and gracefully bow out before they are forced to by financial realities? I've already made my guesses (that Bullock, Bennet, Moulton, and de Blasio will all exit before the third debate), but there's still time to make your own predictions, down in the comments.
Conclusions
While worries have surfaced over Joe Biden's ability to take on Donald Trump, he is still leading the pack by a lot. Biden's numbers are going to have to fall a lot further than they so far have if anyone else is even going to have a chance at beating him. He is seen as the most electable by many Democratic voters, and his head-to-head polling against Trump bears this out.
There's currently a tie in the "progressive lane," with Warren and Sanders neck-and-neck -- and both rising a bit in the polls. How high this bump goes is going to be interesting, but if it tops out below 20 percent then neither one are any real worry for Biden, yet.
The biggest mystery in the polling so far is why Kamala Harris couldn't hold on to the progress she made after her first debate performance. Maybe voters dug into her history after initially being impressed with her in the debate, and didn't like what they saw there. Or maybe she just failed to capitalize on the polling bump as well as she could have. While most of the candidates have seen remarkably stable polling (for better or for worse) so far, Harris has been moving the polls in a big way. Unfortunately for her, she not only had the most impressive spike so far but she also now has seen one of the biggest slides downward to match it. She obviously has the ability to catch fire, but she's got to be able to lock in such support when it happens. It'll be interesting to see what tactics she tries in the third debate.
There are many Democratic candidates in the race whose appeal in the media is outsized, when compared to their appeal to actual voters. The biggest examples of this are at the bottom of the polls (Kirsten Gillibrand, most obviously), but the candidates in fifth, sixth, and seventh place are also prime examples. Pete Buttigieg, Beto O'Rourke, and Cory Booker have all garnered a whole lot of good press during their campaigns, even what could be described as "fawning coverage" at times. Buttigieg has at least shown some ability to translate this into donations and support, but the other two have fallen far behind where you'd expect them to be, if you just read the media reporting on their candidacies so far.
Within a very short period, we'll know who has qualified for the third debate stage and who hasn't. There could be as many as 12 candidates who make the grade, which would lead to a hard choice for those hosting the debate: split the field once again and have two debates of six candidates each, or cram them all onto the same stage (and perhaps lengthen the time) on a single night. Either choice is going to be criticized ("We want to see all the frontrunners together!" versus "With so many on the stage, you don't get to hear any one of them for more than a few minutes!").
Since the criteria for the fourth debate is currently exactly the same as the third debate, we won't see any winnowing until the fifth debate -- which should hopefully solve the problem and put the Democrats on track for single-night debates from that point onward. But that won't happen for months.
In the meantime, there will be further winnowing of the field as more and more of the minor candidates either decide on their own that the race is hopeless, or are forced into such a decision by empty campaign warchests. We're down to only (!) 23 candidates with the loss of Hickenlooper, and hopefully that number will continue to shrink in the coming weeks.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
and yet, everybody loves pie!
@cw,
if there's really that much variance between the top and bottom of the second tier, may i humbly suggest that adding an extra tier might make the categories more representative?
JL
Without being as aggressive as Don H., I have to say I read this piece thinking: Why? Why do we have debates and polling and 23-odd 'candidates' for the Democratic nomination six to eight months - MONTHS - before the first primary election or caucus?
Why are we saying that a candidate has "30.4" percent support in the polls, as if that implied some kind of precision, months - MONTHS - before any kind of actual election by the voters?
I read that the political media regularly preface these reports by noting that the vast majority of the electorate has no idea who these people are or what their positions are, and that the 'debates' don't really help with this because the hosts and the media coverage frame the telecasts as 'gotcha' contests to see who "won the debate" rather than "what the candidates really think about the issues".
When did this happen? I remember, because I am an incipient geezer, a time when the Democratic contest came to life about February of the election year, a month or so before the New Hampshire primary. And even then the British or other parliamentary-style countries were laughing at us for having an eight-month election season, when they did it in six weeks.
Liberals, at least, talk about public campaign finance laws and limits on contributions, etc. Do any liberals favor strict limits on the election season, say a four month campaign from July to November?
@jm from ct,
if people are watching and businesses are buying ad time, i guess it's just the american way.
Most people aren't paying attention anyway. The real shake out isn't driven by debate qualification, it is driven by excitement when the other 90% of primary voters engage sometime early next year.
Harris and Booker should drop out because we need them in the Senate.
Heh.
CW
I have to pat myself on the back a little, because my guess was (in the order of when they would drop out): John Hickenlooper, Steve Bullock, Michael Bennet, Seth Moulton, and Bill de Blasio.
I have to pat yourself on the back a lot because you sure called Hickenlooper. I am duly impressed since I thought it would be nobody!
I probably won't go five for five, though, if Bill de Blasio is to be believed.
Don't feel bad, though, I can't go five for five either since my five were (in this order):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
So far I am only wrong by John Hickenlooper, and you are looking pretty good! ;) *laughs*
CW: It's a pretty easy assumption to make that if one of the two progressive candidates drops out, almost all of their voters will flock to the other. And if that happened now, whichever one was left in the race would currently be beating Biden.
Oh, yes, things are infinitely easy to assume; however, according to recent/running Morning Consult polling, the second-choice candidate of the majority of Sanders supporters is actually Joe Biden at 30%, with Warren as second choice of 27% and 7% to Kamala Harris.
As far as Warren's supporters, Bernie Sanders actually is their top second choice with 23%, with 20% saying Kamala Harris would be their second-choice candidate and a very robust 19% of Warren's supporters picking Joe Biden.
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/
Scroll down to "Second Choice" and hover over the candidate... fun stuff that is updated regularly. :)
Kick -7
Biden's 2nd choice pull among the Progressive Wing is very good news for Biden and the Democratic Party in general. Much lower fratericide factor than I would have expected.
I've bookmarked the Morningconsult.
Russ,
(From previous commentary)
My being OK with them owning a gun isn’t the issue. If they are cleared by law enforcement and mental health professionals, then they can purchase a gun if they choose to.
So, if a person passes a background check, you're OK with them purchasing a gun..
OK, we are in agreement...
Now, we just need to get Democrats to encompass mental health checks in those background checks. Open up mental health records to LEOs doing gun purchase/carry background checks..
Agreed???
No, we are talking about PREVENTING future crimes.
But what's the best way to prevent future crimes??
Violating someone's constitutional right??
Or
Opening up mental health records to background checks??
What the Left proposes is akin to making marijuana illegal (ban it) in response to a few people die'ing from marijuana..
Or banning/restricting cars for EVERYONE, just because a drunk driver or terrorist kills a couple dozen people..
The proposals that Democrats want target EVERYONE, rather than the few who are actually the threats..
In Australia, authorities targeted the tool used..
And more people died in mass murder events than died before the mass murder event that prompted the ban...
It's like the mayor of that city where all the cops were shot.. (Philly??)
He is screaming that we need laws to prevent things like this from happening.
We ALREADY have laws designed to prevent that. Yet, the scumbag disobeyed the law.. Is there ANY reason to suspect that the next scumbag will obey the law???
No...
So, like Kirk did with the mountain people, arm them so they can fight back..
It makes no sense to disarm the law-abiding ones in favor of laws that the scumbags won't obey anyways.
If a voter chooses to vote for Beto solely because of those “violent fantasies”, then they are majorly F’d up! But I don’t know of anyone who would vote for a candidate based solely on a single statement they made 20 - 25 years ago.
And yet, you want to prevent a person from exercising their constitutional right, based on something that might have been written 20-25 years ago..
Shirley, based on these writings, Beto should release his mental health records..
Wouldn't you agree???
Primary function is very relevant! Cars are used by millions of Americans every day without injury.
How is that relevant to deaths??
Car makers never tout how many people can be run over by a car going from 0-60mph in under a minute.
But they DO tout speed and power.. Just like gun makers tout speed (reload/recycle) and power (muzzle velocity)
But that's not the point.
Cars CAN kill.. We know this to be true.
The fact that they are not designed to kill is not relevant to the fact that they can..
If the goal is to save lives, then WHAT EVER takes the lives should be examined..
Isn't that no logical??
Cars deaths are almost always accidental.
It's that "almost" that ruins your argument. :D
It's a bona fide fact that people have used cars as an instrument of mass-murder..
Every argument you make against guns can be made against cars.. Right up to the number of deaths they cause per year..
It doesn't matter whether it's "accidental" or not.. It doesn't matter what the tool was created for.. It kills..
But you can't ban cars because that will be ridiculous..
And, here in the US with the 2nd Amendment, banning guns is equally ridiculous..
