HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » LincolnRossiter » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Chris
Gender: Male
Hometown: Deep South
Home country: United States
Current location: Northern VA/DC
Member since: Wed Jun 27, 2018, 04:50 PM
Number of posts: 546

Journal Archives

270toWin Democratic Presidential Contest Projections


I'm not as familiar with this site, so don't take my posting this as an endorsement, but it has a lot more functionality than RCP, and 538 hasn't really kicked all of its features into gear yet.

One cool feature is that it does state-by-state delegate projections based upon current average polling. It also allows you to compare any poll to the one that immediately preceded it (by the same pollster). It's seems to have some polls that RCP doesn't and excludes some that RCP does. Not sure how the selection process works for either site. 538 has all the polls (seemingly) but doesn't do averages or delegate projections. I think they'll add those features as we get closer.
Posted by LincolnRossiter | Fri Sep 27, 2019, 12:11 PM (4 replies)

Current RCP Averages--National And Early States

National: Biden +7.3
Iowa: Warren +2.7
NH: Biden +3.0
Nevada: Biden +7.3
SC: Biden +24.6

Warren's made big moves over the summer. But the reports of Biden's demise are greatly exaggerated.
Posted by LincolnRossiter | Fri Sep 27, 2019, 11:50 AM (23 replies)

A quick thought on Justin Trudeau, Donald Trump, and our media's coverage of race and racism.

Who the hell believes that Justin Trudeau is a racist? The answer is "no one," so why the hell are our media playing up this blackface thing as though it's indicative of Trudeau's racism.

I'm sick and tired of the innuendo, nodding of heads, and tacit accusations. Trudeau should be criticized for his stupid, childish antics. But anyone who thinks he's a racist should man (or woman) up and make the call.

This is why we lose elections to actual open, practicing racists like Donald Trump, Jesse Helm, and Strom Thurmond. Liberals need to wake the fuck up or watch what happens next. They're doing the shame shit to Biden.

It's pathetic.
Posted by LincolnRossiter | Thu Sep 19, 2019, 02:31 PM (10 replies)

Interesting 538 piece on the current state of the race. Nothing definitive. Just some facts to chew


Is it really a three-candidate race?


...All right, there’s lots to unpack here. For one thing, based on national polls alone, Biden is still really in a tier by himself. It’s not just that polling at 28 or 30 percent is quite a bit higher than 17 or 18 percent. It’s also that the difference between Biden’s polling and the candidates below him falls within a range that, empirically, has been something of an inflection point as to who eventually wins the nomination or not. Candidates who are sitting in the mid-to-high teens — such as Warren and Sanders — don’t have a fantastic track record. A candidate in Biden’s position will still lose more often than not, but they have a considerably better record of success historically.

Of course, there’s no reason you should limit yourself to looking only at national polls. If you were building a predictive model at this stage, it would probably consist of some sort of amalgam of national polling adjusted for name recognition, early-state polling and endorsements, which are historically fairly predictive of nomination outcomes. In Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden looks weaker and Warren and Sanders (and to some extent Buttigieg) look a lot more viable. But endorsements are another story and those don’t look especially good for Warren and Sanders. Instead, Biden and Harris are well out in front in endorsements, although many potential endorsers are sitting on the sidelines.

The prediction markets deviate a lot from the objective data in the cases of Warren and Biden. They actually had her as being more likely to win the nomination than him (as of Sunday evening), even though he’s ahead in national polls and endorsements, and at worst tied with her in Iowa and New Hampshire (and way ahead in South Carolina). That isn’t necessarily wrong; it’s an early enough stage of the primary that I’d say there’s some room for subjectivity. But there are also some reasons to be cautious. The conventional wisdom has repeatedly expected Biden to implode when it hasn’t really happened yet. And frankly, the people trading in these markets — mostly younger and well-educated — aren’t your prototypical Biden voters.

And none of this makes it any easier to divide the candidates into tiers. For me, at least, the lines between the top several candidates are blurry. I’m pretty sure that I still like Biden’s chances better than Warren — as I said, that’s certainly where a statistical model would come out. But I wouldn’t wager a huge amount of money on that proposition. I think Warren has a few things going for her that Sanders doesn’t — less voter concern about her age, more room to make peace with the establishment and slightly better polling. But you could argue that they should basically be treated as tied.

