March 26 Democratic caucuses — Does Bernie Sanders Still Have a Chance at a Last-Minute Comeback? - Polidicks

This is super good news. Im staying up "late" after my nightshift to follow this. Now i feel like i cant go to bed because things are being so fucking interesting and exciting.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;50011088]When can they be investigated for corruption? They can rightfully fuck off[/QUOTE] You cant investigate a cable news company for corruption. Thats not how it works.

[QUOTE=Noah Gibbs;50010507]I'd also like to point out there were tons of people of every age group and all the Hillary voters I saw were in their 40s it seemed, once again though not many Hillary people showed up. Talked to this one guy who is 84 now, last time he participated in a caucus he was in his 20s and he was Republican at the time and is now full on Bernie.[/QUOTE] To be fair, weren't the parties basically the complete otherway around to what they are today? I might be getting the time period wrong

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50011141]You cant investigate a cable news company for corruption. Thats not how it works.[/QUOTE] whatever, you know what I mean their shit journalism/reporting needs to be curbed

[QUOTE=Flicky;50011111]I always find it confusing when I see people voting uncommitted in a primary/caucus. Can someone explain why one would do that instead of just not voting? I can understand doing a write-in (which I don't think you can do in a primary) but why vote uncommitted?[/QUOTE] Well, I'd personally do so to show that I don't agree with any party (or in this case, candidate), and because I think it's important to show you're engaged in your democracy.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50011141]You cant investigate a cable news company for corruption. Thats not how it works.[/QUOTE] Exactly. They're a private company. They can support whomever the fuck they want.

Unlike Washington, I think Alaska's county delegates also have viability thresholds. He's at 83.8%, and was at 84.6% previously. If he makes her non-viable in other counties, he could make her non-viable in the state.

[QUOTE=The Aussie;50011153]Exactly. They're a private company. They can support whomever the fuck they want.[/QUOTE] I wonder if any sort of false advertising applies to news corporations. I'm being sold a product which claims it is "not biased," as news companies often throw around. I get a product which is obviously biased, probably provable in court.

What's with this whole if he sweeps today he's still alive meme? There's like a 142 delegates up for grabs today, he's behind by 303 pledged (not counting supers) and he's behind by significant margins in big April states like New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The next significant race is Wisconsin and he's tied or behind her and that dog just ain't gonna hunt in a proportional system. Also 2.5 million more people have voted for Clinton than Sanders. Caucuses are dumb.

[QUOTE=Flicky;50011111]I always find it confusing when I see people voting uncommitted in a primary/caucus. Can someone explain why one would do that instead of just not voting? I can understand doing a write-in (which I don't think you can do in a primary) but why vote uncommitted?[/QUOTE] Generally some people show up undecided. 1 person in my precinct was undecided and switched to Bernie on the second vote (final vote) Perhaps some stay undecided because they weren't swayed?

[QUOTE=rilez;50011162]Unlike Washington, I think Alaska's county delegates also have viability thresholds. He's at 83.8%, and was at 84.6% previously. If he makes her non-viable in other counties, he could make her non-viable in the state.[/QUOTE] Can someone explain what viability is? Is it just an arbitrary mark of 15% support? Does it forfeit all the delegates from that state? Does it affect the final race?

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50011172]Can someone explain what viability is? Is it just an arbitrary mark of 15% support? Does it forfeit all the delegates from that state? Does it affect the final race?[/QUOTE] If you're below 15%, you forfeit all state delegates. In Alaska, each county also follows that 15% rule. So non-viable counties can add up to a non-viable state.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/BbNzSN4.jpg[/IMG]

Bernie at 78.7% in Alaska with 38% of votes in

[QUOTE=Srillo;50011166]What's with this whole if he sweeps today he's still alive meme? There's like a 142 delegates up for grabs today, he's behind by 303 pledged (not counting supers) and he's behind by significant margins in big April states like New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. The next significant race is Wisconsin and he's tied or behind her and that dog just ain't gonna hunt in a proportional system. Also 2.5 million more people have voted for Clinton than Sanders. Caucuses are dumb.[/QUOTE] Polls have shown to be a fairly awful metric for looking at caucus and primary voting results, as you've seen in the past few months. Models that take into account internet usage and search data, ethnic buildup of the states etc etc are much more accurate. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment (similar to the feeling when Clinton steps into office and does literally nothing) if that's all you're looking at. The reason Bernie is able to make up literally 20-30 point deficits in weeks is because he actually has a message. Many messages in fact, while Clinton has none. A 538 (fucking awful news source btw) writer compared Clinton's and Sanders' speeches and look at what they're talking about. [IMG]https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/beckman-demrepeats-1.png?w=1024&h=1031[/IMG]

Washington Post is calling Sanders for Alaska. [URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/alaska/[/URL]

[QUOTE=EcksDee;50011324]Polls have shown to be a fairly awful metric for looking at caucus and primary voting results, as you've seen in the past few months. Models that take into account internet usage and search data, ethnic buildup of the states etc etc are much more accurate. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment (similar to the feeling when Clinton steps into office and does literally nothing) if that's all you're looking at. The reason Bernie is able to make up literally 20-30 point deficits in weeks is because he actually has a message. Many messages in fact, while Clinton has none. A 538 (fucking awful news source btw) writer compared Clinton's and Sanders' speeches and look at what they're talking about. [IMG]https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/beckman-demrepeats-1.png?w=1024&h=1031[/IMG][/QUOTE] What does any of this mean? What is TF-IDF?

[QUOTE=Ridge;50011371]What does any of this mean? What is TF-IDF?[/QUOTE] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tf%E2%80%93idf]Term frequency–inverse document frequency[/url], a simple measure of how often a given phrase is used in a certain corpus (in this case, political speeches).

[QUOTE=Ridge;50011371]What does any of this mean? What is TF-IDF?[/QUOTE] It's a statistical measure that basically says "This is how important this word or phrase is in a piece of text" So Sanders keeps talking about his issues, which are, as you can see, numerous and I imagine also echo throughout the American people, which will only become stronger as his name recognition increases. Clinton talks about "I will do, I know how, It's important, Do more" without actually naming the issues she stands for in her campaign. Immigration reform is great, yeah, but doesn't have nearly the same impact as Healthcare for all (which like 60-70% of Americans have wanted for decades now, but dem darn conspiratorial wealthy medical companies have fought against it) or having a "political revolution" or you guys having "More people in jail than any other country" (Which he can add to by saying "per capita")

[QUOTE=Bradyns;50011354]Washington Post is calling Sanders for Alaska. [URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/alaska/[/URL][/QUOTE] God I hate the Washington Post sometimes. [quote]Sorry, Bernie supporters. Your candidate is not ‘currently winning the Democratic primary race’[/quote] This is so condescending for a proper news outlet.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;50011324]Polls have shown to be a fairly awful metric for looking at caucus and primary voting results, as you've seen in the past few months. Models that take into account internet usage and search data, ethnic buildup of the states etc etc are much more accurate. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment (similar to the feeling when Clinton steps into office and does literally nothing) if that's all you're looking at. The reason Bernie is able to make up literally 20-30 point deficits in weeks is because he actually has a message. Many messages in fact, while Clinton has none. A 538 (fucking awful news source btw) writer compared Clinton's and Sanders' speeches and look at what they're talking about. [IMG]https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/beckman-demrepeats-1.png?w=1024&h=1031[/IMG][/QUOTE] 538 isn't a news source, it's a statistical analysis site and it's pretty great at what it does.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50011418]it's a statistical analysis site and it's pretty great at what it does.[/QUOTE] And is thus a shit news source. News source being "Look at this opinion article written by this man about the current state of affairs" When you look at their models combined with polling data, even their projections for Sanders are favorable for the rest of the primaries. But when someone links to a 538 article, like the one that picture I posted is from, the model unequivocally says that Sanders is a man of the issues, he doesn't waste time with useless bullshit like "I know how to" or "We are going to" or "What I will do" and instead goes right at the issues. The article accompanying the model, however, is about how "Clinton is an action woman and Sanders is just a repetitive old hack" which is [url=http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/these-are-the-phrases-that-sanders-and-clinton-repeat-most/]almost literally how the article goes.[/url] I might have fucked my terminology but I'm just mad at people posting [B]articles[/B] from 538 thinking they're in any way objective. The articles aren't, the models are. Plus it's midnight and I'm tired man

[QUOTE=EcksDee;50011324] A 538 (fucking awful news source btw) writer compared Clinton's and Sanders' speeches and look at what they're talking about.[/QUOTE] If you use 538 for news, I am greatly concerned. 538 is a stats blog. A reputable stats blog.

I filled out my surrogate affidavit a few days ago when the Bernie truck was parked on one of the main roads getting people to sign them I voted for Bernie [i]and[/i] I got to sleep in, I call that a good deal

He's speaking now.

I keep registering to vote and they haven't sent me my voter card it's been three months and I've registered three times now

WP called him for Washington.

76% in WA, god damn

[QUOTE=rilez;50011079]CNN and MSNBC are [B]desperately[/B] attempting to avoid making positive comments towards Sanders. [B]Caucuses are now "profoundly undemocratic," they "disenfranchise voters," and "they're run by party amateurs."[/B] They're "...more complicated than primaries, requiring voters to assemble at one of a relatively small number of locations at a certain time and stay for several hours." They are honestly using these comments to deride caucuses, when out of context, all of these statements could apply to Arizona...[/QUOTE] I refuse to believe these things were said.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50011929]I refuse to believe these things were said.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-bernie-sanders-isn-t-dropping-out-despite-hillary-s-n545646[/URL] They didn't say it, but that's the argument they're framing. "But while the caucus format tends to favor Sanders, it also imposes barriers to voter participation that could be seen as at odds to his core message.In fact, Sanders does well in caucuses largely because they're more time intensive and complicated than primaries, requiring voters to assemble at one of a relatively small number of locations at a certain time and stay for several hours."