Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-08-2020, 08:44 AM
Paul in Qatar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,446

538 is now saying Biden has a Lock on it


538 is now giving Biden the 9 in 10 chance of having a majority of delegates.


So come Tuesday I suppose it will actually be settled.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #2  
Old 03-08-2020, 08:53 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,291
Bernie had better drop out once the writing's on the wall.

I'm still pissed about him dragging out the fight to the bitter end in 2016. Given how close the 2016 election was, there were many things that could have tipped the balance. And IMHO, this was one of them.
  #3  
Old 03-08-2020, 08:54 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
538 is now giving Biden the 9 in 10 chance of having a majority of delegates.


So come Tuesday I suppose it will actually be settled.
...if Biden can win in Michigan, which looks likely, but you never know.
  #4  
Old 03-08-2020, 09:03 AM
Tigers2B1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Just behind my eyes
Posts: 1,180
So this election it will be a crazy person versus someone in the early stages of dementia. Should be an interesting series of debates.
  #5  
Old 03-08-2020, 09:43 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 33,398
Weren't Knowledgeable Pundits awarding the nomination to Sanders less than a week ago?

Much can yet happen. Biden could commit another major Gaffe like calling for working with Republicans.
  #6  
Old 03-08-2020, 09:46 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
So this election it will be a crazy person versus someone in the early stages of dementia.
Sure, but who will Trump's opponent be?
  #7  
Old 03-08-2020, 09:50 AM
Paul in Qatar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,446
I will be looking at the Veep slot very closely with these two old people in the top slot.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #8  
Old 03-08-2020, 09:57 AM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Bernie had better drop out once the writing's on the wall.

I'm still pissed about him dragging out the fight to the bitter end in 2016. Given how close the 2016 election was, there were many things that could have tipped the balance. And IMHO, this was one of them.
I have little hope he'll do that. He's now running ads attacking Biden. It's one thing to talk about differences, but pure attack ads on people in your own party are shitty.
  #9  
Old 03-08-2020, 10:00 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Weren't Knowledgeable Pundits awarding the nomination to Sanders less than a week ago? ...
No, they weren't. He was always under 50/50 for a majority of pledged delegates. A week ago "no one" was the board leader.

Which isn't to say that things cannot change.
  #10  
Old 03-08-2020, 10:12 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,382
As much as some people don't like to look at betting odds I think they're generally at least a useful add on to what any particular analyst or pundit says. RCP odds average peaked at ~57% for Sanders (to be nominee, not specifically to arrive at the convention with a majority of delegates) late last month with Biden under 10%. Now it's mid 80's % for Biden with Sanders a little over 10%. So broadly similar now to what Silver says (as is often or usually the case, though one might argue that betting odds follow Silver; but I think again looking at betting odds and reading Silver probably gives at least a little more information than just reading Silver, and no one is forced to choose just one).

IOW 'they' were saying Sanders was relatively speaking in the drivers seat post NV pre SC but 'they' were not saying he had it locked down. Now 'they' are saying Biden basically has it close to locked down. In fairness to the original comment you can probably find some pundit somewhere who said Sanders was a lock after NV, though still a larger number saying Biden is a lock now.

Last edited by Corry El; 03-08-2020 at 10:16 AM.
  #11  
Old 03-08-2020, 10:33 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,110
The betting markets mostly measure momentum. It's people trying to jump on the bandwagon and make some money before the momentum fades. Warren never lead the polls but for a time she lead betting markets.

But there's a real good reason to ignore the betting markets: they give non-zero odds for people who can't possibly win. Like Hillary or Michelle.
  #12  
Old 03-08-2020, 11:48 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: At home, hunkered.
Posts: 31,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
538 is now giving Biden the 9 in 10 chance of having a majority of delegates.


So come Tuesday I suppose it will actually be settled.
Saying that is a "lock" is the same thinking that has people saying the polls were wrong when 538 said Hillary had an 85% chance of winning.

What that means is that in 9 out of 10 simulations, Biden wins. In 1 out of 10 simulations Bernie wins.

What 538's numbers meant was that Trump won in 15 out of 100 simulations. As it happened, 2016 was one of those 15 simulations.
  #13  
Old 03-08-2020, 11:59 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
So this election it will be a crazy person versus someone in the early stages of dementia. Should be an interesting series of debates.
Is this like the time Hillary Clinton couldn't be elected because she had Parkinson's Disease? Turns out that was a lie, right?
  #14  
Old 03-08-2020, 12:12 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Saying that is a "lock" is the same thinking that has people saying the polls were wrong when 538 said Hillary had an 85% chance of winning.

