Support NeoGAF

[Cerium]

Damn, who is responsible for this? Truly sad. Trump-type behavior except he doesn't care about newspaper endorsements.

I think that's more Cruz-like than Trump-like.

 

[ivysaur12]

Fake New York Times Article Claims Elizabeth Warren Endorsed Bernie Sanders


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/u...orsed-bernie-sanders.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

sad and pathetic

Weird, this hasn't made it onto r/politics yet.

 

[watershed]

I think that's more Cruz-like than Trump-like.

Yeah that's true. Very Cruz like.

 

[danm999]

Funny enough, the Socialist Party of Oklahoma, an affiliate of the Socialist Party of America, was one of the strongest socialist parties in the US.

Those look like ice cream cones on the side. Do the socialists have ice cream?

 

[johnsmith]

Those look like ice cream cones on the side. Do the socialists have ice cream?

Boy do they!

 

[sphagnum]

The communist party of the USA endorsed Hillary Clinton. How does that make you feel?

I think you'd be hard pressed to find many socialists these days who care what the CPUSA thinks.

 

[User 463088]

I just recall you talking about not having a job, etc. and then seeing posts of "Sending my queen $200! Sending another $75! I've got a monthly pledge!" My opinion of political donations is less that a person can afford it, than if a candidate needs it. Hillary definitely doesn't. Bernie obviously did, but damn do some of his supporters go overboard. Nobody should sacrifice their food money for a politician. I so wish that money could be removed from politics. It shouldn't take a billion dollars to elect a president, and that money could certainly go to better use.


"Who am I to say if Obama is a Muslim or was born in Kenya? I'm not a scientist."

The donations came before I lost my job, with the exception of the one after SC which wasn't super big. I stopped the monthly contributions as well, as it's clear she's going to be the nominee.I'm frugal as hell with my money, which is good because I can live for almost a year and a half on my savings without breaking a sweat. It's cause I live pretty cheap

 

[Chichikov]

don't those percentages basically mean "based on the polling aggregate, you'd expect a margin of victory for that candidate greater than zero x% of the time"?

(at least in polls-only they do, plus turns it into AGGREGATE PLUS MAGIC)

What does it mean x% of the time?
Like, if you'd have 10 elections in a row Trump would win 8 of them?
ThatNotHowItWorks.gif

I mean that's the implication, but it's a meaningless assertion.
In short, it's Nate Silver applying Bayesian Inference where he shouldn't.

 

[Plumbob]

What does it mean x% of the time?
Like, if you'd have 10 elections in a row Trump would win 8 of them?
ThatNotHowItWorks.gif

I mean that's the implication, but it's a meaningless assertion.
In short, it's Nate Silver applying Bayesian Inference where he shouldn't.

Numbers weren't his problem this cycle

 

[adamsappel]

The donations came before I lost my job, with the exception of the one after SC which wasn't super big. I stopped the monthly contributions as well, as it's clear she's going to be the nominee.I'm frugal as hell with my money, which is good because I can live for almost a year and a half on my savings without breaking a sweat. It's cause I live pretty cheap

I'm sorry, I thought you'd recently gotten a job. I hope things improve for you soon, especially about your hand.

Now, we just have to get you to have better taste in alcohol!

 

[BoboBrazil]

I'm hoping Kasich and Carson drop tomorrow night. I'm also hoping for a sweep by Trump and Clinton and Rubio gets 3rd in every state.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I'm hoping Kasich and Carson drop tomorrow night. I'm also hoping for a sweep by Trump and Clinton and Rubio gets 3rd in every state.

Rubio is not getting 3rd in every state. He will be 2nd in all states except Texas and win MN.

 

[Chichikov]

Numbers weren't his problem this cycle

It has nothing to do with his cycle.
While weighted poll aggregation is a good way to make predictions, his fancy graphs and monte carlo simulations were for the most part bad math.

 

[hawk2025]

It has nothing to do with his cycle.
While weighted poll aggregation is a good way to make predictions, his fancy graphs and monte carlo simulations were for the most part bad math.

Hmm.

Can you elaborate? What do you mean by monte carlo simulations being bad math?

 

[Paskil]

GUISE, IT'S CHRISTMAS IN MARCH AKA SUPER TUESDAY

So hype.

 

[Chichikov]

Hmm.

Can you elaborate? What do you mean by monte carlo simulations being bad math?

Monte carlo simulation is not a bad math, doing Bayesian inference on these polls is.
You need your variables to be independent (and they're not, if Hillary fucks a black man her polls are going down on both PPP and Monmouth) and you need a model of the distribution, which you don't have from these polls.

I mean, it's not 100% useless, like a 95% likelihood represents a bigger margin than 65% (under his methodology) but it doesn't mean what people think it means, and it's misleading.

 

[BoboBrazil]

First voting sites open in like 4 1/2 hrs right?

 

[Officerrob]

First voting sites open in like 4 1/2 hrs right?

Polls open at 6 am in Virginia

 

[User 463088]

I'm sorry, I thought you'd recently gotten a job. I hope things improve for you soon, especially about your hand.

Now, we just have to get you to have better taste in alcohol!

No worries at all! I had recently transitioned to a new position, ya. And my taste in alcohol is perfectly refined, thank you very much.

PEANUT BUTTER VODKA FOR ALL!

 

[royalan]

My personal opinion is that Bernie will continue to lead a progressive movement outside of his own candidacy. That means he'll aim for high turnout at the presidential election, and rally again for the midterms.

It won't be so much about promoting Hillary Clinton as it will be about voting to promote progressive values (which includes voting for Hillary).

If this is what Bernie's doing then he needs to tone down the "Everything that's not me is The Establishment. This is what we're running against" rhetoric instead of doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on it. He's moved on from a potential "pulling the party further left" position to openly combating democrats, and he's breeding a level of inherent distrust in the party that could potentially (not going to, but potentially) lead to the crap we're seeing on the right.

I no longer think Bernie is being helpful. Especially if he stays in the race after he gets crushed tomorrow.

 

[Suikoguy]

If this is what Bernie's doing then he needs to tone down the "Everything that's not me is The Establishment. This is what we're running against" rhetoric instead of doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on it. He's moved on from a potential "pulling the party further left" position to openly combating democrats, and he's breeding a level of inherent distrust in the party that could potentially (not going to, but potentially) lead to the crap we're seeing on the right.

I no longer think Bernie is being helpful. Especially if he stays in the race after he gets crushed tomorrow.

I just don't get how his supporters, being as small in number as they are, expect to get anything done without working with other people...

Like, how does that mental arithmetic work in their minds?

 

[neurosisxeno]

I just don't get how his supporters, being as small in number as they are, expect to get anything done without working with other people...

Like, how does that mental arithmetic work in their minds?

He does work with other people. The difference is he's not a typical Democrat--ask for 10, Republicans offer 1 (but want 3), settle for 3. He's less welling to just roll-over and accept half-measures, and his first term won't be sweeping legislative achievements, it will be cleaning congress and fixing the political system. He's the first step in a bigger solution. Sanders was an upset in his win for Mayor of Burlington, and face a similarly stacked City Counsel that didn't let him do anything. So what did he do? He won the people, and spent a year or two straight campaigning for the opposition to replace them--granted it was mostly replacing stubborn Democrats with more compromising Democrats.

Yes, it's idealistic, but I'm sick of watching Democrats lose when they realistically represent the people better than Republicans these days. There's no reason the GOP should control something like 2/3 of Governorships, and majorities in the House and Senate--as well as the House and Senate of most States. Most of their policies are at odds with the people they represent. It just reminds me of that tweet from 2014 mid terms that sad something like; The American people want legal weed, higher minimum wage, and more regulation--and they want it from Republicans?

 

[royalan]

He does work with other people. The difference is he's not a typical Democrat--ask for 10, Republicans offer 1 (but want 3), settle for 3. He's less welling to just roll-over and accept half-measures, and his first term won't be sweeping legislative achievements, it will be cleaning congress and fixing the political system. He's the first step in a bigger solution. Sanders was an upset in his win for Mayor of Burlington, and face a similarly stacked City Counsel that didn't let him do anything. So what did he do? He won the people, and spent a year or two straight campaigning for the opposition to replace them--granted it was mostly replacing stubborn Democrats with more compromising Democrats.

The only problem is the United States is not Vermont. Not even vaguely. And if this primary season has done anything, it's placed a meteor crater's worth of doubt in Bernie's ability to do what was supposed to be a cornerstone of his campaign: win the people.

 

[eBay Huckster]

What does it mean x% of the time?
Like, if you'd have 10 elections in a row Drumpf would win 8 of them?
ThatNotHowItWorks.gif

I mean that's the implication, but it's a meaningless assertion.
In short, it's Nate Silver applying Bayesian Inference where he shouldn't.

I'm aware of these things, I just wanted to talk shit about "polls-plus". It's just another bit of clown shit that ~*Nate Da God*~ isn't gonna get called out for.

 

[hawk2025]

Monte carlo simulation is not a bad math, doing Bayesian inference on these polls is.
You need your variables to be independent (and they're not, if Hillary fucks a black man her polls are going down on both PPP and Monmouth) and you need a model of the distribution, which you don't have from these polls.

I mean, it's not 100% useless, like a 95% likelihood represents a bigger margin than 65% (under his methodology) but it doesn't mean what people think it means, and it's misleading.

Got it, and I agree

 

[BoboBrazil]

Polls open at 6 am in Virginia

Nice, not much longer!

 

[danm999]

First voting sites open in like 4 1/2 hrs right?

First voting sites opened like 20 hours ago in Auckland, New Zealand for Americans abroad.

 

[Suikoguy]

He does work with other people. The difference is he's not a typical Democrat--ask for 10, Republicans offer 1 (but want 3), settle for 3. He's less welling to just roll-over and accept half-measures, and his first term won't be sweeping legislative achievements, it will be cleaning congress and fixing the political system. He's the first step in a bigger solution. Sanders was an upset in his win for Mayor of Burlington, and face a similarly stacked City Counsel that didn't let him do anything. So what did he do? He won the people, and spent a year or two straight campaigning for the opposition to replace them--granted it was mostly replacing stubborn Democrats with more compromising Democrats.

{snip}

Thanks for taking the time to try to explain it. I snipped the second paragraph since I totally agree.

1.) I'm not convinced and I've not seen any data on whether negotiating from "pie in the sky" versus "realistic" actually changes the end result. I can see the logic behind it, but i'm not versed well enough on game-theory and the like to say which way that strategy would go.

2.) Regarding the bolded, you seem to be going for a top down approach rather then a bottom up approach? I ask since it's at odds on how these things normally go. This article seems to understand the differences between the two methods better than I do.

The other issue, is you will need a large and sustained electorate to do such things. Turnout numbers from later today will be interesting. If you can't get people to turn out for elections that seem unlikely to be won, it's going to be even more difficult to get those needed changes at lower levels of government. Has Sanders plateaued?

 

[Black Mamba]

Did I miss the Hillary email dump that will end her career tonight???

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Did I miss the Hillary email dump that will end her career tonight???

Yes.

Pls print.

 

[Cerium]

Cerium's PredictIt Tips:

I thought I'd write up an explanation of my decision to invest in Colorado's caucus tomorrow. FiggyCal drew my attention to it and the fact that Clinton's shares were priced below 50 cents.

There are no polls for Colorado, and caucuses are difficult to poll anyway. The white liberal population should favor Bernie, but the same is true in Massachusetts and other states that seem to be breaking for Clinton. Bernie has also outspent Clinton here by a 2-1 margin while Clinton has the backing of local officials.

The factors I found compelling are as follows: It is a closed caucus which shuts out the independents who tend to favor Bernie. While the narrative has been that a caucus format favors the enthusiasm of Bernie supporters, a caucus also favors superior organization, and nobody can touch Robbie Mook in that department. His organizational talents saved Hillary in Iowa, and if she could win there, I believe she will win in Colorado with momentum at her back.

Even so, the complete lack of polling does make me uneasy. It's probably one of the riskiest bets I've ever taken and one I wouldn't make if I didn't feel really good about Hillary's chances across the board tomorrow.

 

[Chichikov]

Got it, and I agree

Oh and another thing, since we're on the topic, what pisses me the most about the Nate Silver Experience™ is that media often builds this narrative of "lol, pollsters suck, but Silver the math magician is so awesome" and that's just grade A bullshit.
Doing public polling is much much harder than what Silver do, not to mention that he can't do what he do without polls.

 

[danm999]

Did I miss the Hillary email dump that will end her career tonight???

Yes. They are fitting her manacles and picking out an old timely stripped prison uniform as we speak.

 

[Tesseract]

Don't expect a conventional presidency from Sanders. He'd stage frequent public walks into the hearts of mainstreet, and wallstreet. City halls, debates, whatever. Dank as fuck public bernstorming. Rally the people, the media. We have internet social things in our pockets, let's use them for something.

 

[Cerium]

Don't expect a conventional presidency from Sanders.

I don't expect a presidency from Sanders at all.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Don't expect a conventional presidency from Sanders. He'd stage frequent public walks into the hearts of mainstreet, and wallstreet. City halls, debates, whatever. Dank as fuck public bernstorming. Rally the people, the media. We have internet social things in our pockets, let's use them for something.

Don't forget rallies at the SCOTUS to get Clarence Thomas to see the light and turn into a liberal.

 

[danm999]

Cerium's PredictIt Tips:

I thought I'd write up an explanation of my decision to invest in Colorado's caucus tomorrow. FiggyCal drew my attention to it and the fact that Clinton's shares were priced below 50 cents.

There are no polls for Colorado, and caucuses are difficult to poll anyway. The white liberal population should favor Bernie, but the same is true in Massachusetts and other states that seem to be breaking for Clinton. Bernie has also outspent Clinton here by a 2-1 margin while Clinton has the backing of local officials.

The factors I found compelling are as follows: It is a closed caucus which shuts out the independents who tend to favor Bernie. While the narrative has been that a caucus format favors the enthusiasm of Bernie supporters, a caucus also favors superior organization, and nobody can touch Robbie Mook in that department. His organizational talents saved Hillary in Iowa, and if she could win there, I believe she will win in Colorado with momentum at her back.

Even so, the complete lack of polling does make me uneasy. It's probably one of the riskiest bets I've ever taken and one I wouldn't make if I didn't feel really good about Hillary's chances across the board tomorrow.

I'm also guessing that by the time caucuses start in Colorado and Oklahoma, the primaries in Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, maybe even Mass will have been called and Clinton's caucus goers will be able to sway those on the fence with the argument she's already so far ahead there's little point opposing her.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Not sure how accurate these are but these are the first Super Tuesday results apparently:

Total ballots cast: 28

Bernie Sanders: 21

Hillary Clinton: 6

Spoiled Ballots: 1

Spoiler

New Zealand Democrats

Cerium's PredictIt Tips:

I thought I'd write up an explanation of my decision to invest in Colorado's caucus tomorrow. FiggyCal drew my attention to it and the fact that Clinton's shares were priced below 50 cents.

There are no polls for Colorado, and caucuses are difficult to poll anyway. The white liberal population should favor Bernie, but the same is true in Massachusetts and other states that seem to be breaking for Clinton. Bernie has also outspent Clinton here by a 2-1 margin while Clinton has the backing of local officials.

The factors I found compelling are as follows: It is a closed caucus which shuts out the independents who tend to favor Bernie. While the narrative has been that a caucus format favors the enthusiasm of Bernie supporters, a caucus also favors superior organization, and nobody can touch Robbie Mook in that department. His organizational talents saved Hillary in Iowa, and if she could win there, I believe she will win in Colorado with momentum at her back.

Even so, the complete lack of polling does make me uneasy. It's probably one of the riskiest bets I've ever taken and one I wouldn't make if I didn't feel really good about Hillary's chances across the board tomorrow.

I bought 25 shares yesterday when I saw it dip below 50 cents as well. I came up with the same conclusion as you: closed caucus and the undecideds seemingly breaking for Hillary. I figured that even if I lose money here, that Maine or Colorado (two states that seems to be breaking for Clinton as well) will make up for it. If they all break for Clinton, we are gonna have to buy everyone on Poligaf some shots!

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

You know, the way Clinton screams during these speeches is really something she should cut back on.

 

[Cerium]

The markets are standing still. It's the calm before the storm. Everyone is waiting for the hammer to drop.

 

[CCS]

Dawn of the final day of Sanders, Cruz, and Rubio's campaigns.

RIP in peace.

 

[RastaMentality]

It's funny. Romney was at 80 cents on the prediction markets right before Super Tuesday too. I hope trump peaks at 90 this week.

 

[Black Republican]

Fox News tonight guys!

 

[CCS]

Come on Queen, ascend to your throne #MounttheHill

 

[timetokill]

Hope Sanders does well enough to stick in the race, I think his presence is a good thing, even if he's incredibly unlikely to win.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

First polls have opened. God bless the Queen and King.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Today will be a glorious day.

 

[danm999]

Looking forward to watching that slimy piece of shit Ted Cruz have his dreams wiped out today.

 

[Rubenov]

Looking forward to watching that slimy piece of shit Ted Cruz have his dreams wiped out today.

+1

 

[Y2Kev]

Go go go! Everyone call whatever racist friends you have and tell them to VOTE DONALD!