Support NeoGAF

[Iolo]

Ugh I'm so done with this.

"Hillary is a neocon and I don't agree with her on anything except that we both agree I'm the better chance at beating Trump so subvert the will of the people!"

These statements are just going to drive more superdelegates to declare for her after June 7 and before the convention.

Also, people were making fun of me a couple days ago when I said an (unlikely) win IN would demoralize his camp. "Oh, they're already completely demoralized, Sanders has changed his tune." Doesn't sound like it.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Bernie and Bernie supporters are the only people more mad than Nate Silver right now.

 

[Josh5890]

How much outrage is there going to be when the first ballot goes through and she instantly wins the nomination.

'Bernie told me there was going to be a contested convention!'

They will still think Bernie is going to be the next President

 

[Aaron Strife]

Perhaps the most baffling one there is New Mexico. Is there any reason to believe Trump won't be trounced there?

Like I said, it went for Bush in 04. That seems to be the basis for the entire model.

Went for Dems 0 times since 2000 - Safe R (all Romney states except IN, NC)
Went for Dems once since 2000 - Likely/Lean R (IN, NC)
Went for Dems twice since 2004 - Tossup (NV, CO, OH, FL, VA)
Went for Dems three times since 2000 - Likely/Lean D (IA, NH, NM)
Went for Dems four times since 2000 - Safe D (all other states)

It's extraordinarily lazy.

 

[NeoXChaos]

JonathanDanielBrown ‏@JonathanDBrown 4m4 minutes ago Los Angeles, CA
@Nate_Cohn What you weasels can't comprehend is that we're gonna torch your precious Democratic Party. No interest in your crooked game.

Nate CohnVerified account
‏@Nate_Cohn
@JonathanDBrown i thought you wanted a *democratic* revolution

lol

 

[hammysaurusrex]

I know I'm a broken record, but I just can't help but out point time and time again how sad it is that the "most progressive" candidate is willing to overturn the delegate plurality and clear choice of the electorate to contest the convention, thereby disenfranchising the demographics that have helped support Hillary's lead - the same demographics that have historically been disenfranchised for years due to institutional and systematic racism, among other issues.

How can anyone that is being intellectually honest look at what the Republicans are going through, and say "That's fine, I wish that was happening here too"?

 

[Y2Kev]

I would think VA is more lean D than iowa?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/726781324254654465

"Republicans hate people of color more than I thought." included in 1 or no?

3 is just Nate Silver being so mad all the time still, lol.

Dude, your obsession with Nate is really getting old.

 

[excelsiorlef]

lol

Bwhahaha. Boom.

 

[Brinbe]

What can they contest? SDs are gonna put her over and that'll be it. Bernie's team/supporters can whine about it, about how the whole damn system is undemocratic, blah, blah, blah, but Obama got put over with SDs too and Hillary didn't put up a fight after the last primary.

If they wanna be babies, let them be babies. But that doesn't mean we have to listen to them anymore.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I would think VA is more lean D than iowa?

I think so too. VA has been quite resilient in downballot elections lately. 2 Dem senators, Dem governor/Lt Gov/AG.

 

[Macho Madness]

We've been over this 100 times. It's stuff he's going to say until he's out/the convention. Your blood pressure doesn't need to raise over it.

 

[Y2Kev]

Yeah but it would be nice if she destroys him in California just to shut him up because he is basura.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Trump is a Mike Tyson rape Truther:

https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/726831186442616833

 

[Trouble]

There is no way the media would show her safe over 270. Why would you care then

I'm actually okay with it. I'd rather the left-leaning general voting populace* not get complacent.

* I actually wanted to use the term 'low information voters' non euphemistically here, but that phrase has been tainted forever much like the word 'thug'.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I'm just pissed he's still giving speeches like this

https://berniesanders.com/remarks-national-press-club/

How I feel towards Sanders right now:

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I'm actually okay with it. I'd rather the left-leaning general voting populace not get complacent.

But when one candidate has a blowout lead in the polls, the other candidate's voters get discouraged and don't come to vote.

 

[Brinbe]

Probably posted already, but barf.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/29/the-...-bernie-sanders-can-still-win-commentary.html

Also, http://fortune.com/2016/04/28/clinton-sanders-superdelegates-harassed/

A minority of morons are gonna be toxic in June when she does clinch.

..................................

 

[nature boy]

Media has already started... look at this bullshit.

To be fair, Todd says at the beginning of the segment that it's a BEST-case scenario for Trump.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/data-download-clinton-v-trump-electoral-map-677314627701

 

[Basileus777]

Sam Wang's commentary on current polling's relevance:

The November outcome should be within 1 SD of current polls approximately two-thirds of the time. Hillary Clinton’s polling margin over Donald Trump is currently +8% (median of 19 pollsters since mid-March) – twice the standard deviation. Based on past years, how likely is it that Trump can catch up? It is possible to convert Clinton’s lead to a probability using the t-distribution*, which can account for outlier events like 1964 and 1980. Using this approach, the probability that Trump can catch up by November is 7%, and the probability that Clinton will remain ahead of Trump is 93%. This probability doesn’t take into account Electoral College mechanisms. But since the bias of the Electoral College is quite small, it does not make a difference in the calculation.

 

[johnsmith]

I actually have no problem with the media trying to make it s dead heat. Need to motivate Dems to go out and vote against him for the down ticket races. Bill Maher flipped out on Friday when Rob Reiner said the GE race is already over.

 

[brainchild]

We've been over this 100 times. It's stuff he's going to say until he's out/the convention. Your blood pressure doesn't need to raise over it.

Agreed.

Yeah but it would be nice if she destroys him in California just to shut him up because he is basura.

Hey now, you wouldn't like it if I called you trash

 

[3phemeral]

Probably posted already, but barf.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/29/the-...-bernie-sanders-can-still-win-commentary.html

Also, http://fortune.com/2016/04/28/clinton-sanders-superdelegates-harassed/

A minority of morons are gonna be toxic in June when she does clinch.

..................................

 

[ivysaur12]

Sam Wang: It's safe to use GE polling now

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/...eneral-election-polls-tell-us-about-november/

My phone isn't letting my copy the text from the Princeton website but basically there's a 7% chance that Trump overtakes Hillary in aggregate polling by November and a 93% chance he does not.

Dead heat.

EDIT: beaten like Bernie

 

[Brinbe]

Sam Wang's commentary on current polling's relevance:

This is what a +8% election looks like

And keeping out a sexist and racist is all the motivation people need to keep a Trump out of the White House, regardless of the media.

My only point was to show that there is no media bias for Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Cruz, or anyone. All they care about is showing the closest possible race as possible even when reality says it's a blowout.

 

[BlastProcessing]

why do people keep hating on political cartoons in this thread, did you guys hate on them before you talked about them online

besides, political cartoons are for the masses not exactly always work of arts

Fell like adding some words to my avatar "don't fall, head slice, wall jump!, run, run run"

I think the reason you see more and more criticism of political cartoons is because they aren't for the masses anymore. Where would the masses even come across a political cartoon these days? A newspaper? Most people are far more likely to come across a user generated meme on Facebook than a political cartoon.

The only people that really see and discuss political cartoons these days are news junkies and they are going to be more critical of dumbed down comics.

 

[pigeon]

The media isn't pro anyone. It's pro-horserace. A settled nomination fight is bad for business.

And that's genuinely something to fear this fall in terms of how the media covers Clinton V. Trump. She's gonna be running away with this race by all accounts, but how does the media effectively portray that without tanking their own interests in making this seem as competitive as possible? That's potentially gonna be a real problem. She's gonna be genuinely leading in the EV race into the 300+ range and that may not bear out in how the media covers things.

I think it will be okay. Donald Trump gives the political media access to a narrative they normally have to shy away from -- a good, old-fashioned "good guy wins, bad guy loses" story. Everybody loves that!