And if “dead is dead, whether by gun or by car”, then why would you exclude suicides? Dead is dead is what YOU said!
Fine.. We can include suicides.. It's irrelevant to my argument..
Which is, many MANY things cause death in this country.. By concentrating on guns, Democrats prove that they are not about saving lives.. They are about pushing their agenda...
I am sure you agree that there will never be a gun ban in this country..
And, let's say Democrats get their Red Flag laws and the 100% (up from 99%) background checks on every gun purchase..
You and I both know that won't stop the next mass shooting..
What will be the Democrat Party's argument then??
What WOULDN'T IT BE NICE anti-gun laws will Democrats want then??
Where does it end??
For the record, I don't have a problem with Red Flag laws or 100% background..
The former has promise and that latter will change nothing..
As long as the Red Flag laws invoke VERY SERIOUS criminal and civil penalties for those who misuse the law or make bad-faith accusations, I honestly believe it will be a good thing..
For the record, I don't have a problem with Red Flag laws or 100% background..
The former has promise and that latter will change nothing..
The danger to the increasing the background checks is that it gives an inch which will prompt the anti-gun nuts to try and take a mile...
As illustrated perfectly here:
http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/once-upon-a-time-an-tale-from-the-internet/
So, in THAT sense, I oppose the increased background checks. Not because of what it will accomplish (it won't accomplish anything) but because it will be used as a stepping stone to further laws that I WILL oppose..
So, with that in mind, here is my proposal..
100% Background checks.. No loopholes..
Red Flag laws with SEVERE criminal and civil penalties for bad-faith actors..
A moratorium on all anti-gun laws for a period of 10 years...
Agreeable???
I am betting that no one here will find that agreeable.. :D
Re Weigantians' perpetual preoccupation with polls, are these by any chance the same polls that gave Hillary a 100% chance and Trump a zero % chance in 2016??
Re Weigantians' perpetual preoccupation with polls, are these by any chance the same polls that gave Hillary a 100% chance and Trump a zero % chance in 2016??
In all fairness to Weigantians, this far out, polls are really the only thing to talk about.. :D
Having said that, you are correct... Despite their obvious fallibility, polls are the big thing around here.. :D
CRA-12
Name one professional poll that gave those odds. Trump beat the odds. It happens.
Michale,
Now, we just need to get Democrats to encompass mental health checks in those background checks. Open up mental health records to LEOs doing gun purchase/carry background checks..
Agreed???
That sounds great until you realize that unless the person has sought medical help for psychological issues, they won’t have mental health records to review. What happens when a person is cleared, so they purchase a gun and then has a mental breakdown a week later? This is why there needs to be a national registry for firearms in this country. It is the best way for law enforcement to be aware if they are going to a place where the owner has an arsenal of weapons. It’s also the best way for law enforcement to be able to remove guns from homes of patients being involuntarily committed for a psych evaluation.
Or banning/restricting cars for EVERYONE, just because a drunk driver or terrorist kills a couple dozen people..
But, again, no one is proposing banning all guns! What has happened when cars have killed people is that we created new laws requiring cars be made safer.
We required seatbelts be installed for each passenger in every car.
We wrote laws requiring car owners to drive at speeds deemed safe for neighborhoods.
Cars that were found to contain flaws in their designs can be recalled by the government.
We don’t allow certain vehicles to be driven on the public roadways because they are deemed too dangerous.
And while we have no issue with making cars safer, gun users freak out at the mere mention of discussing gun safety!
The gun lobby has gotten laws passed preventing guns from being reviewed by the Consumer Product Safety Administration.
The Dickey Act prevents our health science researchers from researching gun violence and offering data on ways to combat it.
The proposals that Democrats want target EVERYONE, rather than the few who are actually the threats..
Of course they do, because every gun owner is a law abiding gun owner until they are not! The Philly shooter was unlike the majority of mass shooters in that he actually had a criminal record prior to this incident.
But that's not the point.
Cars CAN kill.. We know this to be true.
The fact that they are not designed to kill is not relevant to the fact that they can..
Actually, their design is relevant because we do all that we can to assure cars are designed to be used safely. We now have sensors on some car models that will automatically stop the car from striking a person in the road. If a car’s design increases it’s risk of causing fatalities, we ban them. Guns are designed to maximize their lethal potential.
