2016 Postmortem

DemocratSinceBirth

(101,609 posts)

43. " See how clear that is? " I think so.

Reply to Meteor Man (Reply #38)

Thu May 19, 2016, 07:49 PM

May 2016

How About Stiglitz?

He has praised our heroine:

Joseph Stiglitz: Hillary's 'Clearly Much Better' For Economy Than Others

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/55380d0dfe3444bbe40002b4

Brad de Long?

He has been critical of BS:

Arguing that Bernie Sanders's policies are likely to produce a 5.3%/year real GDP growth rate is not just wrong--not just likely to read to false conclusions about the likely impacts of the policies--but further opens the gates of hell for the likes of Arthur Laffer and John Cochrane to dance around and get their garbage into the press.

http://www.bradford-delong.com/2016/02/we-need-to-hold-the-line-on-analytical-standards-here-bernie-sanders-blogging.html

BTW, Stiglitz would make a great Treasury Secretary

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Is Not Ahead By 3 Million Votes [View all] Meteor Man May 2016 OP

then bernie does not have 9 million. nt msongs May 2016 #1

Nebraska was run as a democratic primary and Hillary won. Renew Deal May 2016 #2

If anything caucuses count double Doctor Jack May 2016 #3

Shaun King quickly gets fact-checked by the Washington Post Frenchye May 2016 #4

Glenn Kessler's Math Meteor Man May 2016 #11

Common sense would tell you King's analysis is nonsensical... it doesn't even pass the eye test. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #18

So you are relying on berniemath? Gothmog May 2016 #57

Sean King gets hack-checked, you mean Uponthegears May 2016 #26

Not so fast... DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #31

Actually I went the right speed Uponthegears May 2016 #48

Densely was a poor choice of words. I should have said populous. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #49

Does not diminish Uponthegears May 2016 #54

Take solace in the fact we will stop Donald Trump, inshallah. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #56

Truth there Uponthegears May 2016 #60

Post removed Post removed May 2016 #32

they are coming out of the woodwork. they must be shaking in their boots. litlbilly May 2016 #45

That has to be it Ned_Devine May 2016 #52

it is intense, total desperation as it implodes before our eyes, they are in total desperado mode amborin May 2016 #65

Did you even read the article? He offers no facts refuting that Bernie got ZERO votes in Washington pdsimdars May 2016 #72

No not 3 it's 3.5 million MattP May 2016 #5

lolz obamanut2012 May 2016 #6

That is patently absurd DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #7

Shaun King is the same guy who said Bernie won Nevada Frenchye May 2016 #9

I am familiar with his work... DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #10

LOL. Starry Messenger May 2016 #68

One More Time Meteor Man May 2016 #12

I don't know about other states but the turnout in Washington was miserable LisaM May 2016 #8

Whatever you read was likely wrong. As a PCO, my precinct and all the others locally set records floriduck May 2016 #37

No, I'm not wrong, and it not as high as 2008 (but it was close) LisaM May 2016 #40

The state may have come up short but not in my area. Just sayin' floriduck May 2016 #42

So your "miserable" comment was a bit exaggerated. Or are you saying Obama's floriduck May 2016 #44

It was high compared to other caucuses, but caucus turnout is miserable in general. LisaM May 2016 #51

For what it's worth, I'd Ike to do away with caucuses too. I'd prefer vote by mail. floriduck May 2016 #62

I like the opportunity to vote by mail, but LisaM May 2016 #66

As long as she has one more delegate she wins. Sorry. nt eastwestdem May 2016 #13

And Democracy Loses Meteor Man May 2016 #34

Way better than a Sanders presidency. nt eastwestdem May 2016 #36

Sanders Presidency is good for the 99% and for democracy amborin May 2016 #64

I might agree with you if he had an actual plans to accomplish his promises. eastwestdem May 2016 #70

Honestly?!? chervilant May 2016 #71

some of the caucuses didn't even have 10,000 people in attendance. upaloopa May 2016 #14

Exactly Meteor Man May 2016 #19

The census is based on mathematical assumptions. Your and his arguments are obscurantist. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #20

Riiiight! Meteor Man May 2016 #24

Yeah, flat earthers deny the validity of inferential and descriptive statistics. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #25

And Krugman Is Always Right Meteor Man May 2016 #29

The Nobel Prize winner has a firmer understanding of economics than the Vermont independent. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #33

How About Stiglitz? Meteor Man May 2016 #38

" See how clear that is? " I think so. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #43

Lol! Meteor Man May 2016 #58

You don't bring glory to yourself my making things up. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #61

Did you watch the video? Meteor Man May 2016 #67

Wrong. The votes from caucuses won't change anything. Almost no one votes. CrowCityDem May 2016 #15

I got a video just for you workinclasszero May 2016 #16

Just 7 contests have not reported their populsr vote. hrmjustin May 2016 #17

Alaska? Meteor Man May 2016 #21

.alaska is blank on that list. hrmjustin May 2016 #23

Oh yeah Meteor Man May 2016 #27

No but they do report how many voted. You can do guess work based on results. hrmjustin May 2016 #28

Guess Work Meteor Man May 2016 #30

She can't win! The votes don't count! She's unelectable! randome May 2016 #22

Right. JTFrog May 2016 #35

You R right. Hillary is ahead by 2.9M riversedge May 2016 #39

Yes, Clinton is winning the popular vote — by a wide margin Gothmog May 2016 #41

For The Third Time Meteor Man May 2016 #46

I'll take educated guesswork over hopeful fantasy anytime. randome May 2016 #50

Guess Work Meteor Man May 2016 #59

Why trust you over the fact checker? Gothmog May 2016 #55

Excellent point. CentralMass May 2016 #47

A caucus vote count does not go by the population, if so the primary states would go by their Thinkingabout May 2016 #53

Well, what if the other side subtracted non-Democratic party votes? JCMach1 May 2016 #63

2.9 million bigtree May 2016 #69

This is actually Stupid. Literally, Mathematically stupid.` DWilliamsamh Jun 2016 #73