i watched the segment. and, excuse me for being predictable in rejecting the media narrative, but what i saw was a rookie politician get spun around in circles by an experienced journalist. he simply didn't know how to answer the question in the way that would be most beneficial to him. see, he knew he was supposed to be tough on abortion, and consequently didn't want a sound clip that could be used against him. this is the bedrock of the republican party. but, trump is not a republican - he's a nihilist that is pretending to be a republican for personal gain. he's not actually pro-life. and, so he simply didn't know what the base of the party he's pretending to represent actually wants. trump's response was what he thought that republican voters wanted to hear. it is reflective of trump's perspective of what he thinks the republican party is.
here's the funny thing: his answer to the gay marriage question, right after, was the same as clinton's - it's up to the courts. and, it was presented with no hesitation.
what i got from the exchange is that donald trump is a psychopathic liar that will say whatever he thinks will get him elected. and, i don't even think that he's even pro-life.
i will repeat the observation that the video is based on flawed reasoning. it's wrong to judge somebody by what they look like, but that guy that hit you with a skateboard strikes me as an anarchist (and probably doesn't vote). but, what i actually want to point out is that it is nice to see that the media narrative of the spineless, pacifist liberal is finally disappearing. as an anarchist of the left, this is something that has bothered me for years - this false association of the left with peacenik hippie dipshits. we need to bring the fight back into the left. and, breaking down this vietnam war era media strawman of the left is really fundamentally important in doing so.
this is racist pseudo-science. file under phrenology, and racial-based intelligence testing. and the media is just cramming it down everybody's throats. if you need evidence of hierarchical, systemic racism? look no further than the clinton campaign's race relations strategy, and it's parroting in the media.
i've demonstrated repeatedly that there isn't even a really meaningful correlation. the real correlation is over age. so, the correlative basis of the logical error of saying "she wins because of black voters" isn't even true in the first place. so, it shouldn't be surprising to anybody that the models have consistently been 10-15 points off in making predictions. the racist models suggested she would do better in illinois than ohio, for example - something that was obviously absurd to anybody with a cursory understanding of the cultures of these places (ohio voted for bush!). and, it's likewise absolutely ridiculous to suggest that sanders will win west virginia, but i'll get to that in a moment.
as the data has come in, we've learned that sanders has been competitive with young blacks in less conservative states. he has not been competitive with older blacks. but, he has not been competitive with older whites, either. he has just broadly not been competitive with old people. that's the real connection. and, that's the reason florida was such a rout.
the real lesson to take away from the demographics is that young blacks are voting at a dramatically lower level, proportionally, than young whites. there is obviously a serious issue of disengagement with the traditional political system. if young blacks were voting at the same percentage as young whites, sanders would be carrying the black vote in the northern states. and, that's actually a serious issue. it's something the media should be strenuously focusing on. why aren't young blacks voting at the same levels as young whites?
but, we haven't had an opportunity, yet, to turn the models on their heads. i was hoping hawaii would be the first break, but the reality is that there wasn't any polling done there. the rust belt states should be interpreted as blurring the correlations; they haven't been interpreted as they should, but there wasn't anywhere where the predictions were dramatically wrong, either. so, the pseudo-science can maintain a line of plausibility by pointing to error.
again: i'm suggesting it's a proxy variable. so, you can accidentally get to the right answers so long as it continues to be the case that
(1) all the states with high black populations have overwhelmingly right-leaning bases of democrats.
(2) all the states with low black populations have overwhelmingly left-leaning bases of democrats.
you'd get it right every time. but by accident. you haven't even attempted to falsify it, yet. you haven't done the proper experiment. there are two types of states that have not yet voted:
(1) states with high black populations that are left-leaning. this would include maryland, dc and delaware.
(2) states with low black populations that are right-leaning. this would include kentucky and west virginia.
i need to reiterate: these tests have not been done. we do not know their outcome. but, in order to put any faith in the model, it is necessary to test them. one should not say that maryland should vote for clinton because it has a lot of blacks. one should say that we can only determine the relationship between skin colour and voting intention by controlling for ideology, and that maryland/delaware/dc are essential in building the dataset.
so, do not listen to these people. their models should not be able to predict the results in the following states:
1) new york [liberal, with blacks]
2) maryland [liberal, with blacks]
3) delaware [liberal, with blacks]
4) west viriginia [conservative, few blacks]
5) kentucky [conservative, few blacks]
6) new jersey [liberal, with blacks]
7) dc [liberal, with blacks]
however. once the new york primary is done, you will at least have some data. i am not likely to claim it will be very useful. but, the argument will at least be different.
again: you can't use what you have to predict new york. rather, the results of new york are a pre-condition to the coherency of the model.