**** Elections thread *****

[spoonitnow]

That is wishful thinking. It would be the other way around in my book. If Hillary wins primary, there is no one to stop her.

lol!

[wufwugy]

The minorities for Trump poll is probably largely a function of his gap in popularity.

I also suspect that Trump could appear better to Hispanics (and Asians, they seem to like him even less) during a general election. His positions would likely become more clear and less abrasive. I don't think many Hispanics would go into the voting booth with the intention to vote against Trump because of the rapists comment. It still does hurt him though. Trump should be able to adeptly move the rhetoric away from "Mexicans" to "illegal immigrants", and I think that would have much soothing effect. As of now, I can imagine Mexicans feel like he's attacking "Mexicanism" more than anything substantive. It could easily be that's Trump's intention (it plays well in the primary), while he'll move off it as soon as he can.

[wufwugy]

I think Trump would clean house in the general too, but I also think all top GOP candidates would as well. The Dems are quite weak. Supporters are dancing through every hoop they can to ignore how weak a candidate Clinton really is (and always has been).

I'm not sleeping on Bernie. Not that I think he's going to win, but he can get the upset. Clinton's support is just so insubstantive. She gets her support from the fact that she's viewed as a tool that can beat the GOP and that she's a woman. Outside of that, people don't actually like her. So many people see the corruption and lack of charisma. As of now they're biting their lips, but if Bernie-mentum picks up in any way, he could get a deluge of people who at the last minute vote with their gut and throw Hillary away.

[wufwugy]

im unsure what men/women turnouts would look like in a trump/clinton election. a superficial view of it suggests that trump would do better among men than his predecessors and clinton would do better among women than her predecessors, and also there is the possibility that clinton would do even better than she would otherwise since supposedly lots of women hate trump.

however, it is possible that the "shy tory" effect would hold true for women voters with regards to supporting trump and not supporting clinton. it could be the case that many potential women voters for clinton view her as somewhat of an insult to women. she's such an awful candidate.

[wufwugy]

sanders has a real shot at winning iowa and new hampshire.

[wufwugy]

a reason that trump could be considered the favorite against all takers is that maybe it can be said that he brings a gun to a gun fight while his opponents bring knives. what i mean is that politicians use politician-speak, but trump doesn't. meaning that they're always boxing with the gloves on; they have no clue how to do it otherwise. but trump, he doesn't give a shit and will bomb them to hell. an example is bringing up bill's "anti-female" past when clinton called trump sexist. a politician woudln't do that even though it's the right thing to do.

it could also be that trump is utilizing a key rhetoric tactic beyond that which is conventional political practice. meaning that he does the "customer is always right" sort of thing. when the guy in the crowd said crazy ass shit and concentration camps, the politicians says "no those arent real" but trump says "we'll look into that bud" but then like every customer service rep does, he thinks it's nonsense and doesn't look into it. could be.

[wufwugy]

i should rephrase the "anti-female" attack on bill. if we're using sjw logic, what he did is akin to rape.

[wufwugy]

every time i read a trump interview i think "jesus we need cruz to beat this guy".

[JKDS]

[wufwugy]

lol'd at "mexico will pay for"

also at "and take their oil"

it reads like the onion or perhaps somebody who really knows what sells.

[wufwugy]

trump may underperform polls:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...se-nationally/

[wufwugy]

trump may underperform polls:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...se-nationally/

If the analysis in here is reasonably accurate, we should expect to see Cruz beat Trump in Iowa by possibly ~10 points and Sanders to beat Clinton in both Iowa and New Hampshire. It also suggests that Trump will have a very hard time winning New Hampshire. If Rubio does well in Iowa (he likely will), he could beat Trump in New Hampshire

Get prepared for Trump to win zero states and Sanders to win the D nomination.

[spoonitnow]

That ad is absolutely incredible

[boost]

Wait, people are saying "This could easily pass as satire." I'm confused. This is really his ad? No way?

This is amazing.

[wufwugy]

yup really his ad. definitely can pass as satire, but "trumpian" explains it even better. like "temporarily ban muslims until we figure out what's going on?" wtf does that mean? "until we figure out what's going on" is just, uh, what? i want to call it marketing genius since there are probably lots of people who say the same thing in their own heads, but i hesitate to call it genius because it's just fucking dumb.

[spoonitnow]

yup really his ad. definitely can pass as satire, but "trumpian" explains it even better. like "temporarily ban muslims until we figure out what's going on?" wtf does that mean? "until we figure out what's going on" is just, uh, what? i want to call it marketing genius since there are probably lots of people who say the same thing in their own heads, but i hesitate to call it genius because it's just fucking dumb.

[not trolling]

It's only dumb if you don't view it objectively in terms of campaign strategy and successful marketing in this environment. The success of his campaign so far has been based on having the balls to unapologetically say what he's "really thinking," even if it's about things he probably doesn't actually give a shit about (like immigration). Don't confuse Donald Trump the professional wrestling character, shit I mean politician, with the person who plays that character.

His opponents cannot attack him effectively from his current position. He's achieved an anti-fragile state where all of the things you would typically think are dumb, political suicide, etc. are the things that are building his support stronger and stronger over time. This approach is perfect for 2015-2016 just like Obama's initial campaign was perfect for the 2007-2008 campaign season because it stands out as being so much different than the status quo.

The most recent polls put him as the Republican favorite for every single demographic. This includes the African-American and Hispanic demographics. He's even beating Cruz nation-wide for the white evangelicals.

TL;DR: Marketing and strategy are not about logic and facts; the only way this ad could hurt him is if no one reported on it.

I think we all agree that if he managed to somehow pull Iowa away from Cruz that he will pretty much coast to the general election. The big test is going to be what happens when he comes in second in Iowa and how things change (if they change) moving into New Hampshire.

[/not trolling]

[spoonitnow]

I mean think about the message that he's sending with this ad. The media has been attacking him left, right and center for a small checklist of things that mostly come down to the Muslim immigration situation and the Mexican immigration situation. He's like lol watch this and shoves every bit of it down their throat in an over-the-top way only to see his poll numbers continue to rise. He is playing the cocky bull alpha male [translation: charismatic narcissist] perfectly and doing exactly what he should as a professional wrestling character, shit I mean politician: He's playing a particularly over-the-top version of a set of views that has gotten him attention.

[wufwugy]

it's funny when the so-called establishment guys (bush, christie) are even more conservative than the not-conservative nationalist populist (trump) and the part-conservative christian federalist (huckabee).

i think trump really is going to underperform his iowa polls (significantly). that'll be the beginning of the end.

[wufwugy]

sanders would be likely to do better in a general than clinton. she inspires nobody. you don't win elections by inspiring nobody and gaining the "independent" or "moderate" vote (romney did that). you win elections by reforming the electorate to look like your supporters. clinton doesn't have deep support in the democratic base and she would get a relatively average turnout from the base. there are several gop candidates who would get a huge turnout among their bases, and they would whoop her ass.

[wufwugy]

here's how you can tell clinton is a shitty nomination choice: every time everybody talks about her electoral strength they always say "others will vote for her". it's never "i'm excited to vote for her". everybody has in their heads this weird idea that there's a concrete demographic wall that will propel a shitty candidate to victory because that candidate is a "progessed" democrat. they're in for a rude awakening when a cruz or rubio led ticket drops the leg on her and she's relegated to the history books.

[wufwugy]

This just in: Sanders names two non-economists when listing people who most influence his economic policy (Reich and Warren).

In other news: NASA no longer employs physicists and engineers, opting to have electricians build their vessels instead.

[JKDS]

But reich is an economist, and warren is one of the leading experts on commercial law?

We talked about riech before and how you think he's a political puppet or whatever, but he's still an economist.

[wufwugy]

they're both lawyers. she was educated in law at rutgers. he got a j.d. from yale and an m.a. from oxford in "politics, philosophy, and economics". it's okay that he writes on economics (not every sensible person opining on a field has to be educated exactly on that field), but he's not an econ phd and his masters likely was mild on economics relative to normal econ masters. if he didn't say lots of stuff that is bad economics, this wouldn't stand out.

[wufwugy]

An econ phd on reich

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...alse-theories/

I am appalled by the economic illiteracy encountered in leading newspapers, business magazines, and prominent web sites (the news section of the Wall Street Journal is no exception). Robert Reich’s Higher Wages Can Save America’s Economy – and Its Democracy (Salon.com) is only one of many examples. As a teacher of economics for over forty years and a co-author of a best-selling 1980s economics 101 textbook, I would have given Reich’s paper a resounding F, if he had submitted it for my elementary economics class.

