|
bowser posted:
I might have been willing to give them this one, but they went and put one of the centrist white guy clones on there. If it take me a few seconds to figure out that Steve Bullock is in the line up, only to quickly realize that no, that's Bennet, then you're really reaching with your candidate choices. Charlz Guybon posted:That would be pretty shocking. How would the race's dynamics change if they were done to four candidates in a month? It won't go down to 4 candidates in a month. The memo is saying that only 4 candidates have enough money to run an actually campaign. Billionaire guy, Yang, and Harris aren't dropping out that soon even though they don't have the fundraising to run a national campaign right now. Billionaire guy could honestly either drop out at any time or run to the end like a total rear end in a top hat. He's getting a lot of push back from actual people for being a prick who is buying his way into the race. On the other hand he's the type of prick who made more than a $billion, so it's not like he actually cares about people. Gyges fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Sep 22, 2019 |
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
Judakel posted:The Jacobin attack must've been good, considering you're saying it was dumb. the attack on Warren from that article is reproduced, in its entirety, on the tweet, but I may have been unclear about that and anyway you have to click the tweet to read it in full quote:Elizabeth Warren has said that she will nominate a public school teacher to be her secretary of education. But she chose former Teach for America corps member Joshua Delaney to head her education policy. Delaney only completed one year in the classroom before switching to “education reform” endeavors. We know that in the reform arena, TFA supports charter schools, merit pay, and weakening teachers’ unions. that's it, that's all Oh Snapple! posted:Warren is pro-charter as gently caress, as has been brought up numerous times, she will absolutely not be rejecting TFA shitheads. sure, and that's substantially more important than this, and anything she's said pro-charter in the last five years is an order of magnitude more important to why this guy might be bad than his two years with TFA is all i'm saying this doesn't register on the yikesometer, it's dumb twittermad Gyges posted:
it also sorta depends on why he's running, and I don't know enough about him to know or care
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:it also sorta depends on why he's running, and I don't know enough about him to know or care There must always be a billionaire in the race to keep the riffraff in line. Bloomberg and Starbucks guy have been toying with the idea for a while, and since neither of them stood up for the downtrodden rich, this guy picked up the banner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 03:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1175561796331159557
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
He is so insanely happy about Bernie. Dude loves his money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
You could swap the names and this would literally be a donald tweet lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
Got tired of spinning lies in TGRS, I see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
"This guy only spent a year working to bust teacher's unions, what's the big deal?" -You, a moron And Warren got real quiet about the charter school stuff a few years ago and hasn't mentioned it much recently, so I suppose we're just supposed to assume she has a good opinion on this now and stop asking questions. Same with her lust for Palestinian blood, her status as a proud Native American woman who isn't too worried about DAPL protestors, and her votes for Trump's appointees and military budgets. Those were Past Warren, let's worry about Now Warren, who is progressive and good! Booourns posted:You could swap the names and this would literally be a donald tweet lol I hope they run hard with the Desperate Donald thing. It's pathetic in that perfect dipshit lib way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Booourns posted:You could swap the names and this would literally be a donald tweet lol True poo poo connoisseurs recognize that Trump wouldn't use an em dash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Judakel posted:He is so insanely happy about Bernie. Dude loves his money. With the liberal media and liberal pollsters against him it and willing to do anything including making trump win to stop him it speaks to bernies strength hes doing as well as he is
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NYforSanders/status/1175591843708514304 Add to that one million donors, and I like Bernie's chances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:the attack on Warren from that article is reproduced, in its entirety, on the tweet, but I may have been unclear about that and anyway you have to click the tweet to read it in full How is that "that's all?" If your head education policy guy's entire experience with education is either as a TFA teacher, TFA leadership board, or intern at pro-charter NGO, it sends a signal. These aren't neutral institutions, they have a firmly entrenched position. Do you think that if a candidate hires an AEI alum to be their foreign policy advisor that would be no big deal either?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:https://twitter.com/NYforSanders/status/1175591843708514304 Bernie's got this, who do you think the working class and minorities are going to vote for? The racist old guy, the racist lady who was republican until she was 55 or the good and cool leftist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:How is that "that's all?" If your head education policy guy's entire experience with education is either as a TFA teacher, TFA leadership board, or intern at pro-charter NGO, it sends a signal. These aren't neutral institutions, they have a firmly entrenched position. Do you think that if a candidate hires an AEI alum to be their foreign policy advisor that would be no big deal either? i think there's a material difference there AEI doesn't generally have people enter as teachers and so there's less ideological relation between someone choosing to work at TFA vs AEI, calling his thing "TFA leadership board" doesn't seem exactly accurate (or rather gives the impression that he was high in the national organization despite it being his second year), quote:
and if a dude worked in AEI policy stuff for one (1) year, I'd still be more interested in what he did in the seven years post-AEI than in that so no, i still don't think Delaney's two years at TFA a particularly big reason to hate Elizabeth Warren Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Sep 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/WillVanguard/status/1175500323911294978?s=19 wow will Liz apologize for the hateful antisemitic behavior of her paid steak fry staff??
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 06:18
|
|
Office Pig posted:Got tired of spinning lies in TGRS, I see. I don't...what?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 06:20
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:i think there's a material difference there Guy was a TFA teacher for 2 years, founded whatever you want to call that which is explicitly about TFA advocacy, then was an intern at a pro-charter NGO. And that is his entire professional experience before joining Warren's office. So the guy was hired after 2 years and change of experience that was all entirely on the pro-charter side, and we know where he stood on the policy side BECAUSE HE CREATED AN ORGANIZATION PRECISELY TO GET TFA PEOPLE INTO POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION. We can be pretty sure that he was hired for his pro-charter experience because that is literally his entire professional experience. Saying that him starting at TFA and then founding an organization to get TFA people into educational policy is less ideological is a joke. This isn't the case of a naive guy who wandered into TFA and then moved on to something else. Of course, if you want to continue this silly song and dance, we don't have to guess where Warren stood on charter schools. Her 2003 book "The Two Income Trap" explicitly advocates for vouchers and "school choice" for public education. That she has been silent on the topic recently doesn't mean much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 06:21
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:https://twitter.com/WillVanguard/status/1175500323911294978?s=19 They all just wanted to get in line to take selfies with her. For good reason, the line was so long they had to cut it off and wouldn't allow us in  Thats why they all left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:wow will Liz apologize for the hateful antisemitic behavior of her paid steak fry staff?? It's almost as if...it's extremely deliberately coordinated.  https://twitter.com/jvgraz/status/1165014232963829760
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 06:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's almost as if...it's extremely deliberately coordinated. The warrenists and harrisites know that if bernie wins it's the end of the neoliberal identity politics gravy train for them they've gotten together to rig it against him again gently caress all of them Bernie or Bust
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Guy was a TFA teacher for 2 years, founded whatever you want to call that which is explicitly about TFA advocacy, then was an intern at a pro-charter NGO. And that is his entire professional experience before joining Warren's office. So the guy was hired after 2 years and change of experience that was all entirely on the pro-charter side, and we know where he stood on the policy side BECAUSE HE CREATED AN ORGANIZATION PRECISELY TO GET TFA PEOPLE INTO POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION. We can be pretty sure that he was hired for his pro-charter experience because that is literally his entire professional experience. Saying that him starting at TFA and then founding an organization to get TFA people into educational policy is less ideological is a joke. This isn't the case of a naive guy who wandered into TFA and then moved on to something else. Even if you assume that Warren (like a number of other Democrats) has come around to charters being bad, this is yet another data point on the "you can't really trust Warren to be on the right side of issues" argument. When new issues arise under a Warren presidency, what if we have to wait 10 years for her to come around to the right opinion on them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Even if you assume that Warren (like a number of other Democrats) has come around to charters being bad, this is yet another data point on the "you can't really trust Warren to be on the right side of issues" argument. When new issues arise under a Warren presidency, what if we have to wait 10 years for her to come around to the right opinion on them? it took her 50 years to stop being a republican so it would be more like waiting 50 years for her to become correct not 10
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
Typo posted:it took her 50 years to stop being a republican so it would be more like waiting 50 years for her to become correct not 10 I mean, I can generously grant that maybe her shift from being a Republican represented some sort of significant ideological shift on her part (even if her own words don't really support this), but even after being a Democrat she still fell on the wrong side of issues multiple times and I see no reason to think that she finally made the full transition to Good Progressive in the past couple years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's almost as if...it's extremely deliberately coordinated. It's just that it's such a dumb idea. Like, so dumb that rather than orchestrating such a thing they should be carefully making sure it doesn't happen. All of your supporters walking out as another candidate takes the stage, making as much ruckus as possible, isn't a persuasive or positive message. Now, if you were to at least get the theatric exiters to not be in full your campaign gear, that might actually have some sort of impact. Like how the funny pictures and stories about everyone leaving when Klobuchar was about to speak to the union would have been effective if Klobuchar's campaign wasn't so dead the tombstone is already weathered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Even if you assume that Warren (like a number of other Democrats) has come around to charters being bad, this is yet another data point on the "you can't really trust Warren to be on the right side of issues" argument. When new issues arise under a Warren presidency, what if we have to wait 10 years for her to come around to the right opinion on them? Listen, I support Warren because she has shown the ability to evolve her stance on charter schools, unlike a certain candidate who has been calling charter schools dogshit garbage from the get-go.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
Phone posted:Listen, I support Warren because she has shown the ability to evolve her stance on charter schools, unlike a certain candidate who has been calling charter schools dogshit garbage from the get-go. My favorite truly horrific take that I've seen on twitter over the last couple days more than once is, and I poo poo you not, "...that racist-rear end old white guy who, yes, marched with MLK."
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 07:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:so no, i still don't think Delaney's two years at TFA a particularly big reason to hate Elizabeth Warren Not to pile on (just kidding I'm piling on!) But uh just what are this guy's other credentials? That his charter school promoting time was short-lived because he seems to have been fast tracked to the top for no apparent reason and is now being further elevated for no apparent reason... I would hate to belabor the point but absent anything notably good about the guy how the gently caress is the absence of good and only a very short upward arc through bad a defence?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:My favorite truly horrific take that I've seen on twitter over the last couple days more than once is, and I poo poo you not, "...that racist-rear end old white guy who, yes, marched with MLK." it's some wild poo poo for sure https://twitter.com/leslieleeiii/status/1175424331595300864
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
Does it seem like Bernie floundered in the third debate by not talking much? I'd like to believe what you (Majorian) told me about him holding up but, uh, Warren's now leading in Iowa. Isn't this to have repercussions down the line for Bernie's primaries? Or am I overthinking this, polls are useless and we're seeing Cain-overtake-Perry-before-Romney-sweeps-the-floor again?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
Warren will Kamala in 30 days, and then the real tears and fireworks will begin 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Does it seem like Bernie floundered in the third debate by not talking much? I'd like to believe what you (Majorian) told me about him holding up but, uh, Warren's now leading in Iowa. Isn't this to have repercussions down the line for Bernie's primaries? Or am I overthinking this, polls are useless and we're seeing Cain-overtake-Perry-before-Romney-sweeps-the-floor again? I think you're overthinking it a bit, yeah. It's something to be aware of - obviously, I'd rather see polls with Bernie ahead on all fronts. But there are going to be more debates. Bernie's already doing remarkably well in states that he by all rights shouldn't be ahead in at this point. The fact that he already has one million donors suggests that there's an immense level of active support for him on the ground that isn't being picked up in polls. While I think there are probably course corrections to be made in Iowa, given this poll's results, it's still September 2019. Obama was down 20-odd points nationally in September 2007. Nate is making the same mistake that mainstream pundits were making twelve years ago today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
Friends at last night's King Crimson show in NYC at RCMH are convinced they saw Bernie Sanders in attendance. Anyone know if this is likely? E: no, he's in Des Moines this weekend. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 08:40
|
|
|
The right take on Nate, btw: https://twitter.com/RealKaylaJames/status/1175603449368649729
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Does it seem like Bernie floundered in the third debate by not talking much? I'd like to believe what you (Majorian) told me about him holding up but, uh, Warren's now leading in Iowa. Isn't this to have repercussions down the line for Bernie's primaries? Or am I overthinking this, polls are useless and we're seeing Cain-overtake-Perry-before-Romney-sweeps-the-floor again? There is absolutely no way that Bernie's support in Iowa really is at 11%, so the lesson here is to not trust the polls.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 09:07
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Not to pile on (just kidding I'm piling on!) But uh just what are this guy's other credentials? That his charter school promoting time was short-lived because he seems to have been fast tracked to the top for no apparent reason and is now being further elevated for no apparent reason... if I can be bothered I'll go figure out where I got the impression that he more or less lucked into an entry level aide position after getting his masters (fair enough) and then Warren proceeded to like him, but yeah, I think an actual good Delaney criticism, if we're really looking for one we are, because it makes Warren look bad, is that his amount of work experience is a bit iffy also I don't know / remember whether he's THE senior advisor or just A senior advisor but then I tend technocratic in the first place so I'm going to be inherently suspicious of young people being in high advisory positions  Warren should be able to lay her hands on someone with >10 years of relevant experience counting masters degree
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:There is absolutely no way that Bernie's support in Iowa really is at 11%, so the lesson here is to not trust the polls. The polls are only accurate if they show Bernie winning. I'm not being ironic. Polls are not science, showing us the truth about the state of the world. They are marketing tools that are deployed for the purpose of crafting narratives. They use the language of science: MoE and P-values and simple random samples and so on, which are useful tools if you're trying to gauge how many widgets coming off of a production line are defective. But if you're trying to predict future human action, those same tools fall very very short. And the people doing the polls and talking up the polls and tweeting about how they throw away outliers until they get the results they want know this. And if polls are not tools of science, meant to explain something about the world, but marketing devices meant to construct narratives, then the only polls anyone should consider real are the polls that reinforce the narratives you want to be true. Hell, that Nate basically guessed what the results would be before this latest poll dropped should tell you everything you need to know: the pollsters are herding, making sure their polls fit the dominant narrative. Nate isn't a genius who is tuned in to the pulse of the electorate, he's an elite who is tuned in to the wants and needs of the existing power structure. That he seems to believe he has some special insight is pretty sad when all he's really proving is how deeply he's been indoctrinated. tldr Polls bad Bernie good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 09:49
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Polls are not science, showing us the truth about the state of the world. They are marketing tools that are deployed for the purpose of crafting narratives. Polls are asking some people a question and getting an answer back. The people that you ask and what the question is will provide a pretty good answer about your chosen sample's state of the world with a decent sample size. Polls to measure future preference or interest aren't perfect, but market research is a thing and not limited to crafting a narrative to destroy bernie sanders. Poll questions can be intentionally misleading to shape a result and therefore a narrative, but fortunately "Who do you intend to vote for in the 2020 Democratic Party" is a pretty straightforward question not subject to much bias. Wicked Them Beats posted:They use the language of science: MoE and P-values and simple random samples and so on, which are useful tools if you're trying to gauge how many widgets coming off of a production line are defective. But if you're trying to predict future human action, those same tools fall very very short. No, these are just basic statistical measures you'll learn in your first probability/statistics course. MoE is uses to understand the potential error if a sample population of the same size and bias could be regenerated instantly. The "p-value" in polling is almost always predefined given it's a variable in MOE calculation. Wicked Them Beats posted:And the people doing the polls and talking up the polls and tweeting about how they throw away outliers until they get the results they want know this. No, this is extremely unlikely at credible polling outfits. It's the biggest no-no and instant blackball from the industry. Read some nate on it Wicked Them Beats posted:And if polls are not tools of science, meant to explain something about the world, but marketing devices meant to construct narratives, then the only polls anyone should consider real are the polls that reinforce the narratives you want to be true. Hell, that Nate basically guessed what the results would be before this latest poll dropped should tell you everything you need to know: the pollsters are herding, making sure their polls fit the dominant narrative. Nate isn't a genius who is tuned in to the pulse of the electorate, he's an elite who is tuned in to the wants and needs of the existing power structure. That he seems to believe he has some special insight is pretty sad when all he's really proving is how deeply he's been indoctrinated. bless your heart
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 11:37
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:No, this is extremely unlikely at credible polling outfits. It's the biggest no-no and instant blackball from the industry. Read some nate on it The article you link was (presumably) written in response to this tweet where a pollster advocates for and admits to throwing away 'outliers' https://twitter.com/JohnAnzo/status/1166729666268454912 In an article from 2014 on 538 he says similar things about re-doing polls that fail his "smell test", which he says is fine because apparently just re-running the poll isn't the same as manually changing the results of the poll: quote:John Anzalone, of Anzalone Liszt Grove Research, drew a distinction between revising numbers to match others’ and rejecting polling results that don’t pass the smell test. He pointed out that even an optimal poll will get poor results — off by more than the margin of error — one out of 20 times. “That is just statistics,” Anzalone said. When his firm suspects that’s happened, sometimes “we will go back into the field at our own cost to check.” Conducting a brand-new poll is not at all the same as changing a poll’s findings. Anzalone Liszt Grove Research is on 538's list of pollsters and gets a C rating.  Also from that article: quote:When we asked the same question about other pollsters, our respondents were more inclined to suspect copying. Of the 14 who answered, eight thought some pollsters adjusted their numbers to match published polls’ results. Two people cited Enten’s article as the reason for their belief. Another said, “I’ve just noticed over the years that certain organizations have wild fluctuations in their numbers that often follow the release of a poll with numbers that run counter to what they had recently published.” Why should we have faith in the industry when even the pollsters themselves think malpractice is rife?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:The polls are only accurate if they show Bernie winning. Yes and how are we going to "un-skew" these polls?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
it really is obnoxious none of these fuckers ran in 2016. shoulda cleared the field for the one person that did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2019 13:59
|
|
