Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Evidence would help.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread
- Thread starter Trakar
- Start date
- Status
Joey McGee
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 10,307
Did you find evidence that Trump has been diagnosed with borderline personal disorder by the experts yet? You lost your credibility by saying "google it" so I'm surprised you're still trying to spend that currency.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Did you read the entire article, or just cherry pick the bits that supported your outlook.
Irrelevant, since he told them the documentation they had was not sufficient, which was incorrect. If they had sufficient documentation, and he told them it wasn't, he's wrong and being an ass.
Tony Stark
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,626
I've only been contacted by Bernie supporters by phone. Presumably because I donated to his campaign. Did you donate to Hillary's campaign?
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
I didn't say it had anything to do with "why Sanders is losing." That I attribute to The South voting early and The West voting late. There's an attrition effect to go along with that which may or may not finish the deal. We'll see. It's the same damn reason we end up with the most centrist candidate (with a minimal degree of name recognition) winning every time. I don't think that necessarily means we get the "most likely to win" candidate, but some others seem to think so. There's not much evidence either way, since it's the same type of candidate every time.
It's also the same damn reason why Republicans keep veering right -- they do it in mostly the same order that democrats do. The current order of primary voting keeps presidential candidates skewing to the right in both parties.
Last edited:
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,659
It's already been done and I'm fairly sure I posted it to these forums. They totaled up mentions over a period of time and compared them to both candidates poll numbers and search interest in the candidates as based on google searches.
It found that Trump received an insanely disproportionate number of mentions. Clinton received a high disproportion of mentions. Sanders and Paul received significantly less mentions than they should have and all the other candidates were about average.
But there is little point in responding to TCS. Half his posts in the politics section are just to insult Sanders supporters by calling them Berntard, Bernbots, and Bernie Bros. He even posted about how Sanders supports he knew said they knew Sanders would win but wouldn't bet money on it with him. I pointed out that the bet he offered was very unfair to the Sanders supporter. TCS has said several times that Sanders has no chance and he knew he wouldn't win yet when I offered a much fairer bet based on online gambling odds at the time, he never responded.
Some time later in a completely different thread he again made a comment about Sanders supports not taking his bet. So yeah totally wasting your time with him.
Tony Stark
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,626
What exactly were the odds of this proposed bet and can I do it instead?
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Bernie's last real chance was to capitalize on "The Michigan Miracle". Instead he got swept by Hilary last Tuesday.particulary with a bad blowout in Ohio..a swing state in November.
The Michigan Miracle turned out to be a blip,a fluke rather then a harbringer.
Time to face reality Berniacs: Barring some catasropher, it's over.
The Michigan Miracle turned out to be a blip,a fluke rather then a harbringer.
Time to face reality Berniacs: Barring some catasropher, it's over.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
I'd be interested in seeing the numbers on that, since others here have insisted that Sanders has received as much coverage as Clinton.
I don't get why anyone takes anything he says terribly seriously, it's so obviously nothing more than trolling.
Tony Stark
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,626
16.5 is a way bigger troll than he is.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,659
Afraid that ship has sailed
It was near the beginning of the campaign before Sanders showed signs of being a real contender. The way TCS phrased it he basically offered Sanders supports $150 if Sanders won, but he'd get $150 if Sanders lost. Obviously this was massively in his favor, not just because of Clinton name recognition, or media presence, or polling, but also because TCS didn't even have to pick a winner. It was just Sanders loses he wins. But maybe it shouldn't matter if the Sanders supporter believes absolutely that Sanders will win?
As far as my counter bet I can't recall the exact number but the online gambling odds at the time were 100+:1 in favor of Clinton. I said he had to pick his candidate, whoever that may be, and I'd pick Sanders. If neither candidate won then no one gets the money. The amount of money each person had to put up was based on the difference in the gambling odds between the two candidates. So if I pick Sanders for $50, and he picks Clinton who has 100x better odds than Sanders, then he'd have to put up $5,000. Quite a difference, but fair based on the information and odds at the time, and as TCS had said Sanders had no chance of winning, it should have been an easy $50 win for him.
Tony Stark
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2014
- Messages
- 9,626
Fair enough. I guess I will be stuck winning $100 from sunmaster14 when Hillary is not indicted.Afraid that ship has sailed
It was near the beginning of the campaign before Sanders showed signs of being a real contender. The way TCS phrased it he basically offered Sanders supports $150 if Sanders won, but he'd get $150 if Sanders lost. Obviously this was massively in his favor, not just because of Clinton name recognition, or media presence, or polling, but also because TCS didn't even have to pick a winner. It was just Sanders loses he wins. But maybe it shouldn't matter if the Sanders supporter believes absolutely that Sanders will win?
As far as my counter bet I can't recall the exact number but the online gambling odds at the time were 100+:1 in favor of Clinton. I said he had to pick his candidate, whoever that may be, and I'd pick Sanders. If neither candidate won then no one gets the money. The amount of money each person had to put up was based on the difference in the gambling odds between the two candidates. So if I pick Sanders for $50, and he picks Clinton who has 100x better odds than Sanders, then he'd have to put up $5,000. Quite a difference, but fair based on the information and odds at the time, and as TCS had said Sanders had no chance of winning, it should have been an easy $50 win for him.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Did you ignore the video and instead just go with the complaints?
Watch it. The descriptions in the piece don't match at all with what you see on the video.
I urge everyone who believes these students were mistreated to watch the video!!!!!
They weren't. The registrars were told they could not accept PO box addresses. Yes, common sense says the dorm PO box was a little different. But registrars are not allowed to make up the rules as they go. The students expected the registrar could use his/her judgement. THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
Those student were ignorant, naive, it wasn't the registrars' fault. Stop looking for some evil establishment conspiracy. This was not an example of said CT.
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
No but I donate time and effort to Planned Parenthood and I've campaigned for other Democratic candidates before. PP is actively campaigning for Clinton (the rank and file BTW, not the 'establishment' leadership).
Last edited:
Evidence would help.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lar-candidate-mentioned-on-television/402451/
Although this is an older article, the graphics show that mainstream media tends to favor certain candidates. I don't know if the interactive graphic is being updated or not.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,659
I always have trouble finding stuff I posted a while back on here or facebook but I think I found it. Looks like there is an issue with the site at the moment so you'll have to view the cached version.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...uts-president-2016/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
ETA: Seems I remembered incorrectly regarding Trump's media mentions vs polling/searches
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Are you actually working on Team Sanders? This agnosticism towards polling might help explain his irrational optimism.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
From your link:
The graphs look similar. Considering some of that Clinton coverage is negative, it's really not that far out of line.
Trump's coverage, OTOH, is obscene.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Pretty much what I expected. The most recent data is close to two months old, though; I'd want to see more recent numbers before saying for sure this is still a problem. I'm willing to bet it is.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,659
- Status