With a small enough sample, you get all kinds of spurious correlations.
Hope is the denial of reality
Indeed: https://xkcd.com/1122/
But it may not be spurious.
Interesting theory, not sure how much basis in reality there is but on the surface I can see older people are less change inspiring to some folks.
Most entertaining debate so far. Here is a quick recap:
Sanders: "I will fight billionaires."
Warren: "I will murder one on live TV, tonight"
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 02-20-2020 at 11:51 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
We are so screwed. All the arguments so far have been what people might vote against (a SSSocialist, a billionaire, a gay man, a woman...) and then try to fit that into the voting against Trump box, and hope it works.
The process takes too long and costs too much money. It's divisive, inefficient, wasteful, causes voter fatigue/apathy, and people check out. That void is filled by opportunists -- political lobbyists, big donors, delegate chasers, establishment players, etc. The ugly truth is that the GOP is much better at the game than Democrats.
Republicans were caught off guard when Obama won the WH, so despite that RNC "autopsy" report calling for a broader, more inclusive tent, they doubled down on identity/cultural FEARS, stuck together in loyalty to their *party*, and got Trump elected. It's sadly ironic that the GOP killed their principles along the way, and is willing to defend Trumpism just to stay in power.
ALL the (D) nominees care about the same basic principles, with varied solutions, but are letting Trump and his GOP minions control the messaging. Bloomberg is paying "influencers" on social media, but he OWNS a media/news outlet whose employees are concerned about reporting on their boss. Meanwhile, Fox News is spreading lies and propaganda on Trump TV in a negative feedback loop.
We are so screwed.
Bloomberg's performance was solidly in Sharknado "so bad its good question mark question mark but not really" territory.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You love to see it.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Twitter Link
Posted without comment.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
He is outspending all the other candidates on new and old forms of advertising. Very little of it attacking Trump, almost all of it praising himself. He might have been deluded enough to think he had a chance, then a chance to force a brokered convention, his commitment to actually spend $2 billion "taking the piss out of trump" has yet to be seen.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It's interesting that it's looking increasingly likely that what we're going see a contest between two candidates who's own parties, really, really didn't want them as their nominees. I wonder if the political establishment in the US is going to take any of that on board?
(NARRATOR: they will not)
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
My takeaway has more to do with the quality of voters.
Hope is the denial of reality
Of course it has.
Last edited by Steely Glint; 02-23-2020 at 06:38 PM.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
This reflects traits inherent to the electoral & political system. Think of it as another feature of winner-takes-all. In many countries, the demsoc contingent would just be another party, perhaps a possible coalition partner or perhaps a part of the opposition. Under this system, however, the options are perennial marginalization—or sudden and total victory. I am obviously not a fan.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Being separate parties doesn't make things better when there's only one candidate to win either way, secondly its symptomatic of a worldwide movement towards certain extremes, which is thankfully so far passing the UK by
Obama, Bill Clinton etc were both elected via this electoral system. Even Dubya was first elected using moderate catchphrases.
Twitter Link
the fuck
is this a thing?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Full Nevada caucus results are finally in:
Total:
Sanders - 45
Buttigieg - 25
Biden - 15
Warren - 8
Klobuchar - 7
The other way to look at this is the people who vote for Bernie and Warren are pretty much the same while Joe/Pete/Tom/Amy are also similar. That puts Bernie/Warren faction about 55%. The only hope for a more moderate candidate is if a few people step down. Divide the vote between Biden and Pete isn't going to work. And no clue why someone like Tom and Amy are still in it.
The problem with that idea is that Bernie polls well against the other candidates 1v1, so it seems that not everyone who doesn't have Bernie as their first choice is #NeverBernie and might have him as their second or third choice.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Yeah, Bernie is a very strong second choice among the other camps, I think that's one reason why no one will drop, their base won't blindly go to some other moderate. The #neverbiden is especially strong.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I wonder how much of that is peer pressure (since its not a secret ballot is it?) and also a perversion of choice though. IE in some ballots Buttigieg would have been over 15% so people could vote for him, in others he'd have been under so they couldn't - ditto for Biden etc - but Sanders would have been almost universally available to vote for in the second round.
If someone is in the second round all the time while the other candidates are in it only half the time, it seems likely that the one there all the time would naturally get more votes - whereas if the choice had been just the same two in all wards it might have been different.
See also https://projects.economist.com/democ...rimaries-2020/ for who each candidates voters prefer as their second or third choice. Biden is the only centrist who remotely has a chance against Bernie 1v1. All the others could win ever single undecided and still come up short.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
If you assume polling is accurate.
If you assume polling is accurate and never changes then Biden was a lock for nominee anyway (he was well ahead of Sanders previously), Corbyn is PM (OK a stretch but he was in the lead in the polls at one point last year), Hillary is currently President, Ed Milliband was guaranteed to beat Cameron and we voted to remain in the EU.
Polls change.
Doesn't mean they're going to change in the direction you want them to, though. You've been calling Biden a poor choice this whole thread (and you're not wrong), Bloomberg's a piece of shit who's in way over his head and Buttigieg is... also there. What makes you think voters are going to look at any of these guys and decide they want them over Sanders?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come