Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

[Manopolus]

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.

Well perhaps I'd better debate with him then, rather than bothering with peons like yourself that can't think for themselves, eh?

Appeal to authority noted. The problem is that I don't recognize his authority on the matter.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well perhaps I'd better debate with him then, rather than bothering with peons like yourself that can't think for yourself, eh?

Appeal to authority noted. I don't recognize his authority.

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the person is, you know, an authority. (whether you recognize it or not)

As for the hilited ... why is that kind of ad hom necessary, is that really the best argument you have ?

 

[Manopolus]

Appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the person is, you know, an authority. (whether you recognize it or not)

As for the hilited ... why is that kind of ad hom necessary, is that really the best argument you have ?

Metaphorical construct for illustration purposes. I did not intend for it to be read as directly ad hominem. It was pure sarcasm.

I don't recognize any authority on opinion polling, to be quite honest. To me, it's the same as recognizing Sylvia Browne as an expert on talking with dead people and psychic predictions.

#3 is the key here:

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.

...in that it effectively explains away any actual results immediately, due to the widely published claims potentially affecting the end result of the election itself. That is a no-go in the scientific process.

 

[d4m10n]

Clinton campaign's has made insinuations that Sanders' supporters are almost exclusively white, and that POC overwhelming support Clinton.

#BernieMadeMeWhite: No, Bernie Sanders Isn't Just Winning With White People

Sanders supporters aren't exclusively white, but he is basically guaranteed to win the states which are nearly so: http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/2016/03/29/graph-week-modeling-democratic-primaries/

This isn't really good news for those who remain bullish 'bout Bernie, however. The upcoming states with the most delegates have plenty of African American and Latino voters.

 

[Manopolus]

Sanders supporters aren't exclusively white, but he is basically guaranteed to win the states which are nearly so: http://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/2016/03/29/graph-week-modeling-democratic-primaries/

This isn't reallg good news for those who remain bullish 'bout Bernie, however. The upcoming states with the most delegates have plenty of African American and Latino voters.

Well, the Latino vote is evenly split by most reports... so non-black minorities don't count in this question. Also, Muslims tend to vote for Bernie, oddly enough. I noticed after the fact that your graph combines the two. If you split them up, Latinos don't seem to have a preference as a group as far as I've been able to determine.

 

[wareyin]

Well perhaps I'd better debate with him then, rather than bothering with peons like yourself that can't think for themselves, eh?

For someone complaining about personal attacks, this is a bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Appeal to authority noted. The problem is that I don't recognize his authority on the matter.

As noted, whether or not you recognize his authority, he is actually an expert. On the other hand, you are claiming to be an expert yourself, while simply asserting optimistic claims. His record is pretty good, with one notable failure, while yours is pretty bad, with one success. Who is the authority, then?

 

[wareyin]

Metaphorical construct for illustration purposes. I did not intend for it to be read as directly ad hominem. It was pure sarcasm.

I don't recognize any authority on opinion polling, to be quite honest. To me, it's the same as recognizing Sylvia Browne as an expert on talking with dead people and psychic predictions.

#3 is the key here:



...in that it effectively explains away any actual results immediately, due to the widely published claims potentially affecting the end result. That is a no-go in the scientific process.

Polling is the same as talking to dead people and psychic predictions? Polling has a well known and understood mechanism, psychics do not. Polling has a track record well better than chance, psychics do not.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Metaphorical construct for illustration purposes. I did not intend for it to be read as directly ad hominem. It was pure sarcasm.

I don't recognize any authority on opinion polling, to be quite honest. To me, it's the same as recognizing Sylvia Browne as an expert on talking with dead people and psychic predictions.

I think that's a ludicrous comparison.

The problem I have is you seem to draw on polls for certain information ... so sometimes they are OK, sometimes they are not, and there isn't any rhyme or reason to your methodology.

IOW - you don't consistently discount all polling information.

The other problem, which is directly related, is that your methodology seems to be just pulling opinions out of your ass. That may work fine for you , but it seems silly for you to argue that any of us should pay a whit of attention to you opinion, based on your methodology.

If you really think this doesn't represent your position, I'll go back and find examples of each.

#3 is the key here:
3) The polls themselves can be used to affect the political process via self-fulfilling prophecy.
...in that it effectively explains away any actual results immediately, due to the widely published claims potentially affecting the end result. That is a no-go in the scientific process.

You mean to say that a poll stating Clinton is leading 63% to $7% is actually causing the results ?

That's fascinating. Do you have evidence of this actually occurring ? How did that work in Michigan ?

 

[Manopolus]

Polling is the same as talking to dead people and psychic predictions? Polling has a well known and understood mechanism, psychics do not. Polling has a track record well better than chance, psychics do not.

As far as the track record in this particular instance goes, the fact that it isn't double-blinded or even single-blinded makes it impossible to measure. Unless you can get all polling agencies to resist publishing their data until AFTER the actual vote, they are scientifically invalid. There is no valid way to test accuracy in the current environment.

That was also very true well before Nate Silver became famous for being more accurate than usual.

 

[d4m10n]

Well, the Latino vote is evenly split by most reports...so non-black minorities don't count in this question.

I suppose we must be looking at different reports. From what I'm seeing, Latinos made the difference for Clinton in the states where they are the least assimilated and most prevalent: NV, AZ, & TX.

 

[Manopolus]

I suppose we must be looking at different reports. From what I'm seeing, Latinos made the difference for Clinton in the states where they are the least assimilated and most prevalent: NV, AZ, & TX.

[qimg]http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160329/0958a3d5adedb14e8dea1326306cad13.jpg[/qimg]

First off, why are there fewer data points? Secondly, there seems to be more locations below the 50% mark than above it even on what you showed. On average, I've seen little to suggest that it is over 50% nationally from a quick google. Below 50% means that less than half voted for Clinton and presumably more than half voted for Sanders if I"m reading it right.

 

[d4m10n]

First off, why are there fewer data points?

I didn't include any state with less than 10% Latino voters in that particular chart. (Sorry, should've mentioned it at the time.)

Where can we find the "most reports" which allegedly show an even split among Latinos? Are these reports helpful in projecting California?

 

[Manopolus]

I didn't include any state with less than 10% Latino voters in that particular chart.

Where can we find the "most reports" which allegedly show an even split? Are they helpful in projecting California?

Actually, the main thing that made me immediately contest it was remembering this article:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...ains-between-chicagos-black-and-latino-voters

Chicago is 28.9% Latino. Illinois as a whole is also over 10%. It's 12.3% by population. Percentage of voters is likely lower, however (guessing).

 

[Maya22]

I don't know if this will help or not.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/06,00

These are just general statistics of the 39 million plus residents of CA. There are only about 17 million voters, since children and some teens are too young to vote, some adults are not citizens, and some adults just don't want to register to vote.

 

[d4m10n]

Actually, the main thing that made me immediately contest it was remembering this article:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...ains-between-chicagos-black-and-latino-voters

Did you catch the part of that article which said Chicago may not be representative of the broader vote?

The support Sanders got from Latinos in the Chicago area last Tuesday was surprising in light of national polls.

Personally, I blame Jesus.

 

[Manopolus]

Interesting tidbit the poll watchers might want to take note of, particularly with regard to recent conversation:

NY Sees 'Unprecedented Surge' in Registration Before Presidential Primary

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-York-First-Time-Voter-Registration-Surge-373128441.html

People that voted in 2012 would not have to register to vote at this time, because they would still be registered. The deadline was March 25. This is a class of voters who the polls threw out as irrelevant. Sorry, but 41,000 voters (quite a lot more than that, actually -- this was just the procrastinators) aren't irrelevant, even in New York.

 

[luchog]

I didn't include any state with less than 10% Latino voters in that particular chart.

Where can we find the "most reports" which allegedly show an even split among Latinos? Are these reports helpful in projecting California?

I posted a link to an article earlier that shows that the split is mainly between older and younger voters, for both the Latino and Black demographics. Sanders has the edge in younger voters, Clinton has the edge in older voters. The trick is going to be seeing how many of each turn out for the remaining primaries. In Primary states, particularly Bible Belt states, more older voters are turning out. In western and caucus states, we're seeing more younger voters.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<>
#BernieMadeMeWhite: No, Bernie Sanders Isn't Just Winning With White People
<>

I posted a link to an article earlier that shows that the split is mainly between older and younger voters, for both the Latino and Black demographics. Sanders has the edge in younger voters, Clinton has the edge in older voters. The trick is going to be seeing how many of each turn out for the remaining primaries. In Primary states, particularly Bible Belt states, more older voters are turning out. In western and caucus states, we're seeing more younger voters.

According to at least one poster, we should just ignore the whole thing, because polling.

Moving beyond that:

Edison conducts entrance and exit polling for American elections and has conducted polls on primary voters and caucusgoers in 20 states so far this election.

Brown said, by some measures, Sanders actually leads among black and Latino voters.

"Among African-Americans, who are 17 through 29, Bernie Sanders is actually leading that group, 51 to 48 [percent]," he said. "Among 17- to 29-year-old Hispanics, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 66-34."

"I think the big takeaway," Brown said, "is that whether it's among whites or African-Americans, Bernie Sanders does significantly better among the youngest voters in the Democratic primary."

I need to see the actual data. It seems pretty incredible Sanders can get, for example, 14% of the black vote in SC, but somehow have 1/2 of the 17-29 year olds. Unless, of course, they only make up 20 % of the voters. And in that case ... why would it be relevant ?

 

[Tony Stark]

At what point will people admit that Bernie basically no chance? If he ends up needing 80% of the delegates in California, will that do it?

 

[luchog]

At what point will people admit that Bernie basically no chance? If he ends up needing 80% of the delegates in California, will that do it?

When Clinton picks up the majority of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Not before.