ttystikk
Well-Known Member
90% correlation is a pretty damned good predictor.
As usual, your arguments have more holes then a Texas road sign.
Superdelegates in the Democratic Party (Primary) should be eliminated
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
As usual, your arguments have more holes then a Texas road sign.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
And now, we've taken the Appeal to Authority fallacy to its illogical limits. You are absurd, sir.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
It helps to actually understand the argument before trying to discredit it.
Otherwise, confirmation bias.
dagwood45431
Well-Known Member
So, you don't understand the logical fallacy you have not only been using but taking to an illogical extreme? Go it.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
90% correlation is not the same as a good predictor for any individual race. Yes, there is a general trend that correlates winning with higher spending -- is it 90% correlation? I'll take you word on that. What high correlation means is that if you ran a hundred races, the better funded ones are more likely to win. Look at the scatter in the chart I posted earlier. The predictive value of that trend line on any individual race is pretty bad.
What Chomsky said was that higher funding could predict an outcome until Sanders came along. As stated in the above paragraph, that is false. Sanders lost by the way, so even his claim that Sanders broke the trend is false. Sanders is just another lower spending loser. Trump, by the way would have shown to be a lower spending winner, so there is another count against your delusion.
As you should know, correlation doesn't mean causation. You are simply linking one trend with a result. In those hundred races that are better funded, one should also ask why? Incumbent? Better liked? Better qualified? Did the lower spending candidate get free media exposure or higher PAC spending? Of course you just jump to "corrupt Democrats" so I'm not really asking for you opinion, I'm just saying that there are reasons behind this trend and the trend itself only shows the effect.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
“To the extent that the nomination was rigged in the sense that there was illegal activity going on that was directed by the Democratic Party or the Clinton campaign to sabotage Bernie Sanders’s chances, I’ve seen no credible evidence of that,” says law professor Rick Hasen of the University of California–Irvine.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you are hopeless
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
nope
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-record-filings-show-benefits-from-super-pacs-links-to-wall-street-donors-1455300881
Sanders’s Record, Filings Show Benefits From Super PACs, Links to Wall Street Donors
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'll tell you what it isn't:
winning the vote in washington state among 800,000+ voters by a 12 point margin over bernie and then walking away with a net loss of 47 delegates.
hillary won the washington state primary 56%-44% over bernie and walked away with a net loss of 47 delegates.
if you actually cared about democracy or the will of the people you would address this rather than run away from it like you always do.
now say "rigged" again like the retarded woman hater that you are
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
If 90% weren't a good predictor then no one would bother with statistics. You've completely mistaken 'good' for 'perfect'.
This shows in many of your arguments and explains your persistent political myopia.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Just because you don't like what he has to say doesn't mean he's wrong.
In your case, quite the opposite.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I didn't appeal to Chomsky's authority. I asked Fogdog why he thought Chomsky believed the primary was rigged. Failed to get an answer..
So, maybe you can do better. Why do you believe Chomsky believes the primary was rigged?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
hillary got more votes and still lost 47 net delegates, padaraper. reconcile that with your "rigged" conspiracy theory, retard
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so then explain it to me.
washington state votes, 800,000+ people choose hillary over bernie, 56-44. bernie walks away with 47 net delegates. explain to me how that was rigged for hillary you sexually frustrated deviant
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
K, ready?
Clinton controlled the DNC. The DNC is responsible for selecting the candidate and funding the races.
See, that's rigging the primary
If Sanders controlled the DNC, then worked to get himself elected against Clinton, and he won, you would be making the exact same legitimate claims we're making. They didn't run a fair primary, it doesn't matter if Sanders wasn't a "Democrat" before he chose to run as one for president, it doesn't matter if Clinton funded the party. The DNC's official bylaws state they're to remain neutral until the general election. They weren't by the many admissions that they didn't have to be since Clinton funded the party, that Sanders wasn't even a Democrat, etc.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
You mean like the Democrats that all completely voted against the Tax reform that would have benefited their wealthiest donors?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You choose not to understand how tax policy actually works. We might actually be able to have a real conversation about this that would benefit progressives if you didn't automatically resort to calling every single thing you disagree with racist or sexist and try to shut down the opposition that way instead of actually presenting good ideas that people can agree with..
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
So the Democrats voting against the Tax policy that would benefit their richest donors (that you Cucks say theyre beholden to) is me not understanding tax policy and not Democrats voting to protect their constituents?
It's ironic you'd say that considering the third member of your retarded trifecta thinks you can change your withholding amount to 0 to avoid paying taxes...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
your one and only example was wyoming, where bernie won 55-45 and they each got 7 delegates out of 14.
that is not rigged. that is proportional enough.
my example is washington state. in their primary, hillary was the choice. she won 56% to 44%. she got 27 delegates, and bernie got 74 fucking delegates.
that seems like it was rigged for bernie.