Thank You CNN

[_DoubtingThomas]

I'm pretty sure CNN is trying to attract readers and they are doing it by having one of the best political forecasters in data journalism write about his thoughts of who is mostly likely to win because people like to read horse race coverage. He thinks that Kamala Harris should be thought of as the most likely in a highly split field. Again, this is what prediction markets, a generally good forecasting tool, currently think as well.

How is Kamala Harris the front runner? She has no name recognition and if the primary were today Harris would have no chance of winning in California. To rise in the polls Kamala Harris needs more name recognition and CNN is helping her with front runner headlines. It's called a positive feedback loop.

The only data available doesn't have Harris as the front runner. Only 20% of primary voters have a favorable opinion of Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris might be the front runner in the future, but she is not at this moment. A more accurate headline would be "Kamala Harris could be a front runner in 2020". CNN is supposed to be neutral.

I'd add that taking diversity into account in a voting decision makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than demeriting a candidate because you think CNN considers them a front-runner.

In the same list Joe Biden (an old white male) is number 3. So you don't agree that headlines declaring someone the front runner have any impact? Why not?

[_EAllusion]

if the primary were today Harris would have no chance of winning in California.

This is very wrong. Did you learn anything from being really, really wrong about Bernie Sanders again and again?

[Guest]

This is very wrong. Did you learn anything from being really, really wrong about Bernie Sanders again and again?

I am not a die-hard fan of Bernie Sanders and I want someone younger as president. I do think age matters and Sanders is too old.

If the California primary election were today, why do you think Kamala Harris would easily beat Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, Oprah, Bernie Sanders? Harris could win easily win California in 2020, but today she doesn't stand a chance. Show me the numbers if I am wrong.

I think you need to read carefully what I am saying. As of right now Kamala Harris doesn't have enough name recognition to win a California primary today. If she can't win today it means she is not the front-runner.

[_EAllusion]

I am not a die-hard fan of Bernie Sanders and I want someone younger as president. I do think age matters and Sanders is too old.

If the California primary election were today, why do you think Kamala Harris would easily beat Joe Biden, Michelle Obama, Oprah, Bernie Sanders? Harris could win easily win California in 2020, but today she doesn't stand a chance. Show me the numbers if I am wrong.

She's from the state. She won her Senate seat in a landslide. Political scientists find a very large home state advantage for candidates in primaries. There's few reasons form this ranging from the fact that home state candidates have connections with local get out the vote operations to voters having an inherent bias towards people who share their geographic identity. She's definitely a strong candidate there. Michelle Obama and Oprah aren't running to anyone's knowledge, and Michelle Obama has been about as clear as possible that she has no intention of running.

I'm not faulting you for supporting Sanders. I'm faulting you for repeatedly entering threads with pro-Sanders political analysis about his election prospects that was very wrong. And not in a generic, "I like Sanders" sense, but specifically citing really incorrect arguments about how elections work that should've caused you to develop some humility about what you think you know.

Suffice to say, Harry Enten isn't trying to guess what would happen if the election were held today. He's trying to guess what's going to happen in the future. He cites several compelling reasons to think that Harris is a strong candidate because of her positioning. It's a highly split field with no clear front runner, so everyone has currently has low odds of winning, but there's a good case that Harris is a solid bet. That's why people who actually bet - people who put their money where their mouth is - have favored her. Harris definitely is a top tier person in my view. I don't know if I'd power rank her #1. Fortunately, no one is paying me to power rank candidates.

I can't stand Harris. Someone like Jay Inslee is my preferred candidate, and he's currently got a slightly better chance of winning than I do. This isn't about who anyone likes. It's about reasoning with the available evidence.

[Guest]

She's from the state. She won her Senate seat in a landslide. .

But who was her opponent? It was someone with zero name recognition and no money.

Political scientists find a very large home state advantage for candidates in primaries..

Of course, but they also have name recognition and money. If the election were today Kamala Harris wouldn't stand a chance because she doesn't have the name recognition and the money yet.

I'm not faulting you for supporting Sanders. I'm faulting you for repeatedly entering threads with pro-Sanders political analysis about his election prospects that was very wrong.

What does Bernie Sanders have anything to do with CNN's inaccurate headline? It really has nothing to do and you are not listening to what I am saying. To repeat the headline should have been "Kamala Harris could be a front runner in 2020" because she is not the front runner yet. Kamala Harris is no Hillary Clinton with a lot of money and name recognition.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Suffice to say, Harry Enten isn't trying to guess what would happen if the election were held today. He's trying to guess what's going to happen in the future. He cites several compelling reasons to think that Harris is a strong candidate because of her positioning.

He may be right, but he should change the title of his article. Kamala Harris is not the front runner right now. With a 20% favorability she is still far behind and there is no evidence that she can win California without the help of the media.

[_EAllusion]

But who was her opponent? It was someone with zero name recognition and no money.

Candidates tend to have good name recognition in state-wide races by election day, so you might want to check out those "name recognition" numbers you're assuming. She beat Loretta Sanchez, a moderate Democrat, handily.

Of course, but they also have name recognition and money. If the election were today Kamala Harris wouldn't stand a chance because she doesn't have the name recognition and the money yet.

First, national name recognition and money isn't why home states provide an edge in primary elections. It's because people are biased towards their local politicians, who they know, and those local politicians tend to have close connections to the local factors that influence elections such as get out the vote operations, endorsers, and efficient campaign strategy.

People in California, especially the kind of people who show up to vote in a Democratic presidential primary, know who Kamala Harris is. She was the state AG and is now their Senator. Do you know who your Senators are?

What does Bernie Sanders have anything to do with CNN's inaccurate headline?

It has to do with you having not learned anything from when you were entering threads misunderstanding the 2016 primary.

[_EAllusion]

He may be right, but he should change the title of his article. Kamala Harris is not the front runner right now. With a 20% favorability she is still far behind and there is no evidence that she can win California without the help of the media.

The historical performance of local politicians in primaries is evidence. This is like saying there's no evidence Mitt Romney was going to do well in Utah until you saw a poll there. Uh, yeah there was. Polls aren't the only form of evidence.

[_DoubtingThomas]

He may be right, but he should change the title of his article. Kamala Harris is not the front runner right now. With a 20% favorability she is still far behind and there is no evidence that she can win California without the help of the media.

The historical performance of local politicians in primaries is evidence. This is like saying there's no evidence Mitt Romney was going to do well in Utah until you saw a poll there. Uh, yeah there was. Polls aren't the only form of evidence.

Even if you are right about Kamala Harris being unstoppable in California, it still wouldn't mean she is the front runner right now. She needs CNN and big donors to have a good chance of winning the nomination.

[_EAllusion]

Even if you are right about Kamala Harris being unstoppable in California, it still wouldn't mean she is the front runner right now. She needs CNN and big donors to have a good chance of winning the nomination.

I didn't say she was unstoppable in California. I said she should be viewed as a strong candidate there and given California's influence over the overall process, this fact weighs in her favor. One of the reasons to think she might be a strong candidate is that she already has connections to wealthy donors through her experience in running for office in California. She doesn't "need" CNN, at least not in the sense that she doesn't an article by Harry Enten arguing of all the candidates, he power ranks her first in the horse race.