When a gun is used properly, the result is that something is shot.
This is the flaw in trying to treat two completely different items as if they were just alike based on one statistical category. Cars are used by millions of Americans every single day without incident. If your car is stolen, it upends just about every aspect of your life. If your gun is stolen, it might be weeks before you even realize it is gone.
If the goal is to save lives, then WHAT EVER takes the lives should be examined..
Isn't that no logical??
Well, “Isn’t that no logical” aside, you seem to be making an argument for something that you have already refused to accept.
Just because some suggestions might not have prevented the last shooting, it does not mean that they are without merit and could possibly prevent others from occurring.
We require all drivers to get their driver license, keep their vehicles in working order, register their vehicle, as well as having insurance in case they are involved in an accident. It’s time for gun owners to be held as responsible as car owners are.
Michale,
Hit the submit button too soon!
Which is, many MANY things cause death in this country.. By concentrating on guns, Democrats prove that they are not about saving lives.. They are about pushing their agenda...
But saving lives is their agenda when compared to the Republicans! Please, remind me what legislation the GOP is offering to aid in preventing gun violence? Why should we allow anyone to possess a gun that can mow down 22 people in one minute? Because their hobby is target shooting? Nothing stops them from target shooting with a gun they have to reload after each bullet is fired.
It’s the gun lobby that got legislation passed preventing gun violence from being studied seriously. Gun makers are one of the only industries that can not be sued by their victims for the damages their products cause.
Democrats may not have the solution, but at least they are trying to make things safer. We are gun owners, but we are also willing to be inconvenienced by stricter gun laws if it will help prevent gun violence.
You asked if I thought guns would ever be banned in this country, and the answer is “No.”. However, I believe once we get sci-fi phasers created that stun but aren’t lethal, guns that use ammo will become obsolete and heavily restricted except for gun collectors.
So, with that in mind, here is my proposal..
100% Background checks.. No loopholes..
Red Flag laws with SEVERE criminal and civil penalties for bad-faith actors..
A moratorium on all anti-gun laws for a period of 10 years...
Agreeable???
Hell no! Unless the moratorium also includes all NRA supported gun laws and restricts gun manufacturers from offering any new products during the ten year period...then I might consider it.
Elizabeth Warren, aka "Fauxcohontas", is on Huffpo record today claiming "her grandparents were taken from their families and enrolled in boarding schools."
That lie, all by itself, causes all 10,000 Trump "lies" to cower in the shame of unworthyness of the appellation.
Stucki:
Liz Warren can lie all week and into next Sunday, and it would still be better than Trump. Jus' saying..
Or to put it another way,
Trump has awarded his democratic rivals an unparalleled gift: they can lie all they want.
After all, after the whoppers that he's told, who'd be foolish enough to call out Warren on hers? What's a white lie, compared to the tons and tons of bullshit garbage that comes from his mouth?
It's gonna be an interesting. Today, a guy published an editorial that said that, as a former republicant, and never-trumper, he'd vote for Bernie. At least Bernie understands the Constitution!
Balthy
There is zero equivalence between Trump's lies and Warren's lies.
Only one of them is so gawdam dumb that he actually BELIEVES his lies. She, on the other hand, knows full well that her geneological history is a 99 44/100ths % fabrication.
No equivalence whatsoever!
Ian Bremmer, commenting in this week's issue of TIME magazine, on the role that China will likely play in the 2020 election writes, "Beijing will target it's actions at U.S. voters that Trump needs", (doubtlessly referring to U.S farmers that are hurting by the loss of the Chinese market).
I can hardly wait to see if the Kicks, the Dicks and the Pricks of Weigantia will be screaming in indignation over "foreign interferance in American elections" at anywhere near the decible level they screamed over "Russian collusion/conspiracy" in the election they lost in 2016!
In the No-Surprise-Here category of news about republicans & domestic terrorism:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/16/1879482/-Republican-memo-reveals-strategy-to-downplay-white-nationalism-and-blame-left-for-mass-shootings
Republicans create Blotus and domestic terrorists and their plan to deal with it is to try to offload responsibility via their usual rhetorical tricks (i.e. redirect then lie) and then refuse to act.
The GOP is the party of terrorism and lies.
Stucki [21] You seem to do a great job of arguing both sides. Don't let me stop you, other than to note that there's more in Warren's background than you seem to think there is.
as for [22], the answer is yes. There should be NO foreign interference in any US election. What would ever make you think otherwise?
