VH4Ever posted:

And a meta analysis of fundamentally flawed polls will naturally also be flawed. Again too, to your point and for the ten zillionth time, hate Nate for things, but the right things. His model was closer to showing a Trump win was very much in play than anyone else's. Why he now is singled out for being the wrongest is weird since NYT was showing what, a 98% chance of HRC win? They were way, way, way on the other side of reality and yet we've all memory holed this to dump on Nate because he sucks otherwise. I never got that so thanks for pointing this out.

redneck nazgul posted:

redneck nazgul posted:

I have liked Sen Sanders' ideas on several issues. I am fine with Sanders remaining an Independent Dem Socialist.

What I find lacks integrity is his:

1) Joining the Democratic Party to further his own political goals, while not supporting Democratic candidates down ticket (except the few he hunt-and-pecked that agreed with him).

2) He went to war with the Democratic leadership, rather than working together with them to change things from the inside. He presented ‘my way or the highway’ attitude in his positions.

3) He was trolled by Russian bots, who targeted him and his supporters, flooding them with false GOP talking points against HRC, only providing them with ‘Democratic Socialist speak’ words that could be replicated. He and they spewed the GOP/Russian information that was not true, but regularly touted, which resulted in people believing that a person (who is not perfect), who has given her life to service to this country, was the most ‘distrusted' candidate ever despite the proof that the current occupant, who told bald-face-lies and lies as a lifestyle choice, was clearly more despicable. Bernie did not stop his supporters taking up the Russian-bot-false stories, nor did he pay attention to the Democratic leadership when they pointed out the Russians were attacking HRC. I remember being disappointed in Bernie’s lack of proactive denouncement of supporters who were violent and spewing what the Russians wanted them to.

4) When Bernie ran against HRC, I compiled a list of her bills in Congress, (a strong % of them were co-sponsored with GOP colleagues across the aisle). Bernie wrote less than half the number of HRC’s bills (although he signed on to OTHER’s bills in large quantity) and he touted he had worked across the aisle, but he had ZERO of those bills with GOP colleagues. HIS across the aisle was with Democratic colleagues. I found his touting his great ability to work across the aisle disingenuous, to say the least, outright misleading to his supporters (and those he would want as his followers). He had shown no ability to work with the GOP. But that truth went largely unnoticed. That is not integrity.

5) After the election, Bernie left the Democratic Party and returned to his ‘Independent’ status. In this way, he demonstrated his unwillingness to work within the Democratic Party to make it better, but chose to stand on the sidelines and criticize the leadership when he didn't like something. In this way, he was not subject to the leadership he had so maligned during his Russian-bot supported campaign. He could go his own way without seeming to go against leadership, because he had no leadership, and he didn’t have to toe the line, as in not supporting Fox News for interviews on Fox. It is, again, his way or the highway again. That is NOT democratic.

5) Ironically. he is again seeking the Democratic nomination for president. Why isn't he running as the independent that he has been for all these years? Why does he join the Democrats when it serves his needs and yet he ignores the Party leadership when it doesn’t? I find him disloyal.

Yes, disloyal. He serves his own interests, not the general interests of the party, which includes more than Social left-wing progressives. While I am a progressive and believe his ideas are often in line with mine, I don't believe the best government is one that only takes the views of one side into consideration. We have that now with the White Supremacist GOP.

Dems have been notoriously broad in the numbers of positions within the party. We welcome all. It is our strength, not our weakness. We bring more people to the table than just one group with a preferred set of ideas. We include diversity.

If Sanders doesn’t get his way, he retreats to being an Independent—which is fine. I don't require him to be a Democrat throughout the years, except IF HE IS GOING TO USE THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES to WIN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION for President. If he is going to RUN as a DEM, then he NEEDS TO BE A DEM, even when he doesn't like everything they are doing. That would be loyalty, but it is not what he does.

Because of his inconsistent support of the Dems, I think he has little chance of gaining the nomination.

Unlike many Bernie supporters, if he were to achieve it, I would support him, because I am loyal to the party even when he is not (and too many of his supporters are not).

