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

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

I can really recommend his book, The Signal and the Noise. He writes a lot about exactly this question.

seems like primary predictions are inherently more volatile than GE predictions because of a) the relative scarcity and volatility of primary polls, and b) lower turnout for primaries

she only lost her three closest states in 2016 by a combined 85,00 votes. If 85,000 hillary voters sprained their ankles that morning (or decided not to vote due to another chance event) that would have determined the result of the election.

*boots up time machine*

so she would have 85,000 fewer votes?

the makeup of an electorate on any given day is affected by many random factors

then why even make predictions?
maybe a bunch of Biden voters will eat bad fish

why even make predictions?

new "i hate politics" board description

has anyone checked to see if there are any NCIS marathons running on key primary/caucus dates

inshallah

why even make predictions?

new "i hate politics" board description

Contrary to vast amounts of observable banter in most political discussions, politics is not about predicting election results, but about governance, especially how tax revenues are generated and distributed. But governance, especially how tax revenues are generated and distributed, is an opaque topic, subjected to the influence of thousands of highly varied interests and opinions, making it extremely messy and uncertain to discuss or predict. Election horse-race banter is more direct and emotionally satisfying.

so its less like predicting sports and more like predicting the weather

Hey they said it would rain this afternoon and it didn't weather forecasters are clueless amirite

when my elbow hurts I know there a Biden vote squall coming

"solidarity with the hotties for bernie movement" tweets just floated into my timeline and 1) why, and 2) where are the hotties, all I've seen so far is a parade of dudes solidly in the 4 - 6 range

Worst parade ever.

Sounds more like a pub crawl?

sounds like my Saturday night

I'd rather that we didn't memory-hole the fact that Nate Silver's "30% chance for Trump to win" was significantly higher than every other estimate (that I know of, and I was paying a lot of attention). And some of it was because he was factoring in the unprecedentedly large number of people who were still answering "Don't know" up to the last minute.

I mean, I suspect they were largely "Do know, don't like the answer", but if you assumed that they'd actually toss a coin or whatever on the day, that's a reasonable basis for Nate Silver's statement.

marianne out

her campaign is suspended, but her energy will live on in us all

I do think she meant well, which I'm not sure is something I can say of a couple candidates

it's always so heartwarming when a candidate means well

pretty tired of ppl being all 'bloomberg is spending $10m on a super bowl ad! imagine if he used that money to support state/local candidates instead!'

bloomberg very obviously doesn't give a shit about the democratic party or its candidates, he just wants to be president (and/or ensure the next president keeps taxes low); stop with the naivete

plus, if he really wants to support state/local candidates, he probably could dig up another $10M from the couch cushions

hey the list of current candidates (13) is shorter than the list of withdrawn candidates now (16)

btw considering that like half the remaining democrats would turn 80 in office, it would be nice to know their vp picks *before* the primaries/caucuses

oh well

via DJP:

https://www.theroot.com/mayor-pete-s-invisible-black-police-1840727624

Over the course of the last month, The Root and The Young Turks have received internal documents, examined formal complaints, and interviewed former officers who outlined a pattern of racial discrimination against black police officers in South Bend. The alleged discrimination spanned the course of multiple police chiefs, captains, and supervisors. The only common denominator is that every black complainant mentions one name: Pete Buttigieg.

mookieproof, I am very disappointed in you for not phrasing that as "So Long, Marianne."

"So Long, Marianne" is trending.

Then it's a waiting game to see whether we can make Klobucharrividerci happen.

― Yeets don't fail me now (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, January 2, 2020 4:50 PM (one week ago) bookmarkflaglink

bloomberg very obviously doesn't give a shit about the democratic party or its candidates

plus, if he really wants to support state/local candidates, he probably could dig up another $10M from the couch cushions

I am not supporting Bloomberg for the nomination, but come on, dude literally did exactly that less than a year ago in Virginia. OK he only spent $2.5m but that was all it took to flip the statehouse, spelling a likely end to gerrymandering there, expanded voting rights, etc.

I don't like predicting but hell here's a prediction. Suppose it's Elizabeth Warren against Trump. A lot of people here seem to think Bloomberg would be indifferent in such a contest. I think Bloomberg would spend a buttload of money to help Warren win.

if what he really in his heart of hearts wants to do is support another, actually viable candidate I can think of some more useful things to be doing than running for president

xp i was just pointing out that paying for his super bowl ad and supporting other candidates isn't mutually exclusive

And I'm just pointing out that good evidence they're not mutually exclusive is that Bloomberg is already doing it! I feel like I keep seeing this "WHY ISN'T BLOOMBERG PUTTING HIS MONEY INTO DOWNBALLOT RACES THAT ARE CRITICAL FOR DEMS" and... he is! And I would be shocked if he doesn't continue to do so in 2020!

PS I absolutely did not know this but apparently Tom Steyer has given more money to liberal candidates than anybody. 50% more than Bloomberg, 3x as much as Soros.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/07/tom-steyer-enters-2020presidential-field/

This stuff is important! It doesn't mean either of these guys should be President, it just means it's not right to say they're egomaniacs who don't care about liberal causes, only themselves.

well they're still probably egomaniacs but so am I

NEW #IOWA POLL 🚨🚨🚨

Sanders: 20% (+5)
Warren: 17% (+1)
Buttigieg: 16% (-9)
Biden: 15% (-)
Klobuchar: 6% (-)
Yang: 5% (+2)
Booker: 3% (-)
Steyer: 2% (-1)
Gabbard: 2% (-1)
Bloomberg: 1% (-1)
Not sure: 11% (+6)

wait til they see that Bloomberg Super Bowl ad

Man if Warren or Bernie would just drop and and endorse the other one, they'd win in a landslide. Of course Warren is "Warpig Warren" according to my lefty friends *eyeroll*

that seems like a fallacy to me; it's not just simple addition