Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Joe Bryant

Is It Really A Battle For The Middle?

Do You Agree Or Disagree It's Really A Battle For The Middle?   

77 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I know we've talked about this before here but making a new thread today with a poll.

We have folks here knowledgeable about political strategy and process. I'm not one. I'm a regular guy that feels like I understand human nature pretty well. And I understand game play and strategy.

I know it's serious and not a "game" but for this discussion, I'm defining the "game" as winning the Presidential Election.

Understand, that's VERY different than the game being "My Candidate Winning". If your candidate is on the further edge, you're not going to like what I'm saying here. But understand what I'm saying. I'm defining the game as winning the election. Not getting your candidate in. 

Side Note: This is separate / in addition to one of the most important and odd rules of the game - the Electoral College. A rule Trump seemed to intuitively understand and use to his advantage last time way more effectively than Clinton. This part is actually fascinating. This is like a guy who doesn't know the NFL players but completely understands game play. You put him in a league where RB receptions are worth 10x their normal fantasy value and he instantly understands Austin Ekeler is a top 2 pick. Where the other guy is relatively clueless how a rule changes the game. 

Back to the game. I see it like this.

The Democrats already the folks firmly on their end of the spectrum. Those points/votes are already scored. There is talk of Bernie Bros defecting if they don't get Bernie again, but the reality is most everyone firmly on the Dem side now will vote for whoever is the nominee. 

The Republicans already the folks firmly on their end of the spectrum. Those points/votes are already scored. In the same way, most everyone that is firmly on the Republican side will vote Trump. They may talk about the "lesser of two bad choices", but the reality is a vote is a binary decision and the guy who holds his nose and votes Trump counts exactly the same as the MAGA Hat Rally voter. 

The "game" then becomes who can win over the points WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SCORED YET. They live in the middle. They're people who lean mostly Democratic but just aren't quite comfortable with how Bernie will pay for all this. They're people who lean most Republican but they just aren't comfortable with how Trump yells at people. Whatever. Doesn't really matter what they're not comfortable with. What matters is they're not firmly in either camp.

These were the mostly Republican small business owners (like my Dad) who realized Bill Clinton gave them the best opportunity to succeed. These were the mostly Democratic unemployed car factory person, who felt like Donald Trump would bring back jobs. Again, I"m not sure it matters so much WHY a candidate appeals to the person. Just that that they DO appeal to person. 

So the game becomes in my opinion very simply: Who can win over the middle? And that begs the next question: What does the middle look like? Or better: How firm are the votes already locked in for the Democratic Candidate and for Trump?

Personally, I see way more opportunity for picking off the "not firm" Trump Support than I do picking off the "not firm" Democratic support. This goes back to my constantly saying my opinion, based on people I know, in the subset of "Trump Voters", the subset of super hardcore locked in Trump folks is relatively small. Sure, the average "Trump Voter" will say he supports / approves Trump when asked in a poll. But again, that's a binary vote. I think the actual opportunity for a moderate Democrat to pull people over to their side is huge. 

If I could magically control the DNC and try to win the presidency in 2020, I'd go all in for a candidate that would satisfy my votes that are already locked up, and then go hard after those undecided votes in the middle. 

So that's my strategy. And that's how I'd try to win "the game". Thoughts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted "mostly agree."  Candidates need to be able to motivate their own base to get out there and vote, but I don't see that as a big issue for the Democrats in 2020.  They need to pick off people who aren't happy with Trump but are willing to hold their nose and vote for him over the alternative.  It doesn't seem like that should be hard to do, but they're currently in the process of nominating the candidate least capable of doing it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I voted "mostly agree."  Candidates need to be able to motivate their own base to get out there and vote, but I don't see that as a big issue for the Democrats in 2020.  They need to pick off people who aren't happy with Trump but are willing to hold their nose and vote for him over the alternative.  It doesn't seem like that should be hard to do, but they're currently in the process of nominating the candidate least capable of doing it.

Thanks IK.

The continued surge for Sanders is what I was thinking on this. 

I think there's something about the binary nature of the vote that is throwing people off. An enthusiastic vote counts the same as a "hold your nose" vote. That's a weird twist on the rules. This isn't like business where a small number of people can potentially buy a ton of the product and make it work and therefore make the niche thing super valuable. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The middle already knows what they think about Bernie. If he wins the nomination then gamble is that there are enough hold your nose voters in the right states that click the blue button like what happened with the other party in 2016.

I think it's too soon to say anything beyond speculative wrt a more centrist candidate. We are going to be flooded with a lot of information over the next few weeks - some real, some not, and all calculated. Should a non-Bernie candidate win the nominate how this process transpires will heavily influence what happens in November. Candidate X will need a not insignificant portion of the Bernie crowd though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does your theory account for people that like Sanders and Trump but don’t like “establishment” candidates from either party?

 

 I voted “mostly disagree” for what it’s worth.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although the position seems logical, it doesn’t seem to match what we’re seeing in polling. For example, here are some head to heads from a recent Quinnipiac poll:

Bloomberg tops Trump 51 - 42 percent; 
Sanders defeats Trump 51 - 43 %;
Biden beats Trump 50 - 43 %;
Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 - 43 %;
Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 - 44 %;
Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 - 43 %.

This is just one poll but I’ve seen others that are similar.

My conclusion is a candidate’s position on the political spectrum is just one of several factors people take into account when choosing a candidate.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who continues to hope for more moderates representing both sides of the aisle, I think for many folks it comes down to the lesser of two evils and I hate it. I don’t feel represented by most of the current Dems running for the nomination nor the POTUS. Fwiw, as a non-party affiliated voter in FL, I cannot vote in a primary for a presidential candidate so I only have one opportunity to vote for the next POTUS.

Edited by Osaurus
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

The middle already knows what they think about Bernie.

I think this assumption is either heroically optimistic or dangerously naive.  Sanders has never been vetted, ever.  The Trump campaign is sitting on 30+ years of opposition research, none of which has reached undecided, middle-of-the-road voters.  People on this forum know that Bernie went to the Soviet Union during his honeymoon, but your average person is completely unaware of that.  He'll be a member of the politburo by the time the GOP gets done with him.  And that's just the stuff that we know about -- God only knows what else is out there.

Edit: This is also the reason why head-to-head polls are irrelevant in February.  Sanders is the person most likely to see his head-to-head numbers against Trump crater.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I think this assumption is either heroically optimistic or dangerously naive.  Sanders has never been vetted, ever.  The Trump campaign is sitting on 30+ years of opposition research, none of which has reached undecided, middle-of-the-road voters.  People on this forum know that Bernie went to the Soviet Union during his honeymoon, but your average person is completely unaware of that.  He'll be a member of the politburo by the time the GOP gets done with him.  And that's just the stuff that we know about -- God only knows what else is out there.

Edit: This is also the reason why head-to-head polls are irrelevant in February.  Sanders is the person most likely to see his head-to-head numbers against Trump crater.

Sounds exactly like what the Hillary folks were peddling last year.  Maybe people are interested in an alternative that is honest and has their best interests in mind.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I think this assumption is either heroically optimistic or dangerously naive.  Sanders has never been vetted, ever.  The Trump campaign is sitting on 30+ years of opposition research, none of which has reached undecided, middle-of-the-road voters.  People on this forum know that Bernie went to the Soviet Union during his honeymoon, but your average person is completely unaware of that.  He'll be a member of the politburo by the time the GOP gets done with him.  And that's just the stuff that we know about -- God only knows what else is out there.

Edit: This is also the reason why head-to-head polls are irrelevant in February.  Sanders is the person most likely to see his head-to-head numbers against Trump crater.

Right, a not insignificant portion of those in the middle associate him with the socialism boogeyman. Of course they will be influenced by information that tickles that bias. Will they hold their nose and vote for him anyway? That's the gamble.

Share this post


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

Sounds exactly like what the Hillary folks were peddling last year.  Maybe people are interested in an alternative that is honest and has their best interests in mind.

I didn't have the energy to prioritize a lot of this in 2016, but I have still yet to actually meet a pro-Hillary person. Ultimately, that was her problem. Everything else is just noise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Although the position seems logical, it doesn’t seem to match what we’re seeing in polling. For example, here are some head to heads from a recent Quinnipiac poll:


Bloomberg tops Trump 51 - 42 percent; 
Sanders defeats Trump 51 - 43 %;
Biden beats Trump 50 - 43 %;
Klobuchar defeats Trump 49 - 43 %;
Warren wins narrowly over Trump 48 - 44 %;
Buttigieg is also slightly ahead of Trump 47 - 43 %.

This is just one poll but I’ve seen others that are similar.

My conclusion is a candidate’s position on the political spectrum is just one of several factors people take into account when choosing a candidate.

Polling like this is a bunch of malarkey. Look at the betting odds and you will see it tells a completely different story.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks IK.

The continued surge for Sanders is what I was thinking on this. 

I think there's something about the binary nature of the vote that is throwing people off. An enthusiastic vote counts the same as a "hold your nose" vote. That's a weird twist on the rules. This isn't like business where a small number of people can potentially buy a ton of the product and make it work and therefore make the niche thing super valuable. 

 

 

Not sure I see a surge for Sanders.  Not yet.  In fact I might argue the opposite.  may there be such a surge coming off yesterday's results, perhaps. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally disagree.  Until the model fails (it road-tested the 2017 VA state races almost perfectly, then nailed 2018 months in advance), Rachel Bitecofer's "Negative Partisanship" has it right IMO.

There are almost no persuadable Independents, and turnout effects swamp them in size.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

 

I know it's serious and not a "game" but for this discussion, I'm defining the "game" as winning the Presidential Election.

Understand, that's VERY different than the game being "My Candidate Winning". If your candidate is on the further edge, you're not going to like what I'm saying here. But understand what I'm saying. I'm defining the game as winning the election. Not getting your candidate in. 

 

This is the disconnect for me. You don't say it here, but what you mean is that “winning” is tied to a party winning, not an individual becoming president.  Many people, including me, don’t identify with one political party or the other, nor do I think there’s much if anything of substance that differentiates them from each other.  For these folks, “winning the presidential election” is not VERY different from “my guy winning.”  I don’t perceive any significant difference among Trump, Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg.  They’re all in the middle and none of them wants to change anything. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted mostly disagree.  More about motivating people to take the time to go and vote.  You might have 10-15% of the population on the fence between Trump and a Dem.  You have 50% of the country that doesn't vote.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On CNN last night a panel does not think Bernie will come out of this on top and Warren is done. Pete will take over the lead but the dark horse is Amy who they say will land the moderate vote which is needed.

Share this post


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

On CNN The DNC establishment last night had a panel that does not think Bernie will come out of this on top and Warren is done. Pete will take over the lead but the dark horse is Amy who they say will land the moderate vote which is needed.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I think this assumption is either heroically optimistic or dangerously naive.  Sanders has never been vetted, ever.  The Trump campaign is sitting on 30+ years of opposition research, none of which has reached undecided, middle-of-the-road voters.  People on this forum know that Bernie went to the Soviet Union during his honeymoon, but your average person is completely unaware of that.  He'll be a member of the politburo by the time the GOP gets done with him.  And that's just the stuff that we know about -- God only knows what else is out there.

Edit: This is also the reason why head-to-head polls are irrelevant in February.  Sanders is the person most likely to see his head-to-head numbers against Trump crater.

This is how I hear it too.

The people I know who are serious Trump supporters are BEGGING for the candidate to be Bernie Sanders. 

And they're scared to death of Michael Bloomberg. 

For the exact reasons in my theory. Which truthfully, was a big part of my forming this complex theory... ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a battle for the middle for sure.  However, it is also a battle to get out your side.  The way you get out your side is to show how horrible the other side is. As a Bernie supporter I think this is an easier case for someone like Trump to make with a Sanders, Warren or Biden (and Mayor Pete to a smaller extent).  Klobuchar is probably the one candidate immune from this attack.  Getting the "I hate Amy" vote out will be tough, because it exists in a much less form.  That is why I think she is the most likely candidate to win a general election.

 

ie getting the "I hate Trump" vote out will be easy and voted mostly agree.

Edited by toshiba
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I know we've talked about this before here but making a new thread today with a poll.

We have folks here knowledgeable about political strategy and process. I'm not one. I'm a regular guy that feels like I understand human nature pretty well. And I understand game play and strategy.

I know it's serious and not a "game" but for this discussion, I'm defining the "game" as winning the Presidential Election.

Understand, that's VERY different than the game being "My Candidate Winning". If your candidate is on the further edge, you're not going to like what I'm saying here. But understand what I'm saying. I'm defining the game as winning the election. Not getting your candidate in. 

Side Note: This is separate / in addition to one of the most important and odd rules of the game - the Electoral College. A rule Trump seemed to intuitively understand and use to his advantage last time way more effectively than Clinton. This part is actually fascinating. This is like a guy who doesn't know the NFL players but completely understands game play. You put him in a league where RB receptions are worth 10x their normal fantasy value and he instantly understands Austin Ekeler is a top 2 pick. Where the other guy is relatively clueless how a rule changes the game. 

Back to the game. I see it like this.

The Democrats already the folks firmly on their end of the spectrum. Those points/votes are already scored. There is talk of Bernie Bros defecting if they don't get Bernie again, but the reality is most everyone firmly on the Dem side now will vote for whoever is the nominee. 

The Republicans already the folks firmly on their end of the spectrum. Those points/votes are already scored. In the same way, most everyone that is firmly on the Republican side will vote Trump. They may talk about the "lesser of two bad choices", but the reality is a vote is a binary decision and the guy who holds his nose and votes Trump counts exactly the same as the MAGA Hat Rally voter. 

The "game" then becomes who can win over the points WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SCORED YET. They live in the middle. They're people who lean mostly Democratic but just aren't quite comfortable with how Bernie will pay for all this. They're people who lean most Republican but they just aren't comfortable with how Trump yells at people. Whatever. Doesn't really matter what they're not comfortable with. What matters is they're not firmly in either camp.

These were the mostly Republican small business owners (like my Dad) who realized Bill Clinton gave them the best opportunity to succeed. These were the mostly Democratic unemployed car factory person, who felt like Donald Trump would bring back jobs. Again, I"m not sure it matters so much WHY a candidate appeals to the person. Just that that they DO appeal to person. 

So the game becomes in my opinion very simply: Who can win over the middle? And that begs the next question: What does the middle look like? Or better: How firm are the votes already locked in for the Democratic Candidate and for Trump?

Personally, I see way more opportunity for picking off the "not firm" Trump Support than I do picking off the "not firm" Democratic support. This goes back to my constantly saying my opinion, based on people I know, in the subset of "Trump Voters", the subset of super hardcore locked in Trump folks is relatively small. Sure, the average "Trump Voter" will say he supports / approves Trump when asked in a poll. But again, that's a binary vote. I think the actual opportunity for a moderate Democrat to pull people over to their side is huge. 

If I could magically control the DNC and try to win the presidency in 2020, I'd go all in for a candidate that would satisfy my votes that are already locked up, and then go hard after those undecided votes in the middle. 

So that's my strategy. And that's how I'd try to win "the game". Thoughts?

 

Why do people assume that undecided voters are “in the middle”?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

I voted mostly disagree.  More about motivating people to take the time to go and vote.  You might have 10-15% of the population on the fence between Trump and a Dem.  You have 50% of the country that doesn't vote.

Thanks BnB.

I think that's the other theory I could see. Make it all about increasing voter turnout. Yes, a candidate is on the more extreme edge and won't appeal to the moderates, so "score more points" by getting votes from people who might not have voted. 

And in my vast knowledge of political strategy (LOL), I can see how that might work too. 

Share this post


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

Why do people assume that undecided voters are “in the middle”?

I think it's generalizing (always dangerous) and assuming they can see benefits of both the left side and the right side and while they're undecided on "picking a side", they are mostly in the middle. That's certainly not true for everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I think this assumption is either heroically optimistic or dangerously naive.  Sanders has never been vetted, ever.  The Trump campaign is sitting on 30+ years of opposition research, none of which has reached undecided, middle-of-the-road voters.  People on this forum know that Bernie went to the Soviet Union during his honeymoon, but your average person is completely unaware of that.  He'll be a member of the politburo by the time the GOP gets done with him.  And that's just the stuff that we know about -- God only knows what else is out there.

Edit: This is also the reason why head-to-head polls are irrelevant in February.  Sanders is the person most likely to see his head-to-head numbers against Trump crater.

