• 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.
d4m10n said:
I'm going to say that once the number goes from 58% up to 66% we'll be in faith-based territory.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that would require an actual net loss in delegates in tonight/Saturday's combined contests. I haven't done the actual math though. I also don't think it's going to happen if you take the whole week into account. Arizona is his biggest weakness here.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
True, but I think he will do that -- maybe not tonight, but by the end of Saturday. In any case, a numerical win in delegates received will still prop up the public perception and the morale of his supporters, even if he doesn't attain 58%. This will help him in future contests.
Click to expand...
There are going to be no future contests for Bernie except for his 2018 Senate election (assuming he runs) which he would easily win. He is already 74 years old.
 
Manopolus said:
Oh? Are you being psychic again? I was talking about the rest of the primaries.
Click to expand...
Don't need to by psychic to believe what I said. It is simply how it is.

And it becoming even harder for him to win isn't going to help him in the rest of the primaries.
 
Tony Stark said:
Don't need to by psychic to believe what I said. It is simply how it is.

And it becoming even harder for him to win isn't going to help him in the rest of the primaries.
Click to expand...

You sure seem to be claiming to know the future to me. It isn't the present we're talking about here. Also, there are no mechanisms which predict these things in anything resembling an empirical manner.

How about we ask the people (you, others) making the positive claims of knowing the future to support their conclusions instead of me? The polls are out, unless you can show them to be relevant in a manner that takes new voters into account. Nate Silver's predictions do nothing other than take a bunch of faulty polls and combine them in various ways. I'm not sure how you can deem that more accurate than the polls themselves, and those are known to fail in predicting anything accurately quite frequently.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
You sure seem to be claiming to know the future to me. It isn't the present we're talking about here.
Click to expand...
What you see as magic is actually just math, logic, and common sense. It is ordinarily Republicans that ignore those things. Sad that people on the left do it too.
 
Tony Stark said:
What you see as magic is actually just math, logic, and common sense. It is ordinarily Republicans that ignore those things. Sad that people on the left do it too.
Click to expand...

I daresay that your "sense" is a bit too "common." That's another fault of the right if you want to accuse each other of being Republicans. Human behavior is not constrained by polling practices.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
I daresay that your "sense" is a bit too "common." That's another fault of the right if you want to accuse each other of being Republicans. Human behavior is not constrained by polling practices.
Click to expand...
Human behavior is definitely better predicted by polls than by what you wish to be true.
 
Tony Stark said:
Human behavior is definitely better predicted by polls than by what you wish to be true.
Click to expand...

Well, even if you go by the latest poll in Arizona, you've got 50% for Clinton, 24% for Sanders, and 26% "undecided." Leaving out the fact that they threw out anybody that didn't vote in the last election, that 26% undecided could technically still ALL vote for Sanders -- or at least most of them.

So it isn't exactly all that dire any which way, even if the polls are halfway correct. Clinton still doesn't have over 50% of those polled. In any case, the margin of error is at least as high as the 26% undecided, assuming that it has any relevance at all.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Well, even if you go by the latest poll in Arizona, you've got 50% for Clinton, 24% for Sanders, and 26% "undecided." Leaving out the fact that they threw out anybody that didn't vote in the last election, that 26% undecided could technically still ALL vote for Sanders -- or at least most of them.

So it isn't exactly all that dire any which way, even if the polls are halfway correct. Clinton still doesn't have over 50% of those polled.
Click to expand...
When Hillary wins Arizona in a few hours will you admit you are wrong or just make some excuse?
 
Tony Stark said:
When Hillary wins Arizona in a few hours will you admit you are wrong or just make some excuse?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that she wouldn't win. That's called a straw man argument. I just declined to agree with your psychic prediction of the future... that's it. You're the one making the positive arguments here, not me. I have a vague opinion that Sanders will do better than you expect, but that's it... nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
I didn't say that she wouldn't win. That's called a straw man argument. I just declined to agree with your psychic prediction of the future... that's it.
Click to expand...
Your "argument" that predicting the future based on data is magic is the strawman.

Just because you are incapable of seeing reality accurately doesn’t mean that those that are claim to have super powers.
 
Tony Stark said:
Your "argument" that predicting the future based on data is magic is the strawman.

Just because you are incapable of seeing reality accurately doesn’t mean that those that are claim to have super powers.
Click to expand...

Well, there you go again. You are substituting the word "reality" for a "psychic" prediction of the future. Those two are not equivalent.
 
d4m10n said:
Predictions based on polling and probability theory actually do work. Just ask Linzer, Wang, Silver, Jackman, etc.

Here's a thoughtful roundup of the 2012 predictions. Not overly math heavy.

http://rationality.org/2012/11/09/was-nate-silver-the-most-accurate-2012-election-pundit/
Click to expand...

The link you provided, at a glance, showed a graph that showed just the opposite. Most overstated Romney, some by large margins. There were even some polls that predicted that Romney would win the election, as I remember. He didn't even come close.


And again, we're comparing a general election to a primary here. A primary most generally has fewer participants, and no party lines per se. Also, it's pretty damn predictable what the states that always vote the same way will do.
 
Last edited:
And yet many academics were able to perfectly predict the outcome using fairly straighforward maths.

For your own sake, go beyond a glance.
 
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