• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Democrats 2020

Didn't notice the page turner.

Poll said:
The survey results were weighted by race, gender, and age using a Random Iterative Model and the model’s weighting efficiency was 84 percent, resulting in an effective sample size of 215.
Egad, 215 sample size?!

The polling age distribution definitely would answer why Klobuchar did "well' in this poll.
 
bigger poll:
Senator Bernie Sanders has a commanding nineteen point in the Nevada caucus, with 35 percent of likely caucusgoers supporting him. He is followed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Former Vice President Joe Biden who are all tightly clustered at 16, 15 and 14 percentage points, respectively.



Data for Progress conducted a poll of 766 likely Nevada caucusgoers from 2/12/2020 through 2/15/2020. Likely caucusgoers were identified from the Nevada voter file and weighted to a likely electorate. Our margin of error is +/- 3.4 percent.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/sanders-has-strong-lead-in-nevada
 
Does it? 95 and chemo?!

I disagree with "we can't do anything". They can, it is "make their last days comfortable". We can't "cure" them, but it doesn't stop there.
 
I think it's possible he was trying to communicate an idea about quality of life but just did it terribly.
 
Does it? 95 and chemo?!

I disagree with "we can't do anything". They can, it is "make their last days comfortable". We can't "cure" them, but it doesn't stop there.

Heh ... we can dramatically reduce health care costs by mandating palliative care for anyone over thirty. :)
 
Kind of makes you think

View attachment 26198
...that this does a good job at connecting who is getting the elderly vote. At first glance you look and think, well Sanders is the right guy.

But then you stop and ponder, but if someone is okay with Trump, but supports Klobuchar over Trump... does that mean crossover back to the Democrat in the General Election votes?
 
Kind of makes you think

View attachment 26198
...that this does a good job at connecting who is getting the elderly vote. At first glance you look and think, well Sanders is the right guy.

But then you stop and ponder, but if someone is okay with Trump, but supports Klobuchar over Trump... does that mean crossover back to the Democrat in the General Election votes?

If 22% of a candidates's supporters approve of the current president, it's harder to get them to vote for his opponent. It's not game theory, it's ideology. Klobuchar appeals to people who approve of Trump because she is running on a conservative platform.
 
Economist: Warren is right. Her Medicare for All plan won't raise taxes on the middle class

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Medicare for All. That's why I'm impressed that Senator Elizabeth Warren's campaign reached out to me to independently review her proposed financing plan for the program. Her numbers add up and her plan fully finances the program without imposing any new taxes on middle-class families.

The most important source of revenue for Warren's Medicare for All plan is simply to have businesses pay their employees' health insurance premiums to Medicare instead of private insurance companies. Over time, businesses would be required to pay slightly less to Medicare for health insurance than they would otherwise have paid to private insurers. New small businesses with fewer than 50 employees would not be required to make these payments.
 
Bloomberg camp's "dire" warning: Sanders soon unstoppable

What they're saying: Kevin Sheekey, Bloomberg's top strategist, said: "The fact is if the state of this race remains status quo — with Biden, Pete and Amy in the race on Super Tuesday — Bernie is likely to open up a delegate lead that seems nearly impossible to overcome."

"I don’t think many people understand the dire circumstances here."
Why it matters: Based on every national poll, plus steady access to money, Sanders is the indisputable — if underappreciated — frontrunner.

The Bloomberg campaign got high-profile validation of its theory:

David Plouffe, Barack Obama's 2008 campaign manager, tweeted in response to Nate Silver's delegate projections through Super Tuesday — which show Sanders with 41%, followed by Bloomberg and Joe Biden with 18% each. "If this happens, Sanders would have a pledged delegate lead he’ll never relinquish."

In a "State of the Race" memo to Bloomberg gurus Sheekey and Howard Wolfson, senior adviser Mitch Stewart and states director Dan Kanninen argue:

"If Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar remain in the race despite having no path to appreciably collecting delegates on Super Tuesday (and beyond), they will propel Sanders to a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead by siphoning votes away from [Bloomberg]."

It's amazing that it's taken the moderates this long to realize that running 8 candidates who all appeal to the same group of voters is not a good way to beat one candidate who appeals to a broader group. They underestimated him, and everybody stayed in the race thinking they would be the frontrunner by now. As it stands, even though the preference for Sanders is lower than the combined preference for the others, that doesn't mean much; Sanders is not running against four moderates in a trench coat.

There has been no single candidate the Democratic party is willing to throw all its weight behind in this race, because it has no real ideological commitments beyond staying in power and being civil. When faced with a clear ideological agenda staked out on populist lines with an uncompromising candidate as its figurehead, they have no response other than to (a) accuse his supporters of being mean on Twitter, or (b) remind us that we can't have nice things, while leaving out the fact that the neoliberal centrist consensus they represent is the reason why.
 
And just like that, the "electability" argument crumbles to bits.

Sanders and Bloomberg rise, Biden falls, with sharp shifts in views of electability

Sanders advanced to 32% support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, up 8 percentage points from late January. Biden fell to 17%, down 11 points to his lowest of the campaign. And Bloomberg, who takes the stage for the first time in Wednesday night's debate in Nevada, now has 14% support, up 6 points.

By contrast, there's been little if any movement for former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a strong finisher in both early contests; Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, third in New Hampshire; or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who fell short in both. Warren has 11% support nationally, unchanged; Buttigieg, 7%; and Klobuchar, 6%.

Electability_v02_KA_hpEmbed_17x12_608.jpg

An interesting finding is that Bernie not only leads among independents, but is considered "too conservative" by as many people as consider him "too liberal".

Among demographic groups, Sanders' support remains focused among liberal (and especially very liberal) leaned Democrats and young adults. He has a vast 56% support among 18- to 39-year-olds, diving to 13% among those age 65 and older. Among seniors, by contrast, Bloomberg reaches 24 percent; Biden, 20%.

Sanders' 41% among liberals falls to 25% among moderates, who account for more than four in 10 leaned Democrats (44%). Biden wins 24% of moderates, Bloomberg 17%. At the same time, relatively few leaned Democrats call Sanders "too liberal," 17%; indeed, as many call him too conservative.

Bloomberg is the last real obstacle to Bernie, and it's so fitting that the final showdown in this primary tournament should be Bernie versus a billionaire who is basically indistinguishable from Trump himself. Having exhausted all the options that were conciliatory to the bankers and corporations, Bloomberg entering the race at this point is like the gleaming skeleton of the Terminator finally being revealed beneath the fleshy exterior. No McKinsey consultants, DC wonks, or business-friendly technocrats are left to conceal the ultimate motive of the Democratic establishment; now they have gone fully mask-off and are just running a billionaire who fails every test of liberal credibility imaginable and aligns ideologically further right than even Biden.

All of the former Obama and Hillary staffers have in turns tanked Pete's, Liz's, Kamala's and Joe's campaigns, and have yet to realize that their strategy needs any adjustment.

Everybody who said in 2016 "Trump can't win" and then shifted in 2019 to "Bernie can't win the primary" is now saying "Bernie can't beat Trump", and... have yet to realize that their strategy needs any adjustment.
 
And just like that, the "electability" argument crumbles to bits.

Sanders and Bloomberg rise, Biden falls, with sharp shifts in views of electability

Sanders advanced to 32% support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, up 8 percentage points from late January. Biden fell to 17%, down 11 points to his lowest of the campaign. And Bloomberg, who takes the stage for the first time in Wednesday night's debate in Nevada, now has 14% support, up 6 points.

By contrast, there's been little if any movement for former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a strong finisher in both early contests; Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, third in New Hampshire; or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who fell short in both. Warren has 11% support nationally, unchanged; Buttigieg, 7%; and Klobuchar, 6%.

View attachment 26201

An interesting finding is that Bernie not only leads among independents, but is considered "too conservative" by as many people as consider him "too liberal".

Among demographic groups, Sanders' support remains focused among liberal (and especially very liberal) leaned Democrats and young adults. He has a vast 56% support among 18- to 39-year-olds, diving to 13% among those age 65 and older. Among seniors, by contrast, Bloomberg reaches 24 percent; Biden, 20%.

Sanders' 41% among liberals falls to 25% among moderates, who account for more than four in 10 leaned Democrats (44%). Biden wins 24% of moderates, Bloomberg 17%. At the same time, relatively few leaned Democrats call Sanders "too liberal," 17%; indeed, as many call him too conservative.

Bloomberg is the last real obstacle to Bernie, and it's so fitting that the final showdown in this primary tournament should be Bernie versus a billionaire who is basically indistinguishable from Trump himself. Having exhausted all the options that were conciliatory to the bankers and corporations, Bloomberg entering the race at this point is like the gleaming skeleton of the Terminator finally being revealed beneath the fleshy exterior. No McKinsey consultants, DC wonks, or business-friendly technocrats are left to conceal the ultimate motive of the Democratic establishment; now they have gone fully mask-off and are just running a billionaire who fails every test of liberal credibility imaginable and aligns ideologically further right than even Biden.

All of the former Obama and Hillary staffers have in turns tanked Pete's, Liz's, Kamala's and Joe's campaigns, and have yet to realize that their strategy needs any adjustment.

Everybody who said in 2016 "Trump can't win" and then shifted in 2019 to "Bernie can't win the primary" is now saying "Bernie can't beat Trump", and... have yet to realize that their strategy needs any adjustment.

So, what's the plan when Bernie kicks due to the next heart attack the day after inauguration? Or two years in?

I'm serious. Mean survival rate for someone in his age group with a MI is 3 years. I honestly do not see him lasting a full term. And certainly not with whatever faculties he has intact, remaining intact. Yeah, I went there because Sanders is not much good at anything beyond his talking points and he's had 40 years to rehearse them. They are practically a childhood memory.
 
And just like that, the "electability" argument crumbles to bits.

Sanders and Bloomberg rise, Biden falls, with sharp shifts in views of electability

Sanders advanced to 32% support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, up 8 percentage points from late January. Biden fell to 17%, down 11 points to his lowest of the campaign. And Bloomberg, who takes the stage for the first time in Wednesday night's debate in Nevada, now has 14% support, up 6 points.

By contrast, there's been little if any movement for former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a strong finisher in both early contests; Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, third in New Hampshire; or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who fell short in both. Warren has 11% support nationally, unchanged; Buttigieg, 7%; and Klobuchar, 6%.

View attachment 26201
That is an exercise in measurement without meaning, since the only valid measure occurs when it is head to head.


Bloomberg is the last real obstacle to Bernie, and it's so fitting that the final showdown in this primary tournament should be Bernie versus a billionaire who is basically indistinguishable from Trump himself.
It is impossible to accept an analysis as tethered in reality when it contains the claim that Bloomberg is " basically indistinguishable from Trump himself". I am not a support of Bloomberg, but he is magnitudes different and better than Trump.
 
So, what's the plan when Bernie kicks due to the next heart attack the day after inauguration? Or two years in?

I'm serious. Mean survival rate for someone in his age group with a MI is 3 years. I honestly do not see him lasting a full term. And certainly not with whatever faculties he has intact, remaining intact. Yeah, I went there because Sanders is not much good at anything beyond his talking points and he's had 40 years to rehearse them. They are practically a childhood memory.

All of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination, as well as their common opponent Donald Trump, have roughly the same chance of dying of natural causes in the next decade, so yours is a moot point. The choices are among people in their 70's whether you like that or not. If you can't stomach it, don't vote.
 
That is an exercise in measurement without meaning, since the only valid measure occurs when it is head to head.
From Emerson:
electability.JPG

It is impossible to accept an analysis as tethered in reality when it contains the claim that Bloomberg is " basically indistinguishable from Trump himself". I am not a support of Bloomberg, but he is magnitudes different and better than Trump.
He is actually much, much worse. Trump is cowardly and scatterbrained, Bloomberg is calculating and single-minded. Their priorities are the same: increase and protect their personal wealth, marginalize and oppress people of color, shrink the welfare state. Bloomberg has the advantage of a media empire with his name on it, and enough connections that the major networks won't scrutinize him as closely as they do Trump's every move. His ruthlessness in business dealings and with subordinates far outstrips the elementary school bullying of Trump. If Bloomberg wins the presidency, there will be no more non-billionaire presidents, because the narrative will be that to beat a rich person, only another rich person who makes the right noises about cultural issues can do it. Basically, if you think Bloomberg would be better than Trump, you're probably also the kind of person who thinks removing Trump from office (and thus elevating Mike Pence to the presidency) would be an improvement too. For you, the biggest problem with Trump isn't his conservative, right wing, pro-corporate, racist, sexist agenda, but his uncouth attitude. You could cast a vote for a New York billionaire who harasses women, brutalizes minorities, and supported Republicans across the country until last year, provided he seems to know what he's doing and reminds you of your favorite West Wing character.
 
So, what's the plan when Bernie kicks due to the next heart attack the day after inauguration? Or two years in?

I'm serious. Mean survival rate for someone in his age group with a MI is 3 years. I honestly do not see him lasting a full term. And certainly not with whatever faculties he has intact, remaining intact. Yeah, I went there because Sanders is not much good at anything beyond his talking points and he's had 40 years to rehearse them. They are practically a childhood memory.

All of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination, as well as their common opponent Donald Trump, have roughly the same chance of dying of natural causes in the next decade, so yours is a moot point. The choices are among people in their 70's whether you like that or not. If you can't stomach it, don't vote.

That's not at all true, statistically speaking. Sanders has had a recent heart attack and has had a stent put in. He's 78. Mean survival for anyone in that age group to survive AFTER a heart attack is 3.1 years.

Bloomberg, who is not usually mentioned as a forerunner is about the same age as Sanders and has also had a stent. But NO heart attack. He has a statistically better chance at survival.

I don't like Biden's chances of making it through the first term, either. He's in his late 70's and has had serious health problems, as well.

Warren is the youngest of the 'older' candidates. She has three things going for her in terms of statistics: 1. She's younger by nearly a decade. That matters a great deal in that age group.2. She has no history of heart disease or other major medical events. 3. She's female, which means that statistically speaking, she is likely to live to an older age than Sanders, Biden or Bloomberg.

Depending on sources, Klobuchar and Buttigieg are considered front runners. Both are significantly younger than any of those who are 70+ running and as far as I know, are in excellent health. They likely have decades of healthy living ahead of them.


If you don't like facing reality, then I suggest you don't participate in a forum where people might ask difficult questions or question your belief system. I'm pretty sure there's a nice hole in the sand somewhere near you.

If you actually care about your candidate or the future of this country, then you will think long and hard about what the plan would be if Sanders, in whom you have invested so much devotion and energy, keels over. Because that's quite likely. Don't want to believe me? Look at Trump and his age/health. Look at Ronald Reagan, who did survive 2 terms but who was showing signs of Alzheimer's in his first term to anyone who paid attention. They didn't announce it until after he left the presidency but it was present and advancing noticeably to anyone without big blinders on.

POTUS is an extremely demanding, stressful job that demands someone who is vigorous and strong and healthy. That's not Sanders. So, what's the plan? Who would be his likely VP?
 
So, what's the plan when Bernie kicks due to the next heart attack the day after inauguration? Or two years in?

I'm serious. Mean survival rate for someone in his age group with a MI is 3 years. I honestly do not see him lasting a full term. And certainly not with whatever faculties he has intact, remaining intact. Yeah, I went there because Sanders is not much good at anything beyond his talking points and he's had 40 years to rehearse them. They are practically a childhood memory.

All of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination, as well as their common opponent Donald Trump, have roughly the same chance of dying of natural causes in the next decade, so yours is a moot point. The choices are among people in their 70's whether you like that or not. If you can't stomach it, don't vote.

That's not at all true, statistically speaking. Sanders has had a recent heart attack and has had a stent put in. He's 78. Mean survival for anyone in that age group to survive AFTER a heart attack is 3.1 years.

Bloomberg, who is not usually mentioned as a forerunner is about the same age as Sanders and has also had a stent. But NO heart attack. He has a statistically better chance at survival.

I don't like Biden's chances of making it through the first term, either. He's in his late 70's and has had serious health problems, as well.

Warren is the youngest of the 'older' candidates. She has three things going for her in terms of statistics: 1. She's younger by nearly a decade. That matters a great deal in that age group.2. She has no history of heart disease or other major medical events. 3. She's female, which means that statistically speaking, she is likely to live to an older age than Sanders, Biden or Bloomberg.

Depending on sources, Klobuchar and Buttigieg are considered front runners. Both are significantly younger than any of those who are 70+ running and as far as I know, are in excellent health. They likely have decades of healthy living ahead of them.


If you don't like facing reality, then I suggest you don't participate in a forum where people might ask difficult questions or question your belief system. I'm pretty sure there's a nice hole in the sand somewhere near you.

If you actually care about your candidate or the future of this country, then you will think long and hard about what the plan would be if Sanders, in whom you have invested so much devotion and energy, keels over. Because that's quite likely. Don't want to believe me? Look at Trump and his age/health. Look at Ronald Reagan, who did survive 2 terms but who was showing signs of Alzheimer's in his first term to anyone who paid attention. They didn't announce it until after he left the presidency but it was present and advancing noticeably to anyone without big blinders on.

POTUS is an extremely demanding, stressful job that demands someone who is vigorous and strong and healthy. That's not Sanders. So, what's the plan? Who would be his likely VP?

Have you actually read anything PyramidHead has said? He is a communist, he's hardly devoted to Sanders, because Sanders is too far to the right for his tastes, Sanders is his compromise candidate.
 
Back
Top Bottom