Waldman like most of the media is just loving the rise in the polls of Trump and Sanders. He declares that this has made the election so much more interesting. It clearly does to media folks like himself.
Maybe many agree with him but it doesn't excite me. To me what's interesting is a discussion about who will win in 2016 not the novelty of interesting diversions. Trump is a bad bigoted, joke who's saving grace is that he hurts the Republicans the longer everyone is talking about him.
Of course, Waldman is really enjoying the Sanders surge and he doesn't want anyone to dismiss it.
"Some might protest that Sanders’s chances of beating Clinton remain slim. This may be true, but it’s also not really relevant. There’s something presumptuous about declaring that a particular candidate absolutely can’t win his party’s nomination. Who are we to say? Shouldn’t we avoid making prophecies that could become self-fulfilling? On the other hand, reality is what it is and it’s fine to acknowledge it, so long as we don’t let it lead us to ignore what’s actually happening."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/02/bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump-are-making-the-race-a-lot-more-interesting/
What I find interesting is that he seems to worry that saying Sanders isn't going to win will be self-fulfilling. So is he saying that polls are self-fulfilling? Are all predictions self-fulfilling? In a way that gives us power-it makes polls little more than a placebo effect.
Clearly not all predictions are self-fulfilling-meteorologists can predict all they like that a tornado is coming but if they're wrong they're repeated predictions make it not one white more likely that there will be one.
Maybe because we're talking about human affairs here rather than nature the matter is different? Of course, here's the problem: I want Hillary to win so if simply saying she will win will make her more likely to do so than I might as well keep saying she's going to win.
Harry Enten too is throwing mud in Waldman's eye:
"If Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont wins the Democratic nomination, then everything we know about presidential primaries can be thrown out the window. I say this despite new polls this week fromMorning Consult and Suffolk University giving Sanders more than 30 percent of the vote and closing within 12 percentage points of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. These polls have already generated tons of headlines, but it’s important to keep in mind that even presidential steamrollers hit speed bumps and even — gasp! — lose states."
"Consider the top five candidates in early polling in modern primary history: Republican Ronald Reagan for the 1980 nomination, Republican George H.W. Bush for 1988, Republican George W. Bush for 2000, Republican Bob Dole for 1996 and Democrat Al Gore for2000. All went on to win at least 59 percent of the national primary vote and easily take the nomination. All were polling at 35 percent or better in Iowa, New Hampshire and national primary polls at this point in their campaigns."
"And yet, all but Gore lost the Iowa caucus or the New Hampshire primary.1 In fact, all but Gore lost at least six caucuses or primaries."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-to-make-of-the-bernie-sanders-surge/
If you remember 1999, there was a point when we were hearing the media losing itself over the Bradley surge:
"Gore had an easier time than anyone else — he won more than 75 percent of the national primary vote and all 50 states — but even his campaign had its wobbly moments. Some polls had Bill Bradley wiping out Gore’s New Hampshire lead completely in the fall of 1999. Gore’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, was even forced out of Gore’s orbit in early August 1999."
"Clinton looks as strong as — or stronger than — any of these past front-runners. She is near 60 percent in Iowa and nationally, and above 40 percent in New Hampshire. It shouldn’t be too surprising that Sanders is doing well in New Hampshire, Vermont’s neighbor. Sanders might win New Hampshire! He (or another Democrat) might win several states. Again, front-runners — even historically dominant front-runners — typically taste the bitterness of defeat at least a couple of times."
Turns out Sanders himself is not without flaws which you'd never get from talking to a Bernie maniac:
"But the foundational flaws in Sanders’ candidacy are pretty easy to spot. Sanders may be polling well in mostly white New Hampshire, but he hasn’t been able to figure out how to earn more than 5 percent of the nonwhite vote, according to national polls. Nonwhite voters make up more than a third of Democratic primary voters nationally."
"Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine why someone who has described himself as a socialist, has never competed for minority voters and has no roots within the Democratic Party should worry Clinton much. She might actually be relieved to be challenged by someone who has so little chance at winning the nomination. Let’s imagine a case where Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire. In that world, you’d likely see the Democratic establishment rush in to try to squash Sanders, much as Republicans did to Newt Gingrich in 2012 after he won South Carolina."
Doesn't sound like Hillary needs self-fulfilling prophecies to win. But just in case Waldman is right I better keep making them.
Maybe many agree with him but it doesn't excite me. To me what's interesting is a discussion about who will win in 2016 not the novelty of interesting diversions. Trump is a bad bigoted, joke who's saving grace is that he hurts the Republicans the longer everyone is talking about him.
Of course, Waldman is really enjoying the Sanders surge and he doesn't want anyone to dismiss it.
"Some might protest that Sanders’s chances of beating Clinton remain slim. This may be true, but it’s also not really relevant. There’s something presumptuous about declaring that a particular candidate absolutely can’t win his party’s nomination. Who are we to say? Shouldn’t we avoid making prophecies that could become self-fulfilling? On the other hand, reality is what it is and it’s fine to acknowledge it, so long as we don’t let it lead us to ignore what’s actually happening."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/02/bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump-are-making-the-race-a-lot-more-interesting/
What I find interesting is that he seems to worry that saying Sanders isn't going to win will be self-fulfilling. So is he saying that polls are self-fulfilling? Are all predictions self-fulfilling? In a way that gives us power-it makes polls little more than a placebo effect.
Clearly not all predictions are self-fulfilling-meteorologists can predict all they like that a tornado is coming but if they're wrong they're repeated predictions make it not one white more likely that there will be one.
Maybe because we're talking about human affairs here rather than nature the matter is different? Of course, here's the problem: I want Hillary to win so if simply saying she will win will make her more likely to do so than I might as well keep saying she's going to win.
Harry Enten too is throwing mud in Waldman's eye:
"If Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont wins the Democratic nomination, then everything we know about presidential primaries can be thrown out the window. I say this despite new polls this week fromMorning Consult and Suffolk University giving Sanders more than 30 percent of the vote and closing within 12 percentage points of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. These polls have already generated tons of headlines, but it’s important to keep in mind that even presidential steamrollers hit speed bumps and even — gasp! — lose states."
"Consider the top five candidates in early polling in modern primary history: Republican Ronald Reagan for the 1980 nomination, Republican George H.W. Bush for 1988, Republican George W. Bush for 2000, Republican Bob Dole for 1996 and Democrat Al Gore for2000. All went on to win at least 59 percent of the national primary vote and easily take the nomination. All were polling at 35 percent or better in Iowa, New Hampshire and national primary polls at this point in their campaigns."
"And yet, all but Gore lost the Iowa caucus or the New Hampshire primary.1 In fact, all but Gore lost at least six caucuses or primaries."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-to-make-of-the-bernie-sanders-surge/
If you remember 1999, there was a point when we were hearing the media losing itself over the Bradley surge:
"Gore had an easier time than anyone else — he won more than 75 percent of the national primary vote and all 50 states — but even his campaign had its wobbly moments. Some polls had Bill Bradley wiping out Gore’s New Hampshire lead completely in the fall of 1999. Gore’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, was even forced out of Gore’s orbit in early August 1999."
"Clinton looks as strong as — or stronger than — any of these past front-runners. She is near 60 percent in Iowa and nationally, and above 40 percent in New Hampshire. It shouldn’t be too surprising that Sanders is doing well in New Hampshire, Vermont’s neighbor. Sanders might win New Hampshire! He (or another Democrat) might win several states. Again, front-runners — even historically dominant front-runners — typically taste the bitterness of defeat at least a couple of times."
Turns out Sanders himself is not without flaws which you'd never get from talking to a Bernie maniac:
"But the foundational flaws in Sanders’ candidacy are pretty easy to spot. Sanders may be polling well in mostly white New Hampshire, but he hasn’t been able to figure out how to earn more than 5 percent of the nonwhite vote, according to national polls. Nonwhite voters make up more than a third of Democratic primary voters nationally."
"Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine why someone who has described himself as a socialist, has never competed for minority voters and has no roots within the Democratic Party should worry Clinton much. She might actually be relieved to be challenged by someone who has so little chance at winning the nomination. Let’s imagine a case where Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire. In that world, you’d likely see the Democratic establishment rush in to try to squash Sanders, much as Republicans did to Newt Gingrich in 2012 after he won South Carolina."
Doesn't sound like Hillary needs self-fulfilling prophecies to win. But just in case Waldman is right I better keep making them.
No comments:
Post a Comment