Nate Silver/538 - Bernie Sanders is the 2020 Dem front-runner

[Shadows]

A “front-runner” is the horse that jumps out to the front of the pack and dictates the action behind him. Like,  Elizabeth Warren’s decision to run is probably more influenced by Sanders than the other way around. Which would suggest that Sanders is the front-runner. He’d hugely influence the strategy of someone like Harris, wouldn’t he? He’s the elephant in the room. Bernie got 13 million votes in 2016. Isn’t he next in line for the Democratic nomination? I see Sanders consistently polling at 20 percent and everyone else in the single digits. She (Warren) has barely more than half of Sanders’s support. And Sanders has run before and won a lot of votes before.

Yglesias argues that Sanders’s performance is especially impressive in 2016 because “nobody thought he could win” and so he had very little support from the Democratic establishment, including from groups such as unions that might ordinarily be in his camp. As a result, he would be even more formidable in 2020 — perhaps enough to win. Do you buy that or not? One of Yglesias’s points is that “Bernie Sanders has a clear message” — everyone knows what he stands for. Do you agree that everyone knows what Sanders stands for? And how much of an advantage is that? Aren’t there a bunch of people who will be 18 in 2020, who were 14 in 2016, who are also going to be lefty/Sanders voters?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-bernie-sanders-really-the-democratic-front-runner/

[TheSaint250]

Well of course. He won't run though

[Sir Mohamed]

I believe it, when I see it. Bernie won't be running in 2020. I think the nominee will be either Liz Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris or Andrew Cuomo.

[Mr. Morden]

I agree with Silver if we’re using his definition of “frontrunner”, which is not the same as the definition that I use in everyday conversation.  When I say “frontrunner”, I typically mean favorite, and by that metric, I think Warren is the frontrunner.

But that’s because I think Warren is significantly more likely to run than Sanders is.  If I was certain that Sanders was going to run, then I’d give him the best chance of winning the nomination (probably by a wide margin).  But I think his probability of running is only something like ~25-30% (Predictit currently rates it as 30%, ftr.).  So even if you give him a 50% chance of winning the nomination conditional on him running, that only amounts to an overall winning probability of no more than 15%, which is lower than the equivalent # for Warren, IMHO.

Interestingly though, none of the participants in that 538 chat said there was any other individual likelier to win the nomination than Sanders.  Harry Enten said that he was tied with Biden (and possibly others), but that’s it.  I think in their entire discussion, they seriously underrated the importance of Sanders having to actually decide to jump into the race in the first place.  Their discussion on his age mostly centered around the question of whether it would hurt him electorally or not, but I think the bigger issue is that it would dissuade him from actually deciding to run.  Will a 79 year old man actually want to go through a year and a half of campaigning, and then spend his twilight years with a high pressure job like POTUS, potentially declining before our eyes?  (I’m trying not to sound too morbid here, but I can’t help it.  )  That is a more pressing question than the question of whether the voters themselves will count his age against him (I'm not sure they will).

[McGovernForPrez]

I agree with Silver if we’re using his definition of “frontrunner”, which is not the same as the definition that I use in everyday conversation.  When I say “frontrunner”, I typically mean favorite, and by that metric, I think Warren is the frontrunner.

But that’s because I think Warren is significantly more likely to run than Sanders is.  If I was certain that Sanders was going to run, then I’d give him the best chance of winning the nomination (probably by a wide margin).  But I think his probability of running is only something like ~25-30% (Predictit currently rates it as 30%, ftr.).  So even if you give him a 50% chance of winning the nomination conditional on him running, that only amounts to an overall winning probability of no more than 15%, which is lower than the equivalent # for Warren, IMHO.

Interestingly though, none of the participants in that 538 chat said there was any other individual likelier to win the nomination than Sanders.  Harry Enten said that he was tied with Biden (and possibly others), but that’s it.  I think in their entire discussion, they seriously underrated the importance of Sanders having to actually decide to jump into the race in the first place.  Their discussion on his age mostly centered around the question of whether it would hurt him electorally or not, but I think the bigger issue is that it would dissuade him from actually deciding to run.  Will a 79 year old man actually want to go through a year and a half of campaigning, and then spend his twilight years with a high pressure job like POTUS, potentially declining before our eyes?  (I’m trying not to sound too morbid here, but I can’t help it.  )  That is a more pressing question than the question of whether the voters themselves will count his age against him (I'm not sure they will).

I actually disagree with who I think will run. Despite some of the signs I'm fairly certain Warren isn't running. I don't know if he runs but I think Sanders is more likely to run than Warren.

[McGovernForPrez]

We all know Bernie's gonna run, and if he's still alive, he's gonna win and usher in a realignment.

