-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democratic National Primary Debate #1 |Tokyo2016| Rise of Mecha-Godzilla
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
Sanders trumping Clinton in young voters is incredible. He won't win, but the fact that young voters don't get scared by the word socialism (mainly Democrats voters) is very telling as to where the party could/should be in 10/15 years.
I'very said it before that Sanders is a couple of elections too early.
I'very said it before that Sanders is a couple of elections too early.
Over 30% of the people in this poll didn't even watch the debate.
How is this useful?
Because it's a primary poll... not everyone that votes in the primary will have watched the debates.
And holy moly at those African American numbers for Sanders
Third Strike
Member
I also think that we will elect a candidate one day that shares the same views and opinions as Sanders. Hell, if Clinton gets elected, and manages to last eight years, maybe the next Democratic candidate will be as leftest and progressive as Sanders, and that's only less than ten years from now. A good chunk of Baby Boomers will be gone, and the oldest of millennials will be old enough to run for president.
teruterubozu
Member
So how does one determine "winner of the debate" without watching it? I swear these polls can concoct any scenario.
Part of the numbers you quoted weren't who won the debate, it's voting preference. Either way people will have a perception of who won whether they watch it or not.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
Because there is no possible way to determine an objective "winner" of a debate. The popular perception of who won the debate is essentially winning the debate, whether people watched it or not, perception is what matters in elections.
teruterubozu
Member
Nope. Same survey.
I guess. But one has to be careful to reach conclusions off polls without reading between the lines. By knowing that more than 30% of the people didn't even watch the debate means I can't take this poll seriously. Lots of people take polls for shits and giggles.
A survey can ask multiple things.
teruterubozu
Member
From the same group of people, no less.
Manmademan
Member
Over 30% of the people in this poll didn't even watch the debate.
How is this useful?
its useful because MOST people don't watch debates in their entirety, they catch clips on youtube, the daily show, fox news, whatever the next day to get it filtered for them.
The democratic debate had a RECORD 15 million people watching. there are 320 million people in the country. you think the rest of those people just don't vote?
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
That's a ridiculous way of viewing things and distorts the way elections work in the same ways that Republicans were trying to "unskew" polls in 2012. The reality is that all of the likely voters aren't ever going to watch the debate and the reality is that likely voters are the group that matter, not strictly people who watched the whole debate. That group isn't going to decide the election. Likely voters opinion of who won the debate is all that matters, whether you think its valid or not, because they decide the election.
teruterubozu
Member
I'm just saying be careful of polls before over-inflating them saying "these numbers are important for the future direction of this country and the Democratic party." It's just one poll with a questionable participation rate.
Manmademan
Member
and why would they? Cuba isn't relevant anymore and The USSR broke up in 1989- most of them either werent born yet or got their only exposure to the cold war through hollywood movies. Socialism and Communism aren't the boogeymen they are to the 50+ crowd.
I don't think it takes just that one specific poll to notice Bernie's doing better with younger people and the word "socialism" doesn't quite have the scare to it that it does to older people... and I don't think it takes much more to then extrapolate that fact being important in the future.
They're also more connected and may actually know that other countries like Canada and Denmark and Sweden, etc have democratic socialist leanings and they're not the hell on earth some people seem to think they are.
teruterubozu
Member
As someone said earlier, it's all perception in elections. It's what I came away with, anyhow.
This is also very important for the future of the democratic party and probably elections in general. As we push more and more to social media platforms less and less people will actually sit down and watch a debate long form. That 18-29 demographic is definitely going to consume more of it largely through their network of choice.
Manmademan
Member
exactly. For 29 and under socialism doesn't mean the USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, or Communist China, it means Denmark, Canadian healthcare, etc. numbers like this mean the country WILL be moving in that direction eventually, just a matter of time.
I don't think i buy that. there are some things- certain live events like sports and competitions (mayweather vs. pacquiao, or the superbowl) that will always draw huge live numbers. The NFL is in no danger of being replaced by animated GIFs on twitter and neither are presidential debates. Granted, the appeal of these things depends heavily on the personality of the candidates- we're fortunate to have good candidates this round, instead of dukakis, mondale, kerry, gore, etc.
Manmademan
Member
he's doing alright with hispanics though- hillary is still winning them mind you but it's not the huge, lopsided gap there is with black voters.
It's not just one poll, though. A consistent theme of Sander's campaign has been that Sanders tends to lead Clinton with voters under the age of 30. The poll is just further confirmation of that trend. The poll also is evidence that the split between younger and older voters in terms of support extends to how each group viewed the debate. In other words, both groups perceived the debate in vastly different ways.
I suggest the difference in perception is due to the differences in economic circumstances between the two cohorts, as well as differences between the cultural environments and types of media influencing each cohort.
I suppose the standard response to the above would be that it is just young people being young people, but I think there is more to it than that.
This is definitely a concern for the GOP. Millennials already outnumber boomers in population size. Not that much longer till they're all voting age. And we know from history that it's not your literal age that morphs your political identity but more your birth year and who was president in your youth. So clinton+Obama vs Bushs might have turned he millennials into the next solid dem voting demographic ala the NewDeal and GI bill loving Greatest Generation.
And that should scare the GOP even more than whites losing their majority status.
Manmademan
Member
The GOP literally loses every demographic except for white working class males over 55. They are set up for a WORLD of pain in the next decade and there is no turning that boat around in the short term.
Toonami 99
Member
Does anyone have a link for the debate stream? I missed this and want to watch.
Eh, the GOP will be fine, unfortunately. Geography, gerrymandering, and outright voter suppression guarantees that they will be able to hold at least the House. Those same forces also will help them hold their own if not dominate at the State level.
I wouldn't sleep on the GOP during Presidential elections, either. You would have thought after 1968 that the Republicans were guaranteed the Presidency for forever. People back then were making arguments for the Republicans similar to those people are making now regarding demographic changes. Still, Watergate brought Carter, at least for 4 years. With the Republican strength and extremism in congress, a Republican president for four years could do a lot of damage.
Don't get me wrong. I am not predicting the Democratic equivalent of Watergate. Shit happens that is outside of anyone's control though - like a foreign policy disaster, a foreign policy event that is spun like a disaster by a hostile media, or more likely an economic downturn. Combine that with huge money backing the GOP and the tendency of voters to want to make a change to the party controlling the White House when something bad happens, and I could see a Republican getting lucky.
The big challenge Democrats are going to need to battle is going forward voter apathy. Political participation has trended downward in the postwar period with a slight uptick in the 2006-2010 timeframe. Democrats generally lose when people who can don't come out to vote.
I wouldn't sleep on the GOP during Presidential elections, either. You would have thought after 1968 that the Republicans were guaranteed the Presidency for forever. People back then were making arguments for the Republicans similar to those people are making now regarding demographic changes. Still, Watergate brought Carter, at least for 4 years. With the Republican strength and extremism in congress, a Republican president for four years could do a lot of damage.
Don't get me wrong. I am not predicting the Democratic equivalent of Watergate. Shit happens that is outside of anyone's control though - like a foreign policy disaster, a foreign policy event that is spun like a disaster by a hostile media, or more likely an economic downturn. Combine that with huge money backing the GOP and the tendency of voters to want to make a change to the party controlling the White House when something bad happens, and I could see a Republican getting lucky.
The big challenge Democrats are going to need to battle is going forward voter apathy. Political participation has trended downward in the postwar period with a slight uptick in the 2006-2010 timeframe. Democrats generally lose when people who can don't come out to vote.
Hellwarden
Member
I figured Clinton would win the debate in the minds of voters easy to be honest, but I didn't expect the differences between her and Bernie to be that stark.
Especially in terms of African American voters.
Especially in terms of African American voters.
Manmademan
Member
every single poll about bernie sanders vs. hillary has had him getting destroyed among african americans for months now. This is the least surprising thing about that poll.
Well, I thought him saying Black Lives Matter (he and O'Malley were the only ones who did) and endorsing the movement would help him, but if it did, I don't want to know how the numbers would've looked without him doing that. But obviously the majority of black democratic voters still don't have much love for him.
Manmademan
Member
nope. the issue so much that they hate bernie sanders or think he's racist, the issue is that african americans have ABSURDLY high positive numbers for hillary. (probably because of bill, if we're being honest.)
It doesn't matter what bernie says, he needs hillary to come out and say something racist and tank her numbers with AA's to change that, and it's not going to happen.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
Electability is hugely important to most black voters because they are disproportionally affected by shitty Republican policies. Hillary was leading Obama with the black vote until he proved that he was an electable candidate, as can be seen below from this article on this same day 8 years ago.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/17/poll.blacks.democrats/
I thought even younger white males are still GOP leaning... unfortunately.
EDIT: Tried searching and according to this I was right. It shows 18-29 year old white males as 54% republican and 41% democrat.
Vicetrailia
Member
I see, makes sense then.
Yeah, that sucks. On the other hand, white males comprise a smaller portion of millenials than in older cohorts. Also, that is only looking at people who voted. If you go by the issues, individuals of all demographics are well to the left of political debate. The challenge is mobilizing those sentiments. Capitalizing on that is the only way for the Democrats to recapture the House that I can see barring some sort of national catastrophe, which would probably propel the Republicans into power anyway if the Democrats manage to control the Presidency.
Okay, that makes it easier to understand. So, african-americans are relative to other ethnics more prone to be politically informed since their life depends more on the party than the individual candidate since all candidates that would win the GOP would fall into a dangerous spectrum anyways, yes?
Kinda. It's basically that winning the general matters more than getting the perfect candidate since losing means everything's going to shit. I dunno if this means they're more informed in general, just that winning the general election is more-or-less what matters most. Basically, they're not going to let perfect be the enemy of good. Especially if perfect is only capable of winning the primary and not the general. With Obama we saw the perfect storm, I don't think there's anyone in the race this time who can replicate his results. There's also no one but Obama who can take the Ted Kennedy role and drape his arm around a candidate and say "this is the guy," and he's not going to do that until it's all said and done. Really, comparing this time to 08 doesn't work for a litany of reasons.
That is such a good phrase.
Not so much what candiates can promise, it is what they can deliver. Remember the incoming president is going to have to deal with a room full of asshats that will fight them on the sky being blue..
I know, I wasn't really referring to what they could get done but as to an election. Like how people might prefer Bernie (their perfect candidate) for his stances, but might still vote for Hillary (the good candidate) due to her ability to get elected in the general. Really, it wasn't the best way to put it but I thought my point would com across.
AstroNut325
Member
I haven't followed the post-debate stuff much, if at all. Has there been any notable conservative reactions/meltdowns?
It does kind of suck, but in a way it makes sense. I can kind of sympathize with a lot of them because it really is a bit harder to see how you've benefited from patriarchy and all of that if maybe you're paying a ton for school and have a shitty job. People of color are still largely seeing the shit being thrown at them, but it's incredibly easy for a millennial white male to be wholely divorced from a lot of that.
UnforgivenTwin
Member
I have a question about Bernie Sanders. How would he be able to pay for what he wants to do? I'm not sure if there are enough rich people to tax. Wouldn't the tax increases just wind up going down the income ladder?
He talked about this the other night on Real Time. It's the second half of this article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/16/bill-maher-stuns-bernie-sanders-how-will-america-pay-for-your-radical-agenda.html
UnforgivenTwin
Member
Thanks. He does say that they may need to go down the latter more in this interview,but not by much. Hopefully he gets a little bit more specific in that regard.
Pretty much. The Dems have a very decent chance of controlling the Senate from 2017 to 2019, as the 2016 maps is very favorable and their recruiting efforts have been rather successful. The House, on the other hand, looks like it'll stay Democratic until at least 2023 - after 2020's redistricting maps are in effect for 2022 elections.
With Congressional gridlock looking very likely until the next decade, this election is all about the Supreme Court. Depressing, but a Democrat further stacking the judiciary (especially in that window where they control the Senate) ensues that progressivism remains viable for the next few decades. If the GOP candidate wins and replaces a few justices, progressivism is on ice for a few decades. Liberals can win all the elections they want with Bernie-esque candidates after such a thing happening, and court challenges will nix whatever achievements may pass.
Well, his healthcare proposal would actually save the U.S. money in the long term because public healthcare systems control costs better than private healthcare systems. You also have to factor in the fact that money for health insurance either comes out of people's pocketbooks directly through insurance premiums or indirectly through payroll deductions from the salaries, unless they are on Medicaid or Medicare. Those expenses would disappear under a public system, even if taxes would need to be raised slightly to cover the costs of the public system. Over the long term, the amount that people would pay through taxes would be less than the amount they would pay through payroll deductions or health insurance premiums. The same is basically true of his college plan: People already pay "taxes" to the federal government or private lenders in the form of loan repayments. Those expenses would disappear under Sander's plan for people who attend public universities, even if taxes would have to be raised slightly. That being said, Sanders does say he would fund his college proposal through a transaction tax, so the need for an additional tax increase to cover his college plans is unclear.
As for his other proposals, Sander's plans borrow heavily from the budget put out by the House Progressive Caucus. That budget generally gets the best scores from the CBO in terms of "balancing the budget (which is somewhat of a dubious goal, but that is another topic), and it manages to fund its proposals by making the tax code more progressive, which means tax increases wouldn't occur for the vast majority of people.
Sanders doesn't do the best job of selling his ideas in that linked interview, by the way, although the write up makes the exchange he had with Mahre seem more hostile than it was in my view.
Edit (Reply to Hylian): My big fear is that none of the conservative justices retire in the next 4-8 years. My impression is that they seem pretty young and healthy relatively speaking. I'm pretty sure Scalia is kept alive by the blood of liberals he devours.
You're right that this is a chance. We're pretty much playing a morbid little actuarial game with Scalia and Kennedy at this point, and playing prevent defense in case one of Ginsburg's health issues takes her out.
I always joke that if Scalia dies with a Democrat in the White House, he has left instructions for his clerks to play "Weekend At Antonin's" until at least the GOP has Senate control.
UnforgivenTwin
Member
I really appreciate the response. Bernie Sanders really comes off to me as honest and sincere man who wants to help middle class and low income families. I'm pretty young (21) and would gladly vote for him. I can't say that about most other politicians.
Keep in mind that if you read CDX's link, you'll see that the majority of the black people polled were over the age of 30, with almost 50% being between the ages of 45-64. A little over 6% were in the 18-29 demographic. So these older black voters that "truly" remember Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton's time in the white house are going to be harder for Bernie to sway away, especially with the BLM movement which is mostly social media driven.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked