|
Lightning Knight posted:Manchin is now facing opponents from the left and the right. West Virginia Republican Representative Evan Jenkins announced on Monday that he will run against the senator in 2018. Manchin has supported most of president’s cabinet picks, and voted in line with the president’s agenda more often than not—and more than any other Senate Democrat. That could help him win re-election in a state that Trump won by double digits in November, but it has also made Manchin a top target of the activist left at a time when progressives are calling for all-out opposition to the president. Chilichimp brought this up earlier, but this really just feels misleading when he wasn't the deciding vote in those times he sided with Trump policy. Obviously it sucks that he voted for sessions/pruitt/perry/etc, but so far he's kept with the democrats when things mattered and his vote was needed with the rest of the party. That's not saying I wouldn't support Swearengin either. I'd actually prefer if she took a harder stance against coal, even if it's futile. I just don't feel like bringing up that aspect of Manchin's record is really fair/accurate, even if it's one of the only things we have to base judgments on. Coming from someone in a Red state with a Blue senator, I understand that sometimes these kind of concession votes happen, even if they are particularly infuriating at first. You know, I really think that if Alabama picks the Dem senator over Moore, I think this might actually happen. There's other factors that need to happen of course (like not losing WV, IN, MO etc), but Alabama would really help a lot, both in terms of the number game and the general motivational standpoint.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Brony Car posted:The Atlantic just put out an article about the tension between the union supporting and the ecological drives within the Democratic Party. It ties in pretty nicely to recent discussions: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Unions better get with the goddamn program, because we're all going to die otherwise. There's no real compromise here, the pipelines and coal plants and cars and all this other nonsense needs to go, not because we're a bunch of hippies that are very concerned about the pretty forests or whatever horseshit they believe, but because we will literally all die if it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:the part where when on-the-ground people in Wisconsin and Michigan reported back to campaign headquarters that they were seeing bad signs, they were told "shut the hell up, the Model says you're fine" First of all, I think your heavily intermingling modeling and polling in a way that betrays you don’t know a ton about either. Secondly, it’s very possible to misinterpret data, to have bias. It’s also possible to put to much faith in the precision of models, or to use modeling data in unproductive ways. None of this stuff actually proves that the models used are fundamentally wrong or that modeling voter behavior is a fool’s errand. It might suggest possibilities for refinement, but that’s not quite the same as damnation. Thirdly, still not any proof that models were wrong at all. You have no real evidence. Just because someone doesn’t understand something doesn’t mean they can blame it for whatever goes wrong. Michigan and Wisconsin could have been lost through any number of variables. Lastly, Hillary Clinton also blamed her data shop for her lose. I’m glad you and her found a point of agreement! Edit: the reason why I am harping in this so much is that the people who want to blame the data do it almost invariably out of ignorance or a desire to cover their own rear end. No, it couldn’t be that I designed a really poor outreach program, it couldn’t be that my messaging sucked, it couldn’t be that my policy proposals didn’t resonate, it’s that the data was bad. It’s sidestepping other key problems with Independent expenditures and campaigns. Democrazy fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
I really like how optimistic Ellison is. It feels a little unrealistic, but I'd take unrealistic optimism over pessimistic (or even realistic) cynicism any day. It makes me proud to have him as my representative in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Yeah, and that's a shift in messaging that the environmental movement is going to have to make. Good ecology = more good, sustainable, good-paying jobs. Bad ecology = poo poo jobs that aren't going to last, plus we're all going to die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:What makes you think that voter models don’t work? they probably can work if they're well made. problem is they failed, which indicates they were either poorly made or misused. and when evidence to the contrary came before the dems, they ignored it in favor of failing/misused models again, are the makers of ethereum dumb or is that anti-intellectualism to you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:First of all, I think your heavily intermingling modeling and polling in a way that betrays you don’t know a ton about either. your feelings about two subjects you know nothing about are noted the god of the gaps is somehow even less convincing when he's being employed to explain why a campaign that lost a presidential election to donald trump must have known what it was doing "just because you can point to the model failing catastrophically and the people in charge of refining it based on new data refusing to do so, doesn't mean the model failed" is a singularly unimpressive argument cool beans, it's nice to see she at least assessed one of her failure points accurately. the Brooklyn data shop would no doubt rebut the accusation by saying Robby Mook's core assumptions were piss, and they couldn't tell him he was full of poo poo and expect to keep their jobs, likely accurately, but part of the whole prophet-for-hire gig is taking the fall when your prophecies fail. the data is only as good as the people managing it, and the people managing it did the same stupid poo poo Romney's people did. i have no doubts whatsoever that the models were well within 5% tolerances on all their most important structural features. that model I described, where the most expensive possible house is a seven thousand foot long wall of fireplaces, has a far superior chi squared value to any model that actually predicts house prices. big data's a powerful tool, properly used. unfortunately, like all such tools before it, its most immediate utility has is for grifters to say "look, that thing you want to hear? I can repeat it back to you, but with SCIENCE attached!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Here is a list of all the times manchin has taken the same position as Trump on Senate votes (Close votes bolded):
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Voting for Gorsuch is pretty indefensible imo, who were the other Dem votes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Voting for Gorsuch is pretty indefensible imo, who were the other Dem votes? Heiti Heitkamp (North Dakota), and Joe Donnelly (Indiana)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, an actual good idea to improve the Democratic party! https://twitter.com/politico/status/930910832598372352
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Here is a list of all the times manchin has taken the same position as Trump on Senate votes (Close votes bolded): Now do this but include all votes, and bold the ones where his vote mattered. I get your point, but you're making it in a supremely stilted fashion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Boon posted:Now do this but include all votes, and bold the ones where his vote mattered. its totally cool to vote for racists like sessions as long as you think he'll get by without your vote? why does manchin feel the need to vote for racist shitbags in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Boon posted:Now do this but include all votes, and bold the ones where his vote mattered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Boon posted:Now do this but include all votes, and bold the ones where his vote mattered. If the vote didn't matter, then he's only doing it to signal his personal approval for it. In what world is that better? Like, if it's not going to matter either way, why not vote against Gorsuch?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Boon posted:Now do this but include all votes, and bold the ones where his vote mattered. learned helplessness is a hell of a drug
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:If the vote didn't matter, then he's only doing it to signal his personal approval for it. In what world is that better? This is the only possible explanation, yes. I agree though, we should strive to make our points by creatively cutting out all context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Boon posted:This is the only possible explanation, yes. why'd he vote for sessions then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Boon posted:This is the only possible explanation, yes. Oh, what other explanations could there be? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Oh, what other explanations could there be? None that you'd accept as valid, but the term hall pass comes to mind. If Doug Jones gets in, you'll see some similar votes out of him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Boon posted:None that you'd accept as valid, but the term hall pass comes to mind. sooooo he was going to tout his vote for a racist in an election? is that what we're doing now? letting dems embrace racism to attract voters? *remembers northam* oh yeah... https://twitter.com/randygdub/status/796229362643152896 Condiv fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Nov 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Boon posted:None that you'd accept as valid, but the term hall pass comes to mind. Literally learned nothing from Lieberman. How can you be sure that in a hypothetical 51 Dem Senate that he'd be willing to vote for important stuff? His word? I prefer to judge politicians by their actions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I prefer to judge politicians by their actions. No, just some apparently. And without trying to understand why.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Boon posted:No, just some apparently. And without trying to understand why. why does he need to court racists? is that what dems do now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Boon posted:No, just some apparently. And without trying to understand why. The only reason "why" you've offered is "hall pass" which is an awful reason. I understand it, but I disagree with the practice. What's the point in giving symbolic votes for the Republican agenda? How does this secretly benefit everyone? So come election time he can say "Hey WV, I voted for so many Republican policies! Please vote for me instead of just voting for the actual Republican!" Then the next time we actually have important poo poo to pass, suddenly he'll pull a Lieberman and people like you will excuse it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The article goes into pretty nuanced detail about why unions can't do that. The "green economy" is currently a bunch of Silicon Valley types that are vehemently anti union. The unions won't slit their own throats just because you are insulted that they are trying to keep themselves from drowning. Ugh god the framing around climate change is so hosed. All the Democrats have are half hearted punitive measures. Tax credits, fees, and other such Republican solutions from the 80s. Instead of drilling more holes into the people already abused we could be fighting for a future where everyone benefits. We could have a renewable energy grid coast to coast providing free energy to every American built and maintained by a massive unionized work force. Yeah it would trillions of dollars to build and maintain but that money's going to be worthless if we don't slow down and push back the apocalypse so who the gently caress cares?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The only reason "why" you've offered is "hall pass" which is an awful reason. I understand it, but I disagree with the practice. why don't you understand the pragmatism of voting for jeff sessions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What's the point in giving symbolic votes for the Republican agenda? How does this secretly benefit everyone? So come election time he can say "Hey WV, I voted for so many Republican policies! Please vote for me instead of just voting for the actual Republican!" You may not agree with it, and that's fine. He believes it matters and so does the leadership of both parties as it is a common practice, throughout government on both sides. Your obvious tongue-in-cheek quote aside, the messaging around such votes isn't that he's supporting GOP policies or candidates, but rather that he can truthfully claim to not be obstructing the workings of government and is playing the mediator in a broken government, when the reality is that his vote didn't mean poo poo. WampaLord posted:Then the next time we actually have important poo poo to pass, suddenly he'll pull a Lieberman and people like you will excuse it. Well, the straw man of people like me I guess. Boon fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Nov 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4g5elKXJE8
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
i can't believe how moderate and sensible manchin is. can you imagine bernie sanders voting to confirm a racist for AG? no, he's too dumb and idealistic for that. but not manchin! he really knows how to pull in the votes!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Holy poo poo, an actual good idea to improve the Democratic party! They vote in December apparently so I'll spare myself hope until then. Based on recent history, I fully expect the DNC to take the recommendations of the unity commission, chuck them into a blast furnace, and declare victory. I would be more than happy to be wrong though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Holy poo poo, an actual good idea to improve the Democratic party! I can't think of a good argument for keeping them. They can't really be used the way they were meant to be used and they distort the primaries in a weird way. They should at least forbid the super delegates from making endorsements until the state primary contest has taken place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
On a side note, I'd recommend everyone read the book The Politics of Resentment. It does a decent job of getting to some of the underlying concerns of disparate elements of an electorate. Also, Robert Cialdini, because it's worth it for insight into human interactions and society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
If the Republican party had superdelegates, Trump would not have won the nomination. Superdelegates have mostly worked as intended. The rest of the primary system is a shitshow though (get rid of the caucus system, goddamn).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:your feelings about two subjects you know nothing about are noted You are, once again, confusing modeling and polling, not seem to come bearing evidence that the models were fundamentally wrong. Condiv posted:they probably can work if they're well made. problem is they failed, which indicates they were either poorly made or misused. and when evidence to the contrary came before the dems, they ignored it in favor of failing/misused models You have provided no evidence that they failed. Also, programmers of bitcoin probably were okay programmers, but creating a currency requires economists. Similarly, modeling is done by people with a background in statistics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Then the next time we actually have important poo poo to pass, suddenly he'll pull a Lieberman and people like you will excuse it. "Well you should have primaried him when you had the chance instead of whining  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
For comparison, here is all the times that Dianne Feinstein, somebody who is hardly a raging leftist, has voted with Trump:
Note that the closest vote here was for Mike Pompeo to become CIA director.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
It's weird to see centrists defending establishment Dems for supporting segregationists to tout their racist segregationist cred to the voters. I thought centrists were minorities' only hope and it was the dirtbag left and the BernieBros who are secretly planning to pander to racists. I guess that was all projection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's weird to see centrists defending establishment Dems for supporting segregationists to tout their racist segregationist cred to the voters. Who is doing this? Like, in this thread or in the media? I skipped some pages earlier 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Also here's a good comparison for Manchin. Jon Tester is a democratic Senator from Montana, a state that went for Trump by 20 points last year. And he's up for reelection in 2018. And yet (close or key votes bolded):
And yet he didn't vote for Jeff Sessions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2017 02:03
|
|