|
Berke Negri posted:he probably should have run in 2016 Nah, he knew the Clinton machine was not beatable (in the primary). It’s why everyone didn’t run:
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
Marxalot posted:I feel like this post is seriously discounting the primaries that Sanders won in 2016 despite not having a snowball's chance in hell according to polling at the time, and also that Trump was considered to be even more of a hopeless cause. I'm under absolutely 0 impression that Bernie Will Win for a variety of reasons, but lol if you take the pundit class at their word on pretty much anything involving USpol. to be fair trump winning the general always seemed kind of a long shot for a variety of reasons but the republican primary he was dominant in pretty much from the get go in polling the gop are monsters
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Nah, he knew the Clinton machine was not beatable (in the primary). It’s why everyone didn’t run: yeah this is clinton and obamas fault not that joe should have run (as obama supposedly told him twice, in 16 and now) but an actual field should have been had, even if it still ended up just being bernie v clinton
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:04
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:I think you have me confused with someone else OP. Anyone who actually does that has clearly lost the plot. Everyone knows 7-to-1 odds are unbeatable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:04
|
|
Marxalot posted:It's a cheap shot but somebody has to make it Not the question I asked and intentional misrepresentation of 85%/15% likelihood of winning EV total vs. absolute percentage error in national/state popular vote relative to polling.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'll alert President Hillary Rodham Clinton that someone is making the laughable suggestion that the polling industry could ever humiliate itself in abject failure The national polls were right, it was the state polls that were off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:08
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:to be fair trump winning the general always seemed kind of a long shot for a variety of reasons but the republican primary he was dominant in pretty much from the get go in polling I mean the other 2 behind him at the end were the eldrich horror Ted Cruz and Former Goldman Sachs Competitive Eating Champ Kaich, right? That primary was a complete shitshow. People (including me lol) complain about there being too many drat dems running right now, but the clowncar was real for the 2016 GOP primary. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:09
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The national polls were right, it was the state polls that were off. Even the state polls were not off by that much. It's just that in a winner take all EV allocation an error of one percentage point is meaningful if the poll said 51% vs. 49%. Apply that one percentage point error across multiple big EV states and you end up with 85%/15% Clinton EV forecast turning into Trump landslide. What you need to believe with Sanders today is that every national/state poll is undercounting his vote totals by the 5-20 percentage points necessary to put him comfortably in the lead.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:16
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Even the state polls were not off by that much. It's just that in a winner take all EV allocation an error of one percentage point is meaningful if the poll said 51% vs. 49%. Apply that one percentage point error across multiple big EV states and you end up with 85%/15% Clinton EV forecast turning into Trump landslide. you have biden brain (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:32
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:What was the margin or error in the national vote relative to polls? KingNastidon posted:What about in key states that caused her to lose? How does that margin compare to what would be necessary for Sanders to be leading every poll right now? How well did October 2015 polling predict the actual margins of victory in the primaries
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
He did it, the absolute madman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT-oR59o7Pk
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
Reminder that last 5 most relevant polls for the michigan primary in 2016 according to Nate bronze had Hillary up 11%, 13%, 17%, 24%, and 37%.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:51
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Irrelevant trololololol she lost Yes she lost, but you keep falling back on this because you don't want to acknowledge the polling error was minor. You're mixing the % chance Hillary wins the EV total with raw percentage of vote. If the polls said that a candidate was winning with 50.5% of vote but and their likelihood to win was 75% and then the lost with 49.5% of the vote then that is a very good poll. The eventual result was well within 95% CI. VitalSigns posted:How well did October 2015 polling predict the actual margins of victory in the primaries KingNastidon posted:If the polls are correct KingNastidon posted:Read the first five words of the post ... if the election were held today. KingNastidon posted:necessary for Sanders to be leading every poll right now?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:53
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:He did it, the absolute madman Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 13:55
|
|
|
So Warren still haven't released their fundraising numbers yet. Doesn't that usually mean they got some bad numbers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:So Warren still haven't released their fundraising numbers yet. Doesn't that usually mean they got some bad numbers? Or they’re waiting for Monday to have a news cycle all to themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:So Warren still haven't released their fundraising numbers yet. Doesn't that usually mean they got some bad numbers? Yeah, but it works to wait to release it in the midst of some other news to minimize coverage. Biden getting beat by Buttigieg barely made a blip given everything else going on. I imagine Warren did better than that since this was Biden's most gaff-fest quarter yet, but probably somewhere in the $15-20M range so they decided to hold off when Bernie's came out. If she really cleaned up, it would be strange to hold on to the news this long.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
Ok so worthless glad we agree
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:Yeah, but it works to wait to release it in the midst of some other news to minimize coverage. Biden getting beat by Buttigieg barely made a blip given everything else going on. I imagine Warren did better than that since this was Biden's most gaff-fest quarter yet, but probably somewhere in the $15-20M range so they decided to hold off when Bernie's came out. If she really cleaned up, it would be strange to hold on to the news this long. Or the Warren/Sanders NAP would be better served by them tucking it away to avoid "Warren/Sanders clowning on the other" stories. There are reasons to hold for now. (Or they could just be bad. Who knows?!) Though given the DC shitshow right now they could be having armed gladiatorial combat and it might not make page 2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
if pollsters predicting an 85% chance of one side winning are still correct cause technically a 15% chance of losing is still a chance, you're arguing that pollsters predictions are unfalsifiable unless they claim that there's a 100% chance of something happens. basically, you're reducing the value of pollster predictions so much that I can make the prediction that bernie has a 99% chance of winning the primary and a 1% chance of losing and be as accurate as data crunching pollsters according to the standard being set
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:So Warren still haven't released their fundraising numbers yet. Doesn't that usually mean they got some bad numbers? probably raised $1, reflective of her support but next weekend the cougar grants will probably start rolling in
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
Hillary should have taken the hint in 2008, she never had a place in politics. She was always a nepotism case taken way too far. Even a dynasty candidate can argue that they bring something new to the table from being younger than the last guy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I figure there are people more informed than me That surprises me, considering the endless informed opinions you've presented on these forums, on all the myriad existences between heaven and earth
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:but I’m willing to work with people who want things I don’t want to get things I do. Well I think that perfectly illustrates the difference between you and I. I'm not working to get the things I want. I'm working to get the things that the suffering millions NEED. So yes, every 'issue' is, in fact, a battle for the livelihood of people everywhere. Which is why I will never stop stanning Kamala
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:He did it, the absolute madman at 8:06 you can see blood start to seep through the front of his shirt. Very troubling
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How well did October 2015 polling predict the actual margins of victory in the primaries
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Hillary should have taken the hint in 2008, she never had a place in politics. She was always a nepotism case taken way too far. Even a dynasty candidate can argue that they bring something new to the table from being younger than the last guy. The thing that always amazes me about Hillary Clinton is that she was a "political machine" "insider" politician who had no idea what the inner workings of the political machine actually were. In 2008 her nomination campaign basically showed she didn't understand how the Democratic nomination was actually arrived at in the first place. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4978839&page=1 quote:But her campaign, it would turn out, was based on a series of fundamental miscalculations — about the mood of the electorate, the threat posed by Sen. Barack Obama and even the basic rules of the Democratic primary process. Fast forward to 2016 and Clinton's allocation of resources seemed to be made without reference to the Electoral College itself. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-mich-pa-wis/93577628/ quote:“It’s is nothing short of malpractice that her campaign didn’t look at the Electoral College and put substantial resources in states like Michigan and Wisconsin,” says Democratic pollster Paul Maslin. Neither President Obama nor the first lady was dispatched to Wisconsin, either. Selling out your ideals to "get poo poo done" is one thing, but Clinton didn't actually understand how to get poo poo done on the most basic, elementary school level of politics. It would be breathtakingly stupid if Trump didn't reset everybody's idea of what being stupid in public looks like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1180107147906027525
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:54
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:
This actually happened with the primary polls in 2015, so uh, maybe not the best argument?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:It doesn’t really matter if I can’t take seriously people who criticize “imperialism”, it doesn’t matter what my opinions on housing policy ought to look like, because if I want single payer health care I am obligated to cooperate with people who don’t see the other things exactly the way that I do. Some people just don’t understand at all how to cooperate, partially because they treat every issue like it’s some kind of final battle for the survival of the species (and not just the one that kinda is.) Politics is a matter of life and death for a lot of people. As much as you seem to want to make fun of people talking about imperialism, American foreign policy kills people every day. If you're someone who doesn't preferentially value human lives, then the idea of compromise on issues like foreign policy is tricky, to say the least. I'm not saying this specifically about anyone in the primary, but if someone honestly believes that a candidate's foreign policy positions will lead to greater suffering elsewhere in the world, then how can you expect that person to compromise?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
michigan polling showed clinton at an average of +21. she lost by 1.5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
predicto posted:Because you need to win, and voters care about experience. Well, at least non-Trump voters care. Tim Kaine may not have been a nationally known figure, but he was a US Senator and a Governor, which provides the typical only-slightly-invested-and-not-terminally-online voter with some reassurance that he had a clue what he was doing. Gore and Biden and Pence and Quayle and Cheney and so on all did that. Kaine was a terrible choice and symptomatic of what was wrong with the Clinton campaign. Yeah, let's have a person who is real soft on core issues for key constituencies like abortion rights and gay rights. One thing that Bill Clinton did well was "double down on what you are". Gore was seen as a third way extension of Clinton instead of appealing to the older further left Dems. At the time, people thought it was a mistake. Cheney countered Bush's lack of experience but he is well respected by the hard right of the party so that helped drive turnout. Trump's base is first and foremost the Evangelicals. Pence wasn't an olive branch to them, he was a doubling down. Old guard fiscal conservatives and, to a lesser extent, warhawks are the Republican bases that don't like Trump. The only one that offered a real counter was Biden and Obama needed an older white man for obvious reasons. He's the only one that really "balances" the ticket. Turner doubles down on what Bernie has to offer. Plus have you seen her speak? She is an amazing attack dog. Bernie is super old and when it has an "off" day he really has an off day. Hopefully it will be better now that the blockage is gone but Turner provides energy and excitement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Insanely good video. Those pundits are so nasty. Their insults at him "he's mean, should smile more, disheveled" are so assholish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:Insanely good video. Those pundits are so nasty. Their insults at him "he's mean, should smile more, disheveled" are so assholish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1180135537728004097 Just under Bernie
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/yashar/status/1180135696658550787 Warren finally released her numbers. My math might be wrong but isn't that like average of $26 donations?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:michigan polling showed clinton at an average of +21. It would have helped if she actually campaigned seriously in that state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
$48.33 per donor, which is more important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Just under Bernie I didn’t know Bernie was a Marine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
a guy who can't crack double digits outraising the frontrunner is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:30
|
|