|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On February 14 2020 09:52 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 07:26 Danglars wrote:On February 14 2020 05:55 NewSunshine wrote:
"Paying to insure yourself for things you don't need insurance for" is 100% the point of insurance. If you disagree with that then you're not talking about insurance anymore. On February 14 2020 06:59 NewSunshine wrote:
I don't strictly mean that that is the point of insurance per se, but it is a necessary condition for insurance to be effective. It is fundamentally the redistribution of money from those who don't need it to cover an expense at a point in time to those who do. When you start breaking it up into things like risk pools, etc. You defeat the entire mechanism that's supposed to make it work for people who really need it. Now that you have gone from 100% the point of insurance, to talk otherwise is not to talk insurance, into alleging it's a supporting aspect of insurance and insurance is fundamentally redistributive, perhaps you understand why I said I do think a cross-national discussion on health insurance philosophy is beyond the topic. The candidates have plenty to observe and comment on their health plans, and voters' and groups' agreement, without talking down to people or insinuating someone doesn't even know the point of insurance. Okay, now you got your gotcha moment, but you're insinuating that people should be free to opt out of any insurance pool that they wish. That if someone felt healthy and not at-risk, that they shouldn't need to participate in the system because they don't need it. Taken to its logical conclusion, this results in a pool of only high-risk individuals, causing premiums to skyrocket and the whole exercise to be moot. It only works when people are paying in who don't often take out from it. Your health isn't something you can opt in and out of. You can't know what will happen. There is no basis for definitively saying you don't need to contribute to the system, just because you'd rather not pay. I don't necessarily like where all my taxes go, that doesn't mean I can opt out. Letting people opt out of the healthcare system leaves the already ill and infirm to be also saddled with the debt of their bills. I would think they're suffering enough already without having financial ruin piled on top. I also remember why I don't do this with you anymore. The baiting, arguments in absentia, hyperbole and condescension are exhausting. Do it with someone else.
I'm only insinuating that you should find some proper avenue for all this energy about insurance. I'm very happy to discuss and compare the Democratic candidates health insurance plans, but I can't really take up your argument that insurance is "fundamentally redistributive" without turning this thread into a thread on governmental or private company insuring against risk and paying for hospitals and doctors and medication. If you want me to put back on the hat of political activist and argue like that, go make a blog post and PM me the link, instead of quibbling over a single sentence in three paragraphs and why it means I don't understand insurance. There's a gigantic mod note at the top of the page warning me and you that this isn't the place.
This is the link to my post, and I do want to know what you think about Sander's messaging on his health plan vs the union's reticence. Every prominent candidate has now posted specifically on the issue supporting Culinary Union Local 226. I haven't heard your opinion on the subject of my post.
|
On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:
Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins.
His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight.
The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012.
|
On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012.
Silver has become the pundit he said he was coming in to replace. I remember when he had Kamala Harris as more likely to win the nomination than Sanders so I'd take his/538 predictions with a grain of salt
|
On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012.
I have very deep respect for Nate, i mean he and his gang are just bona fide data nerds, gotta love their models and articles.
1 day before Iowa when asked something along the lines of what could be the most interesting thing to look out for, he said on tape that Biden could finish as low as 5th.
Nowhere else did i see Biden mentioned as anything but a top 3 finish in Iowa.
On February 14 2020 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012. Silver has become the pundit he said he was coming in to replace. I remember when he had Kamala Harris as more likely to win the nomination than Sanders so I'd take his/538 predictions with a grain of salt
I think he's very honest about the limitation of his way of calculating these percentages, and about how much it can swing. it would be dishonest to cook the numbers or hide the results just because they know it's gonna change drastically pretty soon.
It's what their model predicts, it's what they show.
|
On February 14 2020 18:15 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012. I have very deep respect for Nate, i mean he and his gang are just bona fide data nerds, gotta love their models and articles. 1 day before Iowa when asked something along the lines of what could be the most interesting thing to look out for, he said on tape that Biden could finish as low as 5th. Nowhere else did i see Biden mentioned as anything but a top 3 finish in Iowa. Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012. Silver has become the pundit he said he was coming in to replace. I remember when he had Kamala Harris as more likely to win the nomination than Sanders so I'd take his/538 predictions with a grain of salt I think he's very honest about the limitation of his way of calculating these percentages, and about how much it can swing. it would be dishonest to cook the numbers or hide the results just because they know it's gonna change drastically pretty soon. It's what their model predicts, it's what they show.
The luxury about using probability to describe electoral politics is that there's no way for him to be wrong. I don't find the model very useful personally but really it is when any extrapolation is made off of the data where Nate gets himself in trouble imo.
|
On February 14 2020 18:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 18:15 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012. I have very deep respect for Nate, i mean he and his gang are just bona fide data nerds, gotta love their models and articles. 1 day before Iowa when asked something along the lines of what could be the most interesting thing to look out for, he said on tape that Biden could finish as low as 5th. Nowhere else did i see Biden mentioned as anything but a top 3 finish in Iowa. On February 14 2020 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012. Silver has become the pundit he said he was coming in to replace. I remember when he had Kamala Harris as more likely to win the nomination than Sanders so I'd take his/538 predictions with a grain of salt I think he's very honest about the limitation of his way of calculating these percentages, and about how much it can swing. it would be dishonest to cook the numbers or hide the results just because they know it's gonna change drastically pretty soon. It's what their model predicts, it's what they show. The luxury about using probability to describe electoral politics is that there's no way for him to be wrong. I don't find the model very useful personally but really it is when any extrapolation is made off of the data where Nate gets himself in trouble imo.
I very much agree with this. It's very hard to demonstrate that a model of probability is correct or wrong, as an unlikely outcome could still, by definition, happen, and we don't have multiple simulations to see which outcomes are actually likely or unlikely.
As an example Nate's model still gives Bloomberg a 7% chance of winning today (and that's already quite a bit larger than last time I checked), because it's very hard to write a model that accounts for Bloomberg spending infinite money on the race and as a result getting a lot of advantages that other candidates don't have. But can we conclude that Bloomberg has a better chance than Biden? I don't really know, eh. I would think so but perhaps Biden can keep his strongholds, who knows. And even if he does keep them, maybe that's just an unlikely outcome, and Bloomberg still had a better chance of winning than him. You can easily get lost if you start thinking like that.
Unrelated, how are there no new polls out of Nevada since January, what the hell?
|
On February 14 2020 19:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 18:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2020 18:15 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012. I have very deep respect for Nate, i mean he and his gang are just bona fide data nerds, gotta love their models and articles. 1 day before Iowa when asked something along the lines of what could be the most interesting thing to look out for, he said on tape that Biden could finish as low as 5th. Nowhere else did i see Biden mentioned as anything but a top 3 finish in Iowa. On February 14 2020 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012. Silver has become the pundit he said he was coming in to replace. I remember when he had Kamala Harris as more likely to win the nomination than Sanders so I'd take his/538 predictions with a grain of salt I think he's very honest about the limitation of his way of calculating these percentages, and about how much it can swing. it would be dishonest to cook the numbers or hide the results just because they know it's gonna change drastically pretty soon. It's what their model predicts, it's what they show. The luxury about using probability to describe electoral politics is that there's no way for him to be wrong. I don't find the model very useful personally but really it is when any extrapolation is made off of the data where Nate gets himself in trouble imo. I very much agree with this. It's very hard to demonstrate that a model of probability is correct or wrong, as an unlikely outcome could still, by definition, happen, and we don't have multiple simulations to see which outcomes are actually likely or unlikely. As an example Nate's model still gives Bloomberg a 7% chance of winning today (and that's already quite a bit larger than last time I checked), because it's very hard to write a model that accounts for Bloomberg spending infinite money on the race and as a result getting a lot of advantages that other candidates don't have. But can we conclude that Bloomberg has a better chance than Biden? I don't really know, eh. I would think so but perhaps Biden can keep his strongholds, who knows. And even if he does keep them, maybe that's just an unlikely outcome, and Bloomberg still had a better chance of winning than him. You can easily get lost if you start thinking like that. Unrelated, how are there no new polls out of Nevada since January, what the hell?