Paula [23] Thats what I'm talkin' about!
And Antifa doesn't have shooters. That snuck in there too.
Another tidbit:
A long-running Republican-led investigation into the handling of classified information on Hillary Clinton's private email server did not find any evidence that China had successfully hacked the former secretary of state, confirming the findings of the FBI, according to a memo released by two senior senators this week.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/politics/hillary-clinton-china-emails-probe/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-08-16T21%3A31%3A02&utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNN
Meanwhile #MoscowMitch and #LeningradLindsey continue their love affairs with Russians interfering in our elections and the entire Blotus cabinet continues to do government business on private phones, using apps to try to hide what cheating they're up to, etc. Coz there's nothing like Republicans for screaming the house down over HRC's carefully protected carefully used email server while having nothing at all to say about the wholesale security breaching favored by this criminal administration.
Well, it figures. Too incompetent.
C. R. Stucki
18
Elizabeth Warren, aka "Fauxcohontas", is on Huffpo record today claiming "her grandparents were taken from their families and enrolled in boarding schools."
You're obviously a confused old man. I guess those "magic underwear" aren't helping a scintilla with that senility setting in, right?
That lie, all by itself, causes all 10,000 Trump "lies" to cower in the shame of unworthyness of the appellation.
And yet, you're the liar in your own scenario, Stucki; either that or you don't mind displaying your total confusion and obvious senescence. :)
Not sure why the dashes were replaced with question marks in the quote from Congresswoman Deb Haaland.
Balthasar
19
Liz Warren can lie all week and into next Sunday, and it would still be better than Trump. Jus' saying..
Stucki is just a confused old man.
* VOTE BLUE *
No Matter Who
Balthasar
20
Today, a guy published an editorial that said that, as a former republicant, and never-trumper, he'd vote for Bernie. At least Bernie understands the Constitution!
Tom Nichols!
Heh. :)
Kick [29]
Perhaps you misread/misunderstood my complaint against Warren's bullshit-cum-lies. I certainlsy never intended to state or even imply that no Indians were ever shipped off to "boarding schools". Indeed, I was born and raised within about 30 mi of one of those facilities. It was a repurposed WWII facility that was re-activated as the "Intermountain Indian School", where (it was hoped) the Indian kids could be educated and trained in ways that would integrate them into the white man's world. (I understand that it turned out to be misguided sociology, but the intentions were good.)
Warren's big lie was not that no such boarding schools existed, but rather that HER GRANDPARENTS ever attended such a facitity. Her grandparents are/were whiter than I am.
C. R. Stucki
33
Perhaps you misread/misunderstood my complaint against Warren's bullshit-cum-lies. I certainlsy never intended to state or even imply that no Indians were ever shipped off to "boarding schools".
I "certainlsy" couldn't care less what your excuse for your stupidity is.
Indeed, I was born and raised within about 30 mi of one of those facilities.
Indeed, I couldn't care less.
Warren's big lie was not that no such boarding schools existed, but rather that HER GRANDPARENTS ever attended such a facitity.
You're obviously confused, old man. The only one who introduced the idea that those boarding schools didn't exist was -- in fact -- you. No one else said that.
Regardless, your ignorance and confusion are fully intact. Thanks for doubling down on it.
Kick
You needn't apologize to me for your stupidity. I understand how after being 180 degrees wrong for three solid yrs about Trump being guilty of collusion, and collusion being a federal crime, and finally seeing the whole foundation of your political ignorance collapse when the long-promised Mueller Report revealed you for the idiot you are, it's not at all surprising that you're in perpetual PTSD shock. Simply couldn't be otherwise, in spite of your "magic underwear".
C. R. Stucki
35
Your ignorance is kind of obvious, old man. Enough said.
Now, would you like to lie some more about Elizabeth Warren or are you so fucking confused that you too believe trolling the posters on this board constitutes political discussion?
Pffffffffffffffft
Don Harris (once again) [1] -
I'm sorry, but was I asleep when I appointed you arbiter of what is acceptable on this blog? I have offered to help you set up your own blog in the past, and you have ignored me. So I have to assume you don't have the motivation to attempt doing so. So please allow me to have my own blog without the snotty comments.
I LOVE horserace articles. I have for over a decade -- long before you came around here, in fact. If you don't like it, then you can shove off and find another corner of the internet to haunt. If you choose not to do so, then you have accepted the premise of this particular blog.
Which includes lots of horserace speculation. Deal with it, or go home. After all, by your rights, you call this manure but you cannot help yourself from wallowing in it. That's kind of twisted, wouldn't you agree?
Hmmph.
nypoet22 [2] -
I'll have another slice of that apple crumble, personally. Pie is good. Mmmmm!
Yeah, I thought about four tiers, but then again I'm kind of looking forward to the winnowing, so I don't want to encourage anyone to stay in...
Heh.
John M from Ct. [3] -
I do hear you, but here's my honest perspective: would you rather an article on the Democratic primary race, or yet another "ohmigod, look what Trump tweeted" article?
I swore months ago to avoid Trump tweeting idiocy as a means to distract us all as much as I possibly could. Sometimes that means turning my focus back to the Dem race. So be it. It certainly is a much more positive outlook than "holy crap, he's at it again!" outrage. I mean, the rest of the media obsesses over every Trump tweet, so I thought it'd be better to focus on the future instead. Maybe I've overdone it, but that's my thinking, at any rate.
And I do disagree. People are beginning to pay attention. Democrats are more interested in this race than a normal race in a normal election cycle. For obvious reasons. And with a historic number of candidates, it's only fair to pay attention early so I don't give some of them short shrift.
As for parliamentary elections -- California tried that. We had a governor recalled, and then a two-month window. We had over 130 candidates on the ballot, and Arnie Schwarzahoovie won. So parliamentary elections may not actually work out all that well here....
LizM [6] -
I don't think either Harris or Booker is up for re-election in 2020. Just saying....
Kick [7] -
Ha! But then, if fewer than 5 drop out, you'll clean up in the percentages, having guessed "none of the above."
:-)
Kick [8] -
I will check that out, as I love a good deep dive into the numbers. Thanks!
C. R. Stucki [13] -
Nope. Those were "prediction models" which gave "probability" numbers. I have always ignored such. I don't hold with the Nate Silver model, because it is completely blameless no matter WHAT happens:
"I predict a 75% chance Hillary will win!"
"Trump won."
"Oh, well, it must have been one of those 1-in-4 chances, that's the way the statistical model crumbles!"
I mean, what is the freakin' point?
Michale [14] -
Good lord, is Michale defending me? Man, I've been away from the comments too long...
Heh.
C. R. Stucki [19] -
Link? Warren has never claimed her grandparents were Indians. And Indian children were indeed taken from their parents and forcibly taught English in schools, it's historical fact. Just a few decades earlier, that's all.
Balthasar [21] -
Link to that editorial?
Your main point is a good one, one that I've been saying about Biden for a while. Trump has so lowered the bar on "gaffes" that Biden's going to skate on all sorts of things. But it equally applies to Warren, I will admit...
C. R. Stucki [22] -
You must have missed it. Here's my commentary on the powers of two:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/10/16/powers-of-two/
Also see the previous day's article, written specifically about Warren's claim. Which was 100% backed up by her DNA test.
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/10/15/elizabeth-warren-calls-trumps-bluff-trump-breaks-million-dollar-promise/
Warren's claim was SIX generations back, or 2 to the sixth power. Do the math.
C. R. Stucki [23] -
Where have you been? I've been screaming about it for a while, no matter WHICH party benefits. This is an attack against America, this is not some partisan bullshit. Only Republicans see it as such, actually.
Paula [24] -
Good point. Also see (couldn't fit it into Friday's column):
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/14/leaked-documents-show-fbi-targeted-post-ferguson-black-identity-extremists-over-white-supremacists/
Kick [30] -
BWAH hah hah! Thanks for setting the record straight. I always discout any claims made without an actual link, and this is a good reason why. Thanks, you made my night!
:-)
Kick [31] -
I always use two hyphens, because en-dashes and em-dashes can get munged by html code....
Just a suggestion.
:-)
Kick [33] -
OK, you've outdone yourself! The following paragraph:
I don’t care if Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a mendacious Massachusetts liberal. She could tell me that she’s going to make me wear waffles as underpants and I’ll vote for her. I don’t care if Sen. Kamala Harris is an opportunistic California prosecutor who wants to relitigate busing. She could tell me that I have to drive to work in a go-cart covered with Barbie decals and I’ll vote for her. I don’t care if Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is a muddle-headed socialist from a rural class-warfare state (where I once lived as one of his constituents). He could tell me he’s going to tax used kitty litter and I’ll vote for him.
should go down in history as the "2020 Democratic mantra." ANYBODY but Trump. Amen to that, brother.
