|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
While the bipartisan nature of the signees is great, the fact those 500 are all former federal prosecutors makes the letter a lot more impressive. The pool of those is significantly smaller than that of just "prosecutors," and they are all experienced with the workings of the DoJ/Federal law.
Def undercuts many of the arguments raised here attacking how compelling Mueller's evidence is. And by undercut I mean demolish.
Also, this is another indictment of Barr. Between this and the FBI director contradicting him on the term "spying," he has no credibility left.
|
On May 08 2019 05:05 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 07 2019 23:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 07 2019 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 07 2019 09:47 Mohdoo wrote:On May 07 2019 06:52 Plansix wrote:
My favorite candidate will be the one that knocks Biden out of the race, because my god we need to escape the 1990s Democrats. Next thing you know he will be apologizing for Bill Clinton. Jeb looked favored at one point too. Biden has no charisma. His numbers will drop like a brick after the first debate. I don't think it's even going to take a debate, from what I gather these recent polls showing biden surging (beyond what's typical for an announcement) we're really polling people over 50 which is about the split we'd expect and Biden's had for months. Good chance his polling of people under 50 is already plummeting, particularly when one considers he's been pretty universally shitcanned here. I hesitate to post this because I don’t like horse race coverage of elections, not least because people tend to intentionally or unintentionally use it as a cover for advocacy (e.g. instead of saying “I support Buttigieg” people say “Buttigieg sure is doing well in the polls, let’s talk about it”). So let me explicitly say I have no intention of voting for Biden in the primary. That said, I think you’re misreading the polls on Biden and Bernie somewhat. Nate Silver has written some about this and can defend the point better than I can (although he’s had some takes recently I’m more or less certain you’d hate), but the gist is Biden has consistently outperformed Bernie in the polls and most of the methodological criticisms people have for those polls (e.g. sample size or sampling bias) are off-base. We can certainly expect Biden’s numbers to drop in coming weeks, but not because recent polls were badly done - post-announcement polling bounces usually fade, that’s normal and to be expected. I think a lot of your prediction that Biden will fail is based more on your intuition than on the data; I won’t argue with your intuition there. But as far as the data is concerned, I have trouble seeing how you could look at Biden as anything other than a frontrunner right now. It's worth noting Nate Silver has basically become what he came to fix. A pundit that opines sans the data. The easiest example is when he tiered the candidates. You can put Biden and Bernie together or Biden on top then Bernie, but you can't have Buttigieg and Harris with Sanders, let alone Harris over Sanders. Or at least he didn't provide any data to support his pushing of Harris. As far as Biden's polling he has consistently held a lead, I can't speak to every recent poll but the CNN one showing him "solidifying his frontrunner status" definitely didn't have a significant sample from people under 50. cdn.cnn.comIf other recent ones showing his surge did I haven't seen it yet (could be, I just haven't seen it). Nate Silver is hit or miss for sure, imo. He has an obnoxious contrarian streak thst makes him say/do stuff seemingly just to get a rise out of people, and he likes to act self-aware about it, but he’s not self-aware enough to realize how that tendency toward “spicy” takes actually makes him more similar to a standard pundit; he thinks it sets him apart. On the polling, though, part of why I said something is because I think there’s a temptation to dig into methodology any time a poll suggests something you don’t like, and there’s been quite a bit of that among Sanders supporters recently. The algorithm: If(Supports my hypothesis) retweet uncritically Else quibble with methodology has an obvious confirmation bias to it when considered in those terms, but it’s very easy to fall into unintentionally. Speaking of Nate Silver, I think avoiding this kind of thinking is still one of his strengths as an analyst. Like I said, you tend to make pretty strong (that is, high certainty) predictions which seem more based on your intuition than any particular piece of data, and I wouldn’t know how to argue with you on that; if your intuition is that Bernie is the inevitable nominee, I don’t know what to say besides “we’ll see.” Personally I’m a bit scared that we’ll wind up with a contested convention scenario with no clear frontrunner; but I don’t have any particular evidence to support a prediction, so I wouldn’t know how to argue who’s right.
I know you said something but I'm not sure it helps without some sort of data to support it (like I did with the CNN poll that was widely reported showing a surge that could also be explained by not including younger voters (people under 50) in the poll, and it turns out CNN poll did not include them).
The thing about probability predictions, is that in elections, they're useless. It means I can say X has a 99.9% chance of winning, then they lose, but I still get to be right. The least risky position is simply saying you'll wait for the results, next is probability prediction, then a real prediction that can be wrong. I find the first two completely pointless as far as connecting analysis with accountability.
I know a contested convention was Democrats plan since they made their super delegate compromise. They are putting a lot of faith in Biden/Harris/O'Rourke/Warren the other 15+ to get them there.
After his tiers Nate lost any remaining credibility as a numbers guy with me, he's just another overpaid pundit to me.
|
On May 08 2019 05:09 Doodsmack wrote:I suspect that Muellers team would have recommended an obstruction charge for trump if they were not restrained by DOJ policy that prevents the president from being charged while in office. Had an ordinary American done these things in an everyday criminal case, they would be charged with obstruction. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/1125585951579955201
Walsh's feed is very interesting. He very quickly alternates between posting important critiques of Trump and his damaging behavior, and retweeting inflammatory gun and socialism arguments. It's a very bizarre read in these times, to find someone who's drawn the line where he has.
But the content of that tweet stands on its own. This is an incontrovertible statement by such a large collection of American legal knowledge. And it's heartening to see.
|
On May 08 2019 05:32 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 05:09 Doodsmack wrote:I suspect that Muellers team would have recommended an obstruction charge for trump if they were not restrained by DOJ policy that prevents the president from being charged while in office. Had an ordinary American done these things in an everyday criminal case, they would be charged with obstruction. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/1125585951579955201 Walsh's feed is very interesting. He very quickly alternates between posting important critiques of Trump and his damaging behavior, and retweeting inflammatory gun and socialism arguments. It's a very bizarre read in these times, to find someone who's drawn the line where he has. But the content of that tweet stands on its own. This is an incontrovertible statement by such a large collection of American legal knowledge. And it's heartening to see. Or disheartening when you see such a collective statement and the very real possibility of nothing coming of it.
|
On May 08 2019 05:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 05:32 NewSunshine wrote:On May 08 2019 05:09 Doodsmack wrote:I suspect that Muellers team would have recommended an obstruction charge for trump if they were not restrained by DOJ policy that prevents the president from being charged while in office. Had an ordinary American done these things in an everyday criminal case, they would be charged with obstruction. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/1125585951579955201 Walsh's feed is very interesting. He very quickly alternates between posting important critiques of Trump and his damaging behavior, and retweeting inflammatory gun and socialism arguments. It's a very bizarre read in these times, to find someone who's drawn the line where he has. But the content of that tweet stands on its own. This is an incontrovertible statement by such a large collection of American legal knowledge. And it's heartening to see. Or disheartening when you see such a collective statement and the very real possibility of nothing coming of it.
I can certainly see that. But I still have that part of me that thinks, even if that's what happens, I'd still be happier knowing folks out there can still be sane and well-adjusted in an insane timeline.
|
On May 08 2019 05:09 Doodsmack wrote:
I suspect that Muellers team would have recommended an obstruction charge for trump if they were not restrained by DOJ policy that prevents the president from being charged while in office. Had an ordinary American done these things in an everyday criminal case, they would be charged with obstruction.
Did Mueller have a reason to lie about the impact of DOJ policy on his conclusions to Barr? The conversation occurred very close to the end of the investigation.
|
On May 08 2019 06:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 05:09 Doodsmack wrote:I suspect that Muellers team would have recommended an obstruction charge for trump if they were not restrained by DOJ policy that prevents the president from being charged while in office. Had an ordinary American done these things in an everyday criminal case, they would be charged with obstruction. https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/1125585951579955201 Did Mueller have a reason to lie about the impact of DOJ policy on his conclusions to Barr? The conversation occurred very close to the end of the investigation. No, I don't think Mueller had a reason to lie to Barr.
Barr has plenty of reason to be disingenuous about his conversation with Mueller tho.
We only have Barr's word and his word is meaningless.
We also have words from Mueller on black and white in this report which seem to indicate something other then what Barr says Mueller said.
|
|
|
I would prefer to hear Mueller's account of that conversation. Because from all accounts, Mueller is a very by the book, chain of command sort of guy. People who have worked with him have characterized that letter to Barr as Mueller "yelling his objections" and taking care to create a paper trail. And not something he did lightly. So given how Mueller objected to Barr's summary of the report, I would like to hear Mueller's version of that discussion.
|
On May 08 2019 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 05:05 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 07 2019 23:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 07 2019 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 07 2019 09:47 Mohdoo wrote:On May 07 2019 06:52 Plansix wrote:
My favorite candidate will be the one that knocks Biden out of the race, because my god we need to escape the 1990s Democrats. Next thing you know he will be apologizing for Bill Clinton. Jeb looked favored at one point too. Biden has no charisma. His numbers will drop like a brick after the first debate. I don't think it's even going to take a debate, from what I gather these recent polls showing biden surging (beyond what's typical for an announcement) we're really polling people over 50 which is about the split we'd expect and Biden's had for months. Good chance his polling of people under 50 is already plummeting, particularly when one considers he's been pretty universally shitcanned here. I hesitate to post this because I don’t like horse race coverage of elections, not least because people tend to intentionally or unintentionally use it as a cover for advocacy (e.g. instead of saying “I support Buttigieg” people say “Buttigieg sure is doing well in the polls, let’s talk about it”). So let me explicitly say I have no intention of voting for Biden in the primary. That said, I think you’re misreading the polls on Biden and Bernie somewhat. Nate Silver has written some about this and can defend the point better than I can (although he’s had some takes recently I’m more or less certain you’d hate), but the gist is Biden has consistently outperformed Bernie in the polls and most of the methodological criticisms people have for those polls (e.g. sample size or sampling bias) are off-base. We can certainly expect Biden’s numbers to drop in coming weeks, but not because recent polls were badly done - post-announcement polling bounces usually fade, that’s normal and to be expected. I think a lot of your prediction that Biden will fail is based more on your intuition than on the data; I won’t argue with your intuition there. But as far as the data is concerned, I have trouble seeing how you could look at Biden as anything other than a frontrunner right now. It's worth noting Nate Silver has basically become what he came to fix. A pundit that opines sans the data. The easiest example is when he tiered the candidates. You can put Biden and Bernie together or Biden on top then Bernie, but you can't have Buttigieg and Harris with Sanders, let alone Harris over Sanders. Or at least he didn't provide any data to support his pushing of Harris. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1116106327208747008As far as Biden's polling he has consistently held a lead, I can't speak to every recent poll but the CNN one showing him "solidifying his frontrunner status" definitely didn't have a significant sample from people under 50. cdn.cnn.comIf other recent ones showing his surge did I haven't seen it yet (could be, I just haven't seen it). Nate Silver is hit or miss for sure, imo. He has an obnoxious contrarian streak thst makes him say/do stuff seemingly just to get a rise out of people, and he likes to act self-aware about it, but he’s not self-aware enough to realize how that tendency toward “spicy” takes actually makes him more similar to a standard pundit; he thinks it sets him apart. On the polling, though, part of why I said something is because I think there’s a temptation to dig into methodology any time a poll suggests something you don’t like, and there’s been quite a bit of that among Sanders supporters recently. The algorithm: If(Supports my hypothesis) retweet uncritically Else quibble with methodology has an obvious confirmation bias to it when considered in those terms, but it’s very easy to fall into unintentionally. Speaking of Nate Silver, I think avoiding this kind of thinking is still one of his strengths as an analyst. Like I said, you tend to make pretty strong (that is, high certainty) predictions which seem more based on your intuition than any particular piece of data, and I wouldn’t know how to argue with you on that; if your intuition is that Bernie is the inevitable nominee, I don’t know what to say besides “we’ll see.” Personally I’m a bit scared that we’ll wind up with a contested convention scenario with no clear frontrunner; but I don’t have any particular evidence to support a prediction, so I wouldn’t know how to argue who’s right. I know you said something but I'm not sure it helps without some sort of data to support it (like I did with the CNN poll that was widely reported showing a surge that could also be explained by not including younger voters (people under 50) in the poll, and it turns out CNN poll did not include them). The thing about probability predictions, is that in elections, they're useless. It means I can say X has a 99.9% chance of winning, then they lose, but I still get to be right. The least risky position is simply saying you'll wait for the results, next is probability prediction, then a real prediction that can be wrong. I find the first two completely pointless as far as connecting analysis with accountability. I know a contested convention was Democrats plan since they made their super delegate compromise. They are putting a lot of faith in Biden/Harris/O'Rourke/Warren the other 15+ to get them there.
I mean, I can google some polls for you, or I can link the 538 article that goes through the analysis showing Biden has a polling bounce from his announcement, but it doesn’t really matter that much anyway, since it was already apparent that a) Biden’s ahead, and b) people usually surge temporarily in polls after they announce, so it’s not surprising that he’s up. My point was only that you should be cautious doing methodological quibbling with specific polls that don’t show what you want. I don’t think it’s that important to your prediction anyway, although I’m unclear if it was supposed to have a more sinister undertone (i.e. does “CNN’s poll showing a Biden bounce sampled too many old people” have the subtext “CNN is rigging polls in Biden’s favor”?)
Stochastic predictions are the only honest way to predict stochastic events. Does it make judging the quality of a prediction more statistically complex? Sure. Such are the struggles of living in a statistically complex world.
|
On May 08 2019 06:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 05:24 On_Slaught wrote:
While the bipartisan nature of the signees is great, the fact those 500 are all former federal prosecutors makes the letter a lot more impressive. The pool of those is significantly smaller than that of just "prosecutors," and they are all experienced with the workings of the DoJ/Federal law.
Def undercuts many of the arguments raised here attacking how compelling Mueller's evidence is. And by undercut I mean demolish.
Also, this is another indictment of Barr. Between this and the FBI director contradicting him on the term "spying," he has no credibility left. Any idea on the numbers out there. Like is this 500 of 5000 or 500 of 1000? It would be interesting if they asked all of them with "would you or wouldn't you." Otherwise I feel like this will do as much as the letter that was signed by people on the whole beers Kavanaugh appointment.
There are thousands, and that is just those actively employed. However the number is still impressive given the context.
Lawyers are very career driven people (especially the type who become federal attorneys). Putting your name on a letter calling out the Attorney frickin General is not something to do lightly. If 500 are doing it you can bet there are scores more who want to but feel they cant without possible repercussion. For example, current DoJ employees. Tho to be fair, there are certainly many who disagree but don't want to put their name on a counter-letter, if one exists.
The fact so many federal prosecutors attached their reputations to this letter is a massive rebuke of the AG. If he was capable of shame (Iran Contra shows he is not), I imagine he'd feel pretty embarrassed to have contributed to this shit show.
|
On May 08 2019 06:31 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 05:05 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 07 2019 23:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 07 2019 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 07 2019 09:47 Mohdoo wrote:On May 07 2019 06:52 Plansix wrote:
My favorite candidate will be the one that knocks Biden out of the race, because my god we need to escape the 1990s Democrats. Next thing you know he will be apologizing for Bill Clinton. Jeb looked favored at one point too. Biden has no charisma. His numbers will drop like a brick after the first debate. I don't think it's even going to take a debate, from what I gather these recent polls showing biden surging (beyond what's typical for an announcement) we're really polling people over 50 which is about the split we'd expect and Biden's had for months. Good chance his polling of people under 50 is already plummeting, particularly when one considers he's been pretty universally shitcanned here. I hesitate to post this because I don’t like horse race coverage of elections, not least because people tend to intentionally or unintentionally use it as a cover for advocacy (e.g. instead of saying “I support Buttigieg” people say “Buttigieg sure is doing well in the polls, let’s talk about it”). So let me explicitly say I have no intention of voting for Biden in the primary. That said, I think you’re misreading the polls on Biden and Bernie somewhat. Nate Silver has written some about this and can defend the point better than I can (although he’s had some takes recently I’m more or less certain you’d hate), but the gist is Biden has consistently outperformed Bernie in the polls and most of the methodological criticisms people have for those polls (e.g. sample size or sampling bias) are off-base. We can certainly expect Biden’s numbers to drop in coming weeks, but not because recent polls were badly done - post-announcement polling bounces usually fade, that’s normal and to be expected. I think a lot of your prediction that Biden will fail is based more on your intuition than on the data; I won’t argue with your intuition there. But as far as the data is concerned, I have trouble seeing how you could look at Biden as anything other than a frontrunner right now. It's worth noting Nate Silver has basically become what he came to fix. A pundit that opines sans the data. The easiest example is when he tiered the candidates. You can put Biden and Bernie together or Biden on top then Bernie, but you can't have Buttigieg and Harris with Sanders, let alone Harris over Sanders. Or at least he didn't provide any data to support his pushing of Harris. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1116106327208747008As far as Biden's polling he has consistently held a lead, I can't speak to every recent poll but the CNN one showing him "solidifying his frontrunner status" definitely didn't have a significant sample from people under 50. cdn.cnn.comIf other recent ones showing his surge did I haven't seen it yet (could be, I just haven't seen it). Nate Silver is hit or miss for sure, imo. He has an obnoxious contrarian streak thst makes him say/do stuff seemingly just to get a rise out of people, and he likes to act self-aware about it, but he’s not self-aware enough to realize how that tendency toward “spicy” takes actually makes him more similar to a standard pundit; he thinks it sets him apart. On the polling, though, part of why I said something is because I think there’s a temptation to dig into methodology any time a poll suggests something you don’t like, and there’s been quite a bit of that among Sanders supporters recently. The algorithm: If(Supports my hypothesis) retweet uncritically Else quibble with methodology has an obvious confirmation bias to it when considered