2020 US Presidential Election Speculation

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jordan » Sun Sep 01, 2019 2:43 am

The DNC are complete crooks and as usual they are sabotaging the election and cheating. This time they are barring Williamson and Gabbard from the next debate. Williamson may make sense in light of polling, but their decision to exclude Gabbard is purely a crooked move that shows they are putting their finger on the scale to destroy democracy. Realclearpolitics polling shows that Gabbard is ahead of both Castro and Klobuchar, who are being allowed on the debate stage even though almost nobody likes or cares about them. As usual the Democratic party is a cesspool of corruption, favoritism and dirty politics, and they're perfectly willing to hand another 4 years to Trump if it means crushing the left wing of their own party.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6730.html
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5909
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:56 am

Jordan wrote:The DNC are complete crooks and as usual they are sabotaging the election and cheating. This time they are barring Williamson and Gabbard from the next debate. Williamson may make sense in light of polling, but their decision to exclude Gabbard is purely a crooked move that shows they are putting their finger on the scale to destroy democracy. Realclearpolitics polling shows that Gabbard is ahead of both Castro and Klobuchar, who are being allowed on the debate stage even though almost nobody likes or cares about them. As usual the Democratic party is a cesspool of corruption, favoritism and dirty politics, and they're perfectly willing to hand another 4 years to Trump if it means crushing the left wing of their own party.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6730.html



Aside from throwing attacks, care to explain why these moves are crooked or corrupt? How they're attempting to destroy democracy exactly? It's not that I don't also disapprove of some of the actions of the party writ large or last election, but the dems are not preventing these people from running from office. A brief search (I'm not able to put in more I concede right now) indicates that while Gabbard hit %2 in some polls, only two of the polls in which she did were recognized by the DNC. A debate can be had whether or not those rules make sense, but it appears they existed prior to this exclusion and Gabbard was aware of this and attempted to get the rules changed (if I'm understanding this correctly).
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4377
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jordan » Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:05 am

You can't cherry pick polls. You have to look at them in aggregate. Otherwise Trump can go and take only Rasmussen polls, which have consistently been an outlier, and say he has a much higher approval rating than he does (although right now he's negative even with Rasmussen, they still show him at higher numbers than other polls consistently). Alternatively, Democrats can choose to exclude Rasmussen and without those, Trump's approval numbers probably appear in the high 30s instead of low 40s at various points. The decision to exclude certain polls, even if their methodology is at least reasonably sound (e.g. online strawpolls or other polls with poor methodology obviously make little sense to include), already is tipping the scale in a certain direction as calculated by the DNC. Disallowing certain candidates from a debate is a death knell for their candidacies in practice. It's fairly statistically unlikely regardless that the lower polling candidates like Yang, Gabbard, Castro, etc. would be able to close the gap necessary to win, but the DNC is clearly putting its thumb on the scale by picking and choosing which polls count according to their arbitrary rules. Gabbard definitely benefited from the last two debates as they raised her profile and gave her viral moments to expand her outreach. They also indirectly helped her campaign as she was able to inflict some severe damage on the campaigns of Tim Ryan and Kamala Harris; the latter briefly surged but had begun to decline even before the 2nd debate, and after Gabbard called her out, her numbers especially plummeted.

The DNC have not yet explained why those specific polls were condoned as acceptable and others were not, and it's not necessarily due to methodology, as I have read that some of the polls in which Gabbard made the threshold but which were discounted by the DNC were traditional phone polls. My understanding is that the DNC changed the rules for debate qualification in May. While that was quite some time ago, the rules changes are questionable and seemed calculated to exclude certain candidates at that time such as Yang and Gabbard; Yang actually managed to overcome the institutional bias and qualify anyways, albeit barely. The DNC at the start of the race should have made it clear what the thresholds would be for qualifying for each debate, instead of changing the requirements in the middle of the primary. Allowing candidates who aggregately poll lower than Gabbard, while not allowing Gabbard, is not fair.
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5909
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:09 pm

Jordan wrote:You can't cherry pick polls. You have to look at them in aggregate.


As you say later, they really aren't though are they? They have a methodology, whatever that may be. And I'm nto sur they have to do anything.

The decision to exclude certain polls, even if their methodology is at least reasonably sound (e.g. online strawpolls or other polls with poor methodology obviously make little sense to include), already is tipping the scale in a certain direction as calculated by the DNC.


Tipping the scale for their own party in the sense that you have to narrow down candidates in some fashion? If so, I agree. But as you say, they have to have a cut off point and thus they do exclude certain polls.

Disallowing certain candidates from a debate is a death knell for their candidacies in practice. It's fairly statistically unlikely regardless that the lower polling candidates like Yang, Gabbard, Castro, etc. would be able to close the gap necessary to win, but the DNC is clearly putting its thumb on the scale by picking and choosing which polls count according to their arbitrary rules. Gabbard definitely benefited from the last two debates as they raised her profile and gave her viral moments to expand her outreach. They also indirectly helped her campaign as she was able to inflict some severe damage on the campaigns of Tim Ryan and Kamala Harris; the latter briefly surged but had begun to decline even before the 2nd debate, and after Gabbard called her out, her numbers especially plummeted.


We don't disagree not being included in a debate hurts candidates numbers. I'm also not sure they have a particular right to be included, however, I'm not very read on democratic party bylaws or whatever applies. Regardless, at some point you do have widdle them down and some candidates simply won't make the cut yes?

The DNC have not yet explained why those specific polls were condoned as acceptable and others were not, and it's not necessarily due to methodology, as I have read that some of the polls in which Gabbard made the threshold but which were discounted by the DNC were traditional phone polls. My understanding is that the DNC changed the rules for debate qualification in May. While that was quite some time ago, the rules changes are questionable and seemed calculated to exclude certain candidates at that time such as Yang and Gabbard; Yang actually managed to overcome the institutional bias and qualify anyways, albeit barely. The DNC at the start of the race should have made it clear what the thresholds would be for qualifying for each debate, instead of changing the requirements in the middle of the primary. Allowing candidates who aggregately poll lower than Gabbard, while not allowing Gabbard, is not fair.



I mean, we can agree on this could be clear. As for whether its fair or not, I'm a little less clear on. The rules certainly weren't crafted after she did well in them simply to discredit or hamper her. She wants the rules changed because they are interfering with her ability to succeed (understandable). But they also apply to all the other candidates. In any case, what we've discussed here isn't exactly screaming corruption and cesspool.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4377
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jordan » Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:06 am

As you say later, they really aren't though are they? They have a methodology, whatever that may be. And I'm nto sur they have to do anything.


Alright, here's my question then. What is their methodology? Because to me it seems like they arbitrarily chose polls that they thought would favor certain candidates and disfavor others, and this was being reported on all the way back in May, where it was predicted that Gabbard and Yang would lose out as a result of the changes midway through the race in determining who qualifies. It turned out that Yang ended up surging and just barely overcoming their thresholds anyways, but Gabbard indeed has lost out. However, the way they chose the polls does not reflect any actual democracy or realities among the Democratic electorate, since it is clear by examining polls in aggregate, as RealClearPolitics does, that Gabbard is beating other candidates who made the debate threshold such as Castro and Klobuchar. If the DNC do have a methodology for choosing which polls count and which polls don't count, they should have explained that methodology instead of simply just choosing polling organizations they prefer and disregarding those they don't regardless of the individual methodologies of the polling organizations. For example, they could choose to only include polling done by live phone interviews. I still think that would lead to a biased sample, but at least it would be a clear and transparent ruling. They didn't actually do that, however. They just chose various organizations, which is sketchy to me.

The DNC also excluded Mike Gravel from the last debate even though he met some of their criteria for participation. By contrast, they allowed Steve Bullock to participate even though he met less criteria than Mike Gravel, and they let Bill De Blasio participate even though he had less unique donors than Mike Gravel by a magnitude of about 10 and had barely met their polling requirements. De Blasio I could probably accept, but the decision to allow Bullock and not Gravel made no sense except if you consider that the DNC has an arbitrary interest in elevating certain candidates and excluding others. The way they have crafted their rules and changed them over time has been used to bludgeon certain candidates, while their decision to ban both a single issue climate change debate and to ban candidates from appearing at any debate or town hall separate from officially condoned ones has had a similar effect.
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5909
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:31 pm

Jordan wrote:
Alright, here's my question then. What is their methodology? Because to me it seems like they arbitrarily chose polls that they thought would favor certain candidates and disfavor others, and this was being reported on all the way back in May, where it was predicted that Gabbard and Yang would lose out as a result of the changes midway through the race in determining who qualifies.... However, the way they chose the polls does not reflect any actual democracy or realities among the Democratic electorate, since it is clear by examining polls in aggregate, as RealClearPolitics does, that Gabbard is beating other candidates who made the debate threshold such as Castro and Klobuchar. If the DNC do have a methodology for choosing which polls count and which polls don't count, they should have explained that methodology instead of simply just choosing polling organizations they prefer and disregarding those they don't regardless of the individual methodologies of the polling organizations. For example, they could choose to only include polling done by live phone interviews. I still think that would lead to a biased sample, but at least it would be a clear and transparent ruling. They didn't actually do that, however. They just chose various organizations, which is sketchy to me.


Well before I continue let me be candid and say I have not done too much research into this. But from what I've read there are two thresholds to satisfy before being granted an appearance at the third debate (I assume the other debate had other but similar standards). They are a polling threshold and a donor threshold, the latter of which both the candidates you mention satisfied.

Regarding the polling threshold, the candidate must have achieved a 2% minimum in at least four polls between 6/28/19-8/28/19. They can be national or early state polls (of these states: IA,NH/NV/SC). Those polls must have been completed by certain organizations (CNN/FOX/CBS/ABCC/NBC/NYT/WashingtonPost/WSJ/USAToday/AP/NPR/DesMoinesRegister/MonmouthUniQuinnipiac Uni/UnioNH/WinthrowUni). Finally, the candidate cant use multiple polls by the conducted by the same organization covering the same geographic area.

So. That is their methodology. We can of course now debate whether or not that's reasonable, but you asked for it so I thought it best to lay it out first. Is it reasonable? I'll concede I don't know enough about polling/demographics/statistics to say much on the subject but on the surface I can say that it at least appears to make some sense and not to be random or arbitrary. You've mentioned looking at polls in the aggregate, which is both not in their methodology and would appear to bring in erroneous data (poor polls or covering repetitive areas more than once).

The DNC also excluded Mike Gravel from the last debate even though he met some of their criteria for participation.


Agree, and we agree (I'm sure) that some is not all.

By contrast, they allowed Steve Bullock to participate even though he met less criteria than Mike Gravel,


Bullock was prohibited from the first debate because he did not satisfy the criteria and allowed to participate in the second (from what I understand mind you) because he satisfied the unique donors and 1% polling criteria. And it appears he's not satisfied the 2% number and is therefore not eligible for the third debate.

and they let Bill De Blasio participate even though he had less unique donors than Mike Gravel by a magnitude of about 10 and had barely met their polling requirements.


I understand your end goal is to reach the conclusion that the whole thing is rigged deal conducted by corrupt dems to control the race, but I'm not understanding the qualifiers you're putting on these statements. He may have less unique donors, and may have barely met their polling requirements..but since he did meet the requirements he was allowed to appear unlike those who did not.

De Blasio I could probably accept, but the decision to allow Bullock and not Gravel made no sense except if you
consider that the DNC has an arbitrary interest in elevating certain candidates and excluding others.


Well, it isn't really an arbitrary interest right? It's a direct interest in winning the election right?

The way they have crafted their rules and changed them over time has been used to bludgeon certain candidates, while their decision to ban both a single issue climate change debate and to ban candidates from appearing at any debate or
town hall separate from officially condoned ones has had a similar effect.
[/quote]

Well, it is one of those things. The DNC, like the RNC, are organizations created to push the chosen and therefore allegedly best candidate to the national election. Considering our population size and the stakes involved, it certainly is not an easy task. I'm not sure I'm entirely on board with your idea that the DNC's methodology is inherently arbitrary and an obvious byproduct of a morass of corruption. That said, I don't have any problem having a discussion concerning whether these rules harm minor candidates who I (and it seems maybe yourself as well) would like to see be allowed to have more air time. I also don't disagree that the DNC has an agenda in mind at all times.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4377
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jordan » Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:33 pm

Don't have time to respond to everything atm but I'm confused about one point.

What I read about Bullock is that in the second debate he met the polls, but failed to meet the donor requirements. He was allowed anyways and Gravel was not. If that's not true, I retract the point about Gravel/Bullock. I read it in an op-ed, so I'm unsure of the veracity of the claim. It's hard to find information on the topic to confirm or deny the claim. All I could find was this:

"Based on an ABC News analysis, the tie-breaker at this time would be between California Rep. Eric Swalwell and Bullock. Both candidates have identical polling averages and have narrowly crossed the threshold in only three qualifying polls. Neither campaign has released details on their donor base, nor announced if they have met the donor threshold. As of the first debates, Swalwell did not cross the donor threshold. "

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gov-ste ... d=63785068

It's unclear to me whether Bullock met the donor threshold for the second debate or whether the information is even publicly available. What makes little sense to me is that at the time of this article, a DNC spokesperson claimed that Bullock had qualified for the debate despite the campaign not announcing they had met the donor threshold. I believe he qualified based on the polls and not based on the donor numbers, and only qualified narrowly due to a limit of slots.

Well, it isn't really an arbitrary interest right? It's a direct interest in winning the election right?


You're raising this as a rhetorical question suspecting that the obvious answer to the second part is "yes." What if I said I thought the answer was "No" and that the Democratic Party leaders have special interests which take priority over their desire to defeat Donald Trump?

You've mentioned looking at polls in the aggregate, which is both not in their methodology and would appear to bring in erroneous data (poor polls or covering repetitive areas more than once).


I mainly object to them specifying which polling organizations are sanctioned as opposed to which methodologies.
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5909
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:56 pm

Any thoughts on recent Democrat debates?
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 16867
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:09 am

Dong Zhou wrote:Any thoughts on recent Democrat debates?

They barred the one candidate I liked, so I won’t bother watching until the presidential debates.

Gabbard met the requirements (greater than 3% in four polls) — she even polled higher than bigger names in some areas. But because she’s suing Google for censorship (and Google is a huge donor to the DNC) and because she utterly embarrassed Harris, she’s conveniently “left out”.
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Sage
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: 2020 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:32 pm

Jia Nanfeng wrote:
Dong Zhou wrote:Any thoughts on recent Democrat debates?

They barred the one candidate I liked, so I won’t bother watching until the presidential debates.

Gabbard met the requirements (greater than 3% in four polls) — she even polled higher than bigger names in some areas. But because she’s suing Google for censorship (and Google is a huge donor to the DNC) and because she utterly embarrassed Harris, she’s conveniently “left out”.


I mean, that is a lot of conspiratorial speculation though, right? The requirements are not meeting 3% in any polls, but rather polls sanctioned by the DNC prior to third debates (all of them, really). She can poll higher than all of the candidates in some polls, and it would remain irrelevant. Her campaign has, naturally, argued against the rules but they apply equally to all candidates from what I can tell. And, to be fair, I do think her complaints have some merit in how they relate to clarity and consistency. If I'm wrong about any of that please correct me, but lot of talk in this thread about arbitrary or 'convenient' screwing over of candidates when simpler answers exist.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4377
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Previous

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved

 
cron