If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
I don't think that works.
Ultimately, no matter how much you campaign there's a ceiling of support in any particular state. So, if one candidate campaigned only in California, they might get to 65% (perhaps) of the vote there.
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.
I think it's fine to draw a distinction between cases where there's a genuinely competitive contest and one that only technically has multiple candidates but is really basically a coronation
If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
I don't think that works.
Ultimately, no matter how much you campaign there's a ceiling of support in any particular state. So, if one candidate campaigned only in California, they might get to 65% (perhaps) of the vote there.
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.
I think it's fine to draw a distinction between cases where there's a genuinely competitive contest and one that only technically has multiple candidates but is really basically a coronation
I don't object to that distinction, but I think in this context it renders the 'First 3 time winner' boast a bit meaningless. Because Gore didn't face little opposition because he was an incumbent, he faced little opposition because he scared them off by being such a strong candidate. In my mind the point of this fact is to stress how strong the Sanders campaign is, but the fact Gore didn't face a competitive primary showed his strength; so the distinction here is misleading as opposed to helpful.
Also, Gore did face a recent (at the time) 3-term senator, so while I agree this time is more competitive I'd question if we should really classify 2000 as not a competitive primary.
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.
I think it's fine to draw a distinction between cases where there's a genuinely competitive contest and one that only technically has multiple candidates but is really basically a coronation
I don't object to that distinction, but I think in this context it renders the 'First 3 time winner' boast a bit meaningless. Because Gore didn't face little opposition because he was an incumbent, he faced little opposition because he scared them off by being such a strong candidate. In my mind the point of this fact is to stress how strong the Sanders campaign is, but the fact Gore didn't face a competitive primary showed his strength; so the distinction here is misleading as opposed to helpful.
Also, Gore did face a recent (at the time) 3-term senator, so while I agree this time is more competitive I'd question if we should really classify 2000 as not a competitive primary.
But the point is that somebody winning the first three states has always, up until now, indicated a walkover. There hasn't been a case of somebody coming first in those states then being seriously challenged for the remainder of the race.
I don't really put much weight on those rules of thumb in political predictions (insert xkcd comic here), and that includes this case. Just posted it as it was interesting.
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.
I think it's fine to draw a distinction between cases where there's a genuinely competitive contest and one that only technically has multiple candidates but is really basically a coronation
I don't object to that distinction, but I think in this context it renders the 'First 3 time winner' boast a bit meaningless. Because Gore didn't face little opposition because he was an incumbent, he faced little opposition because he scared them off by being such a strong candidate. In my mind the point of this fact is to stress how strong the Sanders campaign is, but the fact Gore didn't face a competitive primary showed his strength; so the distinction here is misleading as opposed to helpful.
Also, Gore did face a recent (at the time) 3-term senator, so while I agree this time is more competitive I'd question if we should really classify 2000 as not a competitive primary.
But the point is that somebody winning the first three states has always, up until now, indicated a walkover. There hasn't been a case of somebody coming first in those states then being seriously challenged for the remainder of the race.
I don't really put much weight on those rules of thumb in political predictions (insert xkcd comic here), and that includes this case. Just posted it as it was interesting.
Although if you turn it around and say "how has a candidate averaging 30% in the first three states done?" It looks rather different
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.
I think it's fine to draw a distinction between cases where there's a genuinely competitive contest and one that only technically has multiple candidates but is really basically a coronation
I don't object to that distinction, but I think in this context it renders the 'First 3 time winner' boast a bit meaningless. Because Gore didn't face little opposition because he was an incumbent, he faced little opposition because he scared them off by being such a strong candidate. In my mind the point of this fact is to stress how strong the Sanders campaign is, but the fact Gore didn't face a competitive primary showed his strength; so the distinction here is misleading as opposed to helpful.
Also, Gore did face a recent (at the time) 3-term senator, so while I agree this time is more competitive I'd question if we should really classify 2000 as not a competitive primary.
But the point is that somebody winning the first three states has always, up until now, indicated a walkover. There hasn't been a case of somebody coming first in those states then being seriously challenged for the remainder of the race.
I don't really put much weight on those rules of thumb in political predictions (insert xkcd comic here), and that includes this case. Just posted it as it was interesting.
Fair enough if that's your reading of it, but I must say my reading of pointing out Sanders has won the first 3 states isn't to suggest the race is surprisingly close but to boost the claim that Sanders is remarkably strong. In which case I'd argue as below that it's misleading to suggest his achievement is unprecedented.
