Democratic Primaries

Response to bluewater (Reply #21)

crazytown This message was self-deleted by its author.

Edit history

Cannot view edit history for self-deleted messages.

Recommendations

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

94 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

538: Biden has a 35% chance of winning the Democratic nomination. [View all] crazytown Jan 2020 OP

So what is Warren's chance? Demsrule86 Jan 2020 #1

Looks like 10-12% by the chart LongtimeAZDem Jan 2020 #3

Yeah...and another question: pfeiffer Jan 2020 #4

I'd need a caucusologist to confirm this Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2020 #87

Sorry...I missed the answer... Demsrule86 Jan 2020 #2

I agree, as you say, Joe's grasp on the lead is tenuous... Hillary could jump in the race tomorrow InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2020 #7

10% to 35%...I'll take it. Warren is less than that because she may lose Iowa. Demsrule86 Jan 2020 #12

Sanders and Warren aren't going to team up in the primaries. TwilightZone Jan 2020 #13

I'm not so sure you are right. Algernon Moncrieff Jan 2020 #88

Hillary? Seriously... Demsrule86 Jan 2020 #14

If Joe's lead is tenuous bernies is non existent. Get real!! Thekaspervote Jan 2020 #16

And boomer_wv Jan 2020 #66

I wasnt suggestin Hillary WOULD jump in the race. Just that IF she did, she'd be the frontrunner... InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2020 #70

No she wouldn't.Hillary supporters never thought Hillary should run again after 2016 Demsrule86 Jan 2020 #73

"Hillary supporters never thought Hillary should run again"? That's an interesting statement... InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2020 #90

That nonsense...in fact you and I discussed it at length...and we both came to the conclusion that Demsrule86 Jan 2020 #92

Nonsense?! Show me where I EVER said Bernie should NOT run in 2020. That's completely untrue!! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2020 #94

And again boomer_wv Jan 2020 #83

LOL. The Valley Below Jan 2020 #5

Thats certainly not an overwhelming vote of confidence for a former VP whos sposedly the frontrunner InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2020 #6

Looks like he is way ahead of your guy who has been running for four years redstateblues Jan 2020 #8

Bazinga! NurseJackie Jan 2020 #10

+1 TexasTowelie Jan 2020 #25

bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha nt NYMinute Jan 2020 #81

He IS the frontrunner. Nothing supposed about it. Other than that, define "overwhelming". beastie boy Jan 2020 #9

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "front-runner" TwilightZone Jan 2020 #24

Greater than 1/3 in a multi-candidate field. RandySF Jan 2020 #35

Statisticaly, it's actually a pretty good spot at this point Bradical79 Jan 2020 #43

It is just because there are so many candidates NYMinute Jan 2020 #71

Well, if math is your friend, Biden has tanked & had to exit early in every primary he's run in... InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2020 #72

bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha nt NYMinute Jan 2020 #80

BUT, someone is actually 100% going to be the nominee. Hortensis Jan 2020 #11

crazytown, thank you so much for posting this! :) Sloumeau Jan 2020 #15

Biden supporters are misinterpreting this! bluewater Jan 2020 #17

I highlighted said passage, crazytown Jan 2020 #18

Added my own question... where did the missing 21% go? bluewater Jan 2020 #19

An accounting for a 2020 late entry? crazytown Jan 2020 #20

Thanks, that makes sense. bluewater Jan 2020 #21

This message was self-deleted by its author crazytown Jan 2020 #22

No, you're the one misinterpreting the article. TwilightZone Jan 2020 #23

Um, no. Consider re-reading this excerpt again... bluewater Jan 2020 #26

It's also contradicted by the past 9-10 months BannonsLiver Jan 2020 #38

538 is missing the big things? Ok...... bluewater Jan 2020 #44

Sorry, but there is something about statistics that you are missing. Sloumeau Jan 2020 #27

I'll go with 538 understanding of statistics. crazytown Jan 2020 #29

Baloney. I got A's in statistics in college and A's in calculus. Sloumeau Jan 2020 #42

I appreciated you post, crazytown Jan 2020 #49

At no point did I question 538s rigor. Sloumeau Jan 2020 #59

40% Biden, 30% Sanders and 30% Warren crazytown Jan 2020 #62

Nate said Trump couldn't win the GOP nomination. radius777 Jan 2020 #79

Statisticians are aways going by past data, crazytown Jan 2020 #86

538 says someone OTHER than Biden has a higher chance of winning. bluewater Jan 2020 #31

But he isn't really... Demsrule86 Jan 2020 #74

I consider 35 % a good number when compared to 10 -12 %. Demsrule86 Jan 2020 #84

Calculating odds at this point is stupid dansolo Jan 2020 #89

Real headline here: Biden's chances of winning nomination 3-1/2 times greater than Warren, Sanders highplainsdem Jan 2020 #28

Or maybe "the rest of the Democratic field combined has a larger chance of winning than Biden " crazytown Jan 2020 #30

THAT is the point 538 is making, the odds favor someone OTHER than Biden. bluewater Jan 2020 #32

A point that is laughably incorrect. The Valley Below Jan 2020 #52

LOL. So you think we're electing a committee? highplainsdem Jan 2020 #36

Now I suspect you understand probability theory better than that crazytown Jan 2020 #39

I understand that none of his rivals are close to having as good a chance as Biden. highplainsdem Jan 2020 #41

"And that's what matters here." bluewater Jan 2020 #46

Since all the other candidates do much worse than Biden, how is that good news for anyone who highplainsdem Jan 2020 #48

Again, people also want their LEAST favorite candidate not to win. bluewater Jan 2020 #53

I understand probability theory pretty well and the point you are making is not correct. Demsrule86 Jan 2020 #85

Yes and few, if any, of the remaining candidates align with Biden. InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2020 #60

If it was a team sport, but it isn't. Both sanders and warren have 10 to 12 % chance individually. Demsrule86 Jan 2020 #75

538 gave Clinton a 71% chance of winning the day before the election, The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2020 #33

Do you have a reason to suspect that was wrong? crazytown Jan 2020 #37

A lot of polls and predictions were wrong. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2020 #40

The polls weren't "wrong". cos dem Jan 2020 #47

OK, so maybe deceptive is the better description. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2020 #51

Agreed. TwilightZone Jan 2020 #65

Maybe they didn't take into account that the Russians would intervene to help Trump win. totodeinhere Jan 2020 #45

I don't recall the percentage dflprincess Jan 2020 #57

71% isn't 100%, of course. TwilightZone Jan 2020 #64

I thought Hillary was given a much higher chance of winning than that...perhaps I'm misremembering. InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2020 #91

Thanks crazytown! Scurrilous Jan 2020 #34

Instead of obsessing over who is ahead and who has the best chance why can't we totodeinhere Jan 2020 #50

Statistics can be made to lean in any direction bucolic_frolic Jan 2020 #54

Millennials also have the most negative view of trump. crazytown Jan 2020 #56

If that motivates millennials to vote, then it's a good thing! bucolic_frolic Jan 2020 #58

The strongest card Democrats have with young idealists is Climate Change. crazytown Jan 2020 #63

And theyre more likely to vote for Bernie or Elizabeth, not Joe. Why we need a progressive candidate InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2020 #61

Sorry no...we need to win states that neither Sanders or Warren can win. Demsrule86 Jan 2020 #76

60% of average Americans, 28 yrs or older,disagree with your statement about the use of statistics! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2020 #77

Statistics LakeArenal Jan 2020 #55

I'll remind you of that, crazytown Jan 2020 #68

Geez. It was a joke. Simpson quotes do not count as thoughtful dialogue. LakeArenal Jan 2020 #69

No need to overreact for all sides Hav Jan 2020 #67

The last 2 primary elections Joe lost in 1988/2008 are a good indication of how 2020 will end InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2020 #78

Using your logic, Bernie will lose the nomination by millions redstateblues Jan 2020 #82

A good percentage are just undecided. redqueen Jan 2020 #93