If Sanders wins Michigan, it will be the greatest polling error/upset ever

[Virge_]

I don't have to do that because superdelegates are not really committed until they actually vote. You might have some sort of half-assed point if Hillary had fewer pledged delegates & Hillary's pledged delegate count combined with her theoretical superdelegate count gave her enough to win the nom but we're nowhere near that.

What is half assed about pointing out the logical fallacy of you stating the super delegates will shift to the popular opinion when the final votes are tallied when there is no history of such an event happening in the past for you to reference it to?

I am not against you having an opinion. I'm happy to have a discourse between us where I argue my opinion vs. yours. The problem is you don't ever defend your opinions with facts, which is problematic when my primary argument is fact. Fact vs. opinion has a somewhat predictable outcome - one person wins, the other thinks they win.

I do not see it constructive to have a conversation where you invent narratives and then choose not to defend them when questioned about the foundations of those narratives. In essence, you are trying to push your opinion as if it has more weight than it actually does, possibly because you're actually convinced it does. I find that troubling as it may give others the impression that your opinion is more authoritative than it is.

Or, perhaps I'm giving you too much credit and others just ignore you. Either way, you can continue to deflect if it helps you sleep at night, I just wish you'd be willing to actually discuss your opinion in detail when questioned by others as opposed to just running away every time.

 

[Virge_]

Do you ever look at those phones in casinos that let you bypass your credit card cash advance limit and think "With all that extra cash I COULD WIN EVEN MORE"?

I've only been to a casino a few times and it wasn't to gamble but to attend a conference. I see gambling in a casino as a form of entertainment, but I really just dislike an environment filled with cigarette smoke and that's truly the only reason I don't gamble.

What phones are you referring to? Last time I went they just had ATM's for cash, I've never used a phone for anything. Same purpose?

 

[Virge_]

I dont find it to be an insult, but I'm quite confident he meant it as one.

I didn't. Boba was correct, the initial comment was meant to compare your indecision. But, since you got so offended by it, I fully admit that my follow-up comment of "Holy shit, you're a man?" was intended to be a direct jab.

Truthfully I just rode the wave you created on that one, seemed fitting. Apologies for the insult.

 

[fskimospy]

I've only been to a casino a few times and it wasn't to gamble but to attend a conference. I see gambling in a casino as a form of entertainment, but I really just dislike an environment filled with cigarette smoke and that's truly the only reason I don't gamble.

What phones are you referring to? Last time I went they just had ATM's for cash, I've never used a phone for anything. Same purpose?

Credit cards often have a cash advance limit but certain casinos have systems where you can use your credit card as a purchase but then get cash vouchers or something if I remember right. (It's been awhile since I've been to Vegas and I never actually used them because that would be nuts)

 

[Virge_]

Credit cards often have a cash advance limit but certain casinos have systems where you can use your credit card as a purchase but then get cash vouchers or something if I remember right. (It's been awhile since I've been to Vegas and I never actually used them because that would be nuts)

I've honestly never used a credit card cash advance. I find this interesting, and I recognize you're trying to make a comparison to me not having the good sense to stop at a warning sign - but you make a pretty bold assumption that I'm not completely OK with losing.

Once again, our wager isn't about winning or being right. It's about me having a very strong opinion that differs from yours and me being willing to lose a bit of money for being wrong on it. I never expect to win a wager, but it's a good way to see just how serious someone is - and I assure you I personally find nothing more appealing than two intelligent people with very firm conviction putting hard earned cash on the line.

If you win, you'll always be able to use that card on me. If I win, I hopefully never do use that card on you. The excitement of that is what I find interesting here, not any ill-feelings either of us may have towards the other.

 

[Jhhnn]

What is half assed about pointing out the logical fallacy of you stating the super delegates will shift to the popular opinion when the final votes are tallied when there is no history of such an event happening in the past for you to reference it to?

That's not what I said, nor do you accurately describe the current situation. Hillary's theoretical superdelegate lead at this point is a meaningless metric. It will only apply in the circumstances I offered above which may or may not actually occur.

I am not against you having an opinion. I'm happy to have a discourse between us where I argue my opinion vs. yours. The problem is you don't ever defend your opinions with facts, which is problematic when my primary argument is fact. Fact vs. opinion has a somewhat predictable outcome - one person wins, the other thinks they win.

I do not see it constructive to have a conversation where you invent narratives and then choose not to defend them when questioned about the foundations of those narratives. In essence, you are trying to push your opinion as if it has more weight than it actually does, possibly because you're actually convinced it does. I find that troubling as it may give others the impression that your opinion is more authoritative than it is.

Or, perhaps I'm giving you too much credit and others just ignore you. Either way, you can continue to deflect if it helps you sleep at night, I just wish you'd be willing to actually discuss your opinion in detail when questioned by others as opposed to just running away every time.

Your opinions are not fact based but rather based on speculation & innuendo. You assume Bernie will have more pledged delegates at the convention & use that as a platform to sling concern trolling derogatory bullshit against Democrats in general.

Dem leaders aren't that stupid. They've probably noticed what happens when the Party fails to satisfy the base as with the current example over in right wing La-la land. I don't believe they want to go anywhere near a situation like that.

I certainly have more faith in my fellow Democrats than that, even if it's merely based on historical fact.

 

[BoberFett]

Oh you're definitely on the right. It just so happens that you're a hypocrite as well, haha.

Why am I "on the right"? Because you say so? Because I'm the enemy, and you perceive your enemy is "the right", so I must be "on the right"?

You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

 

[Virge_]

Your opinions are not fact based but rather based on speculation & innuendo. You assume Bernie will have more pledged delegates at the convention & use that as a platform to sling concern trolling derogatory bullshit against Democrats in general.

False. I make zero assumptions on what will happen, instead focusing on what is happening, and have repeatedly stated that super delegates are opting to side with Clinton BEFORE the nomination. This is a FACT that you seem to continue to brush aside by saying that the super delegates will side with the nomination (your OPINION), which I have once again FACTUALLY stated is not true as history does not agree with you.

You are trying to obfuscate my point. Why?

 

[fskimospy]

Why am I "on the right"? Because you say so? Because I'm the enemy, and you perceive your enemy is "the right", so I must be "on the right"?

You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

I don't think of you as 'the enemy' at all. Despite your occasional bout of hypocrisy you're actually one of my favorite posters on here when you write things that aren't just raging at people.

I think of you as being on the right from countless posts I have read of yours over a long period of time.

 

[Sonikku]

 

[Jhhnn]

False. I make zero assumptions on what will happen, instead focusing on what is happening, and have repeatedly stated that super delegates are opting to side with Clinton BEFORE the nomination. This is a FACT that you seem to continue to brush aside by saying that the super delegates will side with the nomination (your OPINION), which I have once again FACTUALLY stated is not true as history does not agree with you.

Demonstrably false-

It will be hilarious when Bernie wins the populist vote and the DNC uses the superdelegates to shoehorn Hillary in as the nominee to come back and quote every time you've said this stupid statement.

That's the speculation & innuendo I reference.

You are trying to obfuscate my point. Why?

Because you're just trying to recursively cover a pile of your own bullshit with itself. Your point is to tear down Democrats as much as possible as diversion from the obvious clusterfuck of the Repub process.

 

[Virge_]

Demonstrably false-

Once again, source? Every time I ask you to validate this statement you run away.

When there is no evidence of what you say then I do not need to make any further argument or defend my position - there is nothing to defend when I am accurate. We are dealing with something that has not happened before in the history of the DNC. How is that "demonstrably false"? Once again, you cannot cite proof I am wrong because I am not wrong.

At what point in the past have the super-delegates pledged to side with a candidate before the nomination in numbers which basically propagandizes a part of the electorate to vote for a candidate because they consider the other one a "losing" candidate?

Why is such a simple scenario so hard for you to grasp? Why do you not see the effect this process has socially to those who view it? Are you trying to argue that publishing super-delegate pledged votes doesn't have an effect on the voting process?

This is blatant manipulation by the establishment and you are defending it, ergo you are an establishment pawn.

 

[BoberFett]

I think of you as being on the right from countless posts I have read of yours over a long period of time.

That leads me to believe you're not terribly perceptive.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL! Love it.

 

[chowderhead]

I'll be curious to see what the post-analysis of the polls is to discover why they failed... in their defense, Michigan hasn't had a contested Democratic primary since like 1992, so it could be something as stupid as their weighting methodology being off.

you've also got complacent Hillary voters (staying home or voting in the Republican primary, assuming Hillary had it locked up) and the fact that it was an open primary (where Bernie does well)



I'm not sure it says that entirely... 31% of the people voting in the Democratic primary were non-Democrats (28% independent, 3% Republican). registered Democrats broke for Hillary by about 20 points.

This. Clinton won Democrats but Sanders won independents who decided to vote in the Democratic primaries. Michigan is one of the few states with higher turnout in 2016 than 2008 for Democrats. Michigan wasn't fully contested in 2008. 600k voted in 2008 and many voted uncommitted as a proxy for Obama. 1.2 million voted in 2016. It would be very hard to use past primary voting data with 1/2 the voters such as 2008 in Michigan to model likely voters in 2016.

 

[fskimospy]

That leads me to believe you're not terribly perceptive.

I think I'm reasonably perceptive. I know you claim not to be conservative (or at least not very conservative), but I've seen little reason to believe that.

 

[Fern]

If the Democratic Party were serious about the whole super delegate thingy being on the up and up they shouldn't allow them to even verbally commit before the convention. Advertising the number of super delegates in a candidate's column is stupid if they can later switch anyway.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Once again, source? Every time I ask you to validate this statement you run away.

When there is no evidence of what you say then I do not need to make any further argument or defend my position - there is nothing to defend when I am accurate. We are dealing with something that has not happened before in the history of the DNC. How is that "demonstrably false"? Once again, you cannot cite proof I am wrong because I am not wrong.

At what point in the past have the super-delegates pledged to side with a candidate before the nomination in numbers which basically propagandizes a part of the electorate to vote for a candidate because they consider the other one a "losing" candidate?

Why is such a simple scenario so hard for you to grasp? Why do you not see the effect this process has socially to those who view it? Are you trying to argue that publishing super-delegate pledged votes doesn't have an effect on the voting process?

This is blatant manipulation by the establishment and you are defending it, ergo you are an establishment pawn.

You've been foundering for some while & now you're just looking to somehow stay afloat.

My argument is presented in terms of likelihood based on past performance, particularly in 2008. It's also based on the idea that I may have been a Democrat longer than you've been alive.

Your argument of certainty is merely aspersions towards the Democratic Party. You read the future through a bullshit encrusted crystal ball & declare it to be prophecy. That holds to a very right wing template.

You've now tossed in another twist about how promised (*not* pledged) superdelegate votes somehow inhibit Dems from voting for Bernie, even though he narrowly won Michigan. That's pure speculation & innuendo presented in the face of contrary evidence.

Bernie can still win it & everybody knows it. When and if anybody actually gets cheated, I'll be among the first to howl. Your bullshit is just pre-crime fortune telling, another standard right wing tactic.

 

[michal1980]

I think I'm reasonably perceptive. I know you claim not to be conservative (or at least not very conservative), but I've seen little reason to believe that.

But we all know that your ego is bigger then trumps.

You like him know all the best people, and have all the best ideas. /s

 

[BoberFett]

I think I'm reasonably perceptive. I know you claim not to be conservative (or at least not very conservative), but I've seen little reason to believe that.

Enlighten me. Which of my views are conservative? And before you make a fool of yourself, don't confuse libertarian/authoritarian with conservative/liberal.

So what is it? How am I conservative?

Is it the fact that I don't think the US should be playing world police and that we could cut our military drastically?

Or maybe it's my pro-choice (well, technically I'm pro-abortion, but I can't really force more people to get them) stance that's so conservative?

Or perhaps my anti-prohibition views are conservative? I know how much conservatives hate the War on Drugs.

Maybe it's that I'd be OK with a public option for health insurance? I KNOW conservatives love that.

Oh, I know, it's the fact that I think the future of automation might demand a basic income (or some similar idea) just to have a functional economy?

So tell me eskimospy, what do I believe that's conservative in your estimation? And do you really think it makes me conservative, or does it just mean that your definition of conservative and liberal have no basis in reality, and you're just using it as a convenient pejorative? Why do you think I so frequently put quotation marks around "liberal" and "conservative"?


Note: It may interest you to know that I fall into the lower left quadrant of the common left/right/authoritarian/libertarian graph. Far to the left of "good liberals" like Hillary.

 

[werepossum]

That leads me to believe you're not terribly perceptive.

lol This is Eskimospy; "on the right" puts you in the same group as Mao and Lenin. You're just not "on the far, far right" like, well, the entire GOP. You are however together with Andrew Sullivan. Seriously, that is his definition of being on the right.

If the Democratic Party were serious about the whole super delegate thingy being on the up and up they shouldn't allow them to even verbally commit before the convention. Advertising the number of super delegates in a candidate's column is stupid if they can later switch anyway.

Fern

The whole point of the super delegate thingy is as much to give the illusion that the establishment candidate has it wrapped up (to discourage "wasted" turn-out for non-approved candidates) as to actually help them wrap it up. If Bernie could win as many votes as does Hillary - and he won't even come close - then the super delegates would almost certainly switch to Bernie.

Enlighten me. Which of my views are conservative? And before you make a fool of yourself, don't confuse libertarian/authoritarian with conservative/liberal.

So what is it? How am I conservative?

