Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
We're super early days yet, and the fact that Warren is consistently holding onto third place means she's staying relevant to the conversation — not a bad place to be at this point in the campaign cycle. As the field narrows, she's very likely to remain in contention, and she'll only be in trouble if her numbers remain low after candidates drop out and the amount of undecided primary voters falls.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Also the DNC has said that they will spread the top candidates amongst both nights of the first debate, so as to avoid one night becoming the main event. So Warren is likely to be on stage with either Biden or Bernie for the first debate, not both.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
![]()
As Drag pointed out though, even polls this early have historically been indicators. And while candidates in Warren's position are not never winners...she's got an uphill battle.
![]()
![]()
Looking at the polls as indicators is hardly fortune-telling. Unless you're trying to dismiss polls entirely for some reason.
There are too many candidates in the first debate anyway for all of them to be on one night.
Edited by M84 on Jun 9th 2019 at 3:15:23 AM
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe book in question is entitled: "Siege: Trump Under Fire".
For instance, Vermont and Massachusetts both have Republican Governors, despite being considered "Blue States". Warren won her first election against a Senator who had already fought off a Democratic challenger, and the Republican Party dumped a lot of resources into her race to try to unseat her.
Granted, New England is one of the few places that the Liberal wing of the Republican Party hasn’t quite died out yet.
Edited by megaeliz on Jun 8th 2019 at 6:29:35 AM
It may not worthless but it's seriously early to be using polls as evidence of a candidate's chance, they don't have the best record
.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 8th 2019 at 3:51:46 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAnother thing to consider is the fact that the Warren campaign is touting, in that they aren't courting big donors. As in no gala, $1,000/plate dinners, no PAC money - and as such, that has hurt her funding
. But admittedly, that's also part of why I find her appealing - it's one thing for candidates to talk about how we need to get "big money" out of politics, but how many actually refuse to accept that money during their campaigns?
![]()
Still, it does seem like a lot of people are trying to downplay the polls because said polls so far are not really in Warren’s favor.
Including Warren, considering she tried pointing at Obama’s and Trump’s wins.
And 538 already did an analysis of decades of polls and found that even this early they tend to be fairly reliable indicators.
Not like too many big donors would have her as their first pick anyway, given how much of her political career has been about keeping the rich in check. Which is also why she did not do so well in her state’s suburbs in 2018.
Edited by M84 on Jun 8th 2019 at 9:28:15 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedUh no, she said that in response to questions about her 'electability'.
Which was entirely fair, electability as a term is just a bullshit method of gatekeeping that's used to consciously or otherwise to make unconventional candidates seem uniquely unable to win elections.
Obama won, Trump won. Electability is frankly nonsense.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jun 8th 2019 at 6:39:44 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangYou're missing the point, electability arguments are nothing more than the self-fulfilling prophecies that arbitrarily and often discriminatorily disadvantage certain candidates and are in no way reliable.
Her point by bringing up Obama and Trump was to show that there's no reason to believe that certain candidates are intrinsically more unelectable the others.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIf being really good and being really lucky are the two means of overcoming "electability" then we're back to "It's anyone's game." As much as we complain about the number of candidates and bicker about some specific thing each of them has done that we dislike, I'm pretty sure all of us would be okay with about 16 of them being president. The only ones this spells trouble for are all the straight white dudes hovering around 1% in the polls. Which does kinda suck, since I do like Inslee and Swalwell.
Your assumptions that 1) "electability" is a concrete phenomenon and 2) that you need either amazing campaigning ability or luck to overcome it are equally unfounded.
Electability is very much a coded term, it has far more to do with being white and male
than actually being electable or not.
That said, Biden and Sanders' own favorability have dipped somewhat recently. Biden in particular saw his initial bubble fade.
Warren by contrast increased her own favorability very slightly over the last few months. Only slightly though (along with all of the other candidates save Buttigieg who saw the biggest bump).
And here's 538's take on electability from last year:
What We Actually Know About ‘Electability’
While it can and often is coded for "white straight man", it's really more complicated than that. See the sections under "Women" and "Race and Ethnicity".
What is interesting to me personally is that Atheists are the second least trusted and thus "electable" people in the USA, beaten only by Socialists.
It only surprises me because I figured atheists would be seen as the least trustworthy. We are after all considered worse than rapists or something.
Edited by M84 on Jun 8th 2019 at 11:00:49 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedGoing by the poll numbers from back then, Obama lacked Obama's amazing campaigning ability in the June before election year. At least, he was still in second place, which makes him the Bernie Sanders of now. Which makes Edwards the other 4000 candidates by all their powers combined.
Which candidate is which Planeteer? Real questions to be answered.
By the way, Marq, if you're still wondering why some days this thread grows really fast and others it slows down rapidly it because most people barely post on the weekends and breaking news tends to come to a crawl on those same days. So those of us left make do with relatively nebulous discussions that we are still passionate about but don't make us all pop blood vessels.
Hence, we've been having a genial discussion about what Elizabeth Warren's poll numbers mean for about 14 hours.
Speaking of which: New Poll from CNN.
Edited by Parable on Jun 8th 2019 at 8:03:51 AM

Biden's numbers took a dip, but that was more or less just an initial bubble bursting. He's still pretty solidly in the lead. Especially going by the most recent two polls I mentioned.
Disgusted, but not surprised