EPTWithout percentages and expectations I can't really tell anything.
It seems biden is screwed?
2020 Democratic Nominees - Page 26
| Forum Index > Closed |
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value. Rules: - Don't post meaningless one-liners. - Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate. - Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand. - Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm. This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
Without percentages and expectations I can't really tell anything. It seems biden is screwed? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43811 Posts
On February 04 2020 12:20 GoTuNk! wrote: Sorry for bumping, someone who understand wth is going on could keep us foreigners updated on this thread, as to not derail USPM completely. Without percentages and expectations I can't really tell anything. It seems biden is screwed? What makes you think that? Because he didn't perform as well in Iowa as was expected? Nah, I think he has plenty of southern states locked up (they all went to Hillary over Bernie in 2016, and Buttigieg has basically no support in most of them). He's likely to lose New Hampshire next week, but he's leading in Nevada and destroying everyone in South Carolina (and then comes Super Tuesday, which can change things in any direction). He's still the #1 ranked centrist in the primary, by far. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On February 06 2020 19:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: What makes you think that? Because he didn't perform as well in Iowa as was expected? Nah, I think he has plenty of southern states locked up (they all went to Hillary over Bernie in 2016, and Buttigieg has basically no support in most of them). He's likely to lose New Hampshire next week, but he's leading in Nevada and destroying everyone in South Carolina (and then comes Super Tuesday, which can change things in any direction). He's still the #1 ranked centrist in the primary, by far. To be fair even 538 has Sanders as a clear front runner now and without the front runner label Biden's campaign is in serious trouble + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43811 Posts
On February 06 2020 19:54 GreenHorizons wrote: To be fair even 538 has Sanders as a clear front runner now and without the front runner label Biden's campaign is in serious trouble + Show Spoiler + I'd be interested in seeing the justification for those, since I don't think most of them are backed by polls, nor extrapolated from last election. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
On February 06 2020 20:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I'd be interested in seeing the justification for those, since I don't think most of them are backed by polls, nor extrapolated from last election. Not really a 538 fan so I'd take anything they say with a handful of salt but the info is from here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/ methodology | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
| ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4518 Posts
On February 06 2020 20:59 Nebuchad wrote: I can't really picture a system where Biden is said to have 43% to win, then he loses one primary that he wasn't a favourite in and suddenly Sanders has 49. There's no way him losing that one primary was so improbable that the prospects change so drastically... There's 'losing' and then there's 'finishing 4th'. The results of the first primary influence voting intentions quite a bit, I don't think such a swing is impossible. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
I think Biden's campaign is dead and it's either Bernie or Bloomberg. And that primary is also interesting in defining the future of the Democratic Party because bloomberg is def pro free market despite his love for social engineering, while I've never seen Bernie say anything positive about it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 06 2020 20:59 Nebuchad wrote: I can't really picture a system where Biden is said to have 43% to win, then he loses one primary that he wasn't a favourite in and suddenly Sanders has 49. There's no way him losing that one primary was so improbable that the prospects change so drastically... While it does seem a little strange at first glance, I do believe it to be well-grounded in how primaries work. The floor of support that any candidate has is really low and momentum means a lot. After the first few states, people just aren't going to vote for someone who doesn't show that they have the means to win. And as a result of Iowa, the Biden story - that, warts and all, he's the man to beat Trump - has been greatly diminished. If Biden wasn't a favorite to win Iowa, he sure was a really close second. That would've been a respectable finish, because unfavorable states and all. But instead, he finished significantly below his polling, and was at the bottom of the pack. That is likely to lead to even further reduced chances of doing well in New Hampshire, and then Nevada. By the time friendly states come around, voters in those states probably won't even be considering him as a viable option and will have moved onto someone else. That's kind of exactly how it played out with Trump. Jeb! was a big favorite until people started voting. Rubio was a big player until a couple of early failures snowballed. Cruz was doing alright until Trump won a blowout in a couple of states, like New York, where he was an obvious far-and-away favorite to win, which then led to Trump also taking the lead in the rest of the states where he wasn't such a favorite. The Iowa caucus didn't have a clear winner, but Biden was the clear loser. This tweet was the meme of the day. Unless Biden has a magical recovery, which his campaign doesn't really have enough momentum for one to expect, it really does look like a race between the other three. And while it's hard to see how any of them get a majority, Sanders has the best shot. Buttman doesn't really have much going for him beyond that he talks a good talk that makes him popular in the first few states; his results strike me as a "living in Iowa" one a la Santorum given that his Iowa campaigning was pretty disproportionate to his campaign's resources. Warren is reasonable, but would get steamrolled by Sanders by virtue of him having the same selling points, but a much more consistent base of support. Dunno how it will play out in the end (no one does), but I absolutely do see the logical justification for the current sudden shift in the predictions. The case for Biden has been greatly diminished by the fact that he can't beat three of his Democrat opponents, let alone Trump. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43811 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22736 Posts
Klobuchar might have some success in NH but Biden is going to struggle to make it to super Tuesday if he does at all. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43811 Posts
On the other hand, I think if Biden got any angrier, he'd start punching people in the face. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43811 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13754 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 08 2020 11:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I actually think Pete's performance has been okay so far. Questions like this one about his record are where things seem to go downhill. Buttman can talk a good talk about the abstract, but when he's pushed about questionable aspects of his record, he can only talk around it. Most everyone else who were asked similar pointed questions had better, albeit imperfect, answers. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43811 Posts
On February 08 2020 11:42 LegalLord wrote: Questions like this one about his record are where things seem to go downhill. Buttman can talk a good talk about the abstract, but when he's pushed about questionable aspects of his record, he can only talk around it. Most everyone else who were asked similar pointed questions had better, albeit imperfect, answers. I thought Buttigieg had been doing decently well in tonight's debate... Until he got KOed hard on his racist mayoralty just now. Probably his worst response across all his debates imo. Also, why do you call him that? | ||
| ||
