Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #426  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:15 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCCXXX
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Hey here's a script for the coming articles from the pundits
Salon, April 2008:Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!
Quote:
This riveting Democratic primary campaign has provided us with its own stock characters: There are the young "Daily Show"-watching Obama-maniacs getting over their irony addiction by falling earnestly in love with the senator from Illinois. There are the pissed-off second-wave feminists, uptight and out of touch, howling as their dream of seeing a woman in the Oval Office fades. And then there are the young women caught between them.

According to the media script, these cool young customers have embodied their elders' worst nightmare of a generation that takes feminism's victories for granted by throwing over Hillary Clinton for her challenger faster than you can say "I've got a crush on Obama." These young women are way over feminism, we're told, and perceive gender bias to be an antiquated notion. They are embarrassed and annoyed by the public entreaties of warhorses like Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan. Pressure from their forebears only serves to alienate them from the second wave and drive them further into the disheveled embrace of the "Yes We Can!" dude down the block.

There is truth to this exaggerated electoral tableau. Young people are voting for Obama; Clinton is a troubling candidate for many women and men; and there is a sense that younger women feel more distant from second-wave feminist leaders than ever before.

Yet some female voters have begun to express nearly as much disenchantment with the Obama-mania of their peers as with their Clinton-promoting mothers. And even while they voice dismay over the retro tone of the pro-Clinton feminist whine, a growing number of young women are struggling to describe a gut conviction that there is something dark and funky, and probably not so female-friendly, running below the frantic fanaticism of their Obama-loving compatriots.

I began reporting this story in part because, as a 32-year-old woman who is more liberal than either candidate, and who was quite torn until Super Tuesday, I had found myself increasingly defensive of Clinton in the face of the Obama worship that rules the mostly white, liberal, well-educated circles in which I work and travel. I was confused by the saucer-eyed, unquestioning devotion shown by my formerly cynical cohorts, especially when it was accompanied, as it often was, by a sharp renunciation of Hillary Clinton, whose policies are so similar to her opponent's. I was horrified by the frequent proclamations that if Obama did not win the nomination, his supporters would abstain from voting in the general election, or even vote for John McCain. I was suspicious of the cultlike commitment to an undeniably brilliant and inspiring man –- but one whom even his wife calls "just a man."
That Obama, and those shitty, ironic, hipster Obama supporters... what a creepy sexist with cult-like supporters; clearly something there. We all remember it that way, right?

It's a dishonest script, don't get played.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-18-2020), SR71 (01-18-2020)
  #427  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:18 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCCXXX
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

CNBC,today:Sanders climbs, now tied with Biden among registered voters: Reuters poll
Quote:
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has been steadily climbing in popularity this year and is now tied with former Vice President Joe Biden for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination among registered voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos national poll.

The online poll, released Thursday, shows that 20% of registered Democrats and independents said they would back Sanders over 11 other candidates to run in the general election against President Donald Trump, an increase of 2 percentage points from a similar poll that ran last week.

Another 19% supported Biden, 12% said they would vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren, 9% backed former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and 6% said they would support Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

Sanders and Bloomberg have increased their level of support in each of the last three Reuters/Ipsos polls starting in mid-December, while support for Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg has remained flat.
Here's a poll, released Thursday:
Bernie Sanders Leads All Democratic Candidates in New Hampshire, Poll Shows
Quote:
Sanders is leading the field in New Hampshire at 23 percent, followed by former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 18 percent, and former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren both at 14 percent.

"While Bernie Sanders remains in the lead in New Hampshire, it appears his supporters are doubting that he will be the actual nominee, with only 49 percent expecting him to win the nomination," Spencer Kimball, Emerson College's polling director, said in a press release. "On the flip side, Joe Biden supporters are confident, with 87 percent thinking he will be the nominee."

Senator Amy Klobuchar succeeded Warren at 10 percent, followed by entrepreneur Andrew Yang at 6 percent, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard at 5 percent, and billionaire Tom Steyer at 4 percent.

On February 11, New Hampshire will be the second state to decide which Democratic candidate voters prefer to nominate on the 2020 ballot, and it will be the first to do so via primary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-18-2020), SR71 (01-18-2020)
  #428  
Old 01-18-2020, 04:15 AM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict... The cup is empty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCLXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sock Puppet View Post
Standing on principle's got nothing to do with it. That's why I'm less than certain that a Senate trial can be "unambiguously unfair" enough to sway ... pretty much anybody who doesn't already notice and/or care that the GOP doesn't give a shit about fairness. I'm not suggesting the Dems should refuse to allow Hunter's testimony, just that it's not really a bargaining chip at all.
Some of the Senators seem to think he is.
Quote:
This week, reported Politico, Republicans such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas have approached Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with a proposal of “reciprocity:” If the Democrats want to hear from former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Republicans should hear from Biden.
Quote:
“I’m not saying it wouldn’t be interesting,” Cornyn continued. “I’m not saying he won’t be called as a witness, but if he is called as a witness—I mean Bolton, for example, is called witness—I agree with Sen. Cruz and others who said they should be done in pairs, or in other words there needs to be witnesses called by both sides.”
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 01-19-2020, 03:07 PM
slimshady2357's Avatar
slimshady2357 slimshady2357 is offline
forever in search of dill pickle doritos
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VCCXCII
Blog Entries: 6
Images: 52
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

This is a quick interesting quiz you can take to show which candidates you align with most.

Quiz: Which of these 2020 Democrats agrees with you most? - Washington Post

My results:

Warren 15
Sanders 13
Yang 10
Steyer 10
Buttigieg 7
Klobuchar 6
Gabbard 6
Bloomberg 4
Biden 3

This does seem to match closely with how I feel about the candidates as Warren/Sanders are my top 2 and Biden is by far my last choice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (02-10-2020), SR71 (01-20-2020)
  #430  
Old 01-19-2020, 10:40 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCDLVIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

I got something like:

Warren 14
Sanders/Buttigieg/Steyer 10
Klobuchar 8
Biden 5
Gabbard 3

But that's kind of a weird selection of questions, it doesn't distinguish anything but a binary "do they agree or not" and it conflates some instances where some candidates have said "I support X" and others have said "we should consider X" giving them equal weight.