in those terms, but it’s very easy to fall into unintentionally. Speaking of Nate Silver, I think avoiding this kind of thinking is still one of his strengths as an analyst. Like I said, you tend to make pretty strong (that is, high certainty) predictions which seem more based on your intuition than any particular piece of data, and I wouldn’t know how to argue with you on that; if your intuition is that Bernie is the inevitable nominee, I don’t know what to say besides “we’ll see.” Personally I’m a bit scared that we’ll wind up with a contested convention scenario with no clear frontrunner; but I don’t have any particular evidence to support a prediction, so I wouldn’t know how to argue who’s right. I know you said something but I'm not sure it helps without some sort of data to support it (like I did with the CNN poll that was widely reported showing a surge that could also be explained by not including younger voters (people under 50) in the poll, and it turns out CNN poll did not include them). The thing about probability predictions, is that in elections, they're useless. It means I can say X has a 99.9% chance of winning, then they lose, but I still get to be right. The least risky position is simply saying you'll wait for the results, next is probability prediction, then a real prediction that can be wrong. I find the first two completely pointless as far as connecting analysis with accountability. I know a contested convention was Democrats plan since they made their super delegate compromise. They are putting a lot of faith in Biden/Harris/O'Rourke/Warren the other 15+ to get them there. I mean, I can google some polls for you, or I can link the 538 article that goes through the analysis showing Biden has a polling bounce from his announcement, but it doesn’t really matter that much anyway, since it was already apparent that a) Biden’s ahead, and b) people usually surge temporarily in polls after they announce, so it’s not surprising that he’s up. My point was only that you should be cautious doing methodological quibbling with specific polls that don’t show what you want. I don’t think it’s that important to your prediction anyway, although I’m unclear if it was supposed to have a more sinister undertone (i.e. does “CNN’s poll showing a Biden bounce sampled too many old people” have the subtext “CNN is rigging polls in Biden’s favor”?) Stochastic predictions are the only honest way to predict stochastic events. Does it make judging the quality of a prediction more statistically complex? Sure. Such are the struggles of living in a statistically complex world.
Only one of those polls shows anything about the ages (that I saw) but it's still unclear how much of their sample was under 50. It does also show that the surge is with people over 50 though. Whether it's intentional or not is impossible to tell from here but when someone like Nate Silver opens in the article you linked.
CNN’s poll found Biden at 39 percent — up 11 points from 28 percent in their previous poll in March — and well ahead of Bernie Sanders, who was at 15 percent.
then notes
Biden had 46 percent support from Democrats age 50-64 in CNN’s poll and 50 percent support from those 65 and older.
But doesn't mention the poll is missing the ages where Bernie polls the strongest, he's not being the contrarian numbers guy, he's being the sellout pundit imo.
|
|
|
On May 08 2019 06:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 05:24 On_Slaught wrote:
While the bipartisan nature of the signees is great, the fact those 500 are all former federal prosecutors makes the letter a lot more impressive. The pool of those is significantly smaller than that of just "prosecutors," and they are all experienced with the workings of the DoJ/Federal law.
Def undercuts many of the arguments raised here attacking how compelling Mueller's evidence is. And by undercut I mean demolish.
Also, this is another indictment of Barr. Between this and the FBI director contradicting him on the term "spying," he has no credibility left. Any idea on the numbers out there. Like is this 500 of 5000 or 500 of 1000? It would be interesting if they asked all of them with "would you or wouldn't you." Otherwise I feel like this will do as much as the letter that was signed by people on the whole beers Kavanaugh appointment.
They are former, it'd be hard to say how many former federal prosecutors there are. There is something like 2300 offices on the federal level but that would be active prosecutors.
|
The interesting thing about something like the CNN poll is that if it's slanted towards older people, it might actually make it more accurate. Young people don't vote enough. Maybe the "beat Trump" or "Bernie!" waves will finally get them to vote this time, but it didn't happen in 2016 general election or primary. Boring old political insider Hillary crushed Bernie(!) in the primary despite so much of the internet energy being behind Bernie. Then those same internet people start shouting about how it must be rigged. No. The people who vote just quietly preferred Hillary and voted that way. It was the silent majority in action.
It doesn't seem that different this time around either. I'm currently undecided and I'll wait until at least after the first debate to make up my mind. I've seen a few candidates interview with Bill Maher and the only unimpressive one was Julian Castro, the others all impressed in their own ways. I'm not personally excited about Biden and never have been, but he does connect with a lot of people who will quietly vote and just want a return to normal. I'd prefer one of the lower tier candidates to understand how to capture the media spotlight, and do it in a positive way. That's who will beat Trump.
In the end, I'd prefer any of the democratic candidates to Trump and will vote for whoever wins.
However, I would get a little bit of schadenfreude if Bernie got the democratic nomination and then lost to Trump. I don't mind him personally, but his supporters are insufferable.
|
On May 08 2019 07:45 RenSC2 wrote:
The interesting thing about something like the CNN poll is that if it's slanted towards older people, it might actually make it more accurate. Young people don't vote enough. Maybe the "beat Trump" or "Bernie!" waves will finally get them to vote this time, but it didn't happen in 2016 general election or primary. Boring old political insider Hillary crushed Bernie(!) in the primary despite so much of the internet energy being behind Bernie. Then those same internet people start shouting about how it must be rigged. No. The people who vote just quietly preferred Hillary and voted that way. It was the silent majority in action.
It doesn't seem that different this time around either. I'm currently undecided and I'll wait until at least after the first debate to make up my mind. I've seen a few candidates interview with Bill Maher and the only unimpressive one was Julian Castro, the others all impressed in their own ways. I'm not personally excited about Biden and never have been, but he does connect with a lot of people who will quietly vote and just want a return to normal. I'd prefer one of the lower tier candidates to understand how to capture the media spotlight, and do it in a positive way. That's who will beat Trump.
In the end, I'd prefer any of the democratic candidates to Trump and will vote for whoever wins.
However, I would get a little bit of schadenfreude if Bernie got the democratic nomination and then lost to Trump. I don't mind him personally, but his supporters are insufferable.
This is a little revisionist if you ask me.
Namely that Hillary "crushed" Bernie rather than "held on", which in no small part can be attributed to a deliberate effort at coronation by the DNC and corporate media.
Obama was an anomaly of sorts but youth turnout was in fact higher than usual for the primaries.
In 17 of the 24 states for which we have both 2008 and 2016 estimates, the percentage of young (ages 17-29) eligible voters who cast a ballot in 2016 was equal to or greater than in 2008. These included the states with the lowest (Nevada, 5%) and highest (New Hampshire, 43%) youth turnout, both of which were the same in ’08 and ’16. In several states, the estimated youth turnout jumped by a substantial amount, increasing by 6+ percentage points in Illinois (18% to 26%), Missouri (21% to 27%), North Carolina (15% to 24%), and Wisconsin (25% to 33%). In Michigan, it nearly doubled: from 14% to 27%. In contrast, in each of the seven states where youth participation was lower in 2016 than in 2008 (Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, and Ohio) the turnout rate dropped by 3 percentage points or less.
civicyouth.org
|
On May 08 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 07:45 RenSC2 wrote:
The interesting thing about something like the CNN poll is that if it's slanted towards older people, it might actually make it more accurate. Young people don't vote enough. Maybe the "beat Trump" or "Bernie!" waves will finally get them to vote this time, but it didn't happen in 2016 general election or primary. Boring old political insider Hillary crushed Bernie(!) in the primary despite so much of the internet energy being behind Bernie. Then those same internet people start shouting about how it must be rigged. No. The people who vote just quietly preferred Hillary and voted that way. It was the silent majority in action.
It doesn't seem that different this time around either. I'm currently undecided and I'll wait until at least after the first debate to make up my mind. I've seen a few candidates interview with Bill Maher and the only unimpressive one was Julian Castro, the others all impressed in their own ways. I'm not personally excited about Biden and never have been, but he does connect with a lot of people who will quietly vote and just want a return to normal. I'd prefer one of the lower tier candidates to understand how to capture the media spotlight, and do it in a positive way. That's who will beat Trump.
In the end, I'd prefer any of the democratic candidates to Trump and will vote for whoever wins.
However, I would get a little bit of schadenfreude if Bernie got the democratic nomination and then lost to Trump. I don't mind him personally, but his supporters are insufferable. This is a little revisionist if you ask me. Namely that Hillary "crushed" Bernie rather than "held on", which in no small part can be attributed to a deliberate effort at coronation by the DNC and corporate media. Obama was an anomaly of sorts but youth turnout was in fact higher than usual for the primaries. Show nested quote +In 17 of the 24 states for which we have both 2008 and 2016 estimates, the percentage of young (ages 17-29) eligible voters who cast a ballot in 2016 was equal to or greater than in 2008. These included the states with the lowest (Nevada, 5%) and highest (New Hampshire, 43%) youth turnout, both of which were the same in ’08 and ’16. In several states, the estimated youth turnout jumped by a substantial amount, increasing by 6+ percentage points in Illinois (18% to 26%), Missouri (21% to 27%), North Carolina (15% to 24%), and Wisconsin (25% to 33%). In Michigan, it nearly doubled: from 14% to 27%. In contrast, in each of the seven states where youth participation was lower in 2016 than in 2008 (Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, and Ohio) the turnout rate dropped by 3 percentage points or less. civicyouth.org
"Held on" isn't exactly accurate. Given the difference in votes when bernie surrendered, I think "crushed" is quite apt and not revisionist history.
|
Compare this fact to Trump's public persona, and you can see that Trump is a fraud through and through. We probably should have a sitting special counsel for the duration of Trump's time in office, monitoring everything he does and says. Otherwise, he can't be trusted.
|
On May 08 2019 06:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 06:31 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 05:05 ChristianS wrote:On May 08 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 07 2019 23:15 ChristianS wrote:On May 07 2019 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 07 2019 09:47 Mohdoo wrote:On May 07 2019 06:52 Plansix wrote:
My favorite candidate will be the one that knocks Biden out of the race, because my god we need to escape the 1990s Democrats. Next thing you know he will be apologizing for Bill Clinton. Jeb looked favored at one point too. Biden has no charisma. His numbers will drop like a brick after the first debate. I don't think it's even going to take a debate, from what I gather these recent polls showing biden surging (beyond what's typical for an announcement) we're really polling people over 50 which is about the split we'd expect and Biden's had for months. Good chance his polling of people under 50 is already plummeting, particularly when one considers he's been pretty universally shitcanned here. I hesitate to post this because I don’t like horse race coverage of elections, not least because people tend to intentionally or unintentionally use it as a cover for advocacy (e.g. instead of saying “I support Buttigieg” people say “Buttigieg sure is doing well in the polls, let’s talk about it”). So let me explicitly say I have no intention of voting for Biden in the primary. That said, I think you’re misreading the polls on Biden and Bernie somewhat. Nate Silver has written some about this and can defend the point better than I can (although he’s had some takes recently I’m more or less certain you’d hate), but the gist is Biden has consistently outperformed Bernie in the polls and most of the methodological criticisms people have for those polls (e.g. sample size or sampling bias) are off-base. We can certainly expect Biden’s numbers to drop in coming weeks, but not because recent polls were badly done - post-announcement polling bounces usually fade, that’s normal and to be expected. I think a lot of your prediction that Biden will fail is based more on your intuition than on the data; I won’t argue with your intuition there. But as far as the data is concerned, I have trouble seeing how you could look at Biden as anything other than a frontrunner right now. It's worth noting Nate Silver has basically become what he came to fix. A pundit that opines sans the data. The easiest example is when he tiered the candidates. You can put Biden and Bernie together or Biden on top then Bernie, but you can't have Buttigieg and Harris with Sanders, let alone Harris over Sanders. Or at least he didn't provide any data to support his pushing of Harris. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1116106327208747008As far as Biden's polling he has consistently held a lead, I can't speak to every recent poll but the CNN one showing him "solidifying his frontrunner status" definitely didn't have a significant sample from people under 50. cdn.cnn.comIf other recent ones showing his surge did I haven't seen it yet (could be, I just haven't seen it). Nate Silver is hit or miss for sure, imo. He has an obnoxious contrarian streak thst makes him say/do stuff seemingly just to get a rise out of people, and he likes to act self-aware about it, but he’s not self-aware enough to realize how that tendency toward “spicy” takes actually makes him more similar to a standard pundit; he thinks it sets him apart. On the polling, though, part of why I said something is because I think there’s a temptation to dig into methodology any time a poll suggests something you don’t like, and there’s been quite a bit of that among Sanders supporters recently. The algorithm: If(Supports my hypothesis) retweet uncritically Else quibble with methodology has an obvious confirmation bias to it when considered in those terms, but it’s very easy to fall into unintentionally. Speaking of Nate Silver, I think avoiding this kind of thinking is still one of his strengths as an analyst. Like I said, you tend to make pretty strong (that is, high certainty) predictions which seem more based on your intuition than any particular piece of data, and I wouldn’t know how to argue with you on that; if your intuition is that Bernie is the inevitable nominee, I don’t know what to say besides “we’ll see.” Personally I’m a bit scared that we’ll wind up with a contested convention scenario with no clear frontrunner; but I don’t have any particular evidence to support a prediction, so I wouldn’t know how to argue who’s right. I know you said something but I'm not sure it helps without some sort of data to support it (like I did with the CNN poll that was widely reported showing a surge that could also be explained by not including younger voters (people under 50) in the poll, and it turns out CNN poll did not include them). The thing about probability predictions, is that in elections, they're useless. It means I can say X has a 99.9% chance of winning, then they lose, but I still get to be right. The least risky position is simply saying you'll wait for the results, next is probability prediction, then a real prediction that can be wrong. I find the first two completely pointless as far as connecting analysis with accountability. I know a contested convention was Democrats plan since they made their super delegate compromise. They are putting a lot of faith in Biden/Harris/O'Rourke/Warren the other 15+ to get them there. I mean, I can google some polls for you, or I can link the 538 article that goes through the analysis showing Biden has a polling bounce from his announcement, but it doesn’t really matter that much anyway, since it was already apparent that a) Biden’s ahead, and b) people usually surge temporarily in polls after they announce, so it’s not surprising that he’s up. My point was only that you should be cautious doing methodological quibbling with specific polls that don’t show what you want. I don’t think it’s that important to your prediction anyway, although I’m unclear if it was supposed to have a more sinister undertone (i.e. does “CNN’s poll showing a Biden bounce sampled too many old people” have the subtext “CNN is rigging polls in Biden’s favor”?) Stochastic predictions are the only honest way to predict stochastic events. Does it make judging the quality of a prediction more statistically complex? Sure. Such are the struggles of living in a statistically complex world. Only one of those polls shows anything about the ages (that I saw) but it's still unclear how much of their sample was under 50. It does also show that the surge is with people over 50 though. Whether it's intentional or not is impossible to tell from here but when someone like Nate Silver opens in the article you linked. Show nested quote +CNN’s poll found Biden at 39 percent — up 11 points from 28 percent in their previous poll in March — and well ahead of Bernie Sanders, who was at 15 percent. then notes Show nested quote +Biden had 46 percent support from Democrats age 50-64 in CNN’s poll and 50 percent support from those 65 and older. But doesn't mention the poll is missing the ages where Bernie polls the strongest, he's not being the contrarian numbers guy, he's being the sellout pundit imo.
Sorry, after googling for a moment I’m realizing your methodological complaint about the CNN poll might not even be sound. Can you explain what exactly you think was wrong with that CNN poll, and what you think its significance is?
|
On May 08 2019 08:22 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 08 2019 07:45 RenSC2 wrote:
The interesting thing about something like the CNN poll is that if it's slanted towards older people, it might actually make it more accurate. Young people don't vote enough. Maybe the "beat Trump" or "Bernie!" waves will finally get them to vote this time, but it didn't happen in 2016 general election or primary. Boring old political insider Hillary crushed Bernie(!) in the primary despite so much of the internet energy being behind Bernie. Then those same internet people start shouting about how it must be rigged. No. The people who vote just quietly preferred Hillary and voted that way. It was the silent majority in action.
It doesn't seem that different this time around either. I'm currently undecided and I'll wait until at least after the first debate to make up my mind. I've seen a few candidates interview with Bill Maher and the only unimpressive one was Julian Castro, the others all impressed in their own ways. I'm not personally excited about Biden and never have been, but he does connect with a lot of people who will quietly vote and just want a return to normal. I'd prefer one of the lower tier candidates to understand how to capture the media spotlight, and do it in a positive way. That's who will beat Trump.
In the end, I'd prefer any of the democratic candidates to Trump and will vote for whoever wins.
However, I would get a little bit of schadenfreude if Bernie got the democratic nomination and then lost to Trump. I don't mind him personally, but his supporters are insufferable. This is a little revisionist if you ask me. Namely that Hillary "crushed" Bernie rather than "held on", which in no small part can be attributed to a deliberate effort at coronation by the DNC and corporate media. Obama was an anomaly of sorts but youth turnout was in fact higher than usual for the primaries. In 17 of the 24 states for which we have both 2008 and 2016 estimates, the percentage of young (ages 17-29) eligible voters who cast a ballot in 2016 was equal to or greater than in 2008. These included the states with the lowest (Nevada, 5%) and highest (New Hampshire, 43%) youth turnout, both of which were the same in ’08 and ’16. In several states, the estimated youth turnout jumped by a substantial amount, increasing by 6+ percentage points in Illinois (18% to 26%), Missouri (21% to 27%), North Carolina (15% to 24%), and Wisconsin (25% to 33%). In Michigan, it nearly doubled: from 14% to 27%. In contrast, in each of the seven states where youth participation was lower in 2016 than in 2008 (Iowa, South Carolina, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, and Ohio) the turnout rate dropped by 3 percentage points or less. civicyouth.org "Held on" isn't exactly accurate. Given the difference in votes when bernie surrendered, I think "crushed" is quite apt and not revisionist history.
Things look a lot closer when you take superdelegates out of the picture. It basically cuts her margin of victory in half.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
