Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

On many levels, the Hobby Lobby case is a mess of bad facts, political opportunism, and questionable legal theories that might be laughable had some federal courts not taken them seriously. Take for instance Hobby Lobby’s argument that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella substantially limits its religious freedom. The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue.

I didn't know this. WTF how was this not brought up. Hobby Lobby's lawyers even mentioned that the court can look at sincerity (I only hold that view when it shown that their is a egregious violation of a stated belief, I think that could apply here).

 

[zero shift]

1. Inequality has grown

2. The right hasn't fought the welfare state nationally when in power. Bush alone expanded the EITC and other things, as well as Medicare Part D.

Medicare Part D? So that chart isn't just welfare and unemployment?

I was under the impression that welfare benefits decreased.

Bush also severely extended disability benefits, thus could be argued to be the biggest contributor for people dropping out of the workforce to live on benefits.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Medicare Part D? So that chart isn't just welfare and unemployment?

I was under the impression that welfare benefits decreased.

Bush also severely extended disability benefits, thus could be argued to be the biggest contributor for people dropping out of the workforce to live on benefits.

They have, its just more people are collecting welfare because the economy sucks and they've lost their jobs. I would assume that chart includes unemployment.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Another thing worth noting about Silver: he's not a liberal. I remember when Daily Kos posters found out he was a libertarian, back in like September or October 2012; some actively started wondering whether his numbers weren't so accurate after all.

I'd expect Silver to attract even more negative comments from liberal commentators as he begins to discuss his own views more. That being said, if his goal was to prove the superiority of stat based journalism he's failing, hard.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I think there's some degree of hypocrisy going around, sure (on both sides). But I also think Nate's let it go to his head a fair bit.

Discounting PPP is one of the pettiest things he's done.

And really, I appreciate the sophistry of his model, but anyone who read the polls knew Obama had a much better chance of winning than Romney, and knew Indiana, Montana, Missouri etc were going to go Dem in the Senate races. Nate only got attention because he was the only serious commentator to actually do that, the pundits were too focused on "It's a dead heat!" Even then his model tipped too far in the favor of state fundamentals so he severely low balled Heidi Heitkamp and Jon Tester when all of the public polls had them winning.

 

[Hitokage]

So basically Nate Silver has followed the same evolutionary path as Chuck Todd?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think there's some degree of hypocrisy going around, sure (on both sides). But I also think Nate's let it go to his head a fair bit.

Discounting PPP is one of the pettiest things he's done.

And really, I appreciate the sophistry of his model, but anyone who read the polls knew Obama had a much better chance of winning than Romney, and knew Indiana, Montana, Missouri etc were going to go Dem in the Senate races. Nate only got attention because he was the only serious commentator to actually do that, the pundits were too focused on "It's a dead heat!" Even then his model tipped too far in the favor of state fundamentals so he severely low balled Heidi Heitkamp and Jon Tester when all of the public polls had them winning.

Everyone forgets Sam Wang

I thought Silver's attack on PPP was fair, but at the same time we should be clear that multiple pollsters scrap polls they feel are inaccurate. At the end of the day PPP was very accurate in 2012, and their accuracy in part ensured Silver's model was accurate.

 

[zero shift]

So I saw this on that same page I linked earlier:

That is obviously too high so I then read a bit more.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, social programs significantly raise the standard of living for low-income Americans, particularly the elderly. The poorest 20% of American households earn a before-tax average of only $7,600 - less than half of the federal poverty line. Social programs increase those households' before-tax income to $30,500. Social Security and Medicare are responsible for two-thirds of that increase.

So non-elderly people in the low income make an average of $20,500 a year after benefits? That seems really low...

Then again it doesn't include tax transfers. I really wish there was a chart that showed after taxes and benefits. I've been searching but can't find anything anywhere.

They have, its just more people are collecting welfare because the economy sucks and they've lost their jobs. I would assume that chart includes unemployment.

So the pool is bigger but isn't big enough to fill all of those who request welfare.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So the pool is bigger but isn't big enough to fill all of those who want welfare.

Welfare isn't fixed. More people qualify when the economy is in the crapper. And there's also many who qualified before but are collecting now due to the hard times

 

[Aaron Strife]

Everyone forgets Sam Wang

I thought Silver's attack on PPP was fair, but at the same time we should be clear that multiple pollsters scrap polls they feel are inaccurate. At the end of the day PPP was very accurate in 2012, and their accuracy in part ensured Silver's model was accurate.

I didn't. He asked for their methodology, they sent it to him, he complained that they weren't being cooperative and then disagreed with their methodology.

He also attacked them for not making their Colorado recall election polls public until after the election, but they were done for private clients, so why would they? It must be nice being a wide-eyed idealist, which lines up with him being a libertarian I guess.

 

[Aylinato]

Everyone forgets Sam Wang

I thought Silver's attack on PPP was fair, but at the same time we should be clear that multiple pollsters scrap polls they feel are inaccurate. At the end of the day PPP was very accurate in 2012, and their accuracy in part ensured Silver's model was accurate.

No worries I always remember Sam Wang. It's sad to see Nate silver doing negative things, and ever since those bets his attitude has most certainly started to affect his prediction. I don't think it's too off base to say that he's letting his personal opinion starting to affect his decisions regarding other pollsters. I would be surprised to see if his model doesn't get changed based on his personal feelings.

Also I haven't enjoyed Nate since he went to the NYT anyway, big egos annoy me.

Glad we have Sam Wang

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I think the 538 backlash is a little out of proportion.

1) Who cares if he's a libertarian? If so, it sure didn't affect his predictions in the past.
2) It's the off-season-- a lot of 538's original reason for being doesn't really exist right now.
3) It's expanded, the quality of the expansion sketchy, but it's also new.

People are letting these things snowball and magnify each other, which they should not.

 

[Mike M]

I feel like it's the infatuation with Chuck Todd all over again.

 

[theprodigy]

We still have Sam Wang people!

 

[Hobbestetrician]

We still have Sam Wang people!

Sam is the man. Has been giving it to Nate a bit on Twitter recently, too.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sam is the man. Has been giving it to Nate a bit on Twitter recently, too.

@SamWangPhD Mar 24
Let's do some Bayesian analysis on the Silver-Krugman slapfight. I mean this one: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-krugman-nate-silver-criticism … (1/5)

@SamWangPhD Mar 24
P(A|B)=P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B)=0.5*0.5/1=0.25. In other words, the probability that FiveThirtyEight is actually good is only 25% (5/5)

lol

 

[zero shift]

Remember when some Gaffers were claiming that 538 would eventually kill journalism? lol

 

[Aaron Strife]

lol

Incredible.

I agree with the Chuck Todd comparison.

 

[Aylinato]

lol

Burnt lol

 

[Owzers]

She also can't get her talking points straight. She confused her Obama-subsidy talking points with medicaid.

She claimed people who make $94k are eligible for medicaid.

Pretty much everything was incoherent, it was so sad to see. Like the ravings of a lunatic. Hayes just looks bored with it (like, seriously couldn't we get someone who can form real sentences, at least?).

I don't think Chris' commercial on msnbc, the "we'll talk to anyone" is a good idea. Some people aren't capable of having a discussion with. The "how dare you" at the end was a fitting conclusion to the debate.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

lol

Lol, I definitely preferred Sam Wang's analysis back in the day. It is a little upsetting to see how little Nate's new site resembles his old one. I mean, I love stupid statistics about random things in life, so I have no problem with fivethirtyeight branching out to focus on everything, instead of just politics and sport. That's not the issue. I think PD said it best "It's pop stats" not huge info dumps with tons of analysis like the old site.

 

[PhoenixDark]

That performance really highlights how many republicans view female issues as more of a game that can be manipulated to their benefit than a substantial/serious problem. She really reminds me of NBA players (or soccer players, for international-gaf) who flop in order to trick referees into calling a foul on the opponent. To many on the right, Insulting women isn't some serious issue, it's just a wedge issue democrats use to their advantage, and what better way to combat it than to mimic it. I notice the exact same behavior with respect to black republicans and how fiercely they attempt to accuse white democrats of racism.

That's not to say democrats never play with identity politics, but it's rarely as transparently stupid as republican attempts.

 

[Gruco]

Nate is getting really petty

As PDs pointed out TPM has literally become a political gossip rag
To be honest I think this is the response to the rise of the Buzzefeeds of the world.

The spectacular failure of the 538 relaunch combined with the continued decline of TPM is really sad to watch.

538 has been such an incredible train wreck. I could have been patient with a bad launch and let them find their footing, but Silver's panicked response is not reassuring. And I think a lot of the criticisms are spot on - the approached worked well for Sports and Polls and the Oscars, but in trying to move into fields that are already data-heavy, they're stuck in a weird middle ground and don't have much of interest to say. (Kevin Drum expressed this concern from the second the ESPN deal was announced).

TPM has always been willing to do slide shows and stupid link bait, but I can't even remember the last time I read something of substance there. Completely out of control. At this point I don't even expect Klein's new site to be worth anything and am tempted to just give up on the internet's ability to inform and stick with print news and academic articles.

 

[zero shift]

Five Thirty Eight has an interesting article on the labor force.

The U.S. labor force is the smallest it’s been since the 1970s as a share of the adult population: 62.8 percent today, down from 66 percent in December 2007, when the recession began. If the labor force participation rate had remained unchanged over that time, nearly 8 million more Americans would be in the workforce today. The government defines the “labor force” as everyone over the age of 15 who’s either working (i.e. employed) or actively looking for work (i.e. unemployed).

Let’s consider the two extremes: In one, the weak economy is responsible for the entire decline, while in the other it can be attributed to longer-term demographic forces.

In the first scenario, 8 million Americans are, for all practical purposes, unemployed: They want jobs, but they’ve stopped looking for them. If that’s the case, the official unemployment rate of 6.7 percent in February is too low. The truer rate would be over 11 percent. Under those circumstances, the Fed would likely be talking about increasing its bond-buying efforts, not paring them back, and politicians would be talking about how to better respond to an ongoing jobs crisis.

In the second scenario, those 8 million people all left the labor force for reasons unrelated to the state of the economy. Baby boomers are retiring. Younger people are attending college at an increasing rate. Fewer men in their prime working years have jobs, a trend that began in the 1970s.1 These larger demographic shifts could mean the official unemployment rate of 6.7 percent paints a pretty accurate picture of the nation’s economic condition.

In some ways, this second scenario is actually the darker of the two. The first represents a crisis, but one that should be resolved as the economy heals. The second is a chronic condition: If people are leaving the labor force for reasons unrelated to the weak economy, then a stronger economy isn’t likely to bring them back. Since labor force growth is a chief driver of any economy — more workers means more production, more income and more spending — a permanently smaller labor force would mean a permanently smaller economy.

Much more on link.

 

[Oblivion]

Didn't Kos actually have the best prediction record after the election?

 

[Oblivion]

So I was listening to TYT, and came across this old clip of Rumsfeld on Face the Nation. This is one of the most hilarious cases of straight up lying and getting called out on in real time I've seen in a while:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b7HR-EBZHX8#t=239

:lol

The fucker was so confident too that he could get away with it. Tom Friedman's a tool, but he did good here.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Five Thirty Eight has an interesting article on the labor force.



Much more on link.

Assuming 538 does analysis on its own hits, and that GAF is representative, this worries me.

Responses to thoughtful article: my 1 (and meta at that)
Responses to slapfight article and related articles and tweets: I didn't count, but a lot more.

Looks for more gossipy posts from Nate in the future, guys!

 

[PhoenixDark]

Six million Americans have signed up for private health coverage under Obamacare, multiple administration officials confirmed to TPM.

The latest enrollment milestone was first reported by ThinkProgress. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius then announced the news.

The news comes several days before Obamacare's open enrollment (mostly) closes on March 31.

The 6 million figure is significant for the White House: The Congressional Budget Office had projected last month that Obamacare would hit 6 million enrollees, revising its projection down from 7 million after HealthCare.gov's disastrous launch.

The number does not account for how many enrollees have paid their first premium, which will formally initiate their coverage.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obamacare-6-million-enrollees

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/449257197277839360

 

[speculawyer]

@SamWangPhD Mar 24
P(A|B)=P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B)=0.5*0.5/1=0.25. In other words, the probability that FiveThirtyEight is actually good is only 25% (5/5)

lol

A full Bayesian analysis in a tweet. That is awesome.

