US Politics: compromising positions

[DMC]

Just now, Kalbear said:

The fact that the vast majority of content centered around Clintons' email issues when things like the Trump admin and prior Obama officials doing the same thing did not register is an example.

Yes, that certainly was an important factor - but that just reinforces my point.  At least what I'm trying to articulate - perhaps poorly, sorry.  There was a wide swath of things to attack Hillary for as a candidate in 2016.  In contrast the GOP had...Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers with Obama in 2008.  

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

where people surprisingly found Trump as woman way more charming than Clinton as man

Um, let's just say I think that research design is highly flawed.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

and there are a whole lot of people who will simply see that as wrong, and then rationalize away why they feel said wrongness.

But there's an endogeneity - in terms of direction of causality - there that's specific to Hillary.  And wouldn't be present in a future female nominee.  That's why I'm saying it's a poor basis.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Um, let's just say I think that research design is highly flawed. 

Well, it's not research, it was just an art experiment, but what I thought was interesting was that people ended up liking the Trump character despite going in wanting to actively hate the person. When you separated out Trump the actual person from Trump the actions, you reveal that he's a very likeable kind of person, and you similarly see all sorts of odd flaws in Clinton that you might have missed. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

But there's an endogeneity - in terms of direction of causality - there that's specific to Hillary.  And wouldn't be present in a future female nominee.  That's why I'm saying it's a poor basis.

I think the first statement is reasonably accurate, but the second really remains to be seen, and the evidence that we have is that at least some of it absolutely is present in female nominees. Hell, the most telling one are the people who said in 2016 that they'd happily vote for a woman, just not Clinton - and then out of the gate now are saying the same critical things about the women that they did about Clinton. If you're more data oriented, you can note that women when running things are popular, but women who are running for things are not. (and yes, I know this isn't a scholarly article, but it has a whole lot of facts behind it). 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, it's not research, it was just an art experiment, but what I thought was interesting was that people ended up liking the Trump character despite going in wanting to actively hate the person. When you separated out Trump the actual person from Trump the actions, you reveal that he's a very likeable kind of person, and you similarly see all sorts of odd flaws in Clinton that you might have missed. 

I mean, it's a weird and unique research design - which is cool - but it still was a research design based on the quoted below.  And their doing this is almost certainly why they got a write up in the first place:

Quote

Inside the evening’s program were two surveys for each audience member to fill out—one for before the show, with questions about their impressions of the real-life Trump–Clinton debates, and another for afterward, asking about their reactions to the King–Gordon restaging. Each performance was also followed by a discussion, with Salvatore bringing a microphone around to those eager to comment on what they had seen. 

 

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

but the second really remains to be seen,

Of course.  That's my point.

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

and the evidence that we have is that at least some of it absolutely is present in female nominees.

Again, the only evidence we have is Hillary and, I guess, Geraldine Ferraro.  And I think it's patently stupid to think either or both are conclusive in any way.

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you're more data oriented, you can note that women when running things are popular, but women who are running for things are not. (and yes, I know this isn't a scholarly article, but it has a whole lot of facts behind it). 

Oh, I don't care if it's not a scholarly article, that's not necessary to have a discussion.  Don't ever wanna be that guy.  And I mostly agree with the article you cited, although a lot of it has to do specifically with Hillary.  I'd be remiss not to mention that some scholars I'm..pretty close to wrote a book on this general issue:

Quote

This book proffers the claim that increases in minority group representation in political parties result in poorer treatment of minority group members by both their majority group counterparts and fellow minority group members. This condition, referred to as “asymmetric tokenism”, undermines the link between descriptive and substantive forms of representation. Yet this condition can be offset when a minority group is sufficiently large, since its members are able to have divergent policy preferences without facing heavy sanctions from colleagues.

The Diversity Paradox is the first study to examine systematically the “black box” of how descriptive representation might, or might not, translate to substantive representation, via the effect of group dynamics on colleague valuation. Using a combination of analytical, statistical, and qualitative methods, Kanthak and Krause are able to assess the full-scale consequences of diversity in American national and state legislatures The authors’ core claim is both powerful and simple - fully enjoying the benefits of diversity in representative institutions requires that minority groups not only attain sufficient descriptive representation within the institution, but also overcome their intra-group coordination problems. The Diversity Paradox highlights the consequences of increasing diversity in political organizations, and how best to remedy these problems to ensure that minority group voices are fully heard.

 

[ThinkerX]

perhaps a tiny ray of goodness emerges from the Trump crew...or maybe it's a diabolical scam ...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-budget-to-include-dollar100m-for-daughter-ivankas-project/ar-BBUwzKo?ocid=msnclassic

A White House official told The Associated Press that the budget, expected to be released Monday, will include the funding for the Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative. The administration last month launched the government-wide project, led by the Republican president's daughter and senior adviser.

The new initiative aims to help 50 million women in the developing world get ahead economically over the next six years. It involves the State Department, the National Security Council and other agencies. And it aims to coordinate current programs and develop new ones to help women in areas such as job training, financial support and legal or regulatory reforms

 

 

[ThinkerX]

a relatively sane solution of sorts to the illegal immigration mess.  Given some of Trumps more recent comments ('not enough immigrants') I wonder...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/bruneau-work-visas-could-fix-the-humanitarian-problem-at-the-southern-border/ar-BBUxdnd?ocid=msnclassic

What’s a legislative fix to solve this humanitarian problem? A big part of the solution is expanding work visas, which would relieve much of the pressure at the border.

Work visas are a compromise between militarizing the border and open borders. They would allow those with a job offer (and who are not a threat to public safety or public health) to enter legally to pursue the American dream. They would finally create a functional legal pathway for migrants seeking to escape violence and pursue a better life for their families, in line with the proud American tradition.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 hours ago, DMC said:

The judge, T.S. Ellis III, is 78 years old.  Also, considering he's argued with - and questioned the legitimacy of - the prosecution on multiple occasions, his bullshit sentencing and rationale shouldn't be too surprising.

I know I am late for the party (as usual). But while our resident law experts argued against mandatory minimum sentences (with the arsoning farmers in the North West, were the bundies ended up handcuffed in their luxury support occupation protest), I think this ruling shows mandatory minimum sentencing may have some merit afterall.

Anyway, can Mueller appeal the sentencing?

[Kalbear]

23 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

a relatively sane solution of sorts to the illegal immigration mess.  Given some of Trumps more recent comments ('not enough immigrants') I wonder...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/bruneau-work-visas-could-fix-the-humanitarian-problem-at-the-southern-border/ar-BBUxdnd?ocid=msnclassic

 

 

I don't think this is accurate. 70000 family members aren't there because they want to cross over for work. They traveled nearly a thousand miles because they are in danger. They want asylum and safety first and foremost. 

Work visa systems are a good thing too, but that isn't solving kids in cages.

[DMC]

32 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I know I am late for the party (as usual). But while our resident law experts argued against mandatory minimum sentences (with the arsoning farmers in the North West, were the bundies ended up handcuffed in their luxury support occupation protest), I think this ruling shows mandatory minimum sentencing may have some merit afterall.

No, it does not.  Mandatory minimums are racist, and do not have any bearing on Manafort's sentencing.  There is no "broader picture" in terms of Manafort's sentencing.  The judge happened to be an arch-conservative that was appointed when I was two years old and has a reputation for being a jackass as it is.  That's all.

[lokisnow]

The judge is a good case study for mandatory judicial retirements not mandatory minimums.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

A pipe dream does not offer more added value.  Frankly, it is more likely Klobuchar gives you more added value on winning Wisconsin than Brown giving you a chance at Ohio - although in general I think it's probably a wash.

Why would Amy have any more value in WI? And even if you don't think Brown could make OH more competitive, wouldn't it be fair to say that he'd be more useful in PA?

Quote

I know you worked for her and everything, but I am highly skeptical that Klobuchar would turn down a VP offer.  It's very low risk - if you lose as a VP it's no big deal and doesn't hurt you at all long term - with lots of benefit.  If you win, then you're the VP and the presumptive next nominee.  If you lose, there's still added cachet in being the last VP candidate in the next Dem primary.

It's just an educated guess based on everything I know about her. And I know it's a win-win if she was nominated, but it also could be the beginning of the end of her political career. Even if she was the sitting VP for 8 years, I have a hard time seeing how she'd get the nomination in 2028.

Quote

Sure, there's a lot of sexism and racism in politics.  But your assumption is based on a ticket without a white male will necessarily not win back the "white male low educated" voters that generally would be identified as the Obama-Trump voters.  And, obviously, the Obama-Trump voters still voted for Obama.  So there's absolutely no empirical reason to worry about this - hence my South Park reference.  In other words, you're assuming a "sad reality" that has not been borne out in actual reality, and then applying a "huge risk" label to it that is entirely unfounded.

I didn't mean to imply that there had to be a white man. Booker could easily get the nomination, but then in that situation I think it would be wise to pick a white woman. So what I'm saying is that yes I do think there needs to be some balance, Overloading one way or the other does have some potential risks. 

Also, Obama was a unique individual. There is no Obama in this field. 

2 hours ago, Week said:

I agree -- misogyny/sexism is far more broadly accepted than racism. It's enshrined (at least to a degree) in many major religions/denominations.

Yep. It was funny, back during the 08 primary I was sure Obama was going to win because he was so likable. My mom, OTOH, said he would win because there's no way in hell people would pick a woman over a man, regardless of his ethnicity. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, it does not.  Mandatory minimums are racist, and do not have any bearing on Manafort's sentencing.  There is no "broader picture" in terms of Manafort's sentencing.  The judge happened to be an arch-conservative that was appointed when I was two years old and has a reputation for being a jackass as it is.  That's all.

Not really related, but this whole Manafort ruling has got me rewatching this:

 

[Gertrude]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yep. It was funny, back during the 08 primary I was sure Obama was going to win because he was so likable. My mom, OTOH, said he would win because there's no way in hell people would pick a woman over a man, regardless of his ethnicity. 

I had a similar conversation with my dad a few years before we had names to put with candidates. What would be first - a black president or a woman? He thought a woman, I was sure it would be a black man over any woman. Then the 08 primaries came into focus and we realized we might get an answer to our question.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why would Amy have any more value in WI? And even if you don't think Brown could make OH more competitive, wouldn't it be fair to say that he'd be more useful in PA?

I suppose you could apply the same logic to Amy --> WI as Brown --> PA.  They're both neighboring states.  But the partisan lean between WI and MN is a point, whereas the difference is three points between PA and OH.  And that's just based on 2012 and 2016.  2018 showed us that difference in differences is even greater.

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And I know it's a win-win if she was nominated, but it also could be the beginning of the end of her political career. Even if she was the sitting VP for 8 years, I have a hard time seeing how she'd get the nomination in 2028.

I think you think you know way more about her political future than anybody possibly could.

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Booker could easily get the nomination, but then in that situation I think it would be wise to pick a white woman. So what I'm saying is that yes I do think there needs to be some balance, Overloading one way or the other does have some potential risks. 

"Overloading" has nothing to do with it.  You pick the best candidate possible and go from there.  The is why (Bill) Clinton had balls by picking Gore.  He doubled down on the young southern democrat thing.  And it worked.  I don't know what's going to work, but I'm definitely not going to pretend I know there "needs" to be any type of demographic.  The most important "balance" will be ideological - because the left is almost certainly going to whine about the eventual nominee unless it's Bernie or Warren (which it won't), so placating their whiney whininess is probably worthwhile.

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, Obama was a unique individual. There is no Obama in this field.

No, there's not.  There's also a bunch of unique individuals in this field that neither you nor I can be sure about about anything at this point.

[Varysblackfyre321]

I felt this article really dissected what’s wrong with the stance some candidates have taken in terms of  reperations:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/elizabeth-warren-kamala-harris-julian-castro-reparations-democrats.amp

[ThinkerX]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think this is accurate. 70000 family members aren't there because they want to cross over for work. They traveled nearly a thousand miles because they are in danger. They want asylum and safety first and foremost. 

Work visa systems are a good thing too, but that isn't solving kids in cages.

solving part of the problem is better than solving none of it.  more, with Trumps recent pronouncements about the need for additional immigrant labor, this is something that *might* squeak through.  This sort of proposal coming from the democratic side of the aisle would get shot down I flames immediately - but Trump probably could sell something like this to his base.  In the last thread, I linked to an article the pointed out this is *already* happening - farmers that used to rely on illegal immigrants are now going the work visa route instead, despite the higher costs. 

 

Agreed, it doesn't help the 'kids in cages' aspects - a solution for that will have to involve Mexico.  But, one step at a time. 

[Kalbear]

Why does a solution to Hondurans coming with their families and expressly not wanting to be in Mexico need Mexicos help?

[Varysblackfyre321]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/chelsea-manning-taken-into-custody-for-refusing-to-testify-before-secret-grand-jury/ar-BBUwZWQ?OCID=ansmsnnews11

A shame, Mannings is a brave woman.

[ThinkerX]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Why does a solution to Hondurans coming with their families and expressly not wanting to be in Mexico need Mexicos help?

Because most of the migrants leaving central America eventually stop in Mexico.  Those that do reach the US border wait on the Mexican side prior to applying for sanctuary or attempting illegal entry.  Both situations mean that Mexico is already involved in the migrant problem. 

[Kalbear]

And they would help with that how?

[Fez]

On 3/8/2019 at 8:45 AM, Fez said:

Maybe coincidence, maybe not; the woman who founded the chain of massage parlors that includes the one where Patriots owner Bob Kraft was busted for soliciting prostitution, is a regular at Mar-A-Lago and is involved with Trump's political apparatus (also the Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis campaigns) in Florida. The Miami Herald has a photo:

ETA: When the story first broke about Kraft, it was reported that Kraft was not the biggest name involved. There's been no follow-up since then on that, maybe that'll change soon. The Herald story also has photos of her with both Don Jr. and Eric, plus multiple ones with Trump.

Following this up, it's now being reported (at least, by Mother Jones) that Li "Cindy" Yang was also involved in selling access to the Trumps to Chinese business executives.

There doesn't seem to be evidence (yet) that any part of this side of the story was illegal, and there's no evidence (yet) that the Trumps actively knew what Yang was doing or getting any sort of cut. I'm just amazed at how there's always another layer to every Florida-related news story, no more how complicated it already is, there's always another layer after that.