Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[DarkTZeratul]

He literally did do it for Hillary and campaigned for her.

You guys have selective memory just because you hate Sanders.

Sanders did. A lot of his followers did not.

[Spectral]

correlation does not mean causation

Not in formal logic, but for real world reasoning, correlation is consistent with the hypothesis that there is an underlying causal relationship.

More to the point, that doesn't really matter here - even if there's shared underlying causality, you're still improving your predictions by looking at correlative relationships that have strong history.

As for who the leading candidate is no one really knows the press has spent 95% of the time leading up to this ignoring Bernie Sanders even though is numbers have remained pretty steady and he clearly was going to be a contender.

Right, I think we can pretty clearly state that Sanders is the leading candidate. Watching the teevee last night, I complained to my wife about the ridiculous double standard - commentators really were acting like the Klobucharge was basically a victory and kept using the phrase "winning begets winning" about Pete. This seems ridiculous when all of the best available data would point to Sanders as the clear frontrunner.

It's actually quite reminiscent of the Republican 2016 race. Remember the cheerleading for Rubio finishing third in Iowa as though that was an accomplishment?

[Telogrus]

Lmao some news outlets aren't even mentioning who got 1st in NH. When did Bernie Sanders become he who shall not be named?

[Draco-Onis]

Not in formal logic, but for real world reasoning, correlation is consistent with the hypothesis that there is an underlying causal relationship.

More to the point, that doesn't really matter here - even if there's shared underlying causality, you're still improving your predictions by looking at correlative relationships that have strong history.

Right, I think we can pretty clearly state that Sanders is the leading candidate. Watching the teevee last night, I complained to my wife about the ridiculous double standard - commentators really were acting like the Klobucharge was basically a victory and kept using the phrase "winning begets winning" about Pete. This seems ridiculous when all of the best available data would point to Sanders as the clear frontrunner.

It's actually quite reminiscent of the Republican 2016 race. Remember the cheerleading for Rubio finishing third in Iowa as though that was an accomplishment?

Watching the news it is the historic mayor Pete surge and Klobuchar's amazing performance the only time Bernie was mentioned was to spin it into how he unperformed and that if you put Amy's numbers with Pete he would have lost. You are right there is a lot of comparison to Trump the media is in love with anyone but Bernie all I see are glowing interviews and talk about Mayor Pete and Bloomberg.

[Lenonis]

Lmao some news outlets aren't even mentioning who got 1st in NH.

List them please. Show the class your work.

[Telogrus]

List them please. Show the class your work.

Reuters and MSNBC for starters

[Spectral]

Fun example of the ridiculous over at NBC News:

Klobuchar's bronze is gold as Democrats awaken to a scrambled field

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Olympians know bronze feels better than silver. Now, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., does, too.

Finishing third in New Hampshire's Democratic presidential primary Tuesday meant breathing a burst of life into her campaign and holding her most reviled rival, Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, to a second-place showing.

Her home-stretch surge, fueled by a stellar debate performance Friday, appeared to be the key factor that robbed Buttigieg of the votes he needed to top Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Tabloid level garbage.

[Telogrus]

Fun example of the ridiculous over at NBC News:

Tabloid level garbage.

Any Klobuchar is now the Marco Rubio of this race. We already know that Joe Biden is Jeb. Pete Buttigieg is Ted Cruz I guess? Don’t know who Warren would be

[Lenonis]

Reuters and MSNBC for starters

Reuters.com front page headline: "Democrats eye Nevada, South Carolina after Sanders wins in New Hampshire"

MSNBC.com front page is a hot mess but when I click the news heading -- front page headline "Bernie Sanders is now the front-runner. And moderates may be too divided to stop him."

If you are going to lie maybe do so in a way that isn't so easily debunked.

[derpkitteh]

Right, I think we can pretty clearly state that Sanders is the leading candidate. Watching the teevee last night, I complained to my wife about the ridiculous double standard - commentators really were acting like the Klobucharge was basically a victory and kept using the phrase "winning begets winning" about Pete. This seems ridiculous when all of the best available data would point to Sanders as the clear frontrunner.

It's actually quite reminiscent of the Republican 2016 race. Remember the cheerleading for Rubio finishing third in Iowa as though that was an accomplishment?

sanders isn't winning though. all of the support is behind moderate candidates.

warren and sanders are the progressives, right? their numbers from last night add up to 102,544. the moderate numbers? 154,633.

do you honestly think that when biden drops, those supporters will go to sanders? no, it goes to the other moderates, either bloomberg or pete, or maybe klob. pete's already ahead of sanders in delegates, and won the iowa thing. i don't think sanders has the support to beat bootyjudge.

you have to consider the fact that all of these north eastern states are rather far left compared to the rest of the country. if he can barely eek out a win in his own turf, surely it's fucked for the areas of the country where even dems are right-leaning.

[Telogrus]

Reuters.com front page headline: "Democrats eye Nevada, South Carolina after Sanders wins in New Hampshire"

MSNBC.com front page is a hot mess but when I click the news heading -- front page headline "Bernie Sanders is now the front-runner. And moderates may be too divided to stop him."

If you are going to lie maybe do so in a way that isn't so easily debunked.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/s...50582430093314

[Spectral]

sanders isn't winning though. all of the support is behind moderate candidates.

warren and sanders are the progressives, right? their numbers from last night add up to 102,544. the moderate numbers? 154,633.

do you honestly think that when biden drops, those supporters will go to sanders? no, it goes to the other moderates, either bloomberg or pete, or maybe klob. pete's already ahead of sanders in delegates, and won the iowa thing. i don't think sanders has the support to beat bootyjudge.

you have to consider the fact that all of these north eastern states are rather far left compared to the rest of the country. if he can barely eek out a win in his own turf, surely it's fucked for the areas of the country where even dems are right-leaning.

I think lanes exist, but far too much has been made of lanes. Biden voters aren't likely to just mass switch to the same candidate. See, for example, the data on second choices (link):

Updated data would likely show Buttigieg and Bloomberg performing better than that, but "moderates" aren't as moderate as people think they are in this context.

[Lenonis]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/s...50582430093314

https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/s...91343222198272
https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/s...86309860216832
https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/s...44932673937408
https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/s...30946825973760
https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/s...20878634115074
https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/s...15385429708807

I could go on.

Wherever you are mindlessly regurgitating your talking points from please do us all a favor and do literally 10 seconds of checking.

[derpkitteh]

I think lanes exist, but far too much has been made of lanes. Biden voters aren't likely to just mass switch to the same candidate. See, for example, the data on second choices (link):
[IMG]https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/rakich-secondchoice-1205-1.png?w=575[IMG]
Updated data would likely show Buttigieg and Bloomberg performing better than that, but "moderates" aren't as moderate as people think they are in this context.

hmmm, idk. i still don't think sanders has got it ultimately. but i guess we'll see.

either way, neither side needs to be lax. i might talk my brother into voting, and if he does, i'll vote too so i don't have to do it alone.

[Wyrt]

Lmao some news outlets aren't even mentioning who got 1st in NH. When did Bernie Sanders become he who shall not be named?

For awhile. They've been intentionally removing him from graphics and such for awhile. They've even presented polling data where Sanders was listed as "Other."

[Telogrus]

For awhile. They've been intentionally removing him from graphics and such for awhile. They've even presented polling data where Sanders was listed as "Other."

The bias against Bernie, Yang, and Tulsi is so obvious. It’s so disappointing to see Dems denying this fact and pretend like the media is fair and objective

[Edge-]

a bunch of random nobody's that nobody cares about crawls out the woodwork to make like a 20-candidate race for nomination.

...and? Did the 2016 Republican primaries not happen before? This isn't unprecedented by any means.

only known names were warren, sanders, and biden. MAYBE you could count booker, though idk, considering the fact that most people probably don't even know that he's not hakeem jefferies.

Cool. Some of us know far more of the candidates. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean other than the fact that you're not paying a ton of attention to politics and, sometimes "no name" people throw their hat in the ring. I mean hell, Obama wasn't a national name when he started his campaign.

i just think they all got together and agreed they needed to do something assauge sanders' voters

Is this based on any evidence? Or just a baseless theory?

The whole Democratic party can't muster one decent young, energetic candidate with decent track record?

They. Don't. Pick. Candidates. Candidates have to choose to run. And there are plenty of fine candidates in this field.

- - - Updated - - -

Lmao some news outlets aren't even mentioning who got 1st in NH. When did Bernie Sanders become he who shall not be named?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...-push-n1134096
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-trump-951614/
https://apnews.com/3d16640da86f6e5c30b1b5fba8d91936
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-...ts-11581417004
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/u...e-primary.html
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/11/80503...ont-runner-man
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates...ht-2020-02-11/

What outlets are you specifically talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

Reuters and MSNBC for starters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN2060DQ
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN2051BN
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN2061SH

https://www.msnbc.com/11th-hour/watc...mp-78596165703

What?

[TexasRules]

I understand that most people who vote democrat will vote democrat no matter who the nominee is, but I think it is weird that no one is bringing up the fact that Bernie got 26% of the vote in New Hampshire but got 60% in 2016. Running against the most qualified candidate in history(democrat party's words) got him 60% and running against a man who can't win a statewide vote for an office in Indiana, an extremely fading ex VP, a senator nobody knows and a senator nobody likes he only gets 26%?

This is going like the Republicans in 2016, too many running for anyone to gain major traction. Unless Biden and Warren drop out soon this is Bernie's to lose. He will continue to get 25-35% and it will be greater than anyone else so he will get the nomination. Then it's a non stop barrage of how much he loves Castro, Russia, Venezuela, etc etc with decade after decade of video and quotes. I welcome this and approve of this selection.

[Edge-]

I understand that most people who vote democrat will vote democrat no matter who the nominee is, but I think it is weird that no one is bringing up the fact that Bernie got 26% of the vote in New Hampshire but got 60% in 2016.

Weird, it's almost like there are more total candidates and there is competition for the progressive lane that didn't exist in 2016.

Running against the most qualified candidate in history(democrat party's words) got him 60% and running against a man who can't win a statewide vote for an office in Indiana, an extremely fading ex VP, a senator nobody knows and a senator nobody likes he only gets 26%?

It's interesting how the context I provided above explains this difference without the need for some baseless theory that treats this primary as the same as the one in 2016, when it's obviously not.

Then it's a non stop barrage of how much he loves Castro, Russia, Venezuela, etc etc with decade after decade of video and quotes. I welcome this and approve of this selection.

Not like that matters. The Republican strategy is to call everyone left of Rush Limbaugh a pinko commie.

[Drutt]

Weird, it's almost like there are more total candidates and there is competition for the progressive lane that didn't exist in 2016.

Wait, are you trying to say that splitting a cake 12 ways generally results in smaller individual slices than splitting it two ways? What kind of witchcraft is this?