Sign In

yhwx

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
23-May-2016
Last activity
19-Sep-2017
Posts
5575

Post History

Post
#1107716
Topic
Episode IX Discussion <strong><em>Spoiler Thread</em></strong>
Time

TV’s Frink said:

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

imperialscum said:

TV’s Frink said:

Impscum, Alderaan, and Mala (to a lesser extent since she seems to enjoy fanedits) exist in this place entirely to tell other people how wrong they are for liking the things they like.

I have never ever told anyone that he/she is wrong for liking whatever they like. I do not care in the slightest if people like bad stuff like TFA.

So… TFA is objectively bad?

If impscum states it, it is objectively so.

Lord Tobias said:

ray_afraid said:

DominicCobb said:

Wait Lord Tobias, do you even like Star Wars?

He obviously doesn’t like the OT, so I have no idea why he’s here.
Oh, I know. Because he thinks his opinion is “edgy” and “different” and may cause a ruckus.
It’s none of those things.

Let us not pretend that darth vader becoming Luke’s father was a good idea…it was not

impscum sock confirmed.

Intriguing.

Post
#1107691
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-sanders-comeback-would-be-unprecedented/

Let me begin by saying that I bear no ill will towards Mr. Sanders. Nothing that follows should be misconstrued as an attack on his policies, his track record, his electability in November or his character. I’m not a corporate media crony, or a plant from a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC. I’m just a guy who believes in the predictive power of cold, hard data.

And the unsexy truth is that, barring some catastrophic news event, Sanders will not win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. In fact, most past candidates in Sanders’s position dropped out long before this point in the race, and those who stayed in made little pretense of winning. (The Sanders campaign, which announced Wednesday it was laying off a ton of staff, may be recognizing this.)

Historically speaking, Democratic primary races do not have many twists and turns. Rather, the eventual winner tends to take an early lead — on or before Super Tuesday — and stay there. Runner-ups can kick for a while, but they tend to concede the race by February or early March.

As it stands, Sanders is firmly in runner-up territory. He is losing 9 million to 12 million among those who have already voted, and polls show him lagging by an average of 8.8 percentage points in the states yet to vote. Sanders has gained substantially in national polls but is still the less popular candidate (outside of the Bernietopia that is social media).

To be kind to the Sanders camp, I ignored superdelegates and demographics.

The result is pretty striking: After the early days of the campaign, no underdog has ever won the Democratic nomination. A true come-from-behind victory would show up on this chart as a green line (winners) wandering above the 50 percent line (falling behind) before crossing back over (catching up) and veering toward the bottom of the chart. Instead, after the mad scramble for the first 10 percent of delegates, no candidate ever crosses over the 50 percent line. That is, the king stay the king. (Of course, there haven’t been that many Democratic primaries in the modern era, so I wouldn’t interpret this data as some type of iron-clad rule.)

The reason for this is pretty simple: Proportional allocation of delegates makes comebacks really, really hard. You can’t just notch wins in a string of states, as Sanders did in late March and early April. You have to start consistently trouncing your opponent by large margins in every contest. You need, well, a political revolution.

But what about Obama? Sanders supporters have compared their candidate’s current deficit to Obama’s in 2008, but at this point in that election Obama was actually winning by 143 pledged delegates — enough that Clinton, despite still holding a lead in superdelegates, was receiving pressure to drop out of the race. In fact, Obama was at no point in 2008 actually behind Clinton in pledged delegates. It’s just that the media usually included superdelegates in their counts in 2008, and the DNC has instructed them not to this time around. That’s because we’ve learned our lesson: Superdelegates can change their mind. Unfortunately for Sanders, pledged delegates can’t.

I hope you’re reading what I’m writing, because I feel like you’re replying to one note while I’m talking about several. I am a psychology major prior to my nursing career, and I enjoy a great deal of sociology as well. Now I am a psychiatric nurse. My point: I spend a lot of time thinking about how others think.

Even with this graph, it does not take into account the influence of the superdelegates. As it points out, a candidate has to win early races to win at all. Well, Hillary had secured most of the superdelegates very early in the campaign. That makes the cause of any other candidate look like a fool’s errand. To what am I ascribing my primary opposition in this particular argument? Hillary? No: the DNC’s practices and the superdelegate system. A terrible Democratic candidate who is entrenched, as Hillary was, in the nation’s politics is bound to win a large number of her peers’ support. How is it a democratic process when the support of her peers outweigh the support of her constituents by orders of the thousands? Nancy Pelosi’s vote is worth more than yours by orders of magnitude. Clearly, when a Joe Democrat goes to cast his ballot on his state’s primary day, he is going to take into consideration who he think has the best chance of winning. The person with the most superdelegates is going to win, even though I like this other person a little better, he thinks. Therefore, he casts his ballot for the person he can tolerate and he believes stands the best chance of winning.

Yes, removing the superdelegate system from the onset may not have made any difference in the nomination, or even if it did, in the general election outcome. But it could have. More importantly, it is an undemocratic system that certainly has affected outcomes before, and I believe the Democrats here should oppose this system in their own party.

