Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Democratic Support by Ideology

Recommended Posts

This was posted by Nate Silver on Twitter. Not sure what poll it's from, but it is interesting. Only showing people with 5% support or more. 

Far-Left Democrats: Warren 34%, Sanders 22%, Biden 15%, Harris 12%, Buttigieg 5% (Margin +12 for Warren, but +19 vs Biden)

Left Democrats: Biden 29%, Warren 23%, Sanders 18%, Harris 7%, Buttigieg 6% (Margin +6 for Biden)

Center-Left Democrats: Biden 41%, Warren 13%, Sanders 10%, Harris 5%, Buttigieg 5% (margin +18 for Biden)

Sanders's average is 15%, which means the Center-Left crowd is probably much larger in the Democratic party than I had expected. The Far-Left wing is less numerous than I expected. 

It probably won't be this clear cut, but it seems to me that Sanders and Harris supporters would prefer Warren and Buttigieg's supporters would prefer Biden. Here's their percentages if they dropped out and all the supporters went to one candidate (not like that would happen though). 

FL: Warren 68 vs Biden 20 (margin +48 Warren) Warren more than doubles her lead over Biden if candidates drop out. 

L: Warren 38 vs. Biden 35 (margin +3 Warren) Warren takes the lead with candidates dropping out, but not by much. 

CL: Biden 46 vs Warren 28 (margin +18 Biden) Warren makes no progress with candidate dropping out an endorsing her. 

In this scenario, I think Warren's lead among the FL is so high that Warren would probably win the nomination if it were down to just her and Biden. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Sanders's average is 15%, which means the Center-Left crowd is probably much larger in the Democratic party than I had expected. 

Hearkens back to Nixon's "Silent Majority".  It was easy to assume the whole country had turned into hippies, as that's all you saw in media at the time.

For those of us who spend all day on the internet, it's easy to imagine the average voter is ready to take a torch to the country and start over -- but the reality is that most people might not throw away what they have for the unknown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, vcczar said:

This was posted by Nate Silver on Twitter. Not sure what poll it's from, but it is interesting. Only showing people with 5% support or more. 

Far-Left Democrats: Warren 34%, Sanders 22%, Biden 15%, Harris 12%, Buttigieg 5% (Margin +12 for Warren, but +19 vs Biden)

Left Democrats: Biden 29%, Warren 23%, Sanders 18%, Harris 7%, Buttigieg 6% (Margin +6 for Biden)

Center-Left Democrats: Biden 41%, Warren 13%, Sanders 10%, Harris 5%, Buttigieg 5% (margin +18 for Biden)

Sanders's average is 15%, which means the Center-Left crowd is probably much larger in the Democratic party than I had expected. The Far-Left wing is less numerous than I expected. 

It probably won't be this clear cut, but it seems to me that Sanders and Harris supporters would prefer Warren and Buttigieg's supporters would prefer Biden. Here's their percentages if they dropped out and all the supporters went to one candidate (not like that would happen though). 

FL: Warren 68 vs Biden 20 (margin +48 Warren) Warren more than doubles her lead over Biden if candidates drop out. 

L: Warren 38 vs. Biden 35 (margin +3 Warren) Warren takes the lead with candidates dropping out, but not by much. 

CL: Biden 46 vs Warren 28 (margin +18 Biden) Warren makes no progress with candidate dropping out an endorsing her. 

In this scenario, I think Warren's lead among the FL is so high that Warren would probably win the nomination if it were down to just her and Biden. 

I'm looking at Nate's chart and trying to game out VP picks.  

If you're Biden, you've got overwhelming support from moderates, "somewhat liberal"s, white voters, black voters, and the rust belt.  Your weaknesses are your age, perceived mental health, and very liberal voters.  Biden polls well in head to head matchups, so he doesn't have the desperation that might lead to a hail mary pass like John McCain did in 2008 with Sarah Palin.

You also have a history as VP of having a sincere friendship with your President -- that's something you're looking to replicate when you reach the White House.

I think you're looking for someone young -- a next generation to pass the torch to -- a moderate...someone who echoes your rust belt roots.  

I say Biden picks Buttigieg or possibly Sherrod Brown.  Buttigieg gets the youth and sincere friendship points.  Sherrod Brown speaks fluently to both moderates and liberals.  
----
If you're Warren, you've got both Very and Somewhat Liberals in your pocket, and your numbers with moderates seem to be moving in the right direction.  You're mentally sharp, you appear to be physically healthy despite your age, you have a background in education, fiscal management, and women's issues.  Your biggest struggle is in appealing to racial minorities and, to a lesser extent, moderates.

I say Warren chooses...Joe Biden to be her VP.  He's adored by black voters and moderates, her two weak points.
---------------

At this point, I don't see any other candidate except Joe Biden (consistent first place) or Warren (consistent growth) getting the win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I'm looking at Nate's chart and trying to game out VP picks.  

If you're Biden, you've got overwhelming support from moderates, "somewhat liberal"s, white voters, black voters, and the rust belt.  Your weaknesses are your age, perceived mental health, and very liberal voters.  Biden polls well in head to head matchups, so he doesn't have the desperation that might lead to a hail mary pass like John McCain did in 2008 with Sarah Palin.

You also have a history as VP of having a sincere friendship with your President -- that's something you're looking to replicate when you reach the White House.

I think you're looking for someone young -- a next generation to pass the torch to -- a moderate...someone who echoes your rust belt roots.  

I say Biden picks Buttigieg or possibly Sherrod Brown.  Buttigieg gets the youth and sincere friendship points.  Sherrod Brown speaks fluently to both moderates and liberals.  
----
If you're Warren, you've got both Very and Somewhat Liberals in your pocket, and your numbers with moderates seem to be moving in the right direction.  You're mentally sharp, you appear to be physically healthy despite your age, you have a background in education, fiscal management, and women's issues.  Your biggest struggle is in appealing to racial minorities and, to a lesser extent, moderates.

I say Warren chooses...Joe Biden to be her VP.  He's adored by black voters and moderates, her two weak points.
---------------

At this point, I don't see any other candidate except Joe Biden (consistent first place) or Warren (consistent growth) getting the win.

Downside to VP Sherrod Brown, lose Senate seat to a Republican and won't win it back. 

Downside of VP Warren, lose Senate seat and risk GOP Gov picking a Rep, unless legislature stops him. 

Biden/Buttigieg would be good. I think it will end up being Biden/Harris though....or Biden/Abrams, which I like more than Biden/Harris. 

Warren/Buttigieg would be great, I think. I used to like Warren/O'Rourke, but I think his gun policy will backfire in battleground states. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Downside to VP Sherrod Brown, lose Senate seat to a Republican and won't win it back. 

Downside of VP Warren, lose Senate seat and risk GOP Gov picking a Rep, unless legislature stops him. 

Biden/Buttigieg would be good. I think it will end up being Biden/Harris though....or Biden/Abrams, which I like more than Biden/Harris. 

Warren/Buttigieg would be great, I think. I used to like Warren/O'Rourke, but I think his gun policy will backfire in battleground states. 

My semi-realistic preferred Pres/VP nominees are Booker/Castro. 

My realistic pick is Warren/Buttigieg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

In this scenario, I think Warren's lead among the FL is so high that Warren would probably win the nomination if it were down to just her and Biden. 

Given that 47% of Democrats identify as either moderate or conservative and the plurality of the other 53% are "somewhat Left-wing", I doubt this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Given that 47% of Democrats identify as either moderate or conservative and the plurality of the other 53% are "somewhat Left-wing", I doubt this

You could be right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Far-Left Democrats: Warren 34%, Sanders 22%, Biden 15%, Harris 12%, Buttigieg 5% (Margin +12 for Warren, but +19 vs Biden)

Oh, are these candidates actually considered "far-left" now? In most of the world, they'd be considered centre-left with maybe Sanders being a barely left-wing, soft and moderate Social Democrat. If these candidates are "far-left" in American reckoning, then what is Gloria de la Riva? What were Bobby Newman, Something Seal, and Leona Fulani? What was Gus Hall? What was Daniel de Leon? What was Henry Wallace? What was Earl Browder? What was William Z. Foster? What was Eugen Debs? Hell, what was the La Follette political family? An interesting question, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Oh, are these candidates actually considered "far-left" now? In most of the world, they'd be considered centre-left with maybe Sanders being a barely left-wing, soft and moderate Social Democrat. If these candidates are "far-left" in American reckoning, then what is Gloria de la Riva? What was Gus Hall? What was Daniel de Leon? What was Henry Wallace? What was Earl Browder? What was William Z. Foster? What was Eugen Debs? Hell, what was the La Follette political family? An interesting question, no?

