Page 69 of 88 FirstFirst ...
19
59
67
68
69
70
71
79
... LastLast
  1. #1361
    Quote Originally Posted by mvaliz View Post
    As much as I don't like that guy - that's actually his point. Tea Party was also very small, and then Palin/Dump brought them to the limelight long enough to get them into a force in 2016.

    You might want to watch the Frontline Documentary. One of the things they talked about was the immediate rise of the Tea Party in 2016 thanks to Sara Fukwit Palin. predictable.
    Did you mean 2009/2010? Because the Tea Party as an actual brand was over by 2016. Their extremism is mainstream now, but no one uses the name.

  2. #1362
    Quote Originally Posted by jakeic View Post
    Except that isn't what we're talking about, 538 is building a model to predict the primary season. In this case, they are not simply reporting on polls or averages of polls, they are taking the polling numbers and applying whatever they think is required to forecast a winner. They clearly were overvaluing Biden, as for if they're trying to fix whatever caused that to happen, that is simply speculation. Technically, their initial prediction could be right, since Biden only won in about half of the simulations.
    That's what I basically said. The whole 538 model is based off other's polling data, not their own.

    Also note that article you linked was dated Jan 9th. Their primary polling data has been pointing to Biden until Iowa since then.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabray View Post
    Did you mean 2009/2010? Because the Tea Party as an actual brand was over by 2016. Their extremism is mainstream now, but no one uses the name.
    They did in 2016. While they didn't call themselves that, they did get organized by the tea party previously - and then just stayed grouped themselves under areas like Breitbart, ect. That's why Dump immediately courted (...) Sarah Palin in 2016 as a gateway to the former Tea Partiers who were still Tea Party at heart.

  3. #1363
    Quote Originally Posted by mvaliz View Post
    They did in 2016. While they didn't call themselves that, they did get organized by the tea party previously - and then just stayed grouped themselves under areas like Breitbart, ect. That's why Dump immediately courted (...) Sarah Palin in 2016 as a gateway to the former Tea Partiers who were still Tea Party at heart.
    Yeah that’s more or less what I meant, people just dropped the name a long time ago. It’s the far right of the party, it’s all it ever was, now it’s all there is.

  4. #1364
    Quote Originally Posted by mvaliz View Post
    That's what I basically said. The whole 538 model is based off other's polling data, not their own.

    Also note that article you linked was dated Jan 9th. Their primary polling data has been pointing to Biden until Iowa since then.
    I don't know why I can't let this go, but I can't.

    538 is creating a model, a process (an algorithm) for predicting the outcome of the primary season. It takes whatever they think is important, in this case polling data (regardless if they are actually doing the polling or not) and whatever else (that article has some more fluff about how it works, it's not technical because if others had that then they could run the simulations and forecast) like endorsements and money, then it spits out an answer. Before Iowa, their model predicted that Biden would win the nomination in roughly 50% of the simulations (in Iowa Biden was 42% chance to win). After Iowa, Biden is being predicted to win the nomination in 18% of simulations, which their model takes into account moving forward, they call it bounce/collapse.

    So, whatever was going on under the hood of their predictions does change based on how badly they missed the mark, which is drastically for Biden. That being said, Biden didn't win the outright nomination 50% of the time initially, so technically their model could have been right the entire time and we're simply in that scenario, but it is hard to tell because they don't have any of the information prior to Iowa view-able.

  5. #1365
    *sigh*

    I think we should take polling data with an unhealthy amount of salt.

  6. #1366
    Quote Originally Posted by jakeic View Post
    I don't know why I can't let this go, but I can't.

    538 is creating a model, a process (an algorithm) for predicting the outcome of the primary season. It takes whatever they think is important, in this case polling data (regardless if they are actually doing the polling or not) and whatever else (that article has some more fluff about how it works, it's not technical because if others had that then they could run the simulations and forecast) like endorsements and money, then it spits out an answer. Before Iowa, their model predicted that Biden would win the nomination in roughly 50% of the simulations (in Iowa Biden was 42% chance to win). After Iowa, Biden is being predicted to win the nomination in 18% of simulations, which their model takes into account moving forward, they call it bounce/collapse.

    So, whatever was going on under the hood of their predictions does change based on how badly they missed the mark, which is drastically for Biden. That being said, Biden didn't win the outright nomination 50% of the time initially, so technically their model could have been right the entire time and we're simply in that scenario, but it is hard to tell because they don't have any of the information prior to Iowa view-able.
    It's also noteworthy that their odds of a contested convention with no winner going into it rose sharply to 27%.

  7. #1367
    538's predictions have changed because the polls have moved. It's unlikely they changed something in the underlying algorithm and simulations.

    The polls were moving before Iowa; I saw a bunch of discussion on it last week, well ahead of Iowa. Furthermore, any impact from Iowa is almost certainly not even showing up in any of the polls yet; it's far too early for that, especially given the ongoing results debacle.

    Biden has been imploding for a while so it is no great shock to see him dropping (especially with Bloomberg spending stupid money on advertising). Getting recorded on camera telling people to vote for someone else just because they asked you a tough question is absolutely stupid behavior. Getting filmed doing it TWICE is suicidal.

  8. #1368
    I think some people see trolls on social media, assume they're genuine Sanders supporters, and then imagine this huge force of "bernie bros" out terrorizing the world. In reality, many of these people probably aren't even American citizens. Kind of like how a "news site" will post a headline about the internet going crazy about something stupid when in reality no one really gives a shit. Blowing things out of proportion for drama is common nowadays.

    I always remain skeptical of this kind of nonsense because as I've posted in other threads, even individuals can go hire others to do this kind of shit. I can, right now, go hire a team to troll, spread propaganda, do marketing for a product, or whatever else I like. If I can pay then I get the service. And I'm just one person with a modest budget. Of course rich insiders, companies, and governments can do much, much more.

    Rule of thumb is to just completely ignore any kind of nonsense regarding Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc... Most posters are not who they are pretending to be.

    Anyways, what's happening to Biden should be no surprise. As others have said many times, he was living off the good will towards Obama and the false notion that he had the best chance to beat Trump. People now know that Obama didn't want him to run and was backing Warren. They're also catching on that he's not a good candidate. But, we already knew this from his past campaigns.

    Without something major happening, it may be too late for establishment dems to stop Sanders. Either way, they better pick one person and go all in or it won't matter. Pete isn't a good choice. He won't pull it off. It could be Warren if they pull off some genius move to rehab her image after making two huge mistakes. As crazy as it is, their best shot may be Bloomberg.

  9. #1369
    Quote Originally Posted by Blur4stuff View Post
    Without something major happening, it may be too late for establishment dems to stop Sanders. Either way, they better pick one person and go all in or it won't matter. Pete isn't a good choice. He won't pull it off. It could be Warren if they pull off some genius move to rehab her image after making two huge mistakes. As crazy as it is, their best shot may be Bloomberg.
    There is only one candidate who has been showing signs of any real movement over the last few weeks, and that's Sanders.

    The other candidates are either mostly stagnating or falling, with Bloomberg being one of the few movers (likely down to his insane levels of advert spending - he's everywhere at the moment, at least for me).

    Meanwhile, Sanders is in the media constantly...just like Trump was during the 2016 Republican primaries. It's free advertising on a level that even Bloomberg can't buy (though he's close).

  10. #1370
    Just gonna leave this here...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/u...ite-votes.html

    TLDR - Sanders netted 3.8 extra SDE's based on an interpretation of the rules that contradicts their official rulebooks.

    The winner of the Iowa Democratic caucus might come down to one not-so-simple question: How many state delegate equivalents does a satellite caucus get?

    The Iowa Democratic Party’s answer, first evident when it released the results of satellite caucuses Wednesday night, differs from what was expected by at least one Democratic campaign and here at The Upshot, based on the state party’s official delegate selection plan.

    The difference between the two interpretations is a net 3.8 state delegates — small in just about any contest except one separated by 3.42 state delegates, as the Iowa race is right now.

    Under the Iowa Democratic Party’s interpretation, Bernie Sanders gains. He scratches out three extra delegates and Pete Buttigieg loses one, compared with the alternative interpretation.

    The difference turns on whether a satellite caucus is awarded state delegate equivalents based on the total turnout at the caucus, or based on the number of county delegates awarded to a caucus. These state delegate equivalents are the estimated number of delegates each candidate will get at the state convention, and they’re the measure used to determine the winner in Iowa.

    Widespread use of satellite caucuses are a new feature of the 2020 race. The Iowa Democratic Party, responding to calls to make the process more accessible, allowed people to apply to hold them wherever there were groups of Democrats who wished to participate but otherwise couldn’t, such as at universities, hospitals, out-of-state military installations or overseas. It was a mystery then who might stand to benefit.

    It’s now clear that Mr. Sanders has benefited. In the final preference vote in satellite caucuses, he defeated Mr. Buttigieg by a staggering margin of 47 to 7 percent.

    But what is not clear is how many state delegates that’s worth. And since this was the first time the Iowa Democratic Party released Iowa satellite caucus results with tabulated vote tallies, it was not even known until Wednesday night that it could be unclear.