When every doctor and expert is publicly saying the exact opposite, then some hypochondriac on the web who is definitely not a fiction author is saying the opposite . . . whom should we believe?
Veterans will remember the anecdote about the ISIS cell in the dry cleaners...
If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
I don't think that works.
Ultimately, no matter how much you campaign there's a ceiling of support in any particular state. So, if one candidate campaigned only in California, they might get to 65% (perhaps) of the vote there.
But by that standard, candidates for the French Presidential election would only campaign in Paris, Marseilles and Lyon.
But they don't. Because campaigning in the same place results in rapidly diminishing returns.
The winning french candidates only campaign in Paris.
Sure they do.
Surely we all recall HYUFD stubbornly refusing to accept that Le Pen didn’t win by a landslide....? Hang on, maybe the US system has merits... (although Le Pen/Trump...)
He's definitely favourite now. Unless the moderate lane gets uncrowded real fast, it's all over.
Both billionaire egotists have declared there sticking around for Super Tuesday, so I think that’s it. Biden is weak enough that it would be a poor gamble for (say) Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him... and Warren on 9% just thanked Nevada for “keeping her in the race”...
This race is analogous to the last Parliament - almost perfectly designed to prevent any meaningful deals, and thus leading to an outcome the majority wanted to avoid.
He's definitely favourite now. Unless the moderate lane gets uncrowded real fast, it's all over.
Both billionaire egotists have declared there sticking around for Super Tuesday, so I think that’s it. Biden is weak enough that it would be a poor gamble for (say) Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him... and Warren on 9% just thanked Nevada for “keeping her in the race”...
This race is analogous to the last Parliament - almost perfectly designed to prevent any meaningful deals, and thus leading to an outcome the majority wanted to avoid.
I think that's excellent analysis.
The only way Sanders does not end up nominee is if Obama and Pelosi and Schumer and the Clintons get on the phone this weekend and essentially force two of Buttigieg, Biden and Baemy to quit the race and endorse the other.
Tom Steyer and Deval Patrick are now unlayable, so eight candidates remain in the market (including the two First Ladies).
89.25% on the eight, that’s a massive under-round. Someone has to win this, it’s not like a boxing match where a draw gets engineered and everyone gets paid loads more to do it all over again next year!
What the actual f..... Have been watching a local satellite channel that advertised the fight, they’ve shown the whole undercard and pulled the broadcast just as they entered the ring - now expecting me to call a number in Turkey for PPV online. Grrrr.......
Eventually found another way. Commentary in French!
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Please stop this petty trolling. No one is ever denying that she got more votes so why trot it out like people are denying it? You are able to read so you know thats not what people are doing.
I get you find it funny but come on, there are limits.
A pleading request.
Because the way people talk about Trump is if he is some savant like genius who stole all the Dem voters from Hilary and has some special unbreakable bond with the common man making him uniquely popular.
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The Dems lost?
Hillary 48% Trump 46%
Yes the Dems lost.
Hillary 227 Trump 304
Hillary 65,853,514 Trump 62,984,828
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.
The objective is to win games/states.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
But there's only one President for the WHOLE of the USA.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the WHOLE of the USA.
No you're wrong. There's one President for the whole 50 States of the USA.
More American states voted for Trump than Hillary. By design the 50 States are not one State.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Search your feelings, Philip. You will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!
The electoral college being set proportionate to size +2 Senators is designed deliberately to ensure that the small states concerns aren't overlooked by the large states. Its a deliberate mechanism.
That isn't true at all. The electoral college was designed so that southern states could reflect their slave populations in their share of political power, without needing to worry about giving them a vote. It wasn't some carefully arranged setup from a unanimous decision of wise elders. It was the result of a hard fought negotiation between competing interests.
Yes, the Senate was setup to give small states a voice. The Electoral College was setup because of slavery.
Enjoyed a cruise up and down The Adriatic in 2018, huge respect for the entertainments on board, made the sun deck a haven of peace and quiet, and a good place for an evening's reading. Was happy to explore quite a few destinations on foot.
The cooler weather on a 2019 voyage in The Baltic was more taxing, had to wear warmer pullovers and woolly hats. Downside was being herded to and from destinations in St Petersburg, offset by visits to naval museums elsewhere.
Did you stop in Gothenburg?