I did read your momentum argument. I can’t really agree or disagree with it, because I don’t know how people factor that in. I tend to think people vote for whoever they’re going to vote for, but I don’t know if that’s how all people think. That’s why the conversation infuriates me.

Post
#1107682
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/2016s-election-data-hero-isnt-nate-silver-sam-wang/

Accidentally tripped over this article while looking for something else. It was written right before the election, and it was proven hilariously wrong. Nate Silver via 538 gave Trump something around a 30-35% chance of winning the night of the election, whereas this guy gave Trump a 1% chance. Oops.

Related:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/opinion/why-i-had-to-eat-a-bug-on-cnn.html?mcubz=0

Post
#1107671
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-sanders-comeback-would-be-unprecedented/

Let me begin by saying that I bear no ill will towards Mr. Sanders. Nothing that follows should be misconstrued as an attack on his policies, his track record, his electability in November or his character. I’m not a corporate media crony, or a plant from a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC. I’m just a guy who believes in the predictive power of cold, hard data.

And the unsexy truth is that, barring some catastrophic news event, Sanders will not win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. In fact, most past candidates in Sanders’s position dropped out long before this point in the race, and those who stayed in made little pretense of winning. (The Sanders campaign, which announced Wednesday it was laying off a ton of staff, may be recognizing this.)

Historically speaking, Democratic primary races do not have many twists and turns. Rather, the eventual winner tends to take an early lead — on or before Super Tuesday — and stay there. Runner-ups can kick for a while, but they tend to concede the race by February or early March.

As it stands, Sanders is firmly in runner-up territory. He is losing 9 million to 12 million among those who have already voted, and polls show him lagging by an average of 8.8 percentage points in the states yet to vote. Sanders has gained substantially in national polls but is still the less popular candidate (outside of the Bernietopia that is social media).

To be kind to the Sanders camp, I ignored superdelegates and demographics.

The result is pretty striking: After the early days of the campaign, no underdog has ever won the Democratic nomination. A true come-from-behind victory would show up on this chart as a green line (winners) wandering above the 50 percent line (falling behind) before crossing back over (catching up) and veering toward the bottom of the chart. Instead, after the mad scramble for the first 10 percent of delegates, no candidate ever crosses over the 50 percent line. That is, the king stay the king. (Of course, there haven’t been that many Democratic primaries in the modern era, so I wouldn’t interpret this data as some type of iron-clad rule.)

The reason for this is pretty simple: Proportional allocation of delegates makes comebacks really, really hard. You can’t just notch wins in a string of states, as Sanders did in late March and early April. You have to start consistently trouncing your opponent by large margins in every contest. You need, well, a political revolution.

But what about Obama? Sanders supporters have compared their candidate’s current deficit to Obama’s in 2008, but at this point in that election Obama was actually winning by 143 pledged delegates — enough that Clinton, despite still holding a lead in superdelegates, was receiving pressure to drop out of the race. In fact, Obama was at no point in 2008 actually behind Clinton in pledged delegates. It’s just that the media usually included superdelegates in their counts in 2008, and the DNC has instructed them not to this time around. That’s because we’ve learned our lesson: Superdelegates can change their mind. Unfortunately for Sanders, pledged delegates can’t.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1107663
Topic
Episode IX Discussion <strong><em>Spoiler Thread</em></strong>
Time

imperialscum said:

TV’s Frink said:

Impscum, Alderaan, and Mala (to a lesser extent since she seems to enjoy fanedits) exist in this place entirely to tell other people how wrong they are for liking the things they like.

I have never ever told anyone that he/she is wrong for liking whatever they like. I do not care in the slightest if people like bad stuff like TFA.

So… TFA is objectively bad?

Post
#1107654
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

Everybody says ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Bernie wouldn’t have won,’ but I won’t really believe either until I see some polling data.

darth_ender said:

I think the DNC as a whole is partially to blame. The very fact that there is a superdelegate system, disproportionally and undemocratically favoring the voice of the elite, allowed Hillary to grab the nomination when the more likable Bernie Sanders might have defeated Trump.

While there is no way to prove that he would have won, I feel he easily could have better united the Democrat Party and that his supporters were far more passionate than Clinton’s. Heck, Jeebus here protest voted against Hillary. I doubt there would have been much of that against Bernie, even among Hillary supporters. I’ve no doubt most would have gone ahead and voted for Bernie as their number two pick.

I think the unification problem had more to do with Bernie’s supports (and to some extent Bernie himself) than Clinton herself.

Post
#1107624
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

Everybody says ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Bernie wouldn’t have won,’ but I won’t really believe either until I see some polling data.

Which doesn’t exist, because Bernie never took on Trump head-to-head as the Democratic nominee.

You could still ask “If the election were taking place today between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, which would you vote for?”

Post
#1107623
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

DominicCobb said:

The DNC superdelegate argument is tough because Hillary still won the popular vote.

He was saying that the fact that the superdelegate system exists is a factor, not just its results.

Post
#1107620
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Everybody says ‘Bernie would have won’ or ‘Bernie wouldn’t have won,’ but I won’t really believe either until I see some polling data.

To the top