U.S. Politics-Getting a Handel On Why the DNC Is Pissing Ossof

[Inigima]

Also, it bears noting that Trump's sham foundation paid O'Keefe: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-foundation-paid-activist-filmmaker-james-o-keefe-n670381

[DMC]

19 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That's totally true, though as @Altherion is fond of pointing out their main area of anger was not the ACA - it was the economy. 

That depends on who you ask.  Proponents of valence politics (i.e. economic) models unsurprisingly find it had the strongest effect on the 2010 Republican shellacking.  However, it should be noted other issues had a significant effect on their dataset - albeit not the ACA.  Then again, nobody really argues with that.  What other electoral scholars observed was traditional economic models could not account for the magnitude of the GOP victory.  One study used matching methods to examine how much a vote for the ACA cost Democrats in competitive districts:

Quote

We simulate the Democratic seat share in the House of Representatives in a counterfactual scenario in which all Democrats in competitive districts opposed health care reform. In this scenario, Democrats would have retained an average of an additional 25 seats and would have had a 62% chance of winning enough races to maintain majority control of the House.

 

19 hours ago, Kalbear said:

But boy, do I not share the optimism that them voting this cruel bill into place will make people finally realize that they were bad.

I'm shocked!

Since we're talking 2010, what should have you optimistic is the success of models that simply used the generic congressional vote or "seats in trouble" (which relied on Charlie Cook's district data) as the main indicators.  These forecasts were conducted in early July and late August of 2010 and predicted Republican gains of 50 and 51 to 52 seats, respectively - still underestimating the surge by about a dozen votes.  Obviously, it's far too early to know where these indicators will be next summer let alone November 2018, but the current trends (RCP average currently has the generic vote at Dems +7.8) in both metrics is undeniably reason for optimism for Democrats.

[Gertrude]

I honestly don't see how either of those two videos confirms the 'fake news' narrative. Russia is a story. There is an active investigation and people are leaking like sieves. Do I think the media is over-hyping it for ratings? Of course. At the core, is there a real story there? Absolutely.

The producer saying 'I think they have nothing and want to keep digging' is pure speculation. We don't actually have a clue as to where the investigation is at. It comes off to me as personal opinion in the video. The Van Jones video shows him saying ' Russia is a big nothing burger'. OK, I don't actually know what part of the Russia thing he is talking about, and it doesn't really line up with the comment they showed earlier in the video. He talked about how Trump was saying nice things about Russia even after they attacked us. Both of those statements are without any context and are separate observations not dependent on each other.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

That depends on who you ask.  Proponents of valence politics (i.e. economic) models unsurprisingly find it had the strongest effect on the 2010 Republican shellacking.  However, it should be noted other issues had a significant effect on their dataset - albeit not the ACA.  Then again, nobody really argues with that.  What other electoral scholars observed was traditional economic models could not account for the magnitude of the GOP victory.  One study used matching methods to examine how much a vote for the ACA cost Democrats in competitive districts:

I suspect the easiest thing to explain it is what explains Trump - which is racism. 

12 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I'm shocked!

Since we're talking 2010, what should have you optimistic is the success of models that simply used the generic congressional vote or "seats in trouble" (which relied on Charlie Cook's district data) as the main indicators.  These forecasts were conducted in early July and late August of 2010 and predicted Republican gains of 50 and 51 to 52 seats, respectively - still underestimating the surge by about a dozen votes.  Obviously, it's far too early to know where these indicators will be next summer let alone November 2018, but the current trends (RCP average currently has the generic vote at Dems +7.8) in both metrics is undeniably reason for optimism for Democrats.

I'm very skeptical of any data pre-gerrymandering 2010 as far as its predictive quality. 

[DMC]

13 hours ago, commiedore said:

thanks for that article. just read another (http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/democrats-help-corporate-donors-block-california-health-care-measure-progressives) which addresses some of that, and more. namely, (again, being a moron, i may be missing out on technical nuances) that there is "detail economic analysis" stating over all saving should outweigh costs in terms of funds allocated, (see infra) as well as the fact the  proposed bill contains failsafe language that prevent its enaction without adequate funding. 

Not sure where that is in the article linked, although I could be guilty of skimming.  Did you mean this?:

Quote

While the report said fiscal estimates “are subject to enormous uncertainty,” it projected that $200 billion worth of existing federal, state and local health care spending would offset about half of the estimated $400 billion annual cost. Shifting that money, though, could require California to secure waivers from the federal government that would allow it to redirect the federal money into the new program.

The original bill did not include a specific tax proposal to raise the rest of the needed revenue. However, the report estimated that the other $200 billion could be funded by moving state payroll taxes up to 15 percent , a levy the report said “would be offset to a large degree by reduced spending on health care coverage by employers and employees.”

Regardless, good to know that half of the cost would be offset by existing spending - that's pretty significant.

13 hours ago, commiedore said:

basically, i understand this particular iteration of this particular bill was not ready to be passed, but motherfuck if every goddamn democrat in this country shouldn't be fighting tooth and nail to forward sp-uhc, and shit like this is extremely disheartening 

That's fair enough but it's not surprising office holders are going to be very cautious with health care legislation - it's in their self interest.  I also don't think it's useful to imply it's because Dems are beholden to the drug lobby - the $3 to 4 million they mention since 2012 isn't really that much.  What is significant, as they mention right after, is the over $100 million the drug industry spent defeating a 2016 ballot initiative.  

However, again I agree with overall point that they should have sent the bill back to a committee to continue work on it rather than effectively table it, which seems to be what they did.   

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I suspect the easiest thing to explain it is what explains Trump - which is racism. 

Studies have shown that Obama racialized attitudes on health care.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm very skeptical of any data pre-gerrymandering 2010 as far as its predictive quality. 

That may make sense IRT Erikson et al.'s model (and I'd have to review their adjustments), but that makes no sense for the "seats in trouble" model because the effects of gerrymandering are inherently accounted for.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

That may make sense IRT Erikson et al.'s model (and I'd have to review their adjustments), but that makes no sense for the "seats in trouble" model because the effects of gerrymandering are inherently accounted for.

I don't understand how this is the case; from the 2010 article you pointed out, it doesn't take into account the gerrymandering effect at all. Do you have another study on this?

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't understand how this is the case; from the 2010 article you pointed out, it doesn't take into account the gerrymandering effect at all. Do you have another study on this?

The effects of gerrymandering are accounted for because they rely on Charlie Cook's data.  This is in turn entirely based on the partisan divisions of each district - which is how gerrymandering would have an impact.

[OldGimletEye]

36 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

That depends on who you ask.  Proponents of valence politics (i.e. economic) models unsurprisingly find it had the strongest effect on the 2010 Republican shellacking.  However, it should be noted other issues had a significant effect on their dataset - albeit not the ACA.  Then again, nobody really argues with that.  What other electoral scholars observed was traditional economic models could not account for the magnitude of the GOP victory.  One study used matching methods to examine how much a vote for the ACA cost Democrats in competitive districts:

Thanks for the link to the study. Will be an interesting read for later.

My impression is the ACA did very much cause the Democrats to lose seats. In 2010, just two years after the "Bush Boom" ended, I do not think people, in general, were ready to buy that Republicans were a better choice as far as the economy was concerned.  Or maybe I'm wrong and more people thought the cure to our problems back then was the gold standard and the confidence fairy.

The downside of the ACA was that it caused the Democrats to take a beating in the short term. The upside is that it's passage may have changed the trajectory of our healthcare debate for good. And if that is the case, it seems to me that taking a beating over it, in the short term, was probably worth it.

The Republican Party made sure the Democrats paid an enormous price for the ACA, in my view. Now its time to return the favor, unless the Democrats were to get some major policy concessions.
 

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I suspect the easiest thing to explain it is what explains Trump - which is racism. 

This too.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The effects of gerrymandering are accounted for because they rely on Charlie Cook's data.  This is in turn entirely based on the partisan divisions of each district - which is how gerrymandering would have an impact.

Well, if you're talking about this data I'm not seeing how this is particularly optimistic; Democrats have fewer solid seats, a much greater amount of toss-ups and Republicans have 228 seats that lean-R or above. In order for Democrats to take the House they'd have to win all their seats, all the tossups AND all the lean-R seats. That doesn't seem particularly optimistic to me. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Stego said:

I'm not a Trump supporter. Not even 1%.

However, these videos/articles prove without a doubt that CNN is a news fabricator -- fake news. It absolutely validates his positions. I'm disgusted by it, but seeing it any other way is partisan nonsense. They should lose their broadcast license.

Give me a fucking break. Saying there's "no smoking gun" and "this is just about ratings" does not make it fake news. Any compelling story involving the President is going to get ratings. That doesn't mean there's nothing to the story. This is one producer's opinion, and he's not a hard news guy.

I'm glad that CNN decided to take a hard line with the last story, but it should have always been their policy to not run a story that has one unconfirmed source. 

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, if you're talking about this data I'm not seeing how this is particularly optimistic; Democrats have fewer solid seats, a much greater amount of toss-ups and Republicans have 228 seats that lean-R or above. In order for Democrats to take the House they'd have to win all their seats, all the tossups AND all the lean-R seats. That doesn't seem particularly optimistic to me. 

