SurveyUSA poll

[Left Coast]

This time around it doesn't look as if the DNC is going to rig the election. Warren and Sanders together double the numbers of Biden. If one of them drops out 90% of their voters will switch to the other. The democrat candidate will be a progressive.

I wouldn't bet on your Warren/Sanders math there. According to the polls I've seen, Biden is 2nd choice for a large chunk of both Warren and Sanders voters. If either of them drops out, their support will be split among the remaining candidates.

 

[PureX]

But thanks to Bernie and Warren, accepting big money contributions will come with the burden to prove it doesn't buy favors. This hasn't been so obvious in previous elections.

Sure, but you are assuming that they care what voters think, or want. Studies have been done that have shown that there is statistically NO CORRELATION between what voters want and what politicians of ANY party do in office. NONE. We are not a democracy, anymore. We are now a full on plutocracy. And neither side cares at all about what the voters want, because in the end, nearly every candidate in either party will do what their corporate masters tell them to do, or they will not be in office a second term. And the few "outliers" from this rule that do exists, are only allowed to exists to keep up the sham that we're still a democracy, and that our votes will somehow effect the course of the nation. They will not. The course is being set by the people who own those corrupted politicians, and our elections are not going to change that, no matter who we vote for, or don't vote for.

The only possible way of taking back control at this point is for the American people to vote out of office EVERY INCUMBENT CANDIDATE in every election, every time, regardless of party affiliation, until one shows up that actively fights to stop the legalized bribery and corruption of our government by wealthy conglomerates. When that person emerges, they must be supported and kept in office, regardless of party.

Parties no longer matter. The parties are just a side-show intended to keep us voting for corrupt candidates. But sadly, the American people are just too stupid to figure this out, and so they keep falling for the ruse over and over and over, again. And they keep supporting corrupted candidates who have no concern for their will or welfare, at all.

 

[crossfire]

This time around it doesn't look as if the DNC is going to rig the election. Warren and Sanders together double the numbers of Biden. If one of them drops out 90% of their voters will switch to the other. The democrat candidate will be a progressive.

I don't trust the DNC at all.

 

[joe1776]

[

Sure, but you are assuming that they care what voters think, or want. Studies have been done that have shown that there is statistically NO CORRELATION between what voters want and what politicians of ANY party do in office. NONE. We are not a democracy, anymore. We are now a full on plutocracy. And neither side cares at all about what the voters want, because in the end, nearly every candidate in either party will do what their corporate masters tell them to do, or they will not be in office a second term. And the few "outliers" from this rule that do exists, are only allowed to exists to keep up the sham that we're still a democracy, and that our votes will somehow effect the course of the nation. They will not. The course is being set by the people who own those corrupted politicians, and our elections are not going to change that, no matter who we vote for, or don't vote for.

The only possible way of taking back control at this point is for the American people to vote out of office EVERY INCUMBENT CANDIDATE in every election, every time, regardless of party affiliation, until one shows up that actively fights to stop the legalized bribery and corruption of our government by wealthy conglomerates. When that person emerges, they must be supported and kept in office, regardless of party.

Parties no longer matter. The parties are just a side-show intended to keep us voting for corrupt candidates. But sadly, the American people are just too stupid to figure this out, and so they keep falling for the ruse over and over and over, again. And they keep supporting corrupted candidates who have no concern for their will or welfare, at all.

Those studies you refer to accurately reflect the past when voters were voting for candidates of both parties who were in the pockets of the big contributors. In 2020, for the first time, they will have a choice. The only question is are enough voters smart enough to vote for candidates who haven't been bought.

The plutocracy is the problem. Sanders and Warren look like candidates who truly understand that and will start the fight for a solution.

 

[joe1776]

I wouldn't bet on your Warren/Sanders math there. According to the polls I've seen, Biden is 2nd choice for a large chunk of both Warren and Sanders voters. If either of them drops out, their support will be split among the remaining candidates.

I'm not doubting your word on the polls but your conclusion doesn't make sense. Do those voters that favor Sanders or Warren dislike the opponent personally? Why would they abandon their progressive cause to back Biden?

 

[PureX]

Those studies you refer to accurately reflect the past when voters were voting for candidates of both parties who were in the pockets of the big contributors. In 2020, for the first time, they will have a choice. The only question is are enough voters smart enough to vote for candidates who haven't been bought.

The plutocracy is the problem. Sanders and Warren look like candidates who truly understand that and will start the fight.

I agree. But Obama didn't take the 'dark money' in his first election, either, and he won. But when he went to his DEMOCRATIC SUPER-MAJORITY in the house and the senate to do what he promised the American people he would do in his campaign (reform healthcare), all those democrats suddenly fell unto a confused stupor, and just couldn't seem to come up with anything better than a 20 year old republican plan to force everyone to buy health insurance (no government mandated corporate monopoly being created there, huh!), with a few healthcare 'bandaids' thrown in to make it look like they've actually reformed something. When in reality they just took the bribe money being thrown at them from the healthcare conglomerates, and reformed nothing.

So I'll vote for a progressive, but I won't be expecting much even if they win. Because the plutocrats still own almost everyone sitting in the house and the senate and probably on most of the high courts, too. So we've got a long hard road to getting our government back. And to do it we're going to have to stop blaming the "other team" and start voting in unity. And I see no indication at all that that's going to happen.

 

[joe1776]

I agree. But Obama didn't take the 'dark money' in his first election, either, and he won. But when he went to his DEMOCRATIC SUPER-MAJORITY in the house and the senate to do what he promised the American people he would do in his campaign (reform healthcare), all those democrats suddenly fell unto a confused stupor, and just couldn't seem to come up with anything better than a 20 year old republican plan to force everyone to buy health insurance (no government mandated corporate monopoly being created there, huh!), with a few healthcare 'bandaids' thrown in to make it look like they've actually reformed something. When in reality they just took the bribe money being thrown at them from the healthcare conglomerates, and reformed nothing.

So I'll vote for a progressive, but I won't be expecting much even if they win. Because the plutocrats still own almost everyone sitting in the house and the senate and probably on most of the high courts, too. So we've got a long hard road to getting our government back. And to do it we're going to have to stop blaming the "other team" and start voting in unity. And I see no indication at all that that's going to happen.

I don't think we disagree on anything important. We can vote for progressive candidates but they aren't going to pass progressive legislation until they get enough support in both houses.

You're right. Obamacare only passed because it was a boon to the healthcare industry. It wasn't a big win for progressive legislation by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm not doubting your word on the polls but your conclusion doesn't make sense. Do those voters that favor Sanders or Warren dislike the opponent personally? Why would they abandon their progressive cause to back Biden?

There is probably more than one reason, depending on the individual voter: 1) they perceive Biden as progressive/more progressive than he actually is, 2) they are not as motivated by progressive purity in their candidates as we assume, 3) they associate Biden with Obama who they voted for in the 2008 primary and who ran to Hillary's left, 4) they prefer an older, more experienced candidate.

 

[joe1776]

There is probably more than one reason, depending on the individual voter: 1) they perceive Biden as progressive/more progressive than he actually is, 2) they are not as motivated by progressive purity in their candidates as we assume, 3) they associate Biden with Obama who they voted for in the 2008 primary and who ran to Hillary's left, 4) they prefer an older, more experienced candidate.

Well, we're both speculating here. But those reasons sound more like those of voters who would have preferred Biden in the first place rather than reasons to move a sizable voting bloc away from a candidate whose platform is very similar to their preferred pick.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I think the progressives, now split between Warren and Sanders, equal the centrists in the party and are more motivated to get out the vote.

 

[Left Coast]

Well, we're both speculating here.

You can argue I'm speculating about the specific rationales of individual voters. I'm not speculating about the numbers.

The State of the 2020 Democratic Primary

Scroll down to the second choice section. If Warren drops out, there is no way 90% of her support is moving to Bernie. Not even close. Ditto if Bernie drops out.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I think the progressives, now split between Warren and Sanders, equal the centrists in the party and are more motivated to get out the vote.

We'll see. I agree that centrists/ conservatives and progressives have about split the party. I'm not as confident that progressives are more likely to vote. I say that as a progressive who hopes you're right.

 

[Left Coast]

Well, we're both speculating here. But those reasons sound more like those of voters who would have preferred Biden in the first place rather than reasons to move a sizable voting bloc away from a candidate whose platform is very similar to their preferred pick.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I think the progressives, now split between Warren and Sanders, equal the centrists in the party and are more motivated to get out the vote.

Also PS, weren't you the guy a few months ago defending your decision not to vote in 2016 and saying democracy is dumb? Change of heart?

Why Don't You Vote?

 

[joe1776]

Also PS, weren't you the guy a few months ago defending your decision not to vote in 2016 and saying democracy is dumb? Change of heart?

Why Don't You Vote?

You're right. I stand by my opinion that democracy is a dumb way to select decision-makers. I think that opinion should be obvious and shared by all. The 2016 choice between Hillary and Trump was a prime example of how the system, year after year,has a history of offering voters a choice between two low-grade candidates.

If the Dems run Warren or Sanders in 2020, it will be one of the very few times in US history that citizens will be offered a candidate who was highly intelligent, experienced, trustworthy, and likely not to be corrupted by big money interests.

Oh, and I do agree that Heyo's 90% estimate was too high but the idea that progressives will abandon their cause if their favorite candidate fails defies logic. One poll doesn't convince me otherwise.

 

[Left Coast]

You're right. I stand by my opinion that democracy is a dumb way to elect decision-makers. The 2016 choice between Hillary and Trump was a prime example of how the system, year after year,has a history of offering voters a choice between two low-grade candidates.

If the Dems run Warren or Sanders in 2020, it will be one of the very few times in US history that citizens will be offered a candidate who was highly intelligent, experienced and likely not to be corrupted by big money interests.

Got it, so if Warren or Sanders don't win the primary, you're going to sit out the general again?

Oh, and I do agree that Heyo's 90% estimate of too high but the idea that progressives will abandon their cause if their favorite candidate fails defies logic. One poll doesn't convince me otherwise.

I'm happy to look at other data if you have it. If I understand it correctly, Morning Consult is not just "one poll," it's a rolling poll that is continuously updated. The 2nd choice numbers haven't changed much in months.

 

[Heyo]

Oh, and I do agree that Heyo's 90% estimate was too high

Mea culpa. The 90% were just a wild guess. I wasn't aware of the second choice polls. And I think that the voters may re-evaluate their second choice if their first choice candidate endorses someone (and I guess that will be Warren for Sanders and probably Sanders for Warren).

 

[joe1776]

Got it, so if Warren or Sanders don't win the primary, you're going to sit out the general again?

If offered the choice between Biden and Trump, I'll probably not vote because Biden, the former Senator from Delaware, the hub for incorporation, is the establishment candidate who would have the country treading water.

I'd be tempted to vote for Trump on the theory that he'd continue to be so corrupt that his presidency would act like a laxative for a constipated country. Then, after him, real progress might follow.

I'm happy to look at other data if you have it. If I understand it correctly, Morning Consult is not just "one poll," it's a rolling poll that is continuously updated. The 2nd choice numbers haven't changed much in months.

As you know, how the poll questions are put can have an impact on the results. So,no one poll, no matter how it's done is the gold standard.

There are a few hundred polls out there. I'm sure that if I had the time, I could cherry-pick some that support me. However, I'll rest my case on the fact that it doesn't sound likely that voters attracted to a candidate based on appeal to a cause would so easily abandon the cause when their candidate drops out.

 

[Left Coast]

If offered the choice between Biden and Trump, I'll probably not vote because Biden, the former Senator from Delaware, the hub for incorporation, is the establishment candidate who would have the country treading water.

I'd be tempted to vote for Trump on the theory that he'd continue to be so corrupt that his presidency would act like a laxative for a constipated country. Then, after him, real progress might follow.

That was "the theory" of Bernie or Bust folks in 2016 - what's the evidence that's actually happened? Now we have to live through another 4 years of corruption and global embarrassment to see that this "theory" is bunk?

As you know, how the poll questions are put can have an impact on the results. So,one poll, no matter how it's done isn't the gold standard.

What evidence do you have that the Morning Consult poll's wording about 2nd choice candidates is skewing the results?

There are a few hundred polls out there. I'm sure that if I had the time, I could cherry-pick some that support me. However, I'll rest my case on the fact that it doesn't sound likely that voters attracted to a candidate based on appeal to a cause would so easily abandon the cause.

I wait with baited breath for your alternative cherry picked polls. Till then, all you've got is another undemonstrated "theory."

 

[joe1776]

That was "the theory" of Bernie or Bust folks in 2016 - what's the evidence that's actually happened? Now we have to live through another 4 years of corruption and global embarrassment to see that this "theory" is bunk?

If I was sure of the theory, I wouldn't have used the word "tempted." I would have written that my vote would go to Trump.

As for the evidence supporting the theory, I submit that for the first time in US history, at least half of the Democrats, are in favor of a significant change in the country's course. The experience of Donald Trump is one plausible reason for that.

What evidence do you have that the Morning Consult poll's wording about 2nd choice candidates is skewing the results?

I don't have a burden to prove your claim false.

I wait with baited breath for your alternative cherry picked polls. Till then, all you've got is another undemonstrated "theory."

If you will stipulate that you will admit to being wrong about your weakly supported claim, I will spend the time to find a poll or two to support my position. Agreed?

 

[Left Coast]

If I was sure of the theory, I wouldn't have used the word "tempted." I would have written that my vote would go to Trump.

As for the evidence supporting the theory, I submit that for the first time in US history, at least half of the Democrats, are in favor of a significant change in the country's course. The experience of Donald Trump is one plausible reason for that.

At least 25% of the country is "in favor of significant change?" Hardly the glorious, sweeping revolution we were promised. And little reason to think your "theory" will be any more accurate in Trump's 2nd term than it has been in his 1st.

I don't have a burden to prove your claim false.

If you claim the polls are skewed due to their wording, you have assumed a burden for that claim.

If you will stipulate that you will admit to being wrong about your weakly supported claim, I will spend the time to find a poll or two to support my position. Agreed?

I will admit to the possibility of being wrong, of course. Months of polling data is hardly weak support. What exactly is your position? You admit that 90% is too high, but think Morning Consult's findings of around 30% is too low? Even if we stipulate for sake of argument that, say, 60% of Warren's support went to Sanders and 30% went to Biden, guess what? Biden would still be in the lead. So what are you arguing?

 

[joe1776]

At least 25% of the country is "in favor of significant change?" Hardly the glorious, sweeping revolution we were promised. And little reason to think your "theory" will be any more accurate in Trump's 2nd term than it has been in his 1st.

That 25% number is an absolute minimum. But more importantly that 25% would elect the people in power.

If you claim the polls are skewed due to their wording, you have assumed a burden for that claim.

I didn't make that claim. I pointed out the obvious: It's a reason to doubt any single poll.

I will admit to the possibility of being wrong, of course. Months of polling data is hardly weak support. What exactly is your position?

My position is that it isn't logical that Biden would benefit as much from Sanders or Warren dropping out as the Sanders or Warren survivor.

It didn't take me long to find a poll to support my position:

The YouGov polling 11/2/19 conflicts with the poll you offered.
That Biden's strength as the second choice is the lowest of the three leading candidates makes perfect sense.

Biden 1st choice 25.6 + 2nd choice 8.5 = 34.1
Warren 1st choice 25.1 + 2nd choice 13.6 = 38.7
Sanders 1st choice 14.3 + 2nd choice 10.3 = 24.6

The Impact of Voter Second Choices as 2020 Dems Drop Out | RealClearPolitics

 

[Twilight Hue]

SurveyUSA, which assessed this for the 2016 election:

View attachment 34960

Is polling at this for the 2020 election:

View attachment 34961

RealClearPolitics - 2020 - Latest 2020 General Election Polls

Thoughts?

I do think it's going to be close race in any case. I also think Biden will be the one to run against Trump.

Its a poll. These days meaning it's worthless hype.