I'm not moving any goalposts. I didn't attack Hillary at all. If anything I was attacking some of the more obnoxious geese in this thread.
I was commenting on the obvious difference in the "all voices being heard" subject in regards to people just voting for someone who is no longer running versus someone who is still actively campaigning and encouraging people to come out and vote and make a show for what they represent.
There is very much an attitude here that it shouldn't matter, that just because he's not going to win it doesn't matter, that these people are irrelevant because Clinton. Full stop.
That he should just shut up and fall in line because he's perceived as just being in the way.
Yes but hardly anyone would turn up to vote for him if he concedes, that's just how elections work. As long as there's still a chance for him to win and he remains in the race, his voters will remain energised. He knows this. There's an element of expectation management going on
Here is where this runs into a significant problem.
There is absolutely zero realistic chance that Bernie Sanders will be the nominee for the Democratic Party. Any scenario where he might hypothetically secure the nomination involves such a convoluted and unlikely series of events that it's not even worth taking seriously.
And yet his voters keep voting just in case they can make that happen... which again returns to my point.
Yes but hardly anyone would turn up to vote for him if he concedes, that's just how elections work. As long as there's still a chance for him to win and he remains in the race, his voters will remain energised. He knows this. There's an element of expectation management going on
Here is where this runs into a significant problem.
There is absolutely zero realistic chance that Bernie Sanders will be the nominee for the Democratic Party. Any scenario where he might hypothetically secure the nomination involves such a convoluted and unlikely series of events that it's not even worth taking seriously.
And yet his voters keep voting just in case they can make that happen... which again returns to my point.
That is Bernie Sanders obvious position. That is one of his stated goals for this primary.
That there is a significant amount of democrats that support his ideals and they shouldn't be ignored.
Correction: There is a large minority of Democrats who support his platform more than Clinton's. The two platforms are not in ideological conflict, they vary primarily by extent or method, not intent or goal. Those voters' ideals will not be ignored, though as a minority, they may not have much, or perhaps any, say on the extent or methods.
Which is correct. The minority should not get to dictate the platform, otherwise what was the point of the primary in the first place?
Another thing I'm tired of is this idea that Sanders voters will not be represented under Clinton. It's bullshit. No, they don't get to dictate specifics, they lost, but both candidates are running on similar goals and ideals. Democracy is about representation and compromise, no individual will ever get their full platform enacted verbatim, because that's not Democracy, that's a Dictatorship.
I don't think it's about dictating policy, or hijacking the platform across the board - it's about demonstrating that a significant portion of your own voters want certain things and that it might be a good idea to take those things into consideration or incorporate some of their ideas to appeal to them. It's the job of the nominee to represent the whole party as best they are able, and the more of them that vote in primaries, the better they can understand what those voters want. It's been happening already and I am sure it will continue to happen. It's a good thing.
Yes but hardly anyone would turn up to vote for him if he concedes, that's just how elections work. As long as there's still a chance for him to win and he remains in the race, his voters will remain energised. He knows this. There's an element of expectation management going on
Here is where this runs into a significant problem.
There is absolutely zero realistic chance that Bernie Sanders will be the nominee for the Democratic Party. Any scenario where he might hypothetically secure the nomination involves such a convoluted and unlikely series of events that it's not even worth taking seriously.
And yet his voters keep voting just in case they can make that happen... which again returns to my point.
But they can't make it happen. It's not possible
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
I'm not moving any goalposts. I didn't attack Hillary at all. If anything I was attacking some of the more obnoxious geese in this thread.
I was commenting on the obvious difference in the "all voices being heard" subject in regards to people just voting for someone who is no longer running versus someone who is still actively campaigning and encouraging people to come out and vote and make a show for what they represent.
There is very much an attitude here that it shouldn't matter, that just because he's not going to win it doesn't matter, that these people are irrelevant because Clinton. Full stop.
That he should just shut up and fall in line because he's perceived as just being in the way.
Talking all he wants and staying out of step with Hillary and the Democratic party in general is entirely possible without constantly attacking them and crying foul when his various demands of them aren't meant. As I recall, that was how he initially ran his campaign.
That is Bernie Sanders obvious position. That is one of his stated goals for this primary.
That there is a significant amount of democrats that support his ideals and they shouldn't be ignored.
Correction: There is a large minority of Democrats who support his platform more than Clinton's. The two platforms are not in ideological conflict, they vary primarily by extent or method, not intent or goal. Those voters' ideals will not be ignored, though as a minority, they may not have much, or perhaps any, say on the extent or methods.
