Political Roundtable Part XI

[Induveca]

I'm all for Stein trying for the recount, the hacking allegations are impossible to prove regardless.

Amusingly though she started off at 2 million needed, she hit that then raised it to 4.5 million last night. Now she says she needs 10 million to make it happen. By tomorrow.

Seems unlikely at this point. But I'm rooting for her, why not make the election even more ludicrous?

[closg00]

Oh-boy, we have a Man-baby for President, wait til a world leader pisses him off....this is a 3-year old tweet though.

[AFM]

Oh-boy, we have a Man-baby for President, wait til a world leader pisses him off....this is a 3-year old tweet though.

I know, but it still kills me.

"Even the haters and the losers"

[Induveca]

Stein backing away quickly from her recount pledge.

The money being donated is now pledged to go to "election integrity efforts". Official page now says they need 6.5-7.5 million.

Also the main "cyber security expert" has backed off his hacking claims as well (obviously they can't be proved, as any IT guy knows) . Too bad, still pulling for her but seems like she's just fundraising for her party under false pretenses.
----
As of noon on Thursday, the fundraising page now estimates that attorney fees “are likely to be another $2-3 million, then there are the costs of the statewide recount observers in all three states,” raising the total cost to “$6-7 million.”

The page also notes that “we cannot guarantee a recount will happen in any of these states we are targeting. We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states” and that “if we raise more than what's needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.”
----

[AFM]

Stein backing away quickly from her recount pledge.

The money being donated is now pledged to go to "election integrity efforts". Official page now says they need 6.5-7.5 million.

Also the main "cyber security expert" has backed off his hacking claims as well (obviously they can't be proved, as any IT guy knows) . Too bad, still pulling for her but seems like she's just fundraising for her party under fake pretenses.
----
As of noon on Thursday, the fundraising page now estimates that attorney fees “are likely to be another $2-3 million, then there are the costs of the statewide recount observers in all three states,” raising the total cost to “$6-7 million.”

The page also notes that “we cannot guarantee a recount will happen in any of these states we are targeting. We can only pledge we will demand recounts in those states” and that “if we raise more than what's needed, the surplus will also go toward election integrity efforts and to promote voting system reform.”
----

Read Nate Silver's tweets. This hacking thing is ridiculous

[AFM]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

[closg00]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

I am inclined to believe Nate Silver analysis. However, Silver has no expertise in computer science so I'd be curious to hear the pitch made by these computer geeks on the other side.

[nate33]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

I am inclined to believe Nate Silver analysis. However, Silver has no expertise in computer science so I'd be curious to hear the pitch made by these computer geeks on the other side.

No computer voting in MI. So Trump wins unless you believe they hacked 120,000 votes in Florida.

[AFM]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

I am inclined to believe Nate Silver analysis. However, Silver has no expertise in computer science so I'd be curious to hear the pitch made by these computer geeks on the other side.

No computer voting in MI. So Trump wins unless you believe they hacked 120,000 votes in Florida.

They hacked the paper ballots! Look for eraser marks!

[AFM]

Jill Stein = hatchet woman of the new world order!

[Induveca]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

I am inclined to believe Nate Silver analysis. However, Silver has no expertise in computer science so I'd be curious to hear the pitch made by these computer geeks on the other side.

From the main "computer scientist" Stein piggybacked off of:

---
The New York Magazine piece "incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard," Halderman wrote.

"Were this year's deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not," he added. "I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked."
---

FYI Halderman is a data scientist, and as much as Nate Silver has been wrong his credentials far surpass Halderman. Stein basically just got millions from quoting Halderman and his students analyzing votes last week in class.

Bravo.

[dckingsfan]

I know Dems are pissed but they need to look in the mirror.

And not just in this Presidential election. The have lost a majority of the Governorships. This is a leading indicator that their politics aren't aligning with a vast majority of states.

Accidentally they became the party of exclusion. Which was capped off by Hillary's "deplorables" comment. They will need to somehow gently make a course correction.

The "appear" to be in the pockets of public sector unions which also doesn't align with the majority. They will need to figure out how to align with unions but not appear to favor public sector unions over the needs of average Americans.

They are on the right side of climate change. But they have done this while ignoring job growth or appear to have sided on climate change vs. jobs. They will somehow need to show alignment on this issue as well.

They are on the wrong side of gun control with respect to the average American. A majority of Americans do not want to change the current law. They need to wait until this moves to their favor before taking on the issue. Or taking on the issue only inside of cities.

Basically, they will continue to win in large metro areas and lose the country if they keep going in the same direction.

They need some fresh leadership...

[AFM]

I know Dems are pissed but they need to look in the mirror.

And not just in this Presidential election. The have lost a majority of the Governorships. This is a leading indicator that their politics aren't aligning with a vast majority of states.

Accidentally they became the party of exclusion. Which was capped off by Hillary's "deplorables" comment. They will need to somehow gently make a course correction.

The "appear" to be in the pockets of public sector unions which also doesn't align with the majority. They will need to figure out how to align with unions but not appear to favor public sector unions over the needs of average Americans.

They are on the right side of climate change. But they have done this while ignoring job growth or appear to have sided on climate change vs. jobs. They will somehow need to show alignment on this issue as well.

They are on the wrong side of gun control with respect to the average American. A majority of Americans do not want to change the current law. They need to wait until this moves to their favor before taking on the issue. Or taking on the issue only inside of cities.

Basically, they will continue to win in large metro areas and lose the country if they keep going in the same direction.

They need some fresh leadership...

Plus 1

[closg00]

I know Dems are pissed but they need to look in the mirror.

And not just in this Presidential election. The have lost a majority of the Governorships. This is a leading indicator that their politics aren't aligning with a vast majority of states.

Accidentally they became the party of exclusion. Which was capped off by Hillary's "deplorables" comment. They will need to somehow gently make a course correction.

The "appear" to be in the pockets of public sector unions which also doesn't align with the majority. They will need to figure out how to align with unions but not appear to favor public sector unions over the needs of average Americans.

They are on the right side of climate change. But they have done this while ignoring job growth or appear to have sided on climate change vs. jobs. They will somehow need to show alignment on this issue as well.

They are on the wrong side of gun control with respect to the average American. A majority of Americans do not want to change the current law. They need to wait until this moves to their favor before taking on the issue. Or taking on the issue only inside of cities.

Basically, they will continue to win in large metro areas and lose the country if they keep going in the same direction.

They need some fresh leadership...

The electorate is much more nuanced than what you assert. You made a soup of every conservative interest to credit Trumps win, but he received 2 million fewer votes than his opponent (46.6%) and his electoral victory was achieved with razor thin margins, far from a resounding mandate . Not even going to get into Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression.

[dckingsfan]

I know Dems are pissed but they need to look in the mirror.

And not just in this Presidential election. The have lost a majority of the Governorships. This is a leading indicator that their politics aren't aligning with a vast majority of states.

Accidentally they became the party of exclusion. Which was capped off by Hillary's "deplorables" comment. They will need to somehow gently make a course correction.

The "appear" to be in the pockets of public sector unions which also doesn't align with the majority. They will need to figure out how to align with unions but not appear to favor public sector unions over the needs of average Americans.

They are on the right side of climate change. But they have done this while ignoring job growth or appear to have sided on climate change vs. jobs. They will somehow need to show alignment on this issue as well.

They are on the wrong side of gun control with respect to the average American. A majority of Americans do not want to change the current law. They need to wait until this moves to their favor before taking on the issue. Or taking on the issue only inside of cities.

Basically, they will continue to win in large metro areas and lose the country if they keep going in the same direction.

They need some fresh leadership...

The electorate is much more nuanced than what you assert. You made a soup of every conservative interest to credit Trumps win, but he received 2 million fewer votes than his opponent (46.6%) and his electoral victory was achieved with razor thin margins, far from a resounding mandate . Not even going to get into Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression.

I don't think that was my assertion at all. I was talking about the country as a whole and not about the metropolitan areas. My assertion was on the Governorships - and I think that still stands.

If you just want to win the popular vote. I think they have a reasonable plan.

If you actually want to govern the country - not so much.

[closg00]

"The country" preferred the Democrat in what 6 of the last 7? Elections, that's the country as whole.
It is not unusual for a people to split their ticket, Trump carried NC, but they elected a Dem governor, MD did the opposite electing a Repub in one of the most reliable Blue states in that election. Dems picked-up 9 congressional seats and the Senate is nearly even.

[Induveca]

"The country" preferred the Democrat in what 6 of the last 7? Elections, that's the country as whole.
It is not unusual for a people to split their ticket, Trump carried NC, but they elected a Dem governor, MD did the opposite electing a Repub in one of the most reliable Blue states in that election. Dems picked-up 9 congressional seats and the Senate is nearly even.

----
The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers. Farmers in Iowa may have very different concerns than bankers in New York. A more federalist system of electing presidents takes that into account.
----

The above is at the core of the electoral college. Trump took full advantage, well played. The goal was to keep all citizens well represented, not just the top 20 metro centers.

[dckingsfan]

And not just in this Presidential election. The have lost a majority of the Governorships. This is a leading indicator that their politics aren't aligning with a vast majority of states.

