Election 2020

[umjewman]

I've only been to Kentucky once, for the 2002 Kentucky Derby. A woman came up to me in a bar in a delightful Kentucky accent and said: "Pardon me, can I shit in your hat?" It was not a figure of speech - she just really hated Michigan and wanted to shit in my Michigan hat. That's the only time I've been there.

[Steve 2.0]

I've only been to Kentucky once, for the 2002 Kentucky Derby. A woman came up to me in a bar in a delightful Kentucky accent and said: "Pardon me, can I shit in your hat?" It was not a figure of speech - she just really hated Michigan and wanted to shit in my Michigan hat. That's the only time I've been there.

WTF is wrong with people?

[revo]

I've only been to Kentucky once, for the 2002 Kentucky Derby. A woman came up to me in a bar in a delightful Kentucky accent and said: "Pardon me, can I shit in your hat?" It was not a figure of speech - she just really hated Michigan and wanted to shit in my Michigan hat. That's the only time I've been there.

Maybe she thought you were a walking Port-o-Potty and wanted to avoid the long lines?

Interesting note about War Emblem, the 2002 Kentucky Derby winner. He was sold for $18m for stud purposes, but was just generally disinterested in mating with females and sired just about 100 foals or so. He now stands at Old Friends park in Kentucky, so you can go see him again if you'd like. Maybe tell him to go shit in his hat!

[heyelander]

I've only been to Kentucky once, for the 2002 Kentucky Derby. A woman came up to me in a bar in a delightful Kentucky accent and said: "Pardon me, can I shit in your hat?" It was not a figure of speech - she just really hated Michigan and wanted to shit in my Michigan hat. That's the only time I've been there.

"Only if I can film it"

[fuhrdog]

WTF is wrong with people?

Completely agree....a Michigan hat???

[frae]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-midsummer-overview-of-the-democratic-field/

Nate definitely doesn't like Sanders chances of winning the nomination as he put him in tier 2 with Pete. His argument is he is at 100% name recognition and polling at 15% nationally and not so well in Iowa yet...

"The bad news: His polling is less impressive given his high name recognition; in fact, he’s in a zone (15 percent-ish in the polls with 100 percent name recognition) that’s usually associated with losing candidates. He’s polling worse in Iowa than he is nationally, a bearish indicator given that it should be a strong state for him demographically. He’s failing to win the support of influential progressive groups like MoveOn.org that backed him four years ago, or to receive many endorsements of other kinds. His fundraising totals are underwhelming as compared with the numbers from his best quarters in 2015 and 2016. Warren’s emergence has produced another strong candidate in his lane. And to the extent that age is a consideration for voters, it’s a problem for Sanders as much as it is for Biden."

Now the top tier he put Biden, Harris, and Warren. Lay out the case a bit for each. Biden next in line continue Obama era, Harris coalition builder candidate could bring the party together, Warren playing more to the left base of the party.

His ending paragraphs...

"Unless … the way you lost that hand reveals something about your game that could come back to bite you again in the future. Biden wasn’t very effective in the debates, according to the voters we surveyed along with Morning Consult. And some of his decline in the polls has to do with what could be Biden’s two biggest vulnerabilities: his electability halo bursting and voters expressing concern about his age. The age problem isn’t going away. And while Biden can still make an electability case — there are plenty of polls showing him doing better than other Democrats against President Trump — voters are at least likely to scrutinize his argument rather than take it for granted.

Biden and Harris are a fairly clear No. 1 and 2 in endorsements, meanwhile, with Harris having recently picked up a number of endorsements from members of the Congressional Black Caucus, an indicator that coincides with her gaining support among black voters in polls. Warren lags in endorsements, meanwhile. Also, it’s worth noting that whichever candidate wins the plurality of black voters usually wins the Democratic nomination — something that Biden and Harris probably have a better chance of doing than Warren does. For those reasons, I have Biden and Harris a half-step ahead of Warren. That said, I see the dropoff from Biden and Harris to Warren as being considerably smaller than the dropoff from Warren to the rest of the field."

Pete is listed at 2B behind Sanders and since I have backed him some here are his challenges...

"And then there’s Buttigieg’s big challenge, which is similar in some respects to Sanders’s: It’s not clear if Buttigieg can build a broad-enough coalition to win the nomination. He has very little support among black or Hispanic voters and relatively little support among non-college Democrats. Is there a niche for college-educated white voters who think Warren and Sanders are too far to the left, but Biden is too old and/or too moderate? Sure, and it’s a niche that probably includes a lot of FiveThirtyEight readers. �� But it’s not a particularly large niche, and that helps explain why Buttigieg is at 5 percent in the polls instead of 20 or something."

So here are the exact rankings...

1A Biden and Harris
1B Warren

2 A Sanders
2 B Pete

3A Booker
3B Klobuchar, Castro, O'Rourke

4A Inslee and Gillibrand
4B Gabbard and Yang
4 C The Field

As always it is early but I think we have all been seeing a 4 person race with Pete having enough money to be in it and that 3rd group positioning themselves for VP slots or at least being able to shape issues.

[Teenwolf]

Saying Sanders has collected less donations than 2015-16 in a 2 person field than 2019 in a 20 person field is a pretty dumb way of looking at it.

Individual contributor totals were released for Q2. This is the actual number of people who contributed.

Sanders 450K
Warren 384K
Buttigieg 294K
Harris 279K
Biden 256K

How on earth are people thinking Sanders' fundraising is doing poorly? Its incredibly stupid.

[frae]

Saying Sanders has collected less donations than 2015-16 in a 2 person field than 2019 in a 20 person field is a pretty dumb way of looking at it.

Individual contributor totals were released for Q2. This is the actual number of people who contributed.

Sanders 450K
Warren 384K
Buttigieg 294K
Harris 279K
Biden 256K

How on earth are people thinking Sanders' fundraising is doing poorly? Its incredibly stupid.

Well, I think I would say he is maxed out on name recognition so he isn't likely to pull in anyone new and he is losing people to Warren. I think what he points out is the MoveOn support there is going to Warren at the moment and I think her electability will move more and more of that money.

You are right comparing straight money to Sanders now to Sanders vs Clinton only probably isn't fair, but I'll give you a personal view, I donated to Bernie in 2016 and today I would definitely donate to Harris and Warren first. I just think everyone knows Bernie and Biden and with neither having overwhelming support they are going to have a harder time growing their support numbers.

I could be wrong, I have been before but I agree with Nate that Harris, Warren, and Biden are ahead of Sanders in their chances to get the nomination. Whether it should matter or not him never ID'ing as a Democrat except when he runs for President hurts him a little in a Democratic primary.

[revo]

What's troubling about Bernie as compared to the others who have announced (July 15th is the due date) is that his average Q2 donation is incredibly low.

Biden - $49
Mayor Pete - $47
Harris - $39
Warren - $28
Bennet - $25
Bernie - $18

I'm not sure if this is a sign of his relatively young core group of supporters, or if his supporters are becoming more uncertain. But what is a troubling sign is that Biden is pulling in almost 3x the amount Bernie is per donation.

[DMT]

What's troubling about Bernie as compared to the others who have announced (July 15th is the due date) is that his average Q2 donation is incredibly low.

Biden - $49
Mayor Pete - $47
Harris - $39
Warren - $28
Bennet - $25
Bernie - $18

I'm not sure if this is a sign of his relatively young core group of supporters, or if his supporters are becoming more uncertain. But what is a troubling sign is that Biden is pulling in almost 3x the amount Bernie is per donation.

How is that troubling when his message is anti-PAC and fighting for the people? Smaller donation amounts are because most of his supporters have less disposable income would be my interpretation.

[DMT]

Well, I think I would say he is maxed out on name recognition so he isn't likely to pull in anyone new and he is losing people to Warren. I think what he points out is the MoveOn support there is going to Warren at the moment and I think her electability will move more and more of that money.

You are right comparing straight money to Sanders now to Sanders vs Clinton only probably isn't fair, but I'll give you a personal view, I donated to Bernie in 2016 and today I would definitely donate to Harris and Warren first. I just think everyone knows Bernie and Biden and with neither having overwhelming support they are going to have a harder time growing their support numbers.

I could be wrong, I have been before but I agree with Nate that Harris, Warren, and Biden are ahead of Sanders in their chances to get the nomination. Whether it should matter or not him never ID'ing as a Democrat except when he runs for President hurts him a little in a Democratic primary.

Similarly, I donated and volunteered for Bernie last election but have thus far only donated to Warren.

[Teenwolf]

What's troubling about Bernie as compared to the others who have announced (July 15th is the due date) is that his average Q2 donation is incredibly low.

Biden - $49
Mayor Pete - $47
Harris - $39
Warren - $28
Bennet - $25
Bernie - $18

I'm not sure if this is a sign of his relatively young core group of supporters, or if his supporters are becoming more uncertain. But what is a troubling sign is that Biden is pulling in almost 3x the amount Bernie is per supporter.

Sanders' biggest group of supporters by company is Walmart employees. They might drag down his dollar per donation, but I believe it means more for Sanders building support from the actual working class rather than the Buttigieg, Harris, Biden corporate fundraisers... again, those max donations... they're maxed. Bernie's $18Mil, none is from max donors. So with 975K people having donated to Sanders, yeah, I think the lower dollar total per donation is better because its desperate people with more likelihood to follow through on their votes. Bernie has 15-20% absolutely locked in for the final tally. If he can push through the bullshit narratives in these next 11 debates, and if he can avoid the current DNC rigging the primaries, and the media hatred/bias... it's a tough battle, but I think he can add to his base to get 35%-40% by the end of things. I agree he needs to make his case better in upcoming debates, but I have faith he will.

Oh, and I'm waiting for Warren to be exposed as a phony progressive. Cue B-Fly booing and hissing, but honestly... Warren's endorsements from Wall Street and Fortune magazine and other centrists should be very concerning. Her record on military spending/ideology and absolute flippity floppity health care position, and she just doesn't pass the smell test for progressives. But I'm waiting to see if her record is scrutinized by anyone other than Bernie, because he needs to avoid directly criticizing her early on.

[revo]

How is that troubling when his message is anti-PAC and fighting for the people? Smaller donation amounts are because most of his supporters have less disposable income would be my interpretation.

I believe they're all anti-PAC.

And yeah, his supporters are younger and they have less money. So he needs many more supporters because they're donating far less.

[frae]

Since we are talking about campaign contributions this was interesting...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/24/18656919/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-campaign-donations-finance-pledges

While I would like to see Citizens United not be the law of the land I also know Trump will be taking money from anywhere he can get it so should I be standing on principle to put my party at a disadvantage? In the primary I admire the candidates not doing the big donor fundraisers and still raising money, but in the general I wonder what I should be rooting for. I want to defeat Trump and he will be using any money he can get.

[B-Fly]

Oh, and I'm waiting for Warren to be exposed as a phony progressive. Cue B-Fly booing and hissing, but honestly... Warren's endorsements from Wall Street and Fortune magazine and other centrists should be very concerning. Her record on military spending/ideology and absolute flippity floppity health care position, and she just doesn't pass the smell test for progressives. But I'm waiting to see if her record is scrutinized by anyone other than Bernie, because he needs to avoid directly criticizing her early on.

Boo. Hiss.