BTW, HRC was working down line candidates throughout her campaign at a level more than twice Bernie's selective support of those candidates who only supported his ideas.

HRC is not perfect. No one is. But she was not the bad character Sanders accused her of being. She was far more respectful of him than he of her. She didn't harp on his wife's sketchy financials, which Ms. Sanders got in trouble for after the election. HRC didn't brag on her % of 400 plus across the aisle bills, nor did she denounce Bernie for his lacks. I could go on. There are many little things that Bernie did that went unnoticed by the Press while HRC was being attacked for Benghazi and her emails.

THIS and more is why Senator Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee, IMO.

Z. Autobahn posted:

There's a lot that's wrong here.

1) First of all, you're conflating two very different things: the way the media treats polls, and the polls themselves. The media is absolute dog-poo poo when it comes to reporting on polls and how they use/talk about them, but that's very different from the polls themselves.

2) Case in point: polling in 2016 wasn't a trainwreck; it was generally pretty accurate. The national level polling was spot-on. State-level polling failed in a few key states, but by a relatively small margin. And Nate Silver was actually vindicated on election night as the person who gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance as opposed to the media bleating "Hillary has a 99.999% chance to win!". Silver was actually consistently the voice saying "Trump has a pretty real chance of winning based on the polls" and was widely derided in both the media and this forum for it.

3) Polling in 2018 was remarkably accurate, which suggests the post-2016 adjustments have helped

4) While there is some polling done by thinktanks or private firms like Rasmussmen, a significant amount of good polling is done by universities, for whom it is very much in their interest to be accurate

5) Regarding the under-55 thing, that's not an accurate characterization. CNN *did* include the under 55+ results, they just didn't post crosstabs for them, because the sample was too small. Now, obviously, the reply is "they're under-sampling the younger vote", but the problem with that reasoning is that it's a deliberate (and frequently accurate!) choice because the actual voting poll hugely skews older. Every single election cycle, people say "the polls are wrong because they're undercounting young voters!"; I remember confident posts about this back in 2008. But as recently as a year ago, this really hasn't been born out; the methodology being used now is no different than 2018, when the polls were pretty reliable.

Is it possible there's a major systemic error and the younger vote is being undercounted? Sure. But the "youth vote will destroy the polling" has been prophecised for at least a decade and hasn't come to pass, so it's also a safe bet to just suppose the polls are accurate for now.

Weltlich posted:

You are by and large correct, but I am talking more about the former part of your first point. How the media talks about polls and picks-and-chooses polling data to talk about to make sure that it reflects whatever the narrative of the day is. To that end, I think the bigger difference between 2016 and 2018 was not the "good or bad" polling data, but that there is an impetus to cherrypick data at a national media level that exists during presidential election, and does not exist during a midterm. Sure there might have been some national media figures that wanted certain establishment Dems to win during primaries, and then the general - but why talk about elections in Texas to people in New York, for the most part?

The short version of my whinge is that the same people who talk about "electability" on MSNBC, Meet the Press, and Late Night talk are also the people who either have spouses and family members who are running for office or in office, or they are people who either came from a politician's press office or are angling for a position in a press office. I guess what I'm saying is that when poll data gets tossed up there for me to see, my first response has morphed from "Well what does this poll tell me?" to "What is the person displaying this data trying to get me to believe?"

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Right right right, I'm just pointing out that any *single* poll in isolation -- such as, for example, one showing Biden at 39% with weird crosstabs and an oversampling of the older population -- may still be flawed. I wasn't disputing your Nate Take.

Z. Autobahn posted:

The obsession with "loyalty" to the Democratic party is just staggeringly nonsensical to me. Like, why would it even remotely matter? Why would it even be a good thing to be loyal to something as amorphous and sprawling as the Democratic party? In way what it would effect the policies Bernie would make or the agenda he'd pursue? Like in a world of actual disagreements and issue, how the gently caress does this even remotely *matter*

Z. Autobahn posted:

The obsession with "loyalty" to the Democratic party is just staggeringly nonsensical to me. Like, why would it even remotely matter? Why would it even be a good thing to be loyal to something as amorphous and sprawling as the Democratic party? In way what it would effect the policies Bernie would make or the agenda he'd pursue? Like in a world of actual disagreements and issue, how the gently caress does this even remotely *matter*

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Most people function based off of tribal identity, not facts or ideology.