Accidentally they became the party of exclusion. Which was capped off by Hillary's "deplorables" comment. They will need to somehow gently make a course correction.

The "appear" to be in the pockets of public sector unions which also doesn't align with the majority. They will need to figure out how to align with unions but not appear to favor public sector unions over the needs of average Americans.

They are on the right side of climate change. But they have done this while ignoring job growth or appear to have sided on climate change vs. jobs. They will somehow need to show alignment on this issue as well.

They are on the wrong side of gun control with respect to the average American. A majority of Americans do not want to change the current law. They need to wait until this moves to their favor before taking on the issue. Or taking on the issue only inside of cities.

Basically, they will continue to win in large metro areas and lose the country if they keep going in the same direction.

They need some fresh leadership...

The electorate is much more nuanced than what you assert. You made a soup of every conservative interest to credit Trumps win, but he received 2 million fewer votes than his opponent (46.6%) and his electoral victory was achieved with razor thin margins, far from a resounding mandate . Not even going to get into Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression.

I don't think that was my assertion at all. I was talking about the country as a whole and not about the metropolitan areas. My assertion was on the Governorships - and I think that still stands.

If you just want to win the popular vote. I think they have a reasonable plan.

If you actually want to govern the country - not so much.

Or said in a different way:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/opinion/fellow-trump-critics-maybe-try-a-little-listening.html?_r=0

[verbal8]

I know Dems are pissed but they need to look in the mirror.

And not just in this Presidential election. The have lost a majority of the Governorships. This is a leading indicator that their politics aren't aligning with a vast majority of states.

Accidentally they became the party of exclusion. Which was capped off by Hillary's "deplorables" comment. They will need to somehow gently make a course correction.

The "appear" to be in the pockets of public sector unions which also doesn't align with the majority. They will need to figure out how to align with unions but not appear to favor public sector unions over the needs of average Americans.

They are on the right side of climate change. But they have done this while ignoring job growth or appear to have sided on climate change vs. jobs. They will somehow need to show alignment on this issue as well.

I agree the democrats are on the correct side of the issue in identifying it as something that needs to be addressed. I wonder if some of the Republicans denial on the issue is strategic vs. true believers. It is a lot easier to ignore a problem(or defend the position) if you pretend it doesn't exist. It also makes the Democrats argument more complex - having the prove the problem and provide support for the sacrifices to work towards a solution.

They are on the wrong side of gun control with respect to the average American. A majority of Americans do not want to change the current law. They need to wait until this moves to their favor before taking on the issue. Or taking on the issue only inside of cities.

I can see an appeal to presenting the issue as a local issue especially since attitudes seem to vary dramatically between rural and urban communities. However there does need to be at least some national coordination for it to be effective. Look at how guns flow from VA to DC and even Baltimore and NY.

They need some fresh leadership...

Agreed. A re-tread in 2020 to take on Trump would be a terrible idea. Trump might not implement some of his terrible ideas, but based on what he has showed so far, I don't think he will improve on his low popularity.

Also it looks like they need to do a better job of recruiting or supporting the local candidates.

[verbal8]

I know Dems are pissed but they need to look in the mirror.

And not just in this Presidential election. The have lost a majority of the Governorships. This is a leading indicator that their politics aren't aligning with a vast majority of states.

Accidentally they became the party of exclusion. Which was capped off by Hillary's "deplorables" comment. They will need to somehow gently make a course correction.

The "appear" to be in the pockets of public sector unions which also doesn't align with the majority. They will need to figure out how to align with unions but not appear to favor public sector unions over the needs of average Americans.

They are on the right side of climate change. But they have done this while ignoring job growth or appear to have sided on climate change vs. jobs. They will somehow need to show alignment on this issue as well.

They are on the wrong side of gun control with respect to the average American. A majority of Americans do not want to change the current law. They need to wait until this moves to their favor before taking on the issue. Or taking on the issue only inside of cities.

Basically, they will continue to win in large metro areas and lose the country if they keep going in the same direction.

They need some fresh leadership...

The electorate is much more nuanced than what you assert. You made a soup of every conservative interest to credit Trumps win, but he received 2 million fewer votes than his opponent (46.6%) and his electoral victory was achieved with razor thin margins, far from a resounding mandate . Not even going to get into Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression.

I think the issues mentioned generally merit some concern from the Democrats. 538 pointed out that a 2% change towards the democrats would dramatically have changed the outcome. At that point we may have been talking about if the Republicans had the ability to compete nationally any more. I think a better campaign and candidate could easily make that happen.

One issue that this election might have revealed for the Democrats is the dwindling influence of unions on the elections. I think union influence was a key part of the typical democratic coalition in the Rust Belt States.