I think we should pin the small dollar question because since we started this, I’ve been trying to find better data on it, and its surprisingly difficult to find a granular enough breakdown to do a useful analysis. Maybe we can come back to in in a month or so and see how things have ended up post debate. It always take some time for things to trickle into effect.
Biden’s loss of support is largely with the sadly important contingent of low-information low-engagement voters who are the difference between victory and defeat in most elections in this fucking country
So I’m interested in where you are getting this, because from what I’ve seen, its the most politically engaged that have been shouting from the roof tops for months, longer even, that Biden needs to be replaced. Specifically, the Nate Silvers, Ezra Kleins of the world. I think you are projecting an opinion that is just uninformed here. Its only the “medium information” voters that have been putting out that Biden is going to be the nominee, people who only get their news from cable TV, or mainstream sources, with no real analysis.
Low engagement voters aren’t even represented in the current conversation and likely wont be until after August. At best they’ve seen a couple reels or tictocs of Biden mumbling or Trump lying. And I do agree at least that future events will bring low-engagement voters to the table. Specifically, an open convention would be so dominating of the news cycle, there is no way they’ll be able to stay un-informed.
Ok I get what you are saying, but the point I was making is that the “highest information” people there are; the most politically engaged, don’t agree with you with regards to specific issues around things like the viability of Biden as candidate.
You suggested that its “low information” voters that had this view. This is what I’m pushing back on. The most informed, most politically astute among us have the same view that I have, and have been promoting, that Joe Biden is losing this election and is a lost cause candidate. I got there through my own analysis of his polling data and the probability that he can actually get the level of “swing” in his polling numbers that he needs (my results showed it to be, a practical statistical impossibility). I took a very different approach than Nate does, but we ended up with very similar results.
[you are editing this in real time it makes it hard to keep up]
They’re going to say “Wow, the Democrats are really in disarray! I wonder if I should even bother voting for them.”
It is an event that will be a 450 thousand pound gorilla in the room. It will UTTTERLY dominate the new cycle in a way that a boring “joe biden” coronation simply couldn’t. You would see something on the order of 10:1 coverage of the DNC convention compared to the RNC convention if there is an actual horse race. It would actually engage voters in that they want to “know” who the candidate is going to be.
It would be phenomenal marketing, and whomever came out on top would be riding a rocket.
Ditching Joe Biden and going to an open convention with say: Newsom, Witmer, Kamala, and maybe Beshear.
First, we get to ditch Joe Biden’s terrible baggage on Israel. And the new nominee gets to cherry pick what they want to own about the administration (more difficult for Kamala).
Second, for whoever wins, they get a suddenly unified Democratic party behind them. We get leave the baggage of Joe Biden behind and they get to mount a rocket ship coming out of the convention. What they do with that rocket is on them, but theyll have more earned media than any candidate other than maybe 2016 Trump.
No its a great thing; an open convention best possible outcome.
If you think that the information environment is going to be coherent and clear in the aftermath of a contested convention, I don’t know what to tell you other than that you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.
Its simply that I think I have a far, far better read of politics than you do. I called this moment, literally months ago, here.
And on the previous point, I meant that we’ll know concretely if the party is going to force Biden out over the course of the next very few weeks. It wont (and can’t) take more than a few weeks. Biden’s going to be in the race 100% until the second he isn’t.
I think we should pin the small dollar question because since we started this, I’ve been trying to find better data on it, and its surprisingly difficult to find a granular enough breakdown to do a useful analysis. Maybe we can come back to in in a month or so and see how things have ended up post debate. It always take some time for things to trickle into effect.
So I’m interested in where you are getting this, because from what I’ve seen, its the most politically engaged that have been shouting from the roof tops for months, longer even, that Biden needs to be replaced. Specifically, the Nate Silvers, Ezra Kleins of the world. I think you are projecting an opinion that is just uninformed here. Its only the “medium information” voters that have been putting out that Biden is going to be the nominee, people who only get their news from cable TV, or mainstream sources, with no real analysis.
Low engagement voters aren’t even represented in the current conversation and likely wont be until after August. At best they’ve seen a couple reels or tictocs of Biden mumbling or Trump lying. And I do agree at least that future events will bring low-engagement voters to the table. Specifically, an open convention would be so dominating of the news cycle, there is no way they’ll be able to stay un-informed.
Removed by mod
Ok I get what you are saying, but the point I was making is that the “highest information” people there are; the most politically engaged, don’t agree with you with regards to specific issues around things like the viability of Biden as candidate.
You suggested that its “low information” voters that had this view. This is what I’m pushing back on. The most informed, most politically astute among us have the same view that I have, and have been promoting, that Joe Biden is losing this election and is a lost cause candidate. I got there through my own analysis of his polling data and the probability that he can actually get the level of “swing” in his polling numbers that he needs (my results showed it to be, a practical statistical impossibility). I took a very different approach than Nate does, but we ended up with very similar results.
[you are editing this in real time it makes it hard to keep up]
It is an event that will be a 450 thousand pound gorilla in the room. It will UTTTERLY dominate the new cycle in a way that a boring “joe biden” coronation simply couldn’t. You would see something on the order of 10:1 coverage of the DNC convention compared to the RNC convention if there is an actual horse race. It would actually engage voters in that they want to “know” who the candidate is going to be.
It would be phenomenal marketing, and whomever came out on top would be riding a rocket.
Ditching Joe Biden and going to an open convention with say: Newsom, Witmer, Kamala, and maybe Beshear.
First, we get to ditch Joe Biden’s terrible baggage on Israel. And the new nominee gets to cherry pick what they want to own about the administration (more difficult for Kamala).
Second, for whoever wins, they get a suddenly unified Democratic party behind them. We get leave the baggage of Joe Biden behind and they get to mount a rocket ship coming out of the convention. What they do with that rocket is on them, but theyll have more earned media than any candidate other than maybe 2016 Trump.
No its a great thing; an open convention best possible outcome.
Removed by mod
ahh we’re gonna know sooner. Couple weeks, max.
Removed by mod
Its simply that I think I have a far, far better read of politics than you do. I called this moment, literally months ago, here.
And on the previous point, I meant that we’ll know concretely if the party is going to force Biden out over the course of the next very few weeks. It wont (and can’t) take more than a few weeks. Biden’s going to be in the race 100% until the second he isn’t.