    The Iowa Democratic Party appears to have allotted state delegates by caucus in direct proportion to the turnout of each satellite caucus. So, if there are two caucuses and one has 60 caucusgoers and one has 10, the former will have six times as many state delegate equivalents as the latter. This is reasonable enough, and it appears to be the way it’s described on the satellite caucus FAQ:

    “Each congressional district will have one additional satellite caucus county, where the results from each satellite caucus within that congressional district will be reported, weighted by the number of participants in the satellite caucuses.”

    It does not specify how one weights by participants, but the most straightforward interpretation is that the number of state delegate equivalents per satellite caucus is in exact proportion to the turnout.

    In this approach, Mr. Sanders wins a smashing victory in the satellite caucuses reporting so far. He wins 21.8 state delegates to a mere 1.2 for Mr. Buttigieg, narrowing Mr. Buttigieg’s lead by a full percentage point.

    But the Iowa Delegate Selection Plan to the Democratic National Committee, the exhaustive and official 78-page rule book that The New York Times used for its election night forecasting model, appears to allot state delegates by satellite caucus differently.

    The delegate selection plan first awards state delegates to the satellite caucuses as a whole, but does not apportion them to individual precincts. In a subsequent section, it then appears to allocate state delegates to individual precincts based on county delegates:

    “The relative strength of each viable preference group within an in-person satellite caucus will be used to determine the allocation of in-person satellite caucus delegates to the district and state conventions. To determine relative strength, each satellite caucus will be allocated county delegate equivalents. These are not elected delegate positions, but rather used to determine the allocation of district/state delegates.”

    This passage is not especially clear on its own. One could interpret it to affect only the number of state delegates per candidate at a caucus, and has no bearing on how many state delegates a caucus has to award. But the most straightforward interpretation is that the number of state delegates per caucus is based on the number of county convention delegates. It is worth noting that this is the way it works in typical (nonsatellite) precincts: The number of state delegate equivalents is directly proportionate to county delegates.

    And while the number of county convention delegates at each satellite caucus is based on the turnout, it is not directly proportionate. For instance, a satellite precinct with 1 to 20 people gets four delegates, while a caucus with 21 to 40 caucusgoers gets five delegates. Most important, it limits the influence of any one precinct: A caucus can’t get more than nine county delegates, regardless of how many caucusgoers attend.

    The appendix of the delegate selection plan appears to confirm this interpretation. In the example given, the number of state delegate equivalents awarded to each satellite caucus is directly proportional to the number of county convention delegates, even though they have varying turnout. In the example, a nursing home with 37 people receives five delegate equivalents; a group home has 12 people, and it receives four delegate equivalents. A subsequent table shows the number of state delegate equivalents is directly proportional to county delegates, regardless of turnout by satellite caucus.



    Mr. Sanders’s lead narrows with this method. He excelled in the largest satellite caucuses, which get proportionately fewer delegates. His state delegate tally falls to 18.5 from 21.8, while Mr. Buttigieg’s increases to 1.88 from 1.2.

    At the largest satellite caucus site, at the University of Iowa, Mr. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren tied for the vote lead on final alignment, while Mr. Buttigieg was not viable (less than 15 percent of the vote). The total turnout was 318 people; under this interpretation of the rules, this satellite caucus would be worth just nine county delegates — less than twice the number of a caucus with a mere 21 caucusgoers. Under the Iowa Democratic Party’s interpretation of the rules, it would be worth more than 15 times as many state delegate equivalents.

    In ordinary circumstances, this ambiguity would not be a big deal. The difference is fairly small in the scheme of all the state delegates at stake. These are not ordinary circumstances.

    At the moment, the Iowa race is exceptionally close. If the results are otherwise accurate — and they may not be — with 97 percent of precincts reporting, Mr. Buttigieg leads by 3.42 state delegate equivalents. And one congressional district worth of satellite caucuses is yet to report. Those satellite caucuses, alone, could give Mr. Sanders a lead if he does as well as he has in the other congressional districts. But Mr. Buttigieg probably holds an edge in the remaining nonsatellite precincts, which very easily could bring Mr. Sanders’s lead back within the margin of the net 3.8 delegates he currently gains under the Iowa Democratic Party’s interpretation of the rules.

    What’s the right answer? There might not be an undisputed one. And with so many other irregularities in the results, one wonders whether the Iowa caucuses will have a definitive winner at all.
    Last edited by kaelleria; 2020-02-06 at 11:27 PM.

  11. #1371
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    T
    What is debunked? Was Biden Vice President? Was his son on the board of Burisma. Was Joe Biden dealing with Ukraine? Did Joe Biden claim he knew nothing about where his son worked? Did Joe threaten to keep aid from Ukraine if they didnt fire a prosecutor? Point out which part was debunked.

    Russian propaganda, really? Is that all you have?
    I think this has still to be answered. So I will do that here. And you can go through my posts over the last few days to see that I am anti Biden, since he is right wing in my European eyes, and pro Bernie, since I believe he is the only one that can bring enough change in the US, that is desperately needed on a world stage, especially in regards to climate change which is STILL not taking fucking serious by politicians (really unhappy with German government, too... well, what to expect after 15 years of conservative governing -.- )

    The whole Biden was corrupt thing is a Russian talking point. Most of the stuff you listed is true in isolation, but:
    - Biden never initiated anything himself, he demanded the firing on behalf of congress (both sides) and the EU
    - The whole thing happened AFTER Burisma was investigated. At that point Burisma was already "cleared" by Shokin at that point
    - This does obviously mean that by pressing to fire Shokin, there was a possibility that the new prosecutor would look into Burisma again. So basically Biden did not "stop" the investigation into his son's firm (i.e. the Russian talking point) but may potentially have restarted it

    Hunter Biden:
    - No, it is not illegal to take a position on an international board.
    - No, he was not unqualified. He was on similar positions already and had years of experience. Also he graduated from Yale Law School.
    - Did he get the job because his last name was Biden? It didn't hurt (and may have been a big factor in the end, though not the only one most likely). This is sadly how capitalism works. Everywhere. In the US this is happening ALL the time. And often with way more unqualified people.

  12. #1372
    Satellite caucuses held overseas favoured Sanders? Must have been held in Russia.

  13. #1373
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    Satellite caucuses held overseas favoured Sanders? Must have been held in Russia.
    You are so funny!


    In all seriousness. It makes sense that caucuses overseas skew heavily towards Sanders. They basically live the life he wants for Americans, so they value his policies. I am pretty sure that Sanders would easily get 40-50% in most of Europe, because he is the only left-wing candidate. Warren may steal some as centrist.

  14. #1374
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    Satellite caucuses held overseas favoured Sanders? Must have been held in Russia.
    Nah... It was actually mostly the satellites within Iowa. They purposefully went out and told people to come to satellites rather than actual caucuses, which is a pretty smart idea as no one was paying attention to them. The only issue is, the double dipped on the turnout bonuses and got Bernie nearly 4 extra SDEs...

  15. #1375
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Inuyaki View Post
    You are so funny!

    In all seriousness. It makes sense that caucuses overseas skew heavily towards Sanders. They basically live the life he wants for Americans, so they value his policies. I am pretty sure that Sanders would easily get 40-50% in most of Europe, because he is the only left-wing candidate. Warren may steal some as centrist.
    That's nice dear. Having been a progressive living overseas I do not value him as a candidate at all.

    Don't speak for me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  16. #1376
    The Lightbringer Blade Wolf's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Futa Heaven
    Posts
    3,294
    https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/...695344129?s=21

    So after this BS, is it fair to say the DNC are actively fighting against Sanders now?
    "when i'm around you i'm like a level 5 metapod. all i can do is harden!"

    Quote Originally Posted by unholytestament View Post
    The people who cry for censorship aren't going to be buying the game anyway. Censoring it, is going to piss off the people who were going to buy it.
    Barret: It's a good thing we had those Phoenix Downs.
    Cloud: You have the downs!

  17. #1377
    Quote Originally Posted by Blade Wolf View Post
    https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/...695344129?s=21

    So after this BS, is it fair to say the DNC are actively fighting against Sanders now?
    No... There's a math error in the distribution of SDE's from satellite caucuses that is working in his favor right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    Just gonna leave this here...
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/u...ite-votes.html

    TLDR - Sanders netted 3.8 extra SDE's based on an interpretation of the rules that contradicts their official rulebooks.

  18. #1378
    Quote Originally Posted by Blade Wolf View Post
    https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/...695344129?s=21

    So after this BS, is it fair to say the DNC are actively fighting against Sanders now?
    you do realize they could have just... not let him in at all?

  19. #1379
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Blade Wolf View Post
    https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/...695344129?s=21

    So after this BS, is it fair to say the DNC are actively fighting against Sanders now?
    Y'all were literally calling for an audit of the results when Pete was in the lead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  20. #1380
    Quote Originally Posted by Blade Wolf View Post
    https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/...695344129?s=21

    So after this BS, is it fair to say the DNC are actively fighting against Sanders now?
    No, this is more nonsense.

    Perez calling for a recanvas in light of the monumentally epic shitshow that this is is his way of being the "neutral" party to call for one so that no candidate's campaign can be accused of being "sore losers" etc.

    Ryan Grim is not actually connecting anything in the Dan Merica tweet to his allegation that this is due to Sanders getting more votes in satellites.

    And weren't Sanders supporters calling for this for days?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •