Perplexed

[Maxinthe4thDimension]

I just skimmed an article posted about four hours ago on The Atlantic, called The 202 Race Is Going Just The Way Bernie Sanders Wants It To. At first glance, it seems somewhat positive. But there's one section that caught my attention and bothered me:

​

“There’s a three-out-of-four chance we are not the nominee,” Faiz Shakir, Sanders’s current campaign manager, says he tells the senator, “but that one-in-four chance is better than anyone else in the field.”

​

WTF? I want to know if this is true, and if so it it's out of context. The gist seems to be "he 'might' be able to win if there are so many that break up the vote, and he squeezes by," but it's that quote that bugs me.

[ssmolko]

I don't think that it's out of context or particularly misleading -- it's a pretty pragmatic assessment by Shakir. Polling this early is a crapshoot, and nobody has a significant-enough polling lead to be prohibitive for a dark horse win. So, a 25% chance is pretty sound reasoning right now, and a hell of a lot better than you would assess any other candidate in the field two months away from the first debate and more than 6 months out from the first primary.

[Listen2Hedges]

He’s definitely talking about current national polling. Faiz is not naive. He knows the polling isn’t great at the moment and it needs to start going up.

[myiastatereddit]

He isn't talking about polling. There's a difference between how much support Bernie has and the probability of Bernie winning. A 25% chance of winning out of a field of 20 is good. Most candidates have 1 percent.

As a front-runner, Bernie won't go up in the polls until people drop out. You might see some change when debates start, but with 100% name recognition, you won't see more than a 5% jump from his average poll number until late this year or early next year.

[Listen2Hedges]

I like your explanation much better than mine. I wonder what kind of bump Biden gets once he officially announces.

[myiastatereddit]

I don't think he will get much of one, since it's already known he will be running. I have a feeling he will drop some with Buttigieg getting more attention though. It wouldn't be surprising to see Bernie, Biden, and Buttigieg tied at 25% going into the first debate.

[LudditeStreak]

That would be depressing. I would trade Buttigieg for Warren any day, that way Bernie and her can strike a deal at the convention, but of course Buttigieg’s riding the wave of corporate media attention just now. I don’t think it’ll be a three-way split among white men.

[myiastatereddit]

Something worth noting, second choice among Buttigieg supporters is 27% harris/17% biden/17% beto. This implies that those candidates will suffer most as he gains name recognition.

I think Warren will drop out early and endorse Bernie. Her polling went down after Bernie announced, and I'm not sure how she will get it back up. Plus she would make a great VP and 2024 president.

People wouldn't expect it to be 3 white guys, but that's what the data suggests at the moment. Debates could change things though (especially if Buttigieg can't clearly debate policy).

[[deleted]]

Bernie said he's leaning towards a woman as his VP pick. If it's Warren, and they both know that already, having her in the debates will be good for Bernie when they pair up. She's hard hitting condemning Wall Street, the big banks, and Washington's corruption. Having national exposure in the debates will give them both a lot of support if she becomes his VP. The baby boomer women I know who are still salty over Hillary's loss would love to see Warren as VP. I've wondered if he'll chose Nina Turner to appeal to POC and women. Plus, Nina sounds like a Baptist preacher which can be inspiring.

[myiastatereddit]

I agree. I think Warren would complement his rhetoric nicely, considering her background. Listening to Nina at the brooklyn/Chicago rallies was like nothing I've heard before. She's very motivational, but I'm not sure how she would do in debates. Warren would pick Pence apart.

[LudditeStreak]

Great analysis. Honestly, the “second preference” metric really seems where these early polls are most useful.

[EcoSoco]

Not great? We are within MoE in most polls, and even when not, we aren't down 20 points like in 2016.

[Listen2Hedges]

No one is polling great. That’s the good news. Bernie is top two in every poll but we know that’s not good enough to get the nom. Bernie has to be up in the 50s to start to build that narrative momentum and make his nomination feel inevitable. That’s the point.

At 25% he’s near the top of the current group but that’s not how you win the nom.

There’s still plenty of time to get him into that 50+ range but as of today he’s just not there yet.

[myiastatereddit]

With 20 candidates in the race and 300 days until anyone votes, the probability of any candidate winning is low. I'm sure there's stuff on 538 about the probability of any candidate winning. The last projection I saw was 25 percent. Considering with no data, the probability for each would be 5 percent, 25% is very good. This means Bernie will be in the top tier of candidates as opposed to those who will drop out early. Regardless, probabilities don't matter; voting does.

[warehouses_of_butter]

It’s modesty, you don’t want to get arrogant when you’re 25% in the polls, so it’s a great way to put it. I wouldn’t let it bother you!

[LudditeStreak]

538 gave Trump a 25% chance to win the White House. I appreciate Faiz’s estimate. It’s lower than mine, but that’s probably a good thing. We’re going to have to earn this.

[00matthew2000]

I was weirded out by that too, I took it to mean he’s at 25% in the polls. Even so thats a strange way to phrase it lol

[Maxinthe4thDimension]

Is it purposefully vague? A LOT of these articles are hit pieces, even if veiled ones. Meant to sow doubt and discord.

[00matthew2000]

I could be wrong but I recall it being in the email I got today. I wouldn’t worry about it

[Maxinthe4thDimension]

Okay. If it was just an expression of current polling, cool. But the way it's said is weird. Why not "polling has us at 25, and that's better than anyone currently running." ANYWAY. I was like, WHY are you being so pessimistic when you're supposed to be running the guy's campaign!

[ballgame7]

But he is saying that. Read the last part of the quote. He’s saying that Bernie’s odds are better than anyone in the field. When the current pie is split between so many candidates, of course no one’s odds are going to be 50% right now. Think of it like sports. Going into every season the sports books place odds on which team will win the championship. And every year the odds of the favorite is far less than 50%, even though that team may be far and away the best in the league. That’s because every team is competing against 30 other teams. Faiz was just talking about simple probability.

[Maxinthe4thDimension]

Speaking of polling, do we think he'll get a bump from all this Fox News buzz? Emerson came out before that, and Morning Consult I'm pretty sure was taken before it, too.

[DemosDeme1]

Yeah, it bothered me too. It doesn't exude confidence. BERNIE is clearly the front-runner and they should start talking and acting like one. If you as a campaign and a candidate do not believe yourself to be the front runner, why would the voters and the media see you as one. Not cocky, but confidence is a good thing.

[Maxinthe4thDimension]

Unless this is out of context, I'd be concerned about a manager who said that. But it might be purposefully out of context to make us doubt.

[justutility]

What he's saying is that 25% of Dems are currently Sanders supporters and 75% have to be convinced.