Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[starlord]

Yes. Clearly. You can't prove a negative. So while we can't prove they would have done better, you also can't prove they would have done worse. It's a complete unknown. To say that they must do worse because they did not win the primary has no connection to facts, and is compounded by the fact that we know winning the primary - and to what degree they win it - is itself not correlated to winning the election.

When a person wins a primary, unless they get 100% of the vote, by definition there exists a part of the party that doesn't support them. Yet in order to win the general, they need most of that party to get behind them. It's just the math of subsets. Logically, then, we know that people who don't support a candidate still had to support that candidate for the general. What you seem to suggest is that this is a weird one-way mapping; that if Biden wins, non-Biden supporters will join his set of followers, but if Bernie Sanders somehow won, the reverse wouldn't be true. Because that's the only math we could be talking about, given that we already know primary support has no correlation with general support. Honestly, I'm trying to put more logic into something that's really reminding me more of conservative "logic" than it is anything else.

- - - Updated - - -


Exit polls are still just polls. I guess I don't understand why we care about exit polls.

remember, this whole line of absurdity started because the person claimed that primary turnout is not an indicator of voter enthusiasm, which more people than before showing up to vote is by definition.
they then said that means that less people will vote in the general, even though they took the time for the primary.

[Edge-]

http://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/09/c...party-primary/

Exitpolls sure are wrong often these days.

They sure are in states with majorities that vote by mail! Not that the comments section on that article seems remotely aware of this.

He acknowledges mail-in ballots exist, but didn't seem interested in looking up historical data that's publicly available -

https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/historical-absentee/

Primary mail-in (i.e. not going to the polls and not counted towards exist polls) responders have been above 50% of the total primary vote since 2008, reaching as high as almost 70% in 2014.

This is why exist polls, in a state where a majority don't vote at polls, is not a great starting point for an "investigation" like this. His questions for the SOS don't even seem relevant.

This is based on earlier information when vote by mail hadn't passed 50% of the vote in CA, but if you look at the trends with who votes by age group it also checks out -

https://regionalchange.ucdavis.edu/s...%2BRevised.pdf

Majority of older voters that are more likely to vote Biden.

If the exit polls were this far off in other countries they'd require a do over.

It's not a national election so no, they wouldn't. Also, see context above. Some folks are jumping to conclusions.

[szechuan]

Warren is a sellout IMO, she refuses to Endorse Bernie seemingly because she wants to be a part of Biden's VP or Cabinet.

[starlord]

He says blaming the loss of Warren on the horrid Spectre of the Bernie Bros.

how's being salty going?

[Milchshake]

Important PSA!! Dont expect Michigan Results until Wednesday Night
Before the Berner and their conspiritory cohorts, the alt-right can "cry rigged". There's a reason!

MI received approximately 800,000 absentee ballots this year - an 80% increase from 2016. They will just take longer to count.

I'd like to thank their Democrat admin and the establishment, for consistently expanding voter rights. which includes access to absentee ballots.

Everyone please read this from the MI Secretary of State. MI has EXPANDED voting rights.
Jocelyn Benson: Don't expect fast Michigan primary results. We're focused on accuracy.


One great thing MI did was allow ANYONE to request an absentee ballot. That is GREAT! That also increased the number of ballots requested by 96% and increased the number of returned ballots by 80%. There is also same day voter registration. YAY FOR MORE PEOPLE VOTING!
Jocelyn Benson has actually been talking about this for months so please stop with the conspiracy theories - it just makes you look very ignorant.
One more thing - Jocelyn Benson advocated for counting absentee ballots early but she cannot by statute. Once again, she has been very transparent about this process.

[Edge-]

Exit polls are still just polls. I guess I don't understand why we care about exit polls.

In this case, it seems some people see them as cause for some form of investigation into wrongdoing. Which is, based on the article, driven by the authors constant reference of computer counts.

In reality, a little searching around (see my post above) shows that a majority of CA voters, even in primaries, vote by mail, and that those that do are more likely to be from older age-brackets that are more likely to back Biden. Which makes exit polling in the state a really questionable data point to use as the basis for any analysis.

[Grapemask]

In this case, it seems some people see them as cause for some form of investigation into wrongdoing. Which is, based on the article, driven by the authors constant reference of computer counts.

In reality, a little searching around (see my post above) shows that a majority of CA voters, even in primaries, vote by mail, and that those that do are more likely to be from older age-brackets that are more likely to back Biden. Which makes exit polling in the state a really questionable data point to use as the basis for any analysis.

Yeah, I took a minute to look up exit poll accuracy, and as far as I can tell they're right a lot of the time, but they're also wrong more often than you'd think. Any poll that doesn't poll 100% of the subject it's investigating is going to have some error.

[JohnBrown1917]

Important PSA!! Dont expect Michigan Results until Wednesday Night
Before the Berner and their conspiritory cohorts, the alt-right can "cry rigged". There's a reason!

MI received approximately 800,000 absentee ballots this year - an 80% increase from 2016. They will just take longer to count.

I'd like to thank their Democrat admin and the establishment, for consistently expanding voter rights. which includes access to absentee ballots.

Everyone please read this from the MI Secretary of State. MI has EXPANDED voting rights.
Jocelyn Benson: Don't expect fast Michigan primary results. We're focused on accuracy.


One great thing MI did was allow ANYONE to request an absentee ballot. That is GREAT! That also increased the number of ballots requested by 96% and increased the number of returned ballots by 80%. There is also same day voter registration. YAY FOR MORE PEOPLE VOTING!
Jocelyn Benson has actually been talking about this for months so please stop with the conspiracy theories - it just makes you look very ignorant.
One more thing - Jocelyn Benson advocated for counting absentee ballots early but she cannot by statute. Once again, she has been very transparent about this process.

Well, atleast you can go back to making fun of antifa after this, right?

[Edge-]

Any poll that doesn't poll 100% of the subject it's investigating is going to have some error.

Yes, but the margin of error is usually small (if done properly) so there's still plenty of value in much smaller sample sizes.

The wrench in this issues specifically is that you're not able to properly sample demographics while also accounting for vote-by-mail in exit polls. You're functionally looking at less than half the available data (voters), and data (voters) that trend in one direction and aren't necessarily representative of the broader electorate.

Exit polls are good usually, and provide valuable early data. There just needs to be context on shit like, "Does more than half the state vote by mail?" so that the numbers can be better understood.

[PACOX]

Finally found the video.

Come on, man!

[Dextroden]

Finally found the video.

Come on, man!

Snip

What are you doing Pacox? You'll cause Trump's power levels to go off the charts.

[Draco-Onis]

Warren is a sellout IMO, she refuses to Endorse Bernie seemingly because she wants to be a part of Biden's VP or Cabinet.

I think we should reserve judgement we don't know what goes on behind the scenes and frankly joining Biden's cabinet in any capacity would be a losing proposition for her. There's also nothing to gain by endorsing Bernie he's already lost regardless of her support.

[Ghostpanther]

Finally found the video.

Come on, man!

You are not allowed to own any weapon? And the AR -14?....lol! Biden is the one full of shit.

[Skroe]

So I'm a week late due to a vacation, but I have some Massachustts-centric thoughts about last Super Tuesday. I wrote this to Breccia the day after via email while I was... away. It's written from before Elizabeth Warren dropped out.

-------------

I got a few thoughts on Super Tuesday. I have to say as a Massachusetts voter, it's pretty damn amazing to actually have your vote matter for a change, actually be able to deliver a surprise result, and actually vote in a way that stands for something meaningful.

I was debating as recently as Tuesday morning whether to cast a vote for Biden - my first vote ever in a Democratic Primary mind you - or vote for Warren in order to mitigate the projected magnitude of a Bernie Sanders win. In the end, I elected to vote for the candidate I liked rather than tactically vote. I voted expecting Biden to come in third. And he won! And most of all the news has been talking about Massachusetts's results as a shocker. It's weird being a voter in a state that always goes one way where the outcome was both a surprise and made a meaningful difference. It's strange having that actual power. The only other election I voted for that "mattered" was for Obama in 2008 when I was living in Pittsburgh and was registered to vote in Pennsylvania. It's a compelling argument for a National Popular Vote one day. We won't be a true democracy until it happens.

To be frank, I've said for _years_ that Massachusetts voters are a strange lot. We're a liberal state that elects Republican governors. We're a liberal state that is also one of the Republican Party's key fundraising hubs.

It comes down to this: Cambridge, Chelsea and Brookline are not the entire state and it's very thickly settled suburbs and exurbs that radiate out from Boston and make up most of the state's population are extreme pragmatists. There is certainly a liberal inclination, but they'll vote against town budget overrides and tax increases to pay for new schools if it cost too much; they voted against Marijuana legalization for many years; it was very particular about Romney care. This state which has had liberal lions punishes perceived ideologues. The liberal lions were also deal makers. That is why they were popular and kept winning. MA voters rewarded their work, not their ideas.

Elizabeth Warren having to fight it out in the state, and now coming in 3rd, isn't really surprising. I've been saying for a few years now that she's unpopular here and would be lucky to get re-elected. Commentators from other states call it "sexism". It's not. It's that we've seen her before.
We had about 25 years where our only two Senators were Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. They were so dominant, and so senior in the Senate, they usually ran opposed here. The Republican Party only dared try and set Mitt Romney against them once in a serious bid. But John Kerry was never popular here. He was perceived as having the loosest of ties to Massachusetts. Really, he was a "Senator at Large". He did little to bring home the bacon. Little to advance Massachusetts interests in the federal government. That fell to Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy was the one who made sure federal dollars came to our small but wealthy state. He was the one that made sure big government contractors set up shop here. He was the one that was "authentic" Massachusetts. Maybe this was the division of labor they purposefully set out, but regardless of how it came to be that way, Ted Kennedy was the actual Senator from Massachusetts who dual-hatted the national role and the state-advocacy role, while John Kerry was a Bay-state-er in name only, in many ways. John Kerry rarely had trouble getting re-elected. But he was not loved, and no one here was enthusastic about him. When he stopped being Senator, barely anyone cared. When he became Secretary of State, it was not some great honor to Massachusetts that our guy ascended to that great office.

In the modern context Elizabeth Warren is John Kerry and Ed Markey is Ted Kennedy. Markey's an authentic Massachusetts citizens. He's been a fixture of Bay State politics for decades. He became the most senior member of the House Delegation and was the Senator-in-waiting. His career was arguably stifled by the long tenure of Kerry and Warren. In another situation, he would have been Senator far earlier. He is one of the most liberal members of the Senate, but his job as Senator, has been like Ted Kennedy, very much about bringing federal tax dollars to Massachusetts. He is percieved as an actual state Senator.

Warren though... she's been the "senator at large" from the first moment, and there is little consideration to her here as Senator. She rarely holds public events. She rarely talks about Massachusetts issues (like the opioid epidemic). She has her policy wheelhouse she sticks to that doesn't much reflect the priorities and needs of her home state, which is one of the wealthiest and most functional states in the Union.

She got rolled in Massachusetts today because there is little loyalty to her. It's like voting for a Senator running for President from another state. That's our level of connection. It also explains how Sanders did will here compared to her (though far worse than expected). She should have trounced him in the progressive column, but didn't because the gravitational attraction of Bernie by progressives is greater than what Warren has even managed to build here. Frankly, I think that a good Republican Candidate - like our current Governor Charlie Baker (one of the most popular governors in the country), could probably defeat her for her seat should she be challenged. She has to rebuild her connections to this state, nevermind win the Presidency.

Biden winning in Massachusetts though? A true surprise. Genuinely did not expect it. But again, I should have. It's entirely consistent with this state's voting patterns.

I've been reading the Democratic Primary thread. The Bernie Sanders people just... do not get it. They've been told for months. I just think they don't care. They're too infatuated with their ideas. Biden has no ideas, but beat two progressives with big ideas in a liberal state. Why? Because Massachusetts is the most anti-Trump state in the union and voters want to defeat Trump far, far, far more than they want to sign onto any policy positions by any candidate. Exactly how much more does this need to be said to these people before they get it? Their reasons for voting are not the majority's reasons.

This is not a policy election. It's a referendum on Trump. I've been saying for about a year I'd vote for an Avocado with a (D) carved into it. I am not alone in that. Biden may be as useful a President as said Avocado, but he's a senile old man who can win. That is EXACTLY the pragmatism typical of Massachusetts voters. The would be revolutionaries - turns out Sanders' turning out the kids angle was all talk, no walk and there is no revolution, just a slogan - need to come to grips with the kind of election it is. It may give Sanders a chance of winning still, and moreover it'll educate them as to why people vote the way they vote.

If it were a legitimate revolution, Massachusetts voters would have signed on. They instead shocked America and voted for the guy they think can win. The Bernie Bros need to listen.

[Beefhammer]

Voter suppression in the primary is just as bad as it is in the General.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mp/2789929002/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...losures-voting


It seems counter productive to complain about the caucuses states when we can't even get real voting to work correctly or at least at some level found in 3rd world countries were all their citizens get to vote in a timely manner.

So first election type vote in my district since a democratic became governor and SoS and surprise surprise, double the amount of voting booths. Also no surprise, I cast my ballot at 6pm, like a usually do, and there was double the amount of ballots cast in this primary than there were at 6pm 2016 for president.

Previously, Rick Snyder and the republiturds took away booths and ballot boxes away from minority districts. Glad to see a change for the good in mine.

[Skroe]

Finally found the video.

Come on, man!

Donald Trump is President.

This is really weak shit. C'mon man..............

[Edge-]

Voter suppression in the primary is just as bad as it is in the General.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mp/2789929002/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...losures-voting

Which is driven by...the Republican party in Texas. Not Democrats. Democrats aren't perfect by any means, but there's no evidence to suggest they're involved in the kinds of voter suppression efforts that the GOP have, and are still behind.

It seems counter productive to complain about the caucuses states when we can't even get real voting to work correctly or at least at some level found in 3rd world countries were all their citizens get to vote in a timely manner.

Or...we can complain about caucuses being garbage as hell and also complain about the lack of funding and training to have a sufficient number of voting locations open, especially given that those are most often for folks in poor communities affecting people of color more heavily.

This shit ain't a zero-sum game.

[PACOX]

Voter suppression in the primary is just as bad as it is in the General.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mp/2789929002/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...losures-voting


It seems counter productive to complain about the caucuses states when we can't even get real voting to work correctly or at least at some level found in 3rd world countries were all their citizens get to vote in a timely manner.

People think voter suppression is just purging voter rolls or turning people away for improper identification or whatever excuse is made. Its also, long lines, not providing enough polling booths/precincts cut down on those lines, mishandling/not counting absentee/mail-ins, understaffing precincts, things that discourage people with busy schedules to turn around and go home. All of which we've seen this election cycle.

[Edge-]

Donald Trump is President.

This is really weak shit. C'mon man..............

The pearl clutching from Republicans is astounding.

Not only are they excoriating Biden for what would be a pretty pedestrian outburst from Trump (which they cheer on and laugh), but Trump is the one that banned bump-stocks and openly suggested taking peoples weapons without due process.

The fucking Republican party is intellectually dead.

[Beefhammer]

Yeah, I took a minute to look up exit poll accuracy, and as far as I can tell they're right a lot of the time, but they're also wrong more often than you'd think. Any poll that doesn't poll 100% of the subject it's investigating is going to have some error.

I mean of course. Anyone who believes polls equal reality is an idiot. It has always been a snapshot of time for the types of people polled. That's why the have margins of error.

And before and halfbrained Trump ball locker chimes in about 2016, HCR crushed in the popular vote, and the districts she lost were well within the margin of error. Only one poll had her with a 98% chance of winning and it used flawed data.