Democrats 2020

[Politesse]

that's going to require two votes in the legislature and presidential agreement, like any other constitutional amendment.

No, that would be a regular law. Constitutional amendments are much more difficult. You need 2/3 of both House and Senate (or a constitutional convention) and ratification by 3/4 of all states. But at least presidential assent is not required.

Get canvassing.

Aye, you're right about that.

 

[lpetrich]

New York Must Hold Democratic Presidential Primary, Judge Rules - The New York Times - "The primary in June, which had been canceled over concerns about the coronavirus, should still be held, with all qualifying candidates restored to the ballot, a federal judge ruled."

The order, filed by Judge Analisa Torres of United States District Court, came in response to a lawsuit filed last week by the former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang. He sought to undo the New York State Board of Elections’ decision in late April to cancel the June 23 contest, a move it attributed to health and safety worries and the fact that the results would not change the primary’s outcome.

On Tuesday night, Douglas A. Kellner, a co-chair of the New York Board of Elections, said the board was “reviewing the decision and preparing an appeal.” And speaking on CNN, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said the presidential primary would proceed per the court’s ruling at least for the time being, but he noted the potential for an appeal.

So they're not giving up. Good Grief.

Andrew Yang on Twitter: "My statement on today’s federal ruling reinstating New York’s Democratic presidential primary: https://t.co/htrUJlTKP8" / Twitter

Judge orders Sanders, others to be reinstated on New York primary ballot | TheHill

 

[lpetrich]

Chris Sommerfeldt on Twitter: "BREAKING: A federal judge has reinstated New York's Democratic presidential primary ..." / Twitter

BREAKING: A federal judge has reinstated New York's Democratic presidential primary, overturning the Board of Elections' decision to cancel the election over public health reasons.

The primary is now back on for June 23.

Story coming w/ @PPVSRB

"Canceling one election opens the door for other states — and the federal government — to cancel future elections. We are grateful to the court for delivering justice," said Jeff Kurzon, lawyer for @AndrewYang who filed the suit that prompted the ruling.

Final update with comment from State Democratic Party Chair Jay Jacobs, who says he still supports the BOE’s decision to scrap the primary.

A BOE spokesman says the board is reviewing the ruling and mulling an appeal.

W/ @SlatteryNYDN + @PPVSRB

 

[Copernicus]

It is also worth pointing out that odds (chances) of winning are different from probability of a win. What 538 was saying was that, given any random four days, Trump was going to win the electoral college on one of those days. Hillary's probability of winning was extremely high, but the odds went against her. Had the election been on another day, she probably would have won the electoral college.

I do not follow the distinction you're drawing between probability and odds here.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. This should help: The Difference Between "Probability" and "Odds"

 

[Copernicus]

that's going to require two votes in the legislature and presidential agreement, like any other constitutional amendment.

No, that would be a regular law. Constitutional amendments are much more difficult. You need 2/3 of both House and Senate (or a constitutional convention) and ratification by 3/4 of all states. But at least presidential assent is not required.

Get canvassing.

So all of this is about what "win the election" means. All parties are correct and in agreement. If it means "electoral college vote", then Trump won. Nobody disputes that. If it means "win the popular vote", then Hillary Clinton won. Derec and Politesse don't want to use the phrase in that sense. In either case, Donald Trump got the power to do as much damage as he could in four years. The tug of war over what "win the election" means is nothing more than a head-butting contest.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, that would be a regular law. Constitutional amendments are much more difficult. You need 2/3 of both House and Senate (or a constitutional convention) and ratification by 3/4 of all states. But at least presidential assent is not required.

So all of this is about what "win the election" means. All parties are correct and in agreement. If it means "electoral college vote", then Trump won. Nobody disputes that. If it means "win the popular vote", then Hillary Clinton won. Derec and Politesse don't want to use the phrase in that sense. In either case, Donald Trump got the power to do as much damage as he could in four years. The tug of war over what "win the election" means is nothing more than a head-butting contest.

Rather, it's an opportunity for them to argue and seem to have a legitimate position in a debate. They don't, which is why they choose these red herrings rather than anything with substance. It's a dishonest rhetorical device meant to deceive readers into thinking that they are "winning", largely because of an infamous flaw in human reasoning that when someone thinks a person is on the winning side of any exchange that they might be on the winning side of all exchange.

 

[TSwizzle]

The tug of war over what "win the election" means is nothing more than a head-butting contest.

Two bald men fighting over a comb.

 

[Derec]

So all of this is about what "win the election" means. All parties are correct and in agreement. If it means "electoral college vote", then Trump won. Nobody disputes that. If it means "win the popular vote", then Hillary Clinton won. Derec and Politesse don't want to use the phrase in that sense. In either case, Donald Trump got the power to do as much damage as he could in four years. The tug of war over what "win the election" means is nothing more than a head-butting contest.

It's simple. Whoever wins the presidential election gets to be president. Therefore Trump won the election. Koy's definition is nonsense.

 

[lpetrich]

How ‘Never Trumpers’ Crashed The Democratic Party | FiveThirtyEight

Anti-Donald Trump activism among conservatives — known informally as the “#NeverTrump” movement — started in early 2016 as a way to stop the businessman from winning the GOP nomination. It failed.

Even by the slightly broader standard of influencing Republican politics, #NeverTrump has been largely unsuccessful. Trump won around 90 percent of self-identified Republican voters in 2016, similar to past GOP presidential nominees. About 90 percent of Republicans have approved of Trump throughout his first term, similar to George W. Bush’s standing in his first four years in office. And with Trump as the face of the party, Republican congressional candidates won around 90 percent of the GOP vote in the 2018 midterms, just as in recent midterm elections. There is really only one anti-Trump figure among the 249 Republicans on Capitol Hill: Sen. Mitt Romney.

Never Trumpers have been much more prominent in the news media than in the general population, and there does not seem to be much of a "Never Trump" activism base in the Republican Party. Recruiting challengers to Trump has not been very successful - every one of them has scored poorly in the primaries.

Many prominent “Never Trumpers,” Saldin said, operate and make a living in liberal institutions. “They think of their jobs as translating conservative ideas to liberals. They had invested in the idea that conservatism was respectable,” he said. In particular, Saldin said, these figures had worked hard to suggest that racism was not a major feature of conservatism.

“So they were particularly horrified by Trump because he embodied what they had spent their careers saying was not conservatism,” he added.

But the Never Trumpers have much greater influence in the Democratic Party, allying themselves with centrist Democrats. Much of the party's leadership seems to like these arguments:

1. Trump is a much worse person and leader than other recent GOP presidents (the Bushes) or presidential nominees (McCain, Romney).
2. Democrats and Republicans who disagree on issues such as abortion and tax policy should put aside those differences for now and unite in opposing Trump because he is a threat to fundamental American values like the rule of law.
3. And finally, there is a sizable bloc of Republicans who will join with Democrats to challenge Trump — so long as Democrats don’t move too far ideologically to the left.

Also Presidential candidates Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg.

The article continues with "They’ve become a faction of the Democratic Party"

 

[Derec]

Sorry for the lack of clarity. This should help: The Difference Between "Probability" and "Odds"

This doesn't back up your position though, unless I misunderstood your point. Odds and probability measure the same thing, but slightly differently. If something has high probability it will have high odds as well. It's just that the odds will be >>1 but probability is always <=1, with high odds corresponding to probability approaching 1.

Example. If your probability of win is .9, your odds of winning are 9:1, because 9/(9+1)=.9

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

No, that would be a regular law. Constitutional amendments are much more difficult. You need 2/3 of both House and Senate (or a constitutional convention) and ratification by 3/4 of all states. But at least presidential assent is not required.

So all of this is about what "win the election" means. All parties are correct and in agreement. If it means "electoral college vote", then Trump won. Nobody disputes that. If it means "win the popular vote", then Hillary Clinton won. Derec and Politesse don't want to use the phrase in that sense. In either case, Donald Trump got the power to do as much damage as he could in four years. The tug of war over what "win the election" means is nothing more than a head-butting contest.

Rather, it's an opportunity for them to argue and seem to have a legitimate position in a debate. They don't, which is why they choose these red herrings rather than anything with substance. It's a dishonest rhetorical device meant to deceive readers into thinking that they are "winning", largely because of an infamous flaw in human reasoning that when someone thinks a person is on the winning side of any exchange that they might be on the winning side of all exchange.

And, of course it is an attempt to sidestep the substantive point I was making. Millions more voters preferred Hillary over Trump. That condition--a larger percentage of voters not preferring Trump--has only increased over the past three years, not decreased.

 

[Copernicus]

Sorry for the lack of clarity. This should help: The Difference Between "Probability" and "Odds"

This doesn't back up your position though, unless I misunderstood your point. Odds and probability measure the same thing, but slightly differently. If something has high probability it will have high odds as well. It's just that the odds will be >>1 but probability is always <=1, with high odds corresponding to probability approaching 1.