There was an article I read months ago about how every political office Bernie ran for, starting with mayor, was attained with the attention of furthering his political career another step....even if he lost.

That's what Reagan did. Dude fought a tough primary against Gerald Ford. Bernie fought a tough primary against Clinton. If he runs again I think he'll win the primaries quite handily. No other person in the Democratic field can match his sheer likability and strength of message. He managed to tie Clinton in Iowa, back when he was a nobody. Clinton's Iowa machine was crazy strong, and without her in the field Bernie easily has the best infrastructure. I doubt he loses NH the second time around either. After winning those two contests I'm sure he takes Nevada, and loses with around 45% in SC. By that time I think most candidates have already dropped out. I think he wins a lot of upper south states on Super Tuesday, such as Tennessee, and Arkansas. If he wins all his old ST states + MA, AR, and TN I think the nomination is his.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I think a big factor in why he won't is that his numbers can't stay up. He maintained an honest likable reputation because it wasn't to Clinton's advantage to change it. In 2020, that won't be true. In a primary where his opponent gets dirty, his favorability numbers will vanish like that. I'd predict he'll get 20-30%, given the size and enthusiasm of his base, but he's too liberal and too corrupt to win a majority, and he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a contested convention.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think a big factor in why he won't is that his numbers can't stay up. He maintained an honest likable reputation because it wasn't to Clinton's advantage to change it. In 2020, that won't be true. In a primary where his opponent gets dirty, his favorability numbers will vanish like that. I'd predict he'll get 20-30%, given the size and enthusiasm of his base, but he's too liberal and too corrupt to win a majority, and he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a contested convention.

LOL at the myth that Hillary didn't go negative.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I think a big factor in why he won't is that his numbers can't stay up. He maintained an honest likable reputation because it wasn't to Clinton's advantage to change it. In 2020, that won't be true. In a primary where his opponent gets dirty, his favorability numbers will vanish like that. I'd predict he'll get 20-30%, given the size and enthusiasm of his base, but he's too liberal and too corrupt to win a majority, and he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a contested convention.

Losing races can actually help candidates fine tune themselves for future races. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, etc. all learned from their losses and rose to the highest position in American politics.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I think a big factor in why he won't is that his numbers can't stay up. He maintained an honest likable reputation because it wasn't to Clinton's advantage to change it. In 2020, that won't be true. In a primary where his opponent gets dirty, his favorability numbers will vanish like that. I'd predict he'll get 20-30%, given the size and enthusiasm of his base, but he's too liberal and too corrupt to win a majority, and he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a contested convention.

Losing races can actually help candidates fine tune themselves for future races. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, etc. all learned from their losses and rose to the highest position in American politics.

Has Sanders ever done that?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I think a big factor in why he won't is that his numbers can't stay up. He maintained an honest likable reputation because it wasn't to Clinton's advantage to change it. In 2020, that won't be true. In a primary where his opponent gets dirty, his favorability numbers will vanish like that. I'd predict he'll get 20-30%, given the size and enthusiasm of his base, but he's too liberal and too corrupt to win a majority, and he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a contested convention.

LOL at the myth that Hillary didn't go negative.

LOL at the idea that someone who cosponsored a bill to dump nuclear waste on a poor hispanic community, ignored criticism, and personally profited, is the democratic frontrunner.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I think a big factor in why he won't is that his numbers can't stay up. He maintained an honest likable reputation because it wasn't to Clinton's advantage to change it. In 2020, that won't be true. In a primary where his opponent gets dirty, his favorability numbers will vanish like that. I'd predict he'll get 20-30%, given the size and enthusiasm of his base, but he's too liberal and too corrupt to win a majority, and he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a contested convention.

Losing races can actually help candidates fine tune themselves for future races. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, etc. all learned from their losses and rose to the highest position in American politics.

Has Sanders ever done that?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_history_of_Bernie_Sanders

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think a big factor in why he won't is that his numbers can't stay up. He maintained an honest likable reputation because it wasn't to Clinton's advantage to change it. In 2020, that won't be true. In a primary where his opponent gets dirty, his favorability numbers will vanish like that. I'd predict he'll get 20-30%, given the size and enthusiasm of his base, but he's too liberal and too corrupt to win a majority, and he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a contested convention.

LOL at the myth that Hillary didn't go negative.

LOL at the idea that someone who cosponsored a bill to dump nuclear waste on a poor hispanic community, ignored criticism, and personally profited, is the democratic frontrunner.

Mentioning a baseless attack from the primary sure proves that Bernie wasn't attacked during the primary.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Bernie probably won't run unless the only two candidates in the race are Cory Booker and Hillary Clinton. I think Warren will be the progressive candidate in 2020.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The Democratic Party needs to moderate on economics and fully embrace their cultural liberalism. Black lives matter and free trade deals need to be at the fullfront of the Party; along with feminism and balancing the budget. Appeal to the fiscally centrist white collar worker in places like Fairfax, Va. and Orange, Ca. Romney-Clinton voters are the future of the Party as wealthier and college educated whites are notoriously less racist than the average american. We cannot win over anymore white working class voters who are too racist and unaccepting of multiplier gender identities. Obama-Trump voters don't exist and/or are still racist so it doesn't matter. Cory Booker 2020.

The problem with this line of thinking is that studies have shown that people dont vote on individual policy proposals but values that transcend those things. When a candidate moves to the center or tries to have a mishmash of policy proposals that gives every side something...it simultaneously depresses their base and does not win them voters from the other side hence why centrist stiffs like Marcon gave France its lowest turnout since the Republic was founded in 1945

I agree

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I think a big factor in why he won't is that his numbers can't stay up. He maintained an honest likable reputation because it wasn't to Clinton's advantage to change it. In 2020, that won't be true. In a primary where his opponent gets dirty, his favorability numbers will vanish like that. I'd predict he'll get 20-30%, given the size and enthusiasm of his base, but he's too liberal and too corrupt to win a majority, and he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a contested convention.

LOL at the myth that Hillary didn't go negative.

LOL at the idea that someone who cosponsored a bill to dump nuclear waste on a poor hispanic community, ignored criticism, and personally profited, is the democratic frontrunner.

Mentioning a baseless attack from the primary sure proves that Bernie wasn't attacked during the primary.

Remind again what I said that was false?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I think a big factor in why he won't is that his numbers can't stay up. He maintained an honest likable reputation because it wasn't to Clinton's advantage to change it. In 2020, that won't be true. In a primary where his opponent gets dirty, his favorability numbers will vanish like that. I'd predict he'll get 20-30%, given the size and enthusiasm of his base, but he's too liberal and too corrupt to win a majority, and he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a contested convention.

LOL at the myth that Hillary didn't go negative.

LOL at the idea that someone who cosponsored a bill to dump nuclear waste on a poor hispanic community, ignored criticism, and personally profited, is the democratic frontrunner.

Bill Clinton tried to privatize Social Security. Hillary Clinton would of sold your ass out to win the local dog catcher election.

If Clinton could be painted as corrupt, so can Sanders.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think a big factor in why he won't is that his numbers can't stay up. He maintained an honest likable reputation because it wasn't to Clinton's advantage to change it. In 2020, that won't be true. In a primary where his opponent gets dirty, his favorability numbers will vanish like that. I'd predict he'll get 20-30%, given the size and enthusiasm of his base, but he's too liberal and too corrupt to win a majority, and he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a contested convention.

LOL at the myth that Hillary didn't go negative.

LOL at the idea that someone who cosponsored a bill to dump nuclear waste on a poor hispanic community, ignored criticism, and personally profited, is the democratic frontrunner.

Mentioning a baseless attack from the primary sure proves that Bernie wasn't attacked during the primary.

Remind again what I said that was false?

It's a baseless attack since that community was paid to take waste from many places, Vermont is unsuitable geologically for nuclear storage, this was only low level nuclear waste, and Bernie was successful in shutting down Vermont's nuclear power plant, which reduced nuclear waste. This nothingburger was brought up a lot in the primaries, and makes it clear that they didn't really have any dirt on Bernie. The idea that Bernie didn't care about poor Hispanics from other states is nonsense as what he did for the Immokalee farm workers shows. Really, Also, tell David Brock to f**k off.

[McGovernForPrez]

I think a big factor in why he won't is that his numbers can't stay up. He maintained an honest likable reputation because it wasn't to Clinton's advantage to change it. In 2020, that won't be true. In a primary where his opponent gets dirty, his favorability numbers will vanish like that. I'd predict he'll get 20-30%, given the size and enthusiasm of his base, but he's too liberal and too corrupt to win a majority, and he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a contested convention.

LOL at the myth that Hillary didn't go negative.

LOL at the idea that someone who cosponsored a bill to dump nuclear waste on a poor hispanic community, ignored criticism, and personally profited, is the democratic frontrunner.

Bill Clinton tried to privatize Social Security. Hillary Clinton would of sold your ass out to win the local dog catcher election.

If Clinton could be painted as corrupt, so can Sanders.

It's hard to be painted as corrupt if you already have a strongly established image. Hillary Clinton was a much easier target than Sanders for corruption charges. First of all she's a woman so that already makes it easier for people to hate her which sucks but that's the way our country is. Secondly they've had over 20 years to put smear attacks out against Hillary. She's been a public face for so long and as a result was an easy target. They're trying to smear Bernie right now and it's failing spectacularly. They can't cut through a media cycle which is obsessed with Trump.

[Bull Moose Base]

I agree with Silver if we’re using his definition of “frontrunner”, which is not the same as the definition that I use in everyday conversation.  When I say “frontrunner”, I typically mean favorite, and by that metric, I think Warren is the frontrunner.

But that’s because I think Warren is significantly more likely to run than Sanders is.  If I was certain that Sanders was going to run, then I’d give him the best chance of winning the nomination (probably by a wide margin).  But I think his probability of running is only something like ~25-30% (Predictit currently rates it as 30%, ftr.).  So even if you give him a 50% chance of winning the nomination conditional on him running, that only amounts to an overall winning probability of no more than 15%, which is lower than the equivalent # for Warren, IMHO.

Interestingly though, none of the participants in that 538 chat said there was any other individual likelier to win the nomination than Sanders.  Harry Enten said that he was tied with Biden (and possibly others), but that’s it.  I think in their entire discussion, they seriously underrated the importance of Sanders having to actually decide to jump into the race in the first place.  Their discussion on his age mostly centered around the question of whether it would hurt him electorally or not, but I think the bigger issue is that it would dissuade him from actually deciding to run.  Will a 79 year old man actually want to go through a year and a half of campaigning, and then spend his twilight years with a high pressure job like POTUS, potentially declining before our eyes?  (I’m trying not to sound too morbid here, but I can’t help it.  )  That is a more pressing question than the question of whether the voters themselves will count his age against him (I'm not sure they will).

I pretty much agree with you on Sanders's chances to run but when I read your (morbid) explanation, it doesn't feel like anything we've seen affect Sanders so far. He seems to eager to be campaigning and indifferent to being older. So then I can't quite figure out why I have his chances so low of running. I would say because he might perceive his chances of winning at that age as low which brings up another quirk: in the way that an anthropologist's observation of something will affect it distorting the observation, Nate Silver (and Matt Yglesias) calling Sanders the frontrunner probably makes Sanders more likely to run. (Although if I had to pick a politician who was clueless about his own press, I guess I'd go with Sanders.) But... I feel like Bernie doesn't live the scrutiny. Count me with those who think the bank loan investigation is doubtful to be anything but even so, maybe it deters a run. Or maybe, he hasn't historically seemed personally ambitious the way Biden or Booker have so maybe he's content to defer to Warren as he reportedly offered to do in 2015. Though she has just as little history of political ambition or less. But does seem to be laying groundwork for a potential run.

[Mr. Morden]

I pretty much agree with you on Sanders's chances to run but when I read your (morbid) explanation, it doesn't feel like anything we've seen affect Sanders so far. He seems to eager to be campaigning and indifferent to being older. So then I can't quite figure out why I have his chances so low of running.

I'm not sure what you would expect him to do or say right now that would indicate that he's going to take his age into consideration in deciding whether or not to run.  It's not the sort of thing that a candidate is going to talk about out loud.  And in fact, even talking about it out loud to his aides would be pretty risky, because if it leaks out that he has any reservations about running for president at his age, then that in itself is politically damaging, as it starts a round of health speculation about him.

In assessing the probability of an older candidate deciding to run or not, at *some* point, his age leads you to include a healthy discount into his odds of running, all other things being equal.  E.g., if you have two candidates who are otherwise identical in terms of signalling presidential ambition, but one is 65 (and apparently in good health) and the other is 95 (but also apparently in good health), then I assume that you're going to rate the 65 year old as being much more likely to run, because who wants to run for president at age 95, even if they're a "healthy" 95?

So then, the question is, how old do you go before this "discount" in probability becomes significant?  It's totally subjective, and I can't really argue with anyone on where it should be, because it's just a gut impression.  But I would note that we have plenty of examples of candidates aged in their lower 70s running, including candidates who were strong contenders for the nomination (and in some cases, they won the nomination).  But I think the upper limit (so far) on a candidate who was considered a plausible nominee going into the race is Bob Dole '96, who was 73 years old on the day of the general election.  Sanders '16 doesn't quite count in my mind, because he wasn't being given very good odds of winning the nom. when he started out.  He was considered more of a "message" candidate, who runs to get his issues out there, a la Ron Paul.  And "message" candidates are more likely to keep running for prez when they're older.

But Sanders, were he to run in 2020, would have a strong chance of winning the nomination (and the presidency) going into the race, and he'd know it.  But he'd be even older than Mike Gravel in 2008 and Ron Paul in 2012.  He'd be beating the "Bob Dole record" by more than 5 years.  Which doesn't mean that he's not going to do it, but it does give me pause, even if Sanders himself isn't saying anything to indicate that his age is a factor in his deliberations.