Nonwhite folks still live in predominantly, ludicrously white-majority areas.
It feels wrong to discount their agency just because there aren't more of them
So I think it's not about agency here. It's more that the sample sizes might not be large enough to generate a significant result that could be extrapolated to the country as a whole. For example, yes the percentage might be like 45%, but if the standard deviations for that are 25% one way or the other then you're not getting a really accurate generalization of the results.
This may come as a shock but gay and trans aren't synonymous.
Alana Cleverley is a 29-year-old transgender woman who lives in Montpelier, Vermont’s capital. A few weeks ago, she got a tattoo of Sanders inked on her ankle, in part because of the work Sanders has done for the LGBT community.
“His actions show that he feels that everybody should be treated as equals,” said Cleverley. “Everybody should have equal rights regardless of their situation and regardless of their gender. He has fought for all of that and made it way easier for everybody in the community. Not just for trans people, but for everybody.”
According to Cleverley, Sanders changed attitudes and helped shape Vermont into a more accepting state. She said she feels safer in Vermont than anywhere else.
“I can easily go anywhere designed for females, even though I was not born a female,” said Cleverley. “The fact that we are such a progressive state that allows for that has made my life so much easier.”
Alana seems to think Sanders is an ally at least so I dunno my friend.
And another person you left out disagrees. And you might note I was looking for Sander's position. Not other people's opinion of him.
Ah yes, the one person who said "yeah he's good, but why hasn't he talked louder about it" means "they're not a good ally".
This is exactly what I was talking about.
"I want to know you're concerned that we are being fucking murdered" is not exactly "you're not loud enough".
Neither of the remaining Democratic candidates have spoken to reforming policy that will help secure health care and public accommodations for trans people,” she said. “I’m still waiting to hear acknowledgement that the numbers of [killed] trans women of color are even alarming to these people.”
And even then the main thrust of the complaint is health care.
Well, that article is from 2017. Since then, the candidates have been clear to include transgender folks in their health plans, so that problem has been accounted for.
The problem is that the transgender community has more needs and concerns than just health care. The question at the debate was about combating violence against transgender individuals - something that improving access to health care will only impact marginally, so why bring it up? Why not, as you pointed out, bring up the work he did as mayor to protect transgender individuals in his community, and how he would apply that to the Presidency?
In a fundamental way, he didn't actually answer the question put before him, and that comes back to that hyperfocus on class. Someone pointed out that marginalized groups are getting screwed under unfettered capitalism, and while that's true - what assurance do they have that any other system will be better for them? After all, socialist societies aren't free of discrimination either.
I honestly don't understand how you can pontificate about Bernie Sanders' fundamental problems without bothering to check up on his actual platform. He actually listened, like you wanted him to! You can't just accuse him of a hyperfocus on class as if it is 2016 or whatever. If you think the transgender community has more needs and concerns his policy ignores, point them out!
This "Sanders only class, no marginalized groups" talk needs to fucking stop.
Yes yes we disagree with you and therefor should shit down and shut up, I get it.
I seem to remember there being a lot of concern about how effective his class based rhetoric was going to intersect with people facing issues that we more commonly frame as sexism and racism.
Bernie listened to those concerns and got a lot of good people to help him understand them more fully, and it really paid off.
Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color. He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll. He also has the most extreme gender gap, doing 7% better among men than women
Iowa is a great measure for Sanders' ability to attract non-white and minority voters. And not because of a simple entrance/exit vote, that's just the final result. It's what went into this result that makes it impressive. A well covered (if you care to look at it) effort by leftists activists, both white and non-white, to reach out to non-white communities, talk to them about both the issues and Bernie, getting them excited about the campaign, getting them registered, actually physically getting them to their caucus locations so they can participate.
It's an actual documented effort on the ground that massively paid fruit in actual votes. I'm not surprised that some people will be dismissive of it, but they're flat out wrong.
I respect that he made a really strong effort there, yay Bernie and all.
But the political dynamics in an extremely white state with a POC population small enough to fit in a bathtub is not, in itself, this amazing proof of concept. If he can replicate this in South Carolina? Cool, I'll be convinced he's onto something. But this is a single data point in a highly irregular state backed by a a poll with a sample size of a couple hundred.
I think if Pants said, "I'd like to see more" I wouldn't have said anything. That's just plain skepticism. But he did more than that. He also picked a single data point to counter, which was a YouGov poll. And here's the annoying thing for me, a thing that I've seen anti-Sanders white people consistently do. First Pants says:
"Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color."
Ok.
"He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll."
Not the same thing, and not the first time I've seen Pants do this exact thing. It's plain to see that there are some white people who opine a lot about PoC and why Sanders is/was failing with them, and then get veeeerry cherry picky about who's a PoC and minority to talk about when they're selecting their data points. I don't like it.
Sometime this is disguised as plea for cleaner data. "X group is just hard to poll!" Fine, but I'm not dumb. You get a smaller MoE when you increase the sample, not a bigger one. So, why would people who want better data consistently pick the group that's gonna have the smaller sample size (African Americans) than the larger one (non-white) when they want to make their point about minority appeal? Makes no sense to me, even if you buy the premise.
I seem to remember there being a lot of concern about how effective his class based rhetoric was going to intersect with people facing issues that we more commonly frame as sexism and racism.
Bernie listened to those concerns and got a lot of good people to help him understand them more fully, and it really paid off.
Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color. He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll. He also has the most extreme gender gap, doing 7% better among men than women
Iowa is a great measure for Sanders' ability to attract non-white and minority voters. And not because of a simple entrance/exit vote, that's just the final result. It's what went into this result that makes it impressive. A well covered (if you care to look at it) effort by leftists activists, both white and non-white, to reach out to non-white communities, talk to them about both the issues and Bernie, getting them excited about the campaign, getting them registered, actually physically getting them to their caucus locations so they can participate.
It's an actual documented effort on the ground that massively paid fruit in actual votes. I'm not surprised that some people will be dismissive of it, but they're flat out wrong.
I respect that he made a really strong effort there, yay Bernie and all.
But the political dynamics in an extremely white state with a POC population small enough to fit in a bathtub is not, in itself, this amazing proof of concept. If he can replicate this in South Carolina? Cool, I'll be convinced he's onto something. But this is a single data point in a highly irregular state backed by a a poll with a sample size of a couple hundred.
I think if Pants said, "I'd like to see more" I wouldn't have said anything. That's just plain skepticism. But he did more than that. He also picked a single data point to counter, which was a YouGov poll. And here's the annoying thing for me, a thing that I've seen anti-Sanders white people consistently do. First Pants says:
"Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color."
Ok.
"He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll."
Not the same thing, and not the first time I've seen Pants do this exact thing. It's plain to see that there are some white people who opine a lot about PoC and why Sanders is/was failing with them, and then get veeeerry cherry picky about who's a PoC and minority to talk about when they're selecting their data points. I don't like it.
Sometime this is disguised as plea for cleaner data. "X group is just hard to poll!" Fine, but I'm not dumb. You get a smaller MoE when you increase the sample, not a bigger one. So, why would people who want better data consistently pick the group that's gonna have the smaller sample size (African Americans) than the larger one (non-white) when they want to make their point about minority appeal? Makes no sense to me, even if you buy the premise.
Can't disagree with the lazy writing on the first half, but the second:
Different minority groups are going to have different reactions to different policy and candidates. Wanting data that fits the population as best you can just makes sense.
0
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
Seems like Biden is giving up on NH to focus on attacking the other candidates as unelectable socialists to win NV, which is another caucus. A bold strategy. One that will IMO end up hurting everyone potentially.
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events.
But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found.
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
...
“From a Biden perspective, there’s going to be a course correction in all three states before Super Tuesday,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator who is in regular contact with Biden’s campaign. “He’s got to have sharper elbows.”
He suggested that those inside the campaign realized the gravity of the moment and that Biden had to better “explain the difference with his opponents.”
...
“We don’t have high expectations in New Hampshire. We never have,” said a top adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s on to Nevada.”
This may come as a shock but gay and trans aren't synonymous.
Alana Cleverley is a 29-year-old transgender woman who lives in Montpelier, Vermont’s capital. A few weeks ago, she got a tattoo of Sanders inked on her ankle, in part because of the work Sanders has done for the LGBT community.
“His actions show that he feels that everybody should be treated as equals,” said Cleverley. “Everybody should have equal rights regardless of their situation and regardless of their gender. He has fought for all of that and made it way easier for everybody in the community. Not just for trans people, but for everybody.”
According to Cleverley, Sanders changed attitudes and helped shape Vermont into a more accepting state. She said she feels safer in Vermont than anywhere else.
“I can easily go anywhere designed for females, even though I was not born a female,” said Cleverley. “The fact that we are such a progressive state that allows for that has made my life so much easier.”
Alana seems to think Sanders is an ally at least so I dunno my friend.
And another person you left out disagrees. And you might note I was looking for Sander's position. Not other people's opinion of him.
Ah yes, the one person who said "yeah he's good, but why hasn't he talked louder about it" means "they're not a good ally".
This is exactly what I was talking about.
"I want to know you're concerned that we are being fucking murdered" is not exactly "you're not loud enough".
Neither of the remaining Democratic candidates have spoken to reforming policy that will help secure health care and public accommodations for trans people,” she said. “I’m still waiting to hear acknowledgement that the numbers of [killed] trans women of color are even alarming to these people.”
And even then the main thrust of the complaint is health care.
Well, that article is from 2017. Since then, the candidates have been clear to include transgender folks in their health plans, so that problem has been accounted for.
The problem is that the transgender community has more needs and concerns than just health care. The question at the debate was about combating violence against transgender individuals - something that improving access to health care will only impact marginally, so why bring it up? Why not, as you pointed out, bring up the work he did as mayor to protect transgender individuals in his community, and how he would apply that to the Presidency?
In a fundamental way, he didn't actually answer the question put before him, and that comes back to that hyperfocus on class. Someone pointed out that marginalized groups are getting screwed under unfettered capitalism, and while that's true - what assurance do they have that any other system will be better for them? After all, socialist societies aren't free of discrimination either.
I honestly don't understand how you can pontificate about Bernie Sanders' fundamental problems without bothering to check up on his actual platform. He actually listened, like you wanted him to! You can't just accuse him of a hyperfocus on class as if it is 2016 or whatever. If you think the transgender community has more needs and concerns his policy ignores, point them out!
This "Sanders only class, no marginalized groups" talk needs to fucking stop.
Yes yes we disagree with you and therefor should shit down and shut up, I get it.
I would like health care, and not having to worry about if my insurance company is going to flip out over transition related care when I can finally get it.
I seem to remember there being a lot of concern about how effective his class based rhetoric was going to intersect with people facing issues that we more commonly frame as sexism and racism.
Bernie listened to those concerns and got a lot of good people to help him understand them more fully, and it really paid off.
Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color. He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll. He also has the most extreme gender gap, doing 7% better among men than women
Iowa is a great measure for Sanders' ability to attract non-white and minority voters. And not because of a simple entrance/exit vote, that's just the final result. It's what went into this result that makes it impressive. A well covered (if you care to look at it) effort by leftists activists, both white and non-white, to reach out to non-white communities, talk to them about both the issues and Bernie, getting them excited about the campaign, getting them registered, actually physically getting them to their caucus locations so they can participate.
It's an actual documented effort on the ground that massively paid fruit in actual votes. I'm not surprised that some people will be dismissive of it, but they're flat out wrong.
I respect that he made a really strong effort there, yay Bernie and all.
But the political dynamics in an extremely white state with a POC population small enough to fit in a bathtub is not, in itself, this amazing proof of concept. If he can replicate this in South Carolina? Cool, I'll be convinced he's onto something. But this is a single data point in a highly irregular state backed by a a poll with a sample size of a couple hundred.
I think if Pants said, "I'd like to see more" I wouldn't have said anything. That's just plain skepticism. But he did more than that. He also picked a single data point to counter, which was a YouGov poll. And here's the annoying thing for me, a thing that I've seen anti-Sanders white people consistently do. First Pants says:
"Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color."
Ok.
"He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll."
Not the same thing, and not the first time I've seen Pants do this exact thing. It's plain to see that there are some white people who opine a lot about PoC and why Sanders is/was failing with them, and then get veeeerry cherry picky about who's a PoC and minority to talk about when they're selecting their data points. I don't like it.
Sometime this is disguised as plea for cleaner data. "X group is just hard to poll!" Fine, but I'm not dumb. You get a smaller MoE when you increase the sample, not a bigger one. So, why would people who want better data consistently pick the group that's gonna have the smaller sample size (African Americans) than the larger one (non-white) when they want to make their point about minority appeal? Makes no sense to me, even if you buy the premise.
I mean the blunt version is human beings are highly narrative-driven beings, though we have trouble recognizing that in favor of rational individualism ingrained in us as a culture, and the narrative for years about Sanders is "Sanders is obsessed with class and blind to race."
And so it's just easier to keep that narrative instead of tackling it with the efforts his campaign has made to correct for it. We like our stories, and we don't like them to change.
Seems like Biden is giving up on NH to focus on attacking the other candidates as unelectable socialists to win NV, which is another caucus. A bold strategy. One that will IMO end up hurting everyone potentially.
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events.
But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found.
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
...
“From a Biden perspective, there’s going to be a course correction in all three states before Super Tuesday,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator who is in regular contact with Biden’s campaign. “He’s got to have sharper elbows.”
He suggested that those inside the campaign realized the gravity of the moment and that Biden had to better “explain the difference with his opponents.”
...
“We don’t have high expectations in New Hampshire. We never have,” said a top adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s on to Nevada.”
Seems like Biden is giving up on NH to focus on attacking the other candidates as unelectable socialists to win NV, which is another caucus. A bold strategy. One that will IMO end up hurting everyone potentially.
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events.
But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found.
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
...
“From a Biden perspective, there’s going to be a course correction in all three states before Super Tuesday,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator who is in regular contact with Biden’s campaign. “He’s got to have sharper elbows.”
He suggested that those inside the campaign realized the gravity of the moment and that Biden had to better “explain the difference with his opponents.”
...
“We don’t have high expectations in New Hampshire. We never have,” said a top adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s on to Nevada.”
It was always coming eventually. It's been pretty shocking that it's taken this long to be honest.
If the primary is supposed to be any sort of vetting process, this basically needed to come up anyway.
Agreed. I think Biden pushing on the socialist characterizations might show how willing Americans are to go along with "socialism" the term, as opposed to socialism the policy (or democratic socialist policies, which is what Bernie and Warren actually propose).
0
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
Seems like Biden is giving up on NH to focus on attacking the other candidates as unelectable socialists to win NV, which is another caucus. A bold strategy. One that will IMO end up hurting everyone potentially.
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events.
But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found.
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
...
“From a Biden perspective, there’s going to be a course correction in all three states before Super Tuesday,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator who is in regular contact with Biden’s campaign. “He’s got to have sharper elbows.”
He suggested that those inside the campaign realized the gravity of the moment and that Biden had to better “explain the difference with his opponents.”
...
“We don’t have high expectations in New Hampshire. We never have,” said a top adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s on to Nevada.”
This may come as a shock but gay and trans aren't synonymous.
Alana Cleverley is a 29-year-old transgender woman who lives in Montpelier, Vermont’s capital. A few weeks ago, she got a tattoo of Sanders inked on her ankle, in part because of the work Sanders has done for the LGBT community.
“His actions show that he feels that everybody should be treated as equals,” said Cleverley. “Everybody should have equal rights regardless of their situation and regardless of their gender. He has fought for all of that and made it way easier for everybody in the community. Not just for trans people, but for everybody.”
According to Cleverley, Sanders changed attitudes and helped shape Vermont into a more accepting state. She said she feels safer in Vermont than anywhere else.
“I can easily go anywhere designed for females, even though I was not born a female,” said Cleverley. “The fact that we are such a progressive state that allows for that has made my life so much easier.”
Alana seems to think Sanders is an ally at least so I dunno my friend.
And another person you left out disagrees. And you might note I was looking for Sander's position. Not other people's opinion of him.
Ah yes, the one person who said "yeah he's good, but why hasn't he talked louder about it" means "they're not a good ally".
This is exactly what I was talking about.
"I want to know you're concerned that we are being fucking murdered" is not exactly "you're not loud enough".
Neither of the remaining Democratic candidates have spoken to reforming policy that will help secure health care and public accommodations for trans people,” she said. “I’m still waiting to hear acknowledgement that the numbers of [killed] trans women of color are even alarming to these people.”
And even then the main thrust of the complaint is health care.
Well, that article is from 2017. Since then, the candidates have been clear to include transgender folks in their health plans, so that problem has been accounted for.
The problem is that the transgender community has more needs and concerns than just health care. The question at the debate was about combating violence against transgender individuals - something that improving access to health care will only impact marginally, so why bring it up? Why not, as you pointed out, bring up the work he did as mayor to protect transgender individuals in his community, and how he would apply that to the Presidency?
In a fundamental way, he didn't actually answer the question put before him, and that comes back to that hyperfocus on class. Someone pointed out that marginalized groups are getting screwed under unfettered capitalism, and while that's true - what assurance do they have that any other system will be better for them? After all, socialist societies aren't free of discrimination either.
I honestly don't understand how you can pontificate about Bernie Sanders' fundamental problems without bothering to check up on his actual platform. He actually listened, like you wanted him to! You can't just accuse him of a hyperfocus on class as if it is 2016 or whatever. If you think the transgender community has more needs and concerns his policy ignores, point them out!
This "Sanders only class, no marginalized groups" talk needs to fucking stop.
Yes yes we disagree with you and therefor should shit down and shut up, I get it.
I would like health care, and not having to worry about if my insurance company is going to flip out over transition related care when I can finally get it.
I had to drop the next best thing to a car out of pocket myself, with excellent insurance. Because conservatives had a hand in writing the requirements. I knew people who are dead now because of lack of care.
Instead you'll just have to worry about the GOP controlling everything about your health care in 4-8 years. As the best case scenario. Or Bernie could rush things, miss implementation details because of his class focus and everyone is just kinda fucked.
Seems like Biden is giving up on NH to focus on attacking the other candidates as unelectable socialists to win NV, which is another caucus. A bold strategy. One that will IMO end up hurting everyone potentially.
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events.
But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found.
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
...
“From a Biden perspective, there’s going to be a course correction in all three states before Super Tuesday,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator who is in regular contact with Biden’s campaign. “He’s got to have sharper elbows.”
He suggested that those inside the campaign realized the gravity of the moment and that Biden had to better “explain the difference with his opponents.”
...
“We don’t have high expectations in New Hampshire. We never have,” said a top adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s on to Nevada.”
Isn't he mostly losing voters to Buttigieg? I have no doubt he's gonna run these socialist attacks, but how does this get the people who jumped ship to Buttigieg back to him?
And on that theme, looks like Buttigieg got a nice bump, while Bernie did not. At least in this Suffolk poll.
Bernie Sanders is holding steady at 24 percent, but Buttigieg is up four points over last night with 23 percent, a virtual tie in a survey with a margin of error of 4.4 percent.
Elizabeth Warren takes over third place with 13 percent, and Joe Biden slips to fourth with 11 percent.
Mayor Pete’s gains don’t seem to be coming at the expense of Sanders, whose numbers haven’t changed much all week. Instead, Buttigieg seems to be attracting registered Democrats. And his biggest gains appear to be raided from key backers of Warren and Biden.
Seems like Biden is giving up on NH to focus on attacking the other candidates as unelectable socialists to win NV, which is another caucus. A bold strategy. One that will IMO end up hurting everyone potentially.
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events.
But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found.
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
...
“From a Biden perspective, there’s going to be a course correction in all three states before Super Tuesday,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator who is in regular contact with Biden’s campaign. “He’s got to have sharper elbows.”
He suggested that those inside the campaign realized the gravity of the moment and that Biden had to better “explain the difference with his opponents.”
...
“We don’t have high expectations in New Hampshire. We never have,” said a top adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s on to Nevada.”
Isn't he mostly losing voters to Buttigieg? I have no doubt he's gonna run these socialist attacks, but how does this get the people who jumped ship to Buttigieg back to him?
