Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[wareyin]

Please quit trying to make a caricature of everyone that supports the subject of this thread. That's just plain inappropriate.

Are you a Sanders supporter? Yes. Are you claiming that states which Clinton won were ties? Yes. No caricature required.

 

[Manopolus]

Are you a Sanders supporter? Yes. Are you claiming that states which Clinton won were ties? Yes. No caricature required.

I would also call Michigan a virtual tie. Like I said, there's no bias. Bernie won Michigan -- but it was as close to a tie as the others mentioned. In addition, who I am is not subject to your disturbing characterizations. Only I get to say what my opinion is on something -- you don't get to do that. because you are not the one living in my head.

You don't even know me, dude.

 

[wareyin]

Please quit trying to make a caricature of everyone that supports the subject of this thread. That's just plain inappropriate. If you want to attack someone, maybe you should concentrate on the candidate himself instead of boxing everyone that supports him into a monolithic stereotype that isn't even realistic, much less accurate.

All I said was that they were virtual ties. So was Michigan, if it makes you feel any better (and Illinois, and Missouri). There's no bias anywhere in that statement. It's a simple statement of fact.

You tend to edit these posts after I respond. I don't always catch your edits, but this time I did, and I'll respond to this one. The only bias here is the extreme, almost religious, fervor for Sanders. I am not anti-Sanders, I am realistically assessing his chances of winning, and using real numbers to count primaries, caucuses, and delegates won. Throwing away large numbers of delegates, as Sanders supporters such as yourself are doing, in order to pretend that Sanders is doing well at all is not factual. Pretending that all polls from here on out will be worse than any poll ever conducted before is not reasonable. Pointing out that you are doing both is not a caricature, and pointing out that Sanders has virtually no chance of getting the nomination is not an attack on you.

 

[Manopolus]

You tend to edit these posts after I respond. I don't always catch your edits, but this time I did, and I'll respond to this one. The only bias here is the extreme, almost religious, fervor for Sanders. I am not anti-Sanders, I am realistically assessing his chances of winning, and using real numbers to count primaries, caucuses, and delegates won. Throwing away large numbers of delegates, as Sanders supporters such as yourself are doing, in order to pretend that Sanders is doing well at all is not factual. Pretending that all polls from here on out will be worse than any poll ever conducted before is not reasonable. Pointing out that you are doing both is not a caricature, and pointing out that Sanders has virtually no chance of getting the nomination is not an attack on you.

Sorry, but that's NOT what you're doing. You are constantly pretending that:

1) My argument is something other than what it is (straw man).

-and-

2) I am some absurd stupid-guy that can't see reason... and you project that onto anyone else that supports Bernie while doing so.

Neither is even close to accurate. Yes, I get that Bernie has a hard task ahead if he is to win this thing. I never said he would be the winner. All I'm saying is that it is still possible for that to happen. That's all I've ever said. It doesn't even matter to me how freaking -likely- it is. I find that sort of navel gazing to be irrelevant. The campaign pundits that yammer on about who has the best chance to win where bore me to tears. I don't think that's even the discussion we should be having with regards to politics. Those aren't even the things I care about WRT an election.


Your newly coined "Bernie bubble" garbage needs to just end. It's just plain rude. It is not conducive to any sort of reasonable dialogue.

 

[wareyin]

Sorry, but that's NOT what you're doing. You are constantly pretending that:

1) My argument is something other than what it is (straw man).

-and-

2) I am some absurd stupid-guy that can't see reason.

Neither is even close to accurate. Yes, I get that Bernie has a hard task ahead if he is to win this thing. I never said he would be the winner. All I'm saying is that it is still possible for that to happen. That's all I've ever said. It doesn't even matter to me how freaking -likely- it is. I find that sort of navel gazing to be irrelevant.

1) When you insist that all of the remaining polls are likely to be off by greater than the worse poll in the history of political polling, this is your argument. When you insist that we must not count superdelegates, this is your argument. I'm not strawmanning them.

2) At no point have I said, meant, or implied that you are stupid. I continue to hope that you will see reason, which is why I continue to explain that wins are wins, delegates count, and Sanders doesn't have enough of either, nor a realistic way to get them.

 

[Manopolus]

1) When you insist that all of the remaining polls are likely to be off by greater than the worse poll in the history of political polling, this is your argument. When you insist that we must not count superdelegates, this is your argument. I'm not strawmanning them.

No, it doesn't require them to be off by "greater than the worst poll in the history of political polling." Being off by 20% margins (on average) in the remaining states would be sufficient.

2) At no point have I said, meant, or implied that you are stupid. I continue to hope that you will see reason, which is why I continue to explain that wins are wins, delegates count, and Sanders doesn't have enough of either, nor a realistic way to get them.

Okay, so where's the "Bernie bubble" comment coming from? I see reason quite fine, thank you very much. It is reasonable to assume that:

If Clinton has not clinched the nomination
Then it is still possible (however unlikely) for Bernie to win.

That's the only "reason" that needs to be applied to the question. The polls are irrelevant, especially since there's a distinct -lack- of polling for the remaining states. Any poll also doesn't account for events that happen AFTER the poll is finished (meaning it doesn't account for the campaign activities yet to come). That part should be obvious, I would think. Also, you have yet to answer my complaint about specific polls that just throw out anybody that didn't vote in 2012, rather than basing it on new voter registration numbers. I've repeated that over and over again, and yet you have not shown that this is an appropriate procedure.

Here's an example of a future event that may influence the NY vote, but isn't even connected to a campaign:

http://www.democracyspring.org/

Will it matter? Hell, I don't know. I'd guess it depends upon how big it is and how much press it gets. The guy I got that from is from Nevada -- so it isn't exactly a smallish local event. It ends the day before the NY primary. It's really just another episode of the occupy movement, but it has parallels with Bernie's campaign (and third party campaigns as well).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Here's an example of a future event that may influence the NY vote, but isn't even connected to a campaign:

http://www.democracyspring.org/

Will it matter? Hell, I don't know. I'd guess it depends upon how big it is and how much press it gets. The guy I got that from is from Nevada -- so it isn't exactly a smallish local event. It ends the day before the NY primary. It's really just another episode of the occupy movement, but it has parallels with Bernie's campaign (and third party campaigns as well).

Are you going?

This is what I've been saying all along, Sanders isn't drawing a big enough following. You'll see that when this march and sit-in fails to draw MLK Dream Speech crowds.

You know why it won't? Because people have jobs. They don't have the time to spend 9 days in a protest march followed by another week in a sit in, nor do they have the funds. They aren't oppressed, they are just disadvantaged. They have a cause and a reason, but they don't have the outrage of people protesting the Vietnam War where all of us knew someone killed or at risk of being killed. They don't have the outrage of overwhelming discrimination of an entire ethnic group.

 

[Manopolus]

Are you going?

This is what I've been saying all along, Sanders isn't drawing a big enough following. You'll see that when this march and sit-in fails to draw MLK Dream Speech crowds.

You know why it won't? Because people have jobs. They don't have the time to spend 9 days in a protest nor do they have the funds.

Oh please. Have you even been to a Sanders rally? They're huge. Usually more people show up than can get in. This event doesn't require that people be there the whole time either -- and it's not like DC isn't in the middle of the most populous area of the country. A goodly number of the participants will just be passing by for a limited time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh please. Have you even been to a Sanders rally? They're huge. It doesn't require that people be there the whole time either -- and it's not like DC isn't in the middle of the most populous area of the country.

Oh please, do you see the difference:

15,000 local people in a college town or a city like Seattle is not a 9 day march and 6 day sit in in one area of the country.


BTW, I'll take that as a 'no, you won't be able to attend.'

 

[Manopolus]

Oh please, do you see the difference:

15,000 local people in a college town or a city like Seattle is not a 9 day march and 6 day sit in in one area of the country.

Well, no. It's not a Sanders rally either -- it's more like The Occupy Movement revisited. That had quite a few participants though, didn't it? In this case, they're trying to make it a little less local in participation, too.

BTW, I'll take that as a 'no, you won't be able to attend.'

I don't even have the money to get there. If I lived in Philly I'd be in it all the way. D.C. happens to be exactly 1200.3 miles away from here though (I checked). I can't exactly walk that far even if I started today.

 

[wareyin]

No, it doesn't require them to be off by "greater than the worst poll in the history of political polling." Being off by 20% margins (on average) in the remaining states would be sufficient.

Which again, is an unrealistic expectation.

Okay, so where's the "Bernie bubble" comment coming from? I see reason quite fine, thank you very much.

A filter bubble, whether it's a Republican bubble, or a Bernie bubble, causes "users [to] become separated from information that disagrees with their viewpoints, effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles." It does not imply stupidity, it implies ignoring information which disagrees with one's hopes, in this case that Sanders still has a shot.

It is reasonable to assume that:

If Clinton has not clinched the nomination
Then it is still possible (however unlikely) for Bernie to win.

That's the only "reason" that needs to be applied to the question. The polls are irrelevant, especially since there's a distinct -lack- of polling for the remaining states. Any poll also doesn't account for events that happen AFTER the poll is finished (meaning it doesn't account for the campaign activities yet to come). That part should be obvious, I would think.

The polls are entirely relevant. Much more so than wishful thinking, when attempting to gauge public opinion.

Also, you have yet to answer my complaint about specific polls that just throw out anybody that didn't vote in 2012, rather than basing it on new voter registration numbers. I've repeated that over and over again, and yet you have not shown that this is an appropriate procedure.

I don't see why my opinion on your complaint is relevant. I'm more interested in results. How have your predictions fared against Nate Silver?

 

[Manopolus]

I don't see why my opinion on your complaint is relevant. I'm more interested in results. How have your predictions fared against Nate Silver?

Pretty well in Michigan.

I haven't made much in the way of specific predictions since Illinois, which admittedly didn't turn out so well. My point is that they're useless.

 

[grunion]

Comparing "virtual ties":
Clinton beat Sanders by 0.3% in the Iowa caucus, a 4 vote difference in a state with a population of 3 million. Sanders beat Clinton by 1.5% in the Michigan primary, by about 18,500 votes (not apples to apples) in a state with a population of 10 million.

Sanders is a true progressive and that is why he has my support. He is not perfect but he is the best potential Democratic candidate that I have seen in my lifetime. Hillary, if she wins the nomination, will be the lesser of two evils vote that somehow reminds me of the choice I am always forced to make.

 

[Manopolus]

A filter bubble, whether it's a Republican bubble, or a Bernie bubble, causes "users [to] become separated from information that disagrees with their viewpoints, effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles." It does not imply stupidity, it implies ignoring information which disagrees with one's hopes, in this case that Sanders still has a shot.

I assure you, I'd be ignoring polls no matter what the score was. It has nothing to do with my viewpoint other than that I think that polling is a completely useless activity. That applies to psych and sociology polling methods as much as it does to politics. It has been a long held viewpoint -- it is hardly dependent upon my support for Sanders.

I also think that demographic polling by news organizations (and others) to increase their popularity and pander to a population segment is the number one thing wrong with our press nowadays.

Statistics in general I have no problem with, but opinion polling tends to be useless due to the limitation of options and the fact that people don't really have a tendency to know what they want until they see it. Furthermore, there are always some major problems in methodology when you are trying to evaluate people in general. If it were otherwise, personality surveys/categories would actually make sense (which they don't). It usually boils down to a matter of measuring the wrong thing.

In the area of political polling, the problems that crop up are:

1) They throw out results based on flawed assumptions.
2) Every single moment in time is a point at which someone can change their mind.
3) The polls themselves can be used to affect the political process via self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[grunion]

I don't really get the constant harping on whether or not Bernie still has a shot. If I want to encourage people to vote for him of course I want them to believe he has a shot. If I want to discourage people from any hope that a progressive might win the nomination then I would mock those who think that it's possible. So far his popular support has exceeded my expectations by a great deal, thus I will continue to support his candidacy and do what I can to convince others to do the same. The only way for Bernie to win is if we minimize those who say it is impossible.

 

[wareyin]

Pretty well in Michigan.

I haven't made much in the way of specific predictions since Illinois, which admittedly didn't turn out so well. My point is that they're useless.

Counting the singular hit while ignoring the plural misses is not the way to accurately assess performance.

 

[Manopolus]

Counting the singular hit while ignoring the plural misses is not the way to accurately assess performance.

I never claimed to be prescient to begin with. Here you are again claiming that I pretended to be psychic or something. No. I was merely "optimistic."

 

[wareyin]

I never claimed to be prescient to begin with. Here you are again claiming that I pretended to be psychic or something. No. I was merely "optimistic."

Assessing polls does not make one psychic. We've been over this before.



Eta:I think the disconnect here is that you're making claims based on optimism, while I'm making them based on best available evidence. When you say Sanders can still/will win, you're being optimistic, but I hear you making actual claims. When I claim Sanders has virtually no chance, I'm basing that on the numbers, but you hear me putting down your optimism.

 

[Manopolus]

Assessing polls does not make one psychic. We've been over this before.

Too bad you've never assessed one in these conversations. I have. All you've done is vaguely claim that they're pertinent.

 

[wareyin]

Too bad you've never assessed one in these conversations. I have. All you've done is vaguely claim that they're pertinent.

See my previous edit for a different take.

You aren't assessing, you're finding a reason to dismiss what you don't want to hear. I'm not claiming to assess, I'm relying on experts like Silver to do so.