Which books?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Party-Decides-Presidential-Nominations/dp/0226112373
That’s one of the most quoted books around right now in political science circles…and it says precisely the opposite.
Cook put out an article last week which goes into much more depth about what I am talking about:
Let’s see the smugness when you venture out of Whitelandia in any appreciable way.
So would I, and I think what he is doing makes a lot of sense. It just isn’t anti-establishment.
Sure, the same 20-30 year olds wearing their brothers’ Bros Before Hoes shirts from 2008.
Funny how when they’re for Ron Paul, they’re deluded. Now that they are for another white old man promising them no student debt, there’s “momentum.”
So…your candidate is just a politician like all the others, is basically what you are saying. His principled stance on wanting more debates so the people could decide for themselves…wasn’t so much principled as it was politically beneficial to him when he wanted more exposure, and now that he doesn’t want it…the people shouldn’t see more debates. Unless he starts falling in the polls.
Its a hypocritical statement on Bernie’s behalf, there is no way around that. What I really think he wanted to do/is trying to do is to bang the DNC a bit for not scheduling more debates in the first place…and at better times. But he is fumbling that attempt badly here.
All the worse because at the end of the day, Bernie is going to be on that debate stage in NH. Appearing petulant about showing up for a debate while Trump is throwing his tantrum over debates is a horrifying optic.
Oh, sure. Bernie´s support is made up of disaffected Randians.
Perhaps I should clarify my comment – I am referring to a possible debate right before the Iowa caucus – not future debates. In my opinion, we will need to have many more debates – not necessarily even about policy – but to size up who is best able to squash Trump.
Because revolutionaries like Bernie always carefully consider all the ramifications of breaking a rule.
Bernie leads by about 20 points among women under 35. But I’m sure you’ll have some stereotype for them too. Meanwhile, the latest poll in SC shows increasing numbers of African-American voters switching to Bernie. now more than 1 in 5 in SC (which has helped him cut Hillary’s lead in half in SC since the fall). But I’m sure they’re all former Ron Paul supporters too…or do you need a different stereotype to explain away those folks too? Not worried, I’m sure you can come up with one.
So, go on, keep underestimating the Sanders campaign. That’s worked out great so far.
He´s been a pol for 30 some years, you know. He didn´t maintain that career by lacking political acumen.
That’s what I said! …great minds…
Actually that book is probably the reason why Nate Silver has been so wrong about his predictions this past year. He put way too much stock in the conventional wisdom he thought was accurately presented in that book and went away from the data analysis that he cut his teeth on.
Not that it was entirely his fault, since pre-primary polling data is going to be of limited value and accuracy.
No, the momentum of presidential primary season I"m talking about is a well documented affect that’s been studied for far longer than any recent work appearing in the political lexicon. You’d just as likely learn about the effect I’m describing in a graduate level poly-sci course.
Would he follow Obama’s “don’t make stupid mistakes” doctrine when it came to the economy, you reckon? Because that’s important.
No one has suggested a possible debate right before the Iowa caucus. The one that’s being discussed would be right before the New Hampshire primary.
I agree with you that we need and should have more debates. So does Bernie, which is why he has committed to at least 6 more debates (the two already-scheduled DNC-sponsored ones, and 4 more, including the one in New Hampshire that Hillary wants…). So far, Hillary has only agreed to the two DNC debates, plus this additional one, in the one state where she’s trailing badly – New Hampshire. Readers can draw their own conclusions about why she seems reluctant to agree to any additional debates being added after New Hampshire.
As was the notion that Hillary valued principle over ambition when she voted to authorize the most destructive war in the 21st century - still on going, BTW.
And THIS is one of the things that just fries my potatoes so much! Look, if he thinks that the system/establishment/Dem Party is so corrupt/ineffective, then run on another ticket. I mean, if he has SO MUCH support from “the people” what’s the problem?
Don’t walk into someone’s house, accept a glass of water and then proceed to piss on their living room floor.
That reminds me… Have you seen Silver’s recent piece on this book? I thought it was excellent.
Exactly!
One more thing, why is the DNC letting an independent run on the dem ticket anyway?
If berns wants the dem nomination, he should register as a dem for crying out loud.
Still waiting on the actual books you are referring to.
And your analysis of Nate Silver’s reference to that book is also flawed. You assume that the book is based merely upon “conventional wisdom”. Its not. Its based on a historical analysis of actual data. To attack him for referring to a book that is in itself a data analysis…just not a statistical analysis…instead of using his statistical models is sort of like faulting him for not inventing statistics in the first place.
I´m sure largely, yes.
Though I´m hoping that wouldn´t entail bringing back Tim Geithner and Larry Summers. 