Why is there almost no talk of Sanders trajectory, and trends?

[Lead]

Come on man! What % of voters voted in Iowa for trustworthy being the number 1 issue?

Because she lost 92-6.

Young voters 18-29, and independents over 75% for Bernie.

Are you really arguing that people who vote for trustworthiness, 18-29 year old's, and Independents,(3 categories combined) are not at minimum equal to the number of black voters?

I'm telling you it makes more sense to take polling by demographics than "trustworthiness" or young voters. There are a certain amount of white and non-white voters and we gather the percentage that support a candidate. I simplified it to the most basic of examples and you cam back with me with "Come on man, do an example with this trustworthiness polling cause Bernie does well in that." No one makes predictions off something as bizarre as that cause you don't know what percentage of voters who care about trustiworthiness most (as bizarre as that seems, it is true since we don't see 100% there) show up and we also don't know how much it varies by state to state as well as by month to month,

Your own post proved it. 92% pick Bernie on Trustworthiness and it was about 50/50 with results. Completely horrible indicator.

 

[bad seed]

See this is the argument that somehow the South picks the D nomination. I could not disagree more. I believe the coasts pick the D nomination.

I have never heard this theory before about the south picking the D nomination, until this election.

in terms of this primary, it isnt just the black Dems, but minorities in general. As Lead Salad mentioned, Hillary has wide leads in heavily hispanic states as well [though Bernie has dramatically narrowed California this month].

we have good momentum, but its going to take a huge Hillary blunder to change the odds.

 

[VivaRevolution]

No one is saying it's just the South (meaning Super Tuesday). You then get Florida and New York later on. You think NY isn't going to Clinton? Florida has 16% black population as well so above the average mentioned. California has almost a majority of Hispanics which also do better for Hillary.

Those coastal states are also full of progressives, and working class people who Bernie dominates with.

California Democratic Presidential Primary

Polling Data
Field 12/16 - 1/3 329 LV 5.6 46 35 1 Clinton +11
Field 9/17 - 10/4 391 LV 5.0 40 31 -- Clinton +9
LA Times/USC 8/29 - 9/8 819 RV 3.6 39 23 1 Clinton +16
Field 4/23 - 5/16 356 LV 5.5 53 5 0 Clinton +40
Field 1/26 - 2/16 425 LV -- 59 6 -- Clinton +42

All these numbers are prior to New Hampshire and Iowa.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

See these are the trends I am referring to. What makes you think these trends aren't going to continue?

Clinton was +42, is now + 9 , or + 11. These trends are the same from New York to California.

Do you expect the E-mail info to stop trickling out?

Do you expect a Sanders scandal?

Why do you think these trends won't continue?

 

[VivaRevolution]

in terms of this primary, it isnt just the black Dems, but minorities in general. As Lead Salad mentioned, Hillary has wide leads in heavily hispanic states as well [though Bernie has dramatically narrowed California this month].

we have good momentum, but its going to take a huge Hillary blunder to change the odds.

Look, I will point simply to Nevada with 15% black, 15% Latino, where Bernie is tied.

Again, pointing to these narratives that dominate the media, while refusing to really talk about why you believe the trends Sanders has shown for over 9 months now, are going to stop magically.

 

[Bukowski82]

Bernie doesn't need recognition. Haters will keep hating and the Bern will keep winning. He's taking his political revolution all the way to the White House regardless.

#feelthebern

 

[Lead]

Those coastal states are also full of progressives, and working class people who Bernie dominates with.

California Democratic Presidential Primary

Polling Data
Field 12/16 - 1/3 329 LV 5.6 46 35 1 Clinton +11
Field 9/17 - 10/4 391 LV 5.0 40 31 -- Clinton +9
LA Times/USC 8/29 - 9/8 819 RV 3.6 39 23 1 Clinton +16
Field 4/23 - 5/16 356 LV 5.5 53 5 0 Clinton +40
Field 1/26 - 2/16 425 LV -- 59 6 -- Clinton +42

All these numbers are prior to New Hampshire and Iowa.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nia_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

See these are the trends I am referring to. What makes you think these trends aren't going to continue?

Clinton was +42, is now + 9 , or + 11. These trends are the same from New York to California.

