Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Maurile Tremblay

Electability

Electability  

103 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

In case there's any question: "moderate candidate" = Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar; "candidate who will energize the base" = Sanders, Warren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will definitely vote for a Democrat. I personally favor a candidate whose policy proposals will coincidentally excite the base. I have no idea whether such a candidate is more or less likely to win and suspect the distinction to be largely irrelevant. 

Edited by Ramsay Hunt Experience
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will probably vote third party but am considering a vote for Mayor Pete based not on his policies, but on his demeanor, intelligence and emotional maturity. I am extremely unlikely, by my history, to vote for any other democratic candidate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electability is generally hard to predict. It's guessing about what other people are guessing.

There are some head-to-head polls out there. But the people who are most familiar with the value of polls (e.g., Nate Silver) will tell you that head-to-head polls about the general election are of very little value this far out.

There are also some bookmakers who are offering odds on head-to-head matchups. I think these are worth more than polls, but probably not as probative as betting markets. The bookmakers seem to like Bloomberg's chances against Trump the best, followed by Sanders, then Biden, then Warren. (I don't see odds for Buttigieg.)

Betting markets are the most liquid and probably offer the best easily accessible estimates of a candidate's probability of winning. The problem is that betting markets (at least the ones I know of) do not offer conditional probabilities about head-to-head matchups. They will answer "What's the probability that Sanders will win the nomination?" and "What's the probability that Sanders will win the general election?", but they will not tell you "What's the probability that Sanders will win the general election given that he wins the nomination?"

For that, a decent first approximation (but only an approximation) can be derived by dividing a candidate's chance to win the nomination by her chance to win the general election.

If Sanders has a 36.9% chance of winning the nomination and a 15.6% chance of winning the general, a decent first approximation of winning the general election if he wins the nomination is 15.6 / 36.9 = 42.2%.

Based on the current numbers at electionbettingodds.com, here are those ratios for each candidate:

Biden: 60.3%
Bloomberg: 60.0%
Klobuchar: 54.8%
Warren: 44.4%
Sanders: 42.3%
Buttigieg: 33.8%

I personally don't see why Buttigieg should be such a big underdog. But I'm not confident enough that the market is wrong to bet against him in the primary and for him in the general in order to try to arbitrage the apparent disconnect. I'll concede that my preferred candidate seems like a poor bet against Trump in the general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

I will definitely vote for a Democrat. I personally favor a candidate whose policy proposals will coincidentally excite the base. I have no idea whether such a candidate is more or less likely to win and suspect the distinction to be largely irrelevant. 

I should have included that as a poll option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of these describe me. I will vote for a moderate despite policy differences and I am not sure if another candidate will energize the base more

i don’t care at all about electability. If you vote based on electability you are voting not for who you want, but for who you perceive others want. The only way for someone to be electable is for them to get votes, so you’re better off making your preferred candidate more electable by voting for them yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I will probably vote third party but am considering a vote for Mayor Pete based not on his policies, but on his demeanor, intelligence and emotional maturity. I am extremely unlikely, by my history, to vote for any other democratic candidate.

I appeal to you to see this election as not Republican vs. Democrat but as someone who will do whatever is best for their own interest, regardless of taking an oath to uphold the Constitution vs. someone who will uphold the Constitution? Can't you vote for the latter even though you don't generally support all their policies/party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I question how wise the betting markets are. Gambling this way is not even completely legal.  Also, unlike sports betting, the infrequencies of U.S. presidential elections makes statistical models they may employ less tested.  I also question whether online political gamblers might be influenced by their own less diverse bubbles.


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dickies said:

i don’t care at all about electability.

The question isn't whether you care about electability or would vote based on it. The question is whether you can estimate it. "No, I can't estimate it" is a perfectly good answer that I neglected to include as an option. "I don't think it should matter" is a separate issue.

Share this post


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

The question isn't whether you care about it or would vote based on it. The question is whether you can estimate it. "No, I can't estimate it" is a perfectly good answer that I neglected to include as an option. "I don't think it should matter" is a separate issue.

It would be a boring forum if everyone answered yes/no and provided no context for their answers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gr00vus said:

I appeal to you to see this election as not Republican vs. Democrat but as someone who will do whatever is best for their own interest, regardless of taking an oath to uphold the Constitution vs. someone who will uphold the Constitution? Can't you vote for the latter even though you don't generally support all their policies/party?

The two party system has lead us inexorably to this moment in history.  This was predictable years ago.  The argument always exists, and always seems very compelling that just this once wont you set aside your objections and join the fray as today's crisis is unprecedented.  The current election is always unprecedented, good against evil.  No we need to break this cycle which will only bring us more of the same.  The two current parties have each lost perspective. The are perpetuating the divide. 

 

I am skeptical that Mayor Pete will address matters, but he has sold me sufficiently that I am maybe willing to be fooled again, maybe. None of the others have.

 

I think it is time for you all to join me, not the other way around. Still, I respect your opposition to an unprecedented, in my mind at least, venal and corrupt President.

Share this post


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

I question how wise the betting markets are. Gambling this way is not even completely legal.  Also, unlike sports betting, the infrequencies of U.S. presidential elections makes statistical models they may employ less tested.  I also question whether online political gamblers might be influenced by their own less diverse bubbles.

Using just the money between his couch cushions, Bloomberg could singlehandedly make all the betting markets say he was the most electable.

Edited by fatguyinalittlecoat
Sentence structure was confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do note that many who urge me now to be concerned about the constitution have often scoffed at my concerns for constitutional process, saying provisions should be ignored if they don't suit us, not addressed, but simply ignored.  Now, when it suits their purpose they are concerned.  Well I have been consistently concerned when it serves my immediate desires, and when it thwarts them.  Constitutionalist of convenience are not constitutionalists, they are con men not unlike our current POTUS.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Using just the money between his couch cushions, Bloomberg could singlehandedly make all the betting markets say he was the most electable.

I don't think this is true unless he violates the rules. I think the amount any single person is allowed to bet is too small to have a sizable effect on the market (but I'm not really familiar with those kinds of details).

Share this post


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

I don't think this is true unless he violates the rules. I think the amount any single person is allowed to bet is too small to have a sizable effect on the market (but I'm not really familiar with those kinds of details).

Bloomberg already has like 1000 paid employees on his campaign staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted " will probably vote Dem. For policy reasons, I personally favor a candidate who will energize the base, but I think a moderate candidate has a better chance of beating Trump."

Share this post


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

Bloomberg already has like 1000 paid employees on his campaign staff.

And I believe using them to make coordinated bets would violate the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

In case there's any question: "moderate candidate" = Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar; "candidate who will energize the base" = Sanders, Warren.

I think the moderate candidates better represent the "base" of the democratic party.   Office holders are generally moderates.  The AOCs of the world are exceptions on the democratic side.  Though demographics have been shifting left.

That being said I think Sanders as of now is the one that most energizes supporters.  I think that equates to votes, but I also have reasons to believe that contrasting in styles to Trump in 2020 might actually energize voters.  In other words, I'm not convinced that "boring" isn't what will turn out the vote this time around as the electorate just needs a break from it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly wasn't sure what to vote for. I have no clue who's more "electable" and while I'm probably more toward the center-left point on the spectrum, I don't think my candidate preferences break down that easily. I don't think much of Bernie's chances, but it's not merely because I consider him too liberal. There are a whole swirl of factors, from what I see as his untested political skills to easily caricatured actions from his past, but mostly it's just the fact that he's never really done it for me. Some of that may be ideological, but not all of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Anybody but Trump.

1a. Someone who will win (I don’t know who this is but thinking is a moderate candidate is the better choice)

1b. My personal preference by far is a moderate. 

Share this post


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

In case there's any question: "moderate candidate" = Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar; "candidate who will energize the base" = Sanders, Warren.

The moderates will have a better chance against Trump.  That is all that really matters.  Warren will be dropping out soon so it will be the moderate group vs Bernie.

Edited by Summer Wheat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered this poll completely wrong because I didn't read all the way through, but either way.

1. Will definitely vote for the democratic candidate.

2. Pete is not a moderate.

3. I believe the base of the party in this election is suburban women and non-white people that need to come out in droves in order to win in November and I don't think the person to make that happen is either Sanders or Warren.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

In case there's any question: "moderate candidate" = Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar; "candidate who will energize the base" = Sanders, Warren.

Is it just a coincidence that the two that you put down as energizing the base are those considered farthest to the left, or do you think the two go together?

I don't think Obama energized the base because of how left he was -- I think he was to the right of Hillary in the primaries (as I mentioned in the other thread, their main policy difference was around health care -- Hillary wanted an individual mandate, and candidate Obama did not).  Obama had "hope and change," which energized the base, as well as the chameleon-like ability to be all things to all people.  Sanders/Warren have the "change" piece, but I think they are missing the "hope," and are a bit too doom and gloom.

I'm not saying the moderate candidates would necessarily be better, and could be attacked for lacking both hope and change.

I'll still vote for whoever comes out of it over Trump, but I'm just kind of down on this field in total.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Is it just a coincidence that the two that you put down as energizing the base are those considered farthest to the left, or do you think the two go together?

