Political Roundtable Part IX

[nate33]

Romney was up on Obama post-convention and was supposed to win.

Whoever did the hack, the intention is to harm the Democrats clearly. God knows what Trumps internal emails would look like considering their re-tweets from neo Nazis.

I will follow Nate Silver closely though

You are right that it's too early to start gloating. But I don't think we have the same dynamics as the Obama/McCain election. In general, in a competition between a known quantity and a less known challenger, it's the challenger who has the ability to improve his poll numbers over time.

McCain was a known quantity. His poll position was pretty much fixed. He started out pretty high due to the experience and trust factor, but he really had no where to go but down. Obama started out as an unknown, but due to his impressive political talents, he continued to win over more and more people as time went on. The same thing happened with George W. Bush in 2000, and Bill Clinton in 1992.

If that script holds, then Hillary Clinton is the known quantity and Trump is the unknown. While Trump is no Obama on the likeability scale, Hillary is no McCain in terms of being a safe, steady, reliable face. Clinton is extremely unlikable and corrupt, and that negative feeling intensifies the more you know her.

But I don't mean to argue with you. I'm just spouting off the top of my head. Everyone has their own predictions, and half of us are usually wrong.

[montestewart]

Romney was up on Obama post-convention and was supposed to win.

Whoever did the hack, the intention is to harm the Democrats clearly. God knows what Trumps internal emails would look like considering their re-tweets from neo Nazis.

I will follow Nate Silver closely though

You are right that it's too early to start gloating. But I don't think we have the same dynamics as the Obama/McCain election. In general, in a competition between a known quantity and a less known challenger, it's the challenger who has the ability to improve his poll numbers over time.

McCain was a known quantity. His poll position was pretty much fixed. He started out pretty high due to the experience and trust factor, but he really had no where to go but down. Obama started out as an unknown, but due to his impressive political talents, he continued to win over more and more people as time went on. The same thing happened with George W. Bush in 2000, and Bill Clinton in 1992.

If that script holds, then Hillary Clinton is the known quantity and Trump is the unknown. While Trump is no Obama on the likeability scale, Hillary is no McCain in terms of being a safe, steady, reliable face. Clinton is extremely unlikable and corrupt, and that negative feeling intensifies the more you know her.

But I don't mean to argue with you. I'm just spouting off the top of my head. Everyone has their own predictions, and half of us are usually wrong.

It all pretty much comes down to what Washington does in the last home game before the election.

[fishercob]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AthertonKD/status/756991334683148288[/tweet]

Not that I expect most to give a sh*t, but these "heroic" WikiLeakers appear to vile anti-semites. Hooray!

Ha! I expect to see something like this from a CNN talking head later:

"The real issue here is sensitive American information has been stolen by Russian intelligence.....and delivered to a racist anti-American propaganda publication."

Double up on the deflection, it might be enough for people to forget the actual contents of the leak. Not sure if that's hilarious or depressing.

Well there are separate issues here from my limited read on things.

(1) Wikileaks saying "most of our detractors are Jews" is scary to me as a Jew. It also does make me doubt the nobility of whatever it is they are doing and/or stand for.

(2) The content of the leaks themselves: First, is anyone surprised that the DNC preferred Hilary -- a career Democrat -- to Sanders, a one-time Independent and vocal critic of the party? Does this shock anyone that the party -- which like all parties, exists for the good of the party -- prefers someone inline with their interests and status quo? Does it surprise people that they are charting out positions of leadership for big donors? Is this news that this is how politics in America works now? I haven't followed it super-closely, but where is the real scandal here?

(3) Wikileaks is really interesting to me. My hunch is that people tend to gloss over the whole illegal hacking and dissemination thing when they are pleased about the particular data being leaked. So whether it's Snowden or the Panama Papers or the DNC or whatever -- people cry foul when people or organizations they are sympathetic too are exposed. I wonder if there's a parallel with our judicial system, whereby evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible. As long as people are going to cheer the illegal theft and dissemination of information, it's going to keep happening. I don't know how I feel about it.

[nate33]

(1) Wikileaks saying "most of our detractors are Jews" is scary to me as a Jew. It also does make me doubt the nobility of whatever it is they are doing and/or stand for.

It strikes me that Jews on Twitter are trying to have it both ways. It's perfectly fine for them to demonstrate their solidarity and allegiance to "team Jew" by putting parentheses around their names, but it's completely outrageous and unacceptable for anybody else to notice.

[AFM]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AthertonKD/status/756991334683148288[/tweet]

Not that I expect most to give a sh*t, but these "heroic" WikiLeakers appear to vile anti-semites. Hooray!

Not to mention the DNC and Hillary's emails discussing using Bernie's Jewish heritage against him...

[montestewart]

(1) Wikileaks saying "most of our detractors are Jews" is scary to me as a Jew. It also does make me doubt the nobility of whatever it is they are doing and/or stand for.

It strikes me that Jews on Twitter are trying to have it both ways. It's perfectly fine for them to demonstrate their solidarity and allegiance to "team Jew" by putting parentheses around their names, but it's completely outrageous and unacceptable for anybody else to notice.

Really not sure what you mean by this.

[nate33]

(1) Wikileaks saying "most of our detractors are Jews" is scary to me as a Jew. It also does make me doubt the nobility of whatever it is they are doing and/or stand for.

It strikes me that Jews on Twitter are trying to have it both ways. It's perfectly fine for them to demonstrate their solidarity and allegiance to "team Jew" by putting parentheses around their names, but it's completely outrageous and unacceptable for anybody else to notice.

Really not sure what you mean by this.

I didn't mean it to be insulting in any way.

A few weeks ago, there was a proliferation of "echo parentheses" when people wanted to point out that an individual was Jewish. At the time, fishercob fairly pointed out that this was antisemitic in that it somehow discredits the content of the opinion due to the Jewish identity of the person. We should treat people as individuals, not as a part of a racial or ethnic group. The response by many Jewish people on twitter was to "own the insult", so to speak. They intentionally put echo parentheses around their own user names as a big "F you" to the racists who were trying to discredit them. I kinda liked that response from the Jewish community.

However, the end result was that Jewish people on twitter are basically saying: "I'm Jewish and this is my opinion". If you are conflating your Jewishness with your twitter opinions, and announcing it to the world, aren't you then asking others to notice that you are Jewish and that your Jewishness is part of the basis for your opinions? How can you then be upset when people do indeed notice?

[AFM]

I don't notice anybody's religion, race, gender, or sexuality. All I see is Human.
Those are all social constructs anyway.

[fishercob]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AthertonKD/status/756991334683148288[/tweet]

Not that I expect most to give a sh*t, but these "heroic" WikiLeakers appear to vile anti-semites. Hooray!

Not to mention the DNC and Hillary's emails discussing using Bernie's Jewish heritage against him...

Can you expound on this? Was this discussion from within the DNC or from within the Clinton campaign? Is there any evidence that anything went beyond discussion in to actual action?

[Induveca]

Nate, do some research on the parenthesis thing. It's actually pretty shocking, I had never seen/heard of the idiotic practice.

Fish, the points you bring up are reasonable. However point #2 really comes down to the superdelegates. ALL of them are former DNC members, former DNC elected officials or major DNC donors.

The leaked emails clearly show DNC leadership were far from impartial as they repeatedly claimed to Sanders and his supporters. They were near militant in their backing of Clinton, and dislike of Sanders (to the point of discussing how his Jewish background could be used against him in states like Kentucky and West Virginia).

Looking at past elections, superdelegates back the party's nominee 92% of the time during the DNC. With impartiality removed, the DNC has near complete control of 15% of the primary vote. In a close race such as this one, the superdelegates ensured a Clinton victory.

An extremely corrupt system, Sanders has every right to be upset. I won't be shocked if the DNC faces major lawsuits from Sanders donors.

[DCZards]

You are right that it's too early to start gloating. But I don't think we have the same dynamics as the Obama/McCain election. In general, in a competition between a known quantity and a less known challenger, it's the challenger who has the ability to improve his poll numbers over time.

McCain was a known quantity. His poll position was pretty much fixed. He started out pretty high due to the experience and trust factor, but he really had no where to go but down. Obama started out as an unknown, but due to his impressive political talents, he continued to win over more and more people as time went on. The same thing happened with George W. Bush in 2000, and Bill Clinton in 1992.

If that script holds, then Hillary Clinton is the known quantity and Trump is the unknown. While Trump is no Obama on the likeability scale, Hillary is no McCain in terms of being a safe, steady, reliable face. Clinton is extremely unlikable and corrupt, and that negative feeling intensifies the more you know her.

But I don't mean to argue with you. I'm just spouting off the top of my head. Everyone has their own predictions, and half of us are usually wrong.

Trump an "unknown"? I don't think so. While it is true that Clinton is better known from a political and policy standpoint, Trump had something like a 100% name recognition even before he ran for president. Obama had nothing close to that.

Trump is at least as unlikable as Clinton. On top of that, a clear majority of Americans don't believe the Donald has either the experience or temperament to be President...something that's reinforced pretty much every time he opens his mouth.

The Dems and Hillary should be gearing up for a close race against Trump. Personally, I'm glad that the polls show Trump either slightly ahead or only a few percentage points behind Clinton because it will help prevent Dems and their supporters from becoming complacent.

Oh, and there will definitely be a "bounce" for Clinton after the DNC...thanks in large part to the trashing of Trump that we'll hear and the powerful messages that Sanders, the Obamas, Bill C. and Biden will deliver on behalf of Hillary's candidacy.

[AFM]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AthertonKD/status/756991334683148288[/tweet]

Not that I expect most to give a sh*t, but these "heroic" WikiLeakers appear to vile anti-semites. Hooray!

Not to mention the DNC and Hillary's emails discussing using Bernie's Jewish heritage against him...

Can you expound on this? Was this discussion from within the DNC or from within the Clinton campaign? Is there any evidence that anything went beyond discussion in to actual action?

I'm just reading more into it now, it looks like they were trying to use his faith against him--pardon the conservative link:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/24/emails-wikileaks-real-jew-haters-democratic-party/

In one email, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall allegedly said: “It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”



Leaked Emails Reveal the Real Bigots Are in the Democratic Party
Debbie Wasserman Schultz No H8 (Adam Bouska / No H8)Adam Bouska / No H8
by JOEL B. POLLAK
24 Jul 2016
510
After being told for weeks by very concerned liberals and media pundits that Donald J. Trump represents the second coming of Adolf Hitler, it is richly ironic to learn that Hillary Clinton’s Democratic National Committee (DNC) planned to target Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for his faith.
(And it is Hilary Clinton’s DNC: Rep. Debbie Waserman-Schultz (D-FL) resigned on Sunday after Wikileaks revealed emails showing that the DNC and the media conspired to stop Sanders’s insurgent candidacy.)

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER


In one email, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall allegedly said: “It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”


Note that at least part of the senior leadership of the Democratic Party presumed a) that the voters of Kentucky and West Virginia are religious bigots; b) that Southern Baptist voters in those states are bigots, perhaps even more so; c) that these groups might have some problem with voting for a Jew; and d) but they would be even more troubled by voting for an atheist.

So it looks like they had their fingers crossed, hoping he's an atheist, not a Jew.

Christian good
Jew OK
Atheist bad

[gtn130]

Just wait until the Democratic Convention bump... then we will see.

The DNC convention may result in no bump at all. This DNC email scandal is really pissing off Bernie supporters. They are going to be very reluctant to get out and vote for Hillary.

So much wanting here.

These figures coming from directly after the RNC. Obviously things will look good for Republicans today after they spent the last week firing up their base. Still, 538 has Hillary ahead in 2/3 of their models.

That said, 538 should be taken with a grain of salt. They've been wrong a ton this election cycle and running three separate models should not give you any confidence in their predictive abilities.

The 538 models are simply not worth discussing right now (and probably ever) no matter how eager you are for a Trump victory. It's funny though how you point to the one model out of three that gives you the result you want so badly.

[fishercob]

Not to mention the DNC and Hillary's emails discussing using Bernie's Jewish heritage against him...

Can you expound on this? Was this discussion from within the DNC or from within the Clinton campaign? Is there any evidence that anything went beyond discussion in to actual action?

I'm just reading more into it now, it looks like they were trying to use his faith against him--pardon the conservative link:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/24/emails-wikileaks-real-jew-haters-democratic-party/

In one email, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall allegedly said: “It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”



Leaked Emails Reveal the Real Bigots Are in the Democratic Party
Debbie Wasserman Schultz No H8 (Adam Bouska / No H8)Adam Bouska / No H8
by JOEL B. POLLAK
24 Jul 2016
510
After being told for weeks by very concerned liberals and media pundits that Donald J. Trump represents the second coming of Adolf Hitler, it is richly ironic to learn that Hillary Clinton’s Democratic National Committee (DNC) planned to target Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for his faith.
(And it is Hilary Clinton’s DNC: Rep. Debbie Waserman-Schultz (D-FL) resigned on Sunday after Wikileaks revealed emails showing that the DNC and the media conspired to stop Sanders’s insurgent candidacy.)

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER


In one email, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall allegedly said: “It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”


Note that at least part of the senior leadership of the Democratic Party presumed a) that the voters of Kentucky and West Virginia are religious bigots; b) that Southern Baptist voters in those states are bigots, perhaps even more so; c) that these groups might have some problem with voting for a Jew; and d) but they would be even more troubled by voting for an atheist.

So it looks like they had their fingers crossed, hoping he's an atheist, not a Jew.

Christian good
Jew OK
Atheist bad

Got it, so to be clear, they weren't trying to use his Judaism against him. To the contrary, they were considering trying to press him on whether he was identifying religiously for political purposes. (1) I don't think they ended up going this route, but I could be wrong (2) all campaigns seem to play this stupid religious pandering game (Trump's "two Corinthians). I look forward to the day when candidates don't go to great lengths to show their religiosity.

[Ruzious]

Sanders might be the key for Hillary at the convention. She needs him not just to get his supporters on her side but also to get them to vote. A lot of his supporters are the type that don't vote on a consistent basis. And it can very easily come down to - which party gets their supporters to show up on election day. Some of the old-timers I hear talking about presidential elections say Humphrey would have beaten Nixon if the Dems hadn't gotten complacent. The Reps made a stronger effort to get voters to the polls. Whatever side we're on, show up at the polls. It's our duty and the least we can do. Then we can decide on what country to move to.

[keynote]

So it looks like they had their fingers crossed, hoping he's an atheist, not a Jew.

Christian good
Jew OK
Atheist bad

Got it, so to be clear, they weren't trying to use his Judaism against him. To the contrary, they were considering trying to press him on whether he was identifying religiously for political purposes. (1) I don't think they ended up going this route, but I could be wrong (2) all campaigns seem to play this stupid religious pandering game (Trump's "two Corinthians). I look forward to the day when candidates don't go to great lengths to show their religiosity.

Actually, as best as I can tell, "they" weren't trying to do anything. One DNC staffer brought it up. There's yet to be any proof that anyone at the DNC actually acted upon this strategy. So, absent any such evidence, I suppose we could accuse the DNC of *considering* the use of Sanders' religion (or lack of one, depending on how you define atheism) to submarine his candidacy. It makes the staffer (or, perhaps, the entire DNC) look bad, but it falls short of being proof alone that the DNC actually rigged the primaries.

[nate33]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/757629561622306821[/tweet]

When Clinton is mentioned, the DNC attendees boo!

[nate33]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/757671012121055232[/tweet]

Hey, Hillary, what do you say? How many kids have you killed today?

It's a good thing that the Democrats know how to throw a real convention. The Republican convention was such a disorderly mess.

[AFM]

Personally I think that chant is in poor taste, and conveys a simplistic understanding of the nature of government! It's a bit more nuanced than that

[closg00]

OMFG!!! These fricking Sanders supporters are petulant children ruining things for everyone. Seriously, Fu__ck them ...and I voted for Bernie.