The Democratic Presidential Debates

1…232233235237238…345

Comments

  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,808
    ecdanc said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    mrussel1 said:
    what dreams said:
    @mrussel1 check out the 586 polling site and do a search for VA 2020. They have VA going to Trump by a few points no matter who he's up against.
    I don't see it.  I assume you mean 538. The most recent look is from a few days ago and every D wins. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
    They had Hillary in a runaway in 2016, didn't they?

    No


    Looks to me like they did....
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • ecdanc
    ecdanc Posts: 1,814
    F Me In The Brain said:
    ecdanc said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    mrussel1 said:
    what dreams said:
    @mrussel1 check out the 586 polling site and do a search for VA 2020. They have VA going to Trump by a few points no matter who he's up against.
    I don't see it.  I assume you mean 538. The most recent look is from a few days ago and every D wins. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
    They had Hillary in a runaway in 2016, didn't they?

    No


    Looks to me like they did....
    It’s a statistics website. You’re showing their probability model, which is not a prediction. 
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,879
    F Me In The Brain said:
    ecdanc said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    mrussel1 said:
    what dreams said:
    @mrussel1 check out the 586 polling site and do a search for VA 2020. They have VA going to Trump by a few points no matter who he's up against.
    I don't see it.  I assume you mean 538. The most recent look is from a few days ago and every D wins. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
    They had Hillary in a runaway in 2016, didn't they?

    No


    Looks to me like they did....
    71 isn't 100.
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,465
    cincybearcat said:
    The Juggler said:
    Oh man. That 60 Minutes interview was bad. 

    Saying “I don’t know” when asked about how many trillions his plans (that will never get enacted) will cost. 

    Praising Fidel Castro. 

    Folks, this was an interview with ANDERSON COOPER. 


    This is nightmare scenario for those of us who just want to defeat Trump. Ugh. 


    I did not see it. Did he really say that?
    You get his answer here, at the start:

    https://youtu.be/BfD1UN7pyYk
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    So is Yang proxy-endorsing? What do you think @brianlux




    What is proxy-endorsing? 
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,808
    OK, I mis-worded that post.  In 2016, 538's
    "final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College."

    Why do I care what they show for polling, now?

    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,465
    brianlux said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    So is Yang proxy-endorsing? What do you think @brianlux




    What is proxy-endorsing? 
    Him endorsing Bernie but not plainly saying he is. Instead tweeting a news article about another person endorsing Bernie.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,830
    This seems like a problem. For those of you that are pro-Bernie, what do you make of this? Do you fee this is an issue and if not, why not?

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-2020/index.html

    hippiemom = goodness
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,851
    F Me In The Brain said:
    ecdanc said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    mrussel1 said:
    what dreams said:
    @mrussel1 check out the 586 polling site and do a search for VA 2020. They have VA going to Trump by a few points no matter who he's up against.
    I don't see it.  I assume you mean 538. The most recent look is from a few days ago and every D wins. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
    They had Hillary in a runaway in 2016, didn't they?

    No


    Looks to me like they did....

    It was as low as 64% the week of the election and the national average must be considered with their state averages to get a clearer understanding. 

    538 had the 3 tipping point states at 1% in 2016.
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,465
    cincybearcat said:
    This seems like a problem. For those of you that are pro-Bernie, what do you make of this? Do you fee this is an issue and if not, why not?

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-2020/index.html

    I don't get why they don't have a rough estimate at least to spit out. 

    Bad answer. I don't really see it as a "gotcha" that will be a big issue - I mean, he hasn't been able to give a concrete answer before this. Curious about the reasons for not having an answer.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,851
    Still not a peep about preexisting conditions and privatizing medicare on here.

    Sorry Bernie, even on a left leaning forum, you have zero chance.
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,830
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    cincybearcat said:
    This seems like a problem. For those of you that are pro-Bernie, what do you make of this? Do you fee this is an issue and if not, why not?

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-2020/index.html

    I don't get why they don't have a rough estimate at least to spit out. 

    Bad answer. I don't really see it as a "gotcha" that will be a big issue - I mean, he hasn't been able to give a concrete answer before this. Curious about the reasons for not having an answer.
    Honestly I’m really surprised he doesn’t have an answer. He’s been spitting out numbers and %’s for what...4-5years on the national stage? It’s like a Bloomberg moment, he had to know he’d be asked right? Does he think people don’t care? Very strange.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • ecdanc
    ecdanc Posts: 1,814
    Lerxst1992 said:
    Still not a peep about preexisting conditions and privatizing medicare on here.

    Sorry Bernie, even on a left leaning forum, you have zero chance.
    Left-leaning, my ass. 
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,830
    Lerxst1992 said:
    Still not a peep about preexisting conditions and privatizing medicare on here.

    Sorry Bernie, even on a left leaning forum, you have zero chance.
    Huh? When comparing democrats, aren’t they all planning to cover pre-existing conditions? 
    hippiemom = goodness
  • ecdanc
    ecdanc Posts: 1,814
    F Me In The Brain said:
    OK, I mis-worded that post.  In 2016, 538's
    "final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College."

    Why do I care what they show for polling, now?

    You don’t have to care, but you could at least try to understand. If I were to say, this baseball player is batting .300, so there’s a 70% chance he doesn’t get a hit here, I’m not *wrong* if he gets a hit. 
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,808
    Lerxst1992 said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    ecdanc said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    mrussel1 said:
    what dreams said:
    @mrussel1 check out the 586 polling site and do a search for VA 2020. They have VA going to Trump by a few points no matter who he's up against.
    I don't see it.  I assume you mean 538. The most recent look is from a few days ago and every D wins. 

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
    They had Hillary in a runaway in 2016, didn't they?

    No


    Looks to me like they did....

    It was as low as 64% the week of the election and the national average must be considered with their state averages to get a clearer understanding. 

    538 had the 3 tipping point states at 1% in 2016.

    Yes my runaway wording was wrong, I see that.
    Looking at their final 2016 forecast, though, only supports my question as to why I would care about their polling.
    With all items considered they stated that there was only a 10.5% chance that Clinton would win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.

    Polling and these sorts of things proved to be unreliable last go-around and I do not put any faith in them this time.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,808
    ecdanc said:
    F Me In The Brain said:
    OK, I mis-worded that post.  In 2016, 538's
    "final forecast, issued early Tuesday evening, had Trump with a 29 percent chance of winning the Electoral College."

    Why do I care what they show for polling, now?

    You don’t have to care, but you could at least try to understand. If I were to say, this baseball player is batting .300, so there’s a 70% chance he doesn’t get a hit here, I’m not *wrong* if he gets a hit. 

    Thank you, I did take a course on Statistics & Probability...but it was so terribly long ago.  :lol:                  
    Forget everything that they covered.
    I still don't care about 538 and their current polling.  I disagree and hope that I am incorrect.  As much as I dislike what Sanders will try to bring to bear in our country I do think it is better than what Trump already did.
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,993
    cincybearcat said:
    This seems like a problem. For those of you that are pro-Bernie, what do you make of this? Do you fee this is an issue and if not, why not?

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-2020/index.html
    It's definitely something the others are going to bring up at tomorrow's debate. It's not a "gotcha" type of thing like Amy not knowing the Mexican President's name. Medicare for all and free college tuition are the two centerpieces of Sanders' campaign. If he can't explain it, who can? 

    He should have just said Mexico is going to pay for it, and that he'll talk to President-What's-His-Name about it. It's worked before I guess. 
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • ecdanc
    ecdanc Posts: 1,814
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    cincybearcat said:
    This seems like a problem. For those of you that are pro-Bernie, what do you make of this? Do you fee this is an issue and if not, why not?

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/24/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-2020/index.html
    It's definitely something the others are going to bring up at tomorrow's debate. It's not a "gotcha" type of thing like Amy not knowing the Mexican President's name. Medicare for all and free college tuition are the two centerpieces of Sanders' campaign. If he can't explain it, who can? 

    He should have just said Mexico is going to pay for it, and that he'll talk to President-What's-His-Name about it. It's worked before I guess. 
    The explanation is simple: tax the rich as much as it takes. 
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,465
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    So South Carolina is on Saturday.  Wasn't there suppose to be a debate before that too?
    It's tomorrow night. 
    No pods needed to be lined up for work on Wednesday then. Cool.

    STEYER IS BACK! 
    You're wise to be excited about that. Any of these "no chance in hell" candidates that stick around probably benefit your boy Bernie by taking votes away from the likes of Biden and Bloomberg. 
    You should be happy. It will make you win in November.
    I'm not even running. 
    And I don't have a boy.
    But by saying "it will make you win in November," you're suggesting that I'm a Trump fan, which I'm not. You very, very much seem to be a big fan of Bernie Sanders, as evidenced by all your posts over the past few pages. That's why I referred to him as your boy, as in someone you're a fan of and/or admire. 
    Your buddy Bernie will crush Trump in November. Because empathy and common sense will prevail.
    Well I don’t know about that but I am one of the people that think Sanders could possibly beat Trump. Too many people think he’s hopeless and think Bloomberg would have a better chance. Neither would have a good chance in my opinion. But at least some people (like you!) are excited about Sanders. Not much excitement surrounding the other Dems. 
    Bloomberg won't get people excited. Biden won't either. Just some tired relief. And I think that tiredness will affect turnout,

    I think: Sanders, Warren and Pete are the ones that will have a running hype start if they are the winner

    I think the whole "moderates will stay home if Sanders THE COMMIE is elected" is more wrong than right.

    And I'm an expert on US politics. 
    Pete and Warren don't stand a chance of being the nominee (both could be good VPs though, Pete kinda looks like VP). Neither will ever get as many delegates as Sanders, and if it goes to a brokered convention, neither would get the nod by the superdelegates over Biden or Bloomberg. Because THEY, the DNC are the TRUE experts on U.S. politics.  

    One problem with Sanders (or strength, depending on your point of view) is he seems a bit unwilling to compromise. These are his views, they've been his views for decades, he's sticking by them. That's commendable to a degree, from a morality standpoint. But in a general election, a candidate has to move a bit to the middle for the undecided or independent voters. Every candidate. Obama, who was considered far-left at the time, had to do it just like all the others. Will Sanders (if he's the nominee) be willing to do that? Trump vs. Sanders can't be perceived as capitalism vs. socialism because Sanders wouldn't have a chance. But if it's perceived as Trump vs. Sanders as people, and as leaders, maybe Bernie could pull it off. Maybe....
    Yeah. That is def one of Sanders problems. There is an old-man stubbornness there. And i get his frustration, living in a very walled of country while he has peeked over that wall and see that social democracy is "better" (I put that in quotation marks to not come of as stubborn) and a given.

    But I also think that is a brand issue for his advisers etc - Let Bernie be Bernie with the shown strengths it has or risk to have him wimper away if he suddenly start to become something not-Bernie. 

    I would be very curious to see Bernies VP pick. If it would be a moderate to cover new voting-ground or a close ally -a mirror of the boy himself.
    Yeah that's probably true. "Bernie being Bernie" is what got him this far in the first place. 

    I know it sounds strange because he's already served the position, but Biden would be the perfect running-mate for Sanders, for many of the same reasons that he was perfect running-mate for Obama: just a moderate politician that's been around forever and has shown an ability to work with both democrats and republicans.

    But another Biden for VP run seems unrealistic. One thing for Buttigieg, I contend he just LOOKS like a vice-president. If you time-warped 1989 Dan Quayle to the present, stood him beside Buttigieg, and asked someone who wasn't familiar with either of them "Which one of these two do you think is the Vice-President?," I think you'd get varying answers. 

    As for the other Dems that are still in the race, I think Warren is too close to him politically, I'm not sure Pete would move the needle much, and I doubt Klobuchar would move the needle at all. Maybe Cory Booker would be a good option? I don't know, it's tough to forecast. 
    What about Kirsten Gillibrand?
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
This discussion has been closed.

Categories