2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
A genuine believer that I don't entirely agree with is a better deal than someone who agrees with me entirely, and the next person too, and some dude over there, then puts out a press release "clarifying" what they meant after a new poll comes out, and, and...
 
dudalb said:
Just like Trump Supporters....
I admit, one reason I don't like the Berniebots is they are Bizarro versions of the Trump fanboys.
Click to expand...

Once again, I am not a fan of Trump's. I did not vote for him the last time (voted for Johnson). I may not vote for him this time around. I just haven't bought into the shrill "he's another Hitler who needs to be removed at all costs," notion.
 
Brainster said:
Once again, I am not a fan of Trump's. I did not vote for him the last time (voted for Johnson). I may not vote for him this time around. I just haven't bought into the shrill "he's another Hitler who needs to be removed at all costs," notion.
Click to expand...

I think Trump is a less evil version of Duterte.
 
Here's an interesting article by two political science professors on how some of the factors leading to Bernie winning those head-to-head matchups with Trump may be unrealistic.

Our data (laid out in an academic working paper here) also found what polls show: that Sanders is similarly electable to more moderate candidates. But, on closer inspection, it shows that this finding relies on some remarkable assumptions about youth turnout that past elections suggest are questionable.
<snipped for brevity of quoted material>
But for Sanders to do as well as a moderate Democrat against Trump in November by stimulating youth turnout, his nomination would need to boost turnout of young left-leaning voters enormously — according to our data, one in six left-leaning young people who otherwise wouldn’t vote would need to turn out because Sanders was nominated. There are good reasons to doubt that Sanders’s nomination would produce a youth turnout surge this large.
<snipped for brevity of quoted material>
First, people who promise in surveys they will vote often don’t, meaning the turnout estimates that Sanders’s electability case rests upon are probably extremely inaccurate. Second, such a turnout surge is large in comparison to other effects on turnout. For example, Sanders would need to stimulate a youth turnout boost much larger than the turnout boost Barack Obama’s presence on the ballot stimulated among black voters in 2008.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
Here's an interesting article by two political science professors on how some of the factors leading to Bernie winning those head-to-head matchups with Trump may be unrealistic.
Click to expand...

It's the problem with modern polls and surveys. They aren't really polls and surveys in the usual sense. They aren't "35% of the people surveyed said...." In my youth, that's what a poll was.

Ring....
Ring....
"Hello"

"Who are you voting for for president?"

"Nixon"

"Thanks" - adds one to Nixon.

Report count, as a percentage.


In the modern world, it usually goes more like

Ring..
Ring..
(Glance at unknown number)

or

Ring...
Ring....
"Hello"

"Hi, we're...…" (silence. Phones don't click when you hang up anymore. There's also nothing hanging.)

So, instead, they count up all the answers they can from people who actually answer, and then they apply a mathematical model to that data that says if X people said they would vote for Bernie, that probably means Y people will vote for Bernie, and they report the Y values.

The "poll" is only as good as the model.
 
dudalb said:
THIS.THIS.THIS.

Bitter fact is that some on the left have no objections to dictatorships so long as they mouth Left Wing Rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I know it's real trendy right now to say that Bernie is the left-wing version of Trump, but it's a claim that doesn't stand up to a tiny bit of scrutiny.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Hard to believe there are millions of suckers out there who think all they have to do is vote for Comrade Bernie and everything will be free.
Click to expand...

Hey, Brooklyn, here's an interesting report (by a conservative institute) that points out why the analysis of the economy by economists does not match the experience of the ordinary person:
Lead author Oren Cass distills it as follows: “In 1985, the typical male worker could cover a family of four’s major expenditures (housing, health care, transportation, education) on 30 weeks of salary,” he wrote on Twitter last week. “By 2018 it took 53 weeks. Which is a problem, there being 52 weeks in a year.”
Click to expand...

That's why the 'booming" economy won't help Trump as much as you think.
 
Meadmaker said:
It's the problem with modern polls and surveys. They aren't really polls and surveys in the usual sense. They aren't "35% of the people surveyed said...." In my youth, that's what a poll was.



Ring....

Ring....

"Hello"



"Who are you voting for for president?"



"Nixon"



"Thanks" - adds one to Nixon.



Report count, as a percentage.





In the modern world, it usually goes more like



Ring..

Ring..

(Glance at unknown number)



or



Ring...

Ring....

"Hello"



"Hi, we're...…" (silence. Phones don't click when you hang up anymore. There's also nothing hanging.)



So, instead, they count up all the answers they can from people who actually answer, and then they apply a mathematical model to that data that says if X people said they would vote for Bernie, that probably means Y people will vote for Bernie, and they report the Y values.



The "poll" is only as good as the model.
Click to expand...

Every poll I see says right on it how many respondents there were and of what kind.

The ones about candidate choice are shown as a percentage.

You seem to be describing polls that are attempting to predict his turnout.

Can I see those?
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Former McDonald's CEO Ed Rensi said McDonald's hamburgers will cost 9 to 10 dollars if Tom Steyer's 22 bucks an hour minimum wage should come to pass.
Click to expand...

Hey, Brooklyn, you're forgetting Economics 101. If wage costs go up for McDonald's, they'll go up for all the other fast food joints as well. But, since a substantial portion of the fast food industry are those on the low end of the economic scale, they won't be able to raise prices because their mainline customers will find another source for their calories (and fat :( ). Read this for a quantitative analysis:

What if McDonald’s increased wages? A minimum wage increase would improve the living standards of fast-food industry workers. But what would happen then? It can’t pass on a wage increase to customers by increasing menu prices, as that would likely result in a loss of customers. Low-income consumers make up a large portion of McDonalds’ customer base.
Click to expand...

And, while I'm typing, Brooklyn, let me ask you a couple more questions:
  1. Have you stopped listening to Rush like you stated? You conveniently ignored my previous two queries.
  2. When I provide links to solid sources (as opposed to, say, Breitbart) that knock many of your cockamamie ideas into cocked hat, you never respond, recognizing reality for what it is. Why not?
 
For the debate, so far, Bernie's getting the expected heat, and his responses have been... expected. It's one of his big weaknesses. I don't think it will comfort any Never Bernies.

Biden had a weird mansplaining moment with Klobuchar, and Warren was jumping into everyone's time. But otherwise it looks like everyone still sees a reason to stay in. Pete smartly got ahead of his own police scandals.

Bloomberg seems to be treating the whole thing with disdain. What did he call the others? "Competitors" or something, like a game show?
 
SezMe said:
Hey, Brooklyn, you're forgetting Economics 101. If wage costs go up for McDonald's, they'll go up for all the other fast food joints as well. But, since a substantial portion of the fast food industry are those on the low end of the economic scale, they won't be able to raise prices because their mainline customers will find another source for their calories (and fat :( ). Read this for a quantitative analysis:



And, while I'm typing, Brooklyn, let me ask you a couple more questions:
  1. Have you stopped listening to Rush like you stated? You conveniently ignored my previous two queries.
  2. When I provide links to solid sources (as opposed to, say, Breitbart) that knock many of your cockamamie ideas into cocked hat, you never respond, recognizing reality for what it is. Why not?
Click to expand...

Well, I've never had economics 101, but I do know if their employee costs go up 60% overnight they'll be in the deepest of doo doo whether they do raise prices to cover the costs or they don't, because the numbers simply would not work. Obviously they would look to automation and see what was possible in that area so they could eliminate enough employees to make the numbers work. That's what happens when a know-nothing politician pulls a number out of the air and thinks it is a good idea. (I used to manage a fast food restaurant.)

I never said I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh so you have me confused with someone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom