U.S. Politics 2016 Seasonal Hiring Edition: "You're fired"

[Altherion]

Here's an article that is being updated as the electors vote. So far, it seems that no Trump electors have defected, but quite a few Clinton ones have (or at least they tried and failed):

Quote

Trump’s former opponent Hillary Clinton, however, suffered her first defection early in the day in Maine, when elector David Bright cast his ballot for the man that Clinton beat in capturing the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders.

...

Update: 2:55 p.m. ET: Another elector in Minnesota tried to defect from Clinton. Muhammad Abdurrahman, a former Sanders DNC delegate, cast a ballot for the Vermont senator but was removed from his office and replaced by an alternate who voted for Clinton as per Minnesota law before the state’s official totals were submitted.

Update: 3:02 p.m. ET: After Bright cast his first ballot for Sanders, he switched his vote to Clinton on a second ballot since his initial vote was ruled out of order.

Update: 03:15 p.m. ET: In Colorado, one elector attempted to cast a ballot for Ohio Gov. John Kasich but his vote was invalidated by Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams. The vote for Kasich was an apparent nod to the “Hamilton Elector” strategy of persuading Democrats and Republicans to cast votes for an alternative Republican candidate. Clinton won Colorado’s popular vote on Election Day.

Update 15:57 p.m. ET: In Washington, four of the 12 electors broke with the  voters. Instead of choosing the state’s popular vote winner, Hillary Clinton, three chose former Army general Colin Powell, one opted for environmental activist Faith Spotted Eagle.

 

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I've read reports that state that Clinton thought she was going to win these states by around 3-5 percentage points.  I don't believe that the Comey letter, which was cleared by Comey shortly thereafter, made that much of a difference.  Not even close.  It seems pretty clear that their models were way off.  That blind reliance on models to the exclusion of doing the right thing, like actually campaigning for votes instead of taking them for granted because of your models, is an example of the arrogance I'm talking about.  

Most indications seem  to make it clear that 3-5 points was almost precisely the effect it had. 

As to the 'arrogance' - is it 'arrogance' to assume you've got, say, Oregon in the bag? Or California? At some point you have to trust your data to some degree, and there was very little to indicate that there was a need for it.

I'm not saying that she shouldn't have, because clearly she should have - only that it would have been difficult to have a system in place that would have predicted the result and caused her to bet on those areas. That said, the lesson is clearly to win, period, and not worry about getting more popular vote and not worry about helping congress. 

Not that it will matter in the future. The lessons of this election aren't that Clinton should have slightly changed the outcome. It's that Democracy is fragile and fleeting, and it'll be gone quickly.

[TrackerNeil]

 

18 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I never said they rigged the primary, I said they shilled for her. They gave her favorable treatment. Examples of this were laid bare with the Wikileaks hacks.

The parties job is to ensure party unity throughout the primary process. It is the primary voters job to determine who the most favorable candidate is. That is not the DNC's job.

What you said was:

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 But if the DNC didn't follow a policy of shilling for Hillary, the hacks wouldn't have added up to shit. I mean outside of whether or not Jon Podesta uses fresh mushrooms in his risotto.

Admittedly, you did not say "rigged" but what you did say is so close to the "rigged election" theme that I can scarcely see the difference. You're asserting that by "shilling", the DNC somehow assured a Clinton victory. In any case, the primary voters did decide; if I recall correctly, it was Sanders winning via caucuses, not the most democratic selection system known to humankind, and making a play for superdelegates. So it seems to me that Bernie was the one hoping to overturn the will of the Democrats who voted.

13 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Political intuition? 

So, basically, Clinton should have assumed that the models were all wrong? I suspect that, in most cases, ignoring the data will get you into trouble more often than following them.

[Mudguard]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Most indications seem  to make it clear that 3-5 points was almost precisely the effect it had. 

 

There are people speculating this, but I don't buy it.  I don't even see how it's possible to determine the magnitude of the effect with any degree of certainty.  Any guess is based on numerous assumptions and a limited amount of data.  It's pure speculation.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Mudguard said:

There are people speculating this, but I don't buy it.  I don't even see how it's possible to determine the magnitude of the effect with any degree of certainty.  Any guess is based on numerous assumptions and a limited amount of data.  It's pure speculation.

Well, all predictions based on nonexistent outcomes are speculation. That said, the limited polling between the two events indicated about a 3% drop. So what data we have seems to indicate that it was about that level of an effect. From the article I posted earlier, what it seemed to indicate is that the Democratic supporters stayed home more, and the Republican supporters did not. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Admittedly, you did not say "rigged" but what you did say is so close to the "rigged election" theme that I can scarcely see the difference. You're asserting that by "shilling", the DNC somehow assured a Clinton victory. In any case, the primary voters did decide; if I recall correctly, it was Sanders winning via caucuses, not the most democratic selection system known to humankind, and making a play for superdelegates. So it seems to me that Bernie was the one hoping to overturn the will of the Democrats who voted.

 Again, I don't believe the DNC rigged the primary. What they did do was show clear bias towards Hillary. This helps promote disunity within the party, which is the exact opposite of what they should be attempting to achieve. Look at the Nevada dust-up. Look at the Clinton campaign hiring Wasserman-Schultz after she stepped down as DNC Chair due to the Wikileaks drop. These things should never have happened. They hurt the bottom line in terms of voter turnout.

 Hillary did win the primary, no doubt. I'm not claiming she didn't, and yes, Sanders also helped to sow the seeds of discord among the party as well. 

[Mudguard]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Well, all predictions based on nonexistent outcomes are speculation. That said, the limited polling between the two events indicated about a 3% drop. So what data we have seems to indicate that it was about that level of an effect. From the article I posted earlier, what it seemed to indicate is that the Democratic supporters stayed home more, and the Republican supporters did not. 

If you really believe that 3-5 percent of Democrats stayed home because of Comey's last minute letter, isn't that an indictment on the stupidity of large numbers of Democrats?  That so many would stay home because of a letter that explicitly said that there might not be anything there and a second letter or announcement that confirmed that, in fact, there wasn't anything new there, if true, would indicate to me that large numbers of Democrats are complete morons.  

Maybe that's the case.  It would partly explain how someone like Trump could win.

[TrackerNeil]

14 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

There are people speculating this, but I don't buy it.  I don't even see how it's possible to determine the magnitude of the effect with any degree of certainty.  Any guess is based on numerous assumptions and a limited amount of data.  It's pure speculation.

This feels like the argument from personal incredulity.

3 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

If you really believe that 3-5 percent of Democrats stayed home because of Comey's last minute letter, isn't that an indictment on the stupidity of large numbers of Democrats?  That so many would stay home because of a letter that explicitly said that there might not be anything there and a second letter or announcement that confirmed that, in fact, there wasn't anything new there, if true, would indicate to me that large numbers of Democrats are complete morons.  

Or maybe it shows that too many liberals accepted the Republican-spawned notion that everything about Clinton is phony and calculated for maximum political gain.

[Mudguard]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

This feels like the argument from personal incredulity.

No, it's because I have an understanding of the scientific method.  Retrospective analysis of some polling data is never going to be enough to prove that a certain number of people would have voted for Clinton but for the Comey letter.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Mudguard said:

If you really believe that 3-5 percent of Democrats stayed home because of Comey's last minute letter, isn't that an indictment on the stupidity of large numbers of Democrats?  That so many would stay home because of a letter that explicitly said that there might not be anything there and a second letter or announcement that confirmed that, in fact, there wasn't anything new there, if true, would indicate to me that large numbers of Democrats are complete morons.  

Maybe that's the case.  It would partly explain how someone like Trump could win.

Yes! Absolutely, 100%, yes! The line I've been hearing that I love is the comment "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line". It means that you cannot change Republicans and voting habits of them; they will with 95% confidence vote for anything that has been nominated for R. Democrats, however, are not quite as loyal, and will change their vote or (more likely) simply choose not to vote, if that person is not someone that inspires them or meets their personal litmus test. They are the ones that cannot in 'good conscience' vote for Clinton, even knowing that it would result in Trump. They're the ones that would rather vote third party or write in a candidate knowing it won't affect things.  But mostly, they'll just not vote at all. 

And that really sucks. I hate that. It invalidates all of my previously held conceptions of people that vote Democrat and about people in general. But the data is very, very compelling both for this election and prior elections (Gore, Kerry, and Obama all fit here). 

[Wrl6199]

13 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

 

What you said was:

Admittedly, you did not say "rigged" but what you did say is so close to the "rigged election" theme that I can scarcely see the difference. You're asserting that by "shilling", the DNC somehow assured a Clinton victory. In any case, the primary voters did decide; if I recall correctly, it was Sanders winning via caucuses, not the most democratic selection system known to humankind, and making a play for superdelegates. So it seems to me that Bernie was the one hoping to overturn the will of the Democrats who voted.

So, basically, Clinton should have assumed that the models were all wrong? I suspect that, in most cases, ignoring the data will get you into trouble more often than following them.

I have heard a lot of people suggesting that trump won the election because the dc "rigged" the election so Hillary would win instead of Bernie. Since you know a socialist would have a much better chance at winning. You dint have to outright say it to get what the message is. You can tell by the themes. I mean there were some states with weird laws that did help assert Hillary's victory i know that. But it still seems like she would have won anyways. It was the caucuses where Bernie was doing the best. Where you put a bunch of people in a room together and let them hash it out. I dint specifically remember if he made a play for the supersaturates but im sure that he would. I mean both of them tried to get them.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Yes! Absolutely, 100%, yes! The line I've been hearing that I love is the comment "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line". It means that you cannot change Republicans and voting habits of them; they will with 95% confidence vote for anything that has been nominated for R. Democrats, however, are not quite as loyal, and will change their vote or (more likely) simply choose not to vote, if that person is not someone that inspires them or meets their personal litmus test. They are the ones that cannot in 'good conscience' vote for Clinton, even knowing that it would result in Trump. They're the ones that would rather vote third party or write in a candidate knowing it won't affect things.  But mostly, they'll just not vote at all. 

And that really sucks. I hate that. It invalidates all of my previously held conceptions of people that vote Democrat and about people in general. But the data is very, very compelling both for this election and prior elections (Gore, Kerry, and Obama all fit here). 

That describes me to a T, but I made it a point to vote anyway because the alternative was so distasteful. I really don't understand how a (D) voter could stay home this election if they were paying attention.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Yeah the DNC stuff is unfair, but I think that's the way that shit plays out every year (in the Chomsky sense that the primary contenders are there at the mercy and pleasure of the party powers that be).

Hopefully this will encourage a more fair primary next time around, but I imagine the inner-sanctum security will circle the wagons and go radio silent wherever possible.  Ushering in a new era of the cloak-and-dagger cyber thriller.  Dan Brown eat your heart out!!!

Transparency via technology can be a good thing.

You'll be begging for the good old slanted primaries when you see the airport kiosk shelves sagging with Dan Brown's Primary Shadows: Code Red MT. Dew part Deux!!!

[Altherion]

14 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

So, basically, Clinton should have assumed that the models were all wrong? I suspect that, in most cases, ignoring the data will get you into trouble more often than following them.

I am not suggesting that the data be ignored. I'm saying that if you're going to rely on the data, you need somebody who is good at determining that the data is wrong and you need to listen to this person. There may come a day when computers are better at analysis of anything than any humans, but that day is not today. Except at specialized tasks like board games, the best analysis is currently done by a combination of machines and human beings who are good at a given task working together. The Clinton team relied on the former more than the latter and paid for it.

[Kalbear]

Well, if this election is any indicator it means that the Republicans can rely heavily on Russia and China to hack data and release whatever damaging things they find on Democrats and it won't matter. So expect a Democratic candidate that is pretty much a lock to lose to Trump in the future. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

I am not suggesting that the data be ignored. I'm saying that if you're going to rely on the data, you need somebody who is good at determining that the data is wrong and you need to listen to this person. There may come a day when computers are better at analysis of anything than any humans, but that day is not today. Except at specialized tasks like board games, the best analysis is currently done by a combination of machines and human beings who are good at a given task working together. The Clinton team relied on the former more than the latter and paid for it.

There's no indication that this is true. No one prior to the election predicted this outcome. And why should they have? By the time the damage happened it was a week prior to the actual election. What do you do, then?

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Well, if this election is any indicator it means that the Republicans can rely heavily on Russia and China to hack data and release whatever damaging things they find on Democrats and it won't matter. So expect a Democratic candidate that is pretty much a lock to lose to Trump in the future. 

Pretty sure you just made Howard Dean text Ivanka Trump to see if she's interested in running on the Dem ticket in 2020.

[Kalbear]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Pretty sure you just made Howard Dean text Ivanka Trump to see if she's interested in running on the Dem ticket in 2020.

Yeah, probably.

[Week]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, if this election is any indicator it means that the Republicans can rely heavily on Russia and China to hack data and release whatever damaging things they find on Democrats and it won't matter. So expect a Democratic candidate that is pretty much a lock to lose to Trump in the future. 

Assume all emails will see the light of day (stop being petty and stupid via email) and get some fucking encryption.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Week said:

Assume all emails will see the light of day (stop being petty and stupid via email) and get some fucking encryption.

It won't be enough. For starters, most of the harmful Podesta emails came from, like, 2012. 

And if you think that random officials are going to use encryption in addition to other things, hah. Just...hah. But even if they did, states have routinely been able to break it.

Also, emails aren't going to be it. Social media accounts are going to be hacked. Any kind of instant messaging will be hacked. You will likely find actual bugs in offices now, and secret recordings that leak out. You'll see phones hacked into, documents stolen, etc. 

So yeah, expect that anything that can be hacked, will. And no one will care who does it, because secrets being revealed are more important than anything else.

I almost want Democrats to start using yammer or slack or something like that and have all communication completely in the open, and make it a feature of their transparency. Show the world their strategies and assume that they're going to be broadcast. That is fairly limiting, but it would make Democrats be the party of true openness, and that itself has a lot of value. Never gonna happen though, and with good reason - the things politicians do to compromise often go against their stated goals, and they need that wiggle room.