afaik Nevada is a notoriously under-polled state. I expect they re are gonna come before the primary, but probably pollsters dont bother polling it right before Iowa and NH, cuz those results can render even the fresh polls useless
|
On February 14 2020 20:14 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 19:30 Nebuchad wrote:On February 14 2020 18:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2020 18:15 Geo.Rion wrote:On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012. I have very deep respect for Nate, i mean he and his gang are just bona fide data nerds, gotta love their models and articles. 1 day before Iowa when asked something along the lines of what could be the most interesting thing to look out for, he said on tape that Biden could finish as low as 5th. Nowhere else did i see Biden mentioned as anything but a top 3 finish in Iowa. On February 14 2020 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012. Silver has become the pundit he said he was coming in to replace. I remember when he had Kamala Harris as more likely to win the nomination than Sanders so I'd take his/538 predictions with a grain of salt I think he's very honest about the limitation of his way of calculating these percentages, and about how much it can swing. it would be dishonest to cook the numbers or hide the results just because they know it's gonna change drastically pretty soon. It's what their model predicts, it's what they show. The luxury about using probability to describe electoral politics is that there's no way for him to be wrong. I don't find the model very useful personally but really it is when any extrapolation is made off of the data where Nate gets himself in trouble imo. I very much agree with this. It's very hard to demonstrate that a model of probability is correct or wrong, as an unlikely outcome could still, by definition, happen, and we don't have multiple simulations to see which outcomes are actually likely or unlikely. As an example Nate's model still gives Bloomberg a 7% chance of winning today (and that's already quite a bit larger than last time I checked), because it's very hard to write a model that accounts for Bloomberg spending infinite money on the race and as a result getting a lot of advantages that other candidates don't have. But can we conclude that Bloomberg has a better chance than Biden? I don't really know, eh. I would think so but perhaps Biden can keep his strongholds, who knows. And even if he does keep them, maybe that's just an unlikely outcome, and Bloomberg still had a better chance of winning than him. You can easily get lost if you start thinking like that. Unrelated, how are there no new polls out of Nevada since January, what the hell? afaik Nevada is a notoriously under-polled state. I expect they re are gonna come before the primary, but probably pollsters dont bother polling it right before Iowa and NH, cuz those results can render even the fresh polls useless
There's been a notable dearth of polling compared to previous elections in many states. A lot of excuses floating around for why, anyone's guess how much of any of them are true.
2008 Nevada had significantly more polling leading up to the primary generally and then ~1 a day for the final week before the caucus itself.
|
On February 14 2020 16:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2020 13:42 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2020 08:34 Danglars wrote:Nate Silver's 538 outfit, famous for its accurate predictions in 2008 and 2012, is now lowering Biden's and Sander's chances of winning a plurality, and raising the chances that nobody wins half. In fact, he places Sander's luck of an outright win equal to an outcome where nobody wins. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1228082826383413248 His predictions this year have been very interesting, if only for how very volatile they are. A single poll or single vote completely remaps the results. It provides some state by state context, certainly, but the predictions undergo a major upheaval overnight. The current story it tells, which is pretty reasonable, is that Sanders has a so-so chance of winning, Biden’s is slimmer, and everyone else is worse. Wonder how it would have played out if they used this model to predict Romney’s primary in 2012. Silver has become the pundit he said he was coming in to replace. I remember when he had Kamala Harris as more likely to win the nomination than Sanders so I'd take his/538 predictions with a grain of salt
Most definitely. The charm of the guy that gave what looked like an absurdly pro-Obama prediction in 2012 and then turned out to be right on every state is long gone. 538 still gives some interesting (and more accurate than most) numbers to play around with, but the predictive power of these models hasn't been fantastic. Which is more than can be said for the live coverage/"analysis."
|
538 is a predictive model that tries to spit out the most reasonable probabilities based on current data. It used to show Biden basically guaranteed to win. Now Biden is nowhere. That's not because the model is shit, it is because more data is coming in and the model changes.
