MetaTalk

Sometime around the last presidential election, someone linked to a post made by a POC explaining why they thought that POC were less likely to support Sanders than they were to support Clinton. The gist of it was that POC were more likely to support the political and economic conditions already in place because those systems were relatively predictable, and unpredictable systems were more likely to redound to the detriment of POC. I'm pretty sure the post was on Reddit, but I'm not positive. I also don't think this was in a megathread because I don't think the megathreads even existed yet, but I'm not sure. Can anyone help me out?
posted by holborne on Sep 19, 2019 - 3 comments

Back in January, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, I set up an election prediction contest for you fine folks, and got 74 ballots in response. Nearly ten months (and ten million comments) later, the results are in: congratulations to Cash4Lead, for his remarkably far-sighted prediction of the winners of Iowa, New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, the nominations, the House majority, and even Clinton's VP pick! A $50 donation to the charity of your choice is yours. Oodles more analysis of the collective wisdom inside [more inside]
posted by Rhaomi on Nov 20, 2016 - 14 comments

It's been an unbelievably unpredictable primary season this year, and the Iowa caucuses are less than 30 hours away. So why not get ahead of the curve with a TRUMP-SIZED election prediction contest? I'm thinking Iowa (Dem/GOP), New Hampshire (Dem/GOP), Super Tuesday (Dem/GOP), final nominee (Dem/GOP), and general election winner, with ties broken by House/Senate control, Veepstakes speculation, and as much analysis/rationalization/weeping as you feel appropriate. Prize: One (1) $50 ($fifty) donation to the charity of your choice (split equally if necessary), and eternal bragging rights over the ruins of the punditocracy. Deadline is 8:00 PM Eastern time Monday, when the caucuses start. (Feel free to enter after Iowa or New Hampshire vote, but be advised that your prediction for those states will not count!) See inside for entry form. [more inside]
posted by Rhaomi on Jan 31, 2016 - 141 comments

Seeing that, by any other name pundit Frank Rich's essentially anti Clinton bloviaton was given space on the blue for the measure of 131 comments last I looked, I thought it appropriate to post two articles that past muster with Washington Post and was found politically and factually correct to be published. One is about the misogynistic comments across the board against Hillary Clinton --and Howard Dean and the DNC's silence about it, and the other is about the newest wave of belittling "Poor Hillary." Both articles reveal the difficulties the Democrats may face by their own antagonized and disenfranchised Hillary supporters, which I believe worthy of consideration. Yet the post disappeared in a hurry without a trace. What gives?
posted by semmi on May 16, 2008 - 234 comments

So, if this is election minutiae, is this? And can we assume that a ElectionFilter FPP formulated like this is OK?
posted by dw on Jan 20, 2007 - 55 comments