US Election: To NY and Beyond

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Who said anything about rugs?

Ba-zing! 

[Ormond]

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running so-called "dog whistle" ads on Omaha television stations to try to get Republicans to nominate the candidate that would be easier to defeat in November:

http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/democrats-hoping-in-ads-will-help-pick-brad-ashford-s/article_bd9bc27f-60db-5571-8e5d-e4988d8d3096.html

I just saw the ad on the TV for the first time myself this morning and it seems pretty clear to me this is indeed what they are trying to do. Personally I find this to be really unethical, so much so that I am going to refuse to give any more money to the DCCC although I will probably still donate directly to the campaigns of some Democrats running for the House.

I think this is particularly shortsighted and unethical, because there is always the chance this tactic could backfire and the more "Tea Party" candidate would win not just the primary but would also win the general election, which means that the representative chosen would be worse than the somewhat more reasonable Republican who would otherwise be elected. And that's a bad outcome for the nation as a whole, just contributing to the gridlock in Congress.

 

 

 

[Jace, Extat]

You do what it takes to win. About time the Dems showed some resolve towards something. No offense, but I'm not sure why you're upset at that.

Anyways, I know it was discussed at times, but I can't recall a definitive argument anywhere and I'm still absolutely lost by something. What the fuck is Mitch McConnel doing? I had dinner with some Trump fanatics a while back and I noticed that they seemed to just believe without reservation that he would win the election, and things like numbers and facts had no bearing on them. Is the entire Republican leadership like that? Because to me it looks like McConnel is playing a solo game of Russian Roulette with a sawed-off shotgun. Are they really so blinded by hatred of the Prez that they're gonna cut off their nose to spite their face?

I mean, the chances of this refusal to hold a hearing working out are astronomical. They despise Trump, hate Cruz, and don't like Kasich. I suppose they could work with Special K, but the only way he wins the nomination is if they pick him at the convention. And picking Kasich carries the same problems picking Paul Ryan or anyone other than Trump will for them. Their radicalized batshit insane far right wing will revolt. Trump isn't winning, Cruz sure as fuck isn't winning, and any other candidate is immediately hamstrung out the gate. So again, what is to be accomplished by this? Is the Republican leadership just convinced that it'll all work out like my aforementioned dinner guests? Are they so racist and spiteful that they don't even care about the long term? Or is there some kind of mysterious master plan at work that I don't understand?

[Shryke]

21 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

You do what it takes to win. About time the Dems showed some resolve towards something. No offense, but I'm not sure why you're upset at that.

Anyways, I know it was discussed at times, but I can't recall a definitive argument anywhere and I'm still absolutely lost by something. What the fuck is Mitch McConnel doing? I had dinner with some Trump fanatics a while back and I noticed that they seemed to just believe without reservation that he would win the election, and things like numbers and facts had no bearing on them. Is the entire Republican leadership like that? Because to me it looks like McConnel is playing a solo game of Russian Roulette with a sawed-off shotgun. Are they really so blinded by hatred of the Prez that they're gonna cut off their nose to spite their face?

I mean, the chances of this refusal to hold a hearing working out are astronomical. They despise Trump, hate Cruz, and don't like Kasich. I suppose they could work with Special K, but the only way he wins the nomination is if they pick him at the convention. And picking Kasich carries the same problems picking Paul Ryan or anyone other than Trump will for them. Their radicalized batshit insane far right wing will revolt. Trump isn't winning, Cruz sure as fuck isn't winning, and any other candidate is immediately hamstrung out the gate. So again, what is to be accomplished by this? Is the Republican leadership just convinced that it'll all work out like my aforementioned dinner guests? Are they so racist and spiteful that they don't even care about the long term? Or is there some kind of mysterious master plan at work that I don't understand?

Anything I've read out of the Republican Leadership is that they hate Cruz and hate Trump and are mostly worried they will go down with the ship when either of them fails in the general. I read stuff about both Ryan and McConnel trying to position themselves so that their people in Congress could maybe still win despite a Trump/Cruz at the top of the ticket.

[Altherion]

49 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

So again, what is to be accomplished by this? Is the Republican leadership just convinced that it'll all work out like my aforementioned dinner guests? Are they so racist and spiteful that they don't even care about the long term? Or is there some kind of mysterious master plan at work that I don't understand?

They're simply stalling for time. Polls regarding the general election are rarely indicative of the result during contentious primaries. If the Republican candidate (whoever it may be) is still viewed as completely hopeless after the dust settles, they can always find some pretense to change their mind and confirm Garland in August or September.