Not a coincidence. In this context, "energizing the base" is a euphemism for being an extremist. But I wanted to use language that Bernie supporters would accept, so calling them extremists didn't seem exactly right.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders or 3rd party.  Warren not on same footing as all imo.  Get her pow wow chow snake tactics out of here. 

Sanders isn't a slam dunk for me by any stretch but it's probably close enough.  If they stay true to their convictions and don't appear to be watering down their platform after being expected to play ball in the GE, have a good position on Palestine/Assange etc. I will vote for him.  

One factor that is interesting is how the narrative will shift if/when Sanders becomes the nominee.  I think the pressure to cave and nerf their values toward the center will be tremendous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TheMagus said:

Pete is not a moderate.

Pete is a moderate compared to the candidates who aren't moderate.

He doesn't want to prohibit private health insurance. He's against free college. He's against using divisive rhetoric to demonize the rich -- or even to demonize Trump supporters. He doesn't support a wealth tax. Ren dislikes him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Pete is a moderate compared to the candidates who aren't moderate.

He doesn't want to prohibit private health insurance. He's against free college. He's against using divisive rhetoric to demonize the rich -- or even to demonize Trump supporters. He doesn't support a wealth tax. Ren dislikes him...

Well when you put it that way....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, TheMagus said:

I answered this poll completely wrong because I didn't read all the way through, but either way.

1. Will definitely vote for the democratic candidate.

2. Pete is not a moderate.

3. I believe the base of the party in this election is suburban women and non-white people that need to come out in droves in order to win in November and I don't think the person to make that happen is either Sanders or Warren.

Pete's demeanor is moderate which is probably more important to appealing to voters than actual policies. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Pete is a moderate compared to the candidates who aren't moderate.

He doesn't want to prohibit private health insurance. He's against free college. He's against using divisive rhetoric to demonize the rich -- or even to demonize Trump supporters. He doesn't support a wealth tax. Ren dislikes him...

In fairness, Ren dislikes Warren too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poll results surprise me a bit.

I expected the overwhelming response to be "the candidates with the best chance to defeat Trump happen to be the candidates whose policies I like."

In total, that was true by a score of 33-13.

But it was mainly true for the people who prefer moderate candidates (22-6). It wasn't nearly as true for the people who prefer energizing candidates (a more even 11-7).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will vote for whoever them democratic candidate is.  If it’s Bernie, Joe or Liz I think we have 4 more years of trump 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete is a moderate-for-all (who want him to be).

"Here's my message to progressives in the party: I would be the most progressive presidential nominee we've put forward in a generation. It's just that I've also found a way to put forward these issues that, we can bring more and more people on board with," he said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/482141-buttigieg-after-debate-i-would-be-most-progressive-nominee-in-partys

Edited by PhantomJB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 3:44 PM, Juxtatarot said:

I question how wise the betting markets are. Gambling this way is not even completely legal.  Also, unlike sports betting, the infrequencies of U.S. presidential elections makes statistical models they may employ less tested.  I also question whether online political gamblers might be influenced by their own less diverse bubbles.


 

 

Pretty solid post here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 4:19 PM, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I will probably vote third party but am considering a vote for Mayor Pete based not on his policies, but on his demeanor, intelligence and emotional maturity. I am extremely unlikely, by my history, to vote for any other democratic candidate.

I’m gobsmacked how demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity are the central factors that would make you consider a for vote for Pete, but not a reason to do vote for *all other* alternatives to Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dan Lambskin said:

I will vote for whoever them democratic candidate is.  If it’s Bernie, Joe or Liz I think we have 4 more years of trump 

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will personally vote for any of the Democrat candidates, would prefer a moderate but I don’t see any of them that appeal to people of color, has what it takes to go toe to toe with Trump , or can capture enough independents and never Trump Republicans.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cobalt_27 said:

I’m gobsmacked how demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity are the central factors that would make you consider a for vote for Pete, but not a reason to do vote for *all other* alternatives to Trump.  

Well voting third party is a vote for other than Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Well voting third party is a vote for other than Trump.  

Obviously do with your vote what you wish.  It's a personal thing.  But, a 3rd party vote, although a symbolic gesture that potentially makes us feel better about our participation in the process, has no practical value within the current system.  If demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity are supremely important to you, I would hope witnessing Trump and considering 4 more years of stupidity, emotional regression, and continued assault on the very agencies and norms that protect us citizens from authoritarians and dictators would be sufficient to vote for whatever viable alternative there is to Trump.

If the scenario were somehow that you were the last person to cast a vote in America and, at the point you made the vote, Trump was tied with another human being that has superior demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity compared to Trump, do I understand your position to be that you would vote for someone else entirely, leaving it a tie (and thus to Trump for 4 years)?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cobalt_27 said:

Obviously do with your vote what you wish.  It's a personal thing.  But, a 3rd party vote, although a symbolic gesture that potentially makes us feel better about our participation in the process, has no practical value within the current system.  If demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity are supremely important to you, I would hope witnessing Trump and considering 4 more years of stupidity, emotional regression, and continued assault on the very agencies and norms that protect us citizens from authoritarians and dictators would be sufficient to vote for whatever viable alternative there is to Trump.

If the scenario were somehow that you were the last person to cast a vote in America and, at the point you made the vote, Trump was tied with another human being that has superior demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity compared to Trump, do I understand your position to be that you would vote for someone else entirely, leaving it a tie (and thus to Trump for 4 years)?

Interesting question.

To begin I presume pretty much any random person would have superior intelligence and emotional maturity.

I am unclear that a tie goes to the incumbent, I have not looked it up or thought about it but I imagine it goes to a vote of the house.

I would certainly have to consider the immediate ramifications.  I would have to balance that against my strong belief that our current pattern of considering only two options has brought us to this point time and again.  I will not consider the lesser of two evils.  I would consider a positive, transformative, visionary capable of breaking our current destructive and self reinforcing cycle.

We have triangulated ourselves straight into this current hell.  I don't believe that we can triangulate our way out.  Still, I do reconsider my stance form time to time.  I actually am sincerely considering whether I might vote for Buttigieg.

Long and short, I can't answer your question with certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Pete's demeanor is moderate which is probably more important to appealing to voters than actual policies. 

Underrated factor in politics. IMO it helped make both Bush and Obama more palatable to the center than they might have been based solely on their platforms. Trump is the counterexample. He used his immoderate tone to appeal to the base even as movement conservatives were warning he wasn’t a true conservative (remember National Review’s “Against Trump” issue?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, cobalt_27 said:

Obviously do with your vote what you wish.  It's a personal thing.  But, a 3rd party vote, although a symbolic gesture that potentially makes us feel better about our participation in the process, has no practical value within the current system.  If demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity are supremely important to you, I would hope witnessing Trump and considering 4 more years of stupidity, emotional regression, and continued assault on the very agencies and norms that protect us citizens from authoritarians and dictators would be sufficient to vote for whatever viable alternative there is to Trump.

If the scenario were somehow that you were the last person to cast a vote in America and, at the point you made the vote, Trump was tied with another human being that has superior demeanor, intelligence, and emotional maturity compared to Trump, do I understand your position to be that you would vote for someone else entirely, leaving it a tie (and thus to Trump for 4 years)?

I agree with your logic, and seriously hope that DW reconsiders and votes for any Democrat against Trump, but the truth is that pretty much all votes in a presidential election (and really, any election outside of your local schoolboard) are for all intents and purposes symbolic acts. And that’s not even getting into the impact of the Electoral College (no idea where DW is voting, but the odds are it’s a non-swing state and therefore even less relevant)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 2:33 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

Pete is a moderate compared to the candidates who aren't moderate.

He doesn't want to prohibit private health insurance. He's against free college. He's against using divisive rhetoric to demonize the rich -- or even to demonize Trump supporters. He doesn't support a wealth tax. Ren dislikes him...

Buttigieg is an extremist.  He won't commit to cutting insane military budget, supports Trump's coups and regime change programs, apparently is open to drone assassinations on foreign leaders.  Argues 'gun violence' case while ignoring expansive police state at home and mass killing abroad.  He is endorsed by the national security swamp.  He supports Israel's brutal apartheid state.  

Pete wants to continue propping up a system where Americans pay the highest per capita price in the world for medical services.  I've said before that I prefer open markets, but even a nationalized system is better than the current "choice" monstrosity that Pete's donors want to preserve.  It's really a form of health profiteering.  The Yale/Lancet study concluded that a singlepayer program would save 68,000 lives and $450B a year.  In any case the current healthcare system is extreme by any measure- it's hard to fault people for wanting to institute systems that are proven to work more equitably in other countries.  

Pete knows how money works in politics- he made the argument against it during his race for Treasurer.  Now that he's rolling in corporate cash, and promises to open the floodgates if he's the nominee, his tune has changed.  They really couldn't spell it out any harder that they are up for sale.  I don't dislike Buttigieg because of his policies on the surface (although those are bad too)- I dislike him because he is a disingenuous fraud.  

There's really nothing "moderate" about the system in place now.  It's about as extreme as it gets.  It's easy to understand why people are upset.  But people trying to replace it with something more conscious and equitable are the "extreme" ones.  

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.