Official Bernie Sanders HQ: Not Me, Us!

[King Kreole]

lol at those highlights and not mentioning that Bernie had a revolutionary housing policy as a mayor that made lives easier for thousands of people

and still working to this day

You're absolutely right, I forgot about his work setting up the Burlington Community Land Trust. That's quite clearly the biggest feather in his administrative cap as mayor.

Anyway, I'll bow out because I'm not trying to flood this thread with non-explicitly pro-Bernie takes. I like Bernie and if Liz doesn't win the nomination, I hope it'll be him.

 

[Oville]

Man, come on. Burlington has a population of 38,000 when Bernie was mayor 40 years ago. The executive highlights of his mayoral term were bringing a minor league baseball team to the city and improving the Lake Champlain waterfront. And this is evidence of his fitness to run the executive office of the Presidency of the United States of America? This is ridiculous. Buttigieg ran a city with a population of 100,000 and even his administrative qualifications are suspicious. The value and relevancy of Bernie's mayoral term are in the cultural leadership he showed with his identification as a socialist, not his executive actions as mayor.

Your being incredibly dismissive. Read this article about Bernie's tenure as Mayor of Burlington which goes into detail how he was able to successfully carry out an agenda that helped revitalize Burlington's downtown area through his vision bringing in affordable housing, worker cooperative businesses, and environmentally friendly initiatives. The legacy he left on Burlington could still be felt through this day and he was popular pushing these agendas. I'd argue running a city is much more difficult than running some bureau because being the executive of a city no matter how small it may be still comes with it some push back from political forces.

 

[goatmane]

 

[New Jeruzalem Journalist]

But "Bernie Bros". I mean, amirite?



I've reached the point where I will now assume anybody who denies the blatant mainstream media bias against Bernie Sanders and/or highlights sporadic behaviors of his supporters to denigrate his campaign, while not applying that same metric to other candidates, specifically Biden and Warren, is acting in bad faith and their arguments will not be taken seriously.

Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

 

[chico25]

 

[afterlife2009]

 

[FAH1223]

Faiz looking more and more like the typical Pakistani uncle

 

[FAH1223]

 

[afterlife2009]

@wtfyomom Not trying to be one of those polls are fake people but this guy I followed during the 2018 mid terms has some analysis about the polls for Bernie. Some of them are underestimating under 50 voter turnout

 

[StatUS]

@wtfyomom Not trying to be one of those polls are fake people but this guy I followed during the 2018 mid terms has some analysis about the polls for Bernie. Some of them are underestimating under 50 voter turnout

It's his only path to victory. We'll know what the deal truly is when the first four states come through.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

Think whatever you like about polls. FEC data tells us Bernie has more people donating to him than anybody else. This means he is the most popular candidate. Bernie Sanders is in the lead. That is a fact.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

It's his only path to victory. We'll know what the deal truly is when the first four states come through.

So you doubt the idea they are oversampling old folks or nah?
No matter, if a poll wants to claim being accurate according to statistical parameters it HAS to select randomly from the entire electorate on a region otherwise it is not truly random which is a statistical sampling error. So all polls that do 'likely voters' only or mostly are inaccurate off top because they did not sample randomly enough.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

So you doubt the idea they are oversampling old folks or nah?
No matter, if a poll wants to claim being accurate according to statistical parameters it HAS to select randomly from the entire electorate on a region otherwise it is not truly random which is a statistical sampling error. So all polls that do 'likely voters' only or mostly are inaccurate off top because they did not sample randomly enough.

It is literally not possible for a poll to select randomly from the entire electorate. No polling firm has equal access to the entire electorate. Some people don't have phones, or don't have them listed, or don't answer their phones, or answer their phones more reliably at certain times of day, and so on.

And "likely voters" is determined after selection, not beforehand, and may or may not be more accurate than "all registered voters" depending on the circumstances.

Every polling firm has to do serious number-crunching and data manipulation to end up with an accurate number. A firm that didn't do any of that would fail far more often than one that did. Just look at .538 results for an indicator.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

It is literally not possible for a poll to select randomly from the entire electorate. No polling firm has equal access to the entire electorate. Some people don't have phones, or don't have them listed, or don't answer their phones, or answer their phones more reliably at certain times of day, and so on.

And "likely voters" is determined after selection, not beforehand, and may or may not be more accurate than "all registered voters" depending on the circumstances.

Every polling firm has to do serious number-crunching and data manipulation to end up with an accurate number. A firm that didn't do any of that would fail far more often than one that did. Just look at .538 results for an indicator.

They should then say how much of a region they are able to capture vs the last census numbers of said region. And they should also include a data unavailable number in their polls as well.
And there doesn't seem to be a mandate on accuracy. Polls are wrong all the time. No one got the presidential race right in 2016.