Also, political facts and numbers are not quite the gold standard of proof. Part of the reason your dinner guests are so confident is that the people who make their living writing about these facts and numbers were just shown to be spectacularly wrong. There's a very nice article on FiveThirtyEight written half a year before the primary voting began. It concludes that Trump's campaign for the Republican nomination is almost certainly doomed (just like almost everybody else did half a year before the voting began), but what really makes it interesting is that it provides all of the ways Trump can fail. If you've followed the election cycle, every single one of these has been brought up as the time for it approached... and yet Trump is still in the lead (we're now at Stage 5).

So, suppose that your dinner guests believe Trump can win the nomination. Even the facts-and-numbers people say that this is not that unlikely now, but they've got a completely different set of facts and number for the general election which say that there's simply no way Trump can win that. Never mind that they were completely wrong about the primary in half a dozen different ways: the general election facts and numbers are really ironclad. Do you believe them? Do you think the Republican leadership believes them? I would guess that they mostly do, but there's a considerable amount of doubt.

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

You do what it takes to win. About time the Dems showed some resolve towards something. No offense, but I'm not sure why you're upset at that.

 

Sorry, I find "you do what it takes to win" to be an ethically suspect statement. And again, this is especially bad because if they do end up with the primary opponent they theoretically think is "easier to defeat", and they do NOT defeat him (very possible in this district), they have ended up with the worse alternative of the two Republican possibilities. That seems just completely counterproductive, both ethically and in terms of the long term health of the country.

[Jace, Extat]

I'm not sure if we're on the same page. Trump winning the general or not is ultimately irrelevant unless the GOP thinks that he'll actually work with them after they've been openly trying to stop him from being the nominee. They have no viable candidate they like or way to get one into office that I can see.

[ThinkerX]

What was it the recently deceased comedian (and dang sharp social/political observer) said decades ago?  Something about how politics was all theater, and that one day those in charge would get tired of the façade and pull it down?  (Yes, a horrible paraphrase.)

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

Sorry, I find "you do what it takes to win" to be an ethically suspect statement. And again, this is especially bad because if they do end up with the primary opponent they theoretically think is "easier to defeat", and they do NOT defeat him (very possible in this district), they have ended up with the worse alternative of the two Republican possibilities. That seems just completely counterproductive, both ethically and in terms of the long term health of the country.

I don't know that it is the Democrats' fault if Republicans choose to nominate someone odious. I suppose you can argue (as you seem to be) that it's wrong to in any way support a candidate you think is bad, but that seems to imply the Democrats have a duty to see the Republicans make good choices, or at least do not make bad ones. 

This reminds me of the suggestion that Democrats should be switching to a Republican affiliation in order to vote against Donald Trump in their primary, so to better safeguard the nation. I don't buy it. Republicans get themselves into these messes, and it's not my job to get them out. Yes, that doesn't work out so well when the electorate ratifies the mess, but that's democracy. People get the government they ask for, even if that's not the government they really want.

[Jace, Extat]

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

Sorry, I find "you do what it takes to win" to be an ethically suspect statement. And again, this is especially bad because if they do end up with the primary opponent they theoretically think is "easier to defeat", and they do NOT defeat him (very possible in this district), they have ended up with the worse alternative of the two Republican possibilities. That seems just completely counterproductive, both ethically and in terms of the long term health of the country.

Because taking the moral high ground has proven effective for them so far, right?

[DireWolfSpirit]

9 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

You do what it takes to win. About time the Dems showed some resolve towards something. No offense, but I'm not sure why you're upset at that.

Anyways, I know it was discussed at times, but I can't recall a definitive argument anywhere and I'm still absolutely lost by something. What the fuck is Mitch McConnel doing? I had dinner with some Trump fanatics a while back and I noticed that they seemed to just believe without reservation that he would win the election, and things like numbers and facts had no bearing on them. Is the entire Republican leadership like that? Because to me it looks like McConnel is playing a solo game of Russian Roulette with a sawed-off shotgun. Are they really so blinded by hatred of the Prez that they're gonna cut off their nose to spite their face?

I mean, the chances of this refusal to hold a hearing working out are astronomical. They despise Trump, hate Cruz, and don't like Kasich. I suppose they could work with Special K, but the only way he wins the nomination is if they pick him at the convention. And picking Kasich carries the same problems picking Paul Ryan or anyone other than Trump will for them. Their radicalized batshit insane far right wing will revolt. Trump isn't winning, Cruz sure as fuck isn't winning, and any other candidate is immediately hamstrung out the gate. So again, what is to be accomplished by this? Is the Republican leadership just convinced that it'll all work out like my aforementioned dinner guests? Are they so racist and spiteful that they don't even care about the long term? Or is there some kind of mysterious master plan at work that I don't understand?

Yes, hate and spitefulness is their central motivation. Surprisingly there's no plan beyond that for these tragic, awful people. To be a Republican, one has to embrace hating the majority of Americans, that is their party.

[The Marquis de Leech]

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

They're simply stalling for time. Polls regarding the general election are rarely indicative of the result during contentious primaries. If the Republican candidate (whoever it may be) is still viewed as completely hopeless after the dust settles, they can always find some pretense to change their mind and confirm Garland in August or September.

Also, political facts and numbers are not quite the gold standard of proof. Part of the reason your dinner guests are so confident is that the people who make their living writing about these facts and numbers were just shown to be spectacularly wrong. There's a very nice article on FiveThirtyEight written half a year before the primary voting began. It concludes that You-Know-Who's campaign for the Republican nomination is almost certainly doomed (just like almost everybody else did half a year before the voting began), but what really makes it interesting is that it provides all of the ways You-Know-Who can fail. If you've followed the election cycle, every single one of these has been brought up as the time for it approached... and yet You-Know-Who is still in the lead (we're now at Stage 5).

So, suppose that your dinner guests believe You-Know-Who can win the nomination. Even the facts-and-numbers people say that this is not that unlikely now, but they've got a completely different set of facts and number for the general election which say that there's simply no way You-Know-Who can win that. Never mind that they were completely wrong about the primary in half a dozen different ways: the general election facts and numbers are really ironclad. Do you believe them? Do you think the Republican leadership believes them? I would guess that they mostly do, but there's a considerable amount of doubt.

This is an argument from authority in reverse - essentially the idea that if someone is wrong about X, they'll be wrong about Y (so if I'm wrong about something all my opinions are worthless?).

It's a logical fallacy, but let's run with that anyway.

Winning a general election requires getting to 270 Electoral Votes. How do you think Trump is going to get there?

Then let's be uber-generous, and give him Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan (there's no evidence for this, beyond speculation that Trump might do well in the Rust Belt, but let's run with that too). Assuming ceteris paribus on the 2012 map, that gives him a 270-268 win. Yes, a 2 vote margin. Losing any other state - like, say, North Carolina or Missouri or Georgia (never mind the bizarre mutterings about Utah) loses it for him. 

[ThinkerX]

I see two possible events that could lead to a Trump victory.

First, something happens to Hillary, be it ill health (which has been brought up before as a legit concern, and the campaign trail is demanding) or the FBI slaps an indictment on her after the democratic convention.  Both unlikely, but not out of the question.  Would Bernie be allowed back in the race in such an event?  Or would the DNC nominate some utter loser?

 

Second, a really major Islamic terrorist attack on US soil - something comparable to 911.  That would fit right in with Trumps hate filled demagoguery.  Perhaps a little too well...

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

This is an argument from authority in reverse - essentially the idea that if someone is wrong about X, they'll be wrong about Y (so if I'm wrong about something all my opinions are worthless?).

Worthless is too strong a word. However, if somebody has recently been wrong about something, it is not unreasonable to treat their statements on a similar topic with a dose of skepticism.

Quote

Winning a general election requires getting to 270 Electoral Votes. How do you think Trump is going to get there?

I don't know the exact mechanism, but there is a variety of fairly plausible things that can happen which can benefit him. A series of attacks on US soil. A foreign hacker revealing stolen classified material from Clinton's email server. A non-negligible fraction of the roughly 40% of eligible voters that don't actually vote deciding that this is as close to a chance of telling the political elites to go to hell as they'll ever get.

I don't know how to estimate the odds of any of this. Conventional wisdom holds them to be pretty negligible, but it's been wrong before. The main thing which gives me pause is that the elites seem to be treating the possibility seriously enough to unite against it. The billionaire Koch brothers typically support Republicans, but they appear open to the idea of backing Clinton (who obviously doesn't want their help right now). Cruz and Kasich have resorted to the strategy of abandoning all pretense of competition:

Quote

Ted Cruz and John Kasich are joining forces in a last-ditch effort to deny Donald Trump the Republican presidential nomination.

Within minutes of each other, the pair issued statements late Sunday saying they will divide their efforts in upcoming contests with Cruz focusing on Indiana and Kasich devoting his efforts to Oregon and New Mexico. The strategy -- something the two campaigns have been working on for weeks -- is aimed at blocking Trump from gaining the 1,237 delegates necessary to claim to GOP nomination this summer.

This strategy has worked to keep outsiders out of government elsewhere (e.g. the French establishment used it to good effect in the 2015 regional elections), but it is clearly one of desperation.

[mormont]

12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Worthless is too strong a word. However, if somebody has recently been wrong about something, it is not unreasonable to treat their statements on a similar topic with a dose of skepticism.

Well, that depends. How similar is the topic, really? Why were they wrong before?

Superficially, predicting a primary season and predicting a general election look quite similar - but there are crucial differences, which is why Presidential candidates traditionally campaign in very different ways in each situation. The other factor to bear in mind is data. We now know much more about how Trump campaigns, for example, and what his appeal is to which section of the electorate. We also know which sections he has particular trouble with.

So, it would seem to me to be, if not unreasonable, then perhaps unwise, to rely on 'people predicted Trump would crash and burn in the primary' as the sole reason to suggest they might be wrong about how he'll do in the general.

Of course, there can be unforeseen events that would benefit Trump (just as there could be unforeseen events that could hurt him) but there can always be unforeseen events. Predictions don't usually account for those, because then they wouldn't be unforeseen!

The Cruz/Kasich alliance is interesting. It's obviously too little, too late to stop Trump being the front-runner going into the convention, but if the idea is to damage his momentum and reduce his delegate count, that's as sound a strategy as is probably left to them. Which isn't saying much.

[Fez]

23 hours ago, Ormond said:

I think this is particularly shortsighted and unethical, because there is always the chance this tactic could backfire and the more "Tea Party" candidate would win not just the primary but would also win the general election, which means that the representative chosen would be worse than the somewhat more reasonable Republican who would otherwise be elected. And that's a bad outcome for the nation as a whole, just contributing to the gridlock in Congress.

Not sure this is worth that strong a reaction; this is a fairly common tactic on both sides. Or, at least it gets talked about a lot, I suspect it happens less often, and is successful even more rarely. But Claire McCaskill did somewhat famously interfere with the Missouri GOP senate primary in 2010 to ensure she'd face Todd Akin, who was probably the only candidate she could've beaten that year. And Republican state parties in the south sometimes interfere with Democratic primaries to get complete no-names on the ballot that they'll absolutely crush. In most cases they'd probably easily win anyway, but I guess they don't want to take any chances.

[Ormond]

15 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't know that it is the Democrats' fault if Republicans choose to nominate someone odious. I suppose you can argue (as you seem to be) that it's wrong to in any way support a candidate you think is bad, but that seems to imply the Democrats have a duty to see the Republicans make good choices, or at least do not make bad ones.

This reminds me of the suggestion that Democrats should be switching to a Republican affiliation in order to vote against Donald Trump in their primary, so to better safeguard the nation. I don't buy it. Republicans get themselves into these messes, and it's not my job to get them out. Yes, that doesn't work out so well when the electorate ratifies the mess, but that's democracy. People get the government they ask for, even if that's not the government they really want.

I don't get from the above why you seem to be arguing against my position. If it is not the Democrats' job to get Republicans out of their messes, surely it is also not their job to make the Republicans' mess even bigger. The parties should stay out of each others' primaries.

 

[Ormond]

35 minutes ago, Fez said:

Not sure this is worth that strong a reaction; this is a fairly common tactic on both sides. Or, at least it gets talked about a lot, I suspect it happens less often, and is successful even more rarely. But Claire McCaskill did somewhat famously interfere with the Missouri GOP senate primary in 2010 to ensure she'd face Todd Akin, who was probably the only candidate she could've beaten that year. And Republican state parties in the south sometimes interfere with Democratic primaries to get complete no-names on the ballot that they'll absolutely crush. In most cases they'd probably easily win anyway, but I guess they don't want to take any chances.

And I don't see why this being "a farily common tactic" means I should not be upset about it. There are lots of things going on in the world quite regularly that I find unethical and don't want to be a part of.

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, Ormond said:

And I don't see why this being "a farily common tactic" means I should not be upset about it. There are lots of things going on in the world quite regularly that I find unethical and don't want to be a part of.

I guess my thinking is that it seems kinda late to be getting upset about it now. I thought after 2008 most politically aware people knew this was a thing that happened and that anyone who disliked it enough to stop donating would've done so back then.

[lokisnow]

worth remembering that April of election years are when , incumbant job approval, unemployment rate, GDP growth, and General election polling of the presidential race have statistically predictive value. So yes, the numbers you see from now on do matter.