• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

More evidence suggesting that Bernie has enough very strong support to stay in the race but not enough secondary support to win the nomination.

The most likely scenario is that Bernie consistently finishes in 2nd, 3rd, or 4th except maybe NH and definitely VT. Then Biden gradually hemorrhages support to Warren, Pete, and Kamala. The big question is how quickly that happens.
 
Last edited:
I think that chart illustrates what many people on here have been saying: lots of Democrat voters like Bernie and agree generally with him even if he’s not their first choice, but not many Sanders supporters feel the same for other candidates. It’s Bernie or bust for them, though it is slightly encouraging that Warren has the biggest bubble of the lot
 
Based on that chart, you could make a little money betting that the Dem ticket will include two of Pete, Kamala, and Warren.
 
birdman said:
Dude, Silver's aggregate model outputs were the only predictive models that gave Trump a chance. On election day, Silver's output said: if the election were replicated 100 times Trump would win ~30 of the replicates. 7 out of 10 is a pretty good chance for Hillary, but it's not a sure thing. Yeah Dems got comfy and overconfident, but that is the Dems' fault for not understanding statistics, not Silver's. Now, maybe he inspired a generation of idiot poll whisperer pretenders, but I have not data on that.
Click to expand...

This is true. Every other prediction I saw had her in the 80s to 90s. 538 gave Trump the best odds of any of the pollers/predictors.
 
Y'all must have missed this:

 
MHBDemon said:
Y'all must have missed this:

Click to expand...

Didn’t miss it. Kind of irrelevant to the current conversation.
 
PH still likes to pretend that his boi is an "outsider" and "progressive."

 
RJKarl said:
Typical, even after being shown the numbers you refuse to admit there's any significant possibility on Bernie's side.

Your totally absurd and irrelevant attempt at equivalence of Nate Silver is Catamount level of whataboutism.
Click to expand...

Of course you didn't read the next post. You really are something, RJ.
 
Strickland33 said:
You don't think all of his "sure thing" poll projections - and his inspiring a generation of idiot poll whisperer pretenders - helped to instill Democrats with misplaced confidence about Clinton's ability to win the 2016 election?
Click to expand...

He went from an interesting outsider trying something new to a weird corporatist so incredibly quickly.

Remember when he gave Bernie 0% to win the Michigan primary and then his site wrote this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/

Michigan has 4 big, majority black cities, and a large youth population, and a large ex- and current union population, and a rocky history with the Obama/Bidens and Clintons. Yet Silver is doubling down on centrists winning back the midwest at large, re-using rhetoric of the middle class as a white guy with a lunch pail instead of women, young people, and nonwhite people (those who actually make up the American middle class). And seemingly everyone at major news networks is running on the same script because their data guy is saying so (in spite of better models out there getting it right).
 
birdman said:
Dude, Silver's aggregate model outputs were the only predictive models that gave Trump a chance. On election day, Silver's output said: if the election were replicated 100 times Trump would win ~30 of the replicates. 7 out of 10 is a pretty good chance for Hillary, but it's not a sure thing. Yeah Dems got comfy and overconfident, but that is the Dems' fault for not understanding statistics, not Silver's. Now, maybe he inspired a generation of idiot poll whisperer pretenders, but I have not data on that.
Click to expand...

I know, birdman, but my claim is that Silver's popular statistics treatment of election forecasting allowed Dems to get comfy and overconfident (because, as you point out, prognosticators didn't appear to understand statistics). Whether Silver is at fault for his data's consumption doesn't really matter much to my point. Claiming that Silver's analysis caused Clinton to lose is as dubious a claim as "Sanders supporters swung the election!111."

How do you feel about this claim?

PhDeac said:
More evidence suggesting that Bernie has enough very strong support to stay in the race but not enough secondary support to win the nomination.
Click to expand...

This was my read on the data. Silver is a better statistician than media spinner.
 
TownieDeac said:
He went from an interesting outsider trying something new to a weird corporatist so incredibly quickly.

Remember when he gave Bernie 0% to win the Michigan primary and then his site wrote this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-polls-missed-bernie-sanders-michigan-upset/

Michigan has 4 big, majority black cities, and a large youth population, and a large ex- and current union population, and a rocky history with the Obama/Bidens and Clintons. Yet Silver is doubling down on centrists winning back the midwest at large, re-using rhetoric of the middle class as a white guy with a lunch pail instead of women, young people, and nonwhite people (those who actually make up the American middle class). And seemingly everyone at major news networks is running on the same script because their data guy is saying so (in spite of better models out there getting it right).
Click to expand...

This is correct.
 
I am starting to think that Warren will win the nomination. as candidates drop out it is looking like the votes will consolidate towards her. The only thing that might stop her is Bernie, and he is to old and bitter to drop out of the race. So ironically he might end up assisting the moderate Biden get the nomination.
 