 

[brainchild]

Sam Wang: It's safe to use GE polling now

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/...eneral-election-polls-tell-us-about-november/

My phone isn't letting my copy the text from the Princeton website but basically there's a 7% chance that Trump overtakes Hillary in aggregate polling by November and a 93% chance he does not.

Dead heat.

EDIT: beaten like Bernie

If it's 'safe' to use GE polling, then super delegates really should be considering Bernie over Hillary.

Of course, that's a huge conditional statement I just made. I don't think that GE polling is safe to use when there are still so many more months of potential things to go wrong for any candidate.

 

[Plinko]

I guess the last question about the GOP convention, then, is: Are they going to make a last-ditch effort to change the delegate rules? Are they going to even try?

 

[pigeon]

If it's 'safe' to use GE polling, then super delegates really should be considering Bernie over Hillary.

Of course, that's a huge conditional statement I just made. I don't think that GE polling is safe to use when there are still so many more months of potential things to go wrong for any candidate.

This is a fair argument. I still think that there is too much downside risk with Bernie because the attack lines haven't been factored in, but, you know, that's unfalsifiable. And there's probably more attacks lined up for Trump as well that we don't even know about.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

I find it hard to believe that using Sanders vs. Trump GE polling is accurate when Bernie has had zero attacks on him and has basically been completely untouched for most of the primary.

 

[Y2Kev]

This is a fair argument. I still think that there is too much downside risk with Bernie because the attack lines haven't been factored in, but, you know, that's unfalsifiable. And there's probably more attacks lined up for Trump as well that we don't even know about.

Nah, it's safe to use it because the nominees in place and known/unknown is very high for the two of them. Generic D is going to poll much higher than Donald Trump, a racist, unqualified, failed businessman who has said horrific things about women, Latinos, Muslims, etc. I mean, that much is actually falsifiable.

Superdelegates have considered Bernie and said no thanks.

If you look at Wang's data, he's always looking at polls of the actual candidates. Even in contested races! Like 2008. I don't think there's all that much floating around to see Clinton vs. McCain, though.

 

[Basileus777]

It's utterly bizarre to be engaging the question of whether superdelagates should overturn the voters' candidate because Bernie is more electable.

 

[excelsiorlef]

We've been over this 100 times. It's stuff he's going to say until he's out/the convention. Your blood pressure doesn't need to raise over it.

Because it shouldn't be.

He's basically laying groundwork for his supporters to cry that, rather than him losing it fairly and convincingly, the election was stolen from him.


He's actively creating a narrative where minorities, the most disenfranchised voters in America, are now party to election fraud. Fuck that narrative.

 

[BlastProcessing]

If it's 'safe' to use GE polling, then super delegates really should be considering Bernie over Hillary.

Of course, that's a huge conditional statement I just made. I don't think that GE polling is safe to use when there are still so many more months of potential things to go wrong for any candidate.

I think you could argue that it's safe to use Clinton/Trump GE polling earlier than Sanders/Trump because Clinton is more well known. Either way, I think the race would need to be much closer for Superdelegates to use GE polling as a primary factor.

 

[Armaros]

I think you could argue that it's safe to use Clinton/Trump GE polling earlier than Sanders/Trump because Clinton is more well known.

Hillary and Trump have begun to campagin against each other. Bernie is still campaigning against Hillary not against a GOP opponent.

 

[Trouble]

It's utterly bizarre to be engaging the question of whether superdelagates should overturn the voters' candidate because Bernie is more electable.

It's also bizarre to use current polling as the only measure of electability.

 

[Y2Kev]

Also Cenk's trash is indistinguishable from HA GOODMAN's. That is embarrassing.

 

[theprodigy]

This is what a +8% election looks like

And keeping out a sexist and racist is all the motivation people need to keep a Trump out of the White House, regardless of the media.

My only point was to show that there is no media bias for Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Cruz, or anyone. All they care about is showing the closest possible race as possible even when reality says it's a blowout.

8% win isn't gonna look anything like that these days, look at Obama 08 which was a 7% win

 

[Wilsongt]

It's been 80-something years since we had two Democratic presidents back to back.

 

[hawk2025]

If it's 'safe' to use GE polling, then super delegates really should be considering Bernie over Hillary.

Of course, that's a huge conditional statement I just made. I don't think that GE polling is safe to use when there are still so many more months of potential things to go wrong for any candidate.

Well, there are three major flaws with that argument.

First, it assumes that all GE polling is made equal. Clinton and Trump are known quantities and the presumed nominees. It stands to reason that their GE polling is significantly more accurate than any other match-up.

Second, even if we take the polls at face value, it assumes that superdelegates should flip based on electability and overturn the popular vote in the first place. Worse, not only on electability, but on probability of winning: Both of them soundly beat Trump, but -- so the argument goes -- supers should flip just to make sure.

Third, the differences in probability are completely wiped out by the uncertainty in the Sanders campaign. Will he still refuse other donations? If so, can his campaign keep up with a republican money machine? Would he be able to raise as much money for everyone else as a Clinton campaign would? The small increase in the probability of winning is in no way guaranteed to compensate the signficant risks in every other dimension.

 

[brainchild]

I find it hard to believe that using Sanders vs. Trump GE polling is accurate when Bernie has had zero attacks on him and has basically been completely untouched for most of the primary.

Nah, it's safe to use it because the nominees in place and known/unknown is very high for the two of them. Generic D is going to poll much higher than Donald Trump, a racist, unqualified, failed businessman who has said horrific things about women, Latinos, Muslims, etc. I mean, that much is actually falsifiable.

Superdelegates have considered Bernie and said no thanks.

The GE polling is probably accurate in the sense that that really is how people are feeling right now about the matchups right now.

However, the projection of consequences of attacks on Bernie in the general is not just unfalsifiable, it's unquantifiable. There is no formula or metric you could use to extrapolate a definitive outcome in November based on the data that we have now, so no, it is not safe to use.

I suppose you could make the argument that in a Hillary vs Trump matchup, the outcome in November is unlikely to divert much from the current data. But GE polling IN GENERAL is definitely not safe to use when there are relatively unknown quantities included. There is no guarantee that Bernie would do much worse in November when his opponent is Donald Trump, regardless of the attacks; their effectiveness is not guaranteed.

 

[ivysaur12]

It's been 80-something years since we had two Democratic presidents back to back.

Just wait until we have 3! #KamalaRising

 

[Sibylus]

Everyone loves a train derailment story. The Trump campaign post-mortems will be glorious and long on schadenfreude.

why do people keep hating on political cartoons in this thread, did you guys hate on them before you talked about them online

besides, political cartoons are for the masses not exactly always work of arts

Fell like adding some words to my avatar "don't fall, head slice, wall jump!, run, run run"

For myself, yes. I have more respect for the interns churning out production line Garfields or the various comic section staples than political cartoonists... they at least turn out a shitty product that is lucidly drawn and not creaky with neurotic labelling.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It's been 80-something years since we had two Democratic presidents back to back.

Until the GOP gets its act together, we could be looking at Democrat presidents for awhile.

why do people keep hating on political cartoons in this thread, did you guys hate on them before you talked about them online

Yes. I like Political Cartoons that are well made and aren't heavy handed with labels. I always have, even when learning about them in High School.

I even wrote a report on Thomas Nast once and role played as Boss Tweed in a short "in character" speech I had to make in AP Politics.

Good, effective. Barely any labels. Everyone at the time knew who it was:

Bad, just label the rich guy "Rich guy" because holding money and looking rich isn't enough

 

[Oblivion]

Silver blaming the media for his wrong predictions is pretty hilarious. As much as I criticize the media for not calling out the batshit in Republican candidates, they've at least been doing that for Trump (this may change once he becomes the nominee, at which point it'll be only him vs. a democrat and of course both sides do it, etc.). They've actually done a good job highlighting how insane he is. So why has it not hurt his actual poll numbers with Republican voters? Gee, I dunno. Perhaps, and I'm just going out on a limb here, his rants about Mexicans being rapists, and muslims being terrorists actually APPEAL to Republican voters?

No, no. That can't be it. Obviously the media has somehow tricked Republican voters by making him seem too presidential. It's like how Republicans claim that Trump is winning because he's secretly a Democrat. Like, what the fuck?

Also Cenk's trash is indistinguishable from HA GOODMAN's. That is embarrassing.

I really like Cenk, and most of the time he's the voice of reason in many cases, but his Bernie delusion is making it intolerable to watch his show now.

 

[Brinbe]

8% win isn't gonna look anything like that these days, look at Obama 08 which was a 7% win

Yeah, McCain was a much more respectable candidate and even he lost IN/NC. Trump's putting the likes of GA/MS/UT/AZ in play! This is already a blowout and we haven't even had the likes of HRC/Bill/Bernie/Obama/Biden and other surrogates out there going hard in the paint at Trump and the low morale GOP. What respectable supporters does he even have out there to make the case for him?

 

[brainchild]

Well, there are three major flaws with that argument.

First, it assumes that all GE polling is made equal. Clinton and Trump are known quantities and the presumed nominees. It stands to reason that their GE polling is significantly more accurate than any other match-up.

Second, even if we take the polls at face value, it assumes that superdelegates should flip based on electability and overturn the popular vote in the first place. Worse, not only on electability, but on probability of winning: Both of them soundly beat Trump, but -- so the argument goes -- supers should flip just to make sure.

Third, the differences in probability are completely wiped out by the uncertainty in the Sanders campaign. Will he still refuse other donations? If so, can his campaign keep up with a republican money machine? Would he be able to raise as much money for everyone else as a Clinton campaign would? The small increase in the probability of winning is in no way guaranteed to compensate the signficant risks in every other dimension.

My statement has to do with GE polling in general, not specific matchups.

In other words, if you want to talk about GE polling being safe to use, you need to confine it to specific polling, like Hillary vs Trump, and even then, the margins could differ significantly in November (like Trump doing much worse than before).

If the only concern is to predict a winner, sure, the polling of a Hillary vs Trump matchup is safe to use. But as for actual accuracy on the margins, this is absolutely not the case.

 

[hawk2025]

I really like Cenk, and most of the time he's the voice of reason in many cases, but his Bernie delusion is making it intolerable to watch his show now.

It's easy to see someone as a voice of reason when you agree with them.

The past couple of months have solidified the fact that I can't trust on Cenk to deliver any kind of reasonable analysis.

My statement has to do with GE polling in general, not specific matchups.

In other words, if you want to talk about GE polling being safe to use, you need to confine it to specific polling, like Hillary vs Trump, and even then, the margins could differ significantly in November (like Trump doing much worse than before).

If the only concern is to predict a winner, sure, the polling of a Hillary vs Trump matchup is safe to use. But as for actual accuracy on the margins, this is absolutely not the case.

I don't think that quite addressed any of the three points? Are you saying you expect the mean to be estimated correctly, but not the variance? How do you figure?

Writing the three points in different ways:

1) I expect both the mean and variance to be more accurately estimated for known quantities like Clinton V Trump than Sanders V Trump.
2) Even if both are estimated exactly the same, the differences in means only represent a small change in probability on the tails -- hardly a strong case for changing a vote.
3) The probability of a Sanders V Trump matchup is even more uncertain due to uncertainty on how his GE campaign would be carried.

 

[brainchild]

It's easy to see someone as a voice of reason when you agree with them.

The past couple of months have solidified the fact that I can't trust on Cenk to deliver any kind of reasonable analysis.



I don't think that quite addressed any of the three points? Are you saying you expect the mean to be estimated correctly, but not the variance? How do you figure?

What I'm saying is that you didn't understand the intent of my original post.

Bernie winning over superdelegates was not the crux of that post. It was just an example of why GE polling IN GENERAL is not safe to use right now, which you would seem to agree, going by your comments on the matter.