US Politics: March Madness

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Formerly Blue Working Class Districts - These are districts that Obama won but Trump cleaned up in.  The question is whether these voters have switched to being Republican or if the Democrats can bring them back with a more economic, working class message (Clinton was too urban elitist to be a good fit in these districts).  Examples include PA-18 and IA-1. 

There's a key word missing from this. Starts with a 'w'. And it's not 'working class'. 

No analysis of whether white working-class voters can be 'won back' can sensibly be performed without first looking at why working-class voters of other races don't need to be won back. The key to that is unlikely to be found in economic factors, nor is it likely to be about elitism - at least not these things alone. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Of course, Democrats won PA-18 (which Trump won +20) and lost GA-6 (which Trump won +1).  Obviously no two races are exactly identical, but I think it's really dangerous to dismiss blue collar former democrats as a lost cause.  If Republicans can count on winning PA, MI, IA and WI, the Presidential map gets a great deal easier for them, not to mention the Senate.  And I don't see how Democrats compete in those states without at least a competitive showing amongst blue collar white voters. 

I think what you have to hope for is that clue collar voters went for Trump more so than fully leaving the Democratic party. I don’t have the data at the moment, but I recall seeing several articles and studies that demonstrated that one of the strongest indicators that an individual would vote for Trump was white racial resentment, and that the most important issue for voters who displayed white racial resentment was immigration. Idk how Democrats win those voters back when Trump is trafficking in hardcore immigration demonization.

[DMC]

39 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Now, Logan's downfall and arrest came, when his wife secretly recorded an audio-file in which he admitted to covering up Palmer's death and it was sent to the Attorney General, one of the few guys in his administration who was not corrupt.

Now, if this same scenario happened today, with the audio-file and everything, would Trump get away with it?

If the First Lady is as wily as Jean Smart, she'll find a way to get the recording into the right hands.  Also of not, she eventually stabbed her husband.

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

So the reason (or one of them, at least) for this analysis is supposedly to determine how the DNC should allocate limited resources in which kinds of districts. If that is the case, I have a feeling a more 'decision-making' analysis should be used that introduces costs (and other resources) into modeling. Many companies and universities do this all the time, even if it includes intangibles (by applying some sort of value to them). Research of this kind has taken off in recent years, I wonder if political parties have at all caught up with the current state of affairs. 

I have no idea what kind of models the DNC uses (nor, for that matter, exactly what models you're referring to), but they definitely do take costs into account - particularly how expensive the media market is in respective districts.  Another thing to consider is candidate quality - I repeatedly lamented the national party's lack of investment in the PA-18th race.  Now, I still think they should have put in at least a $1-2 million ad buy down the stretch run, but even if they did so, it wasn't necessary for them to match the RNC's massive investment because Lamb had run up a great lead on his own in hard money contributions and was clearly the superior candidate.  The hope, obviously, is there are plenty of similar examples to make decisions easier for the national party.

22 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Of course, Democrats won PA-18 (which Trump won +20) and lost GA-6 (which Trump won +1).  Obviously no two races are exactly identical, but I think it's really dangerous to dismiss blue collar former democrats as a lost cause.  If Republicans can count on winning PA, MI, IA and WI, the Presidential map gets a great deal easier for them, not to mention the Senate.  And I don't see how Democrats compete in those states without at least a competitive showing amongst blue collar white voters. 

I agree - I think it's crucial the Dems compete as much as possible in blue collar districts this cycle, as writing them off could severely debilitate the party in the midwest which as you said would be very bad for the presidential map.  The 538 article makes the point that the type of district shouldn't really be a main part of the calculous when allocating resources, and I agree whole-heartedly (which is, ya know, why I posted it).

To expand on what I mentioned above about candidate quality, the national party is limited anyway.  The RNC has consistently outraised the DNC by about 2-1.  The DCCC is doing relatively better, but the national party is likely to only be able to invest heavily in the most competitive and/or expensive races.  It's going to be incumbent upon the candidates to outraise their Republican opponents and tap into big donors through soft money.

Finally, in related news, Beto O'Rourke announced today he raised $6.7 million (from 140k contributors) in the first quarter.  I've been bearish on his chances against Cruz, but those numbers are indeed a-poppin.

[butterbumps!]

I'm kind of interested to see whether the prodigious corruption of this shit administration will be what finally sticks and peels away the noble white working class' support (even if the economy doesn't crash, I mean).  NY Mag seems to be testing this angle, first with this piece ("Corruption, Not Russia, is Trump's Greatest Liability"), as well as this one, a comprehensive index of the astronomical grift going on.  It's not really anything "new," but a useful refresher, and just breath taking when you look at it all in this categorized list form.

Quote

In fact, although Trump refuses to disclose the details of his myriad business operations, he continues to enjoy access to every dime he makes as president. Instead of setting up a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest, as other presidents have done, Trump put his two grown sons in charge of his more than 500 business entities. His sons regularly brief Trump about how the enterprises are doing, enabling him to personally monitor how his decisions in office affect his bottom line. What’s more, only 15 days after this “eyes wide open” trust was set up, Trump amended the fine print to allow him to take money out of the operation any time he pleases. The loophole, buried on page 161 of the 166-page form, stipulates that any “net income or principal” can be distributed to Trump “at his request.” Far from putting his wealth in a blind trust, Trump asked the public for its blind trust, effectively sticking his money in a piggy bank in Don Jr.’s room that he is free to raid at any hour of the day or night.

Trump’s children are working hard to cash in on his time in office — especially with foreign investors. At taxpayer expense, they have flown to Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, Dubai, and India in search of licensing and real-estate deals, trading on the president’s influence in exchange for investments. But the biggest complication of Trump’s presidency — and the one he works hardest to keep secret — is the way his entire business operation is mired in massive debt. Rather than being independently wealthy, public records show, Trump and the business partnerships in which he is a leading investor owe big banks and foreign governments at least $2.3 billion — far more than his disclosure reports indicate. His largest single loan — for nearly $1 billion — is from a syndicate assembled by Goldman Sachs that includes the state-owned Bank of China. If either Trump or Jared Kushner, who tried to shake down Qatar’s finance minister for a loan, winds up needing to negotiate new terms on his ballooning debt, America could find itself being dictated to by a foreign government — all because the White House, thanks to Trump’s business model, has become a true House of Cards.

What follows is 501 days of official corruption, from small-time graft and brazen influence peddling to full-blown raids on the federal Treasury. Given how little Trump has disclosed about his finances, this timeline of self-dealing is undoubtedly only a fraction of the corruption that will eventually come to light. But as even this initial glimpse makes clear, Trump isn’t draining the swamp — he’s monetizing it.

 

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

There's a key word missing from this. Starts with a 'w'. And it's not 'working class'. 

No analysis of whether white working-class voters can be 'won back' can sensibly be performed without first looking at why working-class voters of other races don't need to be won back. The key to that is unlikely to be found in economic factors, nor is it likely to be about elitism - at least not these things alone. 

 

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think what you have to hope for is that clue collar voters went for Trump more so than fully leaving the Democratic party. I don’t have the data at the moment, but I recall seeing several articles and studies that demonstrated that one of the strongest indicators that an individual would vote for Trump was white racial resentment, and that the most important issue for voters who displayed white racial resentment was immigration. Idk how Democrats win those voters back when Trump is trafficking in hardcore immigration demonization.

White racial anxiety is absolutely a factor here, but I don't believe it's the only factor.  PA-18 didn't hinge on immigration, even though the Republicans wanted it to.  I think that Trump's stoking racial tensions will be much less effective in midterm congressional races.  Obama isn't in the White House anymore and Democrats running on protecting the social safety net, anti-corruption message will find a lot of receptive voters in 2018. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Over/under 48 hours until Pruitt gets canned?

I’ll take the under.  

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Over/under 48 hours until Pruitt gets canned?

I’ll take the under.  

I'll take that action, cabinet officials usually linger in this administration unless they cross Trump personally, and Pruitt hasn't said a bad word about Trump since he took office.  I think he's got time yet. 

EDIT:  Plus I personally loath Pruitt so much I just can't believe we'd be rid of him so easily. 

[Paladin of Ice]

Yeah, I doubt fate will be kind enough to dispose of Pruitt that quickly, but he does seem to to be circling the drain and getting a lot of bad press lately.

Heres' a little something I want to call some attention to: advocacy group Texas Civil Rights Project estimates at least 3,000 US Veterans have been deported in recent years, mostly for non-violent offenses. The number has to be estimated because DOJ doesn't track the Veteran status of deportees. While anything a group devoted to a cause says should be taken with a grain of salt, here's a link to their short overview of their finds, a direct link to the PDF with their full report, an NPR audio story about the most recent such deportation, and interviews with one of the group's attorneys and a previously deported veteran who runs a support house to help the veterans deported to Mexico.

Also, at least some of what they report on, such as the support center nicknamed "The Bunker" in Tijuana where deported veterans get support and help acclimating to the changes in their life, have been reported on several times in the past.

Quote

The Texas Civil Rights Project estimates that in total, about 3,000 U.S. military veterans have been deported from the country, though the Department of Homeland Security does not officially keep track. Hector Barajas, once such veteran, operates a safehouse in Tijuana, Mexico, nicknamed "The Bunker." The storefront functions as a makeshift asylum for veterans deported to Mexico. Barajas served in the military for six years when he was expelled from the U.S. after serving two years in prison due to a weapons charge. California Governor Jerry Brown issued a pardon to Barajas last year, paving the way for news his lawyers received yesterday from the U.S. federal government: Barajas' citizenship request will be granted.

As of this week, one more veteran was added to the list of deportations: Miguel Perez-Montes, a U.S. Army veteran who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan, was escorted across the border because of a felony drug conviction.

Perez-Montes has since met up with Hector Barajas at his deported veterans support home. Hector and Miguel discuss firsthand what it's like to be a deported veteran. 

Emma Hilbert, staff attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project, joins their discussion to explain more broadly who is being targeted, and why veterans often run into immigration issues. 

 

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Even with the drop, the market is still up 30% over the last year and a half. I assume you did not just start saving? The thing is, we should return to normal markets over time, meaning we'll have 5 to 10% corrections every year or two and a bear, 20% or more down, every 4 years or so. You have to learn to ignore the ups and downs. And your portfolio should be diversified, the old "don't have all your eggs in one basket". As you get older, you have to have larger portions in lower risks investments. I have a big chunk in cash, for example, which hurts because interest rates are low but cheers me up at times like these. I also bite the bullet and take profits when stuff is doing well, I thought I'd own Facebook for years, but I made a tidy profit and decided to sell when the bad news came out. But I know I have some fantastic mutual funds that I have not sold that did so well because of the FANG stocks that have been hit so hard right now. However, they are not a huge part of my portfolio.

Trump's attacks on Amazon are going to hurt everyone's pension plans, I bet.

Oh yeah, I mean, the rational part of my brain agrees with you...mostly. I know a lot of my fear comes from how badly I was shellacked during the Great Recession and for years after. I didn't just start saving recently, but I am behind the curve somewhat due to my circumstances of having to climb out of the incredibly deep hole the Recession left me in.

I think I'm fairly well diversified, with a mix of traditional IRA, Roth IRA and traditional 401k portfolios. My retirement strategy is moderately aggressive, since I have about 25-30 years left until retirement, with my IRAs being a bit more conservative, holding a moderately higher ratio of bonds to mutual funds split. 

I'm more aggressive with the 401k, since I'm taking advantage of my employer match and rationally, I know that measured over the next few decades, I can reasonably expect a ROI of 6-8%. 

However, I can't shake this feeling that we're heading for a recession, and that it will be a bad one, since the means by which we alleviate the severity of a recession won't be as effective. The first year of Obama's presidency we ran deficits around $1.4 trillion with the unemployment rate over 10% and the FED cut interest rates to 0%. 

But now, we will soon be running trillion dollar deficits as a matter of course, with the unemployment rate at 4% and already low interest rates. I even wrote a post either here or on another site during the 2016 election where I speculated on whether it may be better for Democrats to lose the 2016 presidential election, because we'd almost certainly have a recession between 2016 and 2020, it would be a really bad one, and that whichever party was in power when that happened would end up getting trounced in the 2020 elections. 

Like I said, I don't have a lot of rational thought or evidence to back that up, but running massive deficits during good times is going to make it much harder to fix things when the bad times come around.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

White racial anxiety is absolutely a factor here, but I don't believe it's the only factor. 

I don't either. But it is a factor.

And here's my point: even in this thread, I'm seeing liberal, Democrat supporting people discuss 'blue collar voters' when what they really mean is, 'white blue collar voters'. That assumption that white blue collar voters are blue collar voters, that they are the default and definition and other races are blue collar voters with additional characteristics that make them different from the norm, is a huge problem if you're trying to figure out how to win back (white) 'blue collar voters'. The casual elimination of race in this language leads inevitably to a downgrading of its importance as a factor in finding a solution. 

Blue collar voters like the Democrats fine - overall. White ones in particular are the issue. 

[Jace, Extat]

I've been loathe to break from my HOI4 playing of late to comment here.

But the man is having a complete mental collapse. He's sitting with world leaders of states under Russian pressure every day and rambling about caravans and Amazon and how he made NATO pay and he tried to get the president of Lithuania to say the words 'Donald Trump made us pay' like three times as she stressed the need to work together repeatedly.

It's fucking humiliating.

[Maithanet]

18 minutes ago, mormont said:

I don't either. But it is a factor.

And here's my point: even in this thread, I'm seeing liberal, Democrat supporting people discuss 'blue collar voters' when what they really mean is, 'white blue collar voters'. That assumption that white blue collar voters are blue collar voters, that they are the default and definition and other races are blue collar voters with additional characteristics that make them different from the norm, is a huge problem if you're trying to figure out how to win back (white) 'blue collar voters'. The casual elimination of race in this language leads inevitably to a downgrading of its importance as a factor in finding a solution. 

Blue collar voters like the Democrats fine - overall. White ones in particular are the issue. 

You are right that Democrats are doing fine with nonwhite blue collar workers.  But in the districts I've been talking about to take the House, most of the blue collar workers are white.  Most of the districts with a large population of nonwhite blue collar workers already have a Democratic Representative. 

[Fez]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

There's a key word missing from this. Starts with a 'w'. And it's not 'working class'. 

No analysis of whether white working-class voters can be 'won back' can sensibly be performed without first looking at why working-class voters of other races don't need to be won back. The key to that is unlikely to be found in economic factors, nor is it likely to be about elitism - at least not these things alone. 

Except Trump probably did win over some minority working class voters. Going by exit polls, compared to 2012, he decreased the Democratic margin overall among Black voters by 7 points, among Latino voters by 8 points, and among Asian voters by 9 points. If the same trend holds with them as it does among white voters, where Trump increased the Republican margin overall by only 1 point but among the white working class (defined as those without a college degree) improved the Republican margin by 14 points, then most of his gains among minorities were from working class minorities.

Of course, even with these improvements he was still blown out among minorities, and Republicans have won the white vote, and the working class white vote, comfortably for decades, so clearly there are major differences. But the "Trump effect" was not limited to white voters.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

And here's my point: even in this thread, I'm seeing liberal, Democrat supporting people discuss 'blue collar voters' when what they really mean is, 'white blue collar voters'. That assumption that white blue collar voters are blue collar voters, that they are the default and definition and other races are blue collar voters with additional characteristics that make them different from the norm, is a huge problem if you're trying to figure out how to win back (white) 'blue collar voters'. The casual elimination of race in this language leads inevitably to a downgrading of its importance as a factor in finding a solution. 

Blue collar voters like the Democrats fine - overall. White ones in particular are the issue. 

Well, the metrics that 538 article used don't account for race.  At least the aggregate income and education numbers do not - comparing Obama vs. Clinton's margins arguably does, but it also raises another point.  The Dems weren't just "fine" with non-white blue collar workers in 2016, there were turnout problems there as well (plus Clinton had slightly lesser margins with even Latino voters compared to Obama in 2012). 

I don't think anyone here denies that the predominate problem with blue collar voters is white racial resentment.  What the 538 analysis makes clear, however, is that Dems can improve or "over-perform" in poorer and less educated districts.  That could mean a number of things - increased turnout (or at least share of the electorate) of minority voters, decreased turnout (or share) of white blue collar voters, or white working class voters shifting (once again) from Trump to Dem.  Figuring that out would require individual-level analysis, but the larger takeaway is not to write such districts off under the assumption that white racial resentment means Dems can't compete.

[Zorral]

The assumption was that referencing teachers, #MeToo, students, etc. -- particularly with teachers -- that included all sorts of communities of people, not just white people.

But then, we need to assume they aren't interested in the Dem party as a party at all -- they are interested in getting things changed and getting things accomplished, and the Dems have proven themselves no more helpful than the rethugs -- just not quite as mean in ALL things, but pretty mean and cowardly and ignorant in many things. 

But Dems seem not to be criticized by people who don't like the republicans -- though the Dems have a huge amount to answer for.

The damned Dems better admit it and start DOING something or they really are going to be whimpering out there, without either seats or power.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

 

White racial anxiety is absolutely a factor here, but I don't believe it's the only factor.  PA-18 didn't hinge on immigration, even though the Republicans wanted it to.  I think that Trump's stoking racial tensions will be much less effective in midterm congressional races.  Obama isn't in the White House anymore and Democrats running on protecting the social safety net, anti-corruption message will find a lot of receptive voters in 2018. 

It’s not the only factor, but it’s one of the strongest. And I think it’s difficult to use PA-18 as a projection for other races given that the candidate was so perfect for the district.

I hope you’re right  though about the effectiveness of Trump stoking racial resentment, but it does seem like that’s the course he’s taking, and I can see it playing out both ways, so I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I'll take that action, cabinet officials usually linger in this administration unless they cross Trump personally, and Pruitt hasn't said a bad word about Trump since he took office.  I think he's got time yet. 

EDIT:  Plus I personally loath Pruitt so much I just can't believe we'd be rid of him so easily. 

He hasn’t crossed Trump, but it sounds like he and Kelly are pissed at him. The odd thing is unlike past officials, the WH as actually said they are unsure if he’ll stay or not. Typically they give the person their seal of approval before the can them.

18 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well, the metrics that 538 article used don't account for race.  At least the aggregate income and education numbers do not - comparing Obama vs. Clinton's margins arguably does, but it also raises another point.  The Dems weren't just "fine" with non-white blue collar workers in 2016, there were turnout problems there as well (plus Clinton had slightly lesser margins with even Latino voters compared to Obama in 2012). 

I don't think anyone here denies that the predominate problem with blue collar voters is white racial resentment.  What the 538 analysis makes clear, however, is that Dems can improve or "over-perform" in poorer and less educated districts.  That could mean a number of things - increased turnout (or at least share of the electorate) of minority voters, decreased turnout (or share) of white blue collar voters, or white working class voters shifting (once again) from Trump to Dem.  Figuring that out would require individual-level analysis, but the larger takeaway is not to write such districts off under the assumption that white racial resentment means Dems can't compete.

I wasn’t trying to write them off. I just think there is more value in the suburbs. They’re more reliable voters and they are pretty down on Trump. It may be easier to get them to the polls.  

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I wasn’t trying to write them off. I just think there is more value in the suburbs. They’re more reliable voters and they are pretty down on Trump. It may be easier to get them to the polls.  

Sorry, I didn't mean you, more the general chatter which is what that 538 was responding to in the first place .  However, I'm not sure where there is more value.  Trump's minimum-winning coalition may be similar to Obama's insofar as those white working class voters will show up for him, but not in midterms.  In which case, Dems could very well have an easier time "overperforming" in poorer districts as compared to the suburbs, where their performance in 2016 was already relatively maxed out.

[Maithanet]

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It’s not the only factor, but it’s one of the strongest. And I think it’s difficult to use PA-18 as a projection for other races given that the candidate was so perfect for the district.

Sure, but PA-18 is not even close to the swing House district.  Districts like IL-6 (Suburb of Chicago, Romney->Clinton district), NY-19 (NYC exurb, Obama->Trump district), and MI-11 (Open District, Detroit Suburb, Romney and Trump both won by 5 points) are what is going to determine control of the House.  If Democrats are winning districts like PA-18 in November, they're just padding their majority. 

[lokisnow]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the burbs are the way to go, though I agree that you should target both. Blue collar white voters are leaving the Democratic party in droves primarily over the issue that Trump championed, immigration, and in general because of their stances on social issues. It’s hard to see how Democrats can recapture their votes if they’re dead set on pursuing more generous immigration and social policies. These are the same voters who get angry when you bring up the topic of white privilege. It’s hard to see how you’ll get them back in our current political climate.

I think if Democrats go with the burbs as their focus they will get murdered.

There are a couple reasons why.  One, all the leadership and support staff for all the democrats making decisions on what districts to target, they're all college educated, upper middle class people who are demographically most similar to the college educated, upper middle class people of the suburbs.

That means all their peer groups are mostly people like them, who live in places like them,  with backgrounds like them but who vote a different way.

so OF COURSE they want to dedicate resources to people like themselves, this is very basic psychology, and also a total fallacy that will probably cause failure simply because they miss low hanging fruit because they are trying to impress themselves and their friends and donors. 

None of their friends would ever SEE or experience a comprehensive door to door outreach effort in a working class or urban district, so how will they or their friends know if it's working? 

This burbs strategy also runs into a fucking hard barrier which is, "lock in", in that people tend to vote the same way by default unless there's a really major thing that shakes them out of their rut. So if the burbs all have a long history of voting republican, Lock In, in addition to the LACK of donald trump on the ticket means the burbs should revert to their normal behavior. And rather than retaining flipped votes and flipping new ones, democrat vote share goes down.

Third, the burbs strategy also runs into a fucking hard barrier which is that educated people vote more. If burbs are by their nature more educated, then that suggests those people are more likely to vote, more likely to be aware of an election and more likely to be aware of the candidates and issues going into the election. that is just what educated people do.  So the fucking hard issue is that the voters in the burbs are perfectly aware they are being targeted, and that makes them less likely to flip because the educated are going to get out and vote republican in order to make sure their district does not flip.

For example, the Georgia special election: in the 2016 general election, the person running as a democrat in that seat was a non-entity, someone with no public persona whatsoever.  The democrats had a perfect candidate in Ossoff and ran an agressive campaign because they thought they could win.

Their perfect candidate got about the same number of votes as the non existant person who ran in 2016.  When push came to shove, the educated Burbs did their duty and held the line, and all the democrat efforts were basically for nothing.

So fundamentally a burbs strategy is basically self defeating (which is the democrats preferred strategy in general.

So how do you counter that?  Well instead of trying to do BATTLE with Lock In, you try to take advantage of Lock In on your side.  That means you have to identify people with a history of voting democrat and activate them into voting democrat again. There are millions and millions of these people while there are only thousands and thousands of people with decades of Lock In history voting republican who are willing to flip.

In other words, go to where the votes are, and activate those voters because Lock In will do most of the work for you.

Note, that in order to activate those voters, you have to be able to persuade them to vote for you, and that is probably not going to be by using the acela talking points of 40 dollar cocktails and a mule that are so persuasive to your peer groups.

If democrats can get their strategists out of the mindset of pleasing and flattering the peer groups of the democrat strategists, then they might just win.

So districts that were democrat six or eight years ago for decades?  Those districts, target those districts.  the democrat strategy in recent years has been to no longer run candidates in districts they used to win, that is a bad strategy.

[Fragile Bird]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Over/under 48 hours until Pruitt gets canned?

I’ll take the under.  

 

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I'll take that action, cabinet officials usually linger in this administration unless they cross Trump personally, and Pruitt hasn't said a bad word about Trump since he took office.  I think he's got time yet. 

EDIT:  Plus I personally loath Pruitt so much I just can't believe we'd be rid of him so easily. 

Trump called him last night to tell him "we've got your back". And at today's press conference, "I hope he's going to be great!"

So....who does that help?