Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 275: Reports of Joe's death are greatly malarkied

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/timodc/status/1233905000042188801?s=21


---

Joe-mentum!

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Joe-mentum!

Lieberman was twenty years ahead of his time

---

man was just Biding his time.

---

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/south-carolina-primary-results-2020/h_4d722feaef01e08ad51294df7c2adb1a

That's pretty wild. But, anyways, I guess I need to put my Anti-Sanders rhetoric away and go back to my anti-Biden stockpile.

Where's Hunter?

---

Also on a side note, wouldn't it be interesting if Warren and Sanders both imploded within a week of giving actual details of how they would pay for their plans?

---

I was optimistically hoping for +25 and was afraid it would be like +10; extremely happy with +28.5.

i believe this also means that Joe is currently leading in the overall popular vote!

---

Corrik7 posted...

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/south-carolina-primary-results-2020/h_4d722feaef01e08ad51294df7c2adb1a

That's pretty wild. But, anyways, I guess I need to put my Anti-Sanders rhetoric away and go back to my anti-Biden stockpile.

Where's Hunter?

That's because SC has so many more people than the other early states. By representation in the House:

IA - 4
NH - 2
NV - 4
SC - 7

And both IA and NV were caucuses which have lower turnout.


---

Bringing this one back too:

https://twitter.com/ne0liberal/status/1233982028649050112?s=21

---

Just saw this on twitter, and it's wild how much the stuff that MLK was arguing against in the 60s is...still being used in arguments in 2020:

https://twitter.com/TheKingCenter/status/1233974304641028097

---

South carolina 100% in:

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1233997419987247104

Biden 255,660 (48.5%)
Sanders 105,068 (19.9%)
Steyer 59,817 (11.3%)
Buttigieg 43,483 (8.2%)
Warren 37,285 (7.1%)
Klobuchar 16,610 (3.2%)
Gabbard 6,749 (1.3%)

Biden gets 33 delegates, Bernie gets 11, everyone else gets 0.

---

Steyer dropping out probably helps Biden. I'd guess.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/29/paul-singer-elliott-management-twitter-jack-dorsey

---

https://twitter.com/grylxndr/status/1233944619722907648?s=21


---

2008 turnout - 533k
2016 turnout - 371k
2020 turnout - 525k

Not "great" but definitely better than I was expecting.

---

Pretty much tying 2008 is pretty good IMO!

---

Yeah "pretty good" is probably a god way to put it! But SC has grown a lot since then population wise so I wouldn't get much more excited than that.

Also going back to a dumb tweet from last topic (which is now deleted because they realized it was a bad tweet):

https://twitter.com/JoeNBC/status/1233914605333876739
via Twitter

Sup MSNBC

(Summary was something along the lines of "oh jeez they finally had a primary in a state that looks like a representative sample of the actual democratic electorate and look what happened! Eat it BERNIE". Something like that.)

538 actually did a ranking on which states most accurately reflected the democratic electorate:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-early-democratic-primary-states-looked-more-like-the-party/

Nevada was 5th!
New Hampshire was 34th.
Iowa was 42nd.
South Carolina was...46th.

So "oops".

---

If you want a strike against Nevada there's some low hanging fruit in that caucuses are stupid and have a high barrier to entry!

(Though the addition of early voting kind of made it partway between a primary and caucus I guess).

---

I totally agree with that!

The Nevada caucuses went 1000x better than Iowa and they should still be blown up and replaced with something more democratic and less dumb. Part of the reason Biden is now ahead in the popular vote is because Iowa/NH are small states and voting is depressed in caucus states like Nevada because of course it is.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I totally agree with that!

The Nevada caucuses went 1000x better than Iowa and they should still be blown up and replaced with something more democratic and less dumb. Part of the reason Biden is now ahead in the popular vote is because Iowa/NH are small states and voting is depressed in caucus states like Nevada because of course it is.

Who says Biden doesn't win those states if not caucuses. Bernie is known to excel more in caucuses after all.

---

Okay Nate's model has lost me

I knew it had priced in a 19ish point Biden win, but after beating that by 10 points his chance of getting a majority still fell by like 5% (mostly to the benefit of No Majority, which is now up to 60%) and Bernie only fell by like 4% if I remember the pre-SC numbers correctly. Was this just some additional polls coming out? The model pricing in chances of other candidates dropping out? Something else??

---

That is a totally fair point! I do not think that Biden comes close to winning Nevada based on the spread from the caucus, but your theory that he does better percentagewise and perhaps his popular vote lead isn't overtaken is entirely plausible.

---

Ranked choice primary is the only way to go but it will never happen. Caucuses are good in that they fall closer to this line but are completely terrible in every other possible way to negate any benefit from this.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Okay Nate's model has lost me

I knew it had priced in a 19ish point Biden win, but after beating that by 10 points his chance of getting a majority still fell by like 5% (mostly to the benefit of No Majority, which is now up to 60%) and Bernie only fell by like 4% if I remember the pre-SC numbers correctly. Was this just some additional polls coming out? The model pricing in chances of other candidates dropping out? Something else??

Where did it have sanders prior to the result. If Sanders did better in SC than projected, that would be why. Also, it could be projecting the others to drop out or something.

Only two polls came out yesterday I think.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Where did it have sanders prior to the result. If Sanders did better in SC than projected, that would be why. Also, it could be projecting the others to drop out or something.

Only two polls came out yesterday I think.

Final 538 forecast --> actual results:
Biden: 38.4 --> 48.4
Sanders: 19.1 --> 19.9

Sanders overperformed the forecast, but barely.

---

One of the two polls that came out yesterday though was a "Sanders up by nine in Texas" poll. I could see that knocking Biden down a bit, but I have no idea when that was factored into the model.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Sanders overperformed the forecast, but barely.

Influx of Rs voting that maybe wasn't accounted for?

Its not crazy to think dumb meme culture influenced a couple thousand kids to go vote.

https://twitter.com/rowankaiser/status/1233947694588141569?s=21

Warren literally saying she plans to stay in until the convention to get as many delegates as we can.

Wow! Thats uh...disappointing, to say the least!

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also, Warren literally saying she plans to stay in until the convention to get as many delegates as we can.

You are neglecting that this is what every candidate says until they drop out. The moment a candidate wants to say x is a condition for them to drop out is the day they usually just drop out.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also, Warren literally saying she plans to stay in until the convention to get as many delegates as we can.

Wow! Thats uh...disappointing, to say the least!

i thought you'd be happy to hear she's taking after sanders

LordoftheMorons posted...

Okay Nate's model has lost me

I knew it had priced in a 19ish point Biden win, but after beating that by 10 points his chance of getting a majority still fell by like 5% (mostly to the benefit of No Majority, which is now up to 60%) and Bernie only fell by like 4% if I remember the pre-SC numbers correctly. Was this just some additional polls coming out? The model pricing in chances of other candidates dropping out? Something else??

i am too tired to take a close look at this right now but just off the top of my head

There were probably some weird result possibilites in play that once they were eliminated by the real results just ruined anyone's majority chances.

For Biden sure he won big but like one assumes he'd be "better off" if he had a smaller win with a 2nd place Steyer and Sanders missing statewide viability. Meanwhile Sanders went down because he got blown out and positive results for him would require an upset win or at least a very close loss.

Like objectively this is a great result for Biden but I can imagine the model doing weird stuff like that.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/rowankaiser/status/1233947694588141569?s=21

Also, Warren literally saying she plans to stay in until the convention to get as many delegates as we can.

Wow! Thats uh...disappointing, to say the least!

The way she essentially refused to attack him in the last two debates when she desperately needed to peel away some of his voters lead me to believe she was essentially running in hopes of being his VP.

Considering she has gone 0, 0, 0 in delegates in the last three states, in what were a disproportionately white state, a disproportionately Hispanic state, and a disproportionately black state...well I have no idea exactly who she even hopes to be targeting at this point. Polls show her losing her home state to Sanders, and if that happens I have to believe she drops out.

...right?

---

Tag

Oh whoops what I just posted were 538's *polling averages*, distinct from what their model anticipates (notably, the polling averages include Bloomberg at like 10% because some pollsters were including him for some reason??). The actual forecast predicts delegates not vote shares, and I can't find those expected numbers.

---

Again with Warren I think she is thinking big picture. She likely wants to use this to build up a bigger support base that will remember her in 2024.

Leafeon13N posted...

You are neglecting that this is what every candidate says until they drop out. The moment a candidate wants to say x is a condition for them to drop out is the day they usually just drop out.

No, Im acknowledging the words she said, that she may be trying to stay in for the 60% imminent contested convention.

xp1337 posted...

i thought you'd be happy to hear she's taking after sanders

Did she win a state when we werent looking?

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

well I have no idea exactly who she even hopes to be targeting at this point.

she knows i'd like to cast a vote for her and so she has to stay in ridiculously late

But like honestly I think there's some plausibility that she thinks by staying in and splitting the vote she can keep Biden under viability in some states. Like let's pretend her votes go 60-40 Sanders-Biden. At first glance it helps Sanders if she drops out because he'd get more of her voters than Biden but if the voters Biden picks up from her push him over 15% in a few places that's actually way better for him delegate-wise than it would be for Sanders. It's the difference between Sanders cleaning up a la Nevada and a more proportional split.

But tbqh I'm fucking sick and tired of the whining about Warren.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

You are neglecting that this is what every candidate says until they drop out. The moment a candidate wants to say x is a condition for them to drop out is the day they usually just drop out.

Also, this.

She's spent so much money on Super Tuesday already that it makes no sense to drop out now and she can't really say something like "jeez I hope I do better on Tuesday or I'm screwed." If she tanks of Super Tuesday, I'm guessing she's 100% done. Instead of 99% done.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

No, Im acknowledging the words she said, that she may be trying to stay in for the 60% imminent contested convention.

So... Willful ignorance?

Anecdotally I know several Californians with a Warren > Biden > Sanders preference...!

---

xp1337 posted...

she knows i'd like to cast a vote for her and so she has to stay in ridiculously late

But like honestly I think there's some plausibility that she thinks by staying in and splitting the vote she can keep Biden under viability in some states. Like let's pretend her votes go 60-40 Sanders-Biden. At first glance it helps Sanders if she drops out because he'd get more of her voters than Biden but if the voters Biden picks up from her push him over 15% in a few places that's actually way better for him delegate-wise than it would be for Sanders. It's the difference between Sanders cleaning up a la Nevada and a more proportional split.

But tbqh I'm fucking sick and tired of the whining about Warren.

That's also a possibility.

My primary is April 17 and I just can't imagine she is around then looking at the numbers now. She was my preferred candidate as well and I only jumped over when it was pretty clear she was dead in the water. I haven't seen a single poll in weeks (months?) now that gives me any hope she is in any longer than next Tuesday. I think we see at least two drop out, but we could see everyone get out besides Biden, Sanders, and Bloomberg. I can't imagine anyone else is going to be getting much more money after the Super Tuesday results.

...well, and Gabbard I guess who I think is just doing this to get more Fox News bookings at this point.

---

xp1337 posted...

But tbqh I'm f***ing sick and tired of the whining about Warren.

Tell her to stop being an utter disappointment then?

But in all seriousness, in 2016 we had to contend with Bernie being denigrated every time he gave his stump speech because he was hurting Hillary and she was gonna win so he should drop out. These same lines have been used this election.

Well Warren is straight-up attacking Bernie, so Im sorry but Im justified in pointing out that its not really helping her and can only just hurt Bernie.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Anecdotally I know several Californians with a Warren > Biden > Sanders preference...!

This is a malarkey ranking and they should feel bad.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Anecdotally I know several Californians with a Warren > Biden > Sanders preference...!

This is more understandable than the Warren > Bloomberg > Biden crowd, at least.

---

Warren voters break extremely highly for Bernie, disproportionately higher than any other second choice for any other canditate. Last poll I saw had 38% of her voters going to Sanders if she drops with the next-highest being 16%. I seriously doubt she's staying in to assist him.

I have to say that this primary cycle has absolutely murdered any enthusiasm I had for the DNC in general, which is impressive considering I started it with a much higher amount of optimism towards them than the average person here. I have like, zero motivation to vote for them outside of 'Republicans worse' which is very bad for the party's long-term prospects and I seriously doubt I'm the only one feeling this way.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Warren voters break extremely highly for Bernie, disproportionately higher than any other second choice for any other canditate. Last poll I saw had 38% of her voters going to Sanders if she drops with the next-highest being 16%. I seriously doubt she's staying in to assist him.

If she drops and then Buttiegieg and Klobuchar drop shortly after...

Suprak the Stud posted...

The way she essentially refused to attack him in the last two debates when she desperately needed to peel away some of his voters lead me to believe she was essentially running in hopes of being his VP.

Considering she has gone 0, 0, 0 in delegates in the last three states, in what were a disproportionately white state, a disproportionately Hispanic state, and a disproportionately black state...well I have no idea exactly who she even hopes to be targeting at this point. Polls show her losing her home state to Sanders, and if that happens I have to believe she drops out.

...right?

Native Americans.

---

Leafeon13N posted...

Again with Warren I think she is thinking big picture. She likely wants to use this to build up a bigger support base that will remember her in 2024.

When she is 77? And possibly with an incumbent democrat?

---

Then it still helps Sanders. The ONLY candidate where Sanders isn't the second choice among voters is Bloomberg (and maybe Steyer, but his numbers weren't statistically significant enough for the poll to list lol).

---

KamikazePotato posted...

I have to say that this primary cycle has absolutely murdered any enthusiasm I had for the DNC in general, which is impressive considering I started it with a much higher amount of optimism towards them than the average person here. I have like, zero motivation to vote for them outside of 'Republicans worse' which is very bad for the party's long-term prospects and I seriously doubt I'm the only one feeling this way.

To be fair, they don't give a shit about people like you. You are a given vote no matter what. They need to do nothing to appease you for your vote. It is the swing voters that they care about. And it is why they are trying to rig it away from Bernie. The thinking is that the very few Bernie Bros who won't vote if he is screwed is less than the votes Biden will pick up if candidate.

---

https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

Actually, Klobuchar's numbers aren't there either. Guess she didn't matter enough?

Sanders supporters break for...
Warren - 35%
Biden - 23%
Bloomberg - 14%

Bloomberg supporters break for...
Biden - 32%
Sanders - 27%
Pete - 15%

Biden supporters break for...
Sanders - 29%
Bloomberg - 25%
Pete - 14%

Pete supporters break for...
Sanders - 21%
Biden - 19%
Warren - 19%
Bloomberg - 17%

Warren supporters break for...
Sanders - 40%
Biden - 16%
Pete - 16%
Klobuchar - 12%

---