Dancing With the Dems

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19014
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 30 Sep 2019, 16:36

Warren wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 12:26
thoreau wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 10:53
What is sco-media?

Did you mean to abbreviate social media as soc-media?

Believe it or not, spelling checkers were developed by software engineers, i.e. STEM professionals.
Sco-med, is my trademarked short for 'social media'. It's all the rage, it's trending on sco-med.
I suspect it would really take off if you abbreviated "Social" correctly.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28480
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by thoreau » 30 Sep 2019, 16:45

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 16:36
Warren wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 12:26
thoreau wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 10:53
What is sco-media?

Did you mean to abbreviate social media as soc-media?

Believe it or not, spelling checkers were developed by software engineers, i.e. STEM professionals.
Sco-med, is my trademarked short for 'social media'. It's all the rage, it's trending on sco-med.
I suspect it would really take off if you abbreviated "Social" correctly.
Spellleeng is four librul artz pussiez like you. Sucksessful STEM guys dont need two spel correct.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24841
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Mo » 30 Sep 2019, 18:05

Eric the .5b wrote:
Mo wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 07:38
You can’t compare this cycle to other cycles because of the sheer number of candidates. Most election analysis based on what happened I. The past is crap because the sample sizes are necessarily small and to get a meaningful sample size you end up with eras that can’t be compared.
Eh, you brought up 1991 as relevant, not me.

But, if a situation of a few front-runners, who together have a majority of support, being trailed by a bunch of also-rans each at -5% or less, is truly so deeply alien to American party politics, then I still don't see the point of the hand-wringing I was talking about. There's no reason to think Beto or Steyer is going to leap up in interest if only they get a little bit more coverage. The Blues have seen them and aren't that interested.

And I don't think it's so alien or unique at this point. There are clear front-runners, while the also-rans are below or are dropping towards the polls' margins of error. The only difference is that the also-rans are treated as still in the running this time around, instead of being quickly dropped from polls and debates
You’re the one that asked the last time someone was in single digits this late and I brought up the ancient time of 7 cycles ago. Either you’re asking the question in genuine interest or looking for an answer that fits your priors. I agree that 92 doesn’t apply, but I would also say that no historical precedent matters, so if it’s Booker as the D nominee, I’m surprised, but not gonsmacked.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27339
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Warren » 30 Sep 2019, 19:37

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 16:36
Warren wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 12:26
thoreau wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 10:53
What is sco-media?

Did you mean to abbreviate social media as soc-media?

Believe it or not, spelling checkers were developed by software engineers, i.e. STEM professionals.
Sco-med, is my trademarked short for 'social media'. It's all the rage, it's trending on sco-med.
I suspect it would really take off if you abbreviated "Social" correctly.
That's the beauty of it. Every red blooded American he male can see that. You must have a case of teh gaze.
It's dumb out there kids, keep your heads down. - JasonL

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13820
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Eric the .5b » 30 Sep 2019, 21:14

Mo wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 18:05
You’re the one that asked the last time someone was in single digits this late and I brought up the ancient time of 7 cycles ago.
And I clarified what I meant by this late in the process. After the third debate, Clinton was not languishing in single digits—he was at 17%, only 4% behind Brown.

I think 1992 applies just fine; as a data point, Tsongas sure didn't go from 6% after the third debate to getting the nomination. However, you might pick one of no historical precedent matters and Eric's ignoring the historical precedent of 7 cycles ago because he's not naively comparing month to month when the process has spent the last 6 cycles taking longer.
Mo wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 18:05
I would also say that no historical precedent matters, so if it’s Booker as the D nominee, I’m surprised, but not gonsmacked.
Care to make a bet on this unpredictable chaos, then? 100 USD says the Team Blue nominee's one of Biden, Sanders, or Warren.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18269
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by dbcooper » 01 Oct 2019, 15:24



Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18201
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Hugh Akston » 01 Oct 2019, 15:30

She's definitely going to get the nomination.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28480
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by thoreau » 01 Oct 2019, 15:40

Was that law professor nicknamed Corn Pop?
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18269
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by dbcooper » 01 Oct 2019, 15:46

Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9859
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by nicole » 02 Oct 2019, 10:48

Hey JasonL, I think you should start supporting Liz Warren!




(Much much more at the thread)
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24372
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by JasonL » 02 Oct 2019, 12:23

Ahaha. Who is that person who thinks they know how value is created. Is this full tard LTV?

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24841
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Mo » 02 Oct 2019, 18:20

Eric the .5b wrote:
Mo wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 18:05
You’re the one that asked the last time someone was in single digits this late and I brought up the ancient time of 7 cycles ago.
And I clarified what I meant by this late in the process. After the third debate, Clinton was not languishing in single digits—he was at 17%, only 4% behind Brown.

I think 1992 applies just fine; as a data point, Tsongas sure didn't go from 6% after the third debate to getting the nomination. However, you might pick one of no historical precedent matters and Eric's ignoring the historical precedent of 7 cycles ago because he's not naively comparing month to month when the process has spent the last 6 cycles taking longer.
Mo wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 18:05
I would also say that no historical precedent matters, so if it’s Booker as the D nominee, I’m surprised, but not gonsmacked.
Care to make a bet on this unpredictable chaos, then? 100 USD says the Team Blue nominee's one of Biden, Sanders, or Warren.
I wouldn’t take that bet because I think that’s more likely than not to happen. Would you give me 10:1 odds that it’s not one of those 3?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19014
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 02 Oct 2019, 18:29

Mo wrote:
02 Oct 2019, 18:20
Eric the .5b wrote:
Mo wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 18:05
You’re the one that asked the last time someone was in single digits this late and I brought up the ancient time of 7 cycles ago.
And I clarified what I meant by this late in the process. After the third debate, Clinton was not languishing in single digits—he was at 17%, only 4% behind Brown.

I think 1992 applies just fine; as a data point, Tsongas sure didn't go from 6% after the third debate to getting the nomination. However, you might pick one of no historical precedent matters and Eric's ignoring the historical precedent of 7 cycles ago because he's not naively comparing month to month when the process has spent the last 6 cycles taking longer.
Mo wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 18:05
I would also say that no historical precedent matters, so if it’s Booker as the D nominee, I’m surprised, but not gonsmacked.
Care to make a bet on this unpredictable chaos, then? 100 USD says the Team Blue nominee's one of Biden, Sanders, or Warren.
I wouldn’t take that bet because I think that’s more likely than not to happen. Would you give me 10:1 odds that it’s not one of those 3?
Realistically, Sanders' chances just plummeted even if he didn't have an actual cardiac "event" precipitating the operation to put in the stent. People just aren't going to be able to get that out of their minds and I suspect Warren will be the big winner of that set of circumstances. But it might just as easily boost one of the current out-of-the-money candidates enough to pick up some momentum. Let's see what happens by the next round of debates, such as they are.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16129
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Aresen » 02 Oct 2019, 18:34

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
02 Oct 2019, 18:29
Realistically, Sanders' chances just plummeted even if he didn't have an actual cardiac "event" precipitating the operation to put in the stent.
Yeah, I thought that pretty well put paid to Sanders' chances (and possibly Biden's too, when the Blue voters remember Biden is 76).

If Sanders still gets the nod after this, then his VP nomination is going to be really important.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27339
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Warren » 02 Oct 2019, 19:15

Aresen wrote:
02 Oct 2019, 18:34
put paid to
Now there's an expression I haven't heard in a long time. A long time.
It's dumb out there kids, keep your heads down. - JasonL

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13820
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Eric the .5b » 02 Oct 2019, 19:58

Mo wrote:
02 Oct 2019, 18:20
Eric the .5b wrote:
Mo wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 18:05
I would also say that no historical precedent matters, so if it’s Booker as the D nominee, I’m surprised, but not gonsmacked.
Care to make a bet on this unpredictable chaos, then? 100 USD says the Team Blue nominee's one of Biden, Sanders, or Warren.
I wouldn’t take that bet because I think that’s more likely than not to happen.
Which is an expectation that rather strongly suggests modern historical precedents and patterns do matter.
Mo wrote:
02 Oct 2019, 18:20
Would you give me 10:1 odds that it’s not one of those 3?
I'll give you 20:1. I'm not going to offer or take more than 100 USD on a bet, though, so you can put up 5 USD.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27339
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Warren » 03 Oct 2019, 11:49

Eric the .5b wrote:
02 Oct 2019, 19:58
Mo wrote:
02 Oct 2019, 18:20
Eric the .5b wrote:
Mo wrote:
30 Sep 2019, 18:05
I would also say that no historical precedent matters, so if it’s Booker as the D nominee, I’m surprised, but not gonsmacked.
Care to make a bet on this unpredictable chaos, then? 100 USD says the Team Blue nominee's one of Biden, Sanders, or Warren.
I wouldn’t take that bet because I think that’s more likely than not to happen.
Which is an expectation that rather strongly suggests modern historical precedents and patterns do matter.
Mo wrote:
02 Oct 2019, 18:20
Would you give me 10:1 odds that it’s not one of those 3?
I'll give you 20:1. I'm not going to offer or take more than 100 USD on a bet, though, so you can put up 5 USD.
I'll take those odds. I'm in for the full 5 USD (though I prefer to wager in sig space).

Do we have a bet?
It's dumb out there kids, keep your heads down. - JasonL

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24372
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by JasonL » 03 Oct 2019, 11:55

I think 20 is a value. 10 feels about right for the odds.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24841
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Dancing With the Dems

Post by Mo » 03 Oct 2019, 14:51

I’ll take the 20 no problem. I don’t see how the fact that I think that the candidates polling at a combined 65% are more likely than not to take the nomination is some sort of concession.

I’ll take both bets, straight cash homie.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24841
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Mo » 03 Oct 2019, 14:52

Elizabeth Warren’s enemies are her greatest asset.

his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18201
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Hugh Akston » 03 Oct 2019, 14:54

At least they brought donuts.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27339
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Warren » 03 Oct 2019, 15:00

I'd hit it.
It's dumb out there kids, keep your heads down. - JasonL

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18201
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Hugh Akston » 03 Oct 2019, 15:20

Eh, maybe back when she was a baby law professor, and then only if I had polio.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13820
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Eric the .5b » 03 Oct 2019, 16:06

Mo wrote:
03 Oct 2019, 14:51
I’ll take the 20 no problem. I don’t see how the fact that I think that the candidates polling at a combined 65% are more likely than not to take the nomination is some sort of concession.
Because it's fundamentally an argument from historical precedent. To say they're more likely than not to win is to make a prediction based on historical patterns of how candidates perform. Despite saying history doesn't apply, you're making the same evaluation from it that I am. You're just coming up with slightly better odds for the candidates currently polling near the margins of error.
Mo wrote:
03 Oct 2019, 14:51
I’ll take both bets, straight cash homie.
Both bets? I only offered the same bet at two different odds. If precedent really doesn't apply, take the 1:1. If you're just making a different calculation than me, based on precedent, take the 20:1.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27339
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Post by Warren » 03 Oct 2019, 16:09

Hugh Akston wrote:
03 Oct 2019, 15:20
Eh, maybe back when she was a baby law professor, and then only if I had polio.
I remember when I had standards.
wait
Maybe not.
It's dumb out there kids, keep your heads down. - JasonL

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests