|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Klansman |
|
8 | 0.91% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
578 | 65.76% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
185 | 21.05% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
4 | 0.46% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
0 | 0% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
3 | 0.34% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
3 | 0.34% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
2 | 0.23% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
4 | 0.46% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
19 | 2.16% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
19 | 2.16% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
8 | 0.91% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.11% |
| Just like in real life, nobody voted for Hickenlooper |
|
2 | 0.23% |
| Jeffrey Epstein, the MCC Most Hated |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| KKKillary KKKlinton |
|
16 | 1.82% |
| Some other idiot not in this list |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| Total: | 879 votes | ||
|
Charlz Guybon posted:He had a good 2018. Have things changed so much in one year? He gave trump a chance because his methodology 1) is more innately conservative than most 2) looks at states' races rather than national and looks similar states together, which means he's gave a chance that if one of the rust belt states went for trump, others could. Other posters treated stays more independently, giving Hillary much better odds. He also had a rough 2018, solely because of that motherfucking needle of doom. Also you're responding to PdB in what seems like an earnest manner. Why would you do such a thing.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
twodot posted:If you post a poll and then I say "The likely voter method for this poll systemically under counts many people" has anything been headed of? Fair enough. Have there been any examples of huge polling misses due to likely voter screens? I can't think of any, but I also have a fever so I might not be in my right mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
silver giving trump better odds doesn't mean his modeling was better. the polls that only gave him a <1 percent chance could still be more accurate even though trump won.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Fair enough. every poll lin yutang has posted so that he could briefly go "warp it up bernailures" before disappearing, which on closer inspection is revealed to have involved 3 people under 50
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
Pander posted:He gave trump a chance because his methodology hmm yes my criticism of Nate is just trollin', not at all that he's an anti Bernie shill and his polls are poo poo gently caress Nate. he's garbage. a neoliberal apologist. he's probably getting paid to make Bernie look bad. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Fair enough. But that isn't even what I'm talking about. Likely voter screens can be historically entirely correct about who is going to vote, and still severely undercount people, because a ton of people don't vote. If you want to bring in hard data about a candidate's supporters, polls don't even try to measure that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/eshaLegal/status/1162512597494710273 https://twitter.com/Bahbuto/status/1162514917993406464
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
"Savvy" NYT Subscriber
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:He had a good 2018. Have things changed so much in one year? joepinetree has made some good posts about why the "he's the only one who gave Trump a chance in 2016" logic is flawed. PerniciousKnid posted:I just wanted to stick to substance and head off a dozen posts of "Sanders is the best and the smartest and will surely win 90% of the vote". Polls are imperfect but they can head off some amount of wishful thinking. The issue is that we already understand exactly what's going on with the polls. The currently are almost all under the assumption that demographics who vote in the primary will be the same as in the past, and under that assumption Sanders will probably not win. But Sanders supporters are hoping that his strategy will succeed in far more younger (and other non-traditional) voters showing up than the polls are assuming. The only thing polls can really reliably tell us is whether a candidate has any non-trivial chance of winning. So basically they tell us that the only real contenders are Biden, Warren, Sanders, and likely one of Harris/Buttigieg. All that being said, your post specifically mentioned driving the minority and "Democratic loyalist" votes. For the former, we do have direct evidence that Sanders outperforms either all candidates (for PoC in general) or all candidates but Biden (if you're talking about just black people). It's not really clear what the latter is referring to and how that group would be defined. As for "wanting to stick to substance," I think you have some pretty wrong ideas. No polls this early are going to tell you much aside from "who is generally viable." And that shouldn't factor much into who people support in the first place. Real substance consists of actually looking at the candidates' policies and records. PerniciousKnid posted:Have there been any examples of huge polling misses due to likely voter screens? I can't think of any, but I also have a fever so I might not be in my right mind. The idea is that hopefully the dramatic increase in youth turn-out in 2018 will also be indicative of a similar (or even larger) increase in the 2020 primary turn-out. Polling won't really tell us anything about this, so we'll have to wait until the actual primary to find out how successful this strategy is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1162769457347006465?s=19 Hes so goddamned good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
StealthArcher posted:https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1162769457347006465?s=19 i'm very excited about seeing a stern Jake Tapper look straight into the camera, calling out these totally inappropriate calls to violence by Senator Sanders — a betrayal of his anti-war base
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Patriarch Bernie doesn't care about his mother's side of the family, apparently. Which is interesting because Jewish heritage is traditionally matrilineal. Really speaks volumes about his level of respect for his mother, and for his Jewish heritage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1160647071382134785 He's on a loving roll today. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
dan crenshaw had an obnoxious response to that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:dan crenshaw had an obnoxious response to that one. I'm so glad SNL gave him a platform to become more famous and more obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1160647071382134785 You’ve got your time wormholes mixed up. August 11 is a million years ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm so glad SNL gave him a platform to become more famous and more obnoxious. https://twitter.com/DanCrenshawTX/status/1161829512876896256 i can't remember using my photo ID for anything except flying since i last had to re-up my license in person a decade ago. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Aug 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:hey just wondering if you make a brand new rule and issue a bunch of punishments for it and then 3 days later rescind the rule because you realize that it was a stupid decision to make said rule Lol (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
I'd be at least a little less hostile to voter ID laws if there was even one piece of credible evidence of widespread voter fraud happening at the polls. I'd still be suspicious as hell, since the modern GOP seems to be incapable of arguing in good faith about anything, but it wouldn't be so comically obvious what they were trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
buddhist nudist posted:I'd be at least a little less hostile to voter ID laws if there was even one piece of credible evidence of widespread voter fraud happening at the polls. Republicans tried to steal NC-9, and the only reason it failed is because it was so blatant that it couldn't be ignored. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Ague Proof posted:Republicans tried to steal NC-4, and the only reason it failed is because it was so blatant that it couldn't be ignored. Wasn't that with buddhist nudist fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Aug 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
buddhist nudist posted:I'd be at least a little less hostile to voter ID laws if there was even one piece of credible evidence of widespread voter fraud happening at the polls. a study could only find 32 credible claims of in-person voter fraud in a billion votes. so that means it's likely there are fewer than 4 cases of in-person voter fraud in the average national election. it's a solution in search of a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:He had a good 2018. Have things changed so much in one year? every election cycle people dump on nate
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
buddhist nudist posted:Wasn't that with write-in fuckery? I mean the actual Republican narrative of busloads of people going from polling station to polling station using other people's names. nah, it was with an scheme where people would go door to door and say, pretty much, "you can just give us your absentee ballot and we'll drop it off at a polling place for you" then they'd tamper with them, sign them in the person's name, and drop it off in a mailbox near where that person lived in hopes it would avoid being detected it made created glaringly obvious differences in the absentee ballot numbers versus the in-person numbers in a very small district where it would be nearly statistically impossible but yeah, none of that conspiracy had anything to do with in-person ballot fraud that voter id laws claim to be able to fix
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
eke out posted:nah, it was with an scheme where people would go door to door and say, pretty much, "you can just give us your absentee ballot and we'll drop it off at a polling place for you" then they'd tamper with them, sign them in the person's name, and drop it off in a mailbox near where that person lived in hopes it would avoid being detected gently caress, by "write-in" I meant absentee ballot. Remembered the incident correctly but forgot what words mean, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:He had a good 2018. Have things changed so much in one year? Nate's best model for Trump gave him a 28.6% chance of winning. Nate's model is underconfident by design, which is why he looks like he did better. Because people who don't really understand statistics think that the person who gave 99% chance of something happening and the one who gave it a 75% chance are equally right if it happens, but 75% one is less wrong if it doesn't. But just to drive home the fact that Nate's model wasn't any better: - 538 and Sam Wang (the guy who ate a bug for saying Hillary would win with 99% certainty) gave Hillary the exact same chance of winning Michigan (79%), nearly the same change of winning PA (538 gave Hillary 77% and Sam gave her 79%), and while for Wisconsin the difference was larger, Nate still gave Hillary an 84% chance there. So when it came to the states that flipped the election, Nate and Sam were not really different. - Nate's models generally are underconfident in extreme scenarios, which is why he always gives the favorite a lower chance. But just as he gave Trump a better chance than anyone else, he also gave Hillary a greater chance of getting 450 electoral college votes than anyone else. Where that comes from is in the extreme states. So why did Nate give Trump a better chance of winning than others? As we've seen, it wasn't because he had different expectations regarding Michigan or PA. He gave Trump better odds of winning because he only gave Hillary a 93% chance in Rhode Island (everyone else gave her 99%), 91% chance in Delaware, 94% chance in Oregon, 83% chance in New Mexico, 58% chance in Nevada, etc. So he was giving Trump a better chance than others not because he correctly forecast where Hillary's weaknesses were, but because his model was less confident in things that everyone else got right. Likewise, he gave Hillary a better chance of getting 450 electoral college votes because he also underestimated Trump's chances in a bunch of places: he gave Trump just a 76% chance of winning Alaska, just a 67% chance of winning Arizona, just a 90% chance of winning South Carolina, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
He also wrote article after article after article about how there was no possible way Trump could win the Republican nomination until the inevitable was obvious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:He also wrote article after article after article about how there was no possible way Trump could win the Republican nomination until the inevitable was obvious. all napoleon on the march style headlines the entire 2015-2016 cycle
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:He also wrote article after article after article about how there was no possible way Trump could win the Republican nomination until the inevitable was obvious. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
Nate gave almost no chance to trump stop that meme. Nate said he was right after loving up catastrophically in 2016. He is swine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:joepinetree has made some good posts about why the "he's the only one who gave Trump a chance in 2016" logic is flawed. I’m sure you also gave everyone this lecture back in February when every other post itt was “Bernie is the clear front runner.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Nate gave almost no chance to trump stop that meme. Nate said he was right after loving up catastrophically in 2016. He is swine. he gave trump ~25 percent chance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Nate gave almost no chance to trump stop that meme. Nate said he was right after loving up catastrophically in 2016. He is swine. fivethirtyeight-staff-prediction-sheet.bmp
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
My name is 2020 Primary Nerd and my catchphrase is “Pollsters should be assuming unprecedented youth turnout.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:My name is 2020 Primary Nerd and my catchphrase is “Pollsters should be assuming unprecedented youth turnout.” 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
I've seen a lot of young people getting very active and all, yea, I think this may be a trend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
I love that this is something that makes yronic unhappy. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I've seen a lot of young people getting very active and all, yea, I think this may be a trend. yeah 2018 midterm turnout was literally the highest in a century and had ridiculously high under 40 turnout, 2020 is going to be nuts that graph above shows it, but including Gen X (which is now almost all 40+) makes it seem a bit higher than it was - still, literally twice as many millenials voted in 2018 as did in 2014.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
To be 100% fair including gen x as a "younger" generation in 2018 is insane. My parents are gen x, and I'm in my mid 20s. That said I have a hard time seeing millenial and gen z turnout doing anything other than go up even more this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
Yes, as time goes by more Boomers and older die. (And you only have to be, what, 43 now to be younger than a Boomer?) Shocking that number of votes from each cohort is not the same as a turnout rate, I know. But that tells us nothing about the turnout rate of young (not 43-yr-old) people. Thank you for the master class in sophistry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2019 23:02
|
|