I would be interested in comments on the following quote:

[Disaffected]

This quote concerning Sanders is from someone I consider a generally pretty astute commentator on the current political scene.

"Where I'm sitting, I see absolutely no way for him to become the
nominee, for a simple reason: Pledged delegates are getting split five
ways, and this is going to continue, even if there are some dropouts and
the split evolves to (say) a three-way split. Which in turn means it's
astronomically unlikely Sanders shows up on convention Day One with 1990
(50% + 1) pledged delegates, ergo all delegates will be then released
from any pledges, and it will become a brokered convention that is
highly likely to pick a consensus Democrat rather than a highly divisive
non-Democrat."

[LaurenOlimina]

1. That's the way I see it.

...and if Sanders has a significant lead, all hell will break loose.

[lapfog_1]

2. The super delegates will break for a more moderate

Bernie's people will not accept it. They will stamp and whine about the unfairness of it all and threaten to walk out of the convention.

We may end up with a third party candidate.

All of this is good for Trump.

[OnDoutside]

9. Let them whine. The Democrats will gain more independents and

Anti Trump Republicans than they'll lose from the unhinged Bros.

And to be fair, if he won the nomination, there would be zero good grace from them.

[NurseJackie]

10. In the end, I believe that many Democrats will probably follow the advice given by Jane Sanders...

In the end, I believe that many Democrats will probably follow the advice given by Jane Sanders to her twitter followers last election day:

[David__77]

3. That could happen.

We will see.

[ChubbyStar]

4. Does this astute political commentator have a name?

My dry cleaner said something similar, do you know him too?

[rzemanfl]

8. GMTA. n/t

[Disaffected]

11. Yes but i don't think it's relevant or appropriate to post

because he is not a public figure by any means and it was just one person's opinion on the matter that I found interesting and worthy of further comment.

One reason I posted this here is that some forum participants seem to thing Sanders now has a lock on the nomination and, personally speaking, I do not find that appealing as I fear the Repugs will successfully hammer him over his "socialist" policies.

[Orrex]

12. Is the point valid or not?

Kind of elitist to dismiss your dry cleaner on the basis of his profession, no?

[bluewater]

14. The "point" seems unfocused and based on unsupported assumptions.

But other than that it's fine. I suppose.

[Orrex]

17. Seems like a fairly straightforward and well-reasoned assessment, but whatevs.

[bluewater]

20. Very sloppy "logic". A 5 way slpit does not mean an EQUAL split.

The entire premise just becomes as solid as wet tissue paper.

Right now 538 has Sanders getting almost half of those delegates going into the convention.

In fact, 538 now says there that Sanders has a 50% chance of actually winning the nomination on the first ballot.

People can easily see that for themselves at 538:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo



So, no, the delegates are not projected to be divided up evenly enough to support the faulty logic given in the OP.

[Disaffected]

21. I don't think anything in the OP implied an "equal" or even close to equal

split. Sure, the probability is high that Sanders will have considerably more delegates than the bottom tier but the proposition is that the split, however it turns out will likely be enough to deny Sanders a majority.

Question: How do the super delegate votes factor into this?

I don't pretend to know exactly how 538 does its analysis but, did not this organization not predict a high probability Clinton win not so long ago? OK, Googled it:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

71 to 29%

[bluewater]

22. SO who to trust more... 538 or an anonymous vague OP quote... lol

Yeah, and it does seem that 538 had the odds about right on Clinton vs Trump.

71% Chance Clinton could win, and a 29% chance Trump could.

Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, and Trump squeaked thru in 4 states with a total of 70,000 more votes to win the Electoral College.

538 was the only analysis that gave Trump that high a chance of winning. They are just about the best in the business.

But hey, 538 is making it's call, your OP guy is making his.

Pardon me if I give more weight to 538 on this one.

538 is certainly backing up there projection more than the OP is.

Here's that link again for anyone to see 538's projection for themselves:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[Disaffected]

23. I'm not asking anyone at all to chose one over the other.

You present a false dichotomy. My OP simply asked for comments in support or otherwise of the quote.

OK, I will be pleased to read any further opinions on the matter but no more from me....

[bluewater]

24. Why complain at me then? I gave my comments , since you asked for them.

I did not "present a false dichotomy".

Seriously.

I was allowed to disagree with the OP, right?

You kept replying and, honestly, seemed to be trying to counter my comments.

It sure as heck looked like we were, well, discussing my comments.

So I kept replying in turn. I stated that I thought the logic in the OP was sloppy and I presented 538's analysis as an alternative.

Oh, and I did say I found 538's analysis more compelling than the OP's.

How is any of that "presenting a false dichotomy"?





Enjoy your evening.

[Orrex]

29. You kind of explicitly proposed a false dichotomy

SO who to trust more... 538 or an anonymous vague OP quote...

Your framing requires the reader to choose one over the other, when no choice is required.

Further, your framing admits no option beyond the two that you've proposed; that is a dichotomy, and it is false.

[bluewater]

34. BZZZT Extremely bad logic. Poor rhetoric too.

Orrex: You kind of explicitly proposed a false dichotomy

"KIND OF" lol Wow, talk about use of "weasel words"

weasel words
[weasel words]

NOUN
words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading.

"KIND OF" indeed. That's rhetorically waving the white flag of surrender that your argument is built on sand.

I was not "kind of proposing" a false dichotomy , rather, I actually was asking people which should we trust more, 538's analysis or the OP's scanty proposition.

I simply asked which of the two analyses we were discussing people should trust more :

SO who to trust more... 538 or an anonymous vague OP quote...

What is the problem in asking which of the two things we were discussing should people trust more?

Why, there is no problem at all.

Everyone is free to voice there own opinion on that question and to offer their alternative analysis, if any.

Enjoy your evening.

[Orrex]

36. I used "kind of" because I didn't want to call you liar. Have it your way.

You seem not to understand what a false dichotomy is, because in defending the one you proposed, you proposed yet again that one must choose exclusively between the two options that you offer, when it is not at all necessary to choose between them in the first place, and there are other options are available even if you self-servingly exclude them from the discussion.

I'm done here. I know better than to confront a Sanders supporter with possibilities that they'd prefer not to consider.


If it makes you feel better, you have my blessing to declare that you crushed me under the power of your make-it-up-as-you-go reasoning or whatever.

Feel free to append your favorite smiley in response.

[bluewater]

37. Ad hominem attack duly noted. LOL

Orrex: I used "kind of" because I didn't want to call you liar. Have it your way.

Well, that's what I call going down in flames.

lol

When people resort to ad hominem attacks, that is the clearest sign that they lost the argument.

Thanks for making that abundantly clear.

Enjoy your evening.

[Orrex]

41. You know what? I see my error now, and you're correct.

What you proposed was not, in fact, a false dichotomy, but a comparison between two sources, as noted by another poster.

I was wrong to attack you as I did, and I apologize for my hostility. That'll teach me to post while hot-headed.

[HeartlandProgressive]

39. Don't you know what a comparison is?

Last edited Tue Feb 25, 2020, 11:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Please let me assist you:


comparison
/kəmˈparɪs(ə n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: comparison; plural noun: comparisons
1.
a consideration or estimate of the similarities or dissimilarities between two things or people.
"they drew a comparison between Gandhi's teaching and that of other teachers"
Similar:
contrast
juxtaposition
collation
differentiation
weighing up
balancing


One can make a comparison between two things, in this case the poster was asking which of two analyses to "trust more".

Perhaps you misread or overlooked the relevant comparison qualifier "more".

Orrex: I used "kind of" because I didn't want to call you liar. Have it your way.

Perhaps you should apologize for your oversight/poor reading skills instead of lashing out at another poster and throwing words around like "liar".

There is no justification for being that rude to another poster.

[Orrex]

40. LOL. Sure.

[Orrex]

42. On second thought, you're correct

I have apologized.

[Orrex]

27. Your objection hinges on an "equal split" that was not part of the original statement

That's a straw man, of course, so everything that you base upon it can be discarded.

The statement certainly doesn't require an even split; the non-Sanders delegates can split in any arrangement they like, because only the total is relevant, not the breakdown.

People can easily see that for themselves at 538:

The linked article puts him at 45%, admittedly much better than all other contenders, but still rather importantly short of the 50+% mark.

I will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee. I maintain that he will be a disastrous candidate if he is the nominee.


Despite all insistence to the contrary, he has absolutely no demonstrated ability to handle the shitstorm that will certainly rain down on him if he lands on the ballot.

[Disaffected]

28. Thank you

You put the case better than I.

[2naSalit]

30. +1

[bluewater]

31. Strawman deflection noted. Did you not also read the body of that post?

Seems not.

Here it is again:

The entire premise just becomes as solid as wet tissue paper.

Right now 538 has Sanders getting almost half of those delegates going into the convention.

In fact, 538 now says there that Sanders has a 50% chance of actually winning the nomination on the first ballot.

People can easily see that for themselves at 538:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

My objection clearly is not hinged on countering just an equal split. I thought pointing out how unequal the split actually is projected to be made that clear.

But just to be sure, let me state clearly that the OP's logic is faulty. Just because the delegates are being split 5 ways, that in no way precludes a candidate from winning the nomination on the first ballot.

[Orrex]

32. Oh, you're one of those. I see.

The portion of an argument that depends upon a fallacy can be discarded along with the fallacy. It's not a deflection by me; it's your failure to formulate a good argument.

You're also making a false accusation. The "strawman deflection" occurs when one tries incorrectly to dismiss the entirety of an argument when only a portion of that argument depends upon the strawman. In this case, I have correctly done the latter. The fact that so much of your position depends upon the strawman is your misfortune, not mine.

My objection clearly is not hinged on countering just an equal split. I thought pointing out how unequal the split actually is projected to be made that clear.

Really? Then perhaps you should take it up with whoever wrote the silly subject line of reply #20:

Very sloppy "logic". A 5 way split does not mean an EQUAL split.

Since the OP (quoting the unnamed source) makes no requirement of an equal split among non-Sanders delegates, your "objection" that the split won't be equal simply restates the point while also apparently missing it. It's a distraction, since evenness of the split is irrelevant.

But just to be sure, let me state clearly that the OP's logic is faulty. Just because the delegates are being split 5 ways, that in no way precludes a candidate from winning the nomination on the first ballot.

That is a separate assertion from the OP's claim being discussed here. If you wish to have your claim debated, then I propose that you post it as an OP.

If you wish to submit it as a restating of this OP's claim, then it is another straw man and can also be discarded.

Here is what the OP stated:

it's astronomically unlikely Sanders shows up on convention Day One with 1990 (50% + 1) pledged delegates

Look, we all understand that you don't like that conclusion, and that's your prerogative. But the OP does not assert that the split "precludes a candidate from winning the nomination." In fact, the OP points out the unlikelihood that Sanders will arrive at the convention with the majority needed to secure the nomination. The split doesn't preclude it; it simply makes it astronomically unlikely.

I personally don't care for that particular adverb in this context, and I would have gone with "highly," but the point remains.


It does indeed seem highly unlikely that Sanders the divider, Sanders the Independent, Sanders the self-declared foe of Democrat and Republican alike, can confidently expect to wind up on the ballot when he's working so tirelessly to alienate the very people who can put him there.

[bluewater]

35. "The split doesn't preclude it; it simply makes it astronomically unlikely." LOL

All that verbiage aside in your reply, THIS is the heart of the matter.

The OP's claim that it is "astronomically unlikely", as you put it, that anyone can win on the first ballot was one I DISAGREED with.

I then presented an alternative analysis from a very reputable source, 538, that showed, GASP, it was a 50/50 chance of actually happening!



I think I am done here.

Gloating would be, well, unseemly.

Oh, and your ad hominem attack that you tacked on has been duly noted.:

Oh, you're one of those. I see.

The ad hominem attack is literally the last gasp of a losing argument.



Enjoy your evening.

[ChubbyStar]

15. My dry cleaner is a long time friend, I have known him since high school

I just mentioned he had the same views, and I never dismissed anyone. Thanks for sharing!

[Orrex]

18. LOL. I misread your tone. My mistake.

[unblock]

5. it rather depends on the delegate count, though, doesn't it?

i mean, ok, sure, pledges get released, if the number one delegate winner has a large margin over the number two delegate winner, it's kinda hard to see a "consensus candidate" being anyone other than the number one delegate winner.

if two or more candidates are neck and neck, sure, that's then the consensus candidate might not be the front-runner.


so it still matters.

plus, it's not like many of a candidate's delegates are itching to vote for someone else even after their pledge is released.

what usually happens (not that it's happened in quite a while) is that the candidates themselves make deals and direct their delegates to vote with whoever they made the deal with.

for example, a candidate might agree to throw his delegates to another candidate in exchange for a promise of a cabinet appointment.

[Garrett78]

6. That's been the general consensus. Nevada made that less likely, but it's still possible.

South Carolina will have a big impact.

[rzemanfl]

7. Could you attribute the quote? I agree, but some folks who don't

might get their unders in wad.

[ChubbyStar]

13. I think it was my dry cleaner

He is a good dude and quite intelligent.

[Raven123]

16. Way too soon for such speculation

[Moderateguy]

19. If Sanders does not have 1991 delegates, it goes to 2nd ballot and so on...

Until someone can muster 2345 delegates to clinch the nomination.

[myohmy2]

25. that's...

...if Bernie doesn't get 50% + 1...

...but we must be careful while we're winning the battle we're not losing the war...

...I think 50% + 1 for Bernie is not unrealistic or unreasonable...

...BERNIE can and will do it...

[Laelth]

26. It is for this very reason that I think Bloomberg will be our nominee.

That said, the cost to the party for alienating a lot of Bernie supporters may be very high.



-Laelth

[FBaggins]

33. The quoted individual doesn't understand the primary rules

Last edited Tue Feb 25, 2020, 12:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Candidates further splitting the vote... but falling below 15% in a given state... actually help the front runner. Bernie is now as likely as not to win the nomination outright... and it’s BECAUSE the vote is being split so many ways.

[bluewater]

38. The OP's logic is very flawed.

Thanks for pointing out the 15% threshold factor.