Strickland33 said:
I know, birdman, but my claim is that Silver's popular statistics treatment of election forecasting allowed Dems to get comfy and overconfident (because, as you point out, prognosticators didn't appear to understand statistics). Whether Silver is at fault for his data's consumption doesn't really matter much to my point. Claiming that Silver's analysis caused Clinton to lose is as dubious a claim as "Sanders supporters swung the election!111."

How do you feel about this claim?



This was my read on the data. Silver is a better statistician than media spinner.
Click to expand...

It's a shitty chart for starters, but it looks to me that you are correct, Silver is over stating the second point. Bernie appears to have more (or at least as many) double donors from other top five candidates than Biden does, though a lot fewer than Pete, Warren and Harris. Silver singled out Bernie's support as exclusive probably because it made for a clever phrase on twitter and it was mostly true. More evidence that twitter has ruined journalism and politics. I think that Bernie and Biden are both subject to an "old man" problem and that's why they aren't getting a lot of secondary support. Right now, and I think the crappy chart supports this (as well and MHB's maps), I think Bernie and Biden both would ultimately come in 3rd or 4th in a ranked choice voting process even though they'd be in first or second after the first round of vote counting.
 
birdman said:
Dude, Silver's aggregate model outputs were the only predictive models that gave Trump a chance. On election day, Silver's output said: if the election were replicated 100 times Trump would win ~30 of the replicates. 7 out of 10 is a pretty good chance for Hillary, but it's not a sure thing. Yeah Dems got comfy and overconfident, but that is the Dems' fault for not understanding statistics, not Silver's. Now, maybe he inspired a generation of idiot poll whisperer pretenders, but I have not data on that.
Click to expand...

WFcatamount22 said:
Things only a Bernie bro would say.
Click to expand...

birdman said:
It's a shitty chart for starters, but it looks to me that you are correct, Silver is over stating the second point. Bernie appears to have more (or at least as many) double donors from other top five candidates than Biden does, though a lot fewer than Pete, Warren and Harris. Silver singled out Bernie's support as exclusive probably because it made for a clever phrase on twitter and it was mostly true. More evidence that twitter has ruined journalism and politics. I think that Bernie and Biden are both subject to an "old man" problem and that's why they aren't getting a lot of secondary support. Right now, and I think the crappy chart supports this (as well and MHB's maps), I think Bernie and Biden both would ultimately come in 3rd or 4th in a ranked choice voting process even though they'd be in first or second after the first round of vote counting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is what I thought. Thank you for confirming and for Ph for re-spinning the data clearly above.

ITC and Whatamount (since y'all have disappointingly merged into the same annoying poster on the Tunnels), you can put away your pitchforks. It's a data point, y'all, not a political point.
 
Strickland33 said:
Of course you didn't read the next post. You really are something, RJ.
Click to expand...

I did read it... Doesn't change it being BS.

What's "really something" is you asked for numbers, were given them and, as usual, you neglect anything that proves you wrong.
 
It’s pretty revisionist history to say that 538’s model was giving Democrats false confidence and comfort. It was pretty much the exact opposite at the time. There were numerous pundits on MSNBC, CNN, and on internet sites that were giving takes like “slam dunk”, “99% for Clinton”, “no chance for Trump”, etc. You can be anti-Nate Silver and anti-poll analysis, but 538 was pretty much the only site that was pushing back on that consensus and they were getting lots of shit for it.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
I am starting to think that Warren will win the nomination. as candidates drop out it is looking like the votes will consolidate towards her. The only thing that might stop her is Bernie, and he is to old and bitter to drop out of the race. So ironically he might end up assisting the moderate Biden get the nomination.
Click to expand...

Too*

But I agree that warren is surging and both Bernie and Warren’s path to the nomination relies on the other’s support once they lose.
 
https://theconversation.com/why-do-so-many-working-class-americans-feel-politics-is-pointless-121232

This interview about "working class" non-voters is tangentially related to Nate Silvers fundamental misunderstanding of Bernie Sanders voting base. Much of Bernie's entire appeal is that he is running against the political and economic establishment, so how could you measure his appeal by cross-nominee donors? Donating to multiple primary candidates is the very definition of supporting the political establishment, and thus it would make a lot of sense that the candidates tied most closely to that establishment would have a shit load of overlap between donors.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
There were numerous pundits on MSNBC, CNN, and on internet sites that were giving takes like “slam dunk”, “99% for Clinton”, “no chance for Trump”, etc.
Click to expand...

Great, so we agree. Where do you think they were getting their models/analysis from, ADT?

My point is that our limited statistical literacy as a population (see: Karl, RJ) and the proliferation of data-based analysis in the media results in a lot of stupid stuff, including the second claim in that Silver tweet.

Jesus, y'all. It's not an ideological point at all. It's just a critique of how statistical data are used in the media.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top