Is it the fact that I don't think the US should be playing world police and that we could cut our military drastically?

Or maybe it's my pro-choice (well, technically I'm pro-abortion, but I can't really force more people to get them) stance that's so conservative?

Or perhaps my anti-prohibition views are conservative? I know how much conservatives hate the War on Drugs.

Maybe it's that I'd be OK with a public option for health insurance? I KNOW conservatives love that.

Oh, I know, it's the fact that I think the future of automation might demand a basic income (or some similar idea) just to have a functional economy?

So tell me eskimospy, what do I believe that's conservative in your estimation? And do you really think it makes me conservative, or does it just mean that your definition of conservative and liberal have no basis in reality, and you're just using it as a convenient pejorative? Why do you think I so frequently put quotation marks around "liberal" and "conservative"?


Note: It may interest you to know that I fall into the lower left quadrant of the common left/right/authoritarian/libertarian graph. Far to the left of "good liberals" like Hillary.

Oddly enough, I usually fall to the left as well, even though I consider myself a pretty conservative guy. I think it's because they concentrate on conservatives' stupid social positions. (Although to be fair, at the moment I can't think of any non-stupid conservative social positions, so that might be unavoidable. )

 

[BoberFett]

lol This is Eskimospy; "on the right" puts you in the same group as Mao and Lenin. You're just not "on the far, far right" like, well, the entire GOP. You are however together with Andrew Sullivan. Seriously, that is his definition of being on the right.

Oddly enough, I usually fall to the left as well, even though I consider myself a pretty conservative guy. I think it's because they concentrate on conservatives' stupid social positions. (Although to be fair, at the moment I can't think of any non-stupid conservative social positions, so that might be unavoidable. )

I don't think eskimospy is really that far left. I think he's just so far up the authoritarian axis on the graph that he doesn't even recognize what left and right are anymore. At the point he exists, left and right is just a blur. The fact that he finds the right so detestable is just the team sports of politics. He's basically on the same side as the Republicans: centralized, top-down control of everything for the benefit of a few. He just likes to quibble about details and which animals get to be more equal than others.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think eskimospy is really that far left. I think he's just so far up the authoritarian axis on the graph that he doesn't even recognize what left and right are anymore. At the point he exists, left and right is just a blur. The fact that he finds the right so detestable is just the team sports of politics. He's basically on the same side as the Republicans: centralized, top-down control of everything for the benefit of a few. He just likes to quibble about details and which animals get to be more equal than others.

Could be. It's hard for a mere mortal like me to really understand the mind of a general expert. lol

 

[jackstar7]

Enlighten me. Which of my views are conservative? And before you make a fool of yourself, don't confuse libertarian/authoritarian with conservative/liberal.

So what is it? How am I conservative?

Is it the fact that I don't think the US should be playing world police and that we could cut our military drastically?

Or maybe it's my pro-choice (well, technically I'm pro-abortion, but I can't really force more people to get them) stance that's so conservative?

Or perhaps my anti-prohibition views are conservative? I know how much conservatives hate the War on Drugs.

Maybe it's that I'd be OK with a public option for health insurance? I KNOW conservatives love that.

Oh, I know, it's the fact that I think the future of automation might demand a basic income (or some similar idea) just to have a functional economy?

So tell me eskimospy, what do I believe that's conservative in your estimation? And do you really think it makes me conservative, or does it just mean that your definition of conservative and liberal have no basis in reality, and you're just using it as a convenient pejorative? Why do you think I so frequently put quotation marks around "liberal" and "conservative"?


Note: It may interest you to know that I fall into the lower left quadrant of the common left/right/authoritarian/libertarian graph. Far to the left of "good liberals" like Hillary.

This board will never be good enough to deserve you.

Thank goodness you bestow your thoughts upon us. #blessed

 

[mect]

Note: It may interest you to know that I fall into the lower left quadrant of the common left/right/authoritarian/libertarian graph. Far to the left of "good liberals" like Hillary.

I think this is a point that a lot of people are missing on the difference between Clinton and Sanders, and why a lot of people don't understand why people that typically vote republican would actually consider voting for Sanders but not Clinton, even though Sanders falls even further to the left than Clinton. While Clinton and Sanders overlap quite heavily on social and economic issues, they are quite different in terms of Authoritarian/Libertarian views. Sanders has a much better record when it comes to things like the Patriot Act, Gun Control, Drug War, and World Policing. I think this is why Sanders has such a huge advantage among the younger population while Clinton has the advantage with the older population. The older population tends to be much more Authoritarian, whereas the younger population tends to be much more Libertarian.