Dancing With the Dems

[D.A. Ridgely]

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.

[thoreau]

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.

[Mo]

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.

[Warren]

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.

[Eric the .5b]

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.

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.

[dbcooper]

[Hugh Akston]

She's definitely going to get the nomination.

[thoreau]

Was that law professor nicknamed Corn Pop?

[dbcooper]

[nicole]

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




(Much much more at the thread)

[JasonL]

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

[Mo]

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.

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?

[D.A. Ridgely]

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.

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.

[Aresen]

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.

[Warren]

put paid to

Now there's an expression I haven't heard in a long time. A long time.

[Eric the .5b]

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.

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.

[Warren]

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.

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?

[JasonL]

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

[Mo]

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.

[Mo]

Elizabeth Warren’s enemies are her greatest asset.

[Hugh Akston]

At least they brought donuts.

[Warren]

I'd hit it.

[Hugh Akston]

Eh, maybe back when she was a baby law professor, and then only if I had polio.

[Eric the .5b]

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.

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.

[Warren]

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.