but, the thing with warren, specifically, it's that it's not organic. she's a creation of msnbc, and being propped up by the msm. her polling numbers are not real, but adjusted via careful manipulation of demographics. that's what i learned in 2016: in the united states, this kind of media deception is commonplace, and you have to read the polling from a good distance. i want to apply what i learned, not forget it.
in the end, the media might succeed in creating a candidacy out of her. she's what they want. she's their creation.
but, they're up against a difficult problem around the fact that the numbers on the ground just aren't there for her.
if she wins the nomination due to media bias, she'll get trounced in the end as a result of poor grassroots support.
Saturday, August 31, 2019
so,
1) there is no actual evidence that biden is fading.
2) while i acknowledge that she is doing very, very well with her own specific demographic, i still don't think that warren actually has a serious path to the nomination.
3) i still think that sanders' only real path to beating biden was to rely on splitting the vote in the south, and running up the score in the north and west - something i don't think warren can actually do. sanders cannot displace biden as the christian conservative candidate in the south, although warren perhaps could if she were to run in a certain way, and the idea that he ever could was always stupid. so, i still think that sanders is being badly blocked by biden, and that, while there are some things he could do to try to get around him, he's not doing them - he's instead trying to fight a losing battle head-to-head. the south is just a conservative place.
4) i still think that booker is the most realistic dark horse, although i pointed out a while back that there may be a class disconnect between himself and his intended voting base, that they may actually not see much of themselves in him at all.
5) harris is terrible. she's fading.
the others were never really serious candidates.
1) there is no actual evidence that biden is fading.
2) while i acknowledge that she is doing very, very well with her own specific demographic, i still don't think that warren actually has a serious path to the nomination.
3) i still think that sanders' only real path to beating biden was to rely on splitting the vote in the south, and running up the score in the north and west - something i don't think warren can actually do. sanders cannot displace biden as the christian conservative candidate in the south, although warren perhaps could if she were to run in a certain way, and the idea that he ever could was always stupid. so, i still think that sanders is being badly blocked by biden, and that, while there are some things he could do to try to get around him, he's not doing them - he's instead trying to fight a losing battle head-to-head. the south is just a conservative place.
4) i still think that booker is the most realistic dark horse, although i pointed out a while back that there may be a class disconnect between himself and his intended voting base, that they may actually not see much of themselves in him at all.
5) harris is terrible. she's fading.
the others were never really serious candidates.
at
19:43
people think you need to run to the left in the primary, then pivot to the centre to win the general.
closer to the truth is the opposite - you need to run in the centre to win over the party base (which is more conservative than the general public), and then swing away from it in the general to mobilize independents and non-voters, which also means doing things intended to avoid alienating moderate republicans.
but, that means that it's really hard to beat strong, centrist candidates in the primary.
and, let's remember a point: obama did not run as a leftist. obama told us from the start that he was a conservative, ran as one and won as one - and governed as one. obama was the most conservative president of the last 50 years. the iraq war vote was a major issue, but his argument was not anti-war - he just thought iraq was a bad tactical decision made by a dumb commander-in-chief. he beat clinton by running to her right on social issues - he ran to her right on health care (she supported single payer at the time. he didn't.), he was broadly less supportive of queer issues (across the board), and he promised to cut spending and reign in the deficit. and, he had a penis. so, he was more appealing to the conservative, christian base of democratic primary voters than she was.
so, looking to 2008 as a model for biden's decline by pointing to these "progressive" candidates and suggesting they'll do what obama did, however left they actually are, is a completely false projection and a completely warped narrative (mostly told by very untrustworthy sources of information, all around). to start, biden was a lower tier candidate, at the time. i barely remember his campaign. the front-runner was clinton, you'll recall. the third candidate in closest contention was not biden, but john edwards. that was the guy that was supposed to win in the south, not biden. so, there was never a time in mid-2007 where biden was dominating the polls like this. he wasn't the vp in the last administration back then, either. nor was clinton seen as the dominant front-runner in 2007/2008 - everyone expected she'd be a given a run for it.
rather, what happened in 2007/2008 is that clinton ran on the left, and got beat by a strong centrist to her right. if history is to be repeated, this narrative would be brought out to explain the decline of bernie sanders.
and, if through some twist of history, a candidate like buttigieg holds on and gets a direct face-to-face with sanders in a field of two or three, we might have a tragedy on our hands.
if biden had anybody else his own age to compete with - gore. kerry. even clinton, again - they would probably beat him.
but, with an aging voting base, and a younger field, he's the last one left standing, and is going to get huge amounts of votes more or less by default.
and, it could be another 20 years before these voters finally die off.
closer to the truth is the opposite - you need to run in the centre to win over the party base (which is more conservative than the general public), and then swing away from it in the general to mobilize independents and non-voters, which also means doing things intended to avoid alienating moderate republicans.
but, that means that it's really hard to beat strong, centrist candidates in the primary.
and, let's remember a point: obama did not run as a leftist. obama told us from the start that he was a conservative, ran as one and won as one - and governed as one. obama was the most conservative president of the last 50 years. the iraq war vote was a major issue, but his argument was not anti-war - he just thought iraq was a bad tactical decision made by a dumb commander-in-chief. he beat clinton by running to her right on social issues - he ran to her right on health care (she supported single payer at the time. he didn't.), he was broadly less supportive of queer issues (across the board), and he promised to cut spending and reign in the deficit. and, he had a penis. so, he was more appealing to the conservative, christian base of democratic primary voters than she was.
so, looking to 2008 as a model for biden's decline by pointing to these "progressive" candidates and suggesting they'll do what obama did, however left they actually are, is a completely false projection and a completely warped narrative (mostly told by very untrustworthy sources of information, all around). to start, biden was a lower tier candidate, at the time. i barely remember his campaign. the front-runner was clinton, you'll recall. the third candidate in closest contention was not biden, but john edwards. that was the guy that was supposed to win in the south, not biden. so, there was never a time in mid-2007 where biden was dominating the polls like this. he wasn't the vp in the last administration back then, either. nor was clinton seen as the dominant front-runner in 2007/2008 - everyone expected she'd be a given a run for it.
rather, what happened in 2007/2008 is that clinton ran on the left, and got beat by a strong centrist to her right. if history is to be repeated, this narrative would be brought out to explain the decline of bernie sanders.
and, if through some twist of history, a candidate like buttigieg holds on and gets a direct face-to-face with sanders in a field of two or three, we might have a tragedy on our hands.
if biden had anybody else his own age to compete with - gore. kerry. even clinton, again - they would probably beat him.
but, with an aging voting base, and a younger field, he's the last one left standing, and is going to get huge amounts of votes more or less by default.
and, it could be another 20 years before these voters finally die off.
at
18:29
i suppose there's still an opportunity to reshape the actual party members.
but, so long as the actual people voting in the actual primaries are the same old democratic primary voters, it's hard to see who is going to challenge biden for the centre.
see, and whether that centrist voting base kills them in the general or not doesn't negate it's existence. if these swaths of general election voters can't cast ballots in the primary, they may never get to cast their vote for who they want in the general. as a result, trump may win again, sure. but, you're never going to get this across to them. biden's the last old guy out there, the last member of the generation of leaders they recognize.
so, this isn't a debate about tactics - it's a reflection on voting demographics in the primary, and a realization of how different the primary is than the general.
biden is still winning. comfortably.
but, so long as the actual people voting in the actual primaries are the same old democratic primary voters, it's hard to see who is going to challenge biden for the centre.
see, and whether that centrist voting base kills them in the general or not doesn't negate it's existence. if these swaths of general election voters can't cast ballots in the primary, they may never get to cast their vote for who they want in the general. as a result, trump may win again, sure. but, you're never going to get this across to them. biden's the last old guy out there, the last member of the generation of leaders they recognize.
so, this isn't a debate about tactics - it's a reflection on voting demographics in the primary, and a realization of how different the primary is than the general.
biden is still winning. comfortably.
at
09:05
....and, for all of the talk of biden crashing, there's no actual polling evidence of this, yet.
at
08:58
actually, i still think that warren's support is probably quite weak and prone to deep collapse.
the one strong group she seems to have picked up is wealthy, educated female identity voters. i'll acknowledge underestimating this, and that i should have seen it. and, that group might cling on to the end, a major asset given that it is so well distributed.
but, she has challenges with non-white voters. she has no real actual base, either. in the end, all of the groups are going to pick sanders. so, it's hard to see how she can build a coalition, without becoming the centre, ie. pushing biden out of his spot
that means that warren has to win black voters in the south, for instance. how?
what we're going to see soon enough is that her numbers are being exaggerated. i wouldn't be surprised to see her polling at 12% everywhere, while other candidates come up around her in different areas.
her prognosis to make it to iowa remains sketchy. she will need biden to pull out, i think. she will need harris to collapse. otherwise, she may poll third or second nationally without winning a state.
so, she's doing better than i predicted, and sounds like a serious candidate when she speaks. but, it's still not at all clear that she has any potential path at all.
the one strong group she seems to have picked up is wealthy, educated female identity voters. i'll acknowledge underestimating this, and that i should have seen it. and, that group might cling on to the end, a major asset given that it is so well distributed.
but, she has challenges with non-white voters. she has no real actual base, either. in the end, all of the groups are going to pick sanders. so, it's hard to see how she can build a coalition, without becoming the centre, ie. pushing biden out of his spot
that means that warren has to win black voters in the south, for instance. how?
what we're going to see soon enough is that her numbers are being exaggerated. i wouldn't be surprised to see her polling at 12% everywhere, while other candidates come up around her in different areas.
her prognosis to make it to iowa remains sketchy. she will need biden to pull out, i think. she will need harris to collapse. otherwise, she may poll third or second nationally without winning a state.
so, she's doing better than i predicted, and sounds like a serious candidate when she speaks. but, it's still not at all clear that she has any potential path at all.
at
08:29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)