bluewater
bluewater's JournalEvery Woman Noticed That Infuriating Elizabeth Warren/Joe Biden Debate Moment
Remember when we knew and largely loved Joe Biden as “Uncle Joe,” Barack Obama’s trusty vice president and surrogate “brother?” I long for those days. Truly, I wish Biden had let those good feelings, and that fairly fuzzy legacy, stand. But Biden had to go and run for president, dredging up the (perfectly valid) questions of how he mishandled the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings (which he has all but refused to apologize to Hill for), his allegedly inappropriate touching, and an ever-growing number of patronizing interactions with women. The latest, at Tuesday night’s fourth Democratic debate: Biden demanded Elizabeth Warren give him credit for her spearheading the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the federal agency established after the 2008 financial crisis to regulate mortgage lenders, credit card companies, and other financial products.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1184306722883719168
This interaction contained multitudes, and virtually all of them sparked familiar frustration and infuriation in women watching. Perhaps most maddening of all was the practice of a man attempting to take credit for a woman’s work, and at a very high level no less—in this case, Biden raising his voice and practically shouting at Warren: “I went on the floor and got you votes. I got votes for that bill.” Sure, but that’s secondary to Warren’s conceiving of the CFPB itself, as even former chief Obama adviser David Axelrod noted on Twitter. The Harvard Business Review has found that women tend to get less credit than men for group work: It’s more than troubling that, if Biden had his way, this principle would hold true even when said “group work” takes place in the upper echelons of government.
https://twitter.com/Leahgreenb/status/1184301167104417798
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/every-woman-noticed-infuriating-elizabeth-163828697.html
Warren overtakes Biden in CNN rankings
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/17/rankings-warren-overtakes-biden-2020-orig-me.cnn
Joe Biden, Bleeding Cash, Spent Nearly $1 Million on Private Jets
Joe Biden’s presidential campaign is bleeding cash. And a big reason why appears to be an antiquated, higher-end approach to electoral politics that the former vice president has adopted.
Biden’s team spent more than $923,000 on private jets during the third quarter of 2019, according to recently filed Federal Election Commission data. The expenses, all made to the company EJCR, LLC Dba Advanced Aviation Team, represented a major chunk of change—accounting for roughly one out of every 16 dollars the campaign raised.
It’s not uncommon for candidates to lean on private jets as they crisscross the country in an effort to keep a schedule packed with speeches, rallies, and debates. But a review of Biden’s expenditures suggest that a good deal of what he’s spending money on currently involve efforts to simply raise more money.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-bleeding-cash-spent-nearly-dollar1-million-on-private-jets
538: Which candidates performed the best? (spoiler: Warren)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-october-democratic-debate-in-6-charts/
Wealth tax splits Sanders and Warren from the rest of the Democrats
The Democratic presidential candidates split Tuesday night over proposals to impose hefty wealth taxes on the richest Americans, exposing an economic policy divide in the party over the need to close the gap between the super-rich and everyone else.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) defended their proposals to heavily tax the assets held by the wealthiest Americans to create a number of new government programs, as their more centrist opponents either dodged the question or pushed back against the idea.
Warren and Sanders have called for attacking that growth in inequality with a tax on the accumulated assets of the wealthy, while the other presidential candidates have proposed more modest measures such as increasing taxes on the capital income of investors.
The wealth tax proposals would represent a sweeping transformation of how taxes are assessed in America, pivoting away from more traditional Democratic tax plans that target new sources of income.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/wealth-tax-splits-sanders-and-warren-from-the-rest-of-the-democrats/2019/10/16/5e81e388-efa6-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html
David Axelrod on $$$: @JoeBiden number is shockingly low.
https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/1184460960712593410"No way this reflects real movement in public opinion -- too bumpy"
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1184125290706018304
The RCP Poll tracker just graphs the simple, unweighted average of the last 5 polls or so, yielding that "bumpy" looking chart, as G. Elliot Morris colloquially described it, that over reacts to changes in a few recent polls.
The Economist's Poll tracker takes a more sophisticated approach:
We estimate support for each candidate using a statistical method called Bayesian dynamic Dirichlet regression. The model aggregates polls over the course of the campaign, putting more weight on polls conducted recently, less on those with small sample sizes and accounting for “house effects”—the tendency for some polling firms to over- or underestimate support for certain candidates. We exclude polling firms that do not use rigorous methods. In the past, surveys conducted over the phone with a live interviewer or with online survey-takers that use well-thought-out methodologies have been more reliable than other methods.
Check out all the results at:
https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/
"Donald Prince Humperdinck-- Trump Jr. is not somebody that I really care about."
https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1184069780938076161Medicare for All: "MFA or bust" or "plant the flag w MFA to at least get a public option"
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1184112172156313601Economist Poll Averages: Waren 27%, Biden 25%, Sanders 15%, Buttigieg 6%, Harris 5%
Here you will find our average of each candidate’s performance in all high-quality, national public opinion polls conducted so far as well as the probability of victory inferred from political betting. You will also find data from YouGov, our pollster, breaking down support for each candidate by demographic group. Under “Candidates” you will find further demographic data for each contender.
Methodology
We estimate support for each candidate using a statistical method called Bayesian dynamic Dirichlet regression. The model aggregates polls over the course of the campaign, putting more weight on polls conducted recently, less on those with small sample sizes and accounting for “house effects”—the tendency for some polling firms to over- or underestimate support for certain candidates. We exclude polling firms that do not use rigorous methods. In the past, surveys conducted over the phone with a live interviewer or with online survey-takers that use well-thought-out methodologies have been more reliable than other methods.
Check out all the results at:
https://projects.economist.com/democratic-primaries-2020/
People familiar with RCP POLLS tracker might wonder why their tracker chart looks so jumpy and the Economist's so smooth.
The reason is RCP just averages the last 5 or so polls and then plots those, this means their trendline jumps around a lot as a few polls come in better or worse for the candidates.
As stated in their methodology, The Economist's tracker uses a more sophisticated statistical method called Bayesian dynamic Dirichlet regression to obtain a "best line fit" of the scattered polling data points.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Jun 7, 2019, 03:43 PMNumber of posts: 5,376