What that means is that in 9 out of 10 simulations, Biden wins. In 1 out of 10 simulations Bernie wins.

What 538's numbers meant was that Trump won in 15 out of 100 simulations. As it happened, 2016 was one of those 15 simulations.
I don't disagree with your basic thought but you are mistaken on the numbers. It does NOT mean that Sanders wins in 1 out of 10 simulations. In the 1 out of 10 simulations that Biden does not have an outright majority of the pledged delegates he has the plurality in half. Sanders wins with an outright majority in only 1 out of 50 simulations and has the plurality in 1 of 20, with other delegates as won by suspended campaigns, free to vote as they believe they should in good conscience.

It is still not "a lock".
  #15  
Old 03-08-2020, 01:40 PM
Bill Door is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Saying that is a "lock" is the same thinking that has people saying the polls were wrong when 538 said Hillary had an 85% chance of winning.

What that means is that in 9 out of 10 simulations, Biden wins. In 1 out of 10 simulations Bernie wins.

What 538's numbers meant was that Trump won in 15 out of 100 simulations. As it happened, 2016 was one of those 15 simulations.
I'm pretty sure I said that in a post here. I pointed out that in Russian Roulette you also had around an 85% chance of not shooting yourself in the head, but that didn't make it good odds, it made it terrible odds. I looked it up and I had pointed that out, back in October of 2016.
  #16  
Old 03-08-2020, 03:46 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Biden likely will have a majority of primary votes and delegates to win the nomination for a race rigged against Dems, where under 45% of the population, mostly in red states, controls a majority of electoral votes. A popular supermajority won't be enough. So, once Biden is nominated, let's see what he does.
  #17  
Old 03-08-2020, 04:21 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The betting markets mostly measure momentum. It's people trying to jump on the bandwagon and make some money before the momentum fades. Warren never lead the polls but for a time she lead betting markets.

But there's a real good reason to ignore the betting markets: they give non-zero odds for people who can't possibly win. Like Hillary or Michelle.
No, as in the dedicated thread some days ago, your ideas on this are unsupported and unconvincing. You couldn't give any examples of where betting odds were obviously wrong except in hindsight. Likewise you simply asserted that inefficiencies in the betting market are big enough to arbitrage, it was implied by just any old person interested, for example yourself if you were to 'make it your hobby' you said. I could say inefficiencies in any given financial market are big enough for ordinary people to do the same by making it their hobby. But I'd expect to be laughed off without direct knowledge or evidence of ordinary people doing so consistently.

And here your abbreviated reprise of the argument is even weaker, betting odds that showed Warren leading must have been flawed because
a) she wasn't leading in the polls...which assumes that poll results even from sparse and stale polls must be more accurate than betting odds. But that's what you're trying to convince us, here you're just assuming it.
b) she later led in neither polls nor betting odds, because she did poorly in actual primary votes. Well, it's fine to just go with primary votes if you forego discussing anyone's chances till the primaries are over.

Usefulness of betting odds or other market based indicators isn't based on the idea they magically create a crystal ball. Just simply that people generally don't lose money on purpose, whereas they often do spew bullshit even they themselves don't really believe. The idea that Warren was the strongest candidate was the most likely expectation at that time. It later turning out otherwise proves zero about 'it's useless to look at betting odds'.

Especially for the purpose of this particular discussion, evaluating the statement 'the pundits all thought Sanders was going to win, now they all think Biden will'. It's IMO absolutely a better value for one's time to get an idea of this with a 2 second check on the RCP betting avg graph over time than embark on a project to look up, collate and evaluate 100's or 1,000's of 'pundit' statements then and now. The betting odds, whether exactly 'right' then or now are probably a good gauge of what people seriously thought and think (again it's much more painful to make wrong bets for $'s then try out half-thought arguments on a web board, or even a paid pundit piece). It seems they think considerably more of Biden's chances now than they did of Sanders' a couple of weeks ago.

Last edited by Corry El; 03-08-2020 at 04:25 PM.
  #18  
Old 03-08-2020, 04:23 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
So this election it will be a crazy person versus someone in the early stages of dementia. Should be an interesting series of debates.

Biden has been gaffe prone since his early days.
  #19  
Old 03-08-2020, 04:46 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
No, as in the dedicated thread some days ago, your ideas on this are unsupported and unconvincing. You couldn't give any examples of where betting odds were obviously wrong except in hindsight.
Lol. The Warren odds were wrong with mere foresight. There is simply no mechanism by which bettors can predict elections over adequate polling. There is no magical future predicting hand of the market. But I'm not saying they are always obviously wrong.
  #20  
Old 03-08-2020, 05:51 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
I have little hope he'll do that. He's now running ads attacking Biden. It's one thing to talk about differences, but pure attack ads on people in your own party are shitty.
I have no problem with this right now -- it's a competitive race, and Sanders has earned the right to keep fighting as long as the race is still an open-ended question. I'd say that Biden's still fair game until late this month. But if Sanders gets steamrolled in Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere, then Sanders needs to bow out.
  #21  
Old 03-08-2020, 06:23 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Biden has been gaffe prone since his early days.
Biden is no more likely to have dementia than Dan Quayle did as VP. Some people just say dumb things in public and you donít have to invent medical diagnoses to explain them.
  #22  
Old 03-08-2020, 08:18 PM
Paul in Qatar is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door View Post
I pointed out that in Russian Roulette you also had around an 85% chance of not shooting yourself in the head, but that didn't make it good odds, it made it terrible odds. [/URL]

A bet has two components, the odds and the amount of the wager. What makes Russian Roulette a madman's game is not the odds. As you said a 0.85 chance is pretty good. The kicker is the amount of the wager, your life.


I would happily play a game with those odds at a dollar on each trigger pull. I would be unwilling to play a game for my life even at a 0.999 chance.


====eta====

I see 538 now has Biden at an 88.88% chance of a majority at the convention. Saunders is at 2%.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?

Last edited by Paul in Qatar; 03-08-2020 at 08:22 PM.
  #23  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:24 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
A bet has two components, the odds and the amount of the wager. What makes Russian Roulette a madman's game is not the odds. As you said a 0.85 chance is pretty good. The kicker is the amount of the wager, your life.


I would happily play a game with those odds at a dollar on each trigger pull. I would be unwilling to play a game for my life even at a 0.999 chance.


====eta====

I see 538 now has Biden at an 88.88% chance of a majority at the convention. Saunders is at 2%.
If Biden wins Michigan, the odds are better of a civilization-ending meteor strike than they would be for Sanders to somehow win the nomination.
  #24  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:44 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Biden is no more likely to have dementia than Dan Quayle did as VP. Some people just say dumb things in public and you donít have to invent medical diagnoses to explain them.
Both Bushes for example.

Remember the first Bush declaring Pearl Harbor Day on September 7?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.l...ml%3f_amp=true
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #25  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:56 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 90,091
In the fall of 2016, Hillary had a lock on the White House itself... until she didn't.
  #26  
Old 03-09-2020, 01:59 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
In the fall of 2016, Hillary had a lock on the White House itself... until she didn't.
True, but this isn't the general election, and Joe Biden ain't Hillary Clinton.

I've got the shovel but I'll hold off on digging the Sanders campaign's grave until after tomorrow's election in Michigan.
  #27  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:04 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,846
I don't believe 538 ever gave Hillary a "lock" for the 2016 election. I don't recall if her chances ever got close to 90% (as, sadly, it appears that Biden has now for the nomination). I'm very disappointed that Biden appears to be on track for the nomination, and I hope I'm wrong on how weak a candidate he would be.
  #28  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:15 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
In the fall of 2016, Hillary had a lock on the White House itself... until she didn't.
PLEASE donít spread this misinformation. In October 2016, I PLEADED with Dopers to understand what 75% probability meant. It meant, if you have four cartons of milk in you fridge, and one of them will give you a retching positioning from spoilage, do you happily grab a carton at random, and chug away, fully confident it will contain delicious, unspoiled milk? Of course not!
  #29  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:20 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 16,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
True, but this isn't the general election, and Joe Biden ain't Hillary Clinton.

I've got the shovel but I'll hold off on digging the Sanders campaign's grave until after tomorrow's election in Michigan.
This is exactly my feeling. If Sanders over performs in Michigan. Even if he gets annihilated there, he will certainly hold on for the debate on Sunday and then may as well stick around for the March 17th primary (AZ, FL, IL and OH). If Biden can manage not to fuck up the debate, it will completely be over on March 18th.
  #30  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:28 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Lol. The Warren odds were wrong with mere foresight. There is simply no mechanism by which bettors can predict elections over adequate polling. There is no magical future predicting hand of the market. But I'm not saying they are always obviously wrong.
What % likelihood does a poll directly tell you? It doesn't. Analysts take polls and calculate % likelihoods but if your claim is that any particular analyst is better at this than betting markets, you're just asserting repeatedly without evidence; the evidence won't appear just from you repeating it. Again as mentioned on other thread, everyone betting can read the websites of well known analysts, so why would they be any less sagacious on average than you are if you've concluded Nate always knows best, and that's actually true.

But it's just unknown if that's true. There aren't enough statistics to strongly indicate it one way or another. Somebody mentioned odds just before Nov '16 election. 538's last analysis made it ~70/30 in favor of Clinton. The final RCP betting odds point was ~82/18 but it had been around 70/30 just a few days before. Intuition says (though doesn't prove either) model outputs like NYT's 99/1 were probably wrong, that Trump's chance was probably more than 1 in a 100 rather than him having succeeded against those actual odds. But between 70/30 and 80/20 it's entirely unclear which of those was closer to correct, people often assume both were too high in favor of HRC but that's not clear either. And again the betting odds weren't always higher.

But again in the context of this thread your argument is irrelevant not just weak. The question posed on this tangent of the thread was if it's true 'they said Sanders was a lock, now they say Biden is'. If nothing else betting markets are one reflection of what 'they' think at a given time, right or wrong. And the 'they' of bettors clearly didn't favor Sanders as much after the NV caucus as they do Biden now. That particular 'they' hasn't completely flip flopped. It's just that new information has shifted the expectation.

Last edited by Corry El; 03-09-2020 at 02:31 PM.
  #31  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:43 PM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigers2B1 View Post
So this election it will be a crazy person versus someone in the early stages of dementia. Should be an interesting series of debates.
I've seen no evidence that this is true, and it certainly looks a lot like some familiar patterns of disinformation about Hillary Clinton from 2016. Spreading such rumors without solid evidence seems pretty irresponsible, and inconsistent with a person posting on a site meant to fight ignorance.

But, even if there were reason to suspect it was, there's a big difference between someone with the intentions to govern well and honorably, who surrounds themselves with competent and responsible people, and someone who has a selfish and narcissistic approach, who surrounds themselves with sycophants and people with similar motives and (lack of) ethics.
  #32  
Old 03-09-2020, 02:50 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,110
Ok. You enjoy your betting sites.
  #33  
Old 03-09-2020, 03:19 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
PLEASE donít spread this misinformation. In October 2016, I PLEADED with Dopers to understand what 75% probability meant. It meant, if you have four cartons of milk in you fridge, and one of them will give you a retching positioning from spoilage, do you happily grab a carton at random, and chug away, fully confident it will contain delicious, unspoiled milk? Of course not!
I meant retching poisoning.
  #34  
Old 03-09-2020, 03:31 PM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 90,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
PLEASE donít spread this misinformation. In October 2016, I PLEADED with Dopers to understand what 75% probability meant....
Perception becomes reality. A lot of people thought she had a lock, even though, as we later learned (and for the reason you stated), 't'wasn't so.
  #35  
Old 03-09-2020, 03:55 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Perception becomes reality. A lot of people thought she had a lock, even though, as we later learned (and for the reason you stated), 't'wasn't so.
I see. Yes, sadly, this is true.
  #36  
Old 03-09-2020, 04:21 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
PLEASE donít spread this misinformation. In October 2016, I PLEADED with Dopers to understand what 75% probability meant. It meant, if you have four cartons of milk in you fridge, and one of them will give you a retching positioning from spoilage, do you happily grab a carton at random, and chug away, fully confident it will contain delicious, unspoiled milk? Of course not!
So youíre saying we should sniff the candidates prior to voting. I accept that.
  #37  
Old 03-09-2020, 05:02 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Warren never lead the polls but for a time she lead betting markets.
"Lead" is a metal or the position Biden has at the moment or the marking substance in a pencil. You meant to use "led," like you were taught in third grade. (grumbling)

Sorry, but it takes me out of the flow of your prose.
  #38  
Old 03-09-2020, 05:09 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 507
Biden and Sanders will be speaking in Cleveland tomorrow at almost the same time. Should be interesting.
__________________
Divide and conquer. Power to the people
  #39  
Old 03-09-2020, 09:51 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,970
Okay. Now 538 give Biden 99 to 1 odds. That is claiming a lock.
  #40  
Old 03-10-2020, 12:14 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,110
And >99% on a plurality. Eep. I am shocked at the confidence level, frankly.
  #41  
Old 03-10-2020, 12:25 AM
eschrodinger's Avatar
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 379
It's a new model, and I am skeptical about that level of confidence. I also am not sure what the point of modeling this is, other than to make money because people want to know something before it happens.
  #42  
Old 03-10-2020, 12:32 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,110
Golly. You figure?
  #43  
Old 03-10-2020, 03:55 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 41,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Okay. Now 538 give Biden 99 to 1 odds. That is claiming a lock.
I'm old enough to remember when they were saying a contested convention was the most likely outcome.
  #44  
Old 03-10-2020, 09:37 AM
Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 221B Baker St.
Posts: 90,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'm old enough to remember when they were saying a contested convention was the most likely outcome.
Now lost in the mists of time....
  #45  
Old 03-10-2020, 03:57 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
I have little hope he'll do that. He's now running ads attacking Biden. It's one thing to talk about differences, but pure attack ads on people in your own party are shitty.
Let me remind you that Sanders is NOT in the same party as Biden. I once liked him; now I am convinced he is an asshole.

I have no illusion about Biden, but if he is elected, he will make decent court appointments (and lower court judges are important too), have a decent cabinet and allow them to operate independently and have good advisors who will give him good advice. Unfortunately this can happen only if the Dems can get to at least 50 senators. I would also hope he chooses a good running mate who can run when Joe decides that a second term is too much.

As I keep saying, I would vote for a steaming pile of shit if it were running against the orange menace.
  #46  
Old 03-10-2020, 05:24 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Let me remind you that Sanders is NOT in the same party as Biden. I once liked him; now I am convinced he is an asshole.

I have no illusion about Biden, but if he is elected, he will make decent court appointments (and lower court judges are important too), have a decent cabinet and allow them to operate independently and have good advisors who will give him good advice. Unfortunately this can happen only if the Dems can get to at least 50 senators. I would also hope he chooses a good running mate who can run when Joe decides that a second term is too much.

As I keep saying, I would vote for a steaming pile of shit if it were running against the orange menace.
I agree with all of this.

Those who realize the danger we are in if Trump continues in office, are able to put aside the self-centered desire to have a candidate we find to be perfect. I don't find Biden to be perfect but that doesn't stop me from seeing that he has a far greater chance than Sanders of beating Trump (and that as President he will be a massive improvement on Trump).

This isn't the time for toddleresque demands that the candidate "make us feel" any particular way ('inspired' or 'heard' or 'empowered' or whatever theory the Kremlin is pushing at the moment as a reason to avoid voting for the guy best able to win).

This is a time to:
  • realize that a vote is a tool we use to get as close as possible to what we want, and
  • put aside self-important demands that the DNC behave a certain way or that the candidate flatter and court us, and
  • accept that making the perfect the enemy of the good is an extremely stupid strategy for getting through the challenges ahead.
  #47  
Old 03-10-2020, 08:37 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
Biden and Sanders will be speaking in Cleveland tomorrow at almost the same time. Should be interesting.
Both canceled (coronavirus), no?
  #48  
Old 03-10-2020, 09:02 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,681
Be a good face-saver for Bernie, stop campaigning for public health reasons. Seems even a coffin can have a silver lining.
  #49  
Old 03-10-2020, 09:05 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,061
An author of a bunch of novels, Don Winslow, says on twitter Sanders is throwing in the towel Wed. or Thurs. Don't know how much this guy knows or if anyone else is reporting the same story.
  #50  
Old 03-10-2020, 09:05 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Bernie had better drop out once the writing's on the wall.

I'm still pissed about him dragging out the fight to the bitter end in 2016. Given how close the 2016 election was, there were many things that could have tipped the balance. And IMHO, this was one of them.
Do you have evidence of this?

10% of Sanders voters didn't vote for Clinton (and a lot of that 10% were likely crossover voters who would never have voted for Clinton even if Sanders was not in the race). Compare that to 25% of Clinton voters not voting for Obama in 2008.

Frankly, Sanders' voters did well by Clinton. Sanders campaigned zealously for Clinton. On the other hand she pretty much tried to screw Sanders on this go.

The weird thing you and others do on this board is you never, ever blame the ONLY person responsible for Clinton's loss...and that is Clinton herself. Instead it is all "Bernie Bros" despite all evidence to the contrary.

Bottom line, Bernie didn't lose anything for Clinton, he probably helped. Clinton sucked. She lost probably the easiest campaign to win in the history of political campaigns. She was the problem. But the party nominated her anyway and I think we are seeing it again with Biden who pretty much is Clinton 2.0 (frankly more a Beta version...I would much rather have Clinton than Biden).
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 03-10-2020 at 09:07 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017