Then I’ll turn right around and make the same point about your understanding of statistical analysis. 2-d grids and 3-d cubes???? What is going on inside your mind??? That has nothing whatsoever to do with basic statistics.
I am obviously talking about MULTIVARIATE distributions, where the distribution overlay can be mapped onto a 2-d grid or into a 3-d space. Your ‘model’ assumes
- The left-right distribution is a comprehensive method of measuring political opinion
- The left-right distribution is mostly normal
- The left-right distribution closely represents actual voting behavior
I reject this model because it is over-determined and does not track real-world behavior. For example, my own mother, a staunch conservative, told me she would vote Sanders over Trump in a head-to-head matchup after watching his Fox News town hall. Did she suddenly find herself on the ‘left’ side of your proposed distribution? No. She perceived Sanders as honest and genuine. So ‘genuineness vs ingenuousness’ is another (possibly more relevant) distribution to consider.
Mr. Sanders’ overall approach is wildly irrational. That’s why he’s popular with his base; they love the idea of tearing everything down and starting afresh.
What is your evidence for this? How is EXPANDING an already existing and wildly popular program like Medicare “tearing everything down”? Implementing a Green New Deal or Federal Jobs Guarantee, which will generate millions of jobs, is “tearing everything down”? How ridiculous. Whereas the supposedly ‘rational’ course of action is to beat our heads against the wall and try the same failed strategies of the past decade.
Let’s say, for simplicity of argument, that the choice Democrats face in nominating a candidate is between Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders. Which candidate is more likely to win a crushing victory? I would hope that you are rational enough to recognize that a candidate as far to the left as Mr. Sanders will only trigger a wave of Republican opposition, whereas a candidate closer to the center will be less threatening to the right.
Elizabeth Warren is NOT less threatening to the right. You are still relying on your terribly flawed ‘left-right’ distribution. To Republicans, Bernie and Warren are identical from a policy perspective. What will matter in the race in terms of ‘inciting the opposition’ are the less tangible personal traits. Hilary Clinton was a centrist neoliberal through and through, and I have never seen such absolute heated vitriol directed at a candidate from the Right. From the ‘left-right’ perspective, she should’ve been more or less acceptable to so-called ‘moderate’ Republicans. Obviously, this was not the case. She was hated, despised, and the opposition was able to rally around distaste for her. It was her class presentation and relation to establishment politics which allowed for this. From that perspective, Warren is far more similar to Hilary 2.0 than Bernie. But I’ve already covered this in a previous reply. Bernie Sanders does typically lead Warren by a significant margin in favorability polling.
There is no statistical foundation for giving either candidate a lead.
The fact that Sanders’ campaign is targeted at activating a previously dormant electorate and he is STILL neck-and-neck with Warren in the general election polls, which target likely voters based on past performance, gives the edge to Sanders. That and the fact that we already saw Sanders outperform his poll numbers in the 2016 primary.