I think isidewith is probably a better measure since it covers more issues and allows you to prioritize them. In that case, I got:

Warren/Sanders 95%
Steyer 93%
Buttigieg/Klobuchar 92%
Yang 90%
Gabbard 89%
Biden 86%
Bloomberg 77%
Trump 14%

Now, it's still the case that there are some questions and issues and intensities that can't be measured accurately with that. Some questions like about single payer, I want to say "single payer is a good way to do healthcare, but not the only good way, and it may be easier to achieve universal healthcare with a different approach but whether it's a public option paired with expansions of Medicaid and Medicare or single payer, I support a massive expansion in public healthcare provision. Even without a full single-payer system, single payer for all minor children would also be a good idea that would probably be popular with voters."

So there are are things about Sanders that push him below Warren for me, but also some of them aren't related directly to policy questions. His age and health, his staffing decisions and my concern about how he'd be as the party leader (people complained that Obama was not interested in building the party and winning seats downballot etc. it's kinda hard to see Bernie Sanders, whose never been a Democrat aside from during his presidential campaign, as dedicated to building the Democratic Party, tbh) aren't in these sort of quizzes. And I wasn't asked how I feel about billionaire dilettantes who are flooding the field with money and buying their way into primary debates when they could be doing something more useful with that money, and I couldn't express how stupid I find the idea of Congressional term limits without compressing my scale for everything else.

Likewise, there were no questions about how candidates feel about Narendra Modi and Hindu nationalism, and that's a question that would make Gabbard lower.

And there are at least some issues, it seems, where Trump is taken at his word - like his "support" for investing in infrastructure, which despite multiple "infrastructure weeks" has come to nothing.

So while the scale is pretty accurate I'd probably push Sanders slightly down, Buttigieg and Yang down a bit, Steyer and Bloomberg down another bit, Gabbard down a lot, and Biden slightly up. And Trump down even further, despite there not being much room below.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
slimshady2357 (01-20-2020), SR71 (01-20-2020), The Man (01-19-2020)
  #431  
Old 01-20-2020, 12:41 AM
The Man's Avatar
The Man The Man is offline
Safety glasses off, motherfuckers
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sarasota, FL
Gender: Bender
Posts: MVCMXXXVII
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Washington Post quiz:

Warren 15, Yang 11, Steyer 11, Sanders 10, Buttigieg 9, Klobuchar 8, Bloomberg 7, Gabbard 6, Biden 5

ISideWith quiz:

Warren/Sanders 94%
Steyer 93%
Buttigieg 92%
Klobuchar/Gabbard/Yang 90%
Biden 81%
Delaney 73%
Bloomberg 67%
Trump 18%

Results liable to change as I didn’t rank questions in order of importance, and I might change a couple of my answers as I’m not super thrilled with any of the options for some. (The property vs. sales tax question is a particular standout here: some people may have trouble paying property taxes if land represents a disproportionately large percentage of their holdings, but I don’t care for sales taxes either, since they tend to be regressive. I may remove my answers for a few of them. There are also a few where I don’t feel I know enough to specify an opinion, but may do some research and provide answers later.)

I must confess that I had no idea how many of our politicians were such utter naifs, though:

Screen Shot 2020-01-19 at 18.48.56.png

Warren and Sanders are the only ones who got this question right, for reasons I explained at length a little over three years ago. The fact that the rest of the candidates are expressing agreement with Donald Trump ought to give them pause.

I also have no idea on earth how ISideWith measures authoritarianism and libertarianism. It has the Republicans as less authoritarian than the Democrats, which makes no sense unless you’re just letting the “Libertarian” Party define the terms of libertarianism, which is batshit, and it says:

Quote:
You side slightly towards “authoritarian”, meaning you more often believe it is the government’s role to provide stability, equality, and opportunity for its citizens. This theme is somewhat important to you.
That is… not what authoritarian means. At all.

Overall, quizzes like this are good at evaluating how much you agree with specific candidates on policy matters, but policy isn’t the only reason to choose a candidate. Temperament, age/health, staffing decisions, ability to work with others, grasp of the Republican Party’s threat to democracy, and other characteristics that have very little to do with policy stances can matter just as much as, or more than, policy. For this reason I’d probably raise Warren by about 2 points, lower Sanders by about 2 points, lower Gabbard by about 10 points, and raise Biden by about 4 points on both of those listings (and lower Trump by ∞ points on the ISideWith quiz), even though I clearly agree a lot less with Biden than I do with some of the other candidates. (This is also the main reason I ranked Harris much higher than policy questionnaires would likely have ranked her for me.)

To some extent, these quizzes are also overstating the amount of influence a presidential candidate can have over policy, anyway. On a lot of these issues, the deciding factor is what bills can get through Congress; the stance of the president has little importance on them. Foreign policy and other matters that are controlled by the executive branch are the areas where the president has the most direct impact, but for issues like healthcare and the tax code, the legislature will have much more impact.

This problem isn’t unique to quizzes like this, to be clear; they’re endemic in news coverage about the presidential election. Overall, though, I’d much rather have Biden in office with a strongly Democratic House and Senate than Sanders in office with a Republican Senate, even though I agree much more strongly with Sanders on policy. (I am not saying that Biden would have stronger coattails than Sanders would, to be clear, but he might.)

I’m finding myself increasingly resigned to the fact that Biden might end up being the nominee. I think he’s the wrong candidate for the wrong time, but I’m also far to the left of the median Democratic voter, much less the median American voter. I’m utterly sick of the vitriolic infighting I see from the Extremely Online Left and find myself increasingly tuned out from it. Warren is far above the other candidates in my personal ranking right now, but I’m also not prepared to tell Biden’s base – which at the moment includes a lot of racial minorities and women – that they’re wrong.

The stakes of the next election are too high to allow myself to get de-energised if the party coalesces around a candidate I’m not thrilled with. Democrats have to win the next presidential election and as many of the Senate and House races as possible. We can focus on trying to push politicians to enact as many of our policy preferences as possible after the election.

(ETA: One other problem with quizzes like the above is that they are predicated upon certain assumptions, such as “The nation-state is a beneficial institution that should continue to exist.” I happen to disagree with this proposition, and all of my stated policy preferences in these quizzes are conditional upon the knowledge that we are unlikely to eliminate nation-states in my lifetime. Of course, none of the politicians running for office have, AFAIK, expressed opposition to the existence of nation-states, either, so one might say I find myself forced to vote for the candidate who least disagrees with me rather than for the candidate who most agrees with me.)
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam esse dēlendam.



ďAll for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.Ē -Adam Smith

Foolís Goldlast.fmsoundcloudMarathon Expanded Universe

Last edited by The Man; 01-20-2020 at 01:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (01-20-2020), erimir (01-20-2020), slimshady2357 (01-20-2020), SR71 (01-20-2020)
  #432  
Old 01-20-2020, 03:16 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCDLVIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
I must confess that I had no idea how many of our politicians were such utter naifs, though:

Attachment 11022

Warren and Sanders are the only ones who got this question right, for reasons I explained at length a little over three years ago. The fact that the rest of the candidates are expressing agreement with Donald Trump ought to give them pause.
I didn't look at their responses on that question specifically but that's a yikes.

At least only Steyer is the only one to have put any unusual emphasis on it (although Yang was tweeting out about his plan for term limits in the past week, so ugh).
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (01-21-2020)
  #433  
Old 01-22-2020, 10:56 PM
fragment's Avatar
fragment fragment is offline
mesospheric bore
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCCXVI
Blog Entries: 8
Images: 142
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
That's true, but I would imagine the hypothesized relationship would be
So I disagree with several things you say in this post, but the disagreements are more about statistical methods than politics so unless someone expresses an interest I think I'll leave them.

However, while I generally want to stay put of the squabbling here, I want to point out this

Quote:
the theory that chunks was putting forth - that Bernie Sanders victory in the 2016 WV primary would give him the ability to put it into play
chunks put forward no such theory, and it seems like an uncharitable reading of his post to consider such a theory to be implicit.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-22-2020)
  #434  
Old 01-23-2020, 12:14 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCDLVIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by fragment View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
That's true, but I would imagine the hypothesized relationship would be
So I disagree with several things you say in this post, but the disagreements are more about statistical methods than politics so unless someone expresses an interest I think I'll leave them.
That you think there might be some alternative model which could use that as one of many independent variables instead of as the sole independent variable doesn't change the fact that that's not what chunks posited.

And I don't deny that there could be some such more complicated model. I've said that there's no reason to believe that it is a variable useful for predicting a candidate's general election performance, at least in presidential elections. The reason you might believe it is the hypothesis I suggested - which doesn't sound unreasonable prima facie! I understand why you might think that it's predictive. More supporters in a state would, in theory, give you both better primary and better general election performance. It just doesn't appear to hold up.

While these do not prove its uselessness as a predictive variable
1. respected prognosticators don't use it, and given that it is a much discussed variable (in 2016 there was a lot of discussion of where the two candidates were winning and the implications for the general election), there's little reason to think it hasn't been considered. They could simply have missed an interaction though, sure.
2. it evidently doesn't have a simple relationship of the sort one might hypothesize, given the lack of correlation I pointed out. But the possibility of a more complicated relationship isn't that relevant given that chunks didn't talk about a complicated relationship.
3. given that we have a relatively small sample of presidential elections to use and the dynamics of primaries (many candidates, different candidates with different positioning and weaknesses, candidates dropping out at different times, etc.*) adding confounding noise, if you want to posit a more complicated relationship, one with perhaps interactions between variables, may mean that we simply don't have enough data to discover a relationship that can be trusted not to simply be overfitting.

Ergo, I feel fine saying there's no reason to think that it predicts general election outcomes or overall popularity, at least for presidential candidates.

*The 2016 Democratic primary offers a relatively simple data set, since Iowa was already basically a two-person race and the third candidate dropped out after it, so the dynamics of multi-candidate races don't really affect things. But even so, if you tried to use Trump's performance, the issue you'd run into is that this was not the case in the Republican primary, so Trump's performance in Iowa against many opponents is not clearly equivalent to Clinton's performance in Iowa against essentially one opponent. They also have different rules in the GOP primary which create different dynamics.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
the theory that chunks was putting forth - that Bernie Sanders victory in the 2016 WV primary would give him the ability to put it into play
chunks put forward no such theory, and it seems like an uncharitable reading of his post to consider such a theory to be implicit.
He thinks there's some significance that Joe Manchin, who has won multiple elections in WV, would be afraid of crossing Bernie Sanders (but perhaps not of crossing other Democrats), due to the fact that Bernie Sanders won the primary there by a strong margin across the state.

This seems to imply that Bernie Sanders is popular there, perhaps uniquely so among Democratic politicians, and that is what would make Manchin afraid of Sanders. There has to be some reason he thinks it should affect Manchin's behavior, right?

Regardless of whether you take the stronger (Sanders is popular enough to put WV in play - a claim I've seen from many Sanders acolytes and which I don't think it's that unreasonable to impute to chunks on the basis of other things he's said) or a weaker form of that (Sanders is popular enough in WV to put Manchin's general election victory at risk), there's no way to interpret that that doesn't imply some relationship between primary results and general election results. A simple relationship which does not hold.

The only other interpretation is that he thinks that Manchin's primary election could be at risk because Sanders is more popular among WV Democrats than Manchin, even if Sanders isn't popular enough to win a general election there. But that's even more ludicrous because while Sanders won the WV primary by 15 pts with about 51% of the vote, Manchin won his last primary by ~40 pts with ~70% of the vote, a fact I previously pointed out. This doesn't seem to make chunks's argument look any better.

I don't really see an interpretation of what chunks said that doesn't appear ridiculous on closer examination of the data. I may be a linguist, but I have a computer science degree (language technologies), I have experience and training using machine learning and statistics, I read 538 regularly, including the articles describing the statistical methods underlying their models, I have some understanding of these things. Chunks is just saying "Bernie won the WV primary, ergo Manchin's political incentive is to fall in line behind Bernie", and there's just no reason to believe that's true.

Given the lack of any supporting evidence and multiple lines of evidence against what he's saying, I'm curious as to how to interpret it as anything other than chunks just finding a stat that looks good for Bernie in WV and putting it out there as if it proves his point without doing much of anything to investigate whether it actually supports what he's saying or the evidence against his point. So what do you think the charitable interpretation is of chunks's argument there?
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:04 AM
fragment's Avatar
fragment fragment is offline
mesospheric bore
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCCXVI
Blog Entries: 8
Images: 142
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

erimir, I don't really care about the implications for chunks' position. Mostly I don't think you understand that statistical inference and prediction are two different things, since you're frequently switching between the two without making the distinction carefully.

chunks was making a point about the hypocrisy of leaders and commentators not criticising Manchin the same way they have progressive democrats.

Quote:
This doesn't seem to make chunks's argument look any better.
More charitable interpretations being wrong wouldn't mean that we should leap to assuming the less charitable, and more wrong, interpretations.

Even this one, which might well be correct:
Quote:
I'm curious as to how to interpret it as anything other than chunks just finding a stat that looks good for Bernie in WV and putting it out there as if it proves his point without doing much of anything to investigate whether it actually supports what he's saying or the evidence against his point.
It's still not a claim that Sanders would put WV in play.

But by all means carry on with your snark campaign.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-23-2020), Crumb (01-23-2020)
  #436  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:51 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCDLVIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by fragment View Post
erimir, I don't really care about the implications for chunks' position. Mostly I don't think you understand that statistical inference and prediction are two different things, since you're frequently switching between the two without making the distinction carefully.
And do you think that there's reason to think that primary performance should be interpreted differently depending on which one you're interested in?
Quote:
chunks was making a point about the hypocrisy of leaders and commentators not criticising Manchin the same way they have progressive democrats.
Yes, and he implied there was some connection to how Bernie Sanders did there.

I did also give a number of other reasons why it is, regrettably from the perspective of someone on the left, not the case that someone like Omar has leverage equal to that of Manchin. I brought it up again because there hadn't been a 2020 general election poll of WV until the other day, which is why my focus was on that aspect.
Quote:
Quote:
This doesn't seem to make chunks's argument look any better.
More charitable interpretations being wrong wouldn't mean that we should leap to assuming the less charitable, and more wrong, interpretations.

Even this one, which might well be correct:
Quote:
I'm curious as to how to interpret it as anything other than chunks just finding a stat that looks good for Bernie in WV and putting it out there as if it proves his point without doing much of anything to investigate whether it actually supports what he's saying or the evidence against his point.
It's still not a claim that Sanders would put WV in play.

But by all means carry on with your snark campaign.
I gave multiple interpretations, of which that is just one, but all of which are wrong. It's also the case that I've seen many people suggest that Bernie could win WV - you may think that it's a less common assertion, that I'm putting something so ridiculous nobody would say it into chunks's mouth - but even people associated with the Sanders campaign have suggested he could put it in play. So it's not that unreasonable to think chunks might think that. But even so, why are you so focused on that one interpretation as if it's the only thing I put forward? It seems as much nitpicking as what you're complaining about me supposedly doing. My point was that it was wrong by any interpretation, not that he definitely meant one or the other.

In fact, I think the part where Manchin won his last primary by 40 pts but should nonetheless be afraid of Sanders, who won WV by a much smaller 15 pts, far more ridiculous than someone suggesting, say, that Sanders would do better in a general election in WV than Clinton did. Particularly when you incorporate the fact that Hillary Clinton won the 2008 WV primary by 41 pts for all the good it did her.

Of course, chunks isn't going to clarify, because he's blocked me precisely because I call him out on this kind of BS, such as his claim that the ACA was the same as the Heritage plan (it is not), that Democrats had gutted the social safety net under Pelosi/Obama (they did not, but rather they expanded Medicaid to millions more people) and so forth. He prefers to be able to make unsupported assertions without being challenged.

Last edited by erimir; 01-23-2020 at 02:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (01-23-2020)
  #437  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:21 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCCXXX
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Well... you may have heard that Hillary Clinton decided more shade regarding Bernie Sanders, the Senator who campaigned for her at forty individual events and locations in 2016 after she won the primary:

"Nobody likes him," - Hillary Clinton

2 million individual donors, over 5 million donations. Way, way, way more than any other democratic candidate in the race. By far.

Morning Consult has him listed as the most popular US senator for the last four years. His favorability rating in every major poll has him consistently as the most favorable candidate, and the most trusted candidate on the major issues.

Dr. Cornell West, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Pramila Jayapal, Killer Mike, Cardi B, Danny DeVito, Danny Glover, Ariana Grande, Mark Ruffalo, Emily Ratajkowski- nurses unions and teachers unions- a few people like Bernie, it turns out.

'I Like Bernie' hashtag trends after Clinton criticizes Sanders

"...nobody wants to work with him." -Hillary Clinton

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, leading progressive congresswoman, endorses Bernie Sanders for president
And note the cosponsors in the next section.

"He got nothing done."- Hillary Clinton
Vox, March 2019: Senate passes resolution to end US role in Yemen war
Quote:
“This war is both a humanitarian and a strategic disaster, and Congress has the opportunity to end it,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of the bill’s sponsors and a 2020 presidential candidate, said in a Tuesday statement. According to humanitarian agencies, at least 85,000 children have starved to death in Yemen since the war began and around 14 million are at risk of famine.

The bill, co-sponsored by Sanders along with Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which states that if US troops are involved in “hostilities” abroad “without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.”


Amazon is raising its minimum wage to $15 following pressure from Bernie Sanders

Sanders gets funding for community health centers

The Pension Revolt
Quote:
When Lou Gerstner, IBM's iron-willed CEO, makes a decision, he usually sticks by it. So how was it that 10 days ago he made an abrupt about-face, scaling back a change to the company's retirement plan that was supposed to save $200 million annually?
...>snip<...
That message quickly found a receptive audience in Washington. Both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the IRS are investigating cash balances' legality. And last week Representative Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, introduced a bill that would hit companies with tax penalties if they switched to a cash-balance plan without giving all workers the option of staying in the old one. "Millions of Americans are feeling 'pension anxiety' because under current law there is no guarantee that their pension benefits will not be cut tomorrow," says Sanders.

Just as Congress was gearing up to hold hearings on the issue, IBM announced it would change the eligibility rules to double the number of workers--to 65,000--who would be able to keep their old pensions.
Disneyland agrees to boost employee wages to $15 an hour
Quote:
Following pressure from unions and Sen. Bernie Sanders, Disneyland has agreed to a three-year contract to pay their employees a $15 per hour living wage.
Senators Introduce Legislation to Create National Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Quote:
WASHINGTON, DC - Senator John Kerry (D-MA) today joined his colleagues Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Pete Domenici (R-NM), and Charles Schumer (D-NY), in introducing legislation to establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund (NHTF), which will address the serious housing needs of millions of households.
Energy Conservation Grants Announced for Vermont Communities
Quote:
SOUTH BURLINGTON, Vt., March 29 - U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Gov. Jim Douglas (R) today announced energy efficiency and conservation grants totaling $5.8 million for 147 schools, towns, and cities across Vermont.

The economic stimulus funds were distributed to the state through an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants program. The Vermont Department of Public Service and the state Clean Energy Development Fund reviewed applications and recommended the recipients.

The recovery program appropriated $3.2 billion to create jobs while moving the country toward energy independence and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, said Sanders, a member of the Senate energy and environment committees and chairman of the Green Jobs and New Economy Subcommittee. Sanders and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) authored the provision in the 2007 energy bill which created the block grants program in the U.S. Department of Energy.
There's a lot more, but you maybe get the point.
"It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women.” - Hillary Clinton
Young Women Actually Make Up More of Bernie's Base Than Men Do

Bernie Sanders is the Most Popular 2020 Candidate Among Hispanic Voters, New Polling Finds

'Authenticity,' 'Culturally Relevant': Why Bernie Sanders Is Resonating With Latinos

Leading Among People of Color and Younger Voters, Sanders Right Behind Biden in New 2020 National Poll

Good thing Sanders didn't expect or need Hillary Clinton's endorsement or her petty and clear demonstration of her elitist disconnect. Bernie supporters from all over the US are literally knocking doors in Iowa in zero degree weather and asking them to canvass for Bernie, are on the ground in New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina and California and Texas and seriously we are ten deep in every primary state and rotating to super Tuesday. Three people from our cadre here in Oregon just came back from knocking doors in Iowa- teachers and a college student. One of them convinced a server in Spanish in the restaurant they frequented to caucus for Bernie, explained the caucus process and where to go, and to bring her boyfriend and mom. Others convinced people in freezing weather at their door to caucus for Bernie, simply by explaining Bernie's platform and what's at stake. You know, heartless, vindictive, mean-spirited, Bernie bros. Spending their money and time and going and asking strangers to fight for Bernie.

Saturday I canvassed for Bernie with others and then that night dialed and texted for Bernie with about ten other people.Eric Andre likes that work too.

We aren't playing. In to win. All the way through Clinton and Obama and their centrist machines, all the way through Trump, through the corporations and billionaires and their media empires and lackeys. 40% of the world this year will be in turmoil and revolution. Boomer voting bloc waning. Temperature rising. Time to stand up. No middle ground, no going back. Fight for working people, the way Bernie Sanders has for forty years.

Ask yourself who has the most energized and dedicated base. Ask yourself who has the youngest, most diverse base of support. Ask yourself whose vision is the most compelling and human and bold in addressing the real needs here on the ground in America.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-23-2020)
  #438  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:31 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCDLVIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Well... you may have heard that Hillary Clinton decided more shade regarding Bernie Sanders [...]

"Nobody likes him," - Hillary Clinton

2 million individual donors, over 5 million donations. Way, way, way more than any other democratic candidate in the race. By far.
I don't think what she said was wise, but predictably, you can't expect people to accurately quote it. Nobody honestly thinks she's talking about his donors.

She said "He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done." She's clearly talking about his lack of friends in Congress. He got only 7 endorsements from representatives and 1 from a senator by the end of the primary. Bernie himself said to the NYT editorial board that he doesn't do the pleasantries, happy birthday and all that... exactly the sort of thing that would make you friends.
Quote:
His favorability rating in every major poll has him consistently as the most favorable candidate
[emphasis mine]
This is simply false. Joe Biden's favorability is higher than Bernie's in the RCP average, and Warren is basically tied with him... His favorability has been higher than Bernie's in many polls, including the most recent iteration of the Monmouth poll (a highly respected pollster, A+ 538 rating, i.e. "a major poll"). If you want to make a case on the polls, the fact is that Biden's polls are better on average.

I wouldn't want to be uncharitable, so I guess the fact that chunks frequently makes easily disproved false claims like this, even after I've called him out in the past (before he put me on ignore) is because... I dunno, he's unaware that you can look these things up? Otherwise I might be tempted to suggest he just doesn't care that it's false.

Like I get that he likes Bernie Sanders. And there is a case to be made for him. But I find the constant stream of either lies, bullshit or ignorance from some of his fans to be highly irritating. There's a case to be made without putting out bullshit like claims that all of Bernie's polls are better than everyone else's when they simply aren't.
Quote:
Following pressure from unions and Sen. Bernie Sanders, Disneyland has agreed to a three-year contract to pay their employees a $15 per hour living wage.
Like this one too... is a bit of an exaggeration.

California's minimum wage is going up to $15/hr in a few years due to a law passed by their Democratic legislature and signed by their Democratic governor. This deal makes it go to $15/hr for Disneyland's unionized employees only a couple years earlier, which makes it a rather smaller concession than it sounds like. Yes, I'm sure the Disneyland employees appreciated Bernie's support! It was good that he supported them! I wish more Democrats would do the same!

But who deserves credit? The Democratic legislature and governor of California, that passed the minimum wage increase, that made it so that this wasn't that big of an ask? The union that negotiated the increase for their members? No, clearly, it's the Senator from Vermont's accomplishment, despite the fact that he has no formal power in California and just made a speech.

Elizabeth Warren has been known to attend a union rally or picket too. But I've never seen anyone put a union's victory in her list of accomplishments just because she visited and lent her support!

Ironically, it's the Sanders supporters, who would like most to claim the mantle of champions of labor, who are the ones I see minimizing a labor victory in favor of giving credit to their candidate.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (01-23-2020)
  #439  
Old 01-24-2020, 04:45 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCXXVI
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (01-24-2020)
  #440  
Old 01-24-2020, 12:36 PM
fragment's Avatar
fragment fragment is offline
mesospheric bore
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCCXVI
Blog Entries: 8
Images: 142
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
And do you think that there's reason to think that primary performance should be interpreted differently depending on which one you're interested in?
This isn't merely about interpretation. The type of model you might build, and your criteria for choosing between models, will be different.

Take the 538 primary model. It's in the business of prediction. The demographic component doesn't even try to do any kind of inference. It just runs up to 360 regressions to cover all combinations of predictor variables, then goes with a weighted average of the lot based purely on how well each regression fits. It doesn't attempt, for example, to determine which of the four different race specifications is actually a good representation of voting behaviour. This is fine for a predictive model, but it's just nonsense for inference, i.e. understanding what's actually going on in a complex world.

There's a whole world of discussion and theory around this stuff. When you say things like "it's not used in predictive models, therefore there must be no demonstrable association" you're making a massive logic error.

Quote:
why are you so focused on that one interpretation as if it's the only thing I put forward?
Gee, maybe because it's the one you mentioned when you brought this up two and a half months after chunks' post. You know, the same interpretation you ascribed to him in your follow-up post as if it's established fact.

Quote:
nitpicking
If I wanted to nitpick I would have plenty more material.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-24-2020), Kamilah Hauptmann (01-24-2020)
  #441  
Old 01-24-2020, 08:45 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCDLVIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by fragment View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
And do you think that there's reason to think that primary performance should be interpreted differently depending on which one you're interested in?
This isn't merely about interpretation. The type of model you might build, and your criteria for choosing between models, will be different.

Take the 538 primary model. It's in the business of prediction. The demographic component doesn't even try to do any kind of inference. It just runs up to 360 regressions to cover all combinations of predictor variables, then goes with a weighted average of the lot based purely on how well each regression fits. It doesn't attempt, for example, to determine which of the four different race specifications is actually a good representation of voting behaviour. This is fine for a predictive model, but it's just nonsense for inference, i.e. understanding what's actually going on in a complex world.

There's a whole world of discussion and theory around this stuff. When you say things like "it's not used in predictive models, therefore there must be no demonstrable association" you're making a massive logic error.
I didn't say that "there must be no demonstrable association". I said multiple times that it didn't prove that, but here you are putting it into my mouth. It's really not coming off well to complain about my lack of charity in interpreting chunks, who is unwilling to clarify, but you're going to ignore my explicit statements and clarifications to attribute this to me. Just a couple of posts back:
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
And I don't deny that there could be some such more complicated model. I've said that there's no reason to believe that it is a variable useful for predicting a candidate's general election performance, at least in presidential elections.
[...]
While these do not prove its uselessness as a predictive variable
[...]
Ergo, I feel fine saying there's no reason to think that it predicts general election outcomes or overall popularity, at least for presidential candidates.
Yeah, that most definitely can't be summarized as "there must be no demonstrable association".

I said that there's no reason to think there is one. Racial demographics are very useful predictors, they get strong weight in 538's models (as far as demographic variables go vs. polls), it's hardly ridiculous to think that might be because race does explain voting behavior! So if primary vote were a useful predictor, that would be a reason to think that maybe it explains voting behavior, even if it doesn't end up being true. Instead there has been no evidence presented whatsoever! I'm saying I even went looking for places you might find support for it, doing some of chunks's work for him, and found none. I'm not obligated to investigate every possible model of voter behavior before I can dismiss it as probably not useful and that those more complicated models of behavior are definitely not what chunks was proposing.

And at any rate, theoretically, you would expect it to be more likely to be a predictor than an explanation of voter behavior, because the more sensible interpretation would be that both primary performance and general election performance are driven by a third variable (popularity, including accounting for intensity), rather than primary performance causing general election performance.

And the fact is that there are a numerous reasons to think that it wouldn't explain voter behavior without looking at the stats:

1. primary electorates are different from general electorates, they have much lower turnout and the people who do turn out are not a random sample
2. primaries vary in who is allowed to participate
3. states vary in how much party registration (which may determine #2) relates to voting for state vs. federal offices
4. primaries are against different opponents from general elections
5. primaries vary in how many viable opponents there are, and for presidential primaries that's both within the same primary cycle and across cycles

And then there's the fact that there was zero correlation in 2016, as I pointed out. That certainly complicates the picture, although apparently you want me to hedge as if it's not even any sort of evidence against it (and, as I pointed out - chunks only mentioned the one variable! He did not put forward any more complicated model of voter behavior, but I'm supposed to pretend like he might've meant it that way and hedge as if he wasn't suggesting a simple connection).

All else being equal, I imagine you'd rather get more votes in a primary. The problem is that you will never get "all else being equal" when you go from a presidential primary to a general election. So there are some good reasons to think it won't be a particularly useful variable, and no good evidence to think that it would be.
Quote:
Quote:
why are you so focused on that one interpretation as if it's the only thing I put forward?
Gee, maybe because it's the one you mentioned when you brought this up two and a half months after chunks' post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
So yeah, Bernie won every county in the primary. So what? They would vote for Trump over Bernie by 37 pts (Biden does slightly better... losing by 35 pts). Because this talking point that Bernie could win WV, or somehow would have more juice in WV than Joe Manchin (despite, you know, Manchin also winning every county in his last primary there, but by much larger margins), was always completely delusional.
But it isn't the only possible interpretation I put forward, like I said. The "or" there indicates that chunks could be putting forward one or the other.
Quote:
You know, the same interpretation you ascribed to him in your follow-up post as if it's established fact.
Ok, so maybe I'm being slightly uncharitable there. But again, you're hung up on how I'm not being quite charitable enough to someone who presented no evidence for his claim, apparently is uninterested in the evidence, and is uninterested in defending them. He was putting out blatantly false claims about Sanders's polls in his most recent post here, false claims he could have easily avoided if he had used Google to investigate them for even a minute! And, as I said, his claim is not made appreciably less stupid in the other interpretations. The big picture here is that he pulls out single stats without context to argue for his guy, and even then the stats he's pulling out might not even be true!
Quote:
Quote:
nitpicking
If I wanted to nitpick I would have plenty more material.
Yeah, you can attribute more positions to me that I've explicitly not made (or explicitly "disavowed" if you prefer). Real good faith complaints about charity and snark here.

Last edited by erimir; 01-24-2020 at 09:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (01-25-2020)
  #442  
Old 01-25-2020, 02:25 AM
fragment's Avatar
fragment fragment is offline
mesospheric bore
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCCXVI
Blog Entries: 8
Images: 142
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
I didn't say that "there must be no demonstrable association".
OK, my bad, although it was intended as a generic you, much I like I assumed you were doing when you wrote "I understand why you might think that it's predictive," given that I've made no claims about whether any particular variables are predictive or not.

If you want me to address your actual words you, for example, went from "you think there might be some alternative model which could use that as one of many independent variables" to talking only about predictive models. Which is my main point, you're failing to distinguish between inference and prediction. I guess that prediction is your main interest so you might not see that as mattering much, but I've been discussing modelling in general and been pretty clear about that, I think.

Quote:
maybe I'm being slightly uncharitable there
Don't know why you didn't just accept this to start off with.

Quote:
you're hung up
Not really. You're the one who insisted on arguing the point at length, in the process coming across somewhat like davidm's endless protestations about being misrepresented. I've just had an uncharacteristic amount time to kill. I'd rather have had a constructive discussion about political and statistical issues and I'm a bit disappointed you apparently don't want that.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-26-2020)
  #443  
Old 01-25-2020, 11:09 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCDLVIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

If you wanted to actually look at some data, that'd be one thing. You seem to be more focused on whether or not I interpreted chunks sufficiently charitably and whether my claim that there's no reason to think that Bernie's primary performance in WV would imply what chunks implies is sufficiently hedged.

Chunks gave no evidence for his position, you're not looking at the data, and you're evidently uninterested in the reasons I gave for doubting that it was predictive or explanatory, or in giving reasons to think that it is, so what else was there to talk about, exactly?
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 01-26-2020, 05:20 AM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict... The cup is empty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCLXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Steyer's commercials are airing here. Bloomberg's too. Idk, Steyer might be worth a look. I like Bloomberg's pledge to throw his resources behind the candidate if he's not it. He's claiming he had a big influence on getting the last round of House candidates into office. Good for him if he did. I haven't made any attempt to gauge the veracity.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Kamilah Hauptmann (01-26-2020)
  #445  
Old 01-26-2020, 05:29 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
Shitpost Sommelier
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: MXDCCCXXXIV
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

I'm sure whatever Bloomberg spends trying to buy the presidency will be less than what he'd face in a Sanders or Warren wealth tax.
__________________
I didn't used to be a commie, it's just the Overton window slipped on a bar of soap.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (01-26-2020), Crumb (01-26-2020), SR71 (01-26-2020)
  #446  
Old 01-26-2020, 04:59 PM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
Shitpost Sommelier
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: MXDCCCXXXIV
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition



__________________
I didn't used to be a commie, it's just the Overton window slipped on a bar of soap.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (01-26-2020), JoeP (01-26-2020), slimshady2357 (01-26-2020), Sock Puppet (01-27-2020), SR71 (01-27-2020), Stephen Maturin (01-27-2020), The Man (01-28-2020)
  #447  
Old 01-26-2020, 06:18 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCCXXX
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Polls bring good news to Bernie Sanders in 2 key states
Quote:
Sen. Bernie Sanders appears to have gained momentum in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Two polls released over the weekend in those states found the Vermont lawmaker taking the clear No. 1 spot
in the still-crowded field of Democrats seeking the 2020 presidential nomination. A third poll found Sanders neck and neck with former Vice President Joe Biden in Iowa.

In Iowa, a New York Times-Siena College poll published Saturday pegged Sandersís support at 25 percent, leading former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (18 percent), Biden (17 percent) and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (15 percent). Sandersís support in the survey was 6 points higher than in October, when the Times-Siena poll was last taken.

But both Biden and Buttigieg performed much better in a CBS News poll of Iowa released Sunday. That survey found Sanders leading Biden 26 percent to 25 percent, with Buttigieg shortly behind at 22 percent.

In New Hampshire, a CNN-University of New Hampshire survey published Sunday similarly found Sanders at 25 percent, with Buttigieg, Biden and Warren again contending for second place. That represents a 4-point gain for Sanders since the pollster last surveyed the state.
Joe Rogan said he was going to vote for Bernie Sanders and there has been a campaign to pressure Bernie to distance himself from Rogan, who has platformed Milo Yiannopoulos and Jordan Petersen, and made transphobic statements. The Sanders campaign has made it clear that they are just fine with Rogan's endorsement while at the same time holding to their own principles. This is reality: Joe Rogan is more influential than the NYT in this primary endorsement, and reaches a broader group of voters and potential voters, instead of just preaching to the converted. If you want to peel votes away from the right, if you want to reach a broader swath of America, Rogan is a means.

Joe Biden campaigning in New Hampshire meanwhile is testing out his new Town Hall model- where he just talks and you just listen and he takes no questions. You know, the way a town hall works.

The Des Moines Register endorsed Elizabeth Warren Saturday, which generally helps candidates in Iowa.

Pete Buttigieg is navigating protesters at his events, a please clap moment, and painfully low support from POC and younger voters, though still polling well in New Hampshire.

Iowa caucus is eight days away.

New Hampshire Democratic Debate #8 Friday February 7, four days after the Iowa caucus and four days before the New Hampshire primary.
Andrew Yang qualified for this debate after missing the Iowa debate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-26-2020), SR71 (01-27-2020)
  #448  
Old 01-27-2020, 11:31 PM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCCXXX
Images: 299
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

"A Who's-Who" of People Against Progressive Agenda: DNC's Perez Under Fire for Convention Committee Picks
How to stack the deck:

Barney Frank as co-chair of the rules committee: He argued against the Green New Deal, and oh yeah there's this opinion piece he wrote:
Quote:
Why Progressives Shouldn’t Support Bernie
Wishful thinking won’t win the White House.

By BARNEY FRANK July 22, 2015
Alex Padilla, vice-chair of the platform committee: refused to count 2 million votes in California, strategically aiding Hillary Clinton

John Podesta: the person who literally wrote that "they need to make sure Bernie Sanders is ground to a pulp" in leaked emails.

Bakari Sellers: joined AIPAC in 2015, surrogate for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and Kamala Harris 2019; spent the last four years trashing Sanders on Twitter
Quote:
"Sellers drafted letter and spearheaded effort in 2016 to ensure the DNC platform did not adopt language Bernie Sanders supported, which would've acknowledged responsibility to confront humanitarian crisis facing Palestinians in Gaza," Gosztola added.
Carol Browner: Browner, as "a Clinton delegate, during the 2016 Platform Drafting Committee meeting, voted against a ban on fracking, Medicare For All, opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), keeping fossil fuels in ground, and measure to halt abuse of eminent domain by fossil fuel industry,"

Heidi Heitkamp: This person is a "Democrat". One of the chief architects of legislation that gutted Dodd-Frank, and voted to the RIGHT of Republican Susan Collins.
Quote:
In March 2018, Heitkamp co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (s. 720), which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment, for Americans to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories if protesting actions by the Israeli government.

In June 2018, Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by the Koch brothers, ran digital advertisements thanking Heitkamp for her vote to pass legislation loosening financial regulations on banks.
Let's be really, really, clear.
Billionaire Bloomberg likely joined for the purpose of forcing a brokered convention.
Tom Perez, who Obama wedged into that role as chief of the DNC to protect his legacy, has stacked the deck with people whose agenda clearly includes ratfucking Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and the progressive majority of the party.
Centrists are in a minority.
If Bernie is clearly winning and they pull procedural fuckery to deny him the candidacy, the Democratic party instead of turning to the future, pulling in the youth vote, revitalizing itself into a broad grassroots path forward- it will be a gutted and destroyed shell, with the annointed centrist status-quo technocrat holding the tattered bag.
Remind yourself that not only did millions of Obama voters vote Trump in 2016, 1.7 million also voted for downballot candidates and left the presidential choice blank.
1.7 million people in 33 states and D.C. cast a ballot without voting in the presidential race
Think very very hard about your choices here, centrists.

The secret tape of Trump stating that he's worried about running against Bernie from Lev Parnas in 2018 is interesting as well.

Also Sanders campaign actually asked people to slow down on the phonebanking- they massively exceeded their goals because they have so many volunteers. Instead volunteers are rotating into face-to-face conversations in their community- talking to family, friends, co-workers.

The general manager where I work is Puerto Rican and Dominican with three kids, and after talking to him about it he's voting Bernie Sanders- he volunteered that info. The Black chef with a five-year-old daughter, who is active in his church and who I work with and have talked to about politics all last summer is voting Bernie Sanders. Most of the staff I interact with at the local market- mostly millennial women- are on board for Sanders.

This weekend I was part of feeding people pancakes at a park where we rallied before a big-ass canvass, after which we went out and knocked 850 doors in a few hours for Bernie Sanders, the DSA, and the local Universal Preschool Now! campaign.

Lots of work ahead. Let's go!
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-28-2020), SR71 (01-28-2020)
  #449  
Old 01-28-2020, 01:10 AM
fragment's Avatar
fragment fragment is offline
mesospheric bore
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCCXVI
Blog Entries: 8
Images: 142
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
If you wanted to actually look at some data, that'd be one thing. You seem to be more focused on whether or not I interpreted chunks sufficiently charitably and whether my claim that there's no reason to think that Bernie's primary performance in WV would imply what chunks implies is sufficiently hedged.
:shrug: I don't know how many times I need to say I don't really give a shit about how wrong chunks is, that I'm making general comments on statistics. I even said I'd leave it out of the politics thread unless someone wanted to continue the topic. The charity thing started as an aside in that same post, because I think it's a shame to see a normally well-argued poster risk perpetuating a false narrative, and that a little holding each other accountable is a good thing.

Quote:
what else was there to talk about, exactly?
Guess I was a bit annoyed that you didn't answer my question about how, if Bernie's ability to win WV should earn a big "so what?" then why aren't people applying the same standard to other candidates' abilities to win primaries in other GOP-voting states?

But if you want to talk data, can I ask for the source data of that Clinton primary v general graph?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-28-2020), SR71 (01-28-2020)
  #450  
Old 01-28-2020, 01:34 AM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict... The cup is empty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCLXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Guess I was a bit annoyed that you didn't answer my question about how, if Bernie's ability to win WV should earn a big "so what?" then why aren't people applying the same standard to other candidates' abilities to win primaries in other GOP-voting states?
I'm considerably vexed by that very question. Really adrift here as to who I prefer. Will the progressives be too progressive for the general? Will the stodgier ones lose the interest of young and minority voters? Fiik.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
fragment (01-28-2020)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.91529 seconds with 15 queries