Yes - headed to Haga then on to Botanic Gardens, which were well worth the effort, plenty of insect eating pitcher plants amongst other delights. Downside was not going to the Volvo Museum next to the mooring berth.
Because the way people talk about Trump is if he is some savant like genius who stole all the Dem voters from Hilary and has some special unbreakable bond with the common man making him uniquely popular.
Quite. It's bollox. It was an incredible achievement to do what he did in 2016 but it was also a fluke of freakish dimensions. He genuinely has a much better chance this time - is the betting favourite even - but perversely is almost certainly going to lose. Funny old game, politics.
He's definitely favourite now. Unless the moderate lane gets uncrowded real fast, it's all over.
Both billionaire egotists have declared there sticking around for Super Tuesday, so I think that’s it. Biden is weak enough that it would be a poor gamble for (say) Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him... and Warren on 9% just thanked Nevada for “keeping her in the race”...
This race is analogous to the last Parliament - almost perfectly designed to prevent any meaningful deals, and thus leading to an outcome the majority wanted to avoid.
I think that's excellent analysis.
The only way Sanders does not end up nominee is if Obama and Pelosi and Schumer and the Clintons get on the phone this weekend and essentially force two of Buttigieg, Biden and Baemy to quit the race and endorse the other.
I don't understand why you still seem to think that Joe is fishing in the same pool as Amy and Pete. They're all moderates but Joe is counting on black voters whereas they're Pete and Amy's weakness.
Buttigeig or Klobuchar dropping out would hurt Sanders but Biden dropping probably wouldn't. It might even help him- see South Carolina for an immediate example of why.
Comments
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/nevada?xid=ec_btn_nevada
CANDIDATE FIRST ALIGNMENT FINAL ALIGNMENT CHANGE
Sanders 34.5% 41.5% +7.0
Biden 16.8 18.6 +1.8
Buttigieg 15.5 16.8 +1.3
Warren 12.9 10.8 -2.1
Klobuchar 9.7 7.3 -2.4
Steyer 8.9 4.3 -4.6
Uncommitted 0.6 0.4 -0.2
Gabbard 0.5 0.1 -0.4
My money is on yes, but we'll see.
Also, Gore did face a recent (at the time) 3-term senator, so while I agree this time is more competitive I'd question if we should really classify 2000 as not a competitive primary.
Then again, you'd have thought Amy Klobuchar had come close to winning if you only heard her speech...
I don't really put much weight on those rules of thumb in political predictions (insert xkcd comic here), and that includes this case. Just posted it as it was interesting.
https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/1231329817678794752?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/feb/22/uk-left-activists-at-far-right-events-antisemites-holocaust-deniers
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/23/national/covid-19-confirmed-japanese-woman-left-diamond-princess-testing-negative/#.XlHzNC-nyhA
He's definitely favourite now. Unless the moderate lane gets uncrowded real fast, it's all over.
Biden is weak enough that it would be a poor gamble for (say) Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him... and Warren on 9% just thanked Nevada for “keeping her in the race”...
This race is analogous to the last Parliament - almost perfectly designed to prevent any meaningful deals, and thus leading to an outcome the majority wanted to avoid.
The only way Sanders does not end up nominee is if Obama and Pelosi and Schumer and the Clintons get on the phone this weekend and essentially force two of Buttigieg, Biden and Baemy to quit the race and endorse the other.
They are coming out
My picks...
If Tyson stays the course...a unanimous card will look something like 117/110; 116/111, 115/112
Otherwise a KO- Wilder wins round 7
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/poll-us-voters-really-do-care-about-climate-change/606907/
Now one of the top two issues (just below healthcare) for all Democrats - and the most polarised issue, including abortion, between Republicans and Democrats.
Sanders in to 1.93 now, Bloomberg 5 and everyone else flying out.
Amy is now nearly double the price of Michelle Obama!
89.25% on the eight, that’s a massive under-round. Someone has to win this, it’s not like a boxing match where a draw gets engineered and everyone gets paid loads more to do it all over again next year!
Eventually found another way. Commentary in French!
It's why I'm going to kick their asses.
https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/1231141632365326336?s=20
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/22/bernie-sanders-nevada-2020-election-116762
... voters who decided in the days following the debate were roughly divided between supporting Sanders (24%), Pete Buttigieg (21%), Warren (21%), and Biden (19%)....
Buttigeig or Klobuchar dropping out would hurt Sanders but Biden dropping probably wouldn't. It might even help him- see South Carolina for an immediate example of why.