The Democratic Presidential Debates

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Folks,

Here's the thing...after yesterday's unsurprising news that Russia is at it again and Trump is covering it up, we all have to be on the same page. That's number one.

Number two...no matter who the nominee is, a moderate billionaire with a sexist past from a sexist time, a former Obama VP, or a socialist senator from Vermont who is closer to the NRA than most would like.....one thing is clear---WE ALL HAVE TO UNITE BEHIND WHOMEVER IS THE NOMINEE.

Donald Trump is an existential risk to our democracy. Defeating him is more important than literally ANY OTHER ISSUE in this campaign. I really hope the candidates in the next debate focus on that instead of tearing each other down. That's number three (Biden voice).

You know I am an independent. My views are moderate mostly. But I can tell with 100% certainty that I will back Bernie or Elizabeth, or the reincarnation of Hillary as a result of a brokered convention. I also pledge to volunteer my time to help whomever it is. I hope you all will do the same.

Quit the bickering. Focus on the most important thing that unites all of us------defeating this fucking Russian stooge in November. Literally the future of the country is dependent upon this.  Anything else you care about policy-wise should be a distant second. 

That all sounds well and good, Juggler. But if Sanders goes into the convention with the most delegates, but not the 1,991 he needs to secure the nomination, and the superdelegates give the nomination to someone else, forget about beating Trump, I think it could be an electoral death-sentence for the Democrats. Let's say, hypothetically, that Sanders gets 33% of the total votes in the primary and that's the plurality, but he doesn't receive the nomination. Well that's 33% of registered democrats that might tell the party to fuck off forever. 

I've said this many times, democrats love finding ways to lose elections they should win.

Doesn't mean we can't do whatever we can to help whoever the nominee is

That's true. I just think, in this scenario where Sanders has a plurality but not the majority, granting him the nomination likely will bode well for Trump's re-election, but to deny him the nomination will have ramifications that go well beyond the Trump presidency....

I personally think Trump will beat whoever the nominee is. So for the sake of their democratic party's future, the DNC better not fuck with their voters and say "Sure you like Bernie Sanders, but we're smarter than you and we know he can't beat Trump, so here's Bloomberg." That would blow up in their faces two-fold. First off, they'll piss off a large portion of their party, and secondly, in my opinion, Bloomberg will lose anyway. 

You're not exactly going out on a limb predicting treacherous waters if there is a brokered convention, dude. Of course that will dramatically weaken whoever is the nominee. 

My point is a simple one--no matter who it is/no matter how it plays out, support him/her and stop driving wedges before it's too late. The democrats have, once again, offered up a less than ideal field of candidates. Trump should be easy to beat but they are stepping all over themselves yet again. We gotta come together. Too much is at stake. 

I'm not suggesting I'm going out on a limb, dude. I know I'm saying what anyone else that understands this process already knows. But your "we gotta come together, too much is at stake" stance is easier said than done. If by some chance Sanders gets the nomination, will Bloomberg and Biden be behind him? Warren likely will, but I'm not sure about them. And if he doesn't win the nomination, and it's perceived by his supporters that he was screwed, they're not going to come out and vote for Bloomberg or whoever. 

Also, half the country loves Trump, and they've already banded together. In fact, their bond (or whatever you wanna call it) has become stronger over the past four years. They're all in unison to see the democrats destroyed. You want (as I do, but I'm skeptical that it happens) the other half of the country to come together over the course of June through November. Not impossible, but as I said, easier said than done.

Yes. They've already said as much. Bloomberg even said he will continue his spending machine on whoever the nominee is. THAT is the kind of unity the democrats need right now. Not what we saw a few days ago. That's the point.
One of Sanders' campaign managers or top surrogates came out earlier this week and said they would not accept his money. THAT is exactly what we do not need. 

Again--I don't think you are saying anything new. The incumbent always has an advantage. This one, in particular, should be easier to beat than the democrats are making it out to be. Despite the stuff you say in your second paragraph, it is still true that he has a lower approval rating than just about any incumbent in the history of polling running for re-election. And before you say something about polls, just about every incumbent in the history of polling has also gotten within a point or two of his approvals on election day. So he SHOULD be easy to beat. The democrats are shooting themselves in their collective foot. They need to stop. And fast. 

Hmm I didn't see that (the bolded part). Yeah that would be beyond foolish. 

And as for polls, yeah as I've said before, I don't put much stock in them, but I don't completely dismiss them either. I was curious to see what Bush's approval rating was in February 2004 compared to Trump's today. According to Gallup, Trump is at 49% (pretty good considering everything that's wrong with him and his presidency), Obama was at 45% in February 2012, and Bush was at 51% in February 2004. So unless this page I'm linking to is incorrect, Trump doesn't have the lowest approval rating of any incumbent running for re-election. It has Obama at 45% in Feb. 2012, and Bush Sr. at 41% in Feb 1992.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Regarding trumps approval rating, I trust 538 aggregate more than anyone. They rate the polls based on their history and methods and weigh all polls based on that. Although they had clinton at 65% chance to win, they sounded a warning bell then because they had all the swing states needed to get her to 270 votes all very close.

They have trump now at 43% aggregate which is about +1 from where he usually is.

But there are warning signs. WI polling  out this week has trump up 7 to 11 depending on the candidate.  PA looks a little better for the dems but fla is tied as usual, with Bloomberg the best at +6. Thanks alot Warren. 

.

So pretty damn close to Obama if I'm looking at the right page https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

If you consider 47 and 43.3 to be close that is. Some might not. But I do considering how seemingly unpopular Trump is and how seemingly popular Obama was. 

In a country this divided, 4 points isn't as close as you think, especially considering Obama's ceiling (which is also extremely important to consider since Trump has made zero effort in expanding his base) was 20 points higher. Obama got his approvals up near 54% before his re election. Trump has barely been over 43% since right after his inauguration.

See my post above for more details. 

Hey fair enough. You’re the poll guy so I am interested i your perspective cause I am not a pill guy at all. Doubt Trump nears that level of approval before November (or ever). But I also don’t think it’ll matter considering his potential opponents. 

Edit: Also, I regards to your post above this, I’m not trying to spin anything, I just don’t think polls or Trump’s approval rating is a good indicator of what’s going to happen in November. I wasn’t around this board in 2016, but I’d wager a guess there was a lot of confidence in Hillary based on polls. 

And as you know well, national polls are deceiving in these elections. It may come come down to just a few districts in swing states like last time. 

That's why 538 was more accurate than any of the those other sites that were giving Clinton a 90% chance of winning on election day morning. Nate Silver said 70% or so and people called him crazy. He was right. Clinton was a heavy favorite but that didn't mean she was a stone cold mortal lock. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/

The Juggler said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

The Juggler said:

Folks,

Here's the thing...after yesterday's unsurprising news that Russia is at it again and Trump is covering it up, we all have to be on the same page. That's number one.

Number two...no matter who the nominee is, a moderate billionaire with a sexist past from a sexist time, a former Obama VP, or a socialist senator from Vermont who is closer to the NRA than most would like.....one thing is clear---WE ALL HAVE TO UNITE BEHIND WHOMEVER IS THE NOMINEE.

Donald Trump is an existential risk to our democracy. Defeating him is more important than literally ANY OTHER ISSUE in this campaign. I really hope the candidates in the next debate focus on that instead of tearing each other down. That's number three (Biden voice).

You know I am an independent. My views are moderate mostly. But I can tell with 100% certainty that I will back Bernie or Elizabeth, or the reincarnation of Hillary as a result of a brokered convention. I also pledge to volunteer my time to help whomever it is. I hope you all will do the same.

Quit the bickering. Focus on the most important thing that unites all of us------defeating this fucking Russian stooge in November. Literally the future of the country is dependent upon this.  Anything else you care about policy-wise should be a distant second. 

That all sounds well and good, Juggler. But if Sanders goes into the convention with the most delegates, but not the 1,991 he needs to secure the nomination, and the superdelegates give the nomination to someone else, forget about beating Trump, I think it could be an electoral death-sentence for the Democrats. Let's say, hypothetically, that Sanders gets 33% of the total votes in the primary and that's the plurality, but he doesn't receive the nomination. Well that's 33% of registered democrats that might tell the party to fuck off forever. 

I've said this many times, democrats love finding ways to lose elections they should win.

Doesn't mean we can't do whatever we can to help whoever the nominee is

That's true. I just think, in this scenario where Sanders has a plurality but not the majority, granting him the nomination likely will bode well for Trump's re-election, but to deny him the nomination will have ramifications that go well beyond the Trump presidency....

I personally think Trump will beat whoever the nominee is. So for the sake of their democratic party's future, the DNC better not fuck with their voters and say "Sure you like Bernie Sanders, but we're smarter than you and we know he can't beat Trump, so here's Bloomberg." That would blow up in their faces two-fold. First off, they'll piss off a large portion of their party, and secondly, in my opinion, Bloomberg will lose anyway. 

You're not exactly going out on a limb predicting treacherous waters if there is a brokered convention, dude. Of course that will dramatically weaken whoever is the nominee. 

My point is a simple one--no matter who it is/no matter how it plays out, support him/her and stop driving wedges before it's too late. The democrats have, once again, offered up a less than ideal field of candidates. Trump should be easy to beat but they are stepping all over themselves yet again. We gotta come together. Too much is at stake. 

I'm not suggesting I'm going out on a limb, dude. I know I'm saying what anyone else that understands this process already knows. But your "we gotta come together, too much is at stake" stance is easier said than done. If by some chance Sanders gets the nomination, will Bloomberg and Biden be behind him? Warren likely will, but I'm not sure about them. And if he doesn't win the nomination, and it's perceived by his supporters that he was screwed, they're not going to come out and vote for Bloomberg or whoever. 

Also, half the country loves Trump, and they've already banded together. In fact, their bond (or whatever you wanna call it) has become stronger over the past four years. They're all in unison to see the democrats destroyed. You want (as I do, but I'm skeptical that it happens) the other half of the country to come together over the course of June through November. Not impossible, but as I said, easier said than done.

Yes. They've already said as much. Bloomberg even said he will continue his spending machine on whoever the nominee is. THAT is the kind of unity the democrats need right now. Not what we saw a few days ago. That's the point.
One of Sanders' campaign managers or top surrogates came out earlier this week and said they would not accept his money. THAT is exactly what we do not need. 

Again--I don't think you are saying anything new. The incumbent always has an advantage. This one, in particular, should be easier to beat than the democrats are making it out to be. Despite the stuff you say in your second paragraph, it is still true that he has a lower approval rating than just about any incumbent in the history of polling running for re-election. And before you say something about polls, just about every incumbent in the history of polling has also gotten within a point or two of his approvals on election day. So he SHOULD be easy to beat. The democrats are shooting themselves in their collective foot. They need to stop. And fast. 

Hmm I didn't see that (the bolded part). Yeah that would be beyond foolish. 

And as for polls, yeah as I've said before, I don't put much stock in them, but I don't completely dismiss them either. I was curious to see what Bush's approval rating was in February 2004 compared to Trump's today. According to Gallup, Trump is at 49% (pretty good considering everything that's wrong with him and his presidency), Obama was at 45% in February 2012, and Bush was at 51% in February 2004. So unless this page I'm linking to is incorrect, Trump doesn't have the lowest approval rating of any incumbent running for re-election. It has Obama at 45% in Feb. 2012, and Bush Sr. at 41% in Feb 1992.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Regarding trumps approval rating, I trust 538 aggregate more than anyone. They rate the polls based on their history and methods and weigh all polls based on that. Although they had clinton at 65% chance to win, they sounded a warning bell then because they had all the swing states needed to get her to 270 votes all very close.

They have trump now at 43% aggregate which is about +1 from where he usually is.

But there are warning signs. WI polling  out this week has trump up 7 to 11 depending on the candidate.  PA looks a little better for the dems but fla is tied as usual, with Bloomberg the best at +6. Thanks alot Warren. 

.

So pretty damn close to Obama if I'm looking at the right page https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

If you consider 47 and 43.3 to be close that is. Some might not. But I do considering how seemingly unpopular Trump is and how seemingly popular Obama was. 

In a country this divided, 4 points isn't as close as you think, especially considering Obama's ceiling (which is also extremely important to consider since Trump has made zero effort in expanding his base) was 20 points higher. Obama got his approvals up near 54% before his re election. Trump has barely been over 43% since right after his inauguration.

See my post above for more details. 

Hey fair enough. You’re the poll guy so I am interested i your perspective cause I am not a pill guy at all. Doubt Trump nears that level of approval before November (or ever). But I also don’t think it’ll matter considering his potential opponents. 

Edit: Also, I regards to your post above this, I’m not trying to spin anything, I just don’t think polls or Trump’s approval rating is a good indicator of what’s going to happen in November. I wasn’t around this board in 2016, but I’d wager a guess there was a lot of confidence in Hillary based on polls. 

And as you know well, national polls are deceiving in these elections. It may come come down to just a few districts in swing states like last time. 

That's why 538 was more accurate than any of the those other sites that were giving Clinton a 90% chance of winning on election day morning. Nate Silver said 70% or so and people called him crazy. He was right. Clinton was a heavy favorite but that didn't mean she was a stone cold mortal lock. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/

By the way---538 also is a good resource for gambling purposes!

Lerxst1992 said:

Uh oh. 

I just said their concerts will have rich white people attending. Anyone ever see a wide angled crowd pic of a rock crowd for a band that has been around 30 years? 99.9% white too low estimate?

Jason P said:

My rational thought process has concluded that Russia would like to support the candidate that likes Russia. 

mrussel1 said:

Way to be insufferable.  Must be the white privilege you've benefited from your entire life.  

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Way to be insufferable.  Must be the white privilege you've benefited from your entire life.  

I happen to believe, these types of responses made to belittle another poster (ecdanc) only points to you feeling you fit the bill of her explanation. But maybe I am wrong ofc.