 

[Metaphoreus]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

I didn't know this. WTF how was this not brought up. Hobby Lobby's lawyers even mentioned that the court can look at sincerity (I only hold that view when it shown that their is a egregious violation of a stated belief, I think that could apply here).

I don't think it's that big a deal. Hobby Lobby actually did mention it in their brief, so it's not like they were hiding anything. Mother Jones takes a cynical view of the situation, of course, but I don't think opportunism was involved here, for two reasons. First, it's plausible that the Greens first looked into whether they covered the challenged contraceptives (and looked into how they operated) only once the regulations were promulgated and news of the regulations spread. Second, the Greens are challenging only 4 of 20 drugs and devices required by the regulation--why would they limit their challenge like that if they were just opportunists? Financially speaking, do they really stand to gain much by omitting those 4 drugs and devices?

 

[Aaron Strife]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obamacare-6-million-enrollees

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/449257197277839360

What a colossal failure

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obamacare-6-million-enrollees

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/449257197277839360

acasignups.net has the projected total by the end of day Monday at 6.5m in light of this news. But he's had to revise that projection upwards several times in the past couple weeks.

They might actually get close to the original 7m estimate set before the roll out debacle at this pace, which is well over 100k at this point. (6m was hit yesterday, and the pace is >100k per day right now. Thursday-Monday is five days, so 6.5m is probably a low estimate, not to mention the stragglers allowed in after the 31st.)

 

[cartoon_soldier]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obamacare-6-million-enrollees

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/449257197277839360

The comparisons write themselves

 

[speculawyer]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obamacare-6-million-enrollees

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/449257197277839360

daveweigelVerified account
‏@daveweigel
You know who else rounded up 6 million people?

11:50 AM - 27 Mar 2014

OK, I laughed at that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

OK, I laughed at that.

Oh god...

 

[B-Dubs]

OK, I laughed at that.

That was a good one

 

[WayneMorse]

OK, I laughed at that.

God Weigel really is the best.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

OK, I laughed at that.

That's spectacular.

 

[faceless007]

The comparisons write themselves

If I didn't know who Weigel was I might think that was serious.

 

[The Technomancer]

Anyone remember that article about the ACA "stories" posted a while back that specifically talked about a woman who lost her job and could only find work at a call center at half her previous wage? I'm trying to track it down

 

[Aaron Strife]

acasignups.net has the projected total by the end of day Monday at 6.5m in light of this news. But he's had to revise that projection upwards several times in the past couple weeks.

They might actually get close to the original 7m estimate set before the roll out debacle at this pace, which is well over 100k at this point. (6m was hit yesterday, and the pace is >100k per day right now. Thursday-Monday is five days, so 6.5m is probably a low estimate, not to mention the stragglers allowed in after the 31st.)

Imagine actually clearing the 7 million. I don't think it will happen (it'll probably come just short) but damn.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Of course the first question now to anybody asking for repeal should be, "what about the 6 million" + many others?

Of course, nobody in media will ask and force Republicans to answer that question.

 

[Black Mamba]

Of course the first question now to anybody asking for repeal should be, "what about the 6 million" + many others?

Of course, nobody in media will ask and force Republicans to answer that question.

with the medicaid expansion, it should be much more than 6 million given as a number.

Imagine actually clearing the 7 million. I don't think it will happen (it'll probably come just short) but damn.

Don't forget people can still sign up after the deadline if they move/lose job/ gain a child etc. It'll clear 7 million by summer, IMO

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Didn't know Pro-Tip GAF was having a meet up in Washington Today (not my picture)

 

[Mike M]

Didn't know Pro-Tip GAF was having a meet up in Washington Today (not my picture)

I can't tell if this is parody or not.

 

[RustyNails]

Didn't know Pro-Tip GAF was having a meet up in Washington Today (not my picture)

err what. Are these people for real?

 

[Black Mamba]

err what. Are these people for real?

Yes, and they're real dicks.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yes, and they're real dicks.

They do tend to rub one the wrong way, don't they?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I was in the mood for a ham sandwich the other day

“Yes. Could you tell me where you keep the Caucasian cheese?”

 

[thezerofire]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I can't believe this is a real article and not from The Onion