Image result for its time to stop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

Image result for its time to stop

Stop? My question is valid. And so are most of my statements. Just because you don't like them, they challenge institutions and ideas you feel should remain unchallenged, even academically, and it may just lead you to think about things that may challenge your hidebound view of the world, doesn't mean they should be silenced by one of Mussolini's censors. Personally, I think too much time and too many threads are devoted on this forum to analyzing and dissecting the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, which is practically guaranteed to produce a winner that'll just be another President who solves nothing and fails to address the real issues that REALLY need addressing, and is INCAPABLE of bringing the country together because they'll have to take a side in the vicious divide that tears the country apart. I think IT'S TIME TO STOP blocking up so much of this forum with an electoral event that is already effectively bust, and focus on more productive things - like scenario creation thread, or more effort to election play-by-play threads, or even more robust open discussion on political issue outside of this monotonous topic that will ultimately go nowhere productive. If it's time to stop, it's time to stop everything that's clogging things up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Stop? My question is valid. And so are most of my statements. Just because you don't like them, they challenge institutions and ideas you feel should remain unchallenged, even academically, and it may just lead you to think about things that may challenge your hidebound view of the world, doesn't mean they should be silenced by one of Mussolini's censors. Personally, I think too much time and too many threads are devoted on this forum to analyzing and dissecting the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, which is practically guaranteed to produce a winner that'll just be another President who solves nothing and fails to address the real issues that REALLY need addressing, and is INCAPABLE of bringing the country together because they'll have to take a side in the vicious divide that tears the country apart. I think IT'S TIME TO STOP blocking up so much of this forum with an electoral event that is already effectively bust, and focus on more productive things - like scenario creation thread, or more effort to election play-by-play threads, or even more robust open discussion on political issue outside of this monotonous topic that will ultimately go nowhere productive. If it's time to stop, it's time to stop everything that's clogging things up here.

Image result for old man yells at cloud gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Image result for old man yells at cloud gif

Thank-you for the mature and intelligent response to a very valid issue that you pretty much brought out, even if indirectly. You get a major move in your maturity and intelligence index towards the @ThePotatoWalrus box. And, since that is your best response - and you've used it three times now - all of your complaints about the tenor of my posts has pretty much been invalidated and shot in the foot, and can be safely ignored as an angry toddler who doesn't like what a grown-up says because of the tone of their voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Patine said:

Oh, are these candidates actually considered "far-left" now? In most of the world, they'd be considered centre-left with maybe Sanders being a barely left-wing, soft and moderate Social Democrat. If these candidates are "far-left" in American reckoning, then what is Gloria de la Riva? What were Bobby Newman, Something Seal, and Leona Fulani? What was Gus Hall? What was Daniel de Leon? What was Henry Wallace? What was Earl Browder? What was William Z. Foster? What was Eugen Debs? Hell, what was the La Follette political family? An interesting question, no?

No. I was just using the 270Soft terms. Since it's broken down as Far-Left, Left, Center-Left in the game. The poll had Very Liberal, Somewhat Liberal, and Moderate/Conservative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Thank-you for the mature and intelligent response to a very valid issue that you pretty much brought out, even if indirectly. You get a major move in your maturity and intelligence index towards the @ThePotatoWalrus box. And, since that is your best response - and you've used it three times now - all of your complaints about the tenor of my posts has pretty much been invalidated and shot in the foot, and can be safely ignored as an angry toddler who doesn't like what a grown-up says because of the tone of their voice.

Or, just hear me out, perhaps you as a functioning human being can take a moment of self-reflection, a bit of rare retrospection and say this to yourself "Huh, I know that people have criticized me for this issue before, for flying off the handle at certain nonsensical whimsies before, and here is this person that I know to be logical and be able to hold perfectly logical and respectful conversation with every other member of the forum, and yet when he reaches me he cannot seem to reach me with logic and therefore sees no better response but to use the tools of comedy because maybe, just maybe, it is I who has been foolish and lost my ability to communicate intelligibly and with maturity. Because I know that this person is not Potato Walrus and I know that others beyond this person have had similar misgivings about my tirades and all of those people are purposefully rational adults, perhaps it would serve me well to not simply swat away these criticisms as being ravings of a lesser being, but rather humble myself to the fact that yes, oh dear, oh me, Oh my, I can in fact be a dick."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

No. I was just using the 270Soft terms. Since it's broken down as Far-Left, Left, Center-Left in the game. The poll had Very Liberal, Somewhat Liberal, and Moderate/Conservative. 

Moderate/Conservative, in terms of relative and comparative ranking of modern Democrats, would be the "Blue Dog" faction, I assume?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Moderate/Conservative, in terms of relative and comparative ranking of modern Democrats, would be the "Blue Dog" faction, I assume?

Probably.  To be clear, the poll isn’t referring to the candidates in these terms. They’re asking the poll respondents (the potential voters) to self identity which group they would put themselves in — and then asking which candidate(s) they support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Or, just hear me out, perhaps you as a functioning human being can take a moment of self-reflection, a bit of rare retrospection and say this to yourself "Huh, I know that people have criticized me for this issue before, for flying off the handle at certain nonsensical whimsies before, and here is this person that I know to be logical and be able to hold perfectly logical and respectful conversation with every other member of the forum, and yet when he reaches me he cannot seem to reach me with logic and therefore sees no better response but to use the tools of comedy because maybe, just maybe, it is I who has been foolish and lost my ability to communicate intelligibly and with maturity. Because I know that this person is not Potato Walrus and I know that others beyond this person have had similar misgivings about my tirades and all of those people are purposefully rational adults, perhaps it would serve me well to not simply swat away these criticisms as being ravings of a lesser being, but rather humble myself to the fact that yes, oh dear, oh me, Oh my, I can in fact be a dick."

I would concede this would be a valid point, except for one thing. You have admitted yourself to being a "reactionary" (you've used the word self-referentially). And thus, true to your self-labeling, you tend to - whether consciously or by ingrained nature - become highly skeptical, dismissive, or even derisive, of the very possibility that ideas outside the sphere of things to "react in defense of" might possibility have validity at all. That is a fundamental flaw of the reactionary - just like I, as "radical reformist" have a hard time accepting anything "establishment" as being good trustworthy or valid until it's been thoroughly reformed, purged of "corruption," and perhaps even replaced outright. These are Achilles' heels of at the core of our outlooks on things that have led up to butt heads quite often. There is your rational, and even insightful (and self-reflective) response, in a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

I would concede this would be a valid point, except for one thing. You have admitted yourself to being a "reactionary" (you've used the word self-referentially). And thus, true to your self-labeling, you tend to - whether consciously or by ingrained nature - become highly skeptical, dismissive, or even derisive, of the very possibility that ideas outside the sphere of things to "react in defense of" might possibility have validity at all. That is a fundamental flaw of the reactionary - just like I, as "radical reformist" have a hard time accepting anything "establishment" as being good trustworthy or valid until it's been thoroughly reformed, purged of "corruption," and perhaps even replaced outright. These are Achilles' heels of at the core of our outlooks on things that have led up to butt heads quite often. There is your rational, and even insightful (and self-reflective) response, in a nutshell.

Ok, but...

Are we ALL reactionary?

Is the problem on this forum truly everybody except you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Ok, but...

Are we ALL reactionary?

Is the problem on this forum truly everybody except you?

I didn't say that, no. Nor did I say my core viewpoint on these issues was not at all an issue - quite the opposite, if you read my post (you obviously didn't if you seemed to have skipped my self-admission of being a "radical reformist," and it leading to as many problems as @Reagan04 being a "reactionary" - and I was specifically addressing him when I mentioned that term).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Patine said:

Thank-you for the mature and intelligent response to a very valid issue that you pretty much brought out, even if indirectly. You get a major move in your maturity and intelligence index towards the @ThePotatoWalrus box. And, since that is your best response - and you've used it three times now - all of your complaints about the tenor of my posts has pretty much been invalidated and shot in the foot, and can be safely ignored as an angry toddler who doesn't like what a grown-up says because of the tone of their voice.

How'd I get drawn into this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Patine said:

I didn't say that, no. Nor did I say my core viewpoint on these issues was not at all an issue - quite the opposite, if you read my post (you obviously didn't if you seemed to have skipped my self-admission of being a "radical reformist," and it leading to as many problems as @Reagan04 being a "reactionary" - and I was specifically addressing him when I mentioned that term).

The problem is not your politics.  The problem is the pedantic asshattery.

You bust into every conversation to argue about word choice, rather than discussing ideas, predictions, or anything else that could create an interesting conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

The problem is not your politics.  The problem is the pedantic asshattery.

You bust into every conversation to argue about word choice, rather than discussing ideas, predictions, or anything else that could create an interesting conversation.

He throws his predictions in there but tends to state them as absolute fact leaving little room for debate. It doesn't help they are mostly extremely negative predictions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

It doesn't help they are mostly extremely negative predictions. 

I truly wish - believe me, I sincerely do - I was given more real cause for positive ones.

 

27 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

The problem is not your politics.  The problem is the pedantic asshattery.

You bust into every conversation to argue about word choice, rather than discussing ideas, predictions, or anything else that could create an interesting conversation.

Words are more significant and meaningful in application than you seem to acknowledge. The flagrant misuse of certain key terms commonly leads to a very distorted, warped, twisted, and highly inaccurate dialogue on things, and these words are being deliberate maldefined by manipulative social engineer with malign ulterior motives. Words do have power - and many are misusing that power, and a LOT of others are buying into that misuse to serve the ends of the social manipulators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

The problem is not your politics.  The problem is the pedantic asshattery.

You bust into every conversation to argue about word choice, rather than discussing ideas, predictions, or anything else that could create an interesting conversation.

 

15 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

He throws his predictions in there but tends to state them as absolute fact leaving little room for debate. It doesn't help they are mostly extremely negative predictions. 

I tend to side with @Patine's political views, and I find his analyses of our political world interesting and often informative, but I would say the bigger issue over pedantry or negativity his prose, which is rather cumbersome to read. I think Patine could easily be one of the best debaters on this forum--if not the best---if he did three things: 1) Wrote much more concisely and clearly so that the reader only needs to read a sentence once to completely understand it. 2) Avoid pedantic battles that don't really help the conversation of ideas (i.e. he should pick his battles and not try to fight everything and everyone). 3) Be constructive in his criticisms of people, on other people's ideas, etc., similar to how I'm trying to offer friendly-constructive criticism now.  It also wouldn't be bad to help us deal with our elevated Trump-era high blood pressures by to occasionally punctuating comments with something positive or something that you are happy about. For instance, "while I am in despair of our global climate at the moment, I found it encouraging that CNN hosted 7-hour town hall on climate change. While this doesn't guarantee anything will be done, it is a much bolder step in the right direction than any media station has done thus far." 

By not doing these things you risk doing three things: 1) Being misunderstood or completely unread, which is a shame since you have valuable things to say. 2) Derailing the topic of discussion off-topic and sort of rendering the purposed of the conversation dead as the fight has been focused on poor word choice. A way to correct someone is to include a brief comment about the word choice at the bottom of your response specifically on the topic. 3) Risk of alienating and/or draining your readers, even those that personally like you or your often sound ideas, whether as a devil's advocate or as a presenter of facts. 

I'm sure there are many others on here that should follow this advice, including myself from time to time. Obviously, I wouldn't offer constructive criticism to someone that I thought was a lost cause. I'd just block that kind of person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Patine said:

SThe flagrant misuse of certain key terms commonly leads to a very distorted, warped, twisted, and highly inaccurate dialogue on things

Except...everyone actually does understand what is being discussed.  You underestimate the people on this forum.  

They are, largely, an intelligent people with a sincere interest in politics.  

They are capable of understanding that when we are talking about the US Presidential election, then the terms in use are as applied to the current US political climate.

Claiming words are invalid because they’re not being used exclusively to talk about people who are long dead or Scandinavian or whatever adds nothing to a conversation about the current American presidential election.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...