Options

The Democratic Presidential Debates

1154155157159160230

Comments

  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,781
    ecdanc said:
    No


    Looks to me like they did....
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814


    Looks to me like they did....
    It’s a statistics website. You’re showing their probability model, which is not a prediction. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,845


    Looks to me like they did....
    71 isn't 100.
  • 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"
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,620

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











  • F Me In The BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,781
    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
  • brianlux said:

    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"
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,781
    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
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,720


    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.
  • 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"
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,720
    Still not a peep about preexisting conditions and privatizing medicare on here.

    Sorry Bernie, even on a left leaning forum, you have zero chance.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,781
    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
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    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. 
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,781
    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
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    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 BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,781

    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 BrainF Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,781
    ecdanc said:
    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
  • 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, 2024Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    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. 
  • 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"
  • ecdanc said:
    The explanation is simple: tax the rich as much as it takes. 
    Well he did actually say "We pay for that through a modest tax on Wall Street speculation."

    My assumed response from Wall Street: Define "modest." 

    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, 2024Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,845
    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 probably shouldn't unless you're a political junkie. 
  • ecdancecdanc Posts: 1,814
    Well he did actually say "We pay for that through a modest tax on Wall Street speculation."

    My assumed response from Wall Street: Define "modest." 
    If Wall Street is still there, too modest. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,845
    Just checked in and looking at the gorgeous capital of our mixed economy, here in the Financial District.   Granted it's not as pretty as Stalingrad, as I don't see any trains to Siberia filled with dissidents,  but one can hope one day we'll achieve the Marxist dream that is so successful. 


  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,107
    mrussel1 said:
    Just checked in and looking at the gorgeous capital of our mixed economy, here in the Financial District.   Granted it's not as pretty as Stalingrad, as I don't see any trains to Siberia filled with dissidents,  but one can hope one day we'll achieve the Marxist dream that is so successful. 


    We watched miracle in class today.  I swear all the Russian hickey players were probably killed after that olympics. Can’t bekieve it was forty years ago yesterday. 
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,409
    edited February 2020
    mrussel1 said:
    Just checked in and looking at the gorgeous capital of our mixed economy, here in the Financial District.   Granted it's not as pretty as Stalingrad, as I don't see any trains to Siberia filled with dissidents,  but one can hope one day we'll achieve the Marxist dream that is so successful. 


    In what way is that (from that view) gorgeous...

    ... find a better spot

    Also, you are mentioning "mixed economy" a lot lately. Sounding like some campaign adviser told to you push that. never seen it before from you. I take it you can't deny the superiority of Social Democracy anymore and have to move towards shining a bit of that light on the US in your rhetoric.
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New Jersey Posts: 29,107
    I always wanted to visit Volgograd, Siberia not so much. 
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,409
    edited February 2020
    My predictions -- and I HAVE BEEN SO DAMN CORRECT LATELY IN THIS THREAD.

    Elisabeth Warren will keep stealing the spotlight in the SC debate. Biden will in his live-or-die position perform really good. He will be on fire. Both taking support from Bernie. 

    Biden will overperform in SC. Bernie will underperform. And it will be the start of Bernie falling and Warren rising up again, and Biden taking back his no 1 spot in polls.
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,845
    In what way is that (from that view) gorgeous...

    ... find a better spot

    Also, you are mentioning "mixed economy" a lot lately. Sounding like some campaign adviser told to you push that. never seen it before from you. I take it you can't deny the superiority of Social Democracy anymore and have to move towards shining a bit of that light on the US in your rhetoric.
    We aren't laissez faire,  so Im being precise with the language that describes our economy.  And unfortunately,  the campaign advisers don't call or email me with social media strategies.  I think they've figured out this is the extent of my media presence. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 30,845
    mcgruff10 said:
    We watched miracle in class today.  I swear all the Russian hickey players were probably killed after that olympics. Can’t bekieve it was forty years ago yesterday. 
    Greatest sports moment in US history.  It's also my earliest Olympic memory.  I was 7 and my dad yanked me off the bus to watch it.  It was played on delay the next day.  I remember it clearly. 
This discussion has been closed.