I'm expecting him to say he has the most experience, throw in a couple "Barack"s, and that he's the most electable against Trump
Zavian on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I seem to remember there being a lot of concern about how effective his class based rhetoric was going to intersect with people facing issues that we more commonly frame as sexism and racism.
Bernie listened to those concerns and got a lot of good people to help him understand them more fully, and it really paid off.
Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color. He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll. He also has the most extreme gender gap, doing 7% better among men than women
Iowa is a great measure for Sanders' ability to attract non-white and minority voters. And not because of a simple entrance/exit vote, that's just the final result. It's what went into this result that makes it impressive. A well covered (if you care to look at it) effort by leftists activists, both white and non-white, to reach out to non-white communities, talk to them about both the issues and Bernie, getting them excited about the campaign, getting them registered, actually physically getting them to their caucus locations so they can participate.
It's an actual documented effort on the ground that massively paid fruit in actual votes. I'm not surprised that some people will be dismissive of it, but they're flat out wrong.
I respect that he made a really strong effort there, yay Bernie and all.
But the political dynamics in an extremely white state with a POC population small enough to fit in a bathtub is not, in itself, this amazing proof of concept. If he can replicate this in South Carolina? Cool, I'll be convinced he's onto something. But this is a single data point in a highly irregular state backed by a a poll with a sample size of a couple hundred.
I think if Pants said, "I'd like to see more" I wouldn't have said anything. That's just plain skepticism. But he did more than that. He also picked a single data point to counter, which was a YouGov poll. And here's the annoying thing for me, a thing that I've seen anti-Sanders white people consistently do. First Pants says:
"Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color."
Ok.
"He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll."
Not the same thing, and not the first time I've seen Pants do this exact thing. It's plain to see that there are some white people who opine a lot about PoC and why Sanders is/was failing with them, and then get veeeerry cherry picky about who's a PoC and minority to talk about when they're selecting their data points. I don't like it.
Sometime this is disguised as plea for cleaner data. "X group is just hard to poll!" Fine, but I'm not dumb. You get a smaller MoE when you increase the sample, not a bigger one. So, why would people who want better data consistently pick the group that's gonna have the smaller sample size (African Americans) than the larger one (non-white) when they want to make their point about minority appeal? Makes no sense to me, even if you buy the premise.
I mean the blunt version is human beings are highly narrative-driven beings, though we have trouble recognizing that in favor of rational individualism ingrained in us as a culture, and the narrative for years about Sanders is "Sanders is obsessed with class and blind to race."
And so it's just easier to keep that narrative instead of tackling it with the efforts his campaign has made to correct for it. We like our stories, and we don't like them to change.
Or maybe Bernie has actually changed his approach. Which is why he is doing better.
+8
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
One thing that I think is hurting Biden the most is that Obama hasn't endorsed him; he's really hanging his hat on Obama's administration, but I think Obama is sitting it out until the general election which doesn't really back up Biden at all
I seem to remember there being a lot of concern about how effective his class based rhetoric was going to intersect with people facing issues that we more commonly frame as sexism and racism.
Bernie listened to those concerns and got a lot of good people to help him understand them more fully, and it really paid off.
Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color. He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll. He also has the most extreme gender gap, doing 7% better among men than women
Iowa is a great measure for Sanders' ability to attract non-white and minority voters. And not because of a simple entrance/exit vote, that's just the final result. It's what went into this result that makes it impressive. A well covered (if you care to look at it) effort by leftists activists, both white and non-white, to reach out to non-white communities, talk to them about both the issues and Bernie, getting them excited about the campaign, getting them registered, actually physically getting them to their caucus locations so they can participate.
It's an actual documented effort on the ground that massively paid fruit in actual votes. I'm not surprised that some people will be dismissive of it, but they're flat out wrong.
I respect that he made a really strong effort there, yay Bernie and all.
But the political dynamics in an extremely white state with a POC population small enough to fit in a bathtub is not, in itself, this amazing proof of concept. If he can replicate this in South Carolina? Cool, I'll be convinced he's onto something. But this is a single data point in a highly irregular state backed by a a poll with a sample size of a couple hundred.
I think if Pants said, "I'd like to see more" I wouldn't have said anything. That's just plain skepticism. But he did more than that. He also picked a single data point to counter, which was a YouGov poll. And here's the annoying thing for me, a thing that I've seen anti-Sanders white people consistently do. First Pants says:
"Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color."
Ok.
"He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll."
Not the same thing, and not the first time I've seen Pants do this exact thing. It's plain to see that there are some white people who opine a lot about PoC and why Sanders is/was failing with them, and then get veeeerry cherry picky about who's a PoC and minority to talk about when they're selecting their data points. I don't like it.
Sometime this is disguised as plea for cleaner data. "X group is just hard to poll!" Fine, but I'm not dumb. You get a smaller MoE when you increase the sample, not a bigger one. So, why would people who want better data consistently pick the group that's gonna have the smaller sample size (African Americans) than the larger one (non-white) when they want to make their point about minority appeal? Makes no sense to me, even if you buy the premise.
I mean the blunt version is human beings are highly narrative-driven beings, though we have trouble recognizing that in favor of rational individualism ingrained in us as a culture, and the narrative for years about Sanders is "Sanders is obsessed with class and blind to race."
And so it's just easier to keep that narrative instead of tackling it with the efforts his campaign has made to correct for it. We like our stories, and we don't like them to change.
Or maybe Bernie has actually changed his approach. Which is why he is doing better.
Sax, that's my second paragraph :P
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
This may come as a shock but gay and trans aren't synonymous.
Alana Cleverley is a 29-year-old transgender woman who lives in Montpelier, Vermont’s capital. A few weeks ago, she got a tattoo of Sanders inked on her ankle, in part because of the work Sanders has done for the LGBT community.
“His actions show that he feels that everybody should be treated as equals,” said Cleverley. “Everybody should have equal rights regardless of their situation and regardless of their gender. He has fought for all of that and made it way easier for everybody in the community. Not just for trans people, but for everybody.”
According to Cleverley, Sanders changed attitudes and helped shape Vermont into a more accepting state. She said she feels safer in Vermont than anywhere else.
“I can easily go anywhere designed for females, even though I was not born a female,” said Cleverley. “The fact that we are such a progressive state that allows for that has made my life so much easier.”
Alana seems to think Sanders is an ally at least so I dunno my friend.
And another person you left out disagrees. And you might note I was looking for Sander's position. Not other people's opinion of him.
Ah yes, the one person who said "yeah he's good, but why hasn't he talked louder about it" means "they're not a good ally".
This is exactly what I was talking about.
"I want to know you're concerned that we are being fucking murdered" is not exactly "you're not loud enough".
Neither of the remaining Democratic candidates have spoken to reforming policy that will help secure health care and public accommodations for trans people,” she said. “I’m still waiting to hear acknowledgement that the numbers of [killed] trans women of color are even alarming to these people.”
And even then the main thrust of the complaint is health care.
Well, that article is from 2017. Since then, the candidates have been clear to include transgender folks in their health plans, so that problem has been accounted for.
The problem is that the transgender community has more needs and concerns than just health care. The question at the debate was about combating violence against transgender individuals - something that improving access to health care will only impact marginally, so why bring it up? Why not, as you pointed out, bring up the work he did as mayor to protect transgender individuals in his community, and how he would apply that to the Presidency?
In a fundamental way, he didn't actually answer the question put before him, and that comes back to that hyperfocus on class. Someone pointed out that marginalized groups are getting screwed under unfettered capitalism, and while that's true - what assurance do they have that any other system will be better for them? After all, socialist societies aren't free of discrimination either.
I honestly don't understand how you can pontificate about Bernie Sanders' fundamental problems without bothering to check up on his actual platform. He actually listened, like you wanted him to! You can't just accuse him of a hyperfocus on class as if it is 2016 or whatever. If you think the transgender community has more needs and concerns his policy ignores, point them out!
This "Sanders only class, no marginalized groups" talk needs to fucking stop.
Yes yes we disagree with you and therefor should shit down and shut up, I get it.
Both of you chill out.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Seems like Biden is giving up on NH to focus on attacking the other candidates as unelectable socialists to win NV, which is another caucus. A bold strategy. One that will IMO end up hurting everyone potentially.
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events.
But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found.
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
...
“From a Biden perspective, there’s going to be a course correction in all three states before Super Tuesday,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator who is in regular contact with Biden’s campaign. “He’s got to have sharper elbows.”
He suggested that those inside the campaign realized the gravity of the moment and that Biden had to better “explain the difference with his opponents.”
...
“We don’t have high expectations in New Hampshire. We never have,” said a top adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s on to Nevada.”
It was always coming eventually. It's been pretty shocking that it's taken this long to be honest.
If the primary is supposed to be any sort of vetting process, this basically needed to come up anyway.
Its actually hyped me up for the next debate, Biden is going to be out for blood. I think Warren and Sanders can more than handle themselves though
I don’t see him attacking Warren as much, there’s been very little coverage of how well she did, which is irritating in a different way. I think he’ll focus primarily on Bernie (the front runner) and Pete (the pretender to the throne).
It should be interesting because what few direct attacks on Sanders there have been have all been couched in “I love and respect Bernie, but...” terms and I think going directly negatively at Bernie is either going to destroy both of them or just make Bernie stronger.
Buttigieg, well, let’s see how he handles the spotlight. I have low expectations. I am super curious where everybody goes after this because Iowa has completely hosed all the previous narratives.
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
I don’t see him attacking Warren as much, there’s been very little coverage of how well she did, which is irritating in a different way.
I am increasingly convinced that this is because they're worried that if they talk to her something so nice and reasonable will come out of her mouth that it makes everyone else in the room look bad.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Seems like Biden is giving up on NH to focus on attacking the other candidates as unelectable socialists to win NV, which is another caucus. A bold strategy. One that will IMO end up hurting everyone potentially.
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events.
But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found.
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
...
“From a Biden perspective, there’s going to be a course correction in all three states before Super Tuesday,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator who is in regular contact with Biden’s campaign. “He’s got to have sharper elbows.”
He suggested that those inside the campaign realized the gravity of the moment and that Biden had to better “explain the difference with his opponents.”
...
“We don’t have high expectations in New Hampshire. We never have,” said a top adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s on to Nevada.”
It was always coming eventually. It's been pretty shocking that it's taken this long to be honest.
If the primary is supposed to be any sort of vetting process, this basically needed to come up anyway.
Its actually hyped me up for the next debate, Biden is going to be out for blood. I think Warren and Sanders can more than handle themselves though
I don’t see him attacking Warren as much, there’s been very little coverage of how well she did, which is irritating in a different way. I think he’ll focus primarily on Bernie (the front runner) and Pete (the pretender to the throne).
It should be interesting because what few direct attacks on Sanders there have been have all been couched in “I love and respect Bernie, but...” terms and I think going directly negatively at Bernie is either going to destroy both of them or just make Bernie stronger.
Buttigieg, well, let’s see how he handles the spotlight. I have low expectations. I am super curious where everybody goes after this because Iowa has completely hosed all the previous narratives.
I doubt he needs to worry about Buttigieg. Biden's key support is black voters and Buttigieg has like a black supporter.
I would guess he's gonna go after Sanders. Either directly or via some "socialism is bad yo" type stuff.
shryke on
0
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
Seems like Biden is giving up on NH to focus on attacking the other candidates as unelectable socialists to win NV, which is another caucus. A bold strategy. One that will IMO end up hurting everyone potentially.
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events.
But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found.
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
...
“From a Biden perspective, there’s going to be a course correction in all three states before Super Tuesday,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator who is in regular contact with Biden’s campaign. “He’s got to have sharper elbows.”
He suggested that those inside the campaign realized the gravity of the moment and that Biden had to better “explain the difference with his opponents.”
...
“We don’t have high expectations in New Hampshire. We never have,” said a top adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s on to Nevada.”
It was always coming eventually. It's been pretty shocking that it's taken this long to be honest.
If the primary is supposed to be any sort of vetting process, this basically needed to come up anyway.
Its actually hyped me up for the next debate, Biden is going to be out for blood. I think Warren and Sanders can more than handle themselves though
I don’t see him attacking Warren as much, there’s been very little coverage of how well she did, which is irritating in a different way. I think he’ll focus primarily on Bernie (the front runner) and Pete (the pretender to the throne).
It should be interesting because what few direct attacks on Sanders there have been have all been couched in “I love and respect Bernie, but...” terms and I think going directly negatively at Bernie is either going to destroy both of them or just make Bernie stronger.
Buttigieg, well, let’s see how he handles the spotlight. I have low expectations. I am super curious where everybody goes after this because Iowa has completely hosed all the previous narratives.
I doubt he needs to worry about Buttigieg. Biden's key support is black voters and Buttigieg has like a black supporter.
I would guess he's gonna go after Sanders. Either directly or via some "socialism is bad yo" type stuff.
Biden has already started the Pete attacks, I'm expecting him to use this same dare during the next debate:
Buttigieg had earlier described Biden as a member of the "old failed Washington," which prompted Biden to dare his younger competitor to take his criticism a step further and direct it at former President Barack Obama. Buttigieg so far hasn't taken up the offer.
Seems like Biden is giving up on NH to focus on attacking the other candidates as unelectable socialists to win NV, which is another caucus. A bold strategy. One that will IMO end up hurting everyone potentially.
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events.
But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found.
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
...
“From a Biden perspective, there’s going to be a course correction in all three states before Super Tuesday,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator who is in regular contact with Biden’s campaign. “He’s got to have sharper elbows.”
He suggested that those inside the campaign realized the gravity of the moment and that Biden had to better “explain the difference with his opponents.”
...
“We don’t have high expectations in New Hampshire. We never have,” said a top adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s on to Nevada.”
It was always coming eventually. It's been pretty shocking that it's taken this long to be honest.
If the primary is supposed to be any sort of vetting process, this basically needed to come up anyway.
Its actually hyped me up for the next debate, Biden is going to be out for blood. I think Warren and Sanders can more than handle themselves though
I don’t see him attacking Warren as much, there’s been very little coverage of how well she did, which is irritating in a different way. I think he’ll focus primarily on Bernie (the front runner) and Pete (the pretender to the throne).
It should be interesting because what few direct attacks on Sanders there have been have all been couched in “I love and respect Bernie, but...” terms and I think going directly negatively at Bernie is either going to destroy both of them or just make Bernie stronger.
Buttigieg, well, let’s see how he handles the spotlight. I have low expectations. I am super curious where everybody goes after this because Iowa has completely hosed all the previous narratives.
I doubt he needs to worry about Buttigieg. Biden's key support is black voters and Buttigieg has like a black supporter.
I would guess he's gonna go after Sanders. Either directly or via some "socialism is bad yo" type stuff.
There's a good chance Buttigieg's lack of black support means he vote-splits with Biden in SC, putting the two of them in third and forth behind Sanders and Warren.
Seems like Biden is giving up on NH to focus on attacking the other candidates as unelectable socialists to win NV, which is another caucus. A bold strategy. One that will IMO end up hurting everyone potentially.
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events.
But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found.
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
...
“From a Biden perspective, there’s going to be a course correction in all three states before Super Tuesday,” said Dick Harpootlian, a South Carolina state senator who is in regular contact with Biden’s campaign. “He’s got to have sharper elbows.”
He suggested that those inside the campaign realized the gravity of the moment and that Biden had to better “explain the difference with his opponents.”
...
“We don’t have high expectations in New Hampshire. We never have,” said a top adviser, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. “It’s on to Nevada.”
It was always coming eventually. It's been pretty shocking that it's taken this long to be honest.
If the primary is supposed to be any sort of vetting process, this basically needed to come up anyway.
Its actually hyped me up for the next debate, Biden is going to be out for blood. I think Warren and Sanders can more than handle themselves though
I don’t see him attacking Warren as much, there’s been very little coverage of how well she did, which is irritating in a different way. I think he’ll focus primarily on Bernie (the front runner) and Pete (the pretender to the throne).
It should be interesting because what few direct attacks on Sanders there have been have all been couched in “I love and respect Bernie, but...” terms and I think going directly negatively at Bernie is either going to destroy both of them or just make Bernie stronger.
Buttigieg, well, let’s see how he handles the spotlight. I have low expectations. I am super curious where everybody goes after this because Iowa has completely hosed all the previous narratives.
I doubt he needs to worry about Buttigieg. Biden's key support is black voters and Buttigieg has like a black supporter.
I would guess he's gonna go after Sanders. Either directly or via some "socialism is bad yo" type stuff.
He had at least 4 Black women he cherry picked out of the crowd standing behind him during his victory speech!
It was probably every Black person in the crowd; but four times as many as one.
Also he's got several prominent South Carolinan Black politicians* that appeared in his ad for the Douglass Plan!
*photos, that did not actually endorse him or his plan
So I keep hearing that Buttigieg has effectively zero black supporters, but I'm not entirely sure why. I heard something about him firing black people and replacing them with Republicans in some fashion or another, but I don't know the details or if that is the only incident which seems unlikely.
I never had anything against Biden, but hiding behind Obama like that is gross.
He really
really
cannot handle any attack.
but again this is the man who told two Latinx folks to go vote for Trump if they were unhappy with the Obama administration's immigration policies
He's also more than happy to attack Obama himself like how he disagreed with the surge. He feels like he can have it both ways. If I was Obama, I'd be grossed out by Biden myself
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I seem to remember there being a lot of concern about how effective his class based rhetoric was going to intersect with people facing issues that we more commonly frame as sexism and racism.
Bernie listened to those concerns and got a lot of good people to help him understand them more fully, and it really paid off.
Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color. He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll. He also has the most extreme gender gap, doing 7% better among men than women
Iowa is a great measure for Sanders' ability to attract non-white and minority voters. And not because of a simple entrance/exit vote, that's just the final result. It's what went into this result that makes it impressive. A well covered (if you care to look at it) effort by leftists activists, both white and non-white, to reach out to non-white communities, talk to them about both the issues and Bernie, getting them excited about the campaign, getting them registered, actually physically getting them to their caucus locations so they can participate.
It's an actual documented effort on the ground that massively paid fruit in actual votes. I'm not surprised that some people will be dismissive of it, but they're flat out wrong.
I respect that he made a really strong effort there, yay Bernie and all.
But the political dynamics in an extremely white state with a POC population small enough to fit in a bathtub is not, in itself, this amazing proof of concept. If he can replicate this in South Carolina? Cool, I'll be convinced he's onto something. But this is a single data point in a highly irregular state backed by a a poll with a sample size of a couple hundred.
I think if Pants said, "I'd like to see more" I wouldn't have said anything. That's just plain skepticism. But he did more than that. He also picked a single data point to counter, which was a YouGov poll. And here's the annoying thing for me, a thing that I've seen anti-Sanders white people consistently do. First Pants says:
"Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color."
Ok.
"He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll."
Not the same thing, and not the first time I've seen Pants do this exact thing. It's plain to see that there are some white people who opine a lot about PoC and why Sanders is/was failing with them, and then get veeeerry cherry picky about who's a PoC and minority to talk about when they're selecting their data points. I don't like it.
Sometime this is disguised as plea for cleaner data. "X group is just hard to poll!" Fine, but I'm not dumb. You get a smaller MoE when you increase the sample, not a bigger one. So, why would people who want better data consistently pick the group that's gonna have the smaller sample size (African Americans) than the larger one (non-white) when they want to make their point about minority appeal? Makes no sense to me, even if you buy the premise.
I mean the blunt version is human beings are highly narrative-driven beings, though we have trouble recognizing that in favor of rational individualism ingrained in us as a culture, and the narrative for years about Sanders is "Sanders is obsessed with class and blind to race."
And so it's just easier to keep that narrative instead of tackling it with the efforts his campaign has made to correct for it. We like our stories, and we don't like them to change.
Or maybe Bernie has actually changed his approach. Which is why he is doing better.
I never had anything against Biden, but hiding behind Obama like that is gross.
He really
really
cannot handle any attack.
but again this is the man who told two Latinx folks to go vote for Trump if they were unhappy with the Obama administration's immigration policies
He's also more than happy to attack Obama himself like how he disagreed with the surge. He feels like he can have it both ways. If I was Obama, I'd be grossed out by Biden myself
I can understand pitching your candidacy as “Look at all the great stuff Obama and I did together!” No matter your opinion on the relevance of the VP that pitch makes sense. But, “To attack me is to attack Obama” doesn’t sit right, that’s all.
I seem to remember there being a lot of concern about how effective his class based rhetoric was going to intersect with people facing issues that we more commonly frame as sexism and racism.
Bernie listened to those concerns and got a lot of good people to help him understand them more fully, and it really paid off.
Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color. He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll. He also has the most extreme gender gap, doing 7% better among men than women
Iowa is a great measure for Sanders' ability to attract non-white and minority voters. And not because of a simple entrance/exit vote, that's just the final result. It's what went into this result that makes it impressive. A well covered (if you care to look at it) effort by leftists activists, both white and non-white, to reach out to non-white communities, talk to them about both the issues and Bernie, getting them excited about the campaign, getting them registered, actually physically getting them to their caucus locations so they can participate.
It's an actual documented effort on the ground that massively paid fruit in actual votes. I'm not surprised that some people will be dismissive of it, but they're flat out wrong.
I respect that he made a really strong effort there, yay Bernie and all.
But the political dynamics in an extremely white state with a POC population small enough to fit in a bathtub is not, in itself, this amazing proof of concept. If he can replicate this in South Carolina? Cool, I'll be convinced he's onto something. But this is a single data point in a highly irregular state backed by a a poll with a sample size of a couple hundred.
This feels realy weird to me because it comes across in such a way that it risks discounting the agency of POC because they're a smaller minority of the population than seen in other states? I know that's not your intent, but I worry it risks coming around to that if we're not careful with the logic
Like with Zoom's thing about the extremely white state being similar to that; it risks glossing over the choices of POC because they aren't sufficiently numerous compared to white folks.
It in no way glosses over agency.
Find a group of ten POC. Give them as much agency as you want. You still can't use them to draw generalizations about a nation of 300 million people because math doesn't work that way.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I seem to remember there being a lot of concern about how effective his class based rhetoric was going to intersect with people facing issues that we more commonly frame as sexism and racism.
Bernie listened to those concerns and got a lot of good people to help him understand them more fully, and it really paid off.
Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color. He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll. He also has the most extreme gender gap, doing 7% better among men than women
Iowa is a great measure for Sanders' ability to attract non-white and minority voters. And not because of a simple entrance/exit vote, that's just the final result. It's what went into this result that makes it impressive. A well covered (if you care to look at it) effort by leftists activists, both white and non-white, to reach out to non-white communities, talk to them about both the issues and Bernie, getting them excited about the campaign, getting them registered, actually physically getting them to their caucus locations so they can participate.
It's an actual documented effort on the ground that massively paid fruit in actual votes. I'm not surprised that some people will be dismissive of it, but they're flat out wrong.
I respect that he made a really strong effort there, yay Bernie and all.
But the political dynamics in an extremely white state with a POC population small enough to fit in a bathtub is not, in itself, this amazing proof of concept. If he can replicate this in South Carolina? Cool, I'll be convinced he's onto something. But this is a single data point in a highly irregular state backed by a a poll with a sample size of a couple hundred.
This feels realy weird to me because it comes across in such a way that it risks discounting the agency of POC because they're a smaller minority of the population than seen in other states? I know that's not your intent, but I worry it risks coming around to that if we're not careful with the logic
Like with Zoom's thing about the extremely white state being similar to that; it risks glossing over the choices of POC because they aren't sufficiently numerous compared to white folks.
It in no way glosses over agency.
Find a group of ten POC. Give them as much agency as you want. You still can't use them to draw generalizations about a nation of 300 million people because math doesn't work that way.
Get a group of about 800 and it does, though.
Are there less than 800 voting age Americans of minority status in the state of Iowa?
That seems unlikely but I don't really know.
Anything outside of that, with how people weight things and such is technically outside the field of 'maths' but that isn't the statement you're making from my point of view.
Looking it up, no minority seems to slip below 1%, so about 30,000. Though figuring how many of them are able to vote would be too much work.
I seem to remember there being a lot of concern about how effective his class based rhetoric was going to intersect with people facing issues that we more commonly frame as sexism and racism.
Bernie listened to those concerns and got a lot of good people to help him understand them more fully, and it really paid off.
Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color. He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll. He also has the most extreme gender gap, doing 7% better among men than women
Iowa is a great measure for Sanders' ability to attract non-white and minority voters. And not because of a simple entrance/exit vote, that's just the final result. It's what went into this result that makes it impressive. A well covered (if you care to look at it) effort by leftists activists, both white and non-white, to reach out to non-white communities, talk to them about both the issues and Bernie, getting them excited about the campaign, getting them registered, actually physically getting them to their caucus locations so they can participate.
It's an actual documented effort on the ground that massively paid fruit in actual votes. I'm not surprised that some people will be dismissive of it, but they're flat out wrong.
I respect that he made a really strong effort there, yay Bernie and all.
But the political dynamics in an extremely white state with a POC population small enough to fit in a bathtub is not, in itself, this amazing proof of concept. If he can replicate this in South Carolina? Cool, I'll be convinced he's onto something. But this is a single data point in a highly irregular state backed by a a poll with a sample size of a couple hundred.
This feels realy weird to me because it comes across in such a way that it risks discounting the agency of POC because they're a smaller minority of the population than seen in other states? I know that's not your intent, but I worry it risks coming around to that if we're not careful with the logic
Like with Zoom's thing about the extremely white state being similar to that; it risks glossing over the choices of POC because they aren't sufficiently numerous compared to white folks.
It in no way glosses over agency.
Find a group of ten POC. Give them as much agency as you want. You still can't use them to draw generalizations about a nation of 300 million people because math doesn't work that way.
Let’s talk about samples sizes, then, because I bothered to do some digging since that last post.
The NYT poll of Iowa caucus goers.
The estimates shown here reflect the responses of 3,036 likely voters.
The YouGov National poll Pants cited.
Number of respondents 1500
Pants is doubting one poll, to cite another poll, with half the sample size.
Is that all? No. That YouGov poll Pants likes doesn't just cite black voters. It cites white, black, and hispanic voters. Pants didn't give us the hispanic numbers, so you might think the numbers in that poll were just as bad. But you would be wrong, because he did the best among Hispanic voters. I knew to check, because I’ve seen people doing this for years, and it’s predictable.
It is both embarrassing and easily avoidable. And yet here we are.
Posts
It feels wrong to discount their agency just because there aren't more of them.
So I think it's not about agency here. It's more that the sample sizes might not be large enough to generate a significant result that could be extrapolated to the country as a whole. For example, yes the percentage might be like 45%, but if the standard deviations for that are 25% one way or the other then you're not getting a really accurate generalization of the results.
Yes yes we disagree with you and therefor should shit down and shut up, I get it.
I think if Pants said, "I'd like to see more" I wouldn't have said anything. That's just plain skepticism. But he did more than that. He also picked a single data point to counter, which was a YouGov poll. And here's the annoying thing for me, a thing that I've seen anti-Sanders white people consistently do. First Pants says:
"Iowa is not a good basis for measuring Sanders impact on voters of color."
Ok.
"He has 8% of black voters in the latest YouGov national poll."
Not the same thing, and not the first time I've seen Pants do this exact thing. It's plain to see that there are some white people who opine a lot about PoC and why Sanders is/was failing with them, and then get veeeerry cherry picky about who's a PoC and minority to talk about when they're selecting their data points. I don't like it.
Sometime this is disguised as plea for cleaner data. "X group is just hard to poll!" Fine, but I'm not dumb. You get a smaller MoE when you increase the sample, not a bigger one. So, why would people who want better data consistently pick the group that's gonna have the smaller sample size (African Americans) than the larger one (non-white) when they want to make their point about minority appeal? Makes no sense to me, even if you buy the premise.
Can't disagree with the lazy writing on the first half, but the second:
Different minority groups are going to have different reactions to different policy and candidates. Wanting data that fits the population as best you can just makes sense.
I would like health care, and not having to worry about if my insurance company is going to flip out over transition related care when I can finally get it.
I mean the blunt version is human beings are highly narrative-driven beings, though we have trouble recognizing that in favor of rational individualism ingrained in us as a culture, and the narrative for years about Sanders is "Sanders is obsessed with class and blind to race."
And so it's just easier to keep that narrative instead of tackling it with the efforts his campaign has made to correct for it. We like our stories, and we don't like them to change.
It was always coming eventually. It's been pretty shocking that it's taken this long to be honest.
If the primary is supposed to be any sort of vetting process, this basically needed to come up anyway.
Agreed. I think Biden pushing on the socialist characterizations might show how willing Americans are to go along with "socialism" the term, as opposed to socialism the policy (or democratic socialist policies, which is what Bernie and Warren actually propose).
Its actually hyped me up for the next debate, Biden is going to be out for blood. I think Warren and Sanders can more than handle themselves though
I had to drop the next best thing to a car out of pocket myself, with excellent insurance. Because conservatives had a hand in writing the requirements. I knew people who are dead now because of lack of care.
Instead you'll just have to worry about the GOP controlling everything about your health care in 4-8 years. As the best case scenario. Or Bernie could rush things, miss implementation details because of his class focus and everyone is just kinda fucked.
Isn't he mostly losing voters to Buttigieg? I have no doubt he's gonna run these socialist attacks, but how does this get the people who jumped ship to Buttigieg back to him?
And on that theme, looks like Buttigieg got a nice bump, while Bernie did not. At least in this Suffolk poll.
https://boston.cbslocal.com/2020/02/06/new-hampshire-primary-tracking-poll-pete-buttigieg-bernie-sanders-tied/
I'm expecting him to say he has the most experience, throw in a couple "Barack"s, and that he's the most electable against Trump
Or maybe Bernie has actually changed his approach. Which is why he is doing better.
Sax, that's my second paragraph :P
Both of you chill out.
I actually really like Silver, but seeing both flustered and pissed is hilarious to me.
I don’t see him attacking Warren as much, there’s been very little coverage of how well she did, which is irritating in a different way. I think he’ll focus primarily on Bernie (the front runner) and Pete (the pretender to the throne).
It should be interesting because what few direct attacks on Sanders there have been have all been couched in “I love and respect Bernie, but...” terms and I think going directly negatively at Bernie is either going to destroy both of them or just make Bernie stronger.
Buttigieg, well, let’s see how he handles the spotlight. I have low expectations. I am super curious where everybody goes after this because Iowa has completely hosed all the previous narratives.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I am increasingly convinced that this is because they're worried that if they talk to her something so nice and reasonable will come out of her mouth that it makes everyone else in the room look bad.
I doubt he needs to worry about Buttigieg. Biden's key support is black voters and Buttigieg has like a black supporter.
I would guess he's gonna go after Sanders. Either directly or via some "socialism is bad yo" type stuff.
Biden has already started the Pete attacks, I'm expecting him to use this same dare during the next debate:
There's a good chance Buttigieg's lack of black support means he vote-splits with Biden in SC, putting the two of them in third and forth behind Sanders and Warren.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
He had at least 4 Black women he cherry picked out of the crowd standing behind him during his victory speech!
It was probably every Black person in the crowd; but four times as many as one.
Also he's got several prominent South Carolinan Black politicians* that appeared in his ad for the Douglass Plan!
*photos, that did not actually endorse him or his plan
He really
really
cannot handle any attack.
but again this is the man who told two Latinx folks to go vote for Trump if they were unhappy with the Obama administration's immigration policies
He's also more than happy to attack Obama himself like how he disagreed with the surge. He feels like he can have it both ways. If I was Obama, I'd be grossed out by Biden myself
Ah, I misunderstood.
I can understand pitching your candidacy as “Look at all the great stuff Obama and I did together!” No matter your opinion on the relevance of the VP that pitch makes sense. But, “To attack me is to attack Obama” doesn’t sit right, that’s all.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'd pay to see that. Sanders just doing his stump speech while doing a one armed push up so he can gesticulate wildly with his free hand.
Biden, afterwards, whimpering: I-if O-Obama was here...
Oversized suits are very good at hiding how incredibly jacked you are.
Dude is a chicagoU historian or something. Graphs are from NYT but their silly paywall.
Anyway these ones were really interesting to me. There is a second one that doesn't inline I guess.
It in no way glosses over agency.
Find a group of ten POC. Give them as much agency as you want. You still can't use them to draw generalizations about a nation of 300 million people because math doesn't work that way.
The graphic from the second one is pretty revealing:
Get a group of about 800 and it does, though.
Are there less than 800 voting age Americans of minority status in the state of Iowa?
That seems unlikely but I don't really know.
Anything outside of that, with how people weight things and such is technically outside the field of 'maths' but that isn't the statement you're making from my point of view.
Looking it up, no minority seems to slip below 1%, so about 30,000. Though figuring how many of them are able to vote would be too much work.
Let’s talk about samples sizes, then, because I bothered to do some digging since that last post.
The NYT poll of Iowa caucus goers.
The YouGov National poll Pants cited.
Pants is doubting one poll, to cite another poll, with half the sample size.
Is that all? No. That YouGov poll Pants likes doesn't just cite black voters. It cites white, black, and hispanic voters. Pants didn't give us the hispanic numbers, so you might think the numbers in that poll were just as bad. But you would be wrong, because he did the best among Hispanic voters. I knew to check, because I’ve seen people doing this for years, and it’s predictable.
It is both embarrassing and easily avoidable. And yet here we are.