US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds

[Larry of the Lawn]

 

 

3 hours ago, S John said:

That seems like a good way to perpetuate the same shitty state of affairs for eternity.  I think when someone has obviously already changed their views and behavior, it’s usually counter productive to run them down over it.  Don’t get me wrong, I think Northam handled all of this terribly and probably deserves his fate because of that.  But I think to some extent it is also important to have examples of people who have reformed their attitudes about things through time, experience, and maturity - and to show that it is possible to overcome improper and offensive attitudes towards race, homosexuality, etc.  If there’s no coming back, to me that sends the message to a lot of people that there really isn’t any point in examination and reform, you’re gonna be crucified either way.

I agree with this, a person can change, but if your going into an elected position you have to be ahead of this stuff.  And elected officials need to be held to a higher standard.  There are plenty of candidates out there who haven't worn blackface. 

I think if Northam had owned this from the start, when it came out, said it was shameful and disgusting, and offered to resign if his constituents thought it was the best course of action, he might have been able to stay.  But his apology was bullshit.

Yes, people should be given a chance to cghange, and I think Northam is probably a good guy.  But he acted shitty, didn't own up to it and then gave a weaselly nonapology.

And for fucks sake people if you want to run for office have someone go skeleton hunting in your closets, and start with the yearbooks.

[Fragile Bird]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

And for fucks sake people if you want to run for office have someone go skeleton hunting in your closets, and start with the yearbooks.

What I found interesting about his press conference was he said he never ordered the yearbook and had no idea that picture was on his page (the day after live press conference, after the initial apology).I really don't know if that is a picture of him or not, if his denial is genuine. You would think a yearbook check would be on the checklist of things to do. But at this point he does need to resign. I genuinely think he did not know there was anything offensive in a yearbook, but that might be because those kinds of pictures were not considered offensive back them so he had no memory of any such thing.

The doctor who was on the yearbook staff who explained to CNN pictures were dropped off by the students in sealed envelopes said a mix-up could have occurred, but it was unlikely. But there were several inappropriate pictures in that year's book and he said nobody said anything about them. He couldn't remember if a faculty member was overseeing things, but the editor reviewed everything.

A review of yearbooks produced a student in a Confederate uniform with a Confederate flag as recently as 2013, and I just watched the school's president apologize for the hurt the pictures caused. And there will be no more yearbooks. I guess students just can't help revealing their true selves, better to not give them a forum, right?

No mention was made of whether or not the years between 1985 and 2013 saw other inappropriate pictures being published. Presumably someone will go through them all sooner or later.

[Fragile Bird]

Just wanted to mention something I don't recall anyone else mentioning in the previous thread.

There was a lot of speculation about who Trump Jr. called after the infamous meeting at Trump Tower with the Russians "to talk about adoption". The call was to a blocked number and the Republicans on the committee looking into the meeting refused to subpoena the phone records to find out who the call was made to. It turns out the call was not made to Trump.

Don Jr. had refused to say who he called. I wonder if he was just trolling the Democrats or if the 'associate' of his who he did call was a significant figure.

[kairparavel]

Being entitled to forgiveness and being able to maintain your day job is one thing. It's the right thing if you've shown remorse and growth and all the other buzzwords. But maintaining public office isn't something anyone is entitled to. Particularly if who you were in the past is markedly different from the platform and persona you ran on without acknowledging these earlier mistakes, missteps, lapses in judgement and uh racist gestures and caricatures. 

Calling for Northam to resign isn't the same as banishing him from the island. 

[Ormond]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah, I know.  You really are like a damn reviewer/editor sometimes (not an insult).

Well, I do make my living as a college professor grading discussion board posts and term papers.

[DMC]

35 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I think if Northam had owned this from the start, when it came out, said it was shameful and disgusting, and offered to resign if his constituents thought it was the best course of action, he might have been able to stay.  But his apology was bullshit.

Yup.

Silver: Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative Voters Preferred Trump in 2016:

Quote

My approach in this story is fairly straightforward: I chose five questions on social issues and five questions on economic issues from the CCES, with the idea of pairing them up two at a time to see how voters who held both positions voted. For instance, how did voters who wanted to grant legal status to large numbers of undocumented immigrants (a socially liberal policy), but who also wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (a fiscally conservative policy), vote in 2016? And which of these issues had more influence on their vote?

Holy cross-tabs Batman!  I appreciate Silver doing the legwork and delving into the CCES to do this, had to take him at least 4-5 hours.  The first half of his analysis* is pretty telling.  Of the five items he chose to represent "fiscal conservatives," four are pretty polarized positions that make it significantly more likely to vote for Trump - or any GOP nominee (these 4 are cutting entitlements, opposing raising the minimum wage, repealing the ACA, and favoring jobs over the environment).  Meanwhile, most of the "socially liberal" items (SSM, abortion, amnesty for illegals, gun control) actually have pretty broad bipartisan appeal, or at least did by 2016.

So, not surprisingly, Trump has a distinct advantage when those 4 economic items are paired with the 5 social items.  However, the only "purple" economic item - prioritizing the deficit - shows an almost even split in most of the pairings with the social items.  This is clearly, and precisely, the demo Schultz is going after, but Silver's digging into the CCES clearly shows in actuality these voters were just as - if not slightly more so - likely to vote for Trump as Clinton in 2016.  Will that be different in 2020?  No one knows yet.  But Silver is entirely correct that the conventional wisdom of the punditocracy and freakout of the Dems is very premature at best.

*The second half of his analysis is running a series of probit regressions that is neither useful nor..the appropriate way to run regressions.  Not to mention leaving out a lot of important information.  I don't know why he included this.  To anyone with the proper training it's just embarrassing for him and for everyone else they're not gonna really know what the hell he's talking about.

5 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Well, I do make my living as a college professor grading discussion board posts and term papers.

  And ugh, I hate grading discussion posts.

[Ormond]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

  And ugh, I hate grading discussion posts.

You and me both.

And I am procrastinating on doing that right now by reading this thread. Must get back to work. 

[Rippounet]

It'll be easier to start with the last things you wrote guys:

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Thing is I kind of did. At first it was to save money, not make any, but once I realized I had the hook up I did it to help my friends do the same. The money was secondary.  

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well aren't you just the Robin Hood of weed.  Really, I think most kids get into it in a similar fashion.  I just wanted to smoke for free and happened to be friends with a supplier and distributor that didn't know each other.  Honestly got so sick of the travel and both their bitching as being the middle man that eventually I introduced the two to each other, but that still didn't work since there was mutual dislike.  Then when college rolled around I had the Jesus look so probably about half the time I went to smoke a cigarette in the quad (actual quad) someone would ask me if I knew where to get any.  Would've been more annoying not to deal.

Yeah, that's not being the "school drug dealer," that's just getting stuff for friends. Most people who smoke weed will have done that at some point or the other in their lives. But being an actual dealer making real money from various kinds of drugs is an entirely different story in my book.
Funnily enough, my earlier point was precisely that the two are very different, and I didn't even realize that might be controversial.
Anyway it's one thing to ignore laws that you think are stupid ; you take risks and are -presumably- willing to assume the consequences if you're caught. Even if you're not willing, you know you will have to, eh.
It's an entirely different story when you profit from breaking said laws. And to be clear, by profit I mean "make enough money that you can -or will- eventually make a living out of it," not twenty bucks every other month. When real money is involved, the shady side of the business shows its ugly head. If you meet enough stoners you realize that there are lives being wasted (yeah, even with weed), and that the people who profit from that have no second thoughts about it and can be truly violent in defending their livelihood.

The product doesn't matter that much. Alcohol, tobacco, weed, cocaine, crystal meth... It's all the same, I will never judge an individual for their personal flaws/weaknesses (I'm one of those flawed humans myself). The ones who make money off their fellow men's addictions otoh? Nope, definitely not fit for political office in my book. Anyone who's ok making money through a business that involves hurting other people's physical or mental health will be a terrible politician. If they're morally weak enough to hurt people for money *directly* they'll have no qualms about benefiting from hurting people *indirectly* - by taking the worst lobbies' money.
Unless the person comes out and apologizes for what they did as a youngster they will certainly not get my vote. And that apology better be good.

There's a spectrum of course. I don't judge individuals for what they enjoy. I do judge dealers for what they sell and how they sell it. I used to smoke weed with my friends. That one time we got our hands on a bit of coke for some reason and after a bit of hesitation we flushed it down the toilet. Then a few years later one of my buddies met the wrong kind of dealer, the professional kind who'll push you to try stuff and that PoS made a junkie out of him. It wrecked his life for years. I spent hours with his sister and cousin devising strategies to convince him to quit hard drugs, and it was fucking tough. We kind of succeeded in the end, but those years my pal lost were on that dealer. You know, the kind who hangs around schoolkids selling whatever they want to teenagers. Looks cool, talks cool. Think Jessie Pinkman with a slightly better taste for clothes. Belongs in jail. For as many years as teenagers lose because of him. And that can be a lot.

Then there's the "history" argument. I'd be careful with that one. Social progress is measured by the good a given policy does to individuals and society. That's why we say segregation and discrimination are bad, because they hurt innocent people while at the same time being disruptive for society as a whole.
Legalization is a positive because it's considered better to just regulate shit than put the users in jail. But the benefits of legalization must outweigh the harm done on individuals' health and their communities. So yeah, it's time to legalize weed, because obviously prohibition is counter-productive for society and weed is close to harmless for adults (18+). Does that mean all dealers suddenly get a free pass? No. Regardless of whether something is legalized or not, people who sell dangerous stuff and are aware of it are terrible people. And yes, based on that reasoning I actually believe some people selling alcohol or tobacco are worse than people selling weed. The law isn't always logical.

Sorry if I came out strong on this one guys, I'm aware it reads like a rant in the middle of the desert. It's been a long day, and it felt good typing this for some reason. Anyway, because I want to hold my politicians to higher standards than my fellow man, I'll think twice about a former drug dealer.
Assuming one ever runs for office that is.
 

[Kalbear]

42 minutes ago, DMC said:

So, not surprisingly, Trump has a distinct advantage when those 4 economic items are paired with the 5 social items.  However, the only "purple" economic item - prioritizing the deficit - shows an almost even split in most of the pairings with the social items.  This is clearly, and precisely, the demo Schultz is going after, but Silver's digging into the CCES clearly shows in actuality these voters were just as - if not slightly more so - likely to vote for Trump as Clinton in 2016.  Will that be different in 2020?  No one knows yet.  But Silver is entirely correct that the conventional wisdom of the punditocracy and freakout of the Dems is very premature at best.

Eh. Given that he's spent all his time attacking Dems and not particularly attacking Trump or Republicans, and he has absolutely no policy goals stated beyond 'don't tax me bro' and 'teh deficit is suxxors' I think it's not particularly premature. 

His team's strategy has been to attempt to replace the Dem candidate in voters' minds, and regardless of policy views that means that he is targeting Dems first and foremost. 

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Eh. Given that he's spent all his time attacking Dems and not particularly attacking Trump or Republicans, and he has absolutely no policy goals stated beyond 'don't tax me bro' and 'teh deficit is suxxors' I think it's not particularly premature. 

His team's strategy has been to attempt to replace the Dem candidate in voters' minds, and regardless of policy views that means that he is targeting Dems first and foremost. 

This is primarily because Trump's disapproval is at 55%.  It'd be strategically criminal not to target the anti-Trump party.  Also, Steve Schmidt is running his "campaign," such as it is.  Of course he's attacking Dems.

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yeah, that's not being the "school drug dealer," that's just getting stuff for friends. Most people who smoke weed will have done that at some point or the other in their lives. But being an actual dealer making real money from various kinds of drugs is an entirely different story in my book.

Meh, making $300-500 a week when you're in high school is (and definitely was) pretty "real money" to me.  And at least in my case there was no single "school drug dealer."  There were a handful and I supplied two or three.

13 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Then there's the "history" argument. I'd be careful with that one.

Yeah I don't agree with the history argument.  Hope that was clear.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

This is primarily because Trump's disapproval is at 55%.  It'd be strategically criminal not to target the anti-Trump party.  Also, Steve Schmidt is running his "campaign," such as it is.  Of course he's attacking Dems.

Per his strategists, it's because Trump voters are going to stick with Trump no matter what, and he won't be able to pry them away nearly as easily, especially if he goes further right. 

But ultimately it doesn't matter why. It only matters that he's doing it, and that his goal is to get dem votes more than Trump votes. By that logic, he is a threat. He may be ultimately an entirely weak and ineffective threat - and given his public speeches so far, I'd say that's the most likely thing - but even if his appeal should be to Republicans, he's going after Dem votes. 

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

But ultimately it doesn't matter why. It only matters that he's doing it, and that his goal is to get dem votes more than Trump votes. By that logic, he is a threat. He may be ultimately an entirely weak and ineffective threat - and given his public speeches so far, I'd say that's the most likely thing - but even if his appeal should be to Republicans, he's going after Dem votes. 

Totally agree, as we've discussed, this is entirely moot anyway because he's very likely to crap out (well, if crapping out even qualifies since he hasn't really "crapped in" yet) and not be any kind of factor.  Buy, say he does become a factor - you betcha he'll start targeting reluctant Trump voters along with "moderate" Dems.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Totally agree, as we've discussed, this is entirely moot anyway because he's very likely to crap out (well, if crapping out even qualifies since he hasn't really "crapped in" yet) and not be any kind of factor.  Buy, say he does become a factor - you betcha he'll start targeting reluctant Trump voters along with "moderate" Dems.

This seems relevant - a map that shows by state the percentage of actual voters who didn't vote for Trump or Clinton. It largely tracks well with the Dems fall in love, Repubs fall in line bullshit. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

This seems relevant - a map that shows by state the percentage of actual voters who didn't vote for Trump or Clinton. It largely tracks well with the Dems fall in love, Repubs fall in line bullshit. 

Sure that is useful for targeting purposes.  But again, if he's actually going to be a factor he's gonna be going after much more than the 5.7 percent that voted 3rd party.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Sure that is useful for targeting purposes.  But again, if he's actually going to be a factor he's gonna be going after much more than the 5.7 percent that voted 3rd party.

It's less about targeting - it was just an observation that for the most part, the people who aren't loyal to a party are the people who vote Dem (or don't). 

Alternately, you can give a reasonable map of 'most to least racist states' and 'most to least voting for a POTUS' and see the South was all in on the racist train. Not surprising, but ugly nonetheless. 

One surprise to me is Idaho. I guess they went Libertarian? Ah, I see, they also had some bleed from Evan McMullin, which makes some sense given their proximity to Utah. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's less about targeting - it was just an observation that for the most part, the people who aren't loyal to a party are the people who vote Dem (or don't). 

I'd say the heightened 3rd party vote in 2016 had much more to do with the two most unpopular candidates ever as the two nominees - and the reason it hurt Clinton more than Trump is the former represented the incumbent party.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Alternately, you can give a reasonable map of 'most to least racist states' and 'most to least voting for a POTUS' and see the South was all in on the racist train. Not surprising, but ugly nonetheless. 

It may be the case that the South had the least 3rd party votes, but the West also clearly had the most - and a few of the highest states lean heavily GOP.  Whether you consider those also as racist as the South is up to you.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

One surprise to me is Idaho. I guess they went Libertarian? Ah, I see, they also had some bleed from Evan McMullin, which makes some sense given their proximity to Utah. 

Yeah, the Mormon hatred of Trump has a lot to do with to do with the above.  But that's also an intriguing opportunity for a hypothetical 3rd party candidate - in Utah.  Wouldn't waste my time on Idaho or Wyoming.

[Rippounet]

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

Meh, making $300-500 a week when you're in high school

300-500$ a week in high school? Sorry man, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I've seen kids go bad in high school because of weed, first as a student and then as a teacher. It'd definitely be disqualifying for a politician in my eyes if they were unrepetant about their role in that.
I'm usually not one for a holier-than-thou attitudes when it comes to drugs and addictions, but as I said I do want to hold politicians to higher standards than most. If lines have to be drawn somewhere, selling drugs to kids is at least as bad as racism or sexism. No offense intended.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Sorry man, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Indeed.

ETA:  @Rippounet - Sorry can't help but respond to this one -

Quote

If lines have to be drawn somewhere, selling drugs to kids is at least as bad as racism or sexism.

I feel much less guilt about selling higher quality weed to fellow high schoolers that were gonna buy shitty beasters anyway than I ever would about any racist or sexist behavior.  So, in general no offense in general, but kinda offense on that one.

[lokisnow]

I’m amazed there are multiple people in this thread, some who have worked on political campaigns, who admit to being drug dealers in high school and think it’s no big deal. Most voters see very little gradation on selling drugs, particularly to high schoolers. And if it broke that a candidate was employing former high school drug dealers on their campaign it would be a national scandal and hugely damaging to the candidate (who would have no choice but to fire the staffer).

 

It’s crazy how efficiently intelligent people can rationalize away any action as “nothing” when it involves oneself. The human brain never ceases to amaze.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Most voters see very little gradation on selling drugs, particularly to high schoolers. And if it broke that a candidate was employing former high school drug dealers on their campaign it would be a national scandal and hugely damaging to the candidate (who would have choice but to fire the staffer).

First, I've never been a paid staffer on a campaign.  Second, sounds like you've been partaking with the paranoia.  Could someone figure out my identity if they really wanted to on here?  Sure.  Actually really easily if you closely followed my posts.  But I'd like to think there's some inherent trust with the regulars here that'd be able to do that.  And even if they did "publicize" it, I'd just deny it and say I was lying.  It's a handle on a fantasy series message board.  This isn't social media with a picture of me as an avatar.  Third, I frankly don't think I'll ever be important enough in any way that anyone would either go through such effort, or on the other end care if they did irt prospective employers.