Because it's only June 2017.  The Dems have 3 toss-ups and 8 leaners compared to the GOP's 6 toss-ups and 19 leaners.  If you've been following Cook as long as I have, you know the amount of seats moved into these groups tends to increase as the election approaches - and a party's vulnerability tends to reflect overall trends, like presidential approval, the economy, and the generic congressional ballot.

[Week]

1 hour ago, Tempra said:

 

The video should give everyone pause about the incentives of news media to hype / mislead / push the boundaries / fabricate / lie about news stories for ratings and money. 

But, because it received only two million YouTube views  (likely not even unique!), the video isn't even real news. 

Hype / Mislead / Fabricate / Lie about news stories is the sub-tagline for FoxNews along with (RIP) Fair and Balanced.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

Quote

Notes: Fox News Channel, also known as Fox News, is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel that is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of 21st Century Fox. Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting and promoting the Republican Party and has been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact. (7/19/2016)

CNN certainly has its problems -- I'd argue those problems have been introduced as a reaction to FoxNews' trail-blazing effort into the realm of innuendo, dog-whistle, and falsehoods.

eta - full-disclosure from the same media watchdog site

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

Quote

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: The Cable News Network (CNN) is an American basic cable and satellite television channel that is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System division of Time Warner. It was founded in 1980 by American media proprietor Ted Turner as a 24-hour cable news channel; however, by April 2016, a CNN executive officially described the channel as “no longer a TV news network” and instead as “a 24-hour global multi-platform network.” CNN has a left bias in reporting and sometimes uses sensational headlines.  CNN typically sources its news sources. Do not confuse CNN’s talk shows with actual reporting of news. Further, they have failed numerous fact checks from Politifact. (5/16/2016) Updated (6/4/2017)

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Because it's only June 2017.  The Dems have 3 toss-ups and 8 leaners compared to the GOP's 6 toss-ups and 19 leaners.

Right, but they're also down 40 seats, which seems like an important factor to not, ya know, elide.

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

 If you've been following Cook as long as I have, you know the amount of seats moved into these groups tends to increase as the election approaches - and a party's vulnerability tends to reflect overall trends, like presidential approval, the economy, and the generic congressional ballot.

That seems fine; it's problematic to me that Cook's data is behind a paywall. 

Mostly, it seems odd to dismiss looking at the current data which you called optimistic as 'too early to tell'. Is it your prediction that things are going to get better in the next 12-15 months for Democrats? 

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Right, but they're also down 40 seats, which seems like an important factor to not, ya know, elide.

That seems fine; it's problematic to me that Cook's data is behind a paywall. 

Mostly, it seems odd to dismiss looking at the current data which you called optimistic as 'too early to tell'. Is it your prediction that things are going to get better in the next 12-15 months for Democrats? 

I'm not dismissing it entirely - as I emphasized the GOP has twice as many toss-ups and leaners as Dems - which is encouraging at this juncture.  My point is if the generic vote and presidential approval number continue as they are today a year from now, Cook will be much more aggressive on which GOP seats to put in these two categories (subject to candidate quality and fundraising).  These decisions will be based on Cook's PVI for each district, and Wikipedia at least has the 2016 numbers for that.  Those numbers show that if we count R+5 to D+5 as potentially "poachable seats" (a reasonable if conservative estimate based on the current generic vote I think), Dems hold 30 to the GOP's 51.

[Mr Fixit]

3 hours ago, Stego said:

I'm not a Trump supporter. Not even 1%.

However, these videos/articles prove without a doubt that CNN is a news fabricator -- fake news. It absolutely validates his positions. I'm disgusted by it, but seeing it any other way is partisan nonsense. They should lose their broadcast license.

Of course it's fake news. Have you read Herman's and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent? It's what these guys do. Democratic establishment decided that the Russia angle is a great way to deflect attention from the real culprits for disastrous losses at federal, state, and local levels all across the country. They can't talk about policy substance that their base wants -- single payer, financial regulation, income inequality, etc. -- because donors wouldn't like it, so Dems have to gaslight and manipulate and shift attention to Russia! Russia! Russia! As if it's Russia's fault that 50% of US wage workers are at the poverty line, that number one cause of bankruptcy are medical bills, that student loan debt surpassed 1.3 trillion dollars, or that, economy aside, over 1,000 people are killed by police each year. 

If you want more on this, just read this well-documented article. https://theintercept.com/2017/06/27/cnn-journalists-resign-latest-example-of-media-recklessness-on-the-russia-threat/

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

The downside of the ACA was that it caused the Democrats to take a beating in the short term. The upside is that it's passage may have changed the trajectory of our healthcare debate for good. And if that is the case, it seems to me that taking a beating over it, in the short term, was probably worth it.

There's no need to say "may," it absolutely has changed it. Previously Republicans by and large opposed a federal healthcare plan. Now they're having to work within that very framework for their own healthcare plan. You know the old saying, "you can't take away an entitlement once people realize the benefits of it."

@Kalbear, FYI I didn't ignore you comment, I just think @dmc515 covered everything, and I largely agree with his comments. The one thing I'll add is that I'm not at a point were I am overly optimistic about the Democrats chances in 2018 and beyond, but I no longer feel as pessimistic as I did shortly after the election. Trump's presidency was largely going to take one of two paths (or a combination of both I guess). He was either going to steamroll over the Democrats and pass a ton of awful pieces of legislation or his administration was going to be a comedy of errors, and while you can point to some stuff that's indicative of the former, it's mostly been the latter. And I doubt anything will change. 

[Fez]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Because it's only June 2017.  The Dems have 3 toss-ups and 8 leaners compared to the GOP's 6 toss-ups and 19 leaners.  If you've been following Cook as long as I have, you know the amount of seats moved into these groups tends to increase as the election approaches - and a party's vulnerability tends to reflect overall trends, like presidential approval, the economy, and the generic congressional ballot.

Cook also always give a huge benefit of the doubt to incumbents no matter what the data says, right up until late September before the election; which, fair enough, the advantages of incumbency are often great. But it also means that when there is a wave, Cook won't predict much of it for a while; unless the wave is being driven by retirements.

 

In other news, if these senators are sincere (and I suspect they mostly are not), McConnell is never getting a health care bill passed.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/key-republicans-want-to-scrap-health-bill-s-tax-cuts-for-wealthy

Quote

 

Susan Collins of Maine and Mike Rounds of South Dakota both criticized the draft bill released by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for repealing a surtax on net investment income imposed under Obamacare. 

“I do not see a justification for doing away with the 3.8 percent tax on investment income, because that is not something that increases the cost of health care,” Collins said. “So I distinguish between those tax increases that were part of Obamacare that increase premiums and the cost of health care versus those that do not.”

A third Republican, Bob Corker of Tennessee, expressed discomfort with the idea of cutting taxes on the rich while transferring burdens on the poor.

 

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Cook also always give a huge benefit of the doubt to incumbents no matter what the data says, right up until late September before the election; which, fair enough, the advantages of incumbency are often great. But it also means that when there is a wave, Cook won't predict much of it for a while; unless the wave is being driven by retirements.

Yes Cook (and Sabato, for that matter) has always been cautious about both the incumbency advantage and predicting "waves" - and he has every reason to do so.  This is almost certainly the main reason why the link I originally provided under-predicted the 2010 gain by a dozen seats.

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

In other news, if these senators are sincere (and I suspect they mostly are not), McConnell is never getting a health care bill passed

I don't think they're sincere either, but they are providing the talking points the Dems need to repeat over and over if this bill gets passed:  it is the greatest redistribution of wealth since at least Reagan.  I think Schumer said this yesterday, but 30 seconds of googling yielded me nothing.  Anyway, he should say it every day.

Another benefit of the bill is it has been fairly effective in un-demonizing Medicaid.  It's previously been perceived by a lot of voters as a handout to the poor.  With so many Republican governors and even legislators highlighting its importance, that perception is harder to accept for any non-strong partisans.

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Trump's presidency was largely going to take one of two paths (or a combination of both I guess). He was either going to steamroll over the Democrats and pass a ton of awful pieces of legislation or his administration was going to be a comedy of errors, and while you can point to some stuff that's indicative of the former, it's mostly been the latter.

I think the most encouraging thing about the administration thus far is by almost anybody's definition of the term we should still be in the honeymoon period, yet the approval and generic congressional vote numbers are already where they're at.  Plus, other than the travel ban and Gorsuch, this is without Trump actually doing anything that the vast majority of voters pay attention to.

All that, and my discussion throughout the day, aside, I am not overly optimistic about 2018 either.  I think the Dems are likely to pick up anywhere from 15 to 30 seats just based on the cyclical (or "balancing") aspects of the "out" party in midterms.  However, that number is just as likely to be 15 as 30 depending on the next 16 months, and they to pick up need 24.

[Martell Spy]

Polls show GOP health bill bleeding out
A new round of surveys shows support is under 20 percent.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/28/health-care-polls-republicans-240062