Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread

[Manopolus]

No one has claimed Silver conducts his own polls, but he certainly vets the polls he uses. You really should read up on the guy before making silly claims like this.

I'm sorry if I don't share your opinion about one of your heroes. Note that he claimed a 99% certainty that Hillary would win Michigan. Hell, he even leaves himself a 1% out in case he is wrong (and not just in Michigan), so it's not like he's even standing behind his own predictions the same way that you are.

 

[wareyin]

I'm sorry if I don't share your opinion about one of your heroes. Note that he claimed a 99% certainty that Hillary would win Michigan. Hell, he even leaves himself a 1% out in case he is wrong (and not just in Michigan), so it's not like he's even standing behind his own predictions.

His methodology is not a matter of my opinion, and as he isn't pretending to be psychic, he's giving probabilities. Are you similarly dismissive of your TV weather person for claiming 80% chance of rain?

 

[Manopolus]

His methodology is not a matter of my opinion, and as he isn't pretending to be psychic, he's giving probabilities. Are you similarly dismissive of your TV weather person for claiming 80% chance of rain?

Rain does not depend upon predicting human behavior. There is no meaningful equivalence. Human behavior is rather notoriously unpredictable. As far as we know, "President McPresidentface" could suddenly become a popular Democratic candidate in the Washington caucus and win there in a landslide. It isn't even limited to the choices given.

 

[wareyin]

Rain does not depend upon predicting human behavior. There is no meaningful equivalence.

I'm flabbergasted at the level of denial required to keep claiming that polling is not a useful indicator of elections because it was wrong one out of what, 30 times? What has your track record been again?

 

[Joey McGee]

http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/how-much-will-government-spend-under-the-next-president/

Ouch! You know who's not bullish on Bernie? Anyone involved with the market in any way!

 

[Joey McGee]

DP

 

[Manopolus]

I'm flabbergasted at the level of denial required to keep claiming that polling is not a useful indicator of elections because it was wrong one out of what, 30 times? What has your track record been again?

Umm... well... there is the fact that Idaho and Utah had Bernie winning by nearly 80%, and the polls only had him in the 50% range. Seriously, every one of them is off quite a bit on margins. In the "who will win" category they're slightly more accurate, but mostly what I'm talking about is that the margins are WAY off. That has proved to be mostly true throughout the primaries.

Also, not all polls are created equal. There are quite a few out there that are complete nonsense. Of those that aren't complete nonsense, many are outdated.

 

[wareyin]

Umm... well... there is the fact that Idaho and Utah had Bernie winning by nearly 80%, and the polls only had him in the 50% range. Seriously, every one of them is off quite a bit on margins.

Ummm, OK, you can find a few polls that nobody gave much credence to (Silver never used them, for instance) that were inaccurate (maybe why Silver never used them?) in order to discredit Silver's use of much more accurate polls. Does this seem well thought out to you?

 

[Manopolus]

[qimg]http://s9.postimg.org/lrabgjo5r/Size_of_Gov_Arrows_01.jpg[/qimg]

http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/how-much-will-government-spend-under-the-next-president/

Ouch! You know who's not bullish on Bernie? Anyone involved with the market in any way!

...except for those intelligent enough to realize that the velocity of money is increased by redistribution and minimum wages, thus increasing sales potential. That would tend to help those industries that rely on mass consumption.

 

[Manopolus]

Ummm, OK, you can find a few polls that nobody gave much credence to (Silver never used them, for instance) that were inaccurate (maybe why Silver never used them?) in order to discredit Silver's use of much more accurate polls. Does this seem well thought out to you?

None of them are particularly accurate. Like I said, they can be vague indicators, and that's about it. They don't predict actual outcomes in any way that is meaningful. I've also mentioned many times that most/all of them assume that a certain class of voters won't show up -- a certain class of voters that specifically support Bernie by large margins. That is why the margins they predicted in states where he has won have been way off.

 

[jhunter1163]

As has been pointed out above, Sanders does much better in caucuses than he does in primaries. After the upcoming string of caucuses, though, it's almost entirely primaries the rest of the way. Also, the Democrats' fully proportional system of allocating delegates means that Sanders needs to counter landslides with landslides. It's not enough for him just to win; he has to win big, and he has to win big in states with a lot of delegates in order to have any hope of erasing Clinton's lead in pledged delegates. And even if he gets close, there are the superdelegates.

I think Sanders has been good for the discussion; he's clearly tapped into a vein of populism. He just doesn't have a realistic path to the nomination.

 

[wareyin]

None of them are particularly accurate. Like I said, they can be vague indicators, and that's about it.

Well, if that is what you have to tell yourself in order to think Sanders still has a shot, OK. I'll just keep on paying attention to the guy who has been pretty darn reliable on predicting these things rather than wishful thinking.

 

[Manopolus]

Well, if that is what you have to tell yourself in order to think Sanders still has a shot, OK. I'll just keep on paying attention to the guy who has been pretty darn reliable on predicting these things rather than wishful thinking.

Is there some specific reason why you have to believe anything at all prior to the actual results? Does it change any decisions you have to make? If not, then why claim to know the answer like some sort of a God believer?

Do you "have faith" in Nate Silver? Will he deliver you from all your sins or something?

 

[wareyin]

Is there some specific reason why you have to believe anything at all prior to the actual results? Does it change any decisions you have to make?

Why do you feel the need to believe that Sanders will win Washington prior to the vote?

 

[Manopolus]

Why do you feel the need to believe that Sanders will win Washington prior to the vote?

I think there are reasons to think that this will be the case, but I don't claim to know the results. The degree of certainty you've been expressing stinks of faith. You and others have been denigrating anybody that suggests that a different result is possible with regards to the final election result. It is YOU that is denying that any result other than your own predictions is possible. I have not done that.

 

[lobosrul]

[qimg]http://s9.postimg.org/lrabgjo5r/Size_of_Gov_Arrows_01.jpg[/qimg]

http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/how-much-will-government-spend-under-the-next-president/

Ouch! You know who's not bullish on Bernie? Anyone involved with the market in any way!

How much of that is single payer healthcare though? More spent in taxes, but less spent on insurance premiums and deductibles.

 

[wareyin]

I think there are reasons to think that this will be the case, but I don't claim to know the results. The degree of certainty you've been expressing stinks of faith. You and others have been denigrating anybody that suggests that a different result is possible with regards to the final election result. It is YOU that is denying that any result other than your own predictions is possible.

Not at all. Reading polls, and giving them different weights based on their methodology and the past accuracy of those conducting them is simply not a religion, nor is it supernatural. I wonder, though, if your repeated claims of others religion or faith isn't actually more indicative of a religious fervor for Sanders.

 

[Trakar]

Senator Warren Cheerleads for Senator Sanders

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) praised her colleague Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for his presidential efforts, saying he shouldn’t drop out of the race despite trailing frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

‘‘He’s out there. He fights from the heart. This is who Bernie is,’’ Warren said Thursday, according to the AP. ‘‘He has put the right issues on the table both for the Democratic Party and for the country in general so I’m still cheering Bernie on.’’ (...)

Too bad Clinton isn't a lot more like Warren, then there wouldn't be a Democratic Party dilemma, except that Bernie would be front-running against Senator Obama with the full support of president Clinton and the DNC.

 

[Manopolus]

Not at all. Reading polls, and giving them different weights based on their methodology and the past accuracy of those conducting them is simply not a religion, nor is it supernatural. I wonder, though, if your repeated claims of others religion or faith isn't actually more indicative of a religious fervor for Sanders.

Oh, so you HAVE admitted that some other result is possible? If so, I haven't seen it. Quite the opposite. Keep in mind that I have not once said that it isn't entirely possible or even likely that Hillary will win this one. All I've said is that it is still entirely possible that we will see a different result.

 

[wareyin]

Oh, so you HAVE admitted that some other result is possible? If so, I haven't seen it. Quite the opposite.

Perhaps if you took of the Bernie Blinders, you might be better able to accurately assess what is and isn't possible.