EAllusion wrote: And you think that a real clear politics polling average error in one direction can simply be added in the opposite direction in a completely different election with different candidates?
The fact that Emerson (margin of error of +/- 3.3%), DFP/Civiqs, and the New York Times had Sanders winning by 7 percentage points meant that there was a decent chance for Sanders to win by double digits.
I would be happy with that ticket. I'm not sure it would be my favorite choice, but it is one of several possible pairings that I think would be very good.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Lol. Biden just called a young woman a "lying dog-faced pony soldier."
I'm so ready to get the field down to three or four actually viable candidates. Klobuchar, Mayor Pete, Bloomberg, and Sanders. Although I suspect Bloomberg will secure the nom over Sanders.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Apparently because she asked about his performance in Iowa. He asked if she had been to a caucus, she said yes, he said ... that.
It was supposedly a version of a quote from a John Wayne film. But hardly a great way to get the public on his side, I'd say.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Your link contains two polls. One is a month and a half before the primary and the other is 7 months before the primary. Obviously, national conditions changed in between when those polls were taken and when the MN election happened. It is misleading to say this compares to a density of polling taking right before the election.
The fact that Emerson (margin of error of +/- 3.3%), DFP/Civiqs, and the New York Times had Sanders winning by 7 percentage points meant that there was a decent chance for Sanders to win by double digits.
Just say you posted what you wanted to happen in advance.
Some Schmo wrote:Buttigieg sure feels like this cycle's 2008 Obama.
How so? He's similar in that he's the youngish candidate with relative lack of experience. He also stakes out similar policy ground to Obama. But he's unlike Obama in some important ways as well. He's a platitude bot because his campaign is extremely carefully stage managed, and he's thus far displayed nothing resembling Obama's ability to write and deliver a rousing speech. Obama gave a couple of profoundly good speeches early into the primary that really set him up well. Up to this point, Buttigieg also has virtually zero support among minorities and borders on being actively disliked in the black community as far as a Democrat goes. This differs significantly from Obama. His winning primary coalition was white progressives and racial minorities.
Up to this point, Buttigieg also has virtually zero support among minorities and borders on being actively disliked in the black community as far as a Democrat goes.
The black community might feel they are better off with someone like Trump who hates them and who supports white nationalism which will harm them.