• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT8| No, Donald. You don't.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Tea Party started by supporting downballot candidates. That was the basis of their rise. These Bernie diehards just came to believe Bernie Sanders was the sole solution, their actual political savior.

Cart before mule problem. Of course a movement that started after a prez election will have no choice but to start supporting downballot. Nothing else to do until 2012.

I didn't compare them to the tea party.

The tea party was not formed over sour grapes in the presidential primary and in 2012 even if they didn't get a candidate they wanted at the top they still fucking voted. The Bernouts can rightly fuck off. They're only here to yell.

hence the use of "we". I've no idea how one would silence them without making the problem worse, fwiw.
 
Robert Costa ‏@costareports 12m12 minutes ago
Donna Brazile tells me that she has personally spoken to Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine to apologize on behalf of DNC

Any issue with Donna becoming permanent DNC chairman?
 
YGx3jSk.png
 

Fox318

Member
[Citation Needed]

lack of candidates
Debate schedule that let Republicans control the newswaves
The leaked emails put some people on edge.

I mean what if Hillary had a full on John Edwards style controversy? Who would have been the person to run against Bernie? Lincoln Chafee?



I think you should have some different viewpoints and perspectives in the party. Half of the democrats on stage right now were against same sex marriage not too long ago.

Democratic Party can't be the party of diversity without some diverse opinions on some issues.

You take the good with the bad with that yes on issues like Gun control but its that or you lose control.

Its how people like Ben Nelson stayed in power so long.
 

Boke1879

Member
Hahahahahahah NO. STOP. CEASE AND DESIST. EVERYONE STOP THIS BULLSHIT. First day of the RNC convention we had two ENTIRE states walk out of the delegation after trying to hold a role call vote and getting shut down. Until that happens, the dems are winning.

You literally had someone throw their credentials down on stage and quit. They just need to hurry up and get these boos and crazy chanting under control.
 

sangreal

Member
I think the GOP convention proved none of this shit matters but I just hope that Bernie recognizes that his irresponsible rhetoric in the last half of the campaign led to this

But again I'm not freaking out before everyone piles on with comments about diablosing
 
Bernie Sanders took the passion of his supports and molded it into cynicism.

They are worse than 2008 Hillary supporters. congratulations.

He needs to get on stage, tell them that they can support themselves but they no longer support him and walk right the fuck off stage.
 

Bowdz

Member
I really hope Bams rams through TPP in the lame duck, not just because it's good policy, but to shut these fuckers up.
 

Effect

Member
They're going to be incredibly stupid if they allow these people back in the building tomorrow. Any bad optics from having empty seats or them complaining is better then this disrespectful bullshit that is on display.
 

jmood88

Member
Remember when Bernie fans were mad about Black Lives Matter protests happening during Bernie events and questioned the usefulness of said protests?
 
It's the same model used in 2012; the idea is fairly straightforward - polls tend to be precise if not accurate. Calculate a poll's precision and compare to actuals, and adjust accordingly. I'm worried that folks are discounting Silver's model because it isn't telling them what they want to hear. (Also, he is trolling people with the now-cast in order to have some fun, and see who actually reads what the algorithm is and understands what he's doing). Nate's model is dependent on pollsters having a high order of precision, though.

The Now-Cast having Trump only at a 57% chance to win at what is probably the single highest point of the race for him (post RNC convention, before DNC convention, right after DNC scandal and after Clinton gets hit for FBI stuff) is...actually pretty heartening.

No, his model 4 years ago that I can remember did not have the "trend" effect. You're confusing house effect with this trend thing. It's the reason why PEC and upshot are so different than 538 right now. Basically, silver's arguing there's a trend in Trump's favor that is hiding the real number of a poll. He's taking pollsters with small house effects and very reliable and still shifting the number down a lot.

I'm sorry, but if 9 out of 10 polls show Hillary winning by +5, there's no fucking way she's losing by 1 to Trump without polling being completely wrong. And if it's going to revert back after the DNC cuz the "trend" goes the other way, then he's simply overfitting his model and should be ashamed.

Maybe I'm wrong because I do not recall this being in there 4 years ago (house effects and reliability always were but not trend). Had it, Romney would have been a lot higher than he ever was, especially after the RNC.


No; the models are modeling two different things. Wang's model is based on what will happen in November, Silver's model that everyone is freaking out about is based on having the election today. You know, when Trump is at his peak and Clinton is at her worst point.

Silver's polls-only model for November is basically 50/50, so yeah, it's way off compared to upshot or Sam Wang.

Just look at the comparison chart here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...lights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

His models' vies of Oh, Nv, Pa, Fla, Co, Mi, Minn, are waaaay different than everyone else.



As I said earlier, this is not an issue of wanting to believe something. For the first time, 538 is different than everyone else...so either Silver's latest model has discovered some new thing to measure the election that is more accurate...or he input something making him less reliable and everyone else is still correct.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a valid explanation of how right now Nate Silver's model can justify the argument that all the swing state polling is wrong...which is literally the argument.


edit: Here's the clearest way to argue against Silver's model. It gives California a 96% chance being Dem. There is no fucking way it's 99% (which everyone else agrees). Now, you might think that 3% is nothing...but on a model this intricate to give Trump even a normal outlier chance in Cali (even after black swan events are taking into consideration) is fucking ridiculous. That alone demostrates his model is weak, IMO. vermont 88%??? He's giving a 1 in 4 chance to Trump in Oregon? Is the model high???
 

Dierce

Member
They're going to be incredibly stupid if they allow these people back in the building tomorrow. Any bad optics from having empty seats or them complaining is better then this disrespectful bullshit that is on display.
They should just be kicked out. Those assholes only represent a small fraction of Sanders supporters. They are the fanatic fringe of his supporters and have no place in the Democratic party.
 
They should just be kicked out. Those assholes only represent a small fraction of Sanders supporters. They are the fanatic fringe of his supporters and have no place in the Democratic party.

This is what's the saddest part of it all. They don't even represent the majority for gods sakes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom