U.S. Politics 2017: Yes Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus

[Guy Kilmore]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No joke, that is probably the case which is going to make or break me staying in the US. 

Watershed moment indeed.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

No, I made an off hand remark that many blue areas have a few rich people and a lot of poor people,  "facts" were then demanded, so I took the time to post numerous links, silly me, having thought it was already common knowledge that income inequality is worse in blue areas than red, I was surprised anyone demanded 'facts'.  And then, as night follows day, I was criticized for just posting links, because that was lazy, and then for the links not supporting my original statement....and since it's not worth the trouble to me to take it to next level of semantics and cherry picking that will ensue to go through each of those articles line by line, I leave it at that.  

Okay but going through your original statement it would appear that you made three assertions, that seem very very dubious:

1. Inequality is worse in blue states. I grant you this is probably true. But, it's not a particularly strong claim because even one of the very articles you cited showed that the correlation between blue states and inequality is not particularly strong.

2. Your original statement also seemed to imply the reason for the inequality in blue states was because of their propensity to tax more. The causal connection isn't particularly strong here. There may be many good reasons for the increased inequality that doesn't have much to do with tax rates. I gave one reason.  And besides, as mentioned, the correlation, per your own source, between inequality and blue states isn't particularly strong.

3. You also seemed to imply that poverty was worse in blue states, which doesn't appear to be the case.

People just pointed out the flaws in these assertions. And they didn't do it by engaging in a bunch of ass pullery. That's not an echno chamber by any stretch of the imagination.

[DanteGabriel]

17 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

No, I made an off hand remark that many blue areas have a few rich people and a lot of poor people,  "facts" were then demanded, so I took the time to post numerous links, silly me, having thought it was already common knowledge that income inequality is worse in blue areas than red, I was surprised anyone demanded 'facts'.  And then, as night follows day, I was criticized for just posting links, because that was lazy, and then for the links not supporting my original statement....and since it's not worth the trouble to me to take it to next level of semantics and cherry picking that will ensue to go through each of those articles line by line, I leave it at that.  

Thinking is hard!

[Mlle. Zabzie]

38 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay but going through your original statement it would appear that you made three assertions, that seem very very dubious:

1. Inequality is worse in blue states. I grant you this is probably true. But, it's not a particularly strong claim because even one of the very articles you cited showed that the correlation between blue states and inequality is not particularly strong.

2. Your original statement also seemed to imply the reason for the inequality in blue states was because of their propensity to tax more. The causal connection isn't particularly strong here. There may be many good reasons for the increased inequality that doesn't have much to do with tax rates. I gave one reason.  And besides, as mentioned, the correlation, per your own source, between inequality and blue states isn't particularly strong.

3. You also seemed to imply that poverty was worse in blue states, which doesn't appear to be the case.

People just pointed out the flaws in these assertions. And they didn't do it by engaging in a bunch of ass pullery. That's not an echno chamber by any stretch of the imagination.

This thread can be a bit echo chambery/cruel (to wit, the following comment).  That said, I think it is perfectly possible to have perfectly civil and engaging disagreements on big issues (you and I debate stuff all the time perfectly pleasantly, and I am 100% certain that we have some fairly different views on things).  The rules of engagement are to be civil, support your points, and ignore the ad hominem nonsense.  ETA two other things - on the one hand to admit when convinced or when one has made a mistake, and, on the flip side, not throw up people's views from X number of threads against them when they have stated that they have changed or now support a different view.  People change.  It happens.

[Cas Stark]

52 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay but going through your original statement it would appear that you made three assertions, that seem very very dubious:

1. Inequality is worse in blue states. I grant you this is probably true. But, it's not a particularly strong claim because even one of the very articles you cited showed that the correlation between blue states and inequality is not particularly strong.

2. Your original statement also seemed to imply the reason for the inequality in blue states was because of their propensity to tax more. The causal connection isn't particularly strong here. There may be many good reasons for the increased inequality that doesn't have much to do with tax rates. I gave one reason.  And besides, as mentioned, the correlation, per your own source, between inequality and blue states isn't particularly strong.

3. You also seemed to imply that poverty was worse in blue states, which doesn't appear to be the case.

People just pointed out the flaws in these assertions. And they didn't do it by engaging in a bunch of ass pullery. That's not an echno chamber by any stretch of the imagination.

1. How can my assertion be dubious, if you agree it's probably true?  This is why I didn't post excerpts in the first place, because it would immediately be a tit for tat you didn't mention this or there is some other way to look at the data.  I never said it was a strong claim, but it holds true pretty well across the board.  

2. I did.  But, again, a casual connection that isn't 'that strong' is nowhere close to being wrong. 

3. I did not intend to imply this as I don't think it's correct.

[Guy Kilmore]

5 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

1. How can my assertion be dubious, if you agree it's probably true?  This is why I didn't post excerpts in the first place, because it would immediately be a tit for tat you didn't mention this or there is some other way to look at the data.  I never said it was a strong claim, but it holds true pretty well across the board.  

2. I did.  But, again, a casual connection that isn't 'that strong' is nowhere close to being wrong. 

3. I did not intend to imply this as I don't think it's correct.

Not strong correlation means there is no causality, the two things are unrelated.   Hence my confusion in you stating that proved your point.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

1. How can my assertion be dubious, if you agree it's probably true?  This is why I didn't post excerpts in the first place, because it would immediately be a tit for tat you didn't mention this or there is some other way to look at the data.  I never said it was a strong claim, but it holds true pretty well across the board. 

2. I did.  But, again, a casual connection that isn't 'that strong' is nowhere close to being wrong. 

3. I did not intend to imply this as I don't think it's correct.

1. You do understand that the low correlation here really undercuts the thrust of your claims, right? And it certainly doesn’t back your claim that tax rates are responsible here. 

2. Okay, the correlation here could be for a variety of reasons or factors besides taxes as you assert. I gave one potential explanation. As I said earlier, I'd expect to see a lot of wealth generated in places like San Fran or New York because of basically comparative advantage reasons and that these places probably have benefited from international trade because of the external economies of  scale that exist there (tech in San Fran and finance in New York).

3. You did mention something about poverty in blue states. Maybe that's not what you meant, but it's how it came off.

[aceluby]

48 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. You do understand that the low correlation here really undercuts the thrust of your claims, right? And it certainly doesn’t back your claim that tax rates are responsible here. 

2. Okay, the correlation here could be for a variety of reasons or factors besides taxes as you assert. I gave one potential explanation. As I said earlier, I'd expect to see a lot of wealth generated in places like San Fran or New York because of basically comparative advantage reasons and that these places probably have benefited from international trade because of the external economies of  scale that exist there (tech in San Fran and finance in New York).

3. You did mention something about poverty in blue states. Maybe that's not what you meant, but it's how it came off.

The original claim had nothing to do with blue vs red states, or income inequality.  It morphed into that.  This was the original claim.

Quote

There is a reason why so many blue areas are a few rich people and lots of poor people...because the middle class can't afford the taxes and other feels.  

There is literally nothing to support this and the links about general state income inequality is a ridiculous tangent that has nothing to do with what was initially stated. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 11/8/2017 at 3:18 PM, Mlle. Zabzie said:

This thread can be a bit echo chambery/cruel (to wit, the following comment).  That said, I think it is perfectly possible to have perfectly civil and engaging disagreements on big issues (you and I debate stuff all the time perfectly pleasantly, and I am 100% certain that we have some fairly different views on things).  The rules of engagement are to be civil, support your points, and ignore the ad hominem nonsense.  ETA two other things - on the one hand to admit when convinced or when one has made a mistake, and, on the flip side, not throw up people's views from X number of threads against them when they have stated that they have changed or now support a different view.  People change.  It happens.

1. I agree when somebody admits they were wrong or that they have changed their mind about a matter, it’s not good to remind them of what they previously said. Once they’ve clearly changed their mind, it should be over and done with.

I mean I can be somewhat fierce when arguing, but once somebody has said they may have made an error, I don’t like piling on the person. I don’t like beating people up over mistakes. I make them, and once I’ve admitted, I’ve done screwed the pooch, I don’t like to be reminded over and over about it. So its kind of like the golden rule here.

2. I think I can come off being pretty snarky or a bit of a smart ass when arguing. I’d admit being a bit of a smart ass is part of my nature, but there are other reasons as well. For one, I’ve argued with enough conservatives back in the day, to know that being Mr. Nice Guy doesn’t always work. What I mean is that when returned home from military service lots of people I know thought I was some kind of raging conservative and I know lots of conservative sorts of people. They were kind of surprised I had done turned liberal. And being Mr. Nice Guy didn’t always work, not with that crowd at least, but they were a bit of a rough crowd. A bit of snark and ridicule was sometimes very effective in getting my point across. So that’s one reason, I often start off a bit hard nosed. The other part though is that as I have said in prior post, I consider the state of American Conservatism to be utterly in the gutter. And over the years, I’ve simply lost my patience with wacko conspiracy theories, terrible logic, claims that empirically are garbage, and people that wont change whatever model they are working in, when the evidence seems to largely refute it. I mean I don’t mind people making mistakes, I make them all the time, but it’s like when you don’t even bother to do a minimal level of homework and waste my time with nonsense I have a tendency to get annoyed, maybe partly because I‘m getting older and grouchier (like maybe I’m turning into a liberal non-bigoted version of Archie Bunker or something. LOL.).

3. But, all in all, I’d say civil conversation is the most desirable state of affairs. And I’m more than willing to have that kind of conversation with people, particularly when I don’t feel every statement by them has to be fact checked for accuracy and they are trying in good faith to argue reasonably. I’m pretty sure you and I don’t agree on everything 100% and that’s okay because your arguments are very reasonable and not off in la la land and good enough I might change my mind.

4. And yes, I do don't like ad hominen attacks, particularly when engaging with others one on one, as it’s not helpful, and really I don’t like being mean to people. Though, I can be pretty critical of ideas that I dislike and will be blunt about it, and well, I do of have litany of pet nicknames for prominent conservatives that have gotten a bit on my nerves for one reason or another. 
 

[GAROVORKIN]

10 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Please allow me time to take notes.

Anyway, retirements, retirements, retirements.  That's the name of the game.  Let it be...or, I quit?  I Quit:

 

My apologies dmc515  for my lack of thought .

 

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

The other part though is that as I have said in prior post, I consider the state of American Conservatism to be utterly in the gutter. And over the years, I’ve simply lost my patience with wacko conspiracy theories, terrible logic, claims that empirically are garbage, and people that wont change whatever model they are working in, when the evidence seems to largely refute it. I mean I don’t mind people making mistakes, I make them all the time, but it’s like when you don’t even bother to do a minimal level of homework and waste my time with nonsense I have a tendency to get annoyed, maybe partly because I‘m getting older and grouchier (like maybe I’m turning into a liberal non-bigoted version of Archie Bunker or something. LOL.).

 

I agree with this.  I don't think liberal thought has all the answers, and I certainly don't think liberal politicians do.  Both wings engage in economic magical thinking.  But right now there isn't a clear and positive conservative voice.  The Republican Party is a Kakistocracy swelled with a nationalist populism.  The question is what comes next. 

[GAROVORKIN]

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I agree with this.  I don't think liberal thought has all the answers, and I certainly don't think liberal politicians do.  Both wings engage in economic magical thinking.  But right now there isn't a clear and positive conservative voice.  The Republican Party is a Kakistocracy swelled with a nationalist populism.  The question is what comes next. 

More political polarization , more leadership and policy drift and more legislative gridlock  in which in nothing important gets done.    A very depressing prospect . 

[Martell Spy]

House leaders race to round up tax votes
House Republicans are working to keep wavering lawmakers behind their tax bill as the Senate GOP unveils an alternative plan.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/08/republicans-tax-reform-congress-244718

Last Night, Maine Voted to Expand Medicaid. Today, Maine’s Governor Says He Won’t Do It.

https://slate.com/business/2017/11/maines-governor-says-he-still-wont-expand-medicaid.html

[The Anti-Targ]

20 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Last Night, Maine Voted to Expand Medicaid. Today, Maine’s Governor Says He Won’t Do It.

https://slate.com/business/2017/11/maines-governor-says-he-still-wont-expand-medicaid.html

Well, it's not unreasonable to determine how one will pay for it before putting it in place. But of course there's a difference between looking for ways to pay for it and looking for ways not to pay for it. Seems like the gov is more interested in looking for ways not to pay for it by not being willing to use a number of potential funding mechanisms.

Don't know exactly what the ballot measure said, but I wonder if "We will expand Medicaid and fund it by [insert funding mechanism here]" would have got the necessary support? I do like universal health care (which is not what the medicaid expansion comes close to achieving) but you do have to pay for it.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Well, it's not unreasonable to determine how one will pay for it before putting it in place. But of course there's a difference between looking for ways to pay for it and looking for ways not to pay for it. Seems like the gov is more interested in looking for ways not to pay for it by not being willing to use a number of potential funding mechanisms.

Don't know exactly what the ballot measure said, but I wonder if "We will expand Medicaid and fund it by [insert funding mechanism here]" would have got the necessary support? I do like universal health care (which is not what the medicaid expansion comes close to achieving) but you do have to pay for it.

 

I think the suspicion is that even when the funding is provided by the legislature, which is quite possibly going to happen, the Governor will continue to refuse to implement it. He's a big turkey basically.

Inequality Is a Bigger Threat to Our Democracy Than Putin Is

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/inequality-is-a-bigger-threat-to-our-democracy-than-putin-is.html

 

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You've made no arguments; you've stated that there are other points of view.

Oh, so we're playing that game now?  Ugh, nevermind.  Difference without a distinction much?  I've presented alternative arguments - which is functionally equivalent to "points of view" - but you apparently are taking the tack of arguing about arguing.  So, whatever.  This was going nowhere anyway.

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The Governor race was won by Democrats by 9 points. The state houses are in a dead heat - 50/50. This is precisely the D+10 number that is often talked about when gerrymandering is discussed and the 2010 districts were designed - to withstand a wave election and keep control despite a 55-45 split in the electorate in favor of Democrats. 

We've been over this but let's do a review.  Your "D+10" number is not how any professional runs analysis.  In 2016, Clinton won Virginia 49.7 to 44.4, so crudely the Dems have a +5 partisan lean.  Northam won 54 to 45, or plus nine.  Then (again in this very crude or basic analysis of the process) you take the difference - Virginia is a "D+5" state, and Northam outperformed that by 4 points.  If we're just basing the midterms on that +4 performance, that would indicate all seats with a Cook PVI that are >R+4 should flip from GOP to Dem. 

That basically means all seats that have a Cook PVI of R+3 or less.  By my super quick count that's 31 GOP-held seats.  Again, is this stupid math - and overextending one statewide election?  You bet.  But it's also the basics of what's what.  And a hell of a lot better than the unfounded "woe is me" BS that is far too prevalent around here.  If the electoral environment remains how it is today a year from now, the Dems will most likely retake the House.

[Yukle]

14 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

If the electoral environment remains how it is today a year from now, the Dems will most likely retake the House.

I think those numbers work, given how you've used them (which is for fairly broad strokes).

I have a friend who works for Champion Data, which is a sports statistics agency, and we were chatting the other day about the political statistics of the USA. He said that gerrymandering has the largest net impact on skewing the votes versus outcomes (note that he said it was the largest factor, not the only factor).

He was less confident that the Democrats could retake the House or Senate. He said they should expect anywhere from a loss of 4 to a gain of 2  by 2020 as the realistic outcomes at this stage as the map doesn't favour them. As for the House, since the Republicans will control so many state legislatures come census time, he said they'd almost need to win the popular vote by a range of about 6-9%, which is quite a tall order.

The Democrats have won the popular vote (or a plurality) without winning state or federal offices far more frequently than the Republicans have done.

Interestingly, the state legislatures for the most part do not even have to use a district-based model, as there is no constitutional law (state or federal) requiring them to. They just choose to, since it gives the governing party influence over future election results.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Yukle said:

As for the House, since the Republicans will control so many state legislatures come census time, he said they'd almost need to win the popular vote by a range of about 6-9%, which is quite a tall order.

This is absolutely true, if I understand you correctly.  The Dems will need to win the aggregate House vote by about 6 to 9 percent in order to retake the majority.  However, as we just saw, state legislatures can potentially change between now and census time.  Let's remember that!

6 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Interestingly, the state legislatures for the most part do not even have to use a district-based model, as there is no constitutional law (state or federal) requiring them to. They just choose to, since it gives the governing party influence over future election results.

Not exactly sure what you mean by "district-based model," but yes - the winners will dictate the electoral process that best serves them.  There's always been an academic debate about which comes first:  does the political system - and thus the party system - dictate the electoral system, or vice versa?  To me, this has always been a futile exercise.  The political, party, and electoral system of any state are created in the image of the regime that is in power.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Kalbear]

39 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Oh, so we're playing that game now?  Ugh, nevermind.  Difference without a distinction much?  I've presented alternative arguments - which is functionally equivalent to "points of view" - but you apparently are taking the tack of arguing about arguing.  So, whatever.  This was going nowhere anyway.

Sorry, but saying a position isn't arguing a point. I've stated why I think my idea is better. You've not done the same with other points. You can either choose to debate my position or establish yours. Don't blame me for you not doing it.

39 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

We've been over this but let's do a review.  Your "D+10" number is not how any professional runs analysis.  In 2016, Clinton won Virginia 49.7 to 44.4, so crudely the Dems have a +5 partisan lean.  Northam won 54 to 45, or plus nine.  Then (again in this very crude or basic analysis of the process) you take the difference - Virginia is a "D+5" state, and Northam outperformed that by 4 points.  If we're just basing the midterms on that +4 performance, that would indicate all seats with a Cook PVI that are >R+4 should flip from GOP to Dem. 

That basically means all seats that have a Cook PVI of R+3 or less.  By my super quick count that's 31 GOP-held seats.  Again, is this stupid math - and overextending one statewide election?  You bet.  But it's also the basics of what's what.  And a hell of a lot better than the unfounded "woe is me" BS that is far too prevalent around here.  If the electoral environment remains how it is today a year from now, the Dems will most likely retake the House.

This is similar to an analysis that 538 did as well earlier today - and their conclusion is that the Dems took a lot of seats that should have likely been Dem seats anyway, at least based on how they performed when voting for Clinton. Their conclusion is more that incumbency was much less of a protective value than usual, and as a result this makes the House a bit more in play - that, and it's likely this will push more close seats with Rs to retire. 

As to my woe is me BS - it has a lot to do with gerrymandering which I still believe (as do Republicans) is more important to their success than general election, combined with a complete lack of discretion with respect to outside sources doing, well, actually illegal acts to influence the election. Chances are pretty good that Russia does the same thing they did last time, but more of it, as they know Trump isn't going to do shit against them. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This is similar to an analysis that 538 did as well earlier today - and their conclusion is that the Dems took a lot of seats that should have likely been Dem seats anyway, at least based on how they performed when voting for Clinton.

I'm pretty drunk and I don't care to read another 538 article.  Does this support my point or refute it?

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Their conclusion is more that incumbency was much less of a protective value than usual, and as a result this makes the House a bit more in play - that, and it's likely this will push more close seats with Rs to retire. 

I agree with the last part - or at least I hope so.  Feel like FNC here in terms of repeating myself to make something true, but retirements are the key.  As for incumbency being less protective that usual?  Well, sure, that's the nature of a historically unpopular president.  Again, I know you always handwave basic metrics that have been found to consistently predict overall midterm election results, but this is what it's all about.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As to my woe is me BS - it has a lot to do with gerrymandering

I don't think gerrymandering is BS.  Rather, I think you've provided it far too much influence than the reality of elections.  This entire board does.  It's clear I'm not going to change that.  So...enjoy?