I agree with this.  Sanders is a huge risk.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I voted "mostly agree."  Candidates need to be able to motivate their own base to get out there and vote, but I don't see that as a big issue for the Democrats in 2020.  They need to pick off people who aren't happy with Trump but are willing to hold their nose and vote for him over the alternative.  It doesn't seem like that should be hard to do, but they're currently in the process of nominating the candidate least capable of doing it.

Yep. Which is why Pete or klobuchar are the no-brainer choices. 
 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, toshiba said:

I think it is a battle for the middle for sure.  However, it is also a battle to get out your side.  The way you get out your side is to show how horrible the other side is. As a Bernie supporter I think this is an easier case for someone like Trump to make with a Sanders, Warren or Biden (and Mayor Pete to a smaller extent).  Klobuchar is probably the one candidate immune from this attack.  Getting the "I hate Amy" vote out will be tough, because it exists in a much less form.  That is why I think she is the most likely candidate to win a general election.

 

ie getting the "I hate Trump" vote out will be easy and voted mostly agree.

The "I hate the other guy" vote is most of the reason we're in the position we're in. If everyone voted for candidates with positions they believed in, instead of voting to stop the "horrible candidate" on the other side, we'd be 1000x better off. [/soapbox]

By the way - I totally agree with your point Toshiba, I was just using it to segue off of

Edited by KiddLattimer

Share this post


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

This is the disconnect for me. You don't say it here, but what you mean is that “winning” is tied to a party winning, not an individual becoming president.  Many people, including me, don’t identify with one political party or the other, nor do I think there’s much if anything of substance that differentiates them from each other.  For these folks, “winning the presidential election” is not VERY different from “my guy winning.”  I don’t perceive any significant difference among Trump, Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg.  They’re all in the middle and none of them wants to change anything. 

Completely understand. And I actually AM saying it. I"m looking this completely as a "can you win this game?" game thing. 

That's very different from "Will Bernie Sanders or Michael Bloomberg" be the best president for our Country". That's a completely different question and discussion.

That goes back to the chicken and egg question where people can legitimately ask: "If you can't win, does it matter?" Maybe. Maybe not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to be clear, I'm talking about "undecided" after the conventions.

People who are undecided between Sanders and Buttigieg now aren't what I'm talking about as undecided.

I'm talking about the guy who held his nose and voted for Trump last time and he's now feeling a little queasy about voting for him the second time and is wondering if maybe holding his nose and voting for the Democrat this time might be the better option. (and I think there were a lot of those that don't show up on binary decision polls).

I think people on the Democrat side tend to believe the number of "hold their nose and voted for Trump in 2016 Guys" is way smaller than it actually is. For lots of reasons. It's fun to demonize the other side and make it an us vs them thing (just like the Trump supporters do as well) is near the top of the list. 

Share this post


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

I know it's serious and not a "game" but for this discussion, I'm defining the "game" as winning the Presidential Election.

Actually Joe being a predictive data guy I'd rather imagine you might know a thing or two about how this actually works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted third party in 2016, but while I lean conservative on some issues, I am absolutely not voting for Trump. I went with "on the fence," partly because I feel that while the middle is important, the extreme wings of either party really just want power no matter what. I don't know if Sanders gets the nomination, and I have questions about his health anyway, if he can last 4 years in office.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Totally disagree.  Until the model fails (it road-tested the 2017 VA state races almost perfectly, then nailed 2018 months in advance), Rachel Bitecofer's "Negative Partisanship" has it right IMO.

There are almost no persuadable Independents, and turnout effects swamp them in size.

I heard a report this morning that Dem turnout was up 18% yesterday. If Bitecofer's theory is correct and Dem turnout increases by even half that rate in November (over 2016), Trump is toast.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, KiddLattimer said:
36 minutes ago, toshiba said:

I think it is a battle for the middle for sure.  However, it is also a battle to get out your side.  The way you get out your side is to show how horrible the other side is. As a Bernie supporter I think this is an easier case for someone like Trump to make with a Sanders, Warren or Biden (and Mayor Pete to a smaller extent).  Klobuchar is probably the one candidate immune from this attack.  Getting the "I hate Amy" vote out will be tough, because it exists in a much less form.  That is why I think she is the most likely candidate to win a general election.

 

ie getting the "I hate Trump" vote out will be easy and voted mostly agree.

The "I hate the other guy" vote is most of the reason we're in the position we're in. If everyone voted for candidates with positions they believed in, instead of voting to stop the "horrible candidate" on the other side, we'd be 1000x better off. [/soapbox]

By the way - I totally agree with your point Toshiba, I was just using it to segue off of

I wish it wasn't that way.  I think it is inherent with the 2 party system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always a battle for the middle. This is the way it goes: The left votes for their guy, the right votes for their guy and we decide who wins. There is only one logical party to be in and that is NPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As defined, I'd go with "mostly agree".  I think our dialogue and verbiage needs a major overhaul as people leave each of the parties enmass.  There's going to be a significant number of people who don't believe they are "in the middle" in terms of their views, but also believe that neither party is really representative of what they want to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lod001 said:

It's always a battle for the middle. This is the way it goes: The left votes for their guy, the right votes for their guy and we decide who wins. There is only one logical party to be in and that is NPA.

If you live in a state where you don't have to be registered with a party to vote in the primary I can understand this point.  If you are required to be registered in a party to vote in a primary, I completely disagree.

Share this post


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

Not sure I see a surge for Sanders.  Not yet.  In fact I might argue the opposite.  may there be such a surge coming off yesterday's results, perhaps. 

Agree there is no surge coming for Sanders but he is the one nominee that doesn't need a surge.  In driver's seat and will benefit a little more if/when Warren drops out or even voters that are going to abandon Warren because they know she can't win and want to give Bernie more of an edge.  A couple more percentage points and he is going to be walking away as the middle can't decide on their candidate.

Edited by Jefferson the Caregiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, roadkill1292 said:

I heard a report this morning that Dem turnout was up 18% yesterday. If Bitecofer's theory is correct and Dem turnout increases by even half that rate in November (over 2016), Trump is toast.

Turnout among Dems or turnout in the Democratic primary?  I feel like this statistic might be misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lod001 said:

It's always a battle for the middle. This is the way it goes: The left votes for their guy, the right votes for their guy and we decide who wins. There is only one logical party to be in and that is NPA.

meh...depends on the state.  I'm in Florida.  Being NPA here means I'm not allowed to vote in either primary.  Real change comes from the bottom up, so the lower level votes are more powerful in affecting the change we want to see.  A local race vote impacting me directly is more impactful than a state vote, is more impactful than a national rep/senate vote is more impactful than a presidential vote.  If you want to affect change, the sooner you're engaged, the better.  In many states, that engagement is neutered by being NPA. 

Share this post


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

meh...depends on the state.  I'm in Florida.  Being NPA here means I'm not allowed to vote in either primary.  Real change comes from the bottom up, so the lower level votes are more powerful in affecting the change we want to see.  A local race vote impacting me directly is more impactful than a state vote, is more impactful than a national rep/senate vote is more impactful than a presidential vote.  If you want to affect change, the sooner you're engaged, the better.  In many states, that engagement is neutered by being NPA. 

So lets say you vote in the primary and your guy loses. Are ya done? Nope, you then go vote for the guy you didn't like. Then I decide if you are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lod001 said:
8 minutes ago, The Commish said:

meh...depends on the state.  I'm in Florida.  Being NPA here means I'm not allowed to vote in either primary.  Real change comes from the bottom up, so the lower level votes are more powerful in affecting the change we want to see.  A local race vote impacting me directly is more impactful than a state vote, is more impactful than a national rep/senate vote is more impactful than a presidential vote.  If you want to affect change, the sooner you're engaged, the better.  In many states, that engagement is neutered by being NPA. 

So lets say you vote in the primary and your guy loses. Are ya done? Nope, you then go vote for the guy you didn't like. Then I decide if you are right.

You have a say earlier on in the process.  Not always the case for NPA people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the drawback for a voter to join one of the political parties?  I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would choose to be unaffiliated  in a closed-primary state.  Just because you join the Democratic party doesn't mean you always have to vote for Democrats.  But at least you could vote in the primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Turnout among Dems or turnout in the Democratic primary?  I feel like this statistic might be misleading.

I don't understand the question.

Share this post


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

You have a say earlier on in the process.  Not always the case for NPA people.

