Yeah nobody has made this about the win. Not CNN, not NYT, not CBS.
lol
What do you expect? The victory being so unlikely is the story, did you want to see "very improbable thing happened" as a title on CNN?
Yeah nobody has made this about the win. Not CNN, not NYT, not CBS.
lol
Instead they should have made it "Bernie Sanders has a thing happen that wasn't likely... click here to find out more! Pollsters hate him!"Yeah nobody has made this about the win. Not CNN, not NYT, not CBS.
lol
also, primaries and caucuses are undemocratic. they only allow one party in to vote. it is voter suppression to only allow one party in to vote, amirite??
No, I had it right. That article is also hyperbolic, and doesn't even try to rate Michigan as "one of the biggest upsets in primary history".
It's a nice night for Bernie, but let's not get carried away. The press needs a narrative to talk about the race, and this delivers, but the math is still the math. Delegates are still the priority, and Bernie lost ground in delegates last night.
538 said:Sanderss win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history.
The head of the DNC already cleared this up:
We're talking about Michigan specifically, not the general primary process. Outperforming the polls that drastically is absolutely a major upset and newsworthy, even if it doesn't mean Sanders is going to win or make it a tight race.
Even ignoring superdelegates Bernie needs to get 53% of the vote in every remaining contest to win, which I don't see happening. They aren't going to be some great upset in the democratic process.
"Biggest upset" describing a 2 percentage point win doesn't seem to me like it should qualify, expected polls or no.
And the guy's predictions seem wildly off in terms of actual numbers so it just seems like successful dart boards at this point.
Yeah nobody has made this about the win. Not CNN, not NYT, not CBS.
lol
The hell are you talking about?
People want an outsider.
I think if Hillary is the nominee we could be in real trouble
If you are going to post something like this, at least explain what "trouble" means.
Primary polls were never that wrong before. So yeah, this is not only one of the biggest, it's the biggest upset so far. How much it changes is on another paper, but you can't just ignore that this is a major deviation from what people predicted.One of the biggest upsets? Lol.... no.
It was a fairly generic upset considering how uneven primary polling is.
What do you expect? The victory being so unlikely is the story, did you want to see "very improbable thing happened" as a title on CNN?
But I'M not making it about that. This is MY thread and I'VE been talking about the statistics since the beginning, not his win.
How about just drop delegates in general and go with direct vote counts? Delegates are a holdover from a bygone era, where counting actual votes was impractical.Maybe the GOP will introduce super delegates after this cycle while the Dems need to drop theirs.
From Yahoo: Poll: 33% of Sanders Supporters Wouldn't Vote for Clinton
Clinton isn't going to win the same voters that Bernie attracts, and whomever the democratic nominee ends up being will need every vote to beat Trump.
Primary polls were never that wrong before. So yeah, this is not only one of the biggest, it's the biggest upset so far. How much it changes is on another paper, but you can't just ignore that this is a major deviation from what people predicted.
From Yahoo: Poll: 33% of Sanders Supporters Wouldn't Vote for Clinton
Clinton isn't going to win the same voters that Bernie attracts, and whomever the democratic nominee ends up being will need every vote to beat Trump.
How about just drop delegates in general and go with direct vote counts? Delegates are a holdover from a bygone era, where counting actual votes was impractical.
I know this has partially been discussed already, but no one has pointed out this part of the issue with superdelegates: the fact that the news has been adding them to Hillary's delegate count for pretty much the entire primary season. Are you really going to tell me straight-faced that images like this:
Have no effect on the primary elections?
I'm not arguing that Clinton is winning in pledged delegates as well, but let's not pretend that the superdelegates haven't influenced voters in any way.
Not even close, the closest thing was Teddy splitting the republican vote 100 years ago but even that isn't remotely comparable.
The one practical thing delegates accomplish is they give us a built-in runoff mechanism. If the Republicans get to convention without a majority candidate, then they'll need the delegates to vote for perhaps several rounds until they find a majority. It probably isn't practical from a turnout standpoint to do a national runoff election (or series of elections) for the primary. Primary turnout is already so low, who's going to show up for the third runoff vote?
The best thing about this election season is that it is exposing how shady the two party system is.
Also it does not surprise me that the wife of the President who signed NAFTA lost the most rusty of rust belt states to someone who is a complete protectionist.
One of the biggest upsets? Lol.... no.
It was a fairly generic upset considering how uneven primary polling is.
Still, it has some major implications though it doesn't really change the math much.
What was a bigger upset in primary polling in terms of predictions versus results?One of the biggest upsets? Lol.... no.
It was a fairly generic upset considering how uneven primary polling is.
Still, it has some major implications though it doesn't really change the math much.
I am not saying the polling wasn't way off, but imo biggest upset has to take into account the effect it has on the race, which I don't foresee being that much.
Hillary winning New Hampshire in 2008 was far more significant imo. Kept her in the race far longer than she would have otherwise.
What was a bigger upset in primary polling in terms of predictions versus results?
The OP clearly details we're talking about the polling and analytical process and yet there are still these shitposts from devoted Hillary fans.
Actually, it does refer to the primary in general. Hart upsetting Mondale, which was the last big upset (in 1984), was in New Hampshire.
My major takeaway in this election, is how undemocratic superdelegates are. I'm disgusted by them.
If the super-delegates support the candidate with less pledged delegates the party will forfeit the general.
What I meant was, the upset isn't "Sanders is going to beat Hillary for the nomination!", it's Sanders beat Hillary in this one state where she was expected to clean up.
It seems like black folk never make their own decisions according to some people.
Look at his Minnesota prediction and reality.
62 sanders -38 clinton <- reality
47 sanders -52 clinton <- model
Dart board.
I'll follow the blog. I'm interesting in his approach. I think you shouldn't cherry pick though.
Yeah, saying he got every Super Tuesday state right but Minnesota, while true, is pretty misleading when he missed the margin Minnesota by 29. For all we know his model got Michigan right for the wrong reasons. I'm certainly going to want to see more before I anoint him a genius.
this guys projections for Tuesday are out now
be interesting to see how it turns out