Reich’s elevated credentials point to an automatic A+. As a frequent TV pundit, author of 13 books, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley no less, and self-identified as “one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy,” many readers will automatically believe his economic nonsense. As a former Secretary of Labor, readers would be surprised to learn that Reich does not appear to understand how wages and labor markets work.

Reich’s resume raises one red flag: He is not an economist but a lawyer – a Yale Law School classmate of Hillary Clinton, who studied a smattering of economics for his PPE (politics, philosophy, and economics) degree at Oxford – a Rhodes Scholar no less. I am no formal credentials snob. Non PhD economists, such as Robert Samuelson, write very good economics. Robert Reich is not one of them.

My F grade is also not based on Reich’s politics, which are quite different from my own. I award it instead for Reich’s incorrect facts and his embarrassing misunderstanding of basic issues about which economists agree.

[JKDS]

So you think he's a bad economist. Still an economist.

[wufwugy]

his status of not being an economist has nothing to do with the quality of what he says. he is definitively, technically, definitionally not an economist. i don't know how to be more clear on this. he does not have the expertise or credentials of an economist. why do you call him an economist?

[JKDS]

Because he is an economist?

You say he doesn't have the credentials, but there is no magic set of credentials for qualification. You don't have to have a doctorate, nor do you have to be liked by those touting the invisible hand approach.

The guy served 3 POTUSes. He was sclecretary of labor. He has a master's in a field that includes the term "economics", from Oxford. He wrote several, several books on economics. He gives speeches, where people pay him money, on economics.

How you can possibly disqualify him is beyond me.

[wufwugy]

You say he doesn't have the credentials, but there is no magic set of credentials for qualification. You don't have to have a doctorate

Of course there isn't, but there are guidelines. He's not a researcher or instructor of economics, and his education on economics is significantly below those who typically are.

nor do you have to be liked by those touting the invisible hand approach.

Why so biased? So when an economist (who has been teaching for decades and has a well-regarded textbook to his name) points out somebody else doing so poorly that they would flunk elementary economics, you just hand wave it away?

The guy served 3 POTUSes. He was sclecretary of labor.

He has tons of experience in public policy. This is not economics.

He has a master's in a field that includes the term "economics", from Oxford.

By symmetry, this means he has one third of a master's degree in economics. That's a big difference.

He wrote several, several books on economics. He gives speeches, where people pay him money, on economics.

The books he writes and speeches he gives are on public policy and are for popular consumption. He doesn't write academic economics.

Im gonna point out as well, that the blurb you linked above is political. Badmouthing people sells papers, or in this case, baits clicks. It's also from a guy who can't say "served 3 presidents" on his resume, so he's likely got an ax to grind...especially if he thinks he's better than reich.

You're seeing what you want to see. Economists do not consider Reich an economist. I'm not even sure if Reich has even called himself an economist.

[wufwugy]

This needs to be added:

nor do you have to be liked by those touting the invisible hand approach.

There is no "invisible hand" approach. The "invisible hand" is a description of what happens because of the laws of supply and demand. It's not something that economists take issue with. In fact, they all (100% of them) consider the "invisible hand" an accurate description, albeit an unnecessarily metaphorical one. The only people who take issue with the nomenclature are among those who are not economists, don't have the education, don't teach, don't research, etc.

An "invisible hand" approach in economics is like a "falling" approach (to gravity) in physics. They're both just simplistic descriptions of fundamental laws.

[JKDS]

Of course there isn't, but there are guidelines. He's not a researcher or instructor of economics, and his education on economics is significantly below those who typically are.

How do you know hes not a researcher? I'd bet he is. And while hes not an instructor, theres the saying "those who cant do, teach". Reich is a doer.

Why so biased? So when an economist (who has been teaching for decades and has a well-regarded textbook to his name) points out somebody else doing so poorly that they would flunk elementary economics, you just hand wave it away?

Im not biased. You linked an article from someone who is libertarian (surprise) attacking someone who isnt. Reich has books to his name too, and I'd say working for the White House beats being a professor any day of the week. So yes, I "hand wave away" a paid for opinion by someone who clearly disagrees with the man. You might as well have Bush saying Obama isnt a POTUS, because he disagrees with him on fundamental issues.

He has tons of experience in public policy. This is not economics.

Public policy that concerns the economy. Being in politics doesnt disqualify him either, hes allowed to be both.

By symmetry, this means he has one third of a master's degree in economics. That's a big difference.

No. It doesnt mean he has one third of a masters degree. How many units did he take to get his master's wuf? How can you possibly claim hes got 1/3 of a masters degree without an understanding of how many actual economics courses he took while getting that degree? According to Oxford's website, the degree is essentially a double masters. The program is also well acclaimed. So you're making a huge assumption that his formal education is crap because he, potentially, worked far harder than anyone else who got a masters in merely economics.

The books he writes and speeches he gives are on public policy and are for popular consumption. He doesn't write academic economics.

Fair point, still doesnt disqualify him though. Lawyers can be lawyers without entering a courtroom or authoring an article or textbook.

You're seeing what you want to see. Economists do not consider Reich an economist. I'm not even sure if Reich has even called himself an economist.

If you say so. http://www.famouseconomists.net/robert-reich. Idk what kinda site this is, but im clearly not alone here.

There is no "invisible hand" approach. The "invisible hand" is a description of what happens because of the laws of supply and demand. It's not something that economists take issue with. In fact, they all (100% of them) consider the "invisible hand" an accurate description, albeit an unnecessarily metaphorical one. The only people who take issue with the nomenclature are among those who are not economists, don't have the education, don't teach, don't research, etc.
.

Sorry for being glib. I substituted it for a free market approach. I took econ101 as well, and am well aware of the concept. But the free market approach has several criticisms, and clearly Reich doesnt support it. That doesnt disqualify him.

[wufwugy]

How do you know hes not a researcher? I'd bet he is. And while hes not an instructor, theres the saying "those who cant do, teach". Reich is a doer.

It's a meaningless quote.

I don't know-know that he's not a researcher, but I haven't seen any economics research accredited to him. It would be strange for him to have any since the vast majority of economics researchers have different credentials and engage in different work than him. There could be some small stuff from his past or something.

Im not biased. You linked an article from someone who is libertarian (surprise) attacking someone who isnt.

I had never even heard of the guy until I saw that article. His libertarianism has nothing to do with his attacks on Reich.

Reich has books to his name too

Not academic economics.

and I'd say working for the White House beats being a professor any day of the week.

If you are an economics professor, you are by definition an economist. Working for the WH has no bearing on whether or not you are an economist, even if your title at the WH is "Economistest Economist Who Ever Economisted".

So yes, I "hand wave away" a paid for opinion by someone who clearly disagrees with the man. You might as well have Bush saying Obama isnt a POTUS, because he disagrees with him on fundamental issues.

I see where the confusion is. You think that the author of the article says Reich isn't an economist because he disagrees with him. Well, the author explicitly says that is not the case. Reich is not an economist because he is technically not an economist. This has nothing to do with the words he says.

Public policy that concerns the economy. Being in politics doesnt disqualify him either, hes allowed to be both.

Nor does it qualify him.

I said earlier that it's okay to say that you don't need a doctorate in economics to be an economist, but I'm going to pull back on that. While there are atypical circumstances that involve masters level researchers, for the most part you do have to have a doctorate in economics for the economics profession to consider you an economist.

No. It doesnt mean he has one third of a masters degree. How many units did he take to get his master's wuf? How can you possibly claim hes got 1/3 of a masters degree without an understanding of how many actual economics courses he took while getting that degree?

I never said 1/3rd of a masters degree. I said 1/3rd of a masters degree in economics.

According to Oxford's website, the degree is essentially a double masters. The program is also well acclaimed. So you're making a huge assumption that his formal education is crap because he, potentially, worked far harder than anyone else who got a masters in merely economics.

So 2/3rds of a masters in economics then. Everything at Oxford is highly acclaimed. I never assumed his education was crap; instead his education could have been the single best education any person has ever had, yet it doesn't make him an economist.

Fair point, still doesnt disqualify him though. Lawyers can be lawyers without entering a courtroom or authoring an article or textbook.

Are you arguing for my side now? Your point here is that lawyers are lawyers due to credential (or perhaps expertise), not activity. All this time you have been arguing that Reich is an economist due to activity, not credential.

Edit: I see that you are calling his Labor Secretary work as credential. It's kinda sorta not. It's probably a great gig for an economist, but you don't have to be an economist to have it and having it doesn't make you an economist. It's like how the Secretary of Energy is usually a physicist, but being the SoE doesn't make you a physicist.

If you say so. http://www.famouseconomists.net/robert-reich. Idk what kinda site this is, but im clearly not alone here.

#1 on the list: Adam Smith. Also not an economist.

Many laypeople think Reich is an economist (and Smith too), but economists do not. I don't know exactly what they consider qualifies the label "economist", but it mostly has to do with having a doctorate in economics. It can be other stuff though, like if somebody with Reich's level of education on economics wrote a popular academic textbook on economics, he would probably be considered an economist then. Or if he was conducting academic research in economics.

Sorry for being glib. I substituted it for a free market approach. I took econ101 as well, and am well aware of the concept. But the free market approach has several criticisms, and clearly Reich doesnt support it. That doesnt disqualify him.

It most certainly doesn't. I (and the economist who wrote the article) never said it did.


To note: Reich is kinda never mentioned in the econoblogosphere. He doesn't engage at the level of economists and he's thought of as a political pundit and policy practitioner (and lawyer) instead. 97.82% (I made that up, but it's close) of those in the econoblogosphere are phd economists. The others are people like Matthew Yglesias, who are not economists, but sometimes write things stimulating to current economic thought among economists.

[JKDS]

Im gonna point out as well, that the blurb you linked above is political. Badmouthing people sells papers, or in this case, baits clicks. It's also from a guy who can't say "served 3 presidents" on his resume, so he's likely got an ax to grind...especially if he thinks he's better than reich.

[a500lbgorilla]

Hilary Clinton is suffering from post-concussion syndrome and Bernie Sanders is a thief.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...intons-health/

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/...s-family-money

It's all over for the Ds.

[JKDS]

We can go in circles forever on this. You hold economists to a far different standard than i, and there isn't much I can do to change that.

But you're still missing the point on the degree. Suppose a master's in econ takes 100 units of coursework, including a final paper/thesis/whatever.

You don't know how many units this guy took. Note, his academics were apparently impressive enough to get him where he is today. It is incredibly hard to get a job in the white house at any level. Knowing that, how can you say he didn't do 200 units for his degree? How can you say he didn't do 300? It's atypical sure, but there are over achieving nuts who do thay shit. Is a guy who is known nationwide, went to top tier schools, and served under 3 presidents that kind of person? I think it's unreasonable to assume he isnt.

So he's got this dual degree, where you get to study two different subjects. I don't see why you, who have no knowledge of the school or coursework, can ignore it so easily. As far as I can tell, it's because some other economist made a jab at it.

[JKDS]

Also, lol at ignoring the possibility of bias just because some guy said "I'm not biased, but..."

[wufwugy]

Uh-oh for Her Majesty.

http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/08/s...d-information/

[wufwugy]

Uh-oh for Her Majesty.

http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/08/s...d-information/

looks like this jumped the gun. it's not known if the talking points they were sending included classified info (talking points usually dont). it could be that they wanted it sent secure for a different reason. in that case, they would appear to not be a crime.

so yeah probably nothing to see here. Her Majesty: 1. People-Not-Named-Her-Majesty: 0.

[spoonitnow]

lol she's done

Trump just won if he can make it through Iowa and NH and not fall too far

[boost]

I kind of think Obama's announcement of incoming executive actions regarding gun control is genius political maneuvering. His admin leaks to the press that he's going to drop the executive action hammer on the second amendment, the right goes nuts, then he rolls out with a speech that rallies the democratic base, yet what's unveiled is pretty weak sauce. Now the line of the establishment republicans will be and so far has been "lol, he didn't even come correct. I knew he was a chump all along." While Trump will double down on "My first day in office, I'll unsign his, and sign one that allows everyone to have all the guns-- and America will be great again!" And the crowd goes wild, Trumps numbers continue to soar, and he gets the nomination.

Now I can already hear you guys saying, "yeah, but Trump is going to mop the floor with either Clinton or Sanders." I mean, I think you guys are biased and are prone to hyperbolic statements when it comes to those match ups-- but if the Democrats are really that weak, then they want the biggest clown to win. Because, look, let's be real, unless Trump effectively becomes a dictator, he's a one term president if he can even make it that far without being impeached and removed from office.

[wufwugy]

The gun stuff comes from Obama's heart. It's weak because he doesn't have the support to make it strong. Ultimately his choices will hurt the Democrats at the ballot like the gun issue has in the past. It's funny how the Democrats keep saying "we need to have a national conversation on guns". Yeah, um, we've been having that conversation for a loooooong time, and people are siding with liberty. It's an easy choice to make since it's so overbearingly obvious that proposed gun control measures have absolutely no deterrent effects on criminals blasting up gun-free zones. But I digress...

I'm currently picking Trump to place 3rd in Iowa behind Rubio (a close 3rd). He and Rubio will fight for 1st in New Hampshire.

Rubio will be president. If the ticket is Rubio/Cruz, I'd be happy, but it likely won't (I have no clue who Rubio would pick for VP, maybe Kasich if he's being simple). I'm holding out hope for a Cruz/Rubio ticket since that would mean 16 years of some decent pro-liberty reforms.

Also Sanders will be on Clinton's heels at worst. Many of his New Hampshire supporters list him and Trump as their top two choices. Many will probably choose to put their one vote on Sanders instead of what by that time will look like a deteriorating Trump.

[spoonitnow]

I'm really curious why so many seemingly intelligent people think that how he's acting during his campaign has anything to do with how he would conduct himself as POTUS.

[wufwugy]

I'm really curious why so many seemingly intelligent people think that how he's acting during his campaign has anything to do with how he would conduct himself as POTUS.

how would he conduct himself as potus?

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm really curious why so many seemingly intelligent people think that how he's acting during his campaign has anything to do with how he would conduct himself as POTUS.

Yes, we should ignore everything we've seen and heard from him and instead focus on how we imagine him to be - perfect.

[spoonitnow]

Yes, we should ignore everything we've seen and heard from him and instead focus on how we imagine him to be - perfect.

It's not about ignoring it; it's about interpreting it. A failure to do this shows an overwhelming lack of understanding of politics, campaigning and applied charisma.

[wufwugy]

I can't wait for Her Majesty to not get indicted. All her buddies think she's the only chance they have to keep the GOP out of the WH, but what they don't realize is that she's the main thing that will give the GOP the keys. Sanders is the candidate I'm most afraid of. It needs to be said again, you don't win elections by appealing to the middle. You win by reforming the electorate in your image. It is possible that there are a shitload of people who would vote for either Sanders or Trump but won't show up otherwise. Cruz can do it too. I don't think Rubio can, but he can edge it.

[wufwugy]

My souring on Trump's political chances have a lot to do with his strong national numbers and weak state numbers alongside Cruz's and Rubio's weak national numbers and strong state ones. Rubio's campaign is still fucking retarded, but they have shifted recently to less retarded. It shows significantly in the polls. The GOP base just wants him to be the guy. He has appeal in every faction and they're just waiting for him to prove that he's srsbsns.

He may even get really close to Cruz in Iowa since Cruz won't be able to run the tables on the evangelical vote since maybe 1/3rd or more will probably go to Rubio. He's always been a darling to the base and they're ready to forgive him and embrace the person they think can crush in the general who also is quite conservative.

[wufwugy]

the gop base needs to get its shit together and vote for cruz. it sickens me when i read the dumbass media peddle the establishment bullshit that cruz's govt shutdown was a political disaster. how do these idiots take a morning shower without drowning? the gop fucking cruuuuuuushed the next election. during the entire shutdown, clownbaby fucktard establishment shits bitched and moaned about how the gop was going to lose everything at the ballot because of it, yet mums the word when the gop crushed.

people stay home when numbskulls are on the ballot. it's that simple. they get out and vote when integrity and liberty are on the ballot. fuck every one of those mcconnell boehner cumshits who think cruz isn't a team player. they're busy lobbing 3-pointers into their own damn basket and whenever cruz blocks it they scream goaltending. meanwhile the democrats are down on hands and knees, using their jerseys as kneepads, examining the court lines to make sure they're up to code. the easiest thing in the world is to score on them but the only person in government actually trying to do so is cruz (and rand paul).

[wufwugy]

politics makes me pissy. ive just had a bad day. ive been confronted by too much blatant misuse of data by experts who should know better.

rilla you'll be happy to hear that lots of economists are fucking stupid. i always defend them because i don't read the stupid ones. but theyre fucking out there. they run the schools. they suck. they're bad at math, they're bad at stats, they're bad at logic, they're bad at applying their own goddamn principles of economics to their own goddamn theories.

[a500lbgorilla]

politics makes me pissy. ive just had a bad day. ive been confronted by too much blatant misuse of data by experts who should know better.

rilla you'll be happy to hear that lots of economists are fucking stupid. i always defend them because i don't read the stupid ones. but theyre fucking out there. they run the schools. they suck. they're bad at math, they're bad at stats, they're bad at logic, they're bad at applying their own goddamn principles of economics to their own goddamn theories.

:thumb:

The soft sciences are on fire right now, anyway. http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/2...gical-science/

[wufwugy]

:thumb:

The soft sciences are on fire right now, anyway. http://www.decisionsciencenews.com/2...gical-science/

i think the fact that economics doesn't require experimentation allows experts to sway from the type of rigorous logic they couldn't in a hard science. it's not that they can't have rigor in economics, but that they just can get away with not having it. my most frustrating example is that the profession at large doesn't even try to diagnose problems; instead they describe them then treat the description as the prescription. it's nasty and weird. maybe about 1/4th of the profession doesn't make this mistake and are trying to show the light to the rest.

probably the very first example of this comes in micro econ 101 where you learn about negatives caused by monopolies and how the solution is price controls on the monopolies. this is NOT a diagnosis but a prescription based on a description. they completely ignore the laws and principles taught in chapters just previous about what monopolies are and what can cause them and what can solve them. this ignoring prompts them to teach the garbage idea that to stop a monopoly from causing problems you have to use a different monopoly. it's gross and it probably ultimately stems from keynes' construction of macroeconomics using government monopoly as an unquestioned foundation.

[wufwugy]

i'll add to the trump stuff that i may give it a 30% chance that the conventional understanding of politics and polls are wrong in the way that they've been often wrong the last few cycles, and there may just be some epic turnout for president trump.

at the very least, the establishment wisdom on what polls mean has been wrong wrong wrong wrong. so if they think something, maybe thinking the opposite is correct.

[wufwugy]

i dont hate a trump/cruz ticket. politically, trump wouldn't get anywhere close to impeached. he'd likely get quite an easy reelection. his policies would likely be mostly good and the democrats are in such disarray in every way that they couldn't even mount a successful attack on him.

from the perspective of democratic voters, it doesn't look this way, but just trust me, the party has gone completely bonkers. they have no bench and the only things they seem to push anymore are things that can't stand up to any semblance of rigor (like support for minimum wage, the idea that income inequality is meaningful, the idea that global warming is the hugest deal, the idea that iran isn't completely lying to the obama administration and isn't secretly doing what north korea did in the 90s, and the idea that their gun control measures have any relevance to shootings).

[wufwugy]

i was wrong on christie, he's done. i'd forgotten about a good deal of his baggage. he won't perform well in any state. bush will probably beat him in both.

[wufwugy]

but then again, saying stuff like this is why trump will not win the nomination

"I'm really good at that stuff," he said. "I know Wall Street. I know the people on Wall Street. We're going to have the greatest negotiators of the world, but at the same time I'm not going to let Wall Street get away with murder. Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us. We're going to tax Wall Street."

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...market-selloff

he just does not understand conservative principles at all.

[boost]

Nah, I think you're wrong-- that is exactly what would win him the election. It's these sort of cross over positions that have Trump and Sanders sharing a rather large set of supporters.

[wufwugy]

well we're talking about two different things. crossover matters even less in primaries than it does in the general. "moderate positions" only play "well" in primaries when the candidates that represent the base opinions are really weak. this happened last cycle, where romney was the only competent candidate in the gop primaries and he barely won. had something as simple as the "2016 perry" shown up then, romney would have gotten nowhere close to the nomination.

as for the general, romney got more crossover vote than obama, but it didn't matter because the electorate the most inspired to turnout looked more like an obama electorate than a romney one. crossover doesn't win elections. the desire for moderate and crossover positions is very popular among the washington elite and media, but as time has shown over and over again, their conventional wisdom is just wrong.

of those registered to vote, a small and always changing proportion of them vote in each election. you don't win elections by playing to the other guy's supporters, but to your own supporters. in a trump vs sanders election, the "pro-tax-wall-street" vote will just go to sanders regardless of what trump says. trump going "pro-tax-wall-street" will just alienate his own base, who would turn out at lower proportions.

if it's cruz vs clinton, watch this at play. cruz will whoop her because he inspires those who hold conservative principles and she doesn't inspire those who hold left-liberal principles. sanders would have a better shot against cruz since he inspires left-liberals.

[wufwugy]

an illustration of this misunderstanding of the necessity of reforming the electorate: pennsylvania is demographically a very republican state, but it votes democrat in each presidential election. the media and washington elites don't diagnose the problem; instead they describe the results and call them determined, meaning they say "hey look at how the philly suburbs are turning blue at a much faster rate than the suburbs anywhere else in the country. guess that means it must be innately bluer."

the problem is that what's really going on is the gop and conservatives have abandoned the philly suburbs (because they believe in the aforementioned determinism), so the electorate of the region is molded by left-liberal democrats. if you put somebody like cruz at the head of the gop and they bombed pennsylvania with conservative messaging and gotv, the state would probably flip to red.

cruz is probably one of the only gop candidates who understands this. it is shown in things that come out of his campaign, like how they're looking at targeting latinos with anti-abortion positions. in heavy latino districts in the south, ones that dont even have gop candidates and the voters are 95% democrat, the latinos still heavily vote against pro-abortion policies. by extension, if the "compassionate conservative" were to return and stand up for their values in a meaningful way, we would likely find a significant transformation of the electorate that would get us only referencing the "democratic blue wall" of current speak while shaking our heads at how dumb that idea was.

[wufwugy]

it should also be noted that the gop for the last several decades has been terrible on message. "pro-life" is such a winning electoral issue, but they back down hard at every turn and let democrats run away with the victories on the issue. the problem emerges from the republican washington elite being molded by washington culture, which is a left-liberal culture. they don't even know how to present their values anymore. in fact they think so wrongly about politics that they think that hiding their values will be the key to victory.

[wufwugy]

it should also be noted that damage to conservatives and the gop has also come from evangelical unitery-statists. those are people like huckabee and santorum. their "conservative" positions don't actually reflect the conservative positions of most of the rest of the country. the evangelical unitary-statists support federal power at pretty much every level. contrast this to the rest of conservatives who hold similar values but do not want the federal government involved. what this has done is make the "pro-life" position look like huckabee's "federal mandate that life begins at conception" when in reality the majority of the country has a different pro-life position than that.

cruz has the winning position on this. he doesn't believe in federal usurpation of power and he focuses on engaging pro-life views in ways that undermine current federal usurpation that benefits the pro-abortion side as is. the most obvious example is defunding planned parenthood. this is a hugely popular position and it enforces pro-life positions without undermining other conservative principles like states' rights.

[wufwugy]

dont get me talking politics. im obsessed with this shit.

[wufwugy]

it's because im a true believer.

[wufwugy]

i wouldnt be surprised if we are currently in the era where the "the party decides" convention is over. "the party decides" is the view that nominations, regardless of how things are shaped during the cycle, still turn out the way the party establishment wanted it. this has held true for several decades, for the most part.

anyways, the internet medium could have already changed that. we could be looking back at the 2016 primaries, where sanders beat clinton and cruz or trump won the gop nomination, and see it as the moment "the party decides" ceased relevance.

sanders really can beat clinton. his campaign isn't obama level, but it's somewhat close. opinions are so free and galvanized now. i give it like 10% that sanders walks away with 60% of the vote in both iowa and new hampshire and the party establishment heads explode in unison.

[wufwugy]

at 5:30, cruz explains it better than i did. he includes a fantastic point about how the term "reagan democrats" necessarily means that voters who crossed over to the man considered an anti-establishment conservative didn't do it because he moved to the "center" but because he embraced conservative principles.

[boost]

Do you have one sided "discussions" in real life, or is it the message board format that brings it out of you?

[wufwugy]

mediums are different. i spend most of my time listening irl.

[wufwugy]

eh that's just part of the story. in online discussion, i still spend the vast majority of my time reading.

posting also serves a purpose of trying to prompt discussion. people post what is interesting to them and hopefully somebody sees something they can bounce off of.

[boost]

Are you immune to gentle critique in real life, or is it the message board format that renders you hopelessly obtuse?

[wufwugy]

you're gonna have to explain.

[boost]

Your blog kills threads.

[wufwugy]

im not responsible for the things that upset you.

[boost]

You've both inferred that I'm upset and that I think you should be responsible for what upsets me. Why?

[wufwugy]

im suggesting that you're upset by other things and taking it out on me.

[boost]

Is this how you handle criticism, deflecting by insisting the inspiration for criticism stems from flaws in the person giving the critique?

Have I offended you somehow, in someway that makes you read my posts in a tone that makes you think I must be upset? Do you not find validity in my critiques?

[wufwugy]

here's what happened: you said something snide to me. i responded as if it was a legitimate concern. you responded as if you hadn't even read what i said and used it as an opportunity to be snide again. i then gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked for clarification. you responded with something snide a third time. i then decided to join the game of snide.

[JKDS]

FEEL THE BERN