Your next 2020 Democratic presidential primary thread: Now we're serious

cool clip tho

someone posted the howard dean clip in the replies which is almost close to self-aware

Do people actually think she’s being serious when she says “never before seen in history”?

the phrase "folds like a cheap umbrella" comes to mind

Under questioning from @MeghanMcCain, @ewarren — who called Soleimani's killing "an assassination” — now says “of course” he’s a terrorist pic.twitter.com/nS4OCRFdv8

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 7, 2020

does it? She withstood those idiotic questions rather well.

He can be many things, including a terrorist. I mean, you like Spielberg and the Smiths.

did you watch the clip or just read the tweet from the guy who thinks Soleimani wasn't a terrorist

(double) selfies is very dumb and frivolous but people queue for zillions of hours to take them with her after she spends an hour or two explaining policies and funding to them, so if it makes those people feel better engaged with a candidate, or talk to fellow voters about the country & the election, or gives the campaign a chance to sign folks up to mailing lists or whatnot, good for everyone

c'mon, man, this is Morbs, for whom any candidate not Sanders is a Target umbrella.

cheap and expensive umbrellas seem to fold the same way afaict

if anything the pricier ones should fold a little more smoothly

speaking of Target umbrellas, I got this reversible one last year real cheap:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1494/8004/products/Double-Layer-Reverse-Umbrella-Big-Double-Layer-Inside-Inverted-Upside-Down-Windproof-Umbrella-Self-Standing_2000x.jpg?v=1537298287

this whole q is he or is he not a terrororist is so stupid, yes he's a terrorist in the same regard that Donald Trump is a terrorist, no he's not a terrorist in that he hed up the army of a nation of 80 million people. There's no reason to capitulate on such a dumb argument from meghan mccain of all people

I love EW but she has to get better at holding her ground on some of these these things. Call it what it was, like your opponent did: an assassination

she did

c'mon, man, this is Morbs, for whom any candidate not Sanders is a Target umbrella.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, January 8, 2020 7:43 AM (ten minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

if Warren had called Obama a terrorist she'd be his new #1

xp I mean be consistent about it, say that in response to this question

(plz never change morbs <3)

i get it xp

like i understand the disappointment and yet i'm still just sorta like... whatever

Hadrian otm

yes Alfred, Sanders is the only non-coward still standing.

The measured, intelligent response in that situation is "Your dad was a terrorist, you load."

You must feel a lot of relief that no one is going to force you to vote for Warren in the primary.

I think the dnc will have neutralized Bernie by then

It's possible, but I think it's just as likely that Bernie will win this thing.

neutralize him with millions of votes for other candidates.

The DNC has been a lot more succesful neutralizing Warren. If I was in Iowa, I would vote for Bernie.

OUR PRIMARY MODEL IS LIVE! https://t.co/JDz2dZ8bqR

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 9, 2020

science has determined the winner, all speculation is over

The DNC has been a lot more succesful neutralizing Warren

pretty sure Warren self-neutralized

looks like a brokered convention, cool

what could possibly go wrong

an outcome that all will enjoy

The DNC has been a lot more succesful neutralizing Warren.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say her break-up-big-tech plank is what put her in the crosshairs more than any of the stuff she overlaps with Bernie on

I think the wealth tax was a deal breaker? That seemed to be what a lot of donors focused on.

science has determined the winner, all speculation is over

it specifically doesn’t declare a winner....

:D i was trying to be funny

i'm in that "post-funny" stage of my career where i'm just making the jokes for myself

the whole "If we ran this model 100 times, X would win 70 times and lose 30 times" thing makes sense if you're talking about a football game, but sounds kind of nonsensical if you're talking about an election.

What kinds of things does the DNC do to neutralize candidates?

x-post: Eh, no it does not, not in any way. There's no difference?

he's talking about american football, fred

Oh, okay. Sorry.

the whole "If we ran this model 100 times, X would win 70 times and lose 30 times" thing makes sense if you're talking about a football game, but sounds kind of nonsensical if you're talking about an election.

― Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Thursday, January 9, 2020 11:49 AM (ten minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

hm, not sure I follow. prediction of any future event is by nature probabilistic. what’s the alternative?

Hm, is it that sports teams play against each other multiple times during a season so it seems both easier and more useful to calculate a probability score vs an election where these people only compete against each other once? (The structure of primaries does turn it into 50 contests, though.)

If you had two teams play a game in 100 alternate universes there would be different outcomes based on decisions made during the game/luck etc., whereas if you ran the 2016 election in 100 universes I really don't see it coming out with a Hillary victory 30 times out of 70--you have the same set of voters.

also the outcome of a sports game does not matter

like if Trump sprained an ankle on election day it wouldn't change anything

I don't feel like Warren running behind requires any hypothesis of DNC intervention. Warren is the one my gut most responds to, and I don't feel like I'm a particularly representative Democratic voter, quite the opposite in fact, so why would the person I like best be winning?

I'm referring to how Nate Silver talks about his model--he has said that if we ran the 2016 election 100 times Hillary would have won 70% of the time

That is a bit weird, since Nate Silver is prominently a Bayesian probabilist, where it has more to do with certainty and knowledge than it has to do with frequency.

If you had two teams play a game in 100 alternate universes there would be different outcomes based on decisions made during the game/luck etc., whereas if you ran the 2016 election in 100 universes I really don't see it coming out with a Hillary victory 30 times out of 70--you have the same set of voters.

― Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Thursday, January 9, 2020 12:10 PM (ten minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I think the point you’re trying to make is that predicting elections, particularly this far in advance, is more difficult that predicting a game, but the same principles of probability apply. there are lots of unknowns — it can’t be said that the same result will occur if the election were held today vs november