Superdelegates in the Democratic Party (Primary) should be eliminated

[ttystikk]

It's you guys that are having difficulty with the truth. Chomsky is slipping. He started out with the claim that prior to Sanders you could predict outcomes by campaign funding. That's not true. There is a general relationship between campaign spending and outcomes but his claim of a predictive relationship is not true, especially in a race with lopsided results. Also, his claim that Sanders would have won if not for the shenanigans of the Democratic party doesn't square with the facts.

We can put this one down to more bernie baby whining about not getting having their way.

90% correlation is a pretty damned good predictor.

As usual, your arguments have more holes then a Texas road sign.

 

[dagwood45431]

Why do you think Chomsky believes

And now, we've taken the Appeal to Authority fallacy to its illogical limits. You are absurd, sir.

 

[ttystikk]

And now, we've taken the Appeal to Authority fallacy to its illogical limits. You are absurd, sir.

It helps to actually understand the argument before trying to discredit it.

Otherwise, confirmation bias.

 

[dagwood45431]

It helps to actually understand the argument before trying to discredit it.

Otherwise, confirmation bias.

So, you don't understand the logical fallacy you have not only been using but taking to an illogical extreme? Go it.

 

[Fogdog]

90% correlation is a pretty damned good predictor.

As usual, your arguments have more holes then a Texas road sign.

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.

 

[Fogdog]

Define the word "rig"

“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]

it was rigged against Sanders

you are hopeless

 

[UncleBuck]

Sanders made it competitive without having to utilize traditional means of fundraising, like corporate or Super PAC donations

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]

Define the word "rig"

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]

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.

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]

And now, we've taken the Appeal to Authority fallacy to its illogical limits. You are absurd, sir.

Just because you don't like what he has to say doesn't mean he's wrong.

In your case, quite the opposite.

 

[Padawanbater2]

“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.

i'll tell you what it isn't

Lol..

 

[Padawanbater2]

And now, we've taken the Appeal to Authority fallacy to its illogical limits. You are absurd, sir.

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]

Lol..

hillary got more votes and still lost 47 net delegates, padaraper. reconcile that with your "rigged" conspiracy theory, retard

 

[UncleBuck]

We have been for months, retard.

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]

so then explain it to me.

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]

You've ignored my examples, I'll ignore yours retard.

Until the Democratic Party can actually start living up to its broken promises, they have my contempt. As do you.

More bad assumptions, you shit stupid retarded bitch.

Your wife will divorce your worthless ass if you stay here arguing.

Hmmmm- Maybe that's why you've so grumpy lately.

You mean like the Democrats that all completely voted against the Tax reform that would have benefited their wealthiest donors?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You mean like the Democrats that all completely voted against the Tax reform that would have benefited their wealthiest donors?

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]

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..

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]

You've ignored my examples

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.