• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Manopolus said:
The link you provided, at a glance, showed a graph that showed just the opposite. Most overstated Romney, some by large margins. There were even some polls that predicted that Romney would win the election, as I remember. He didn't even come close.


And again, we're comparing a general election to a primary here. A primary most generally has fewer participants, and no party lines per se. Also, it's pretty damn predictable what the states that always vote the same way will do.
Click to expand...
You should acquaint yourself with Nate Silver and his history with the recent elections before you make any more stupid proclamations.
 
d4m10n said:
And yet many academics were able to perfectly predict the outcome using fairly straighforward maths.

For your own sake, go beyond a glance.
Click to expand...

None of my comments were meant to be applied to a general election. Show me something from a primary if you want to prove that they're pertinent in this situation. It is not uncommon for them to be WAY off in the primary season, and there's reason to believe that a populist candidate will not fall within the usual predictions, due to the appeal to those who may not have voted in the past.
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
You should acquaint yourself with Nate Silver and his history with the recent elections before you make any more stupid proclamations.
Click to expand...

I'm about as likely to give a crap about Nate Silver as I am to be interested in the Kardashians, and I don't even know the name of the show they're on, how many of them there are, etc. I've just heard the name. He's nothing but a celebrity to me. I also have never watched an episode of Donald Trump firing people -- whatever that one was called.

Popular culture is something I summarily ignore.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
I'm about as likely to give a crap about Nate Silver as I am to be interested in the Kardashians, and I don't even know the name of the show they're on, how many of them there are, etc. I've just heard the name. He's nothing but a celebrity to me.
Click to expand...
A "celebrity" that correctly picked 50/50 and 49/50 states in the last two elections based on math and polls. But yeah, that's the same thing as magic.
 
Tony Stark said:
A "celebrity" that correctly picked 50/50 and 49/50 states in the last two elections based on math and polls. But yeah, that's the same thing as magic.
Click to expand...

Something like 42/50 (guesstimated) of which anybody that looked at the last 20 elections could have predicted without doing any polling, so you might want to decrease that achievement a bit.

Also, again... general election. We aren't even talking about margins here, but whether a particular candidate would win or lose in a given state. Again, lower that bar a little bit.


...and I actually have been to his site. He doesn't even say anything with a certainty to begin with. He just predicts that someone has a such-and-so percentage chance of winning in a given place. What Nate Silver does isn't even useful in a proportional primary.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Something like 42/50 (guesstimated) of which anybody that looked at the last 20 elections could have predicted without doing any polling, so you might want to decrease that achievement a bit.

Also, again... general election. We aren't even talking about margins here, but whether a particular candidate would win or lose.
Click to expand...
Yeah Romney was the very clear underdog in 2012 despite what Republicans thought. And Bernie is clearly an even bigger underdog in this primary election despite what some Bernie supporters think.
 
luchog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lots of people being turned away in AZ because they aren't in a Party and it's too late to join one. Will that be reported as cheating Sanders too?
 
Manopolus said:
I'm about as likely to give a crap about Nate Silver as I am to be interested in the Kardashians, and I don't even know the name of the show they're on, how many of them there are, etc. I've just heard the name. He's nothing but a celebrity to me. I also have never watched an episode of Donald Trump firing people -- whatever that one was called.

Popular culture is something I summarily ignore.
Click to expand...


Some people think that just being huge buttocks on the internet makes them as interesting as some "Kardashians", That shouldn't distract you from Nate Silver's attempts at fresh approaches to a very difficult profession, with varying results.
 
Tony Stark said:
Yeah Romney was the very clear underdog in 2012 despite what Republicans thought. And Bernie is clearly an even bigger underdog in this primary election despite what some Bernie supporters think.
Click to expand...

I never said he wasn't. It is still empirically possible for him to win, however. You seem to be claiming otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Lots of people being turned away in AZ because they aren't in a Party and it's too late to join one. Will that be reported as cheating Sanders too?
Click to expand...
I've read that they have run out of ballots some places because lots of independents turned out. They have to take provisional ballots per federal law.
 
Tony Stark said:
It is empirically possible that I will win the next Powerball jackpot too.
Click to expand...

Somewhat less likely (in my estimation), but indeed possible. I'm thinking that Hillary getting struck by lightning might be a little more likely than the powerball win.
 
Last edited:
Guys. Guys...

Guys.

If people just show up to vote....

therefore your statistics are invalid...

Did I get that right ManoehMano?
 
Manopolus said:
Somewhat less likely (in my estimation), but indeed possible. I'm thinking that Hillary getting struck by lightning might be a little more likely than the powerball win.
Click to expand...
It is definitely more like that Bernie will win than that I will win the Powerball jackpot. He is still almost certainly going to lose though.
 
Joey McGee said:
Guys. Guys...

Guys.

If people just show up to vote....

therefore your statistics are invalid...

Did I get that right ManoehMano?
Click to expand...

Well, given that much less than 10% of the population shows up to the primary, on average, then yes... I do think the results can be changed by people showing up that haven't in the past. It'd probably only take a very small percentage of the previously non-voting population to make a significant difference. If you consider that first-time voters lean strongly towards Sanders (on the Dem side), you have my position on the subject without needing further explanation, I would hope.
 
Last edited:
But... the statistics show that that's never going to happen, (in a million years).

I win, thanks for coming out to the ball game
 
Joey McGee said:
But... the statistics show that that's never going to happen, (in a million years).

I win, thanks for coming out to the ball game
Click to expand...

Well, the number of leading presidential candidates that have died before clinching the nomination aren't even as rare as some peoples' degree of certainty suggests, so there's at least one obvious flaw here. It's not the only one.
 
Bernie is down big in Arizona thus far. Though that is only early voting in Maricopa County (where most Arizonans live).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom