Demokratische Präsidentschaftskandidatur 2020: Rangeln um die Pole Position

posts 11 - 20 by 118
  • Money talks / Pete und Liz

    Wanli, 07.10.2019 16:32, Reply to #10

    Die Spendeneinnahmen des dritten Quartals liegen vor:

    Sanders 25,3 Millionen

    Warren 24,6

    Buttigieg 19,1

    Biden 15,2

    Harris 11,6

    Yang 10

    Booker 6 r-fundraising

    Wie immer sollte man bei der Betrachtung der obigen Zahlen bedenken, dass Sanders und Warren auf Großspenden verzichten. Bei Buttigieg nach wie vor eine deutliche Diskrepanz zwischen seinen Umfragewerten und den eingetriebenen Spenden; im zweiten Quartal hatte er die Liste ja sogar angeführt. Hier mal eine Lobrede auf "Mayor Pete":

    Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old gay mayor of a small Indiana city (South Bend) half the size of Des Moines, is acing the listening test. His words, even in a stump speech, tend to be more thoughtful and more surprising than the standard political applause lines of his rivals. Elizabeth Warren often elicits cheers, Joe Biden gets the occasional affectionate chuckle, but Buttigieg summons up a different reaction. I first noticed it while seeing him at a Des Moines house party on a sparkling Saturday morning in June. [...]

    Four months before the Iowa caucuses, it is time to reckon with the reality that Buttigieg probably has a better chance to be the Democratic nominee than anyone aside from Biden and the surging Warren. With Sanders ailing and Kamala Harris sputtering, Buttigieg has enough money to go the distance (he has raised $44 million in the last six months) and enough polling support to guarantee his place on every debate stage. Whatever happens next, this youthful candidate with a long resume (Harvard, Rhodes Scholar, McKinsey analyst, failed statewide candidate, mayor, and intelligence officer in Afghanistan) has already emerged as the political surprise of 2019.

    And that raises a new question: Is Buttigieg, who would be four years younger than JFK if he were inaugurated in 2021, ready for the White House? [...]

    Mayor Pete, as he prefers to be known on the campaign trail, left me wondering if maybe I have been too rigid in inventing imaginary criteria to identify successful would-be presidents. Maybe talent and temperament are enough. Maybe that old E.F. Hutton commercial holds the only relevant clue that Pete Buttigieg is indeed ready to be president in 2021: When he speaks, people listen.


    Derweil legt Liz Warren Schritt für Schritt zu in den Umfragen (und auch finanziell, siehe oben); 538 stellt auch fest, dass ihre Anhängerschaft zunehmend heterogener ausfällt. Zu den deutlich linken gesellen sich jetzt auch moderatere Demokraten.

    Auch unter Parteigängern ohne Collegeabschluss oder schwarzen Demokraten gewinnt sie offenbar an Unterstützung.

    Warren begibt sich mittlerweile auch gern mal in konservative Ecken des Landes, um ihre Botschaft jenseits der den Demokraten freundlichen Großstädte zu testen; andere KandidatInnen halten es ähnlich.

    These trips test whether the progressive message that has fueled Warren’s rise can resonate in all regions. It’s an important hurdle for Warren to clear to prove that, if she were to become the Democratic nominee, she could win back voters in areas that sided with President Donald Trump in 2016.

    Her trip last week to Carson City gave reason for optimism. Warren drew more than 1,000 people on a Wednesday night. And some of the loudest applause followed Warren’s most progressive pronouncements, especially when she declared: “I don’t want a government that works for giant multinational corporations.” [...]

    It was Warren’s third visit to northern Nevada and she’s not the only Democratic presidential hopeful venturing into Republican areas. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont came a few weeks ago, while former Vice President Joe Biden visited Reno the same night Warren was in Carson City. California Sen. Kamala Harris was on the campus of the University of Nevada at Reno the following day.

    Still, Warren’s crowd was larger than any of the others. The complex’s floor was so full that some attendees dragged metal benches to climb atop for a glimpse of the distant stage. [...]

    Warren’s campaign notes that she’s spent months traveling to often deeply conservative areas, holding 139 town halls nationwide, including in West Virginia, Arizona and Alabama.

  • Die fantastischen Vier / Schmollwinkel oder fünfte Kolonne?

    Wanli, 12.10.2019 16:18, Reply to #11

    538 wirft einen Blick auf die aktuellen Umfragezahlen aus den vier Februarstaaten.

    In Iowa und New Hampshire zeichnen sie das Bild eines Zweikampfes um die Spitze, während zwei weitere Kandidaten deutlich dahinter, aber vor dem abgeschlagenen Rest des Feldes liegen:

    Iowa: Warren 23 / Biden 20,3 / Sanders 12 / Buttigieg 11,3 / Harris 5,3

    New Hampshire: Warren 27 / Biden 24,3 / Sanders 12 / Buttigieg 9,7 / Harris 4

    In dritten Vorwahlstaat dann momentan ein Dreikampf um Platz eins:

    Nevada: Biden 22,6 / Warren 18,7 / Sanders 18,1 / Harris 4,4 / Buttigieg 3,7

    Schließlich dann der erste Südstaat, in dem nach wie vor einer einsam seine Kreise hoch über den übrigen zieht:

    South Carolina: Biden 37,8 / Warren 14,8 / Sanders 9 / Harris 4,5 / Buttigieg 3,3 nt-in-each-of-the-early-states/

    Das ist natürlich nur die momentane Stimmung (laut Demoskopen) und keine Prognose des Wahlausgangs; zudem beeinflussen frühere Ergebnisse die späteren ja auch.

    Zu allem Überfluss sind die Kandidaten wohl auch unterschiedlich gut organisiert, um Sympathisanten auch wirklich an die Wahlurnen zu bringen; laut New York Times sind Warren und Buttigieg die Bewerber mit dem meisten Personal in den vier ersten Vorwahlstaaten.

    Ms. Warren and Mr. Buttigieg have broken away from the Democratic pack with the most field offices overall in the four early states, and they are making an expensive bet that organizational strength on the ground will catapult them to crucial top finishes in Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses. Their ground games give them more workspaces for organizers and volunteers. More organizers lead to more in-person contact with potential supporters in every nook and cranny of a state.


    In der kommenden Woche findet wieder eine Debatte statt, für die sich Tulsi Gabbard qualifiziert hat. Sie will sie allerdings möglicherweise boykottieren, da der Vorwahlprozess der Demokraten ihrer Meinung nach manipuliert ist. Beifall erhalten Gabbard generell und diese steile (und völlig unbelegte) These von extrem Rechten & Russen, auch die Republikaner freuen sich sicher über jeden Keil, der in die demokratische Basis getrieben wird.

    On podcasts and online videos, in interviews and twitter feeds, alt-right internet stars, white nationalists, libertarian activists and some of the biggest boosters of Mr. Trump heap praise on Ms. Gabbard. They like the Hawaiian congresswoman’s isolationist foreign policy views. They like her support for drug decriminalization. They like what she sees as censorship by big technology platforms.

    Then there is 4chan, the notoriously toxic online message board, where some right-wing trolls and anti-Semites fawn over Ms. Gabbard, calling her “Mommy” and praising her willingness to criticize Israel. In April, the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website, took credit for Ms. Gabbard’s qualification for the first two Democratic primary debates.

    Brian Levin, the head of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino, said Ms. Gabbard had “the seal of approval” within white nationalist circles. “If people have that isolationist worldview, there is one candidate that could best express them on each side: Gabbard on the Democratic side and Trump on the Republican side,” Mr. Levin said.

    Ms. Gabbard has disavowed some of her most hateful supporters, castigating the news media for giving “any oxygen at all” to the endorsement she won from the white nationalist leader David Duke. But her frequent appearances on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show has buoyed her support in right-wing circles. [...]

    An independent analysis of the Russian news media found that RT, the Kremlin-backed news agency, mentioned Ms. Gabbard frequently for a candidate polling in single digits, according to data collected by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a group that seeks to track and expose efforts by authoritarian regimes to undermine democratic elections.

  • RE: Die fantastischen Vier / Schmollwinkel oder fünfte Kolonne?

    drui (MdPB), 12.10.2019 17:11, Reply to #12

    Lasst uns mal weniger über 1%-Tulsi reden und mehr über Bernie: Wenn er nach einem Herzinfarkt noch solche Umfragewerte und Kleinspenden erzielt, was wäre da erst nach seinem Ableben möglich?

    Und wer würde profitieren, wenn er wider Erwarten aus gesundheitlichen Gründen seine Kandidatur beenden würde? Ich bin mir nicht so sicher, dass das hauptsächlich Warren wäre, wenn sie auch sicher nicht darunter leiden würde.

    Zweite Frage: Würde Biden darunter leiden, wenn auch sein Alter und seine Gebrechlichkeiten mehr thematisiert werden würden als seine "Electability"?

  • RE: Die fantastischen Vier / Schmollwinkel oder fünfte Kolonne?

    Wanli, 13.10.2019 16:13, Reply to #13

    Nun, der Beliebtheit von Jesus Christus hat sein Ableben auch nicht geschadet. ;-)

    Sollte Bernie aussteigen (wovon bis jetzt seinerseits keine Rede ist), dann wäre die Frage, ob er stattdessen jemand anderen empfiehlt.

    Und ich denke, dass mit Bezug auf Biden schon dessen Alter thematisiert wird. Der physische Aspekt steht dabei nicht so sehr im Fokus von Medienberichten, aber unterschwellig mögen da auch gewisse Sorgen existieren; die explizite Aufmerksamkeit richtet sich bei Joe halt eher auf die kognitive Leistungsfähigkeit.

  • RE: Erstmalig Warren vor Biden (economist)

    an-d, 13.10.2019 21:57, Reply to #14

    Wanli's Linktipp   :

    Erstmalig Warren vor Biden (beide 25%).

  • RE: Erstmal Warren vor Biden (economist)

    gruener (Luddit), 14.10.2019 06:31, Reply to #15


  • RE: Erstmalig Warren vor Biden (economist)

    an-d, 14.10.2019 11:38, Reply to #16


    Ja, kleiner, aber feiner Unterschied...  Eingangsposting korrigiert: erstmal --> erstmalig

  • Vierte Debatte / Steuern

    Wanli, 15.10.2019 15:40, Reply to #17

    In der Nacht auf Mittwoch findet die vierte Debatte der Demokraten statt (wenn man die diversen, auch im Fernsehen übertragenen Foren zu speziellen Themen wie dem Klimawandel oder LGBTQ-Rechten nicht dazuzählt, die unabhängig vom DNC veranstaltet wurden). Das Event steigt ab 20 Uhr Ostküstenzeit, es überträgt CNN.

    Zwölf KandidatInnen werden auf der Bühne stehen:

    1. Joe Biden, former vice president
    2. Cory Booker, New Jersey senator
    3. Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana
    4. Julián Castro, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary
    5. Kamala Harris, California senator
    6. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota senator
    7. Beto O'Rourke, former Texas congressman
    8. Bernie Sanders, Vermont senator
    9. Tom Steyer, businessman
    10. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts senator
    11. Andrew Yang, entrepreneur
    12. Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii congresswoman ebate-ohio-tuesday-start-time-channel-free-online-stream/?intcid=CNI-00-10aaa3a


    Joe Biden lost his position as the solo front-runner, a status he had held since entering the race in April and in trial-heat polling for months before that. He now effectively shares that lead with Sen. Elizabeth Warren in both the national polling average and those averages in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    But Warren’s rise has come less from a Biden “collapse” than by her siphoning a couple of points here and there from everyone—and those lost few points matter more to those struggling for survival than they do to Biden. The new shape of the race looks like a two-person contest, with the rest of the field sucking wind. We should expect the dynamic of Tuesday night’s debate, taking place just outside of Columbus, Ohio, to be less the two front-runners trying to body-slam each other—there’s no need for them to deploy finishing moves before they’re in a formal one-on-one contest—and more the 10 other candidates in the field trying to stay in the match. [...]

    Well, can any of these lower-polling candidates do anything during the debate to break the duopoly at the top and prompt a rise in the polls for themselves? The answer isn’t necessarily “no,” it’s just that it hasn’t happened yet. We should expect more attempts Tuesday night, and for Biden and Warren to spend most of their night evading competitors and shit-stirring moderators. And when it’s all done? We should expect the same front-runners as before. -preview.html

    EDIT 2

    538 mit einem längeren Gedankenaustausch über die demokratischen Fernsehdebatten, die vielleicht dabei helfen können, die parteiinterne Dynamik besser zu verstehen, bislang aber die Beliebtheit der einzelnen KandidatInnen nicht entscheidend zu beeinflussen scheinen.

    I keep thinking the debates will change the poll numbers, and they just aren’t. And that’s made me rethink some of my assumptions about politics, television and the Democratic Party.

    In ein paar Stunden auf jeden Fall diskussionswürdig: Die Pläne Bidens, Warrens und Bernies eine Reform des Steuersystems betreffend, denn diese sind schon recht unterschiedlich. x-plans/

  • Vierte Debatte: Reaktionen

    Wanli, 16.10.2019 13:21, Reply to #18

    Die vierte Debatte - die ich nicht gesehen habe - scheint recht lebhaft gewesen zu sein, aber durchaus auch mit Substanz.

    It was unusually policy heavy, with spirited and detailed debates over automation and employment, the consequences of US withdrawal from Syria, wealth taxation, and more. It saw direct confrontation between candidates who had not previously squared off, like Pete Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard, or Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar, or Beto O’Rourke and Elizabeth Warren. And in the process it sharpened distinctions between the campaigns on issues where their platforms were blurry going in.

    Biden und Warren standen nebeneinander in der Mitte der Bühne, aber Joe stand wohl selten im Zentrum der Aufmerksamkeit; stattdessen legten sich diverse KandidatInnen mit niedrigeren Umfragewerten mit Warren an, die mit viel Kritik konfrontiert wurde und daher deutlich mehr sprach als die anderen: Ein ziemlich untrügliches Zeichen, dass auch die übrigen KandidatInnen Warren als diejenige sehen, die es zu schlagen gilt. Liz scheint die Anwürfe recht gut pariert zu haben.

    In past debates, Warren has largely emerged unscathed while Biden was swarmed by the others. Tuesday night was different; at one point, Sen. Cory Booker rushed to Biden’s defense and blasted CNN’s moderators for asking Biden a question about his son’s business ties in Ukraine.

    The attacks shifting from Biden to Warren was a telling realignment — and signals a new political reality. tober-2019-winners-losers

    The focus on Warren, and not Biden, for most of the debate, could have been a temporary thing: A read from the field that Warren needed the majority of the scrutiny, in this moment, before she lifted off any further. But it also could be a sign that the field views Warren as the singular threat as the race develops. With Bernie anchoring the left pole, and Biden anchoring the moderates, Warren is drawing support from each side with plenty of room to grow. Though she has probably had more enjoyable nights than she had Tuesday in Ohio, you’d rather be the front-runner the other candidates deem most worthy of attacks than the one they allow to go silent. ate.html

    It sure felt like most of the Democratic candidates on the primary debate stage on Tuesday evening considered Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to be the frontrunner, as several of the field's more moderate voices directed their most ardent critiques at her. But she did have one ally — as usual, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) refused to go after his old friend. unspoken-truce-during-4th-debate

    I think Sanders had a good night and was much sharper than in the last debate. Klobuchar was good, especially in the first half. I think Buttigieg was effective, particularly in the second half.

    I didn’t think Harris was very good. After a strong opening answer on impeachment, she was largely absent for most of the night and then, in the only moment that voters will probably remember, picked a very weird, low-stakes fight with Warren about whether Trump should be on Twitter.

    Warren and Biden are tougher to evaluate. Warren took a lot of incoming fire, and other things being equal, it probably helps perceptions for voters at home when it looks like you’re the candidate that everyone else is worried about. And I think she mostly held her own and had some strong moments, but her worst moments were front-loaded in the first half of the debate, especially on health care, when voters were more tuned in. So I could see the debate either helping her a bit or hurting her a bit — not very helpful, I know, but I’m going to want to see the polls.

    With Biden … I don’t know. I think it might have actually been his most effective debate from start to finish, but that’s a very low bar, to be honest. He’s clearly better when he’s not getting in these back-and-forth exchanges with the other candidates. I don’t think the small verbal miscues matter as much as Twitter pundits say they do. I think he was generally strong on the Syria/foreign policy stuff. I thought he was strong on Ukraine/impeachment but could have been better, given that he and his family are being disparaged in the scandal. I do wonder how his tone and demeanor in that last big exchange with Warren will play with voters at home. Overall, if you’re one of the 28 percent of voters or so who went into the debate with Biden as your first choice, I’m not sure there’s anything that’s going to change your opinion all that much, unless maybe you finally decided that Klobuchar or Buttigieg are your jam.  (Hervorhebungen meine)

  • RE: Vierte Debatte: Reaktionen

    drui (MdPB), 16.10.2019 14:51, Reply to #19

    Ich glaube nicht, dass diese Debatten viel verändern, es sei denn es passiert etwas Dramatisches (z.B. Schwächeanfall von Biden oder Sanders). Die Leute interessieren sich nicht sonderlich für Details zur Finanzierung der Krankenversicherung oder ob eine/e Kandidat/in mal einen besseren oder schlechteren Tag hat. Zumindest nicht so weit, als dass sie deshalb ihre Wahlpräferenz ändern würden. Es bleibt wohl bei den Top 3, die ev. bald zu Top 2 werden. Die Performances von Amy oder Pete waren wohl nicht so herausragend, dass sie zweistellige Umfragewerte außerhalb von einzelnen Staaten erreichen.

posts 11 - 20 by 118
Log in

How does this work?

This is how you contribute to the prediction - See the Infocenter

Found an error?
Your Feedback?

Please send error messages and feedback by email to:

Current information

The project «SRG SSR Swiss Elections Stock Market 2011» with markets on the Swiss House of Representatives, Swiss Senate and the Cabinett (Federal Council) is completed.