It’s SCIENCE! (More swill from Vox)

No doubt the Clinton camp will be flogging this piece from Vox cautioning against “nominating a candidate like Sanders as opposed to a more moderate Democrat” as doing so “creates the risk of a penalty at the ballot box.”

These cautions emanate from six credentialed professors of “political science”. And, so the story goes, they are not just the usual bar-room electoral blather deriving from the great unwashed such as you or I. These findings are backed by the authority of science. So, Sandernistas, STFU and listen to your betters getting in line on the Hillary express or you will be blamed for your role in electing the next in a series of Republican brownshirts etc.

It’s worth taking a step back to consider the obvious question which Vox, no doubt, failed to ask of these distinguished scholars. When Sanders was polling at 10% in Iowa did any of you predict that in a few months he would tie with Clinton in the Iowa caucus. Or how many of you predicted his showing in a recent Quinnipiac poll as neck and neck with Clinton nationally? While I haven’t checked the public pronouncements of these particular members of the fraternity, it’s a reasonably safe bet that none did.

That raises the further question: if your models failed to predict the present, on what basis should we be relying on your “scientific” predictions for the future.

The answer is none-obviously. The article is simply bar-room blather wrapping itself in the mantle of science to browbeat Sanders supporters into submission.

It won’t work. And God knows it shouldn’t.

Spread the News

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *