Werthless wrote:Pete's argument, that expertise matters more than experience, is not one that resonates with many people in today's world. It's not an emotional argument that people intuit, but a rhetorical point of someone without experience. This is not a world where expertise is treasured or valued, especially among low-information voters.

But isn't this Trump's whole schtick (or a big part of it). He's an expert and knows everything more and better than the people that actually have the experience.

It does seem to me that, after last night, if "moderate" Democrats were smart, they'd read the handwriting on the wall, abandon all the joker candidates like rats leaving a sinking ship (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg) and get aboard the Warren train as fast as their legs could carry them. She is invested enough in the status quo to present as non-threatening, but has significant cred with the left.

Also I love her.

JUburton wrote:Anyway we're all boned regardless

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status ... 3086439425

Dude is going to lose by 4 points nationally and still win, what a time to be alive.

Who wrote this? Sanders "narrowly defeats" Trump by 5 percent in Michigan and yet Pete and Warren "get X percent" Trump with only a 2 percent margin.

JUburton wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

JUburton wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

JUburton wrote:Anyway we're all boned regardless

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status ... 3086439425

Dude is going to lose by 4 points nationally and still win, what a time to be alive.

I don’t know, picking up PA and Wisconsin while swinging Arizona would be enough. But yea, the electoral college is not our friend right now.

https://www.270towin.com/maps/Q6JRY

The true nightmare scenario.

House elects the POTUS in that case so it is actually a dream scenario for Dems.

It's by state delegation (each state gets one vote) which I would have to assume would be Republican. Though if some states are ties and its like 24-22-4, then it goes to the senate to pick the VP who will be pres while the house figures it out!

Obviously this is super rare not going to happen territory and I'm just having fun.

It's unlikely just because there are so many other possible outcomes. But honestly, of all the possible outcomes, this has to be one of the more likely ones. I could see the election going exactly like that.

I think the election will hinge on WI, which is why the GOP has put so much energy into suppressing the vote there. Expect shenanigans in Milwaukee this november. I doubt the turnout in any city in the country will effect the election more than Milwaukee. That's a guess, of course.

06hawkalum wrote:Stone only sentenced to 40 months.

Gross.

You've got to be joking.

The "moderate" candidates were all kinda meh. At this point I think if any of them get the nomination we are looking at Hillary 2.0

I can see Warren and Sanders generating the most turnout but will that make up for the independents who won't vote for them? Would there be democrat voters who wouldn't vote for them in the general? I doubt it.

My issue with Sanders is that his biggest campaign promise of Medicare for All is never going to happen unless: democrats win 60 seats in the Senate (I'm not sure there are enough seats in play for this) or the Senate eliminates the filibuster (which I believe Sanders says he against).

Now if Warren wins I think she would choose the path most likely to pass (public option?). However, I believe she would be in favor of eliminating the filibuster at which point anything goes.

Brantt wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:Stone only sentenced to 40 months.

Gross.

You've got to be joking.

No worries. I'm sure Trump already has the paperwork started to have him pardoned. They'll be out breaking the law together again in no time.

Phred wrote:

Werthless wrote:Pete's argument, that expertise matters more than experience, is not one that resonates with many people in today's world. It's not an emotional argument that people intuit, but a rhetorical point of someone without experience. This is not a world where expertise is treasured or valued, especially among low-information voters.

But isn't this Trump's whole schtick (or a big part of it). He's an expert and knows everything more and better than the people that actually have the experience.

I think you're agreeing with me. Anybody can claim the mantle of expertise, without, you know, any actual expertise in a subject. It's why people that study climate change science are not who we (as an American people) turn to for information about climate change. Pete is arguing that Klobuchar does not have expertise on immigration, despite having experience, and that makes her unqualified to be President. I'm saying it doesn't matter. Specifically, it doesn't matter to a low information voter, because they don't care whether Klobuchar is truly an immigration expert or not. That doesn't matter much in the primary, and that doesn't matter at all in the general election. It's why I thought it was a losing argument for Pete (and I don't think he came across well in his aggressive attacks on Klobuchar).

I don't need to remind anyone that we elected an outsider in 2016, who ran on a platform of limited experience in politics. When he didnt know something, that just proved his value as being one of "us." He was authentic to a large enough proportion of voters, in the states that mattered, that he won. It's not the set of policy positions that is going to produce a winner in 2020, IMO. It's the authenticity of the Democratic candidate, the ability of that candidate to humanize their policies, and connect them to people's day-to-day lives. I think healthcare is a huge potential win for the Democratic party if they can connect what their policies will do for everyday Americans, and a differentiator that could yield wins down-ballot. If they can't humanize it -- it should be easy, but Sanders was the only one on the stage that was attempting to frame it as a human right -- then they'll probably lose, because the debates with Trump will be about "economy this, dollars and cents that, deficits this, tariffs that, etc."

January Franklin & Marshall poll on fracking:

There is no consensus among Pennsylvania’s registered voters about the benefits, costs, consequences, or support for natural gas extraction. More voters support (48%) than oppose (44%) shale drilling in the state, although more believe the environmental risks (49%) of natural gas drilling outweigh the economic benefits than believe the economic benefits outweigh the environmental risks (38%). Registered voters are nearly equally divided about whether the quality of life in the communities where drilling takes place is improved (35%) or reduced (38%) by its presence. Slightly more registered voters favor (48%) a ban on hydraulic fracturing than oppose it (39%).

CalvinBall wrote:Been going to this leadership class once a month. We share like highs and lows to open up each session. One woman who is in management of a health network locally said a sector of their employees are trying to unionize and it is bad news for her and her team. Wanted to throw her out a window. Must be very hard when underpaid, overworked people speak up.

LEADERSHIP IS ENSURING YOUR UNDERLINGS KNOW THEIR PLACE

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

JUburton wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Because rather than giving a positive, hopeful view of what a Democratic administration might look like, the candidates spent most of the night in a sophomoric food fight launching gotchas and tearing each other apart, revealing the intractable divisions in the Party and bringing down the Party as a whole.

Did you watch the Republican primary debates?

:praisehands 2016 GOP debates almost literally turned into a dick measuring contest

This #$!&@ will not matter one bit come the general. Let them fight.

It will matter a great deal.

It will matter a great deal because the party won't unite behind the Dem Primary winner? Or that Trump will reference disagreement in an ad or debate? I agree with Calvinball's point that the sophomoric and acrimonious Republican debate arguments had no effect on the general.

lack of unity during 2016 was overrated and it's overrated now. it's simply that the Democratic Party isn't a monolithic group like the Republican Party. 2016 was a tough election, and the layout of the electoral college makes 2020 a tough one as well. Our democracy is and will continue to slowly go away from us as we continue to let the popular vote edges further and further away from the enforced outcome. our nation is increasingly being governed by a minority party, and it shows in the majority party being denied victories it has earned and scrambling to figure out how to work in a system designed for it to 'lose".

Werthless wrote:Pete's argument, that expertise matters more than experience, is not one that resonates with many people in today's world. It's not an emotional argument that people intuit, but a rhetorical point of someone without experience. This is not a world where expertise is treasured or valued, especially among low-information voters.

also, expertise in what, exactly? Buttigeg was mayor of a small city and worked for a management consulting outfit. if this is the expertise needed to run the country, IDK

jerseyhoya wrote:Wouldn't overreact to any single debate. Very likely nothing said last night is going to have a material effect on the general election.

That said, I wouldn't glibly say 'hey, look at the Republicans in 2016! this stuff doesn't have an impact.' Donald Trump was elected president of the United States by the narrowest of margins while losing the popular vote by more than 2%. Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin got almost a combined 4% of the vote, where Johnson got 1% in 2012. Trump won, but he got less of the vote share than Romney did in 2012. Though it did not cost Trump the election due to the vagaries of the electoral college and the unpopularity of Hillary Clinton, and it's easy to envision an acrimonious primary battle leading to spill off in the general in a way that does cost the Democrats in November. I think the logic of 'the Republicans did X, and the Republicans won, therefore X didn't hurt the Republicans (or maybe even helped them!)' is very lacking and in this case wrong. The GOP primary in 2016 probably cost the GOP nominee votes in November, just not enough to make him lose.

Which election had primary debates that had no negative effect on the general because they were so civil and cordial? I don't buy your commentary on 3rd party vote share being an indicator for this. Did people all vote for Jill Stein because Hillary Clinton was mean to Sanders/Stein, too? How do we think about Ross Perot's support in the context of this debate question? Perhaps, broadly, this would fall under the umbrella of the incumbent advantage, and not having to go through the primary process at all.

McMullin and Johnson got 4%, perhaps, because the conservative candidate for President had admitted to assaulting women and cheating on his wives. It wasn't because Trump was mean to Rubio, and that meanness caused the Rubio supporter to vote 3rd party (select DC voters aside). From the graph below, you can see the large change from 2012 to 2016 among White voters by education. The GOP support jumped by 14% among those without a college degree, and fell 10% among those with a degree. I don't think that behavior reflects the primary process, but instead reflects Trump as a candidate.

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:Pete's argument, that expertise matters more than experience, is not one that resonates with many people in today's world. It's not an emotional argument that people intuit, but a rhetorical point of someone without experience. This is not a world where expertise is treasured or valued, especially among low-information voters.

also, expertise in what, exactly? Buttigeg was mayor of a small city and worked for a management consulting outfit. if this is the expertise needed to run the country, IDK

That's a needle that is difficult to thread. He's essentially saying, and I didnt articulate it earlier, that neither expertise nor experience matter to beating Trump and governing well. Furthermore, the experienced candidates don't even have expertise in ways that matter (ie. having relationships with the leaders of other countries). What matters for a candidate is the principles they would govern by, and being able to build coalitions/inspire people to get stuff done.

He's running as a moderate with the least experience in the field, so he is kind of forced to separate himself by charming the electorate. Basically:

"Hey look, I'm a reasonable guy. I'm poised, can handle myself in a verbal scuffle, and I'm a democrat who effectively managed my city. I've got stuff done. I'm going to right the ship."

I don't think he's done that effectively, and part of the reason why is because I feel that he is less authentic than the other candidates. Yes, I wrote a paper idolizing Bernie Sanders, but now I think he would ruin everything. Yes, I'm not going to do anything different from other candidates on climate change, except I'll do the best job bringing people together. Yes, I'll repeatedly bring up that Sanders' plan results in taxes going up, but I'm going to conveniently ignore that healthcare costs per family would go down by more than the increase in the taxes (according to the independent study just put out by Yale researchers). He's not dumb, and he knows he's misrepresenting their plans.

Note: I went to Klobuchar's site during the debate, and she had a lot of healthcare plan content. Warren won't get criticized for it, but I thought her comments on Klobuchar's plan were unfair.

Outgoing DNI informs House of what we already knew...Russia is already interfering in 2020 elections:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 26688?s=19

JFC, saw a clip of Trump cooing that Comey lied. Creepy.

06hawkalum wrote:Outgoing DNI informs House of what we already knew...Russia is already interfering in 2020 elections:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 26688?s=19

Stable mother trucking genius:

Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia is interfering in the 2020 campaign to get President Trump reelected, The New York Times reported Thursday.

The Feb. 13 briefing by top election security officials at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to the House Intelligence Committee reportedly prompted Trump to berate now-former acting DNI Joseph Maguire, accusing him of disloyalty for allowing the briefing.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... ing-to-get

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Wouldn't overreact to any single debate. Very likely nothing said last night is going to have a material effect on the general election.

That said, I wouldn't glibly say 'hey, look at the Republicans in 2016! this stuff doesn't have an impact.' Donald Trump was elected president of the United States by the narrowest of margins while losing the popular vote by more than 2%. Gary Johnson and Evan McMullin got almost a combined 4% of the vote, where Johnson got 1% in 2012. Trump won, but he got less of the vote share than Romney did in 2012. Though it did not cost Trump the election due to the vagaries of the electoral college and the unpopularity of Hillary Clinton, and it's easy to envision an acrimonious primary battle leading to spill off in the general in a way that does cost the Democrats in November. I think the logic of 'the Republicans did X, and the Republicans won, therefore X didn't hurt the Republicans (or maybe even helped them!)' is very lacking and in this case wrong. The GOP primary in 2016 probably cost the GOP nominee votes in November, just not enough to make him lose.

Which election had primary debates that had no negative effect on the general because they were so civil and cordial? I don't buy your commentary on 3rd party vote share being an indicator for this. Did people all vote for Jill Stein because Hillary Clinton was mean to Sanders/Stein, too? How do we think about Ross Perot's support in the context of this debate question? Perhaps, broadly, this would fall under the umbrella of the incumbent advantage, and not having to go through the primary process at all.

McMullin and Johnson got 4%, perhaps, because the conservative candidate for President had admitted to assaulting women and cheating on his wives. It wasn't because Trump was mean to Rubio, and that meanness caused the Rubio supporter to vote 3rd party (select DC voters aside). From the graph below, you can see the large change from 2012 to 2016 among White voters by education. The GOP support jumped by 14% among those without a college degree, and fell 10% among those with a degree. I don't think that behavior reflects the primary process, but instead reflects Trump as a candidate.

There was no process by which nominating Trump in 2016 wouldn't have been contentious, but the public fights (often at Trump's prompting, but certainly not always) exacerbated things. The party was very divided at the elite level with an unprecedented lack of support from elected officials for the party nominee (and as you all know I believe for good reason). If people traditional Republican voters trusted did more to vouch for Trump during the campaign, I think he would have spilled many fewer votes. And the antipathy developed during the primary made it harder for a lot of people to do so. That doesn't mean they should have vouched for him, just it is what it is.

I don't think as the nominee Bernie Sanders is going to lose a single vote because Mike Bloomberg called him unelectable or said he owned three houses or whatever. But there are quite a few Dem elites who I'm sure think Bernie would be a disaster as a nominee, not a very good president if he did win and think he's awful generally. There are similarly a lot of Dem elites who I'm sure think Bloomberg would be a disaster as a nominee, not a very good president if he did win and think he's awful generally. To the extent these fissures are grown in a contentious primary, they are harder to mend in the general, and easier to re-tear if some scandal or bombshell drops along the way (like the Access Hollywood stuff with Trump). I think personal attacks are harder to get past than ragging on Medicare for All or hitting someone for being against decriminalizing the border or whatever, but sometimes personal attacks are warranted, and all primaries have some degree of nastiness. Doesn't mean it's not harmful.

GOP Facebook account managed from Turkmenistan:

https://forensicnews.net/2020/02/20/flo ... kmenistan/

Fuck, this is some digital Red Dawn shit.