Page 11 of 13

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 03 Oct 2019, 16:31
by Mo
Eric the .5b wrote:
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.
Both bets as in 20:1 to you and Warren. It’s because I believe the polls matter, but are not completely dispositive. Presidential election precedents are wonky because each election is very sui generis and the sample size is too small to be meaningful. With things like Congressional elections, at least you have 33/hundreds of them every two years, so you can build reasonable sample sizes.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 03 Oct 2019, 16:55
by Mo
I take it back, Warren is winning it because her social media team is on it.


Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 03 Oct 2019, 18:39
by Eric the .5b
Mo wrote:
03 Oct 2019, 16:31
Eric the .5b wrote:
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.
Both bets as in 20:1 to you and Warren. It’s because I believe the polls matter, but are not completely dispositive. Presidential election precedents are wonky because each election is very sui generis and the sample size is too small to be meaningful. With things like Congressional elections, at least you have 33/hundreds of them every two years, so you can build reasonable sample sizes.
"Very sui generis" is like "very unique", it either is or it isn't. (And it isn't.) The very fact everyone doesn't erupt into shocked "Why did he do that?" when someone ends a no-hope campaign is because we've analyzing based on observed patterns and coming up with broadly similar conclusions.

But sorry, I missed Warren trying to make a bet with you. Deal, then—5 USD payout to me if Biden, Sanders, or Warren get nominated by Team Blue, 100 USD payout to you if someone else gets nominated.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 03 Oct 2019, 18:55
by Warren
Eric the .5b wrote:
03 Oct 2019, 18:39
Mo wrote:
03 Oct 2019, 16:31
Eric the .5b wrote:
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.
Both bets as in 20:1 to you and Warren. It’s because I believe the polls matter, but are not completely dispositive. Presidential election precedents are wonky because each election is very sui generis and the sample size is too small to be meaningful. With things like Congressional elections, at least you have 33/hundreds of them every two years, so you can build reasonable sample sizes.
"Very sui generis" is like "very unique", it either is or it isn't. (And it isn't.) The very fact everyone doesn't erupt into shocked "Why did he do that?" when someone ends a no-hope campaign is because we've analyzing based on observed patterns and coming up with broadly similar conclusions.

But sorry, I missed Warren trying to make a bet with you. Deal, then—5 USD payout to me if Biden, Sanders, or Warren get nominated by Team Blue, 100 USD payout to you if someone else gets nominated.
Yeah, I'm not following either. I taking up Eric on his 20:1 odds. If it's one of the top three I'll pay Eric $5.00 if it's not Eric pays me $100.
I'm not betting with Mo until I understand the bet.

Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 03 Oct 2019, 18:57
by Mo
Ah for some reason I thought you (Warren) were also offering $100 for $5 if it wasn’t a top 3 candidate. In that case I’ll just accept Eric’s offer.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 03 Oct 2019, 19:04
by Warren
Hey, Babalugats! We got a bet here.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 03 Oct 2019, 19:28
by Eric the .5b
Yeah, I'll take the same bet with Warren, too.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 09 Oct 2019, 10:55
by JD
Interesting, even if I'm not sure I believe it: EVERY DEMOCRATIC FRONT-RUNNER BEATS TRUMP IN LATEST 2020 NATIONAL POLL

By "frontrunners" they mean Biden, Warren, Sanders. I have a lot of trouble believing Sanders would beat Trump. The other two maybe. Warren is definitely more dynamic than either of the other two, which I think is a good sign, but I also feel like she's got a lot of baggage and I honestly don't know if America will go for a female president.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 09 Oct 2019, 11:19
by Aresen
JD wrote:
09 Oct 2019, 10:55
Interesting, even if I'm not sure I believe it: EVERY DEMOCRATIC FRONT-RUNNER BEATS TRUMP IN LATEST 2020 NATIONAL POLL

By "frontrunners" they mean Biden, Warren, Sanders. I have a lot of trouble believing Sanders would beat Trump. The other two maybe. Warren is definitely more dynamic than either of the other two, which I think is a good sign, but I also feel like she's got a lot of baggage and I honestly don't know if America will go for a female president.
Warren has baggage, no doubt, but I think she carries less than Clinton did. As for the 'female president' thing, remember Clinton won the popular vote by ~3 million.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 09 Oct 2019, 14:16
by Mo
JD wrote:Interesting, even if I'm not sure I believe it: EVERY DEMOCRATIC FRONT-RUNNER BEATS TRUMP IN LATEST 2020 NATIONAL POLL

By "frontrunners" they mean Biden, Warren, Sanders. I have a lot of trouble believing Sanders would beat Trump. The other two maybe. Warren is definitely more dynamic than either of the other two, which I think is a good sign, but I also feel like she's got a lot of baggage and I honestly don't know if America will go for a female president.
Her baggage is mostly around the Native American thing and the benefit for her is that it’s old news and relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. A more strategic play would have been to deploy it later rather than kill her early with it.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 09 Oct 2019, 15:25
by Eric the .5b
I'm not very skeptical about the polls that have been showing most of the Blue candidates winning against Trump. I just want to know what those look like when accounting for the EC.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 09 Oct 2019, 15:32
by Jadagul
General election polls at this point are almost completely uninformative. (And they track name recognition really closely.)

I'm pretty convinced that any of those three would beat Trump in the popular vote if the election were right now. The election is not right now. Facts on the ground, and opinions of all the candidates, will change a lot before the election happens. (And as you point out, the popular vote is not the relevant metric anyway.) And the name recognition thing will go away because the Democratic candidate will have universal name recognition by the election.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 09 Oct 2019, 15:43
by Hugh Akston
Jadagul wrote:
09 Oct 2019, 15:32
General election polls at this point are almost completely uninformative. (And they track name recognition really closely.)

I'm pretty convinced that any of those three would beat Trump in the popular vote if the election were right now. The election is not right now. Facts on the ground, and opinions of all the candidates, will change a lot before the election happens. (And as you point out, the popular vote is not the relevant metric anyway.) And the name recognition thing will go away because the Democratic candidate will have universal name recognition by the election.
Unless the Democratic candidate is Joe Biden, whose aides will have to remind him that he is, in fact, Joe Biden before each public appearance.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 09 Oct 2019, 15:52
by D.A. Ridgely
Hugh Akston wrote:
09 Oct 2019, 15:43
Jadagul wrote:
09 Oct 2019, 15:32
General election polls at this point are almost completely uninformative. (And they track name recognition really closely.)

I'm pretty convinced that any of those three would beat Trump in the popular vote if the election were right now. The election is not right now. Facts on the ground, and opinions of all the candidates, will change a lot before the election happens. (And as you point out, the popular vote is not the relevant metric anyway.) And the name recognition thing will go away because the Democratic candidate will have universal name recognition by the election.
Unless the Democratic candidate is Joe Biden, whose aides will have to remind him that he is, in fact, Joe Biden before each public appearance.
It will be the first question they have to ask Sanders, too, after they administer the defibrillator right before he hits the stage.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 09 Oct 2019, 16:20
by JasonL
It keeps looking like Warren will be the pick, but stuff could change.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 09 Oct 2019, 19:31
by Warren
JasonL wrote:
09 Oct 2019, 16:20
It keeps looking like Warren will be the pick, but stuff could change.
If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 11 Oct 2019, 13:24
by JD
Well, Beto just came out and said that he thinks that organizations should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose gay marriage - in other words, that tax-exempt status should be predicated on having the views that the government says you should have. Maybe it doesn't make much difference what he says or thinks since he's polling at around 1% right now, but...

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 11 Oct 2019, 13:32
by Hugh Akston
JD wrote:
11 Oct 2019, 13:24
Well, Beto just came out and said that he thinks that organizations should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose gay marriage - in other words, that tax-exempt status should be predicated on having the views that the government says you should have. Maybe it doesn't make much difference what he says or thinks since he's polling at around 1% right now, but...
I mean, that has been the policy for the last several Administrations anyway, but props to Beta for making it explicit.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 11 Oct 2019, 15:28
by Warren
Hugh Akston wrote:
11 Oct 2019, 13:32
JD wrote:
11 Oct 2019, 13:24
Well, Beto just came out and said that he thinks that organizations should lose their tax-exempt status if they oppose gay marriage - in other words, that tax-exempt status should be predicated on having the views that the government says you should have. Maybe it doesn't make much difference what he says or thinks since he's polling at around 1% right now, but...
I mean, that has been the policy for the last several Administrations anyway, but props to Beta for making it explicit.
I mean. Do we still tie foreign aid to abortion?

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 15 Oct 2019, 10:28
by JD
I just got invited to a meet-and-greet with Marianne Williamson. I assure you I never signed up for her mailing list. So not only is she loopy as a bowl of Froot Loops, but she's a spammer too.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 15 Oct 2019, 13:26
by D.A. Ridgely
"This is a two part question is for everyone but Mr Sanders and Mr Biden. If you're the next VP, do you know how to use a defibrillator? Would you?"

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 16 Oct 2019, 06:18
by Tuco
JD wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 10:28
I just got invited to a meet-and-greet with Marianne Williamson. I assure you I never signed up for her mailing list. So not only is she loopy as a bowl of Froot Loops, but she's a spammer too.
You have to go. For us.

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 16 Oct 2019, 09:07
by Mo
Tuco wrote:
16 Oct 2019, 06:18
JD wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 10:28
I just got invited to a meet-and-greet with Marianne Williamson. I assure you I never signed up for her mailing list. So not only is she loopy as a bowl of Froot Loops, but she's a spammer too.
You have to go. For us.
+1

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 16 Oct 2019, 10:23
by JD
Mo wrote:
16 Oct 2019, 09:07
Tuco wrote:
16 Oct 2019, 06:18
JD wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 10:28
I just got invited to a meet-and-greet with Marianne Williamson. I assure you I never signed up for her mailing list. So not only is she loopy as a bowl of Froot Loops, but she's a spammer too.
You have to go. For us.
+1
What did I ever do to you guys?

Re: Dancing With the Dems

Posted: 16 Oct 2019, 11:00
by Warren
JD wrote:
16 Oct 2019, 10:23
Mo wrote:
16 Oct 2019, 09:07
Tuco wrote:
16 Oct 2019, 06:18
JD wrote:
15 Oct 2019, 10:28
I just got invited to a meet-and-greet with Marianne Williamson. I assure you I never signed up for her mailing list. So not only is she loopy as a bowl of Froot Loops, but she's a spammer too.
You have to go. For us.
+1
What did I ever do to you guys?
Wrong question. What have you done for us lately?