Thank You CNN

[_DoubtingThomas]

If you accept the premise that it's Ok for CNN (really, Harry Enten) to power-rank Democratic candidates, then picking Harris as the top one becomes very reasonable because she hits a lot of key factors you'd look at when predicting who would be successful in a Democrat primary.

It is all opinion and declaring someone the front runner without the numbers to back it up is called election interference. It is a free ad. When was the last time a news organization declared someone the front runner without poll numbers to back it up? How can you call someone with a 20% favorability the front runner?

She naturally appeals to key Democratic constituencies, has a strong fundraising base, and hails from one of the two or three most important states in the primary process.

Yes, she could win the Democratic primary and become the next president of the United States, but she is not the front runner because she doesn't have the numbers yet.

According the video Fox News predicted Tim Pawlenty was going to win the Republican nomination, but quickly dropped out.

(really, Harry Enten) to power-rank Democratic candidates

and Chris Cillizza https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdbd6nBzGH0.

But, again, if you're going to powerrank candidates, then someone has to be on top.

When has someone been at the top without the numbers?

She is a forecasting darling. It's not a reach.

"Respondents were nearly split on Sen. Kamala Harris, another leading contender, with 20 percent saying they view her favorably and 22 percent viewing her unfavorably"
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... n-new-poll

[_DoubtingThomas]

. She's also been using her Senate time to build up a voting record that coheres perfectly with what mainstream Democrats want..

Mainstream Democrats won't like that she failed to prosecute Steven Mnuchin and OneWest Bank. You can defender her all you want, but that doesn't look good in Democratic politics.

has a strong fundraising base,

You mean a strong fundraising base with wealthy donors? Mainstream Democrats are getting tired of super Pacs and wealthy donors.

[_EAllusion]

If you accept the premise that it's Ok for CNN (really, Harry Enten) to power-rank Democratic candidates, then picking Harris as the top one becomes very reasonable because she hits a lot of key factors you'd look at when predicting who would be successful in a Democrat primary.

It is all opinion...

In the sense that everything is an opinion? Sure. In the sense that it's just guessing based on arbitrary preferences? No, the forecasting going on here is better than that.

and declaring someone the front runner without the numbers to back it up is called election interference.

Called by you? Sharing an opinion on who is most likely to win is not interfering with an election.

When was the last time a news organization declared someone the front runner without poll numbers to back it up?

Well, 538, where Harry Enten comes from, has been power ranking Democratic primary candidates since 2016.

How can you call someone with a 20% favorability the front runner.

They explained it to you. Again, why do you think betting markets have her as the favorite? This was the case before this article was published, so don't answer, "because of this article."

(really, Harry Enten) to power-rank Democratic candidates

and Chris Cillizza https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdbd6nBzGH0.

I'm not sure what Cilizza is doing in that article, as this is classic Enten writing and not so much Cilliza. Who knows what he did to get that byline. Write the headline would be my first guess. Listen to what Enten says, say "me too" and take half the credit would be my second guess.

When has someone been at the top without the numbers?

It seems like your real problem here is you don't understand that it is possible to make predictions on who is going to win without looking at poll numbers based on an understanding of voter behavior and candidate traits. The neat thing about this is that fundamentals are a better basis right now for predictions than poll numbers are.

[_DoubtingThomas]

No, the forecasting going on here is better than that.

Since July 2017

"Freshman Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has recently become the subject of much speculation about a potential 2020 presidential run. Several major news outlets have run feature-length profiles of Harris, and top Democratic donors are starting to coalesce around her as their preferred candidate to take on President Donald Trump."
https://mic.com/articles/183105/democra ... .1Qm2ivnAt

Called by you? Sharing an opinion on who is most likely to win is not interfering with an election.

Headlines do influence and thousands will support her only because she is the "front runner". It is like a free ad for her. It is a well known that many voters like to support front runners. You can't deny that fact!

They explained it to you. Again, why do you think betting markets have her as the favorite? This was the case before this article was published, so don't answer, "because of this article."

Yes because with free CNN ads she has a good chance of winning the nomination.

and to quote again

Freshman Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has recently become the subject of much speculation about a potential 2020 presidential run. Several major news outlets have run feature-length profiles of Harris, and top Democratic donors are starting to coalesce around her as their preferred candidate to take on President Donald Trump.

https://mic.com/articles/183105/democra ... .1Qm2ivnAt

It is disturbing!

It seems like your real problem here is you don't understand that it is possible to make predictions on who is going to win without looking at poll numbers based on an understanding of voter behavior and candidate traits. The neat thing about this is that fundamentals are a better basis right now for predictions than poll numbers are.

CNN shouldn't make predictions this early because the bandwagon effect is a problem. CNN knows better!

[_DoubtingThomas]

EAllusion when was the last time a news organization declared someone the front runner without having the numbers?

[_EAllusion]

EAllusion when was the last time a news organization declared someone the front runner without having the numbers?

Again, 538, where the author of the CNN article you are linking comes from, has been doing this since the end of the 2016 election just like they do it every election since they've been a thing. 538 is a news organization currently owned by ABC. This is standard horse race coverage. One of the weird things about your criticism of not citing "the numbers" is that the prediction is coming from a data journalist relying on "the numbers." What you mean is, "the polls" but you give no reason to believe polls are a better basis for determining relative strength of candidates than other means. What you are actually trying to argue is that polls represent public opinion and therefore are a more democratic means of gauging support. But they aren't trying to measure public opinion. They're trying to forecast where public opinion will be over a year from now.

If you think that horserace coverage itself is inherently bad because it creates an unfair bandwagon effect, then make that argument instead. I explicitly carved out that premise so you could disagree with it if you want. Instead, you keep complaining about "the numbers" without really connecting that to an underlying point. Ironically, you've cited no numbers to indicate just how much this article on the internet from CNN contributers has impacted or will impact public opinion a year and a half from now. My guess is the answer is "so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from zero." But if you got numbers, by all means, cite them.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Again, 538, where the author of the CNN article you are linking comes from, has been doing this since the end of the 2016 election just like they do it every election since they've been a thing

So what is your point?

If you think that horserace coverage itself is inherently bad because it creates an unfair bandwagon effect, then make that argument instead.

A horse-race coverage isn't inherently bad, but ABC and CNN need to stop kissing Kamala Harris's ass.

[_EAllusion]

Again, they're predicting Harris is a formidable candidate because there's lots of reasons to believe she is. I'm fairly certain I dislike her more than you do or will, and I'm able to understand that she's a strong candidate despite my personal feelings about her.

On a related note, almost immediately after announcing her candidacy, she's drawing in a ton of fundraising and shot way up to the top of Daily Kos's straw poll, which is often a decent proxy for support of left wing voters in the Democrat coalition. I'm sure you're likely to interpret any success she has as a self-fulling prophecy, but really, this is because she's well-positioned within the Democrat coalition.

[Guest]

Again, they're predicting Harris is a formidable candidate because there's lots of reasons to believe she is.

Yes, it is like a positive feedback loop. CNN is giving her too much positive coverage to make her a front-runner.

On a related note, almost immediately after announcing her candidacy, she's drawing in a ton of fundraising and shot way up to the top of Daily Kos's straw poll, which is often a decent proxy for support of left wing voters in the Democrat coalition. I'm sure you're likely to interpret any success she has as a self-fulling prophecy, but really, this is because she's well-positioned within the Democrat coalition.

Right.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I'm fairly certain I dislike her more than you do or will, and I'm able to understand that she's a strong candidate despite my personal feelings about her.

Joe Biden is the front runner and I don't like him.