• 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.
timhau said:
No offense to you personally, but the people who are most bothered by algorithmic trading seem to be ones who have little knowledge about finance and no personal experience about retail investing.
Click to expand...

Well, all I can say is that those in the documentary did not fit that description. I'll admit I know little, personally. It also wasn't all anti-algorithm -- it just pointed out a few problems with it.
 
Argumemnon said:
I'm not under the impression that they've been silent, as I've seen them continue to support Sanders despite lessened enthousiasm, today.
Click to expand...

You know, you could just click on their user name in any post they've made and check the figures. The primary Bernie supporters (we're not including the HDS trolls) have nine posts (all told, not each) since the polls closed Tuesday evening. Last Tuesday, a couple of them had more than fifteen (each).

No one was saying that they've given up their support of Bernie or his "ideals". The comment was merely that they're strangely silent, with the "strangely" part being a tad facetious. I was hoping for a better showing for Bernie, or for any sort of trend that could be seen to be pointing in his favor, but it's just not there. But I don't have unrealistic expectations. I'm kinda pragmatic when it comes to politics. The Feeling Burnt team were sure they were going to continue the Michigan Surprise, and it just didn't happen. I have no doubt they're a little shell-shocked right now.
 
Foolmewunz said:
You know, you could just click on their user name in any post they've made and check the figures. The primary Bernie supporters (we're not including the HDS trolls) have nine posts (all told, not each) since the polls closed Tuesday evening. Last Tuesday, a couple of them had more than fifteen (each).

No one was saying that they've given up their support of Bernie or his "ideals". The comment was merely that they're strangely silent, with the "strangely" part being a tad facetious. I was hoping for a better showing for Bernie, or for any sort of trend that could be seen to be pointing in his favor, but it's just not there. But I don't have unrealistic expectations. I'm kinda pragmatic when it comes to politics. The Feeling Burnt team were sure they were going to continue the Michigan Surprise, and it just didn't happen. I have no doubt they're a little shell-shocked right now.
Click to expand...

Looks like someone's sneering contempt for Rule 12 has reached a new high...

Sad, really.
 
16.5 said:
And... don't get too cocky, Hillary is still a terrible candidate.

"I don't want to hear anymore about your damn emails!"

Oh Bernie, why?

He should have read my posts in the clintonemails thread.
Click to expand...

She does not have to be a good candidate to win.She just has to be better then Trump...and that should not be hard to do.
 
Foolmewunz said:
You know, you could just click on their user name in any post they've made and check the figures.
Click to expand...

I didn't count the posts or made graphs and statistics. I simply noted that they had continued to post, which was the original claim.

Don't blame me for a addressing a claim that wasn't made.
 
Argumemnon said:
She'll be a terrible president, too. Prepare yourself for that.
Click to expand...

Nah, Hilary,at worst,would be a bad president. Trump would be a catastrophe as President.
I proudly admit I am a center left Democrat,and think a lot of Hilary hate is because she is not far enough to the left for some people.
 
cullennz said:
Still don't get why you even vote if it's the delegates and superdelegates that decide it
Click to expand...

Its an indirect system. You vote for a delegate that is pledged to vote for the candidate of your choice. Its very rare that they don't in the first round of voting, because they are that candidates "guy" or "gal". As far as superdelegates, they don't really even have them in the GOP.
 
catsmate said:
So now that Saunders has effectively lost to Clinton, what next?
Click to expand...

What next? We brace ourselves for President Trump.

A lot of people seem to be taking the attitude of "he couldn't possibly make things any worse". I think that's short-sighted, but I also don't think it's going to be nearly as bad as most pundits are making it out to be. With Clinton, you know what you're getting. With Trump, nobody knows. That makes it exciting! :boggled:
 
wareyin said:
How did the polls come out?
Click to expand...

Oh well, I guess I don't win the MDC on that one. Would you like to rub my nose in the fact that I'm not psychic a little more? I used what knowledge I had available, and was slightly wrong. I still don't think the polls mean a whole lot. I'm also pretty sure that they made adjustments in the later polling after Michigan. I'm doubting that most of them were even using the same methods after Michigan. That doesn't even necessarily mean they were more "accurate" so much as artificially moving the needle in the other direction after being proved wrong.

I guess I moved my prediction based on how far I thought they were off in about the same amount that the changed methods moved their predictions. If you recall, Illinois was predicted to favor Hillary MORE than Michigan at the time of the Michigan snafu. That earlier prediction still isn't what happened by a long shot (well, other than in "relative to Michigan" terms). When the pollsters changed their methods, I suppose moving along with them based on how far I thought they were off wasn't the thing to do.

Ohio actually DID line up with earlier predictions, rather than the later ones. I chalk that up to the Kasich/Trump contest drawing independents to the (R) side.

The thing is, when the pollsters are wrong, they adjust. That doesn't mean that their adjustments were any more predictive than before, because it wasn't methodology that was the problem. The problem is that political polling is about as predictive as astrology.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Oh well, I guess I don't win the MDC on that one. Would you like to rub my nose in the fact that I'm not psychic a little more? I used what knowledge I had available, and was slightly wrong. I still don't think the polls mean a whole lot. I'm also pretty sure that they made adjustments in the later polling after Michigan. I'm doubting that most of them were even using the same methods after Michigan. That doesn't even necessarily mean they were more "accurate" so much as artificially moving the needle in the other direction after being proved wrong.

I guess I moved my prediction based on how far I thought they were off in about the same amount that the changed methods moved their predictions. If you recall, Illinois was predicted to favor Hillary MORE than Michigan at the time of the Michigan snafu. That earlier prediction still isn't what happened by a long shot.

...except in Ohio, of course. I chalk that up to the Kasich/Trump contest drawing independents to the (R) side.
Click to expand...
Given the statement I highlighted in the quoted text I was responding to, I have no doubt that you would have been rubbing my nose in it, had your prediction been correct. Still, had you been correct, and Sanders on his way to the Dem candidacy, I wouldn't be upset at all.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
What next? We brace ourselves for President Trump.

A lot of people seem to be taking the attitude of "he couldn't possibly make things any worse". I think that's short-sighted, but I also don't think it's going to be nearly as bad as most pundits are making it out to be. With Clinton, you know what you're getting. With Trump, nobody knows. That makes it exciting! :boggled:
Click to expand...
Given your record of supporting losing candidates and backing failed political movements.,your disdain is good news for Hilary.

And how anybody as far to the left as you are could support Trump is just mind boggling.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Given the statement I highlighted in the quoted text I was responding to, I have no doubt that you would have been rubbing my nose in it, had your prediction been correct. Still, had you been correct, and Sanders on his way to the Dem candidacy, I wouldn't be upset at all.
Click to expand...

I might have mentioned it, but I wouldn't likely have dwelled on it any more than I did the Michigan win. I did predict that one quite well, and was making the same sort of a prediction about Illinois. I suppose I got carried away with how much different reality was than the polling, but I was correct in the original prediction that things were not what they seemed at that time.

The mistake was in assuming that the pollsters weren't adjusting as much as they did. The change in late polling for March 15 was a result of a change in methodology, rather than a change in actual poll responses. That's why Ohio ended up actually more in favor of Hillary than the late polls predicted.

The reason that pollsters seem to be mostly right is that they always immediately adjust when they're wrong. Whether that adjustment is meaningful in any way, other than just moving the needle in the other direction, is a different question.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Given your record of supporting losing candidates and backing failed political movements.,your disdain is good news for Hilary.

And how anybody as far to the left as you are could support Trump is just mind boggling.
Click to expand...

Protectionism and political revolt are the commonalities between Trump and Sanders. Yes, there will likely be some crossovers between the two, unfortunately. Particularly in the rust belt. That's the Achilles heel of thinking that Clinton is the more viable candidate. If someone other than Trump ended up being the (R) candidate, and Bernie pulled off a miracle, the same sort of crossover would go the other way in more significant numbers than you might suspect.

Two populist campaigns will tend to have more left/right crossover than otherwise.

...which is why Sanders needs to stay viable as long as possible if Republicans are to have any hope of unloading their poison candidate. It's already too late for anything but a brokered convention to fix, and even there, they'd just be handing victory to the Democrats. It may still happen though.
 
Last edited:
Axiom_Blade said:
What next? We brace ourselves for President Trump.

A lot of people seem to be taking the attitude of "he couldn't possibly make things any worse". I think that's short-sighted, but I also don't think it's going to be nearly as bad as most pundits are making it out to be. With Clinton, you know what you're getting. With Trump, nobody knows. That makes it exciting! :boggled:
Click to expand...


Yup, she's a war criminal mass murdering psychopath. The countries she dealt with are toast for most inhabitants. But don't let that abstract foreign information distract (the collective) you from the scary prospect of having to deal with something unknown - the nemesis of the pseudo-skeptical mindset.

I agree that after yesterday's results it will be extremely difficult for Bernie to catch up (and I'm sad, not disappointed), and counting on the totally corrupt (collective) head of the FBI to do their job doesn't seem like a sane option.

So from now it will likely get really ugly. Status quo you can pray for, but we all know how useful that is ;)
 
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