C. R. Stucki [34] -
Again: link?
Unrelated posts to the column which were ignored:
Michale [10], [11],
ListenWhenYouHear [16], [17], [18]
OK, that's about enough for now. See you all tomorrow...
-CW
Kick [30, 31] -
OK, fixed the dashes. You're welcome!
:-)
-CW
CW
38
Which includes lots of horserace speculation. Deal with it, or go home. After all, by your rights, you call this manure but you cannot help yourself from wallowing in it. That's kind of twisted, wouldn't you agree?
As far as the DH calling this "manure," I'd say you ignored the whiny "little shit" longer than I could! ;)
________________
Ha! But then, if fewer than 5 drop out, you'll clean up in the percentages, having guessed "none of the above."
Oh, yes... percentagewise, I believe you are correct, but in my defense, I honestly did believe no one would drop out until at least the fourth debate since the rules were the same for both of them, and then Looper had to go and drop out for no particular real reason... except whatever Michael Bennet told him; what was it that the Colorado Senator said to Hickenlooper!?
"You have only begun to discover your power. Join me and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy."
*laughs*
So how does Hickenlooper drop out this early only to not announce he is running for Senator? What are those two up to? ;)
CW
39
OK, fixed the dashes. You're welcome!
????????????? ]?????????
????????????????
I???????????????????].
???????????????...
????????????? ]?????????
????????????????
I???????????????????].
???????????????…
Tanks! :)
EDIT
CW
39
OK, fixed the dashes. You're welcome!
~~~~~~~~~~/""""""\##########
~~~~~~[""""""""""""""""""""]
~~~~~~@_@_@_@_@_@
""
"""
~~~~~~~~~~/""""""\##########
~~~~~~[""""""""""""""""""""]
~~~~~~@_@_@_@_@_@
""
"""
Tanks! :)
CW-38
I dub thee Chris Weigant Lothbrok, Hammer of Trolls.
CW-38
"C. R. Stucki [13] -
Nope. Those were "prediction models" which gave "probability" numbers. I have always ignored such. I don't hold with the Nate Silver model, because it is completely blameless no matter WHAT happens:
"I predict a 75% chance Hillary will win!"
"Trump won."
"Oh, well, it must have been one of those 1-in-4 chances, that's the way the statistical model crumbles!""
I take your point, but hear me out. Nate Silver takes a Bayesian approach to statistics. The utility of Bayesian Stats is that it allows you to make a rational bet on an outcome (discrete distribution or a probability curve). A Bayesian Thinker has a rational means to hedge bets. This is a basis for rational risk management. It's only as good as your data, but it is better than nothing and if you have a lot of options, it is a lot better.
Stucki is mathematically naive and not exactly honest in his wording. I never saw any poll by any reputable outfit that gave Trump a zero % chance of winning. Odds varied, but a 15% chance of a Trump win was roughly the consensus of the polls that I tracked.
Fifteen % chance of rain. Should I wear my expensive, vulnerable suede jacket or the cheaper one made from rain resistant chrome leather?
CW
Unrelated posts to the column which were ignored:
Michale [10], [11],
ListenWhenYouHear [16], [17], [18]
OK, that's about enough for now. See you all tomorrow...
Sorry CW! These posts from a few days ago that I think got eaten by either the filter here or by Siri on my iPad. When I did not hear back from you regarding the post, I just went ahead and added it to today’s postings so Michale would see it. Didn’t mean to get off topic.
-Russ
@cw,
proposal 2: instead of adding a tier, simply remove those with no apparent chance of qualifying for the fall debates from any tier. that leaves you with the top tier of over 10%, middle tier of 6-10%, bottom tier of 1-4%, and basically anyone under 1% isn't on the map.
that should satisfy the criterion of not encouraging anyone who is completely out of it to stay in.
JL
(also, i appreciate your supportive commentary on pie, but it would be much more constructive to post an article on the new and exciting idea of pie-based voting. newer and more exciting than any other election ideas on this blog, at any rate...;p)
whoops, i left out 5%. sorry mayor pete!