Nate Silver now givers Bernie a round 0% chance; time to drop out

[GreatNews2night]

:lamo

You're funny zimmer. Probably a good guy to have as a co-worker. For morale, not necessarily work.

I don't find this kind of pathetic clueless behavior we see from this DP member, particularly funny. The worst part is that this member actually *thinks* he is funny.

 

[Surrealistik]

It's not a personality issue. He opposes corruption (big donors being able to set the party policy against the public interest where it benefits them). They serve it. Bernie wants donors served, they want donors served first, and voters second.

I think it's a personality issue in so far as Sanders is inflexible about his incorruptibility. In general his conflict with the brass stems from his conflict with the donors and monied interests, and his refusal to bend the knee to them.

Why does Bernie think he has to run at all? He lost to Hillary for crying out loud. And he thinks he can beat Trump who beat loser Hillary? I wish Bernie would go away.

Because he has an important message and policy ideas that candidates like Biden won't ever really address or explore beyond paying lip service at best.

And as to his impression on electability against Trump, the polling among the general population seemed to agree with him, even state by state at the time. As stated previously, and as has been proven repeatedly, primaries are not general elections, or a true test of electoral fitness for the general. A primary, more than anything else, determines who a particularly partisan and politically invested minority of a minority believes is best for the general; sometimes they succumb to their own collective confirmation biases and get it totally wrong.

Also I feel Bernie would be a far better candidate than an obviously borderline senile Biden, whether or not the Democratic party specifically agrees.

I would imagine there are quite a few folks out there who latch on a candidate, but if that candidate doesn't win the nomination, they drop out of the process. They don't vote. My grand daughter was that way in 2016. A huge Sanders supporter, but once Hillary gained the nominate, that was it for her. She never bothered to vote in the general.

Those who don't show up for what ever reason, exit polls don't cover them. So we can't give a number as to how many support just one candidate, when that candidate lost, they sat on their duff refusing to vote in the general.

I was more speaking to the impact of independents and the importance of appeal to them personally, keep in mind that primaries are highly partisan environments with significant confirmation biases and bubble elements, but yes, people who sit out or defect per marriage to a candidate are also a substantial albeit less significant factor.

 

[Craig234]

I think it's a personality issue in so far as Sanders is inflexible about his incorruptibility. In general his conflict with the brass stems from his conflict with the donors and monied interests, and his refusal to bend the knee to them.

Ya, that doesn't make it a personality issue. That's like saying "it's a personality issue, he wants Medicare for all and they don't."

 

[Surrealistik]

Ya, that doesn't make it a personality issue. That's like saying "it's a personality issue, he wants Medicare for all and they don't."

I feel the major and key difference between him and Warren is that while Warren will yield to the brass, despite (presumably) believing in the same things Sanders does, he will not.

 

[Craig234]

I feel the major and key difference between him and Warren is that while Warren will yield to the brass, despite (presumably) believing in the same things Sanders does, he will not.

She did seem to indicate a greater willingness to 'work with them', but that also suggests mainly policy.

 

[3leftsdoo]

This, coming from the Milo Yiannopoulos of DP!

Flattery will get you everywhere. :thumbs:

But in fairness to my awesomeness, I'd say I'm also the Noam Chomsky of DP. (No relation to the oddly named poster.)

Logical thinking = Despised & attacked by Democrats

 

[3leftsdoo]

Nah... I want to see the full nuclear explosion of a **** up on stage tomorrow.

Joe has it in him... he needs to let it all hang out.

The sooner it happens, the better for the Democrat Partei.

Joe may start talking about the, you know, go to the thing. 666 Go Joe. On the, um, radio. Or record player. At night. 4 million, um, you know - the things with letters in them?

 

[3leftsdoo]

Bernie lost to Hillary in 2016.

Bernie will lost to Biden in 2020.

Voters have voted on Bernie's [programs and have rejected them.

You'd think Bernie would take a hint and get out.

^ ^Incredibly bad logic.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Biden is going to be the atomic airbag... you know he’s going to crash, the bag will explode with immense force, and the **** is going to fly nationwide. opcorn:

It’s why Democrats want an end to the debates.

Hope you're right.

But with the right drugs, and Biden sitting down, he might just make it through the night.

 

[3leftsdoo]

He’s gotten it wrong bigly twice in 2016... this isn’t over until they can hide Biden from the public.

I expect a tsunami of feces... and the longer Biden has to debate, the more likely we’ll see it. opcorn:

Sunday's the last debate.

Then they pack Quid Pro Joe in mothballs until the conventions.

 

[Surrealistik]

She did seem to indicate a greater willingness to 'work with them', but that also suggests mainly policy.

It ultimately comes down to policy of course, which is what I said, but that specific combination of policy that the megadonors (and thus the brass) do not want to pursue, and Sanders' refusal to budge on such, is what specifically puts him at odds with them versus someone like Warren who, while not particularly liked for her stances, can be swayed.

 

[3leftsdoo]

See, the problem I have with this assumption is that I'm not sure anybody really knows what "winning" a debate with Trump actually means.

Go find a particularly crazy homeless person screaming about fairy aliens devouring his seventh eye. Now get into a political debate with that person. What is "winning" in that scenario?

Sounds like DP.

Only a more logical conversation would likely ensue...

 

[3leftsdoo]

I would imagine there are quite a few folks out there who latch on a candidate, but if that candidate doesn't win the nomination, they drop out of the process. They don't vote. My grand daughter was that way in 2016. A huge Sanders supporter, but once Hillary gained the nominate, that was it for her. She never bothered to vote in the general.

Those who don't show up for what ever reason, exit polls don't cover them. So we can't give a number as to how many support just one candidate, when that candidate lost, they sat on their duff refusing to vote in the general.

Or voted their values 3rd party.

A LOT of people are *accidentally* left out of exit polls.

 

[3leftsdoo]

I don't find this kind of pathetic clueless behavior we see from this DP member, particularly funny. The worst part is that this member actually *thinks* he is funny.

Zimmer can come on a bit strong, but he makes genuine contributions to logical discourse.

I have no problem with this, even though I don't always agree with him.

 

[3leftsdoo]

I think it's a personality issue in so far as Sanders is inflexible about his incorruptibility. In general his conflict with the brass stems from his conflict with the donors and monied interests, and his refusal to bend the knee to them.

Because he has an important message and policy ideas that candidates like Biden won't ever really address or explore beyond paying lip service at best.

And as to his impression on electability against Trump, the polling among the general population seemed to agree with him, even state by state at the time. As stated previously, and as has been proven repeatedly, primaries are not general elections, or a true test of electoral fitness for the general. A primary, more than anything else, determines who a particularly partisan and politically invested minority of a minority believes is best for the general; sometimes they succumb to their own collective confirmation biases and get it totally wrong.

Also I feel Bernie would be a far better candidate than an obviously borderline senile Biden, whether or not the Democratic party specifically agrees.

I was more speaking to the impact of independents and the importance of appeal to them personally, keep in mind that primaries are highly partisan environments with significant confirmation biases and bubble elements, but yes, people who sit out or defect per marriage to a candidate are also a substantial albeit less significant factor.

:thumbs:

 

[3leftsdoo]

I feel the major and key difference between him and Warren is that while Warren will yield to the brass, despite (presumably) believing in the same things Sanders does, he will not.

It's called character.

Bernie has it.

:thumbs:

 

[Nap]

I feel the major and key difference between him and Warren is that while Warren will yield to the brass, despite (presumably) believing in the same things Sanders does, he will not.

The difference between the 2 is that Warren is a weasel and Bernie says the quiet part out loud. The best example of showcasing the difference between the 2 was when both were asked about raising taxes on the middle class. Warren would do anything possible to not give a direct answer or change topics but when Bernie is asked he directly responds with yes and then explains why. It looked really bad for Warren that she would not answer the question as it made her look shady as hell.

 

[Craig234]

It ultimately comes down to policy of course, which is what I said, but that specific combination of policy that the megadonors (and thus the brass) do not want to pursue, and Sanders' refusal to budge on such, is what specifically puts him at odds with them versus someone like Warren who, while not particularly liked for her stances, can be swayed.

Let's not forget the topic. I pointed out that the basic cause of the conflict between Bernie and the party is that they serve the big donor agenda over voters, and he serves the voters. I said the different is policy, not something like personality. And that's why their opposition to him is quite strong. A lot of them would lose their jobs if he won the nomination.

 

[Surrealistik]

Let's not forget the topic. I pointed out that the basic cause of the conflict between Bernie and the party is that they serve the big donor agenda over voters, and he serves the voters. I said the different is policy, not something like personality. And that's why their opposition to him is quite strong. A lot of them would lose their jobs if he won the nomination.

Again, their opposition to him is uniquely strong because of that specific combination of personality and policy (as contrasted with lukewarm opposition to Warren because she is pliable), and I have always been clear that policy is indeed at the root of that opposition.

 

[zimmer]

Zimmer can come on a bit strong, but he makes genuine contributions to logical discourse.

I have no problem with this, even though I don't always agree with him.

The Left isn’t big on logic.

Being a Lefty in my younger years... I know their deceits, moral and intellectual bankruptcy... and the ideology underpinning it all. The thing is... is I kept an open mind. It took many years to fully leave the Left... a couple issues nagged... like healthcare, but the more I looked at at... the more obvious it became that government polluted service systems fail the people.

The great thing is Bernie let the cat out of the bag. For years here I called the Left... Socialists... and they came back angrily at that framing. Ohhh they hated it so. Thanks to Bernie in 2016... the truth is out... and the complaining has subsided. Now they openly embrace the idiocy.

I only wish these Leftists could move to Europe and live there for five or six years, open a business... enjoy the bureaucracy, the taxes, and get a taste of what destruction they’re trying to bring to the USA.

As for the OP... Nate Silver was tragically wrong in 2016. He totally missed Trump’s winning the nomination, and his 72.4% favor ability of Hillary winning the nomination was... dead wrong.

So, it ain’t over until Biden gets enough delegates to win the nomination and prevent a brokered convention... and anyone with half a brain can see Joe is not all there and has no business seeking the nomination for the presidency.

But if that’s the best the Left has...

 

[BrotherFease]

I think Silver is wrong here. Sanders should stay in, until Biden reaches the 1,991 threshold. We live in an unpredictable world.

 

[Craig234]

Again, their opposition to him is uniquely strong because of that specific combination of personality and policy (as contrasted with lukewarm opposition to Warren because she is pliable), and I have always been clear that policy is indeed at the root of that opposition.

I don't think personality plays a role at all. I think you're equating his policies and that he's strongly for them with 'personality'. Warren doesn't do better because of 'personality' so much as her willingness to cooperate with them and be more flexible on policy.

 

[Perotista]

I think it's a personality issue in so far as Sanders is inflexible about his incorruptibility. In general his conflict with the brass stems from his conflict with the donors and monied interests, and his refusal to bend the knee to them.



Because he has an important message and policy ideas that candidates like Biden won't ever really address or explore beyond paying lip service at best.

And as to his impression on electability against Trump, the polling among the general population seemed to agree with him, even state by state at the time. As stated previously, and as has been proven repeatedly, primaries are not general elections, or a true test of electoral fitness for the general. A primary, more than anything else, determines who a particularly partisan and politically invested minority of a minority believes is best for the general; sometimes they succumb to their own collective confirmation biases and get it totally wrong.

Also I feel Bernie would be a far better candidate than an obviously borderline senile Biden, whether or not the Democratic party specifically agrees.



I was more speaking to the impact of independents and the importance of appeal to them personally, keep in mind that primaries are highly partisan environments with significant confirmation biases and bubble elements, but yes, people who sit out or defect per marriage to a candidate are also a substantial albeit less significant factor.

Yeah, the old political adage, move left or right during the primaries, then move toward the center to attract independents for the general election. I always thought 2016 was such a unique election, the dislike factor for both major party candidates set records. 60% of all Americans disliked Trump, 56% disliked Clinton which included 25% of all Americans who disliked both candidates and wanted neither one to become president.

If this corona virus doesn't come under control soon, we face another very unique election. Georgia cancelled their primaries along with Louisiana. I voted early, but I'm not sure how that will work. It was presidential only on the 24th, now pushed back to 19 May with all the state and local offices. There's 225,000 who voted for president only already, assured those votes count. But with everyone voting for both the presidency and all state and local office on the 19 May, will we be allowed to vote again or will we be able to vote twice? Up in the air.

From going over the numbers in numerous polls, Biden seems to be more attractive to independents as a whole. But Sanders so far for democratic leaning independents. Which could mean only those who are in tune with Sanders far left policies have the gumption to get out and vote in the primaries. Biden is more a normal Democratic candidate and deemed as the one with the best chance of defeating Trump. Whether true or not, we'll find out in November. Electability seems to be the number one factor in those voting for Biden, ideology for those voting for Sanders. Not only among independents who can vote in open primary states, but the Democratic base as well.

 

[Perotista]

Or voted their values 3rd party.

A LOT of people are *accidentally* left out of exit polls.

Exit polls like all polls are just a small sample. 2016 CNN actually did ask third party voters who they would have voted for if there were just two candidates, Trump and Clinton, no third party. 19% answered Trump, 16% Clinton, 65% said they would not have voted. In other words both Trump and Clinton were so disliked by that 65% that they thought it important enough to get out and vote against both.

Yes, there are a few who third party's reflect their values. But in 2016 it wasn't values, but dislike of both candidates that 6% of the entire electorate voted third party. Compare that to 2012, 1.5% voted third party, 2008 1.2% and in 2004 1.0%. That 6% was quite a spike. Especially when considering third party candidates had no name recognition, no money, no media attention, no way to get your their message, not know what third party candidates stood for, just a third name on the ballot who's name wasn't Trump nor Clinton. 6% is quite a lot when taking the factors into consideration.

 

[Surrealistik]

I don't think personality plays a role at all. I think you're equating his policies and that he's strongly for them with 'personality'. Warren doesn't do better because of 'personality' so much as her willingness to cooperate with them and be more flexible on policy.

I would consider Sanders' staunchness, indomitably and refusal to be swayed components or qualities of his personality.