Do you expect the E-mail info to stop trickling out?

Do you expect a Sanders scandal?

Why do you think these trends won't continue?

We already talked about this point. Bernie was taken as the alternative candidate to Hillary and the race narrowed with him and her. Do you really not understand that when Bernie made a 30 point jump to make it a two person race, there is no plausible arguement to then say, well the trends show he will go up to 70% and then 100% in time. Your taking a very small piece of time which I've given a sensible explanation to and one I think you should actually see as well and applied it to your complete future forecast. It isn't scientific at all and is really picking at the data you want to believe.

I really have no skin in this game either. I support neither and if I had to chose out of the two, I might possibly favor Bernie for his stance on the banking industry.

 

[Lead]

Look, I will point simply to Nevada with 15% black, 15% Latino, where Bernie is tied.

Again, pointing to these narratives that dominate the media, while refusing to really talk about why you believe the trends Sanders has shown for over 9 months now, are going to stop magically.

It's not a narrative. It's polling data. You can't dismiss an entire voting population as being a talking point/narrative cause you don't like what it means. In a month or so you will see this if his support among non-whites remains stagnant.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I'm telling you it makes more sense to take polling by demographics than "trustworthiness" or young voters. There are a certain amount of white and non-white voters and we gather the percentage that support a candidate. I simplified it to the most basic of examples and you cam back with me with "Come on man, do an example with this trustworthiness polling cause Bernie does well in that." No one makes predictions off something as bizarre as that cause you don't know what percentage of voters who care about trustiworthiness most (as bizarre as that seems, it is true since we don't see 100% there) show up and we also don't know how much it varies by state to state as well as by month to month,

Your own post proved it. 92% pick Bernie on Trustworthiness and it was about 50/50 with results. Completely horrible indicator.

3 categories, You want to dismiss trustworthiness fine, but young voters and Independents are no less a demographic than black voters are.

 

[VivaRevolution]

We already talked about this point. Bernie was taken as the alternative candidate to Hillary and the race narrowed with him and her. Do you really not understand that when Bernie made a 30 point jump to make it a two person race, there is no plausible arguement to then say, well the trends show he will go up to 70% and then 100% in time. Your taking a very small piece of time which I've given a sensible explanation to and one I think you should actually see as well and applied it to your complete future forecast. It isn't scientific at all and is really picking at the data you want to believe.

I really have no skin in this game either. I support neither and if I had to chose out of the two, I might possibly favor Bernie for his stance on the banking industry.

This doesn't hold. Would you like to see other examples of elections where a front runner, ran against other people, but no legitimate opponent ever came about?

Saying these trends are due to it being a 2 person race just flies in the face of history.

You say there is no plausible argument, when New Hampshire proves that their is. Bernie's ceiling for now is New Hampshire. You creating a straw man about Bernie could go to 100% by my logic is absurd.

 

[Lead]

3 categories, You want to dismiss trustworthiness fine, but young voters and Independents are no less a demographic than black voters are.

I was giving you an easy example. I'm not going to look up voter turnout for every group you think likes Bernie more and then try to make a sample with the population voting in that primary. The one I showed covers the entire population (including the young and independents). Last I checked, those groups are still white or nonwhite so they are built into my example. My data isn't somehow different from yours, especially since many of these percentages are done in the very same polls.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I was giving you an easy example. I'm not going to look up voter turnout for every group you think likes Bernie more and then try to make a sample with the population voting in that primary. The one I showed covers the entire population (including the young and independents). Last I checked, those groups are still white or nonwhite so they are built into my example. My data isn't somehow different from yours, especially since many of these percentages are done in the very same polls.

How about this Lead Salad, instead of discussing the narrative I hear over and over in the media, how about we discuss reasons you think Bernie's trajectory is going to stop?

So far, your position seems to be the black vote, and the south, as the firewall.

I don't think this is a real counter argument, but to each their own.

Would you like to add to these 2 reasons?

 

[Lead]

This doesn't hold. Would you like to see other examples of elections where a front runner, ran against other people, but no legitimate opponent ever came about?

Saying these trends are due to it being a 2 person race just flies in the face of history.

You say there is no plausible argument, when New Hampshire proves that their is. Bernie's ceiling for now is New Hampshire. You creating a straw man about Bernie could go to 100% by my logic is absurd.

It wasn't a straw man. It was exactly what you were saying. "Bernie jumped up 30%, how can you not see these trends continuing?!"

I didn't say there have been past races with a dominant frontrunner unchallenged. I said in one of my very first posts there is a significant amount of Democrats who don't want Hillary to win and were/are looking for anyone else but her. Bernie filled that gap and that wasn't me saying every election is like that. It's like that in elections where the frontrunner is a weak candidate with their base or in general. You actually could make a decent comparison in some ways to Romney in 2012. All the votes against him in the primary became an anti-Romney vote rather than one for a specific candidate. I will say Bernie is authentic with his own speicific excitement rather than just an anti-vote but the underlying to it still is that people don't want Hillary and were looking elsewhere early on.

 

[Lead]

How about this Lead Salad, instead of discussing the narrative I hear over and over in the media, how about we discuss reasons you think Bernie's trajectory is going to stop?

So far, your position seems to be the black vote, and the south, as the firewall.

I don't think this is a real counter argument, but to each their own.

Would you like to add to these 2 reasons?

The trajectory did stop. Has there been a surge since the 30 points you mentioned. Again, you keep pointing to the surge and make it your complete justification for Bernie being on this unstoppable "tend" "trajectory" and then go after me when I call it out for you saying he's going to continue to surge in the fashion you keep insinuating.

My position was the white and non-white vote. My example just covered the whole voting population. So yea, my position is far more reaching than I'm pointing to blacks and ignoring everything else. I included WHITE voters FAVORING Bernie in my example. You failed to see that cause it still showed Bernie not winning and that's impossible because of this unending surge.

 

[VivaRevolution]

@Lead Salad

Again you are back with the unending surge non-sense. New Hampshire is his ceiling for now.

Are we clear on this point?

I'm not a fan of zombie talking points..............

If we can agree on this, i will continue my response. if we can't, no point in continuing this.

 

[Lead]

@Lead Salad

Again you are back with the unending surge non-sense. New Hampshire is his ceiling for now.

Are we clear on this point?

I'm not a fan of zombie talking points..............

If we can agree on this, i will continue my response. if we can't, no point in continuing this.

Don't mention trend surge or trajectory again and you won't receive a comment on it. Agreed.

Also, do not dismiss my post which contains real polling data covering the entire voting population as zombie talking points when you just made an account here with a Bernie robinhood av, post nonstop pro-Bernie content. Labeling stuff with "talking points" and "narrative" isn't an argument. It's deflection.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Don't mention trend surge or trajectory again and you won't receive a comment on it. Agreed.

Also, do not dismiss my post which contains real polling data covering the entire voting population as zombie talking points when you just made an account here with a Bernie robinhood av, post nonstop pro-Bernie content. Labeling stuff with "talking points" and "narrative" isn't an argument. It's deflection.

So I can take this as a, NO. That you will not find common ground with me on the fact that my argument, is not that Bernie will surge to 100%, but that New Hampshire is the ceiling at this time correct?

Just to be clear, you telling me what my argument is, is not me shutting down debate.

 

[Lead]

So I can take this as a, no, that you will not find common ground with me on the fact that my argument, is not that Bernie will surge to 100%, but that New Hampshire is the ceiling at this time correct?

That's the ground I wanted you to agree on from the beginning. I told you the buzzwords to not use going forward to imply you think the 100% comment. All of my points have been with the frame of mind of NH ceiling and never the surge.

 

[VivaRevolution]

That's the ground I wanted you to agree on from the beginning. I told you the buzzwords to not use going forward to imply you think the 100% comment. All of my points have been with the frame of mind of NH ceiling and never the surge.

Those words being trends and trajectory correct?

So just to be clear, I somehow imply 100% means trajectory and trends, despite the fact that I clearly stated this was not the case, and that you repeated this position after I clarified right?

 

[Lead]

Also @HendoRuaGOAT , the thread name is the entire thing you just now say weren't trying to talk about.

 

[Lead]

Those words being trends and trajectory correct?

So just to be clear, I somehow imply 100% means trajectory and trends, despite the fact that I clearly stated this was not the case, and that you repeated this position after I clarified right?

Trajectory, trend, surge.