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

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I guess. But tell me this isn't as embarrassing as fuck for all of these pissants...

  

 

You would think that. And it would be super embarrassing for a liberal-minded person, because it's grossly unfair. That isn't how they think. Cruz is back to being part of the ingroup. He's a bit humiliated, but he's apologized and come back. That's what matters. 

This explains why so often conservatives are willing to forgive someone their horrible trespasses - like rape, or cheating, or whatever - because what they did isn't as important as them being part of the tribe. We heard this about Petraeus too - that because he did the time, he was okay. 

[OldGimletEye]

58 minutes ago, The Brandon Stark said:

It's also equally upsetting that close to 65 million people voted for a career criminal who much like the rest of you have blamed everything but her for the lose.

Showing, once again, what an intellectual trash heap Conservatism has become.

Somebody on the right needs to really clean house. Badly. But, I'm not holding my breath.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This explains why so often conservatives are willing to forgive someone their horrible trespasses - like rape, or cheating, or whatever - because what they did isn't as important as them being part of the tribe. We heard this about Petraeus too - that because he did the time, he was okay. 

 I guess you have to have a soul or some shred of dignity to feel shame. 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 I guess you have to have a soul or some shred of dignity to feel shame. 

Nah, it's nothing so nefarious as that. It's simply how some people think. It's taken me a while to figure out the kind of empathy required to understand this sort of thing, but I think I have a pretty decent model. 

Basically, think of these as competing chimps. There will be some really truly vicious fights, but if the defeated chimp shows subservience they're welcomed back and forgiven - and they move on, too. And they might hold a grudge and feel it's unfair, but being part of the tribe is more important. Cruz, mind you, thought the way you did too - that Trump would be rejected by the tribe, that he'd be a huge loser, that he couldn't possibly be accepted. But Cruz misread - and what isn't important is shared values, but simply tribal loyalty and tribal membership. 

[Kalbear]

25 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well, please cite me these polls.  Seriously.  Did the polls tighten from before to after Comey's letter?  Undoubtedly.  But you are asserting there is data wherein voters demonstrated a 12 to 14 point swing and indicated their reason for switching votes, rather than simply the natural tightening that happens every cycle.  If this is the case, please link.  Alternatively, if you're just treating the Comey letter as a natural experiment (i.e. comparing polling immediately before to after), please stop.  That's classic fallacious reasoning.

My skepticism is not directed towards you, but rather based off this thread recently going off the rails wherein referring to a Trump administration as an autocracy and discussion of Trump's impeachment becomes the accepted standard as opposed to its proper place as a ludicrous sideshow.

It is very, very rare for polls to 'naturally' tighten by 3 points within a week of the election, and point of fact it hasn't happened in 20 years. The polling was exceedingly consistent from 2000 to 2012 in the last weeks; this was one of the reasons that people like Sam Yang were so confident. There simply aren't big changes.

2016 was different.

Now, it's certainly possible that this had nothing to do with the timing of the Comey letter, and that the polls simply changed. This is counterindicated by things like Trump getting 'late deciding' voters something like 2 to 1 (I'll see if I can find the article), but that's a possibility. But 'natural tightening' doesn't happen like this, this late. Nor is it particularly indicated by Republicans naturally coming home; that had happened in October, basically. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It is very, very rare for polls to 'naturally' tighten by 3 points within a week of the election, and point of fact it hasn't happened in 20 years. The polling was exceedingly consistent from 2000 to 2012 in the last weeks; this was one of the reasons that people like Sam Yang were so confident. There simply aren't big changes.

2016 was different.

Now, it's certainly possible that this had nothing to do with the timing of the Comey letter, and that the polls simply changed. This is counterindicated by things like Trump getting 'late deciding' voters something like 2 to 1 (I'll see if I can find the article), but that's a possibility. But 'natural tightening' doesn't happen like this, this late. Nor is it particularly indicated by Republicans naturally coming home; that had happened in October, basically. 

An alternative explanation for Trumps's late surge is very simple: the large amount of undecideds - which could be observed by ANYONE looking at the aggregate polls - broke for him.  Moreover, Hillary had turnout issues and the demos she was relying upon veered too far to third parties.  I know this is an inconvenient narrative, but it's what the data suggests.  And no, it's not 'counterindicated' nor unprecedented - without the benefits of looking anything up on the internet I can say there were significant shifts in 1980 and 1992 in the last few weeks of the campaign.  This cycle, more than any other recent contest, shared the uncertainty in those elections.

[Altherion]

The 2016 election was different from other recent elections in at least half a dozen non-trivial ways and probably more. To blame the result on Comey is stretching the available evidence way, way beyond any plausibility. The best thing that theory has going for it is the sheer irony of it should it turn out to be true. If you recall the reason for Comey's letter, the situation can be framed as the campaign of the first female nominee of a major party being screwed over by the actions of a man literally named Weiner who was being investigated for... well, you know.

[mcbigski]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

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. 

Not likely.  Didn't Obama promise the most transparent administration in history already?   (Or is that a right wing fake news talking point?)

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

An alternative explanation for Trumps's late surge is very simple: the large amount of undecideds - which could be observed by ANYONE looking at the aggregate polls - broke for him.  Moreover, Hillary had turnout issues and the demos she was relying upon veered too far to third parties.  I know this is an inconvenient narrative, but it's what the data suggests.  And no, it's not 'counterindicated' nor unprecedented - without the benefits of looking anything up on the internet I can say there were significant shifts in 1980 and 1992 in the last few weeks of the campaign.  This cycle, more than any other recent contest, shared the uncertainty in those elections.

It was similar to 1980 - but 1980 had the hostage crisis very, very late in the polls. 1992 - you might have a point there. 

The problem with your interpretation is that there weren't a large amount of undecideds late in the polling. Or at least no larger than prior elections. There had been as early as October, when the aggregate polling was around 85% - but that got bumped up to 90-95% by late October. And Trump did have a 'surge' there, of sorts, and that's when people started saying things were tightening. What we saw between then and the Comey letter was the same number of people polling for 'someone' - but that someone was actually switching to Trump. As a quickie example, the Reuters poll had about the same people 'undecided' but had Trump change +5 between the last week of October and November 7th. NBC showed a similar trend. If you were right, you would expect Clinton's numbers to largely remain the same and Trump to increase (which is what we saw in October) - but this has Clinton decreasing. How do you explain that with undecided voters?

[LongRider]

Quote

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — President-elect Donald Trump has continued employing a private security and intelligence team at his victory rallies, and he is expected to keep at least some members of the team after he becomes president, according to people familiar with the plans.

The arrangement represents a major break from tradition. All modern presidents and presidents-elect have entrusted their personal security entirely to the Secret Service, and their event security mostly to local law enforcement, according to presidential security experts and Secret Service sources.

 

But Trump — who puts a premium on loyalty and has demonstrated great interest in having forceful security at his events — has opted to maintain an aggressive and unprecedented private security force, led by Keith Schiller, a retired New York City cop and Navy veteran who started working for Trump in 1999 as a part-time bodyguard, eventually rising to become his head of security.

from here: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-security-force-232797

 

edt; sorry, Krugman quote linked to a shit site, removed.

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, mcbigski said:

Not likely.  Didn't Obama promise the most transparent administration in history already?   (Or is that a right wing fake news talking point?)

No, it was his point, and there were mixed reviews. But Obama isn't the Democratic party, or at least he won't be for long. 

That said, I can bet you a shiny dollar that whatever ends up happening Obama will be significantly more transparent than Trump is. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The 2016 election was different from other recent elections in at least half a dozen non-trivial ways and probably more. To blame the result on Comey is stretching the available evidence way, way beyond any plausibility. The best thing that theory has going for it is the sheer irony of it should it turn out to be true. If you recall the reason for Comey's letter, the situation can be framed as the campaign of the first female nominee of a major party being screwed over by the actions of a man literally named Weiner who was being investigated for... well, you know.

As I pointed out, there are a ton of reasons why Clinton lost. But saying Comey's letter didn't have an effect when 'scandal' and 'email' dominated the last week of news and polls indicated Clinton heading down in the last week is wishful thinking at best.

[TheKitttenGuard]

I find it odd how throughout the campagin most people against Clinton constantly talk about Podesta's E-mails.

When Comey hit for a solid week Republicans talk of Impeachment on first day and Constitutional crisis.

Now apparantly none of it matters.

[mcbigski]

Kal if there were a way to quantify that I'd consider the wager but this is politics.  So much bs.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As I pointed out, there are a ton of reasons why Clinton lost. But saying Comey's letter didn't have an effect when 'scandal' and 'email' dominated the last week of news and polls indicated Clinton heading down in the last week is wishful thinking at best.

I agree with this.  Because it's measured analysis.

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There had been as early as October, when the aggregate polling was around 85% - but that got bumped up to 90-95% by late October. And Trump did have a 'surge' there, of sorts, and that's when people started saying things were tightening. What we saw between then and the Comey letter was the same number of people polling for 'someone' - but that someone was actually switching to Trump. As a quickie example, the Reuters poll had about the same people 'undecided' but had Trump change +5 between the last week of October and November 7th. NBC showed a similar trend. If you were right, you would expect Clinton's numbers to largely remain the same and Trump to increase (which is what we saw in October) - but this has Clinton decreasing. How do you explain that with undecided voters?

I'm not sure what we're arguing about here - particularly IRT the Reuters/Ipsos poll you linked to.  It shows 17 percent of likely voters retained some type of uncertainty in the election (Other, Won't Vote, or Don't Know/Refuse).  That was exactly my point.  As for Hillary's numbers trending down while Trump's trended up, that can and often does happen without persuasion - it's simply a reflection of a shift  in the electorate.  Seriously, I'm at a loss for how the numbers you present contradict anything I said earlier.  If anything, the Reuters numbers fortify my point.

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

I agree with this.  Because it's measured analysis.

When you'd like to present that, let me know.

Just now, dmc515 said:

I'm not sure what we're arguing about here - particularly IRT the Reuters/Ipsos poll you linked to.  It shows 17 percent of likely voters retained some type of uncertainty in the election (Other, Won't Vote, or Don't Know/Refuse).  That was exactly my point.  As for Hillary's numbers trending down while Trump's trended up, that can and often does happen without persuasion - it's simply a reflection of a shift  in the electorate.  Seriously, I'm at a loss for how the numbers you present contradict anything I said earlier.  If anything, the Reuters numbers fortify my point.

Okay - how does Clinton's numbers going down fortify your point? A 'shift in the electorate' rarely happens without actual changes occurring. It doesn't typically happen from poll to poll, either - but every single poll I looked at had the same shift, down. How do you explain every poll having Clinton basically the same from week to week up until the Comey info coming out - and then all of them having Clinton going down? 

Can you find any prior polls that behaved the same that also did not have some large even occur that would explain them? I could not. 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Kal if there were a way to quantify that I'd consider the wager but this is politics.  So much bs.

Per the WaPo site, there is a ton. But Trump already starts at a massive deficit: he hasn't released his personal tax returns, hasn't revealed what his financial status is in various places, and hasn't done the basic stuff all presidents have done previously. Good luck being transparent before that. 

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay - how does Clinton's numbers going down fortify your point? A 'shift in the electorate' rarely happens without actual changes occurring. It doesn't typically happen from poll to poll, either - but every single poll I looked at had the same shift, down. How do you explain every poll having Clinton basically the same from week to week up until the Comey info coming out - and then all of them having Clinton going down? 

Why did Hillary's numbers go down?  Because a large chunk of those undecideds were typically GOP voters that eventually came home.  I don't feel the need to prove that to you, so sure, have fun with it.  But it was something I and most analysts expected.  As for the rest of the shift - sure, it could have been Comey.  Totally not averse to that explanation.  Problem is could also be a number of alternative explanations, e.g. independent voters that traditionally vote retrospectively, general partisan polarization, the fact she stopped campaigning late, Russia hacks, or fake news damaging her candidacy.  Pick your favorite narrative.  

[DMC]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Yikes

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

Why did Hillary's numbers go down?  Because a large chunk of those undecideds were typically GOP voters that eventually came home.  I don't feel the need to prove that to you, so sure, have fun with it.  But it was something I and most analysts expected.  As for the rest of the shift - sure, it could have been Comey.  Totally not averse to that explanation.  Problem is could also be a number of alternative explanations, e.g. independent voters that traditional vote retrospectively, general partisan polarization, the fact she stopped campaigned late, Russia hacks, or fake news damaging her candidacy.  Pick your favorite narrative.  

But...they weren't undecideds. That's the point. They had said they were going to vote for Clinton. I would agree if it was the difference of the two that changed, but it wasn't. We went from something like  Clinton at 46% to Clinton at 43%. That's not undecideds changing. That's someone saying 'yes, going to vote for this person' to 'no, going to vote for someone else'. 

And that doesn't happen very often.