Is The Party Deciding? l FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast

Views 7 063
90% 90 10

The podcast crew checks in on the race for endorsements in the Democratic primary.
Website: fivethirtyeight.com/
Twitter: twitter.com/fivethirtyeight/
Facebook: facebook.com/fivethirtyeight/
Podcast: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/fivethirtyeight-politics/id1077418457?mt=2
Merch: fivethirtyeight.com/store

Published on


Dec 3, 2019




Loading link...

Add to:

My playlist
Watch later
Comments 41
Paddle Duck
Paddle Duck Month ago
Talk about California.
Mario Quezada
Mario Quezada Month ago
Came here for the Michael Barbaro hmmm 25:50 Do I sense sparks??
Sean Whitehall
Sean Whitehall Month ago
Obama was an upfront centrist once he was in office, not during the campaign.
Comrade LeBitch
Comrade LeBitch Month ago
Obama is a AZZHOLE!!!
Lelyn Masters
Lelyn Masters Month ago
I would buy a 538 coffee mug that was cute. Like: "One Poll is Not News" or "I Can't Tell the Signal from the Noise until I've had my coffee."
magikkel Month ago
yup, came here for the looks. Nice hook.
john wonder
john wonder Month ago
Wow ,people this boring really should bring some graphics or something , to liven up the broadcast.
paradoxmo Month ago
john wonder it’s a podcast... they’re just putting it on RUvid. You’re meant to just listen to it.
Yang Gang
Yang Gang Month ago
Nate this is for you 🧢
Penny Lane
Penny Lane Month ago
None of these people look like they're supposed to look according to how I pictured them in my head while listening to the podcast. This kind of cognitive dissonance is very uncomfortable. So guys, please contact me for notes to give to your plastic surgeon.
Eric Thomas
Eric Thomas Month ago
33:22 Claire get's so defensive whenever someone brings up even a small fault about Warren, it's almost expected every podcast at this point
Geli Month ago
The only person here who gets defensive is me when you talk smack about Claire 😂
Maino1 Month ago
That's a pretty extraordinary thing to glean from that time-stamp. She didn't get remotely defensive.
Jeff J
Jeff J Month ago
The video edition of the podcast could pepper the screen with charts and data. You know, make it worthwhile to switch from the audio version of the podcast. It is 2019 and video editing software has been around for decades...
soulistheanswer Month ago
I remember watching an episode with graphs, but that might just be my imagination
Penny Lane
Penny Lane Month ago
You can also pepper the screen of podcast player software with charts and data and I would like that very much!
Luis Martinez
Luis Martinez Month ago
Comrade LeBitch
Comrade LeBitch Month ago
Piss on Bern!!!🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕
henry navarro
henry navarro Month ago
So why did they name this podcast after the electoral college? Mean something to you?
henry navarro
henry navarro Month ago
@paradoxmo throwing dice
paradoxmo Month ago
Nik Blackwell I understand what you’re trying to say, but accuracy here isn’t just measured by whether their top line prediction “came true”, this is an incorrect way to see a 75% chance. They also analyzed individual states, districts, and precincts to come up with their analysis, and most of their predicted results were very close to the final vote count. For example, some of the swing states were only won by Trump by less than 1%, which was within the margin of error. This is why there was a 25% chance of Trump winning. 25%, or 1 in 4, is a lot.
Nik Blackwell
Nik Blackwell Month ago
@paradoxmo I think it's misleading to call it one of the most accurate. Better to say one of the least inaccurate. Pedantic, I know.
henry navarro
henry navarro Month ago
@paradoxmo thank you for clarifying brother
paradoxmo Month ago
henry navarro sorry, maybe I wasn’t so clear. Those numbers I cited were not margins, they were calculated probabilities of the outcome, so what they said was that there was a 3 in 4 chance that Hillary would win based on their analysis. Trump winning was for them a very real possibility, and they never said that Hillary would definitively win, unlike many other news outlets which seemed to take it as a given. FiveThirtyEight was actually criticized by other news organizations for giving Hillary what was thought to be too low of a chance of winning. But their analysis turned out to be one of the most accurate in 2016.
Peter Linfield
Peter Linfield Month ago
I've listened to the podcast for so long that now seeing your faces is a strange cognitive dissonance. Can't wait for the field to winnow!
Penny Lane
Penny Lane Month ago
Haha, not only do I feel the exact same way but also is "cognitive dissonance" the exact word I chose. Funny :D
Canyon Racer
Canyon Racer Month ago
No Malarkey.....No Joe Biden! Not my candidate, no matter how much you say it is!
Tubby Shamwow
Tubby Shamwow Month ago
are you willing to go so far as to not vote for him, or even vote for trump in 2020, if biden were to win the democratic presidential nomination?
Michael Spooner
Michael Spooner Month ago
Keep the jackets, guys. Class things up
Ochuko Kpolugbo
Ochuko Kpolugbo Month ago
I came here from the podcast on fivethirtyeight.com specifically to see how dapper you guys are, and the video doesn't work!
Luis Martinez
Luis Martinez Month ago
I want to watch this
Next videos