Which is correct. The minority should not get to dictate the platform, otherwise what was the point of the primary in the first place?
Another thing I'm tired of is this idea that Sanders voters will not be represented under Clinton. It's bullshit. No, they don't get to dictate specifics, they lost, but both candidates are running on similar goals and ideals. Democracy is about representation and compromise, no individual will ever get their full platform enacted verbatim, because that's not Democracy, that's a Dictatorship.
I don't think it's about dictating policy, or hijacking the platform across the board - it's about demonstrating that a significant portion of your own voters want certain things and that it might be a good idea to take those things into consideration or incorporate some of their ideas to appeal to them. It's the job of the nominee to represent the whole party as best they are able, and the more of them that vote in primaries, the better they can understand what those voters want. It's been happening already and I am sure it will continue to happen. It's a good thing.
So I will ask, once again, for examples: What ideals of Sanders' does Clinton not support that you would like to see incorporated into the platform? And I don't mean "$15" instead of "$12", because that's the same goal, just different extent. I mean real, true, ideological differentiation.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
edited May 2016
edit: on second thought, silly joke that will probably not go to a good place.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
Vote totals mean less than margins when you're working off a sample rather than a population.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
That is Bernie Sanders obvious position. That is one of his stated goals for this primary.
That there is a significant amount of democrats that support his ideals and they shouldn't be ignored.
Correction: There is a large minority of Democrats who support his platform more than Clinton's. The two platforms are not in ideological conflict, they vary primarily by extent or method, not intent or goal. Those voters' ideals will not be ignored, though as a minority, they may not have much, or perhaps any, say on the extent or methods.
Which is correct. The minority should not get to dictate the platform, otherwise what was the point of the primary in the first place?
Another thing I'm tired of is this idea that Sanders voters will not be represented under Clinton. It's bullshit. No, they don't get to dictate specifics, they lost, but both candidates are running on similar goals and ideals. Democracy is about representation and compromise, no individual will ever get their full platform enacted verbatim, because that's not Democracy, that's a Dictatorship.
I don't think it's about dictating policy, or hijacking the platform across the board - it's about demonstrating that a significant portion of your own voters want certain things and that it might be a good idea to take those things into consideration or incorporate some of their ideas to appeal to them. It's the job of the nominee to represent the whole party as best they are able, and the more of them that vote in primaries, the better they can understand what those voters want. It's been happening already and I am sure it will continue to happen. It's a good thing.
So I will ask, once again, for examples: What ideals of Sanders' does Clinton not support that you would like to see incorporated into the platform? And I don't mean "$15" instead of "$12", because that's the same goal, just different extent. I mean real, true, ideological differentiation.
Me personally? None really. I'm sure his voters would like to see a tougher stance towards Wall Street or a less hawkish foreign policy or whatever. But I don't see why "same goal, different extent" is not relevant, either. If, for example, Bernie were to make 12 12 dollars and fitty cents, that's a big deal, or allowing drug imports from Canada, or encouraged withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, these are all significant policies that would make meaningful differences to some people's lives despite not being radically divergent from the existing party platform.
Anyway I'm going to bed. Thanks for the lively discussion!
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
The idea that Clinton should abandon her positions to appeal to Sanders supporters when those positions have been rejected by the Democratic voters and are less likely to be supported by voters outside the Democratic primary electorate is just bizarre.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
This seems to assume that someone wouldn't vote in the general if for whatever reason they didn't vote in the primary, which seems wrong due to how many more people vote in the general vs the primary.
+6
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
This seems to assume that someone wouldn't vote in the general if for whatever reason they didn't vote in the primary, which seems wrong due to how many more people vote in the general vs the primary.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
This seems to assume that someone wouldn't vote in the general if for whatever reason they didn't vote in the primary, which seems wrong due to how many more people vote in the general vs the primary.
Not really, it mostly communicates where your broader coalition stands overall in the general.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
This seems to assume that someone wouldn't vote in the general if for whatever reason they didn't vote in the primary, which seems wrong due to how many more people vote in the general vs the primary.
Not really, it mostly communicates where your broader coalition stands overall in the general.
Seems to me that her overwhelming victory has done a pretty good job of this already.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
The general electorate doesn't look like either primary electorate and is less likely to support more "radical" positions like those pushed by Sanders.
You simply don't pivot to the fringe for the general
And if you're wondering why people are questioning his choosing to continue, here's why:
By nominating Hillary Clinton, Weaver insisted, the Democratic Party would be risking “disaster simply to protect the status quo” in the U.S.
“We’re going to have a contested convention where the Democratic Party must decide if they want the candidate with the momentum who is best positioned to beat Trump, or if they are willing to roll the dice and court disaster simply to protect the status quo for the political and financial establishment of this country,” he wrote.
And if you're wondering why people are questioning his choosing to continue, here's why:
By nominating Hillary Clinton, Weaver insisted, the Democratic Party would be risking “disaster simply to protect the status quo” in the U.S.
“We’re going to have a contested convention where the Democratic Party must decide if they want the candidate with the momentum who is best positioned to beat Trump, or if they are willing to roll the dice and court disaster simply to protect the status quo for the political and financial establishment of this country,” he wrote.
Yeah, that's enough. Bernie, fire Weaver and concede now. You're done.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
The general electorate doesn't look like either primary electorate and is less likely to support more "radical" positions like those pushed by Sanders.
You simply don't pivot to the fringe for the general
The general electorate looks a percentage like both primary electorate and a smaller percentage all primary candidates. The populations overlap very extremely. And political fringe is only defined by the risk of won votes over the risk of lost votes, not what common sense and the media dictate.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
If she was interested in improving her margins in the primary, wouldn't she be doing so? She's essentially not campaigning.
Or perhaps primary margins stop mattering after you've overwhelmingly won the primary, especially when the delegate system (proportional) both prevents a Sanders victory and Hillary from running up the score.
And Sanders replaces his campaign head in CA with the guy who ran his IA and NY campaigns. Apparently, the guy who got the boot wanted to focus on grassroots mobilization, not advertising.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
The general electorate doesn't look like either primary electorate and is less likely to support more "radical" positions like those pushed by Sanders.
You simply don't pivot to the fringe for the general
The general electorate looks a percentage like both primary electorate and a smaller percentage all primary candidates. The populations overlap very extremely. And political fringe is only defined by the risk of won votes over the risk of lost votes, not what common sense and the media dictate.
As much as you want to make things sound complicated, they really aren't.
Yes, Sanders voters are a percentage of the electorate. So are people who dislike Hillary most seriously because she wants to make 401k managers have fiduciary duties. But "a percentage" is a useless number.
More to the point, their positions overlap to a large extent as you said. Which is why Hillary adopting Sander's positions is (in general) likely to have little benefit with Sanders supporters at the much greater risk of alienating GE voters. It is also why Hillary does not feel the need to campaign heavily during the primary she has already won, because votes she doesn't gain in the primary don't necessarily mean she won't have those votes in November.
I'm not moving any goalposts. I didn't attack Hillary at all. If anything I was attacking some of the more obnoxious geese in this thread.
I was commenting on the obvious difference in the "all voices being heard" subject in regards to people just voting for someone who is no longer running versus someone who is still actively campaigning and encouraging people to come out and vote and make a show for what they represent.
There is very much an attitude here that it shouldn't matter, that just because he's not going to win it doesn't matter, that these people are irrelevant because Clinton. Full stop.
That he should just shut up and fall in line because he's perceived as just being in the way.
It's worth pointing out, again, that Hillary seems perfectly happy to let Bernie do this and not oppose him in any way
And Sanders replaces his campaign head in CA with the guy who ran his IA and NY campaigns. Apparently, the guy who got the boot wanted to focus on grassroots mobilization, not advertising.
I would pay quite a bit to be a fly on the wall in the room where his campaign staff are having a serious conversation about the strategy to secure him a 70+ point victory.
I think each day this primary drags on, I feel more vindicated in my decision of voting for Clinton in the VA primary (I did so because he pretty pulled the number nonsense that I criticize the republicans for). Honestly, at this point he is just wasting resources, I have to wonder how much of that money he could have put towards down ballot races, for candidates that he agrees with that actually have a shot at winning an election.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
If she was interested in improving her margins in the primary, wouldn't she be doing so? She's essentially not campaigning.
Or perhaps primary margins stop mattering after you've overwhelmingly won the primary, especially when the delegate system (proportional) both prevents a Sanders victory and Hillary from running up the score.
Oh yeah, the primary results so far almost certainly match up with the primary population and there's no reason to change anything at this point - for the primary. As has been put forth though, the general population is different. However, since we know the demographics for each pretty much, all that remains is to adjust the coefficients of each property (voted in the primary, registered democrat, etc) to obtain a smaller yet significant effect on the general outcome. Or use the polls rather than vote totals since some of the trends run at cross purposes, and poll results can be generalizable between parties.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And Sanders replaces his campaign head in CA with the guy who ran his IA and NY campaigns. Apparently, the guy who got the boot wanted to focus on grassroots mobilization, not advertising.
That might explain why I got a Bernie call from New York the other day, despite my living in CA.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I think each day this primary drags on, I feel more vindicated in my decision of voting for Clinton in the VA primary (I did so because he pretty pulled the number nonsense that I criticize the republicans for). Honestly, at this point he is just wasting resources, I have to wonder how much of that money he could have put towards down ballot races, for candidates that he agrees with that actually have a shot at winning an election.
Does anybody know where I can find numbers of how much money has actually gone to Zephyr Teachout, Lucy Flores, and Pramila Jayapal?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
If she was interested in improving her margins in the primary, wouldn't she be doing so? She's essentially not campaigning.
Or perhaps primary margins stop mattering after you've overwhelmingly won the primary, especially when the delegate system (proportional) both prevents a Sanders victory and Hillary from running up the score.
Oh yeah, the primary results so far almost certainly match up with the primary population and there's no reason to change anything at this point - for the primary. As has been put forth though, the general population is different. However, since we know the demographics for each pretty much, all that remains is to adjust the coefficients of each property (voted in the primary, registered democrat, etc) to obtain a smaller yet significant effect on the general outcome. Or use the polls rather than vote totals since some of the trends run at cross purposes, and poll results can be generalizable between parties.
I think it has become more than clear that his campaign is not honestly about his desire for a political revolution, as much as it is about the ego and righteous indignation of Bernie Sanders.
To illustrate this and to not come across as simply attacking, I point to the fact that only three down ballot candidates have recieved his support in what was seemingly a one time effort where the 4 campaigns split the donations.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
If she was interested in improving her margins in the primary, wouldn't she be doing so? She's essentially not campaigning.
Or perhaps primary margins stop mattering after you've overwhelmingly won the primary, especially when the delegate system (proportional) both prevents a Sanders victory and Hillary from running up the score.
Oh yeah, the primary results so far almost certainly match up with the primary population and there's no reason to change anything at this point - for the primary. As has been put forth though, the general population is different. However, since we know the demographics for each pretty much, all that remains is to adjust the coefficients of each property (voted in the primary, registered democrat, etc) to obtain a smaller yet significant effect on the general outcome. Or use the polls rather than vote totals since some of the trends run at cross purposes, and poll results can be generalizable between parties.
I think it has become more than clear that his campaign is not honestly about his desire for a political revolution, as much as it is about the ego and righteous indignation of Bernie Sanders.
To illustrate this and to not come across as simply attacking, I point to the fact that only three down ballot candidates have recieved his support in what was seemingly a one time effort where the 4 campaigns split the donations.
The way he treated Fetterman in PA was revolting (and showed that his revolution was not ready for prime time.)
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
If she was interested in improving her margins in the primary, wouldn't she be doing so? She's essentially not campaigning.
Or perhaps primary margins stop mattering after you've overwhelmingly won the primary, especially when the delegate system (proportional) both prevents a Sanders victory and Hillary from running up the score.
Oh yeah, the primary results so far almost certainly match up with the primary population and there's no reason to change anything at this point - for the primary. As has been put forth though, the general population is different. However, since we know the demographics for each pretty much, all that remains is to adjust the coefficients of each property (voted in the primary, registered democrat, etc) to obtain a smaller yet significant effect on the general outcome. Or use the polls rather than vote totals since some of the trends run at cross purposes, and poll results can be generalizable between parties.
I think it has become more than clear that his campaign is not honestly about his desire for a political revolution, as much as it is about the ego and righteous indignation of Bernie Sanders.
To illustrate this and to not come across as simply attacking, I point to the fact that only three down ballot candidates have recieved his support in what was seemingly a one time effort where the 4 campaigns split the donations.
I'm still interested in knowing how much was raised. I can't make value judgments without the relevant data.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
I do not understand your statement. Polls are predictive and the variance isnt predictive.
Edit: I mean seriously. I really don't understand what you're saying. Samples of a binomial distribution are predictive of the mean. They're consistent so long as the sample is truly random. Even the statement "binomial distribution in a winner takes all scenario" doesn't make any sense.
"We want to do it well and we want to do it promptly. I feel pressure to do both of those things," Comey told reporters during a roundtable at FBI headquarters. "As between the two things, we will always choose 'well.'"
Comey indicated he's not taking into account political events, including the upcoming conventions or the fall election.
"I don't tether to any external deadline," the FBI chief said.
...
However, in response to a question Wednesday, Comey said he wasn't familiar with the term "security inquiry" that Clinton and her aides have used. The FBI chief said he considers the work agents are doing to be an "investigation."
"It's in our name. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry','" the director said.
However, he passed up the chance to repeat a reporter's characterization of it as a "criminal" probe.
Comey bats any suggestion that he's under a political deadline, as he should, and also the artful phrase coined by the Clinton team. It always sounded so obviously contrived.
It looks like interviews have started happening, and all reporting includes some variance of 'no wrongdoing found' or 'extremely unlikely' somewhere in the text.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
If she was interested in improving her margins in the primary, wouldn't she be doing so? She's essentially not campaigning.
Or perhaps primary margins stop mattering after you've overwhelmingly won the primary, especially when the delegate system (proportional) both prevents a Sanders victory and Hillary from running up the score.
Oh yeah, the primary results so far almost certainly match up with the primary population and there's no reason to change anything at this point - for the primary. As has been put forth though, the general population is different. However, since we know the demographics for each pretty much, all that remains is to adjust the coefficients of each property (voted in the primary, registered democrat, etc) to obtain a smaller yet significant effect on the general outcome. Or use the polls rather than vote totals since some of the trends run at cross purposes, and poll results can be generalizable between parties.
I think it has become more than clear that his campaign is not honestly about his desire for a political revolution, as much as it is about the ego and righteous indignation of Bernie Sanders.
To illustrate this and to not come across as simply attacking, I point to the fact that only three down ballot candidates have recieved his support in what was seemingly a one time effort where the 4 campaigns split the donations.
I'm still interested in knowing how much was raised. I can't make value judgments without the relevant data.
I think there were reports that one of them reported over 100,000 in donations. Which isn't anything to sneeze at.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
If she was interested in improving her margins in the primary, wouldn't she be doing so? She's essentially not campaigning.
Or perhaps primary margins stop mattering after you've overwhelmingly won the primary, especially when the delegate system (proportional) both prevents a Sanders victory and Hillary from running up the score.
Oh yeah, the primary results so far almost certainly match up with the primary population and there's no reason to change anything at this point - for the primary. As has been put forth though, the general population is different. However, since we know the demographics for each pretty much, all that remains is to adjust the coefficients of each property (voted in the primary, registered democrat, etc) to obtain a smaller yet significant effect on the general outcome. Or use the polls rather than vote totals since some of the trends run at cross purposes, and poll results can be generalizable between parties.
I think it has become more than clear that his campaign is not honestly about his desire for a political revolution, as much as it is about the ego and righteous indignation of Bernie Sanders.
To illustrate this and to not come across as simply attacking, I point to the fact that only three down ballot candidates have recieved his support in what was seemingly a one time effort where the 4 campaigns split the donations.
I'm still interested in knowing how much was raised. I can't make value judgments without the relevant data.
I think there were reports that one of them reported over 100,000 in donations. Which isn't anything to sneeze at.
If that was efficient, regardless of how you feel about Mr. Sanders, maybe kickstarter has a future in politics
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Posts
I was commenting on the obvious difference in the "all voices being heard" subject in regards to people just voting for someone who is no longer running versus someone who is still actively campaigning and encouraging people to come out and vote and make a show for what they represent.
There is very much an attitude here that it shouldn't matter, that just because he's not going to win it doesn't matter, that these people are irrelevant because Clinton. Full stop.
That he should just shut up and fall in line because he's perceived as just being in the way.
And yet his voters keep voting just in case they can make that happen... which again returns to my point.
Steam: adamjnet
But they can't make it happen. It's not possible
I don't think it's about dictating policy, or hijacking the platform across the board - it's about demonstrating that a significant portion of your own voters want certain things and that it might be a good idea to take those things into consideration or incorporate some of their ideas to appeal to them. It's the job of the nominee to represent the whole party as best they are able, and the more of them that vote in primaries, the better they can understand what those voters want. It's been happening already and I am sure it will continue to happen. It's a good thing.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
Steam: adamjnet
Talking all he wants and staying out of step with Hillary and the Democratic party in general is entirely possible without constantly attacking them and crying foul when his various demands of them aren't meant. As I recall, that was how he initially ran his campaign.
So I will ask, once again, for examples: What ideals of Sanders' does Clinton not support that you would like to see incorporated into the platform? And I don't mean "$15" instead of "$12", because that's the same goal, just different extent. I mean real, true, ideological differentiation.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Vote totals mean less than margins when you're working off a sample rather than a population.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Me personally? None really. I'm sure his voters would like to see a tougher stance towards Wall Street or a less hawkish foreign policy or whatever. But I don't see why "same goal, different extent" is not relevant, either. If, for example, Bernie were to make 12 12 dollars and fitty cents, that's a big deal, or allowing drug imports from Canada, or encouraged withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, these are all significant policies that would make meaningful differences to some people's lives despite not being radically divergent from the existing party platform.
Anyway I'm going to bed. Thanks for the lively discussion!
Steam: adamjnet
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Do you have a point you would like to make more clearly without quoting a statistics textbook at me?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yeah, Mrs. Clinton will still want to improve her margins even after she's won. And that's why losing votes count.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This seems to assume that someone wouldn't vote in the general if for whatever reason they didn't vote in the primary, which seems wrong due to how many more people vote in the general vs the primary.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/
Not really, it mostly communicates where your broader coalition stands overall in the general.
Seems to me that her overwhelming victory has done a pretty good job of this already.
The general electorate doesn't look like either primary electorate and is less likely to support more "radical" positions like those pushed by Sanders.
You simply don't pivot to the fringe for the general
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You too, @Spaffy! G'night!
Yeah, that's enough. Bernie, fire Weaver and concede now. You're done.
The general electorate looks a percentage like both primary electorate and a smaller percentage all primary candidates. The populations overlap very extremely. And political fringe is only defined by the risk of won votes over the risk of lost votes, not what common sense and the media dictate.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If she was interested in improving her margins in the primary, wouldn't she be doing so? She's essentially not campaigning.
Or perhaps primary margins stop mattering after you've overwhelmingly won the primary, especially when the delegate system (proportional) both prevents a Sanders victory and Hillary from running up the score.
As much as you want to make things sound complicated, they really aren't.
Yes, Sanders voters are a percentage of the electorate. So are people who dislike Hillary most seriously because she wants to make 401k managers have fiduciary duties. But "a percentage" is a useless number.
More to the point, their positions overlap to a large extent as you said. Which is why Hillary adopting Sander's positions is (in general) likely to have little benefit with Sanders supporters at the much greater risk of alienating GE voters. It is also why Hillary does not feel the need to campaign heavily during the primary she has already won, because votes she doesn't gain in the primary don't necessarily mean she won't have those votes in November.
It's worth pointing out, again, that Hillary seems perfectly happy to let Bernie do this and not oppose him in any way
I would pay quite a bit to be a fly on the wall in the room where his campaign staff are having a serious conversation about the strategy to secure him a 70+ point victory.
Oh yeah, the primary results so far almost certainly match up with the primary population and there's no reason to change anything at this point - for the primary. As has been put forth though, the general population is different. However, since we know the demographics for each pretty much, all that remains is to adjust the coefficients of each property (voted in the primary, registered democrat, etc) to obtain a smaller yet significant effect on the general outcome. Or use the polls rather than vote totals since some of the trends run at cross purposes, and poll results can be generalizable between parties.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That might explain why I got a Bernie call from New York the other day, despite my living in CA.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Does anybody know where I can find numbers of how much money has actually gone to Zephyr Teachout, Lucy Flores, and Pramila Jayapal?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think it has become more than clear that his campaign is not honestly about his desire for a political revolution, as much as it is about the ego and righteous indignation of Bernie Sanders.
To illustrate this and to not come across as simply attacking, I point to the fact that only three down ballot candidates have recieved his support in what was seemingly a one time effort where the 4 campaigns split the donations.
The way he treated Fetterman in PA was revolting (and showed that his revolution was not ready for prime time.)
I'm still interested in knowing how much was raised. I can't make value judgments without the relevant data.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I do not understand your statement. Polls are predictive and the variance isnt predictive.
Edit: I mean seriously. I really don't understand what you're saying. Samples of a binomial distribution are predictive of the mean. They're consistent so long as the sample is truly random. Even the statement "binomial distribution in a winner takes all scenario" doesn't make any sense.
Comey bats any suggestion that he's under a political deadline, as he should, and also the artful phrase coined by the Clinton team. It always sounded so obviously contrived.
It looks like interviews have started happening, and all reporting includes some variance of 'no wrongdoing found' or 'extremely unlikely' somewhere in the text.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-investigation-fbi-james-comey-223071
I think there were reports that one of them reported over 100,000 in donations. Which isn't anything to sneeze at.
If that was efficient, regardless of how you feel about Mr. Sanders, maybe kickstarter has a future in politics
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.