Z. Autobahn posted:

Sure, but it's so much easier for me to wrap my head around, say, tribal affiliation to ethnic or cultural or even class identity, than something as utterly arbitrary and stupid as "the Democratic party"

Cerebral Bore posted:

I gotta say that this is a pretty impressive commitment to the gimmick.

Typo posted:

why?

the people who like him are prob clustered into the >40 column, it's not like they are uniformally distributed

Weltlich posted:

mcmagic posted:

https://twitter.com/EmmaVigeland/status/1123975598999789571

Joe Biden is poo poo.

Z. Autobahn posted:

The obsession with "loyalty" to the Democratic party is just staggeringly nonsensical to me. Like, why would it even remotely matter? Why would it even be a good thing to be loyal to something as amorphous and sprawling as the Democratic party? In way what it would effect the policies Bernie would make or the agenda he'd pursue? Like in a world of actual disagreements and issue, how the gently caress does this even remotely *matter*

Lightning Knight posted:

I think this is a little too much unskew-y and assumes a level of coordination or even competence that isn’t really justified to assume. It’s just as likely to be what Wampa said - name recognition, Obama goodfeels, and his announcement boost.

theblackw0lf posted:

Read both tweets

https://twitter.com/danbalz/status/1124007272500334592

theblackw0lf posted:

Bernie's on PSA today

bowser posted:

bowser posted:

Oh hey, Warren isn't the only one with a gimmick account for her dog. Let's see what Beto's dog is tweeting...

https://twitter.com/First_Dog_USA/status/1123303505941364736?s=19

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Most of the people I see making statements like that seem to be current or former employees of either the Democratic Party directly or it's affiliates, subcontractors, etc.

bowser posted:

Oh hey, Warren isn't the only one with a gimmick account for her dog. Let's see what Beto's dog is tweeting...

https://twitter.com/First_Dog_USA/status/1123303505941364736?s=19

bowser posted:

Oh hey, Warren isn't the only one with a gimmick account for her dog. Let's see what Beto's dog is tweeting...

https://twitter.com/First_Dog_USA/status/1123303505941364736?s=19

bowser posted:

Oh hey, Warren isn't the only one with a gimmick account for her dog. Let's see what Beto's dog is tweeting...

https://twitter.com/First_Dog_USA/status/1123303505941364736?s=19

VH4Ever posted:

And a meta analysis of fundamentally flawed polls will naturally also be flawed. Again too, to your point and for the ten zillionth time, hate Nate for things, but the right things. His model was closer to showing a Trump win was very much in play than anyone else's. Why he now is singled out for being the wrongest is weird since NYT was showing what, a 98% chance of HRC win? They were way, way, way on the other side of reality and yet we've all memory holed this to dump on Nate because he sucks otherwise. I never got that so thanks for pointing this out.

Z. Autobahn posted:

There's a lot that's wrong here.

Ytlaya posted:

joepinetree has made good posts in the past about how Nate was actually worse than the ones predicting a 98% chance, because Nate's model was intrinsically "risk-averse" and unwilling to give a very high chance one way or the other (so he basically protected himself against ever being "really wrong"). Sam Wang, one of the guys who gave a 98 or 99% chance of Hillary winning, is actually historically more reliable.

If you do a search for his posts you can probably find one where he addresses this topic, because he does a better job of explaining it than I am.

bowser posted:

Oh hey, Warren isn't the only one with a gimmick account for her dog. Let's see what Beto's dog is tweeting...

https://twitter.com/First_Dog_USA/status/1123303505941364736?s=19

sexpig by night posted:

this dog needs to shut the gently caress up

WampaLord posted:

Here's a palate cleanser for that awful Beto dab tweet, which is violence, for the record.

kidkissinger posted:

I keep noticing more stuff about that picture that I hate. Like how Beto is peaking out from behind the dab because he needs to make sure what he's doing is being well received at all times and just can't commit or take a risk at all.