Example. If your probability of win is .9, your odds of winning are 9:1, because 9/(9+1)=.9

You missed the point that 538 was trying to make, because they made clear that they were calculating odds, not probability. I don't recall the exact way they calculated it, but I think it was similar to the case-control studies discussed in the link that I gave you. IIRC, 538 only looked at the ratio of probabilities in states that were likely to determine the outcome of the electoral college. Hence, they weren't just looking an aggregate of polls across the entire country.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is also worth pointing out that odds (chances) of winning are different from probability of a win. What 538 was saying was that, given any random four days, Trump was going to win the electoral college on one of those days. Hillary's probability of winning was extremely high, but the odds went against her. Had the election been on another day, she probably would have won the electoral college.

I do not follow the distinction you're drawing between probability and odds here.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. This should help: The Difference Between "Probability" and "Odds"

Thank you! I'm familiar with "odds ratio", but for whatever reason, in common parlance, I end up treating "probability" and "odds" as being pretty interchangeable. Strange things brains do...

 

[Derec]

You missed the point that 538 was trying to make, because they made clear that they were calculating odds, not probability.

I think you are missing the point. "Odds" are just a different way (most common in gambling) to express probability. It's not a different concept.

I don't recall the exact way they calculated it, but I think it was similar to the case-control studies discussed in the link that I gave you. IIRC, 538 only looked at the ratio of probabilities in states that were likely to determine the outcome of the electoral college. Hence, they weren't just looking an aggregate of polls across the entire country.

That has nothing to do with odds vs. probability though.

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok, so, odds are t probability. They measure two entirely different things.

Odds are a prediction of events that are nonrandom, but for which some "nonrandom priors" are unknown. The probabilistics of "odds" are based around looking at past events and ascribing them roughly to other events.

Probability and probabilistics is about rigorous mathematical calculation of random "probabilistic" outcomes.

You calculate odds on a sporting event, but the odds calculated do not speak to the probabilistics: you would have to know what plays would be called, each individual player's individual probabilistic curve in successfully pulling off their role in the play, and the graph of how the failure or success of a player in their role impacts the outcome, and then you would have to calculate down the tree of out ones to get a probability of victory. It is an exhaustive and complicated thing, therefore, to calculate a probability on a football game.

Probability vs odds in a poker game are similarly different. Probability tells you, based on the size of the deck and the shuffle and the previous hand, with a mathematical certainty the chances of any given hand based on the knowledge available at any moment in time. But this also is not the odds of the game. The odds of the game extend into all other manner of fuzzy and hard to quantify priors such as a particular player's skill in bluffing, how they tend to act, the tendencies of their betting... It is more of a read than a calculation, and those priors only indirectly impact or inform the viewer.

Or in D&D, I could calculate the probability curve of a given player's damage output given the options available to them, and with mathematical certainty know that they cannot break beyond those barriers. However, when the game starts, the odds of success or failure come down to many intangibles such as whether they have that "sword of ogre saying", and whether they realize that it's not actually a sword of ogre slaying, and whether they attempt to use it, all of which are intangibles. These are more "reads" than true calculations based on prior conduct and are completely lacking in mathematical rigor no matter how well someone manages to predict the event.

 

[angelo]

It's still a brave man who will predict the outcome of an election by putting up his/her own money on the outcome, as was shown in 2016.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's still a brave man who will predict the outcome of an election by putting up his/her own money on the outcome, as was shown in 2016.

Another site I'm on does avatar bets. The loser has to use the winner's choice of avatar for x number of days.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

'F*** YOU, MR. PRESIDENT': JOE BIDEN'S SON HUNTER BRUSHES OFF DONALD TRUMP'S INVESTIGATION THREATS

Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 Democratic hopeful and former Vice President Joe Biden, brushed off President Donald Trump's call for an investigation into his business deals with foreign powers.

In a feature published by The New Yorker on Monday, Hunter Biden said when he first saw reports of Trump's threats he also noticed a helicopter flying overhead.

"I said, 'I hope they're taking pictures of us right now. I hope it's a live feed of the President so he can see just how much I care about the tweets,'" he told the magazine. He added that he also told his new wife, Melissa Cohen, "I don't care. F*** you, Mr. President. Here I am, living my life."

During an interview with Fox News host Steve Hilton in May, Trump said that the Justice Department should "one hundred percent" launch a probe into the former vice president and his son's financial ties with China and Ukraine.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's still a brave man who will predict the outcome of an election by putting up his/her own money on the outcome, as was shown in 2016.

Another site I'm on does avatar bets. The loser has to use the winner's choice of avatar for x number of days.

I've seen that done with Avatars as well as user titles and sig lines