|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Majorian posted:Welllll, you kind of put your finger on it there, though, didn't you? The point stands that, for all that Clinton hosed up by ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan, she would still have lost if she hadn't also flipped a few large states where she did a lot of campaigning, like Pennsylvania, Florida, or North Carolina. Ignoring WI/MI was a colossal blunder, for sure, but it wasn't the totality of the issue.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:The point stands that, for all that Clinton hosed up by ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan, she would still have lost if she hadn't also flipped a few large states where she did a lot of campaigning, like Pennsylvania, Florida, or North Carolina. Ignoring WI/MI was a colossal blunder, for sure, but it wasn't the totality of the issue. No, it wasn't, but all of those losses are tied together by the same two issues: an economic message that didn't appeal to enough voters, and a lot of time and energy that was not efficiently spent. Both of these seemed like they were at least partially based on the premise that, "Hey, where else were white working class Obama voters going to go? Trump? Don't make me laugh. They're gonna die off soon anyway." Which doesn't really work, when you absolutely need those voters to get over the top (or enough of another group of voters to make up the gap, which probably wasn't going to happen, when voter suppression laws were in place).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
Honestly the biggest problem was basing the entire campaign strategy around some sort of omniscient computer algorithm that was projecting black and youth turnout rates significantly above what was observable on the ground, and then trusting the computer instead of the actual people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
quote:I've been reading Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal, and one of his big points is how too much emphasis on meritocracy has hurt the Dems. Rich people go to Ivy League schools, Ivy League schools pump out politicians, those politicians swim in the same schools as other Ivy League alums, rinse and repeat. I understand your point, but that example just sounds like a poor metric of meritocracy because of the way that rich people get to be admitted with lower grades, and Ivy League self-perpetuating networking having a lot more to do with success than how marginally better their schools are than other schools. As well, these kinds of liberals underestimate the level of government service (e.g. healthcare) needed before it can even begin to approach equal opportunity. They also have Marco Rubio's problem, that if they inherited their wealth from one generation ago, that it doesn't really count as old money, and maybe their desire for their kids to do better than everyone else's kids produces internal conflict with the desire to have been given equal opportunity themselves. They also tend to discount the free time needed to practice and perfect a hobby and turn it into a career, like being a YouTube celebrity, web developing, or starting an Etsy business, as something that "anybody can do" when that time isn't available to people who need to work two jobs for a living. galenanorth fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:I understand your point, but that example just sounds like a poor metric of meritocracy because of the way that rich people get to be admitted with lower grades, and Ivy League self-perpetuating networking having a lot more to do with success than how marginally better their schools are than other schools. As well, these kinds of liberals have a poor concept of the level of government service (e.g. healthcare) needed before it can even begin to approach equal opportunity. They also have Marco Rubio's problem, that if they inherited their wealth from one generation ago, that it doesn't really count as old money, and maybe their desire for their kids to do better than everyone else's kids produces internal conflict with the desire to have been given equal opportunity themselves. Well, but that's the point, isn't it? Like I said: Majorian posted:So yeah, point is, I think we can all agree that the Dems' barometer for "merit" needs, uh, a little tweaking. Meritocracy's a good thing, when your party's antenna is not all bent to hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Honestly the biggest problem was basing the entire campaign strategy around some sort of omniscient computer algorithm that was projecting black and youth turnout rates significantly above what was observable on the ground, and then trusting the computer instead of the actual people. I've heard about this computer algorithm theory several times now, but is any good evidence that it was the overriding force in her campaign? Like you say her entire campaign strategy was working off this thing. Is that... based off of solid evidence?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I've heard about this computer algorithm theory several times now, but is any good evidence that it was the overriding force in her campaign? Like you say her entire campaign strategy was working off this thing. Is that... based off of solid evidence? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.f0901f8818fa "Ada is a complex computer algorithm that the campaign was prepared to publicly unveil after the election as its invisible guiding hand. Named for a female 19th-century mathematician — Ada, Countess of Lovelace — the algorithm was said to play a role in virtually every strategic decision Clinton aides made, including where and when to deploy the candidate and her battalion of surrogates and where to air television ads — as well as when it was safe to stay dark. ... What Ada did, based on all that data, aides said, was run 400,000 simulations a day of what the race against Trump might look like. A report that was spit out would give campaign manager Robby Mook and others a detailed picture of which battleground states were most likely to tip the race in one direction or another — and guide decisions about where to spend time and deploy resources." god these people were such idiots
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.f0901f8818fa In light of article posted earlier, we get a clearer picture of what happened here: the campaign developed a culture of telling the boss what she wanted to hear, because those who didn't got humiliated or sacked. So they tweaked the inputs until the system told them what it was "supposed" to, and anyone who disagreed quickly found themselves shut out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:In light of article posted earlier, we get a clearer picture of what happened here: the campaign developed a culture of telling the boss what she wanted to hear, because those who didn't got humiliated or sacked. So they tweaked the inputs until the system told them what it was "supposed" to, and anyone who disagreed quickly found themselves shut out. I would also like to point out that pre-election, we were all whooping it up at symptoms of Trump's campaign looking this way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I would also like to point out that pre-election, we were all whooping it up at symptoms of Trump's campaign looking this way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328405-clinton-campaign-plagued-by-bickering Hillary Clinton vindictively LARPing as Bernie Sanders is a surreal image.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Typo posted:game change 2016 isn't coming out until prob end of the year but the book the article is excerpting from is out next week I really, really hope that one of these books describes Hillary's attitude, mannerisms, and bewildered rage on election night in thorough detail once she realized that her main ambition in life was shattered forever by a flamboyant reality TV billionaire. She didn't even come out to address her supporters that night. There were rumors that she began to scream uncontrollably and even began to violently throw things around her campaign office at staffers. This is a candidate who really lost the working class in the blue wall to a loving billionaire who's never held elected office before; who knows how she's going to live with that. I'll read it anyway. Game Change was great, too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
lol http://mashable.com/2016/09/27/clinton-shimmy-gif/#3SDOmv4IKOqN
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.f0901f8818fa 400k? that's it? that's not many variables for big data. i guess she bought into the big data tech bubble craze like an idiot and was just fumbling around in the dark, cause i don't see how simulations based on so few variables run daily could ever give her an appropriate view of what she should be doing. hillary is dumb in many ways though. she blames all her failures on anyone and everyone around her, so if she had become president she'd gently caress all our lives up and then blame us for it. she got suckered by a man named mook, and she got tricked by george w bush (the monkey guy who can't figure out ponchos). Condiv fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:I understand your point, but that example just sounds like a poor metric of meritocracy because of the way that rich people get to be admitted with lower grades, and Ivy League self-perpetuating networking having a lot more to do with success than how marginally better their schools are than other schools. As well, these kinds of liberals underestimate the level of government service (e.g. healthcare) needed before it can even begin to approach equal opportunity. They also have Marco Rubio's problem, that if they inherited their wealth from one generation ago, that it doesn't really count as old money, and maybe their desire for their kids to do better than everyone else's kids produces internal conflict with the desire to have been given equal opportunity themselves. They also tend to discount the free time needed to practice and perfect a hobby and turn it into a career, like being a YouTube celebrity, web developing, or starting an Etsy business, as something that "anybody can do" when that time isn't available to people who need to work two jobs for a living. There some element of social mobility in there somewhere, usually from baby-boomers who might have come from lower/middle class backgrounds and were able to enter professional careers/go to elite universities. Of course, now that is the "bare minimum" for their children and they have the money basically to make sure those kids never have to ever worry. The issue is that those (now) upper middle class boomers and their children probably don't things to change that much because things are still going relatively well for them. They are often socially liberal, but in reality are quite conservative when you start talking about redistributing anything because they fear it may come from them. It is also the people that Hillary's campaign talked to the most, especially boomer women that had a professional career trajectory. It also is the reason why they aren't actual allies to anyone that wants to change anything with this country, if anything they are an impediment to change even through they really really try to pretend they aren't. They are also the people who have the money and influence to desperately hold on to power (and are grooming their millennial children to take over the reins in the next 10-20 years).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
..eh not worth it
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Radish posted:Honestly many of these types are only socially liberal in so far as they aren't affected whatsoever, or they personally gain from it. Look at how tepid Hillary's support of DAPL was or how in 2008 she was against gay marriage because it didn't play well with "family values." These types of people say they are for equal rights then get pissed when BLM protests and fucks up their commute. Socially liberal policies will always play backseat to Serious conservative economics to them; if the two don't overlap much they will help out but if a choice has to be made it's clear where they go. Another example is charter schools where the intent is re-implementing publicly funded segregation with the added benefit of loving over teacher's unions and you have Democrats lining up to help. Granted, I do think some of them are more socially liberal than others, but a lot of it is rather empty for relative change. They may say it is "horrible" that police seem to keep on shooting black men, but it isn't like they want to rebuild their local police department from the bottom up. I think part of this is also spin, charter schools were (and often still are) spun as a "progressive" measure to help students and their parents have more "choice." The details about how is going happen is usually ignored (Waiting for Superman). It doesn't really help most of the media, including what was once the "liberal" media is fully on board and tries to re-frame the topic. I think we can agree at this point that the US media really doesn't have a left-wing. I am using a lot of scare quotes, but to be honest another issue here is language. What does "progressive" or "liberal" even mean anymore? Does "choice" matter if equality is off the table?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
I think it's bizarre that "Being associated with us would hurt him" is supposed to make the party look better than saying "Oops, we goofed." It's basically an offline Puppet Master defense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:This is likely more of a garbage in, garbage out sort of thing. There is probably a lot of value in Ada - bear in mind this was supposed to be the next iteration of the data-driven campaign that put Obama in the WH - but if you're cherry-picking data and flat-out ignoring evidence that contradicts your narrative, then you're probably better off not using it at all. Yeah, I mean for all the poo poo Nate Silver got throughout the entirety of 2016 his model was the only publicly available model that wasn't Bill Mitchell's Halloween Mask Sales level of stupid to indicate there's a reasonable chance Trump might win. All Nate did was note "whole lot more poor white people than usual seem to like Trump" and went from there. Presumably the internal model the Clinton team had would have shown this but if there was a hesitancy to trust it or they were feeding it bad data...well that's on them. My bigger suspicion is that the people at the top of the campaign had no idea how to actually use data. I mean again we are talking about a candidate who's campaign 8 years earlier was run by a person who didn't understand how delegate selection worked. Her chief political advisor clicked on the world's most obvious phising email. Hillary and her inner circle being unable or unwilling to understand analytics and modeling wouldn't surprise me in the least. In other news, anyone here think Ossof gets to 50%+1 tomorrow? I'm holding out my hopes given the overperformance in CA and KS but I think even if he doesn't get it he's got a great shot at the runoff. Ardennes posted:There some element of social mobility in there somewhere, usually from baby-boomers who might have come from lower/middle class backgrounds and were able to enter professional careers/go to elite universities. Of course, now that is the "bare minimum" for their children and they have the money basically to make sure those kids never have to ever worry. Put yourself in their shoes though. If you were them, why the hell would you want to overturn the apple cart? You can get a lot of these people you're demonizing to support reform but you're never going to get them to agree that their very existence is an affront to decency. We poo poo on poor white folks voting against their economic interests all the time here but we're supposed to accept that well-off social liberals should want to guillotine themselves? Not all of us have as much self-hatred as the average goon does. axeil fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Ossoff will get 45 or 46% tomorrow and then lose the runoff by a hair or two.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Ossoff will get 45 or 46% tomorrow and then lose the runoff by a hair or two. I think it's possible for him to win the runoff... Karen Handle is a real nut.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Ossoff will get 45 or 46% tomorrow and then lose the runoff by a hair or two. I'd be disappointed but still okay with this result because again this is district is horribly gerrymandered in favor of the GOP. Unfortunately people will melt the gently caress down over it and declare all hope pointless and everything poo poo instead of re-doubling their efforts. But I think he's going to win (the run-off that is).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
axeil posted:Put yourself in their shoes though. If you were them, why the hell would you want to overturn the apple cart? You can get a lot of these people you're demonizing to support reform but you're never going to get them to agree that their very existence is an affront to decency. We poo poo on poor white folks voting against their economic interests all the time here but we're supposed to accept that well-off social liberals should want to guillotine themselves? Part of good leadership is knowing when to express unpopular opinions, if they are right, and it's also knowing when to step aside because you're not the right one to lead. It's not the "marching to the guillotine", it's putting the interests of the nation above your own
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
axeil posted:Yeah, I mean for all the poo poo Nate Silver got throughout the entirety of 2016 his model was the only publicly available model that wasn't Bill Mitchell's Halloween Mask Sales level of stupid to indicate there's a reasonable chance Trump might win. All Nate did was note "whole lot more poor white people than usual seem to like Trump" and went from there. Presumably the internal model the Clinton team had would have shown this but if there was a hesitancy to trust it or they were feeding it bad data...well that's on them. Like if he hadn't written that article and been made a laughingstock because of it, he'd probably have been right there with everyone else and loving up just as bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Part of good leadership is knowing when to express unpopular opinions, if they are right, and it's also knowing when to step aside because you're not the right one to lead. It's not the "marching to the guillotine", it's putting the interests of the nation above your own Eh the reason I'm still one of those scary ~*centrist*~ boogeymen is because I'm more worried if we go for big sweeping reform all at once the country will literally fall into fascism. I mean, if the little incremental changes of Obamacare and actually regulating business/the environment caused this, what would happen if the status quo was attacked even more fiercely? I admit this is a position that comes from economic privilege and it has 0 appeal to someone who is getting poo poo on for minimum wage. At the same time, you can get people in my cohort to support lefty stuff like a $15 minimum (which I support) if the left drops the "and we will drink the blood of the bourgeois" crap. It's the unfortunate reality of politics. Us centrists don't have enough on our own and we agree with the leftists on most stuff but the rhetoric can get a bit extreme which makes the "fairly well off suburban white dude" demographic nervous, but at the same time the leftists are pissed (rightly) and want real change and find people like me arguing about rhetoric insulting. I dunno. I think it's helpful to understand where and why people think what they think and focus on common grounds. To that end let's just remember to be excellent to each other, impeach Donald Trump and have our ideological knife fight after the greater evil is destroyed. Kilroy posted:On the other hand Nate wrote that "Trump's Six Stages of Doom" article which was dumb as hell and ultimately humiliated him. So while he ended up being "right", or rather being wrong by less than most anyone else, I think it's more a case of him fudging his own data to give Trump an edge that having a solid methodology. Eh, I mean even going back to his PECOTA days he's always been a big advocate for baking more error into your model, especially on things where there just isn't a lot of history (like presidential elections). But yes, those articles look really, really dumb in retrospect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
This one is my favorite: http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/06/is-99-a-reasonable-probability/
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
axeil posted:Eh the reason I'm still one of those scary ~*centrist*~ boogeymen is because I'm more worried if we go for big sweeping reform all at once the country will literally fall into fascism. I mean, if the little incremental changes of Obamacare and actually regulating business/the environment caused this, what would happen if the status quo was attacked even more fiercely?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
axeil posted:Eh the reason I'm still one of those scary ~*centrist*~ boogeymen is because I'm more worried if we go for big sweeping reform all at once the country will literally fall into fascism. I mean, if the little incremental changes of Obamacare and actually regulating business/the environment caused this, what would happen if the status quo was attacked even more fiercely? All you have to do is look at that Washington Post article lovely ~*centrists*~ love to masturbate to about the Trump supporters from West Virginia who were helped by the Medicaid expansion part of Obamacare but are now in danger of losing their coverage to show why 'little incremental changes' is the wrong way to go. quote:Like so many in this corner of Appalachia, he used to have a highly paid job at a coal mine. Company insurance covered all of his medical needs. Then he lost the job and ended up here, holding a cane and suffering not only from heartburn but diabetes, arthritis, diverticulitis, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/west-virginia-tug-river-obamacare/ tl;dr - they believe the 'little incremental changes' were not important enough compared to the big changes Trump was talking about (since most people want to work and are willing to trade their Medicaid for a job that provides insurance) or misconstrued them as drastic changes so any negatives of not going far enough are chalked up as the failure of such drastic change Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
axeil posted:Eh the reason I'm still one of those scary ~*centrist*~ boogeymen is because I'm more worried if we go for big sweeping reform all at once the country will literally fall into fascism. I mean, if the little incremental changes of Obamacare and actually regulating business/the environment caused this, what would happen if the status quo was attacked even more fiercely? Lol no you're a centrist because you have a cushy finance job and don't feel bad about being a proud member of the capitalist-imperialist machine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
axeil posted:Eh the reason I'm still one of those scary ~*centrist*~ boogeymen is because I'm more worried if we go for big sweeping reform all at once the country will literally fall into fascism. I mean, if the little incremental changes of Obamacare and actually regulating business/the environment caused this, what would happen if the status quo was attacked even more fiercely? What we learned from Obamacare is that the enemies of expanding the social safety net will call even modest reforms radical, might as well go big or go home. There is no political benefit to restraint.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What we learned from Obamacare is that the enemies of expanding the social safety net will call even modest reforms radical, might as well go big or go home. There is no political benefit to restraint. Hm, perhaps in the end Mcmagic Was Right After All.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What we learned from Obamacare is that the enemies of expanding the social safety net will call even modest reforms radical, might as well go big or go home. There is no political benefit to restraint. Yeah; Republicans will paint literally anything Democrats do as being outright socialism, so it's not like the message received by right-leaning Americans will change much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah; Republicans will paint literally anything Democrats do as being outright socialism, so it's not like the message received by right-leaning Americans will change much. As a bonus, so will axeil! Turns out Team "I'd support leftist policy if only you were a little nicer to m- er, I mean upper-middle-class suburbanites" is remarkably consistent when it comes to putting their supposed principles into practice. It's just so much more ~pragmatic~ to never actually try anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html?_r=0 dis gon be gud
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
axeil posted:Put yourself in their shoes though. If you were them, why the hell would you want to overturn the apple cart? You can get a lot of these people you're demonizing to support reform but you're never going to get them to agree that their very existence is an affront to decency. We poo poo on poor white folks voting against their economic interests all the time here but we're supposed to accept that well-off social liberals should want to guillotine themselves? The point of your kind limiting your economic interests is not self-hatred, it's self-preservation. Guillotines is what happens when you don't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/books/shattered-charts-hillary-clintons-course-into-the-iceberg.html?_r=0 The more blame that is placed on the Clinton campaign for the loss, the less need the democrats will feel to make fundamental changes in policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The more blame that is placed on the Clinton campaign for the loss, the less need the democrats will feel to make fundamental changes in policy. Counterpoint: The more blame that is placed on Clinton and her campaign for the loss, the more we can make third way clintonism absolutely toxic to touch in the future. (of course that will do little to stop Hillary from running again in 2020 but it could prevent her from winning the primary as people realize she's a born loser when it comes to presidential races)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The more blame that is placed on the Clinton campaign for the loss, the less need the democrats will feel to make fundamental changes in policy. No I'm pretty sure the democrats aren't going to make fundamental changes in policy regardless of how much blame (lol at trying to quantify this) is placed on Clinton's campaign for losing 2016. It's pretty telling that the only other Democrat to even make a real run in the primary was actually not a Democrat. Nobody likes Democrats, it's basically being a fan of the servants of the rich. Lesser of two evils has been the entire strategy for the past 20 years
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
also dunking on robby mook is a viable way to bridge the center-left divide
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:also dunking on robby mook is a viable way to bridge the center-left divide Right? Although Jenn Palmieri deserves it even more. What an unbelievable idiot. Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 01:37
|
|