4 ms·

"It's probably worth noting that while this group, Justice Democrats, calls Biden "out-of-touch" with the "center of energy" in the Democratic Party, only 26 of

"It's probably worth noting that while this group, Justice Democrats, calls Biden "out-of-touch" with the "center of energy" in the Democratic Party, only 26 of the 79 candidates it endorsed last year won their primaries, and only 7 of those went on to win the general election." Please explain to me what is the point of such a tweet.

paulgb 8y ago
It contextualizes a remark from a group that claims to speak for the party's electorate by providing hard numbers. That's what people who follow Nate expect from him on Twitter. Edit: to be fair, if memory serves JD mostly/entirely endorsed primary challenges rather than incumbents. The base rate for primary challengers is pretty low, so ~1/3 is a respectable win rate and I would concede that it's a little disingenuous not to mention that.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  The group doesn't claim to speak for the part’s electorate. It claims to speak for a particular ideological faction, toward which it also claims the party electorate has moved since the last election, so that a candidate representing the faction that was uncontroversially still dominant in 2016 is now out of line with the dominant view in the party. Nate seems to be implicitly arguing out that that claim would not have been inaccurate if made in 2016 (and further that the claim that may have been implied but was not made that the same faction is positioned for success in the general election should it succeed in the party nominating contests would also.have been untrue if made in 2016.) But that is silly, since it's a claim about how the 2020 landscape is difft than 2016. Or, maybe Nate is conflating endorsements with predictions rather than advocacy, and trying to argue that the rate of success of the groups endorsements is somehow indicative of the reliability of their descriptive statements. Or maybe Nate, who aside from running a prediction site is also an activist aligned with the faction being criticized against the one doing the criticism, is not posing a rational argument at all, just trying to provoke an emotional response by posting something that vaguely insinuates that the criticizers are wrong in some way.
  - objektif 8y ago
    Eloquent writing definitely helps explain my point better. Thanks.
- objektif 8y ago
  This does not contextualize anything in any way. He is selectively picking data to form a narrative. I dont think you are objective at all so I will stop trying to convince you but lastly think about this: Why doesnt Nate reply to Neera Tanden, CAP or Nancy Pelosi with “stats” on medicare for all support which is polling at 72%?
  - paulgb 8y ago
    > I dont think you are objective If you're implying I'm pro-Biden, for the record, he isn't even in my top three. I don't read Nate because he supports my beliefs, I read him because I think he has a good-faith interest in accurate predictions (even if it is impossible for a human being to be 100% objective)
rustyboy 8y ago
That statistically the fringe wing's candidates don't win?
- objektif 8y ago
  Fringe!!! You would name Bernie and AOC and politicians with similiar ideology fringe candidates? This is trying to form a narrative by nitpicking data.
the_watcher 8y ago
He forecasts elections, and his models include endorsements. This tweet discusses a group that issues endorsements, their stance on a candidate who just entered a primary, and the win rate of candidates endorsed by said group. This is essentially a perfect tweet illustrating something that a forecaster would do.
- objektif 8y ago
  I still expect him to tweet to Biden saying he ran 2 times and won 0 times.
  - the_watcher 8y ago
    The fact that he hasn't tweeted about every possible statistic is irrelevant to your ask about "the point" of the referenced tweet.
    - objektif 8y ago
      Aahh still going over your head. The whole point I am trying to make is that anybody who is fully objective and data driven would refrain from making such statements online, especially when it is uncalled for. Nate has been consistently taking a pro-establishment stance even when he was proven wrong over and over again. To say it in another way he could have said: Justice Democrats, founded in 2017, went from having zero members in the House to 7 within a year. Including AOC, one of the most popular politicians in the US.
      - the_watcher 8y ago
        It's not going over my head. You support Justice Democrats.

paulgb 8y ago

It contextualizes a remark from a group that claims to speak for the party's electorate by providing hard numbers. That's what people who follow Nate expect from him on Twitter. Edit: to be fair, if memory serves JD mostly/entirely endorsed primary challenges rather than incumbents. The base rate for primary challengers is pretty low, so ~1/3 is a respectable win rate and I would concede that it's a little disingenuous not to mention that.

dragonwriter 8y ago
The group doesn't claim to speak for the part’s electorate. It claims to speak for a particular ideological faction, toward which it also claims the party electorate has moved since the last election, so that a candidate representing the faction that was uncontroversially still dominant in 2016 is now out of line with the dominant view in the party. Nate seems to be implicitly arguing out that that claim would not have been inaccurate if made in 2016 (and further that the claim that may have been implied but was not made that the same faction is positioned for success in the general election should it succeed in the party nominating contests would also.have been untrue if made in 2016.) But that is silly, since it's a claim about how the 2020 landscape is difft than 2016. Or, maybe Nate is conflating endorsements with predictions rather than advocacy, and trying to argue that the rate of success of the groups endorsements is somehow indicative of the reliability of their descriptive statements. Or maybe Nate, who aside from running a prediction site is also an activist aligned with the faction being criticized against the one doing the criticism, is not posing a rational argument at all, just trying to provoke an emotional response by posting something that vaguely insinuates that the criticizers are wrong in some way.
- objektif 8y ago
  Eloquent writing definitely helps explain my point better. Thanks.
objektif 8y ago
This does not contextualize anything in any way. He is selectively picking data to form a narrative. I dont think you are objective at all so I will stop trying to convince you but lastly think about this: Why doesnt Nate reply to Neera Tanden, CAP or Nancy Pelosi with “stats” on medicare for all support which is polling at 72%?
- paulgb 8y ago
  > I dont think you are objective If you're implying I'm pro-Biden, for the record, he isn't even in my top three. I don't read Nate because he supports my beliefs, I read him because I think he has a good-faith interest in accurate predictions (even if it is impossible for a human being to be 100% objective)

rustyboy 8y ago

That statistically the fringe wing's candidates don't win?

objektif 8y ago
Fringe!!! You would name Bernie and AOC and politicians with similiar ideology fringe candidates? This is trying to form a narrative by nitpicking data.

the_watcher 8y ago

He forecasts elections, and his models include endorsements. This tweet discusses a group that issues endorsements, their stance on a candidate who just entered a primary, and the win rate of candidates endorsed by said group. This is essentially a perfect tweet illustrating something that a forecaster would do.

objektif 8y ago
I still expect him to tweet to Biden saying he ran 2 times and won 0 times.
- the_watcher 8y ago
  The fact that he hasn't tweeted about every possible statistic is irrelevant to your ask about "the point" of the referenced tweet.
  - objektif 8y ago
    Aahh still going over your head. The whole point I am trying to make is that anybody who is fully objective and data driven would refrain from making such statements online, especially when it is uncalled for. Nate has been consistently taking a pro-establishment stance even when he was proven wrong over and over again. To say it in another way he could have said: Justice Democrats, founded in 2017, went from having zero members in the House to 7 within a year. Including AOC, one of the most popular politicians in the US.
    - the_watcher 8y ago
      It's not going over my head. You support Justice Democrats.