• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
It's not a good metaphor if you have to keep multiplying entities to make it work.

It's also not a good metaphor because it obfuscates how voters actually relate to candidate options, which is different from how they relate to food options. At some point, to understand the thing, you'll have to discuss the thing in its own terms.
Click to expand...

Next you'll tell us "raining cats and dogs" doesn't mean pet animals are plummeting from the sky.
 
Belz... said:
Hear that, TM? Jokes are disallowed. Evil, maybe, even.
Click to expand...

You're probably the only one that heard that.

What I actually said was, (while all things are allowed) not all things serve the purpose. If the purpose is to encourage support for the Democratic nominee, and voter turnout in the general election, then "jokes" that express hatred for and dismissal of voters may be counter-productive. They're still allowed, of course. What did I say that made you think they weren't?

On the other hand, TragicMonkey heard me saying he was a Democratic candidate for the presidency, so you're not the only one with a comical misunderstanding of what I said.
 
ArchSas said:
Am I missing something, or is this "interesting take" just a paragraph of speculation based on a single graph? I can't see any reason to take her explanation of the trends seriously, especially considering how simplistic and inane it is. Granted, I tend to be skeptical of speculation like that anyway, but this especially seems like something a random person pulled out of their ass.
Click to expand...

It's interesting because it's a hypothesis that makes a testable prediction. Will the next graph be similar to this one, as predicted?
 
theprestige said:
You're probably the only one that heard that.

What I actually said was, (while all things are allowed) not all things serve the purpose. If the purpose is to encourage support for the Democratic nominee, and voter turnout in the general election, then "jokes" that express hatred for and dismissal of voters may be counter-productive. They're still allowed, of course. What did I say that made you think they weren't?

On the other hand, TragicMonkey heard me saying he was a Democratic candidate for the presidency, so you're not the only one with a comical misunderstanding of what I said.
Click to expand...

Whatever made you think my purpose is "to encourage support for the Democratic nominee"? Seems like you have some weird assumptions.
 
theprestige said:
You're probably the only one that heard that.

What I actually said was, (while all things are allowed) not all things serve the purpose. If the purpose is to encourage support for the Democratic nominee, and voter turnout in the general election, then "jokes" that express hatred for and dismissal of voters may be counter-productive. They're still allowed, of course. What did I say that made you think they weren't?

On the other hand, TragicMonkey heard me saying he was a Democratic candidate for the presidency, so you're not the only one with a comical misunderstanding of what I said.
Click to expand...

So it's not just analogies now, but also metaphors and hyperbole you're dead-set against?
 
Belz... said:
No, I'm not. I'm saying that your characterisation of my argument is inaccurate.

My comment was simple: Democratic candidates are held to an absurdly high standard while Republican ones are held to an absurdly low one. This does not mean that every criticism of a democrat is absurd, as I'm sure you realise, hence why your response to my post was met with this reaction:
Click to expand...

Mmm. I misunderstood, then, given the similarity of how you chose to express that compared to those who level those criticisms and similar. My apologies for my misunderstanding.
 
varwoche said:
Speaking of vastly unrealistic ... Medicare for all. My rough as sandpaper take on the odds, assuming Warren (or Sanders) wins the nomination:

Warren/Sanders defeats Trump: 50%
Senate barely swings to Dems: 10%
Senate gets rid of filibuster rule: 33%
Senators Tester and Manchin vote for the measure: 10%​

Equals .16%
Click to expand...

Sorry for bringing up a month old post but I've been away on "vacation" and couldn't get here sooner. acbytesla said that numbers don't work that way, you said they pretty much do, and the truth is somewhere in the middle due to the ambiguity of the numbers you're using. Probabilities don't just multiply together like that unless they are independent (the probability of one happening does not affect the probability of the other). Let me give you a simple example:

Take a fair, six sided die. Paint "Heads" on all the even numbered sides, "Tails" on all the odds. What's the probability of rolling a Three and a Tails in the same roll?

Probability of a Three: 1/6
Probability of a Tails: 1/2

Multiplying these gives 1/12, which is obviously wrong because rolling a three guarantees you roll a tail.

The probability of multiple events does multiply, but in general you can't just multiply the original probabilities. This is how it works:

Probability of A and B = (Probability of A) times (Probability of B given that A already happened)

In our example:

Probability of a Three: 1/6
Probability of a Tails, given that a Three was rolled: 1

1/6 * 1 = 1/6

Anyway, the numbers you've presented are ambiguous: In your list, are you giving the individual probabilities for each, or is each already conditioned on all previous items in the list? If it's the former, it's wrong. If the latter, it's correct, but since the numbers were made up anyway it's rather meaningless.
 
Brainster said:
Just a suggestion--whether or not Pete's dad was a Marxist is definitely not a hill you want to defend. His dad spent decades of his life translating the prison notebooks of an Italian communist who died in 1937. Start convincing yourself it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Why? You never convinced anyone that it does matter.
 
Cabbage said:
... Anyway, the numbers you've presented are ambiguous: In your list, are you giving the individual probabilities for each, or is each already conditioned on all previous items in the list? If it's the former, it's wrong. If the latter, it's correct, but since the numbers were made up anyway it's rather meaningless.
Click to expand...
Already conditioned.

Indeed, the numbers are guesstimates at best. I suspect I overestimated -- the odds are effectively nil. I'll be shocked if we even get the public option.
 
Cabbage said:
Why? You never convinced anyone that it does matter.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you have reached the final fallback position. The first fallback position was that I (or the right-wing echo chamber) had made up the story about Pete's parents being Marxists. The second was a rather flimsy attempt to claim that just because they started a society dedicated to the works of the founder of the Communist Party in Italy didn't make them Marxists. BTW, Mayor Pete is not alone; another prominent moderate was a red diaper baby too.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Congratulations, you have reached the final fallback position. The first fallback position was that I (or the right-wing echo chamber) had made up the story about Pete's parents being Marxists. The second was a rather flimsy attempt to claim that just because they started a society dedicated to the works of the founder of the Communist Party in Italy didn't make them Marxists. BTW, Mayor Pete is not alone; another prominent moderate was a red diaper baby too.
Click to expand...

What a waste: As I already explained to you: You have yet to convince anyone that it actually matters to begin with.

You seem to think you're rounding third base when you've yet to reach first. LOL!

You keep trying to come up with excuses to make it matter, bro! I'd rather you waste your time than you actually do something, you know, destructive.
 
Cabbage said:
What a waste: As I already explained to you: You have yet to convince anyone that it actually matters to begin with.

You seem to think you're rounding third base when you've yet to reach first. LOL!

You keep trying to come up with excuses to make it matter, bro! I'd rather you waste your time than you actually do something, you know, destructive.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

It's guilt by association and a desperate pathetic reach.
 
Brainster said:
Great, so let's stop talking about Buttigieg's commie parents. And Harris' while we're at it.
Click to expand...


That doesn't really work when you were the one that brought it up in the first place, bro.

"Hey guys, let's stop talking about this thing I keep bringing up!!"

LMFAO!!
 
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