Re: Democratic Candidate 2020
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2020 1:58 am
When it voted for Bloomberg and Gabbard.
When it voted for Bloomberg and Gabbard.
Good point. OK, the slogan can be American Samoa's Super! and they can sell ASS hats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/us/p ... rnout.htmlIn state after state, there has been little evidence — at least outside California — that [Sanders] has generated higher turnout among young voters. And though he has promised to deliver record turnout, it may in fact be Mr. Biden who is accomplishing that, lifted by his strong support among black voters.
In no state did people younger than 30 account for more than 20 percent of the electorate, based on exit polls, and in most states they accounted for 15 percent or less.
Because so few young people voted, it did not matter that Mr. Sanders won them by huge margins, because Mr. Biden won the much more plentiful older voters.
In addition, while Mr. Sanders has succeeded in galvanizing Latino voters — he won them by about 27 percentage points over Mr. Biden in California — he has struggled to build support among black voters.
In Alabama, where black voters were half of the electorate, Mr. Sanders lost them by more than 60 points. He lost them by more than 50 points in Virginia, and by more than 40 points in Texas and North Carolina. In several states, he came in third among black voters, behind not only Mr. Biden but also Michael R. Bloomberg.
[...]
while backers of Mr. Sanders believe many of Ms. Warren’s supporters would have migrated to him, exit polls suggested that the shift would have been too small to change the outcome in key states.
Take college-educated white women: Ms. Warren’s strongest group and one of Mr. Sanders’s weakest. If Ms. Warren had dropped out, Mr. Sanders could have benefited twice as much as Mr. Biden among those voters, said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. But Maine would probably have been the only state to flip from Mr. Biden to Mr. Sanders as a result.
Mr. Biden would most likely still have won Texas, Minnesota and Massachusetts — just with somewhat smaller margins, according to Mr. Murray. Warren voters generally like Mr. Sanders, he said; “it’s just her support isn’t large enough that it would have split enough in his direction.”
In fact, based on exit polls, Mr. Bloomberg almost certainly siphoned more votes from Mr. Biden than Ms. Warren did from Mr. Sanders.
This is a very strange way of reporting turnout, if that was the intention - how many people are aged 18-30? About a fifth seems plausible to me, assuming a life expectancy of 80.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:33 amIn no state did people younger than 30 account for more than 20 percent of the electorate, based on exit polls, and in most states they accounted for 15 percent or less
US life expectancy is 78-81 (M/F) IIRC.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:10 pmThis is a very strange way of reporting turnout, if that was the intention - how many people are aged 18-30? About a fifth seems plausible to me, assuming a life expectancy of 80.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:33 amIn no state did people younger than 30 account for more than 20 percent of the electorate, based on exit polls, and in most states they accounted for 15 percent or less
Yes, it’s not explained well.dyqik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:07 pmUS life expectancy is 78-81 (M/F) IIRC.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:10 pmThis is a very strange way of reporting turnout, if that was the intention - how many people are aged 18-30? About a fifth seems plausible to me, assuming a life expectancy of 80.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:33 amIn no state did people younger than 30 account for more than 20 percent of the electorate, based on exit polls, and in most states they accounted for 15 percent or less
Per Wikipedia, 18-44 years is 34% of the US population, so 18-30 can't really be more than about 16% of the population. Some marketing figures suggest 16.5%. And not all of those will be citizens eligible to vote, possibly more than other age bands.
Add to that the usual difficulties for young people voting (not in the state at the time, not registered in their current address because they move around a lot, etc.), and I have no idea why you'd expect it to go above 15% anywhere.
Surely that depends on what youth turnout has been in previous years? If young voters are normally underrepresented, which I believe is the case, then these figures sound like it could well have happened.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:23 pmYes, it’s not explained well.dyqik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:07 pmUS life expectancy is 78-81 (M/F) IIRC.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 12:10 pm
This is a very strange way of reporting turnout, if that was the intention - how many people are aged 18-30? About a fifth seems plausible to me, assuming a life expectancy of 80.
Per Wikipedia, 18-44 years is 34% of the US population, so 18-30 can't really be more than about 16% of the population. Some marketing figures suggest 16.5%. And not all of those will be citizens eligible to vote, possibly more than other age bands.
Add to that the usual difficulties for young people voting (not in the state at the time, not registered in their current address because they move around a lot, etc.), and I have no idea why you'd expect it to go above 15% anywhere.
That said, primary voters aren’t supposed to be a representative sample of the adult population, and are a small proportion of that population.
I assume that the issue is that it was argued that Sanders would enthuse lots of young voters to get involved in politics. If that had happened then the caucuses and voting queues would have been crowded with 18-30 year olds. That doesn’t appear to have happened.
Certainly, a comparison with previous years would be a very good thing.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 3:00 pmSurely that depends on what youth turnout has been in previous years? If young voters are normally underrepresented, which I believe is the case, then these figures sound like it could well have happened.
The NY Times endorsed both her and Klobuchar...Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 11:12 pmBTW for those waiting on Warren's endorsement, she was on SNL last night joking that she might endorse both
Yes, it's quite a good joke.dyqik wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:06 amThe NY Times endorsed both her and Klobuchar...Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 11:12 pmBTW for those waiting on Warren's endorsement, she was on SNL last night joking that she might endorse both
Scenes when Bernie drops out, endorses Tulsi and takes her over the top. Honestly, I can imagine her beating Trump in a head to head, though obviously her politics are generally bad (as are Biden's tbh).Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:36 amI think she's about the last former runner to endorse someone, right? I'm just hoping it will be for my favourite remaining candidate, Tulsi Gabbard
Some better analysis which is also based upon turnout.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 11:14 pmI found me some exit poll data, links below.
The table shows the proportion of the sample that is in the 18-29 age group and the 30-44 age group. Unfortunately they don't cover the same number of years so aren't directly comparable. The others are 45-64 and over 65, which are even worse, so I'll stick to the two mentioned.
There's 12 years in the 18-29 group, and 15 in the other. So we'd expect that the younger group would be about 80% of the size of the other.
In fact in most states in 2020 its a lot less than that, eg in Alabama in 2020 the younger group is less than 50%.
Primaries.jpg
Overall participation by the youngest group improved in 2008 compared to 2004, and again in 2016 compared to 2008. However it dropped in 2020, overall to about the same level as in 2008.
If there was a Sanders effect on young voters it seems to have occurred in 2016, particularly in Texas, New Hampshire and Massachusetts where the proportion of young voters was over 80% of the older group.
In 2020, the proportion of young voters was almost 80% in Maine, Massachusetts and Minnesota.
Note that this concerns the relative size of the different age groups. The exit poll data doesn't tell us about the absolute numbers who voted.
Links to sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... y-primary/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... e-primary/
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/primaries/polls
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/
Sanders himself has acknowledged the problem:secret squirrel wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:25 amObserve how the NYT artfully spun vague and inconclusive data into a superficially facty sounding dismissal of Sanders.
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/06/81248651 ... he-planned"Have we been as successful as I would hope in bringing young people in? The answer is no," Sanders told reporters at a news conference at his Burlington, Vt., headquarters. Sanders went on to acknowledge the undeniable challenge that any candidate banking on the support of younger voters faces: They do not vote in high numbers, compared with other groups.
"I think that will change in the general election, but I will be honest with you, we have not done as well with bringing young people into the process," Sanders said. "It is not easy."
Well what else is he going to say? He obviously hasn't attracted staggeringly greater numbers of young people in the primary race, but it's unclear whether he has attracted somewhat more, or what other factors are involved. The NYT is happy to just hint at a gloomy picture of the situation, without any substantial analysis to back it up.Woodchopper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:50 amSanders himself has acknowledged the problem:secret squirrel wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 2:25 amObserve how the NYT artfully spun vague and inconclusive data into a superficially facty sounding dismissal of Sanders.
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/06/81248651 ... he-planned"Have we been as successful as I would hope in bringing young people in? The answer is no," Sanders told reporters at a news conference at his Burlington, Vt., headquarters. Sanders went on to acknowledge the undeniable challenge that any candidate banking on the support of younger voters faces: They do not vote in high numbers, compared with other groups.
"I think that will change in the general election, but I will be honest with you, we have not done as well with bringing young people into the process," Sanders said. "It is not easy."
I just checked the state level polls, and that picture is reflected today's primaries (except Idaho and North Dakota where there weren't any polls).El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:51 amThe charts here are interesting:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... /national/
On 1 March, Biden was polling at 16.7% and Sanders at 28.8%. Of the others, Buttigieg 10.2%, Warren 12.3%, Bloomberg 15.1% (plus others who've now dropped out, total of 44.7%)
On 4 March, after Buttigieg and Steyer dropped out, Biden was up at 34.9%, Sanders 29.1%. Warren and Bloomberg had 27.6% left. So, together, W&B barely moved, Sanders barely moved, and Biden picked up pretty much the entirety of the remaining vote.
Today, with Warren, Bloomberg and Klobuchar having all dropped out, Sanders has moved up to 33.3%, and Biden is on 51.6%. If for shiggles you assume that Sanders' increase came entirely from Warren's camp, that means that her vote broke 69% for Biden, not Sanders.
Warren's still (just about) got some leverage, she'd do well to demand the VP now before Biden wins Michigan.