I find it funny. "I'm voting for Smith over Jones". oops, Jones won..."I'll now vote for Jones". What happened right there? They told you who to vote for. They told you that your guy (Smith) was not it and that now you are going to vote for Jones and your gonna like it.

You are registered with a party because that's what you are. You were told who you are gonna vote for. Nobody tells me who to vote for.  Sure some take their ball and go home but the vast majority will just then vote for who they didn't want in the next election.

You pick your guy, they will pick theirs and I'll decide who is right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roadkill1292 said:

I don't understand the question.

New Hampshire has open primaries.  Independents and Republicans are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, as long as they don't also vote in the Republican primary.

In both 2008 and in 2016, there were competitive Republican primaries.  My expectation, therefore, is that most Republicans and right-leaning independents voted in the Republican primary and not in the Democratic primary.

This year there was no competitive Republican primary.  So it seems likely to me that a significant number of Republicans and independents voted in the Democratic primary -- either to vote for the more moderate candidates because that's their policy preference, or to vote for who they perceive to be the least electable candidate that will lose to Trump.

If my assumptions are correct, then an increased turnout in the Democratic primary doesn't really tell us much about Democratic enthusiasm.   A big chunk of the Democratic primary voters aren't going to end up voting for the Democratic nominee.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't really seem like there is much middle among NH Democratic Primary voters based on the response to this question:

https://i.imgur.com/yVEisaY.png

It seems like Warren is not making anyone happy by saying and then going back on M4A. 

Edited by huthut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lod001 said:
20 minutes ago, The Commish said:

meh...depends on the state.  I'm in Florida.  Being NPA here means I'm not allowed to vote in either primary.  Real change comes from the bottom up, so the lower level votes are more powerful in affecting the change we want to see.  A local race vote impacting me directly is more impactful than a state vote, is more impactful than a national rep/senate vote is more impactful than a presidential vote.  If you want to affect change, the sooner you're engaged, the better.  In many states, that engagement is neutered by being NPA. 

So lets say you vote in the primary and your guy loses. Are ya done? Nope, you then go vote for the guy you didn't like. Then I decide if you are right.

:confused:

I don't know what you're saying or your point is.  My point was, in some states, being NPA reduces your effectiveness as a voter.  I was pushing back on your blanket statement that "being NPA is the only logical option".  That's not true and gave an illustration why.  It's different depending on state rules.  No idea what your reply to that means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

New Hampshire has open primaries.  Independents and Republicans are allowed to vote in the Democratic primary, as long as they don't also vote in the Republican primary.

In both 2008 and in 2016, there were competitive Republican primaries.  My expectation, therefore, is that most Republicans and right-leaning independents voted in the Republican primary and not in the Democratic primary.

This year there was no competitive Republican primary.  So it seems likely to me that a significant number of Republicans and independents voted in the Democratic primary -- either to vote for the more moderate candidates because that's their policy preference, or to vote for who they perceive to be the least electable candidate that will lose to Trump.

If my assumptions are correct, then an increased turnout in the Democratic primary doesn't really tell us much about Democratic enthusiasm.   A big chunk of the Democratic primary voters aren't going to end up voting for the Democratic nominee.

Ah, ok, thanks. I'll try to find out the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

What is the drawback for a voter to join one of the political parties?  I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would choose to be unaffiliated  in a closed-primary state.  Just because you join the Democratic party doesn't mean you always have to vote for Democrats.  But at least you could vote in the primary.

Last election should have woke some people up..but I doubt it. The D voters wanted choices but the D establishment said, nope, you get Hillary and you're gonna like it. How'd that work out?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

:confused:

I don't know what you're saying or your point is.  My point was, in some states, being NPA reduces your effectiveness as a voter.  I was pushing back on your blanket statement that "being NPA is the only logical option".  That's not true and gave an illustration why.  It's different depending on state rules.  No idea what your reply to that means.

It says exactly what I'm asking. What would you do? You will go back in the general election and vote for the guy you didn't want in the primary. Which makes me laugh.

Edited by lod001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lod001 said:

It says exactly what I'm asking. What would you do? You will go back in the general election and vote for the guy you didn't want in the primary. Which makes me laugh.

You can want more than 1 person.  Maybe one person you think is super-awesome and the other just awesome.  

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.   Restore formatting

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.