The goal of a 538 model is not to withhold judgement until an absolutely correct prediction can be made. It is instead a place to stop by to see how trends and probabilities are changing. Predicting the whole primary after 2 states is obviously madness. The fact that it is changing so often and so much is just kinda the way it works. It doesn't mean it is inaccurate, it means it has been turned on really early, which isn't a bad thing so long as you know what you are reading. Most people don't.
As an example, it is very likely that at least 1 person among Biden/Buttigieg/Warren/Klobuchar will drop out either soon after Super Tuesday. That isn't reflected in their models. People dropping out makes it much more likely someone will actually win.
|
There has been a serious dearth of polls cast for Nevada (next week) and South Carolina (the week after), especially since Iowa and New Hampshire had tons of data for their primaries. Only one poll has come out recently for Nevada, and I'd imagine that both Nevada and South Carolina will probably play out similarly... and by similarly, I mean that I predict that Biden will do better than Buttigieg, because now Buttigieg has to worry about the fact that non-white people justifiably don't care much for him. Let's see if Buttigieg can extend his two-state streak of keeping-up-with-Sanders to three states.
(I hope not.)
This Nevada poll: Sanders > Biden > Warren > Steyer > Buttigieg > Klobuchar
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dWPJlMK.jpg)
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
|
Happy to see Buttigieg falling into irrelevance. He is a sham of a candidate and an incredibly fake person. His strategy of going entirely all-in on IA and NH put a bad taste in my mouth. Relying on media hype to do the work for you to make people think your a front runner, then relying on the brain dead populace that is the American voter to blindly follow you...yucky. Big thumbs down from me. I hope Nevada and SC go terribly for Buttigieg and he fades into irrelevance.
|
On February 15 2020 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Happy to see Buttigieg falling into irrelevance. He is a sham of a candidate and an incredibly fake person. His strategy of going entirely all-in on IA and NH put a bad taste in my mouth. Relying on media hype to do the work for you to make people think your a front runner, then relying on the brain dead populace that is the American voter to blindly follow you...yucky. Big thumbs down from me. I hope Nevada and SC go terribly for Buttigieg and he fades into irrelevance.
Yeah, I don't have the clip but he tried to show off his Spanish and failed miserably calling into question his fluency in the other languages he allegedly speaks.
Pete reminds me of a log cabin Republican more than someone that should Represent the "left" of US politics.
|
On February 15 2020 01:34 Mohdoo wrote:
538 is a predictive model that tries to spit out the most reasonable probabilities based on current data. It used to show Biden basically guaranteed to win. Now Biden is nowhere. That's not because the model is shit, it is because more data is coming in and the model changes.
The goal of a 538 model is not to withhold judgement until an absolutely correct prediction can be made. It is instead a place to stop by to see how trends and probabilities are changing. Predicting the whole primary after 2 states is obviously madness. The fact that it is changing so often and so much is just kinda the way it works. It doesn't mean it is inaccurate, it means it has been turned on really early, which isn't a bad thing so long as you know what you are reading. Most people don't.
As an example, it is very likely that at least 1 person among Biden/Buttigieg/Warren/Klobuchar will drop out either soon after Super Tuesday. That isn't reflected in their models. People dropping out makes it much more likely someone will actually win.
That's kind of exactly what it means. Whether or not that's a fault of the model and its handlers is perhaps what you're really going after, but the fact that it is so volatile and has minimal predictive value very much means that it's inaccurate. Part of the problem is, of course, garbage in garbage out.
That being so, it's definitely interesting to watch the charts and the statistics and see how it plays out. They tell a story that's meaningful, after all. But it's hard not to notice that the model is so-so at best at this stage, and the 538 coverage to go with it has a tendency to be quite hit-and miss.
On February 15 2020 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Happy to see Buttigieg falling into irrelevance. He is a sham of a candidate and an incredibly fake person. His strategy of going entirely all-in on IA and NH put a bad taste in my mouth. Relying on media hype to do the work for you to make people think your a front runner, then relying on the brain dead populace that is the American voter to blindly follow you...yucky. Big thumbs down from me. I hope Nevada and SC go terribly for Buttigieg and he fades into irrelevance.
Agreed. It's really quite disappointing that a candidate whose appeal is just that he talks a good talk and has media coverage (despite his only experience being that he's a former mayor with a mediocre record) received as many voters as he did. I would very much like to see several visibly terrible results for him in a row that force the dropout.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On February 15 2020 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2020 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Happy to see Buttigieg falling into irrelevance. He is a sham of a candidate and an incredibly fake person. His strategy of going entirely all-in on IA and NH put a bad taste in my mouth. Relying on media hype to do the work for you to make people think your a front runner, then relying on the brain dead populace that is the American voter to blindly follow you...yucky. Big thumbs down from me. I hope Nevada and SC go terribly for Buttigieg and he fades into irrelevance. Yeah, I don't have the clip but he tried to show off his Spanish and failed miserably calling into question his fluency in the other languages he allegedly speaks. Pete reminds me of a log cabin Republican more than someone that should Represent the "left" of US politics.
Personally he strangely does somewhat remind me of a more educated/eloquent Justin Trudeau.
|
|
|
On February 15 2020 09:37 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2020 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2020 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Happy to see Buttigieg falling into irrelevance. He is a sham of a candidate and an incredibly fake person. His strategy of going entirely all-in on IA and NH put a bad taste in my mouth. Relying on media hype to do the work for you to make people think your a front runner, then relying on the brain dead populace that is the American voter to blindly follow you...yucky. Big thumbs down from me. I hope Nevada and SC go terribly for Buttigieg and he fades into irrelevance. Yeah, I don't have the clip but he tried to show off his Spanish and failed miserably calling into question his fluency in the other languages he allegedly speaks. Pete reminds me of a log cabin Republican more than someone that should Represent the "left" of US politics. Personally he strangely does somewhat remind me of a more educated/eloquent Justin Trudeau.
Is his French bad? I'm a terrible judge but it seemed pretty good to me?
|
Canada11379 Posts
On February 15 2020 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2020 09:37 Nakajin wrote:On February 15 2020 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2020 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Happy to see Buttigieg falling into irrelevance. He is a sham of a candidate and an incredibly fake person. His strategy of going entirely all-in on IA and NH put a bad taste in my mouth. Relying on media hype to do the work for you to make people think your a front runner, then relying on the brain dead populace that is the American voter to blindly follow you...yucky. Big thumbs down from me. I hope Nevada and SC go terribly for Buttigieg and he fades into irrelevance. Yeah, I don't have the clip but he tried to show off his Spanish and failed miserably calling into question his fluency in the other languages he allegedly speaks. Pete reminds me of a log cabin Republican more than someone that should Represent the "left" of US politics. Personally he strangely does somewhat remind me of a more educated/eloquent Justin Trudeau. Is his French bad? I'm a terrible judge but it seemed pretty good to me?
I couldn't tell you personally because my spoken French is functionally non-existent.
But from the two articles below, it seems that his French isn't bad, he just doesn't speak 'Quebecer French' enough the way they want him to... although that might more be that Quebec didn't like his father's French, who deliberately chose to speak France's French. Sounds like Trudeau is far more Quebecer, but isn't given the credit. I have... opinions on Quebec's obsession with language, but I'll refrain.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-why-justin-trudeaus-french-elicits-howls-of-rage
https://phys.org/news/2019-04-expert-justin-trudeau-french-isnt.html
|
On February 15 2020 13:58 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2020 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2020 09:37 Nakajin wrote:On February 15 2020 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2020 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Happy to see Buttigieg falling into irrelevance. He is a sham of a candidate and an incredibly fake person. His strategy of going entirely all-in on IA and NH put a bad taste in my mouth. Relying on media hype to do the work for you to make people think your a front runner, then relying on the brain dead populace that is the American voter to blindly follow you...yucky. Big thumbs down from me. I hope Nevada and SC go terribly for Buttigieg and he fades into irrelevance. Yeah, I don't have the clip but he tried to show off his Spanish and failed miserably calling into question his fluency in the other languages he allegedly speaks. Pete reminds me of a log cabin Republican more than someone that should Represent the "left" of US politics. Personally he strangely does somewhat remind me of a more educated/eloquent Justin Trudeau. Is his French bad? I'm a terrible judge but it seemed pretty good to me? I couldn't tell you personally because my spoken French is functionally non-existent. But from the two articles below, it seems that his French isn't bad, he just doesn't speak 'Quebecer French' enough the way they want him to... although that might more be that Quebec didn't like his father's French, who deliberately chose to speak France's French. Sounds like Trudeau is far more Quebecer, but isn't given the credit. I have... opinions on Quebec's obsession with language, but I'll refrain. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-why-justin-trudeaus-french-elicits-howls-of-ragehttps://phys.org/news/2019-04-expert-justin-trudeau-french-isnt.html
Quebec seems to be what would happen if we indulged Texas's "we're totally unique and also the best" mentality a little too much
|
Canada8989 Posts
On February 15 2020 16:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2020 13:58 Falling wrote:On February 15 2020 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2020 09:37 Nakajin wrote:On February 15 2020 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2020 05:32 Mohdoo wrote:
Happy to see Buttigieg falling into irrelevance. He is a sham of a candidate and an incredibly fake person. His strategy of going entirely all-in on IA and NH put a bad taste in my mouth. Relying on media hype to do the work for you to make people think your a front runner, then relying on the brain dead populace that is the American voter to blindly follow you...yucky. Big thumbs down from me. I hope Nevada and SC go terribly for Buttigieg and he fades into irrelevance. Yeah, I don't have the clip but he tried to show off his Spanish and failed miserably calling into question his fluency in the other languages he allegedly speaks. Pete reminds me of a log cabin Republican more than someone that should Represent the "left" of US politics. Personally he strangely does somewhat remind me of a more educated/eloquent Justin Trudeau. Is his French bad? I'm a terrible judge but it seemed pretty good to me? I couldn't tell you personally because my spoken French is functionally non-existent. But from the two articles below, it seems that his French isn't bad, he just doesn't speak 'Quebecer French' enough the way they want him to... although that might more be that Quebec didn't like his father's French, who deliberately chose to speak France's French. Sounds like Trudeau is far more Quebecer, but isn't given the credit. I have... opinions on Quebec's obsession with language, but I'll refrain. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-why-justin-trudeaus-french-elicits-howls-of-ragehttps://phys.org/news/2019-04-expert-justin-trudeau-french-isnt.html Quebec seems to be what would happen if we indulged Texas's "we're totally unique and also the best" mentality a little too much
It's not like Trudeau is well spoken in english either, I meant it compared to Buttigieg who can be very eloquent, and from what I heard he can speak about policy pretty well, something that never particularly Trudeau strong point. The point was that they are two polite good looking young white politician who come across as more "trendy progressive" than actually to the left, honestly I think they are mostly simply liberal.
As for Trudeau french we (well I) could spend a lot of time there. Obviously he speak french well enough, both his dad and his wife are french, he's just not that great of a public speaker and it seems particularly significant in french when it's very clear a lot of the time that he immediately translate his english thought and it doesn't work grammatically. It's not something one would take offense off in life, but it doesn't make for great speech.
As for his father french, his was more of a kind of "posh" french that use to exist in Quebec until about 60 years ago. It actually is very far from the main land french accent, but more of a long deformation of it, obviously both elite french and this kind of french-Canadian elite accent usually come with a very good articulation and vocabulary so it can sound a bit similar. It actually was pretty common among politician in his age, if you want a comparison think Anglo-african politician accent.
(Also getting your Quebec info from the National Post is like getting your LA info from Fox News or your Indiana news from Vox)
And since were on it, Quebec is what happen when french in North America didn't get deported like in New Brunswick, drown by english like in Louisiana or militarly invaded and publicly executed like in Manitoba, so you know, we probably are a bit paranoid sometime but it's easy to find it funny when you know your children will still be speeking the same langage as you.
Anyway, let's take it into the Canadian politics if it need to go further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