I’m also not quite sure what to do with Harris. A “Party Decides” rubric that heavily emphasized endorsements and the ability to build a broad coalition would treat her as one of the favorites, while the polling wouldn’t. Then again, she’s had moments where she was polling better, and she could be poised to benefit if Biden falters among black voters or Warren does among college-educated ones. One reason to be pessimistic about the chances of candidates such as Cory Booker and Beto O’Rourke, in fact, is that if something did happen to one of the frontrunners, Harris would probably be first in line to benefit from that.

Overall, the best I can do is something like this:
Nate’s not-to-be-taken-too-seriously presidential tiers
For the Democratic nomination, as revised on Sept. 9, 2019

1. a. Biden

b. Warren

c. Sanders

d. Harris

2. Buttigieg

3. Yang, O’Rourke, Booker, Klobuchar, Castro

4. Everyone else

Note: Steve Bullock was demoted into the “everyone else” tier.
Even if you do have Biden, Warren and Sanders as your top three candidates (as I do), there’s no particular reason to draw a firm line at three candidates as opposed to some other number. If you’re just looking at national polls, then Biden’s still in a tier by himself. Prediction markets basically have it as a two-horse race between Warren and Biden. You can add Sanders to make it a top three… but factor in endorsements, and Harris probably also needs to join the group, which would leave us with four candidates. I don’t really put a lot of emphasis on money raised, as it hasn’t been a very predictive indicator historically, but if you did, you could add Buttigieg to the top tier and make it a top 5.
Perhaps this week’s debate will provide more clarity. If Warren has another strong debate and continues gaining in the polls, for instance, we might have a relatively clear two-way race between her and Biden. But the reality will probably be a lot messier.
Posted by LincolnRossiter | Mon Sep 9, 2019, 11:15 AM (6 replies)

New Harvard-Harris Poll: Biden 32%, Sanders 16%, Warren 12%


The primary voter breakout is on page 151. Warren was at 24% in the IBD poll and is at 13% in this one. Seems as though she and Bernie seesaw quite a bit depending upon the poll. Biden’s numbers, with few exceptions hover between about 28 and 33%. Much more consistent.
Posted by LincolnRossiter | Tue Sep 3, 2019, 05:23 PM (12 replies)

The significance of front-runner status at this point in the race

I’ve posted this info in a couple of threads but thought it worth highlighting since I still see so many posts dismissing a polling lead as irrelevant at this stage of a primary. Obviously the past doesn't necessarily predict the future, but it’s worth considering when discussing possible outcomes.

According to Realclearpolitics, in the last five contested primaries (two in 2008, one in 2012, two in 2016), the candidate leading at the end of August in the preceding year (approx where we are now) won in 3/5 cases—the last three, in fact. Romney won in 2012, Clinton in 2016, and Trump in 2016. In 2008, Clinton and Giuliani led at this point in their respective primaries, but Obama and McCain ultimately captured the nominations of their respective parties.

In 4/5 cases (all but Giuliani, who had a bizarre strategy of not seriously contesting any primary until Florida) the late August leader went the distance and finished top 2. This includes the three aforementioned winners plus Hillary in 2008 (who actually received more raw votes than Obama in that year’s primary.

Again, this obviously doesn’t mean that being in the pole position early on guarantees ultimate success (as highlighted by Clinton and Giuliani in 2008), but it’s also not meaningless. A 60% rate of success and an 80% rate of “going the distance” is significant.
Posted by LincolnRossiter | Tue Sep 3, 2019, 12:54 PM (7 replies)

Warren lovefest ending as 2020 competitors fear her rise


Rival campaigns say she's gotten a free ride, but her allies warn that attacks will only backfire.

...with the Massachusetts senator now drawing massive crowds and surging in national polls, competing campaigns are starting to refocus on Warren, looking to blunt her momentum.

Aides to three rival candidates confirmed in interviews they’re revving up opposition research on Warren in preparation for the next debate on Sept. 12. Still others privately complained she’s gotten fawning treatment in the media as she unveiled a litany of ambitious plans without being pressed on where the money would come from to pay for them.

Warren’s supporters said the gripes amount to sour grapes from campaigns who didn’t take her seriously until she shot up in the polls, and are now watching with envy the organization she’s amassed while they were busy attacking each other.

Her opponents so far are treading carefully, wary of alienating Warren supporters whom they hope to win over eventually. Fellow liberal icon Bernie Sanders and Warren have long had a nonaggression pact, and various polls have shown overlap between backers of Kamala Harris and Warren. Biden, sitting atop the field, has been busy trying to deflect the brunt of attacks.

But surrogates for those top-tier candidates are starting to speak up.

The actress Susan Sarandon, while in Iowa supporting Sanders, threw shade at Warren last week. “[Sanders] is not someone who used to be Republican. He is not someone who used to take money, or still takes money, from Wall Street. He is the real deal,” she said.

An adviser to a competing campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity, echoed some of that sentiment. If Warren attacks someone else’s record on the debate stage, the person said, she will get it back in return.

“Elizabeth Warren has gotten a pass in both debates,” Sellers said. He said he believes Warren has run the best campaign of the 2020 race, but added: “I think that at the end of the day, the biggest criticism of Elizabeth Warren is her inability to make her plans actual reality. There are a lot of voters — especially black voters — who will say, ‘A lot of this is pie in the sky and we want pie on the table.’”

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who is backing Biden, said Warren has avoided the kind of scrutiny that’s dogging Biden because she’s run a “mistake-free campaign” and has yet to be deemed a front-runner.

But Rendell said Warren won’t get a pass in the next presidential debate. He predicted, for one, that she’ll be pressed on how she would pay for Medicare for All.

“Elizabeth skillfully avoided answering the question: ‘Would your health care proposal cause taxes to rise?’” Rendell said. “She never answered the question … She’s done a great job avoiding it. She has to answer it now.”

I want to clearly state that this isn’t a knock against Warren, whom I feel has been an outstanding candidate who’s run an excellent campaign. But this speaks to some of the challenges that come with being a frontrunner and some of the gripes we Biden supporters have that seemingly all the focus and negative scrutiny (of mainly the press, but also other candidates) seems to be directed his way. I think a little extra light being shone on other candidates will do the process some good.
Posted by LincolnRossiter | Fri Aug 30, 2019, 12:03 PM (14 replies)

With the Third Debate Set and Several Candidates Picking Up

next to go?

Qualified for Debate:

Joe Biden
Elizabeth Warren
Bernie Sanders
Kamala Harris
Andrew Yang
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Julian Castro
Amy Klobuchar
Beto O'Rourke

Did Not Qualify:

Kirsten Gillibrand
Tulsi Gabbard
John Delaney
Marianne Williamson
Wayne Messam
Tim Ryan
Michael Bennet
Steve Bullock
Bill de Blasio
Joe Sestak
Tom Steyer

Pure speculation since we don't really know what these candidates' intentions and motivations are. I'm thinking Gillibrand and at least one of the newer candidates who most voters couldn't pick in a line-up Joe Sestak or Wayne Messam. Good time for de Blasio to get out, too. Tulsi is going to hang on for a while longer. Steyer isn't going anywhere because he can buy as much organization and exposure as he wants with his own dough.

Really it's anyone's guess. Ryan, Delaney, Bullock, and Bennet have to know they're wasting time and money.
Posted by LincolnRossiter | Wed Aug 28, 2019, 08:57 AM (3 replies)

Gravis NH Poll: Sanders leads field in NH with 21% support

Biden, Warren follow with 15 and 12% respectively.


Obviously NH should be Bernie's strongest early state. Be interesting to see if he can get a head of steam by pulling it out in Iowa and then holding on to win in NH. I think if Biden wins in Iowa and keeps it close in NH, he'll be poised to head out of SC with all the momentum. And obviously Warren is going to be a major factor in both early contests as well.

Any idea why were aren't seeing more polling out of Nevada? I think Nate Silver asked a couple of days ago as well.

Edit: It is worth noting that this poll stands in contrast to other recent NH polls, which typically show Biden with small-modest leads. In this poll, Bernie also gets 2/3 of the black vote, which while probably inconsequential in a state with NH"s demographics, contravenes the conventional wisdom that nationally black folks are Biden's demo.

Starting to get excited about the horserace here.
Posted by LincolnRossiter | Tue Aug 13, 2019, 12:25 PM (22 replies)

So who's watching Succession tonight?

Succession has to be some gross amalgamation of the Trumps and the Murdochs, but the series is nauseatingly hilarious.


Best I could do for a link.

Posted by LincolnRossiter | Sun Aug 11, 2019, 07:40 PM (3 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »