Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v4

[Strychnine]

I wouldn't want her to do it. The level of vitriol and bile spewed at her from Sherdog would be enough to convince anyone not to run.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I’d like Michelle jump in just to see the phonies flock to her.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

 

[LuchaBear]

 

[LuchaBear]

Will Clinton have more to say? She's been his biggest endorsement so far.

 

[LuchaBear]

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lo fucking L jack. There is being wrong, and jumping the shark.

Vermont was Republican for 100 years before Bernie Sanders.

This is too perfect. "Candidates win when they more closely resemble the electorate" should be criticized for its obviousness rather than because you disagree. And then you throw in the pwent stuff about "jumping the shark" (as if the group is becoming more CTish--which anyone who remembers the days of Trutherism, Schiff vids, Illuminati posters, etc. would laugh at). And then you make an obviously false claim (Leahy was in the Senate 32 years before Bernie, FFS! And Jeffords dealt a death blow to the GOP's Senate majority in 2001!). And then Berniebots "like" it, apparently not checking the facts that sounded good for their tribe (I don't blame them for the initial ignorance), despite knowing your history of dishonesty, ignorance, and stupidity.

 

[method115]

Ny Times reporting tons of errors in Iowa Caucus

 

[b34stmode]

Bloomberg is going to come out of left field and steal the nomination from Bernie with super delegates. How will you Bernie Bros cope with that?

 

[method115]

Bloomberg is going to come out of left field and steal the nomination from Bernie with super delegates. How will you Bernie Bros cope with that?

What is the obsession with asking what Bernie supporters what they will do when (insert random scenario) happens? I've noticed this a lot in this thread and I don't get it.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

@Fawlty @Jack V Savage @Trotsky @Kafir-kun

Interested in your takes on this article

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

"What if everything you think you know about politics is wrong? What if there aren’t really American swing voters—or not enough, anyway, to pick the next president? What if it doesn’t matter much who the Democratic nominee is? What if there is no such thing as “the center,” and the party in power can govern however it wants for two years, because the results of that first midterm are going to be bad regardless? What if the Democrats' big 41-seat midterm victory in 2018 didn’t happen because candidates focused on health care and kitchen-table issues, but simply because they were running against the party in the White House? What if the outcome in 2020 is pretty much foreordained, too?

To the political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, all of that is almost certainly true, and that has made her one of the most intriguing new figures in political forecasting this year."

 

[Fawlty]

@Fawlty @Jack V Savage @Trotsky @Kafir-kun

Interested in your takes on this article

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

"What if everything you think you know about politics is wrong? What if there aren’t really American swing voters—or not enough, anyway, to pick the next president? What if it doesn’t matter much who the Democratic nominee is? What if there is no such thing as “the center,” and the party in power can govern however it wants for two years, because the results of that first midterm are going to be bad regardless? What if the Democrats' big 41-seat midterm victory in 2018 didn’t happen because candidates focused on health care and kitchen-table issues, but simply because they were running against the party in the White House? What if the outcome in 2020 is pretty much foreordained, too?

To the political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, all of that is almost certainly true, and that has made her one of the most intriguing new figures in political forecasting this year."

Good read, thx.

Cliffs:

We should think more like her about elections
She's right about the Tea Party changing our elections into populist affairs
Her "closeted partisan" hypothesis is probably true

Turnout demographics are hard to predict (in terms of how campaigns might influence them for marginal gains)
She's guessing a lot

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Fawlty @Jack V Savage @Trotsky @Kafir-kun

Interested in your takes on this article

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

"What if everything you think you know about politics is wrong? What if there aren’t really American swing voters—or not enough, anyway, to pick the next president? What if it doesn’t matter much who the Democratic nominee is? What if there is no such thing as “the center,” and the party in power can govern however it wants for two years, because the results of that first midterm are going to be bad regardless? What if the Democrats' big 41-seat midterm victory in 2018 didn’t happen because candidates focused on health care and kitchen-table issues, but simply because they were running against the party in the White House? What if the outcome in 2020 is pretty much foreordained, too?

To the political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, all of that is almost certainly true, and that has made her one of the most intriguing new figures in political forecasting this year."

Those claims (and some of the stuff she says later, like "almost all of this shit is set in stone for three years, that almost none of the shit that people are hanging onto, in terms of daily articles, or polls, or the economy or incumbency or ideology is really worth that much") seem a little extreme but closer to conventional wisdom among people who study the issue than a paradigm shift.

Another issue is that every presidential election, some academics come out with an overfitted model that tells them for sure that one party or candidate will win the election, and there's actually roughly a 50/50 chance, which means that unless they're wrong (which would disprove their claim), we have no basis for knowing whether it's true or not, but we know they'll claim total vindication.

Also not true that pollsters got 2016 largely wrong. Silver was pounding on the point that the race was within the margin of error based on the polls.

I think she might be kind of a huckster, but if she moves the opinion of the media (and public opinion by extension) in the direction of conventional wisdom among academics, she'll be having a positive impact anyway.

 

[Fawlty]

I think she might be kind of a huckster

I get the vibe that she might not know that she's huckster-ish

 

[Islam Imamate]

@Fawlty @Jack V Savage @Trotsky @Kafir-kun

Interested in your takes on this article

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

"What if everything you think you know about politics is wrong? What if there aren’t really American swing voters—or not enough, anyway, to pick the next president? What if it doesn’t matter much who the Democratic nominee is? What if there is no such thing as “the center,” and the party in power can govern however it wants for two years, because the results of that first midterm are going to be bad regardless? What if the Democrats' big 41-seat midterm victory in 2018 didn’t happen because candidates focused on health care and kitchen-table issues, but simply because they were running against the party in the White House? What if the outcome in 2020 is pretty much foreordained, too?

To the political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, all of that is almost certainly true, and that has made her one of the most intriguing new figures in political forecasting this year."

Tbh I am not well informed on the nitty gritty of election forecasting so its hard for me to really evaluate her ideas.

But some of what she says seems to make sense to me. Stuff about negative partisanship and the fact that a portion of independents really align with one party or the other despite not identifying with it makes sense as does the effect of turn out over courting independents. Anecdotally my dad is a registered independent who I don't think will ever vote GOP again in his lifetime and also elected to stay home in 2016 despite the fact that driving to the polls, waiting in line, and driving back would take less than half an hour(to be fair he is kind of sexist and would never vote for a female candidate).

 

[Happy Man]

@Fawlty @Jack V Savage @Trotsky @Kafir-kun

Interested in your takes on this article

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

"What if everything you think you know about politics is wrong? What if there aren’t really American swing voters—or not enough, anyway, to pick the next president? What if it doesn’t matter much who the Democratic nominee is? What if there is no such thing as “the center,” and the party in power can govern however it wants for two years, because the results of that first midterm are going to be bad regardless? What if the Democrats' big 41-seat midterm victory in 2018 didn’t happen because candidates focused on health care and kitchen-table issues, but simply because they were running against the party in the White House? What if the outcome in 2020 is pretty much foreordained, too?

To the political scientist Rachel Bitecofer, all of that is almost certainly true, and that has made her one of the most intriguing new figures in political forecasting this year."

that’s boner pills for the wicked Polish. They’d love it to Be just “support the party bc nothing else matters”. The party makes all the decisions, people just get in line. Who cares about democracy.

it’s fawltys wet dream.

 

[Deadwing88]

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

that’s boner pills for the wicked Polish. They’d love it to Be just “support the party bc nothing else matters”. The party makes all the decisions, people just get in line. Who cares about democracy.

it’s fawltys wet dream.

It's actually a pretty big endorsement for Bernie

She's saying "electability" isn't a factor and if ti is a factor it hurts "establishment" types like Biden.

 

[Fawlty]

that’s boner pills for the wicked Polish. They’d love it to Be just “support the party bc nothing else matters”. The party makes all the decisions, people just get in line. Who cares about democracy.

it’s fawltys wet dream.

What are even talking about?

 

[Islam Imamate]

that’s boner pills for the wicked Polish. They’d love it to Be just “support the party bc nothing else matters”. The party makes all the decisions, people just get in line. Who cares about democracy.

it’s fawltys wet dream.

I don't think she is necessarily making any claims as to whether she likes or dislikes that fact, just that it is that way regardless. And tbh I think there is truth to it unfortunately. So often even on these forums you see posters express more so their disdain for the other party rather than a passion for the policies of their own party. How many people said they were not really voting for Trump but rather against Clinton? That's the negative partisanship she's talking about and the effect is that you don't really care all that much about the nature of your own party because you hate the other party more.