UPDATE #3: Pete drops back post-debate, Klobuchar surges

UncleScoopy

The Boston Globe takes polls every day, then creates a two-day rolling average.

Mayor Pete had some serious momentum going, but fell after the debate. Klobuchar emerged as the winner of that debate, with a surprisingly large surge of her own, as she vaulted from nowhere into third place.

Bernie, meanwhile, re-emerged as the clear favorite.

Things don’t look great for Warren and Biden. No candidate on the New Hampshire ballot has ever won the nomination after finishing lower than second in that primary. Barring a sudden shift in the wind, Biden and Warren seem to be headed for 4th and 5th place.

Here’s the trend:

Sanders Buttigieg Biden Warren Klobuchar
Feb 8-9 27 19 12 12 14
Feb 7-8 24 22 10 13 9
Feb 6-7 24 25 11 14 6
Feb 5-6 24 23 11 13 6
Feb 4-5 25 19 12 12 6
Feb 3-4 24 15 15 10 6
Feb 2-3 24 11 18 13 6

38 thoughts on “UPDATE #3: Pete drops back post-debate, Klobuchar surges”

      1. Sour grapes is more “I didn’t want it anyway”, as in “I don’t mind missing out on those GRAPES because they are SOUR”. Not really sure what you’re going for here, but Biden is ass, Bloomberg is refried Trump with a side of ass.

  2. Same for the 1968 Democratic primary in New Hampshire. There LBJ won 49% of the vote and Eugene McCarthy 42%. Neither was the eventual nominee. If Hubert Humphrey received any votes in the New Hampshire primary, they were very few, as he had not even entered the race yet.

    1. I presume the reference is to the modern era of the primary process (the primaries weren’t very important until the 1972 election.)

      Only 15 states held primaries until 1972. The conventions usually were brokered with the winner being decided by the ‘cigar smoking men in the back rooms.’

      1. Should have added: it wouldn’t surprise me if you already know this, but I’m pretty sure most people don’t and I think it’s fairly confusing to have this as sort of an asterisks.

    2. The factoid is correct. You mis-read it. It does not say that the nominee has always been somebody who finished first or second. It says that nobody has won the nomination if they finished lower than second. Neither of the people you mentioned were on the New Hampshire ballot, and neither were even candidates for the nomination at the time!

      Stevenson was not on the New Hampshire ballot in 1952 . In fact, he never ran in any primaries and never sought the nomination for the Presidency at all. He was drafted at the convention. (And then accepted reluctantly)

      Humphrey was not on the New Hampshire ballot in 1968, and did not enter the race until sometime in April, after his boss had formally withdrawn.

      1. exactly right.Setting up Bloomberg, His plan is working Biden falling no clear candidate and not having to go in first four states. If he wins Super Tuesday its a contested convention or him getting nomination.

  3. That factoid about only first and second place finishers in New Hampshire ever getting the nomination is not correct. Off the top, I can point to the 1952 Democratic primary where Truman and Kefauver finished first and second, receiving about 90% of the votes between them. Whereas the eventual nominee, Adlai Stevenson II, finished 5th with only 3-4% of the vote. I bet there are other examples out there too.

    Be prepared to hear Biden cite Adlai as his inspiration late next week when he attempts to explain his low finish. (Hopefully he won’t get confused and start talking about his predecessor as Vice President, that other Adlai Stevenson!).

  4. From a Business Insider report today. Note this isn’t even including shareholder ‘fiduciary duty’ and ridiculous executive compensation in for-profit industry based on life or death:

    “The US spent $817 billion on healthcare administrative costs in 2017, $600 billion more than Canada, which has a smaller population than the US but also has much lower per capita healthcare costs: For example, the US spends an average of $2,479 per patient on admin costs, compared with $551 per capita under Canada’s single-payer system, according to a new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
    US Consumers Are Coming Up Against Rising Out Of Pocket Healthcare Costs
    Business Insider Intelligence

    Researchers conclude that this cost discrepancy is primarily the result of bureaucratic hoops US healthcare providers must jump through to fulfill complex billing arrangements — a defining feature of the US’ fractured private health insurance system: An increase in overhead from private insurers caused spending as a percentage of total US healthcare costs to surge from 31% in 1999 to over 34% in 2017, which equates to an added $100 billion burden each year over that same period. ”

    But yeah, lets keep talking about how Bernie puts people off by the way he talks or other ridiculousness. Too bad he wants to do stupid things like preventing human death, instead of having a real candidate like Bloomberg who will give us all the nice fuzzy empty platitudes of normalcy again.

    1. There is only one important issue that should be important for the Democratic candidates. It’s not the climate or health care or foreign policy. It’s defeating Donald Trump. If it takes platitudes and normality, then that’s the man (or woman). If it is Bernie’s policies that carry the election, then he is the one. If Bernie’s policies make victory less likely, then he is not.

      Frankly, I don’t think the Dem candidates should even discuss anything else beyond the fact that the government is corrupt and needs a total housecleaning. What they are doing now is simply hurting the chances that any of them can win in November.

      1. Absolutely right. Defeating Trump is the only issue. But you’d never know that from listening to Gov. Whitmer’s Democratic response to the State of the Union. There she was, speaking on national television the very night before the impeachment, for crying out loud, and she couldn’t be bothered even THEN to make that the focus of her party’s distinction from Trumpian Republicanism?! These Dems are hopeless.

    2. As far as the issues go, Bernie certainly has defined them correctly. The cost of education and health care not only makes them out of reach for many, but gives average Americans less disposable income to fire up other parts of the economy.

      While I appreciate the central point that access to medical care and education should be available to everyone as a basic human right in a prosperous society, I don’t think we should set aside the tremendous burden that today’s costs place upon everyone every day, even those who can get the treatment they need.

      Inflation in general from 1966 until now is about a factor of 8.0. (Something that would cost a dollar in 1966 costs eight dollars now.) But colleges like the one I went to cost more than 40 times what they did in 1966, and medical care costs 22 times as much. Those things are taking a massive chunk out of our paychecks even when there is no medical emergency.

      Meanwhile … wonder why the poor farmers are going out of business? In 1966 the average cost of a dozen no-frills large grade-a eggs was 60 cents. This past December in my market, I paid 47 cents per dozen throughout the entire month – that’s six cents in 1966 dollars!

      So riddle me this – how is the poultry farmer supposed to pay for medical care?

  5. 500 people surveyed over each two days. A survey of 500 has an approximately 4.5% margin of error at the 95% confidence interval. Could just be statistical noise.

    1. Very true. That’s exactly what I would think except for the history shown in the chart. I’ve never seen numbers hold so solidly from survey to survey. Look at Bernie’s stats. How could he always be at 24? Logic says those samples should vary substantially in the twenties because of the margin of error within a 500-person sample, even if the “true” number in the population is always 24.

      I think they must be using some weighting or smoothing system that they aren’t telling us about (and that I’m not familiar with).

      1. Yes, that is interesting. I suppose it could be literally fake polls, though that’s hard to believe with the Boston Globe. There were polling firms that did that in the, I believe, 2016 election: they genuinely did some sampling of voters but then they smoothed their numbers in order to make them consistent with other polling firm numbers. Assuming this was the 2016 election, that likely goes part way to explaining why Hilary Clinton reached something like 97% odds or winning the election at a few points during the campaign. If the firms had numbers more in favor of Trump but they thought they were wrong and altered their results, well, you can easily figure out where that leads.

  6. Context, lets have a flashback to February 2016:

    Trump: “The State of Iowa should disqualify Ted Cruz from the most recent election on the basis that he cheated- a total fraud!” “This guy Ted Cruz is the single biggest liar I have ever dealt with in my life. I mean it. … He will lie about anything. I’ve met much tougher people than Ted Cruz. He’s like a baby. … He’s like a little baby. Soft, weak, little baby by comparison. But for lying, he’s the best I’ve ever seen. … A guy like Ted Cruz, he has no clue. He never employed anybody. He’s a nasty, nasty guy.”

    Ted Cruz: “We need a commander in chief, not a Twitterer-in-chief. … I don’t know anyone who would be comfortable with someone who behaves this way having his finger on the button. I mean, we’re liable to wake up one morning, and Donald, if he were president, would have nuked Denmark.”

    So the bar for Democrats is not agreeing at this point on policy, and in 2016 the Republicans were fine with two of the top candidates at each others throats, one calling the other a liar, fraud, and illegal to run – and the other saying he could literally nuke the world into oblivion.

    It’s insane how the bar is so different from Democratic primaries and Republican primaries of 2016. Or the parties in general, on what is ‘acceptable.’ The whole ‘cant get their shit together’ narrative in public opinion for the Democratic side based on mainly simple ideological differences.

    Just goes to show how fucked up this world and how brainwashed the public is. The argument in 2016 was over if the candidate is too insane to be trusted for nuclear weapons. Now the argument is over it’s too good to be true to model a healthcare system after the same stuff other countries succeed with and we shouldn’t believe it.

    As always, glad the priorities and logic are straight in the United States.

  7. Pretty much a disaster for the Dems. The moderate wing of the party is divided and it looks like Sanders is consolidating left-wing support. I’m an (unenthusiastic) Biden supporter, and I’m getting pretty worried about his viability. He looks as clueless as Jeb Bush did in 2016.

    1. Agree. I’m still with the guy who said the big winners in the Dem race so far are Trump and Bloomberg.

      2. Of all the people running, I think Bloomberg would make the best president so I hope he gets the nomination. Hopefully, the Republicans mange to hold onto the Senate so they can protect my large soda. I only drink diet, but I figure if they outlaw large regular sodas, it will be hard to find large diet sodas. That’s a chance I am willing to take. But if it looks like he is going to get the nomination, I am selling my Pepsi stock.

        Oh Scoopy. I replied to your reply to my comment above, but it is pending moderation. Is that because I quoted Mario Cuomo’s unofficial slogan for his campaign to be mayor of NYC? “Vote for Cuomo, not the (Ed Koch)?

          1. That’s weird because it was definitely being held back last night and it told me it was for moderation. It must have been the homophobic slur I quoted, but if you don’t know who approved it I certainly have no idea.

          2. Perhaps I had already approved it before I read your comment? Does that make sense?

            I never censor any comments. As far as I know, the system only red-flags comments which include links, thus leaving that decision up to me. Therefore, if you post a comment with no link and it “requires moderation,” then something is amiss. I don’t think it screens for obscenity or offensive content or anything else content-related.

            I do change a comment or delete it if

            (1) it’s no longer applicable – like if you tell me a word is misspelled and I correct it, in which case I’ll usually delete the comment that says I made a mistake, unless there’s some reason to retain it.

            or (2) if you correct your own comment with a second comment, in which case I place the correction into the original comment and delete the second one.

            or (3) if you post a link, in which case I have to moderate and approve, and I generally couple the link to your text, rather than just leaving it hanging out on its own.

            With those three exceptions, your comments should remain as is. I suppose I would delete or edit a post that included something I don’t want the search engines to find me for, like the n-word for example, but I don’t think that has ever happened in practice.

  8. There have been racial problems in South Bend, particularly involving the police, but he has another potential problem with black voters. African-Americans as a group tend to be less accepting of homosexuality than other groups that vote Democratic. I am not saying that all blacks are homophobic or anti-gay. It’s just that a lower percentage of African-Americans are comfortable with homosexuals than, say, white liberals. Combine that with the racial issues in his city and he may find it very very difficult to appeal to black voters. He may also face a reverse Bradley effect, or at least he might have if the South Bend issues didn’t provide cover.

    1. I don’t think he’ll get the nomination, so I guess the discussion is superfluous, but I don’t know how well America in general will accept a gay couple in the White House in the next ten years or so. I think the day will come, but I do not believe it is here.

      I saw some interviews with some women who voted for Pete in Iowa, and they wanted their ballots back when the interviewer told them the Mayor is gay – and those were some sweet old liberal ladies. (I expected them to say, “Who cares?”)

      I live in the Midwest, and for what it’s worth, many of my female friends have zero problem with people of any race or religion in the White House, but they are very uneasy about having a gay couple there.

      I am curious about how the right-wing hatemongers will handle it if he becomes a threat. Will they come right out into the open with homophobia, will they stick to insinuations, or will they use coded euphemisms like “weak.”

      Anyway … I like Pete. He’s a smart and sensible pragmatist, which means he’s the kind of guy I like in office, whether liberal or conservative.

      But I don’t think this is his time.

      1. He probably won’t win, but at this point in 2008 the conventional wisdom said Barack Obama couldn’t beat Hillary and win the nomination. It was thought that he was running to increase his national exposure, but that he would have a real shot in 2016, assuming Hillary won the general. Shows what they knew, he was barred by the Constitution from even running in 2016. I was reading an interview with Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago, the man that hired Barack Obama to teach there. While waiting to interview, Obama spent about 20 minutes chatting with his secretary. After the interview and Obama had left, she said to Stone “that man is going to be Governor of Illinois someday.” He said e enjoyed teasing her about how wrong she was.

        As for Mayor Pete, I would like to live in a country where sexual orientation didn’t matter. But I realize I probably don’t. But I won’t say he has no shot. It is the Democratic party after all and it’s looking like he may be the moderate candidate with the best shot at the nomination. There is no one I am prepared to say couldn’t win against Trump with the possible exception of Harvey Weinstein. You never know what new outrage he will come up with. But I really don’t want to live through a campaign where Donald Trump is running against a gay man. I think it would make Mario Cuomo’s mayoral run (“Vote for Cuomo not the Homo”) seem like the epitome of tolerance and class. But Mayor Pete would get my vote. I just think it would be so ironic if he won and we had a First Gentleman before we had a female president.

  10. If the Dems nominate him, 2056 may be the next time they actually win the Presidency.

    1. Yup, I think there is a good chance he will flame out in South Carolina, but we’ll see. As I mentioned, people like him when they listen to him and get to know him, but he has a very high mountain to climb with black voters.

Comments are closed.