Support NeoGAF

[Tamanon]

http://time.com/3395791/occupy-wall-street-activists-suing-ex-member-over-twitter-account/

Finally Occupy has leadership!

 

[benjipwns]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-left-blasts-hillary-clinton-in-secret-emails

The Hill reviewed hundreds of emails from a progressive members only Google group called the “Gamechanger Salon,” a forum where nearly 1,500 activists, strategists and journalists debate issues and craft messaging campaigns.

The group includes prominent Democrats, Sierra Club officials, journalists who work for The Huffington Post and The Nation magazine, senior union representatives, leaders at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and the president of NARAL.

In the emails spanning over a year — starting in June 2013 through July of this year — frustration with Clinton is evident.

Clinton’s too much of a hawk, too cozy with Wall Street, hasn’t spoken out enough on climate change, and will be subject to personal questions and criticisms, members of the group stated in the emails.

The existence of the group was reported earlier this year by the conservative outlet MediaTrackers.org, but this is the first time the emails have become public.

“[A] Clinton presidency undos [sic] all our progress and returns the financial interests to even more prominence than they currently have,” Melissa Byrne, an activist with the Occupy Wall Street movement, said in a November 2013 email.

The progressives expressed an appetite for an alternative to Clinton to teach her — and those from the centrist wing of the party — a lesson.

Liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has repeatedly said she won’t run for president, but some on the left aren’t convinced.

“The establishment Dems need to be punished, and the best way for that to happen is for Warren to beat Hillary in the primary on a populist message,” Carl Gibson, a progressive activist and writer for Occupy.com, wrote in one email.

Even though months have passed since the emails were sent, the sentiment remains.

Mike Lux, a prominent strategist and an active member of the group, told The Hill that the concerns haven’t changed and operatives “are probably more worried at this point rather than less.”

Conversations with a half-dozen of the members of Gamechanger Salon this week confirm that the angst within parts of the progressive movement has only grown.

“There’s good reason to believe the discontent remains the same,” Neil Sroka, spokesman for Democracy for America and another group member, told The Hill.

Much of the exasperation with Clinton hinged on the former New York senator’s vote for the Iraq War, which is still toxic for many progressives. Clinton has since said her vote was a mistake.

Charles Lenchner, a progressive operative and executive director of Organizing 2.0, said Clinton — and anyone else who voted for the Iraq War — is “tainted.”

“And personally, I would like to see a Democratic Party where folks who enabled George Bush to drag the country into a permanent war are punished at the ballot box,” he said in an interview.

Ryan Clayton, a left-leaning commentator and strategist, wrote in a July 2013 email, “The more Progressives I talk to, the more people tell me that they’ll never forgive her for voting for the Iraq War… and won’t even vote for her in the general.”

Another area of irritation is the economic policies instituted by her husband, former President Clinton, that some progressives say contributed to the financial collapse. Lux, a former Clinton administration aide, wrote in an email that while he didn’t think she was involved in crafting economic policy as first lady, he’s concerned about her relationship with Wall Street.

“I also came to know how close she was to the pro-Wall Street forces inside the administration and out, and the downsides on foreign policy are all very real. So I will hesitate for a long time before jumping into her campaign,” Lux wrote in a group email.

Byrne, the Occupy activist, later declared in an email this year: “I have little respect for decisions Sec. Clinton has made in her career and I have a different value set from her.”

One of Clinton’s biggest critics among the group is Guy Saperstein, a major Democratic donor and part owner of the Oakland Athletics baseball team.

In emails, Saperstein called a report out in December of last year that Clinton offered a “reassuring” message to Goldman Sachs executives “horrific,” and slammed her for “ducking a lot of issues, like the Keystone pipeline.”

He also raised questions about her leadership at the State Department and referenced “the type of intimidation the Clintons want to quietly promote [in the velvet glove, of course].”

Saperstein expressed concerns that voters would begin to speculate over her personal life and relationship with her husband.

“None of that would be helpful to her candidacy,” he wrote.

The email messages show how intensely leaders in the progressive movement want Warren to run. Lux, who has called Warren a friend and offered effusive praise of the freshman senator, was nevertheless a consistent voice warning against the effort.

“She represents most of what I have been looking for in a Presidential candidate for my entire career in politics and who is besides a dear friend. I am not expecting her to decide to make the race, though- she certainly hasn’t given me much indication she is considering it,” he said in an August 2013 email.

Others raised flags about Warren’s focus on environmental issues.

“I love Elizabeth Warren. She’s great on holding Wall Street accountable and many pocketbook issues I care about, but she hasn’t talked about climate change publicly since she was elected,” Marc Weiss, a climate activist and lobbyist, wrote in an email from the group.

But still, the “Warren wing” of the party pressed on. The emails reveal an adamant conviction that, essentially, if they built the movement, she would come.

Billy Wimsatt, the founder of the group, stated in a September 2013 email, “I’m ready for something better and Warren is the only person on the radar who might be significantly better. Warren doesn’t need to appreciate it. Leadership isn’t fun. She doesn’t get to tell people that we can’t want something better.”

Gibson, of Occupy.com, in an email from December of last year, lauded Warren’s “ovaries of steel.”

Gibson wrote in an email, “another establishment pick from a political dynasty family will drive folks to the green party.”

Clayton suggested in an email from January of this year that without a more liberal alternative to Clinton, the party would splinter: “if we have no Progressive candidate with legitimate street cred about taking effective bold action to face the vital issues we’re confronting as a country today (which is pretty much Warren and ... cricket, cricket...) in the race for Presidency, that means the abandonment of the Democratic Party by the reemerging and resurgent Left in America.”

Even as Clinton is dipping her toe in the 2016 waters with a return to Iowa this past weekend, Lux told The Hill that if she doesn’t take steps to assuage some of the angst on the left, “there’s a danger of progressives tuning out” if she wins the nomination.

Indeed, Gibson said in an interview that might be the plan.

“They’ll either vote for the Green Party of just sit out. That’s a really big aspect of progressive voters’ strategy” to have their voices heard, he said.

“The more Progressives I talk to, the more people tell me that they’ll never forgive her for voting for the Iraq War... and won’t even vote for her in the general.”

— Ryan Clayton, progressive commentator and strategist

“Repeat after me: [Hillary] Clinton, like Obama, but unlike DeBlasio, is not actually a progressive. With no serious progressive candidate fighting a primary, we, and the big we of all Democrats, are weaker - not stronger.”

— Charles Lenchner, executive director of Organizing 2.0

“All of a sudden now Hillary Clinton is not progressive enough, too establishment. Well, how else is a woman going to get into the position? Some people are kidding themselves. The double standard is obvious and expected, but let’s not pretend it’s not there.”

— Taylor Marsh, progressive commentator and writer

“The fact that [Hillary] says soothing words to bankers and takes money from them doesn’t make her a monolith or mean that they own her. It’s not a good thing; it’s not a harmless thing; it’s a bad thing; it’s perfectly fine to trash her for it; but it is not an all-determining causation story; it doesn’t mean that they own her and therefore pressure is futile.“

— Robert Naiman, Just Foreign Policy policy director

Meanwhile in other War on Women news:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/democrats-debbie-wasserman-schultz-111077.html

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is in a behind-the-scenes struggle with the White House, congressional Democrats and Washington insiders who have lost confidence in her as both a unifying leader and reliable party spokesperson at a time when they need her most.

Long-simmering doubts about her have reached a peak after two recent public flubs: criticizing the White House’s handling of the border crisis and comparing the tea party to wife beaters.

The perception of critics is that Wasserman Schultz spends more energy tending to her own political ambitions than helping Democrats win. This includes using meetings with DNC donors to solicit contributions for her own PAC and campaign committee, traveling to uncompetitive districts to court House colleagues for her potential leadership bid and having DNC-paid staff focus on her personal political agenda.

She’s become a liability to the DNC, and even to her own prospects, critics say.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-left-blasts-hillary-clinton-in-secret-emails






Meanwhile in other War on Women news:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/democrats-debbie-wasserman-schultz-111077.html

The funny thing is that she'll use this to appeal to moderates and cast herself as different from Obama. A return to the middle.

And yet the minute she steps into office she'll receive the same, if not more, hostility from the right.

 

[Oblivion]

Bill O'Reilly had a graphic up yesterday that said poor people aren't really poor because 90% of them have microwaves.

This was done in a segment that was whining about how Obama was making Americans poorer.

 

[benjipwns]

He's clearly talking about relative poverty, Obama is making Americans poorer, but not too poor that they can't have microwaves.

You're going to have to get up earlier than this to get one through the No Spin Zone.

 

[Wilsongt]

Bill O'Reilly had a graphic up yesterday that said poor people aren't really poor because 90% of them have microwaves.

This was done in a segment that was whining about how Obama was making Americans poorer.

Notthisshitagain.jpg

 

[Aaron Strife]

The funny thing is that she'll use this to appeal to moderates and cast herself as different from Obama. A return to the middle.

And yet the minute she steps into office she'll receive the same, if not more, hostility from the right.

I hope Democrats win giant majorities in Congress again and she refuses to do anything in the name of bipartisanship.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

The funny thing is that she'll use this to appeal to moderates and cast herself as different from Obama. A return to the middle.

And yet the minute she steps into office she'll receive the same, if not more, hostility from the right.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/0p8epr/republicans-miss-bill-clinton

 

[benjipwns]

2016 looks like it's shaping up more and more to be like 1920 redux. A war weary country with an ineffective and infirm Democratic President who promised to keep us out of wars and the left-wing of that party turned off by the party selecting a sane Presidential candidate. A divided Republican slate that settles on a dark horse (possibly from Ohio or Wisconsin) who wins big and brings in large Congressional majorities on his coattails that then works quickly to stop a major economic downturn caused by his predecessor.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/0p8epr/republicans-miss-bill-clinton

"raving mad California jelly bean addict" lol

 

[Aaron Strife]

2016 looks like it's shaping up more and more to be like 1920 redux. A war weary country with an ineffective and infirm Democratic President who promised to keep us out of wars and the left-wing of that party turned off by the party selecting a sane Presidential candidate. A divided Republican slate that settles on a dark horse (possibly from Ohio or Wisconsin) who wins big and brings in large Congressional majorities on his coattails that then works quickly to stop a major economic downturn caused by his predecessor.

Next Democratic president to win four terms confirmed (confourmed?)

 

[benjipwns]

No, the Democratic Party will basically cease to exist after the Republicans fix Obamacare's disaster with Medicare For All.

Spoiler

Also, ban opposition parties to "get money out of politics."

 

[Aaron Strife]

No, the Democratic Party will basically cease to exist after the Republicans fix Obamacare's disaster with Medicare For All.

Spoiler

Also, ban opposition parties to "get money out of politics."

It would be nice if the GOP regained power by pushing policies that went to the Democrats' left, yes

 

[Vahagn]

Benji, if you're a conservative, just come right out and say it so I can talk shit about you appropriately.


Progressives are going to support Hillary for the same reason Conservatives support every moderate candidate that eventually wins their nomination. Also, pretending like Obama isn't a Progressive is laughably sad. He's easily the most progressive President we've had since LBJ, and along with FDR, the most Progressive of the last century.


The fact that he hasn't just gone along "working with Republicans" should tell you that much.

 

[pigeon]

I just read that post as evidence that PoliGAF's level of discourse and unrealistic view of political candidate behavior is at least as high as that of the secret conspiracy that controls the liberal media.

 

[benjipwns]

Benji, if you're a conservative, just come right out and say it so I can talk shit about you appropriately.

You can't talk shit about me if I'm not a conservative?

I just read that post as evidence that PoliGAF's level of discourse and unrealistic view of political candidate behavior is at least as high as that of the secret conspiracy that controls the liberal media.

I hadn't fully comprehended this lol

I particularly enjoy the Iraq War hangup, really, that's your litmus test at this point in time?

 

[Diablos]

No, the Democratic Party will basically cease to exist after the Republicans fix Obamacare's disaster with Medicare For All.

 

[jamesinclair]

Progressives are going to support Hillary for the same reason Conservatives support every moderate candidate that eventually wins their nomination.

That's not true in any sense.

If this was true, Romney would have won.

If this was true, I'd be voting for Hillary (lol)

 

[Aylinato]

You can't talk shit about me if I'm not a conservative?


I hadn't fully comprehended this lol

I particularly enjoy the Iraq War hangup, really, that's your litmus test at this point in time?

When Diablos laughs at you, you know you've done goofed.



Actually you say it is the 1920s political type cultural is hilarious given that we just had a massive depression(for poor people) just like the 1920s caused which then got a Democrat elected who started federal work programs, started social security, and many other programs that helped bring us out of the Great Depression. So you are basically saying that the next 2 Presidents are going to be Democrat. FDR=BO confirmed.

Going further into that point republicans championing the "unregulated market" from the 1920s by Calvin Coolidge was the reason the Great Depression was so horrible, and many of the safe guards that were in place were repealed during that time which actually would have lessened the effects of the Great Depression(maybe even preventing it). The person who decided to bring back the Coolidge idea was Ronald Reagan, both presidents largely being failures at any endeavor that they set about going into. Both almost caused capitalism in America to collapse and was saved by FDR and Obama respectively.

During both periods the gap of wealthy from the 1920s and the 2009 Depressions was huge and was a large contributing factor to the economic collapses in both times as people had to keep borrowing to stay afloat because of wage stagnation and the top portion of the country controlling almost all the wealth. The comparison you draw to the 1920s is pretty accurate from the stand point of failures in a mixed market economy causing depressions, however to even make up the argument that the 1920s was good for anyone but the top 1% back then is hilarious at best. The country was not in good shape, civil rights were non-existent, and the working class had already reached wage stagnation. Even Ford Motor Company during this time were starting to roll back on the 5 dollar work day. Compared to today people are still making less(because of Reagan and Bush's continuation of the "less regulation", don't say Carter again[I know how much of a thing you have for saying Carter is the great deregulation but I already proved you wrong on that point]) because of the top 1% not wanting to pay people the actual amount that they are worth.

There also is the same trend from 1920 to the 2000s where the rich were having monopolies be created left and right which caused things to be labeled back then "too big too fail" which they did, and same goes for the 2000s. The difference is that the rich got bailed out first while the working class and middle class had to wait for President Obama to bail us out because of predatory practices of banks giving out mortgages that people could not afford. The parallels are very similar between the 1920s and 2000s for sure.

 

[Crisco]

So I understand why it's important that other countries like France get involved against ISIL. But why carry out their own airstrike? How is that anything but purely symbolic? Just give the US the money for fuel and rockets, and let our superior pilots and equipment do the actual bombing.

 

[Incognito]

So I understand why it's important that other countries like France get involved against ISIL. But why carry out their own airstrike? How is that anything but purely symbolic? Just give the US the money for fuel and rockets, and let our superior pilots and equipment do the actual bombing.

france's domestic political climate is absolutely toxic meaning that president hollande (lol 13% approval) and former president sarkozy (and soon to be next president...) practically jump over themselves to enter the next conflict.

 

[Coriolanus]

So I understand why it's important that other countries like France get involved against ISIL. But why carry out their own airstrike? How is that anything but purely symbolic? Just give the US the money for fuel and rockets, and let our superior pilots and equipment do the actual bombing.

Why would you do that when you've your own fighter jet industry?
Cursory google search appears to show that Rafales aint no slouches either.
Dassault was probably involved in the decision.

 

[benjipwns]

who started federal work programs, started social security, and many other programs that helped bring us out of the Great Depression. ....Going further into that point republicans championing the "unregulated market" from the 1920s by Calvin Coolidge was the reason the Great Depression was so horrible, and many of the safe guards that were in place were repealed during that time which actually would have lessened the effects of the Great Depression(maybe even preventing it)....During both periods the gap of wealthy from the 1920s and the 2009 Depressions was huge and was a large contributing factor to the economic collapses in both times as people had to keep borrowing to stay afloat because of wage stagnation and the top portion of the country controlling almost all the wealth. ...There also is the same trend from 1920 to the 2000s where the rich were having monopolies be created left and right which caused things to be labeled back then "too big too fail" which they did, and same goes for the 2000s.

You know, myths aren't reality. No matter how often they're repeated.

don't say Carter again[I know how much of a thing you have for saying Carter is the great deregulation but I already proved you wrong on that point])

lol when did you do that? Carter blatantly deregulated more deliberately than any President since Eisenhower. In concert with Ted Kennedy of all people! Airlines! Trucking! Oil! Telecommunications/AT&T! Railroads! DIDMCA!

Clinton's probably next on the list too. It's like how the Liberals in Canada and Social Democrats in Sweden were the ones to deregulate and privatize and clean up their finances.

Reagan continued many things Carter started (like FDR did with Hoover) and oversaw many of the implementations of Carter-signed deregulation (he sped up the ending of controls on oil prices for example) but he certainly didn't deregulate or cut government more than Carter, he stuck at Carter's outgoing level and then threw like quintuple the military spending on top of it. Things like killing off the ICC were because Carter had already cut its legs out from under it.

The thing to praise Reagan for was allowing Volcker to strangle inflation and take the political hit for it. Oh, and killing the FTC's dumb anti-trust suit against the cereal companies. That one you can definitely blame the Carter Administration for lol.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Damn you benji, and your conservative and/or possibly liberal agenda that we can't talk shit about until we're certain which one it is!

 

[pigeon]

Damn you benji, and your conservative and/or possibly liberal agenda that we can't talk shit about until we're certain which one it is!

This is constantly confusing to me.

benji's pretty explicitly a libertarian. His priorities are the non-aggression principle and the free market, and he contends that the corporate oligarchy that dominates is primarily caused by crony capitalism. He posts that all the time!

I don't agree with him, like, at all, but I don't get why people don't understand what his position is.

 

[benjipwns]

Seriously, you'd think people weren't complaining about me bringing up the COERCIVE VIOLENCE OF THE CORPORATE OLIGARCHY THAT IS THE STATE.

It's one thing to take me for a libertarian (the filthy statists!) since I allow it and I'm not a revolutionary, but it is weird that speculawyer and a couple others are calling me a conservative Republican recently. It's like people think there's only two teams...especially during election season...

Spoiler

REPUBLICANS ARE PART OF THE CORPORATE OLIGARCHY THAT CREATES THE ILLUSION YOU HAVE A CHOICE IN HOW IT USES COERCIVE VIOLENCE. READ MORE IN MY NEWSLETTERS. I MAY OR MAY NOT READ THE CONTENT OF THEM BEFORE THEY'RE SHIPPED OUT.

 

[Crisco]

I don't get it man, how can Republicans continually say such evil shit day after day, but the national media never calls them out on it. One dude punching his fiance in an elevator has ruined the NFL's reputation, but the hundreds of GOPers who voted(or would) against the Violence Against Women act doesn't phase them.

 

[Aylinato]

You know, myths aren't reality. No matter how often they're repeated.

*looks around* When you want to disprove someone on facts you, as the person trying to counter a point, actually need to address the facts instead of going "lalalalalala cant hear you over my own voice." Seriously dude, step up or shut up.

lol when did you do that? Carter blatantly deregulated more deliberately than any President since Eisenhower. In concert with Ted Kennedy of all people! Airlines! Trucking! Oil! Telecommunications/AT&T! Railroads! DIDMCA!

Clinton's probably next on the list too. It's like how the Liberals in Canada and Social Democrats in Sweden were the ones to deregulate and privatize and clean up their finances.

Reagan continued many things Carter started (like FDR did with Hoover) and oversaw many of the implementations of Carter-signed deregulation (he sped up the ending of controls on oil prices for example) but he certainly didn't deregulate or cut government more than Carter, he stuck at Carter's outgoing level and then threw like quintuple the military spending on top of it. Things like killing off the ICC were because Carter had already cut its legs out from under it.

The thing to praise Reagan for was allowing Volcker to strangle inflation and take the political hit for it. Oh, and killing the FTC's dumb anti-trust suit against the cereal companies. That one you can definitely blame the Carter Administration for lol.

Ah yes giving Reagan credit for Volcker, who was appointed under Carter, who saved his ass because Reagan's policies failed. Yes, I've already proven all of this wrong before, can you bring up points that aren't all "clinton bad, carter bad" with actually linking to the historical contexts, or at least make an argument other then pointing out some instances of "he deregulated this!"

 

[benjipwns]

I don't get it man, how can Republicans continually say such evil shit day after day, but the national media never calls them out on it. One dude punching his fiance in an elevator has ruined the NFL's reputation, but the hundreds of GOPers who voted(or would) against the Violence Against Women act doesn't phase them.

Why would you vote FOR Violence Against Women?

*looks around* When you want to disprove someone on facts you, as the person trying to counter a point, actually need to address the facts instead of going "lalalalalala cant hear you over my own voice." Seriously dude, step up or shut up.

Sure, when you can figure out what was deregulated in the 1920's that led to monopolies and inequality which then caused the Depression and how this was repeated in the 2000s, I'd be glad to challenge those "facts" with an alternative explanation based in a simple sane analysis of actual history.

Ah yes giving Reagan credit for Volcker, who was appointed under Carter, who saved his ass because Reagan's policies failed. Yes, I've already proven all of this wrong before, can you bring up points that aren't all "clinton bad, carter bad" with actually linking to the historical contexts, or at least make an argument other then pointing out some instances of "he deregulated this!"

What.

 

[jamesinclair]

So I understand why it's important that other countries like France get involved against ISIL. But why carry out their own airstrike? How is that anything but purely symbolic? Just give the US the money for fuel and rockets, and let our superior pilots and equipment do the actual bombing.

I dont think you know how military based economies work.

Why do you think Airbus was created?

Why the fuck would France take their taxpayer money and send it to US companies?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Rasmussen has Orman up 5, Braley tied

 

[Orbis Tabula]

I don't agree with him, like, at all, but I don't get why people don't understand what his position is.

You're not alone. It has me baffled.

Re: The previous discussion of Silver v. Wang
I definitely am more in the Wang camp here. I followed Silver last election but only until I discovered Wang's site. I much prefer his approach and Silver's new site sucks. However, his data is still good and I still respect analysis a lot, and put a lot of weight on his predictions. But he's still coming off like an ass with regards to Wang. I'm not just saying that be sure he's saying bad things for Ds, as I accept that. It just seems like he's picking a fight for no reason. If Wang is wrong, than he wasn't serious competition and Silver shouldn't have wasted his energy. If Wang ends up being right, Silver will just look even worse for spending so much time whining. There's no benefit for Silver to have this feud. It's just weird.

 

[benjipwns]

The whole thing is dumb, especially for the Senate races compared to Presidential, and even then a lot of the same problems exist. Only a few states actually matter, and trends tell you like 95% of the information.

You don't even really need a sophisticated model, RCP's average is just a straight average of polls, including shitty ones, that get dropped after so many months or if a new poll comes out from the same pollster and it really doesn't do too much worse than these models.

RCP says 47-45 GOP with 8 toss ups, 50-49-1 if forced to pick, so 50-50 if Orman is with Dems.
Wang says 51-49 Dem.
Silver's most likely is 52-48 GOP. But he says there's a 60% chance that Republicans will have between 53 and 49 seats. An 80% chance between 54 and 48.

So we have basically two or three seats that we're talking about where every single model says "it could go either way" and another three or four that are leans but could change.

The most anyone is going to be wrong is like probably two seats. We're talking about an extremely narrow set of possibilities at stake.

In the 2010 case, Gaussian statistics gave an Angle win probability of >99%, which was OK as a snapshot of the polled demographic, but not as a prediction. However, using the two-step approach above, if we use a typical systematic error between Senate poll medians and election outcomes of 1.0%, and a t-distribution with 2 degrees of freedom, the probability would become 91%. This is more plausible.

It's like wow! Amazing! So you would be a bit less wrong!

If your model says one team is going to win 95 out of a 100 times and they lose, that's not an indictment of your model anymore than it saying 53 times and they lose. And it doesn't mean there's anything to necessarily correct for. Especially if you can't with the available data.

Reminds me of this much funnier kerfluffle in some ways:
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/2/6088485/how-political-science-conquered-washington
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/14/all...ournalism_and_the_phony_washington_consensus/
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/17/6291859/area-pundit-angry-at-political-science-for-proving-him-wrong

 

[Cat]

FYI to PoliGAF, if anyone's interested, Texas is having a debate between our candidates for governor tonight. http://www.texastribune.org/livestream/

 

[Wilsongt]

Somedude vindicated?

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-angry-washington-1-4-americans-open-secession-114109388.html

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.

Anger with President Barack Obama's handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.

But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.

"I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done," said Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who lives on disability payments. "The state would be better off handling things on its own."

Scottish unionists won by a wider-than-expected 10-percentage-point margin.

Falling public approval of the Obama administration, attention to the Scottish vote and the success of activists who accuse the U.S. government of overstepping its authority - such as the self-proclaimed militia members who flocked to Nevada's Bundy ranch earlier this year during a standoff over grazing rights - is driving up interest in secession, experts said.

"It seems to have heated up, especially since the election of President Obama," said Mordecai Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, who has studied secessionist movements.

'OBAMACARE' A FACTOR

Republicans were more inclined to support the idea, with 29.7 percent favoring it compared with 21 percent of Democrats.

Brittany Royal, a 31-year-old nurse from Wilkesboro, North Carolina, said anger over the "Obamacare" healthcare reform law made her wonder if her state would be better off on its own.

"That has really hurt a lot of people here, myself included. My insurance went from $40 a week for a family of four up to over $600 a month for a family of four," said Royal, a Republican. "The North Carolina government itself is sustainable. Governor (Pat) McCrory, I think he has a better healthcare plan than President Obama."

By region, the idea was least popular in New England, the cradle of the Revolutionary War, with just 17.4 percent of respondents open to pulling their state out.

It was most popular in the Southwest, where 34.1 percent of respondents back the idea.

That region includes Texas, where an activist group is calling the state's legislature to put the secession question on a statewide ballot. One Texan respondent said he was confident his state could get by without the rest of the country.

"Texas has everything we need. We have the manufacturing, we have the oil, and we don't need them," said Mark Denny, a 59-year-old retiree living outside Dallas on disability payments.

Denny, a Republican, had cheered on the Scottish independence movement.

"I have totally, completely lost faith in the federal government, the people running it, whether Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever," he said.

Even in Texas, some respondents said talk about breaking away was more of a sign of their anger with Washington than evidence of a real desire to go it alone. Democrat Lila Guzman, of Round Rock, said the threat could persuade Washington lawmakers and the White House to listen more closely to average people's concerns.

"When I say secede, I'm not like (former National Rifle Association president) Charlton Heston with my gun up in the air, 'my cold dead hands.' It's more like – we could do it if we had to," said Guzman, 62. "But the first option is, golly, get it back on the right track. Not all is lost. But there might come a point that we say, 'Hey, y'all, we're dusting our hands and we're moving on.'"

 

[B-Dubs]

FYI to PoliGAF, if anyone's interested, Texas is having a debate between our candidates for governor tonight. http://www.texastribune.org/livestream/

So there's going to be Perry, Davis, and...uhh...umm...oops?

 

[Orbis Tabula]

The whole thing is dumb, especially for the Senate races compared to Presidential, and even then a lot of the same problems exist. Only a few states actually matter, and trends tell you like 95% of the information.

You don't even really need a sophisticated model, RCP's average is just a straight average of polls, including shitty ones, that get dropped after so many months or if a new poll comes out from the same pollster and it really doesn't do too much worse than these models.

RCP says 47-45 GOP with 8 toss ups, 50-49-1 if forced to pick, so 50-50 if Orman is with Dems.
Wang says 51-49 Dem.
Silver's most likely is 52-48 GOP. But he says there's a 60% chance that Republicans will have between 53 and 49 seats. An 80% chance between 54 and 48.

So we have basically two or three seats that we're talking about where every single model says "it could go either way" and another three or four that are leans but could change.

The most anyone is going to be wrong is like probably two seats. We're talking about an extremely narrow set of possibilities at stake.

It's like wow! Amazing! So you would be a bit less wrong!

If your model says one team is going to win 95 out of a 100 times and they lose, that's not an indictment of your model anymore than it saying 53 times and they lose. And it doesn't mean there's anything to necessarily correct for. Especially if you can't with the available data.

Reminds me of this much funnier kerfluffle in some ways:
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/2/6088485/how-political-science-conquered-washington
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/14/all...ournalism_and_the_phony_washington_consensus/
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/17/6291859/area-pundit-angry-at-political-science-for-proving-him-wrong

That's the most frustrating part about it. Nate Silver, a man who has made his fame and fortune using statistics, doesn't want to acknowledge that all the models are pretty much saying the same thing. "It's close." And in a race so close, doubling down and acting super confident is the worst thing you can do. You'll look dumber in the not-unlikely event that you're wrong. He should be curbing his prediction, not spending his spare time arguing with a guy who is making a slightly different prediction. The anger he has should be reserved for the UnskewedPolls guy, not Sam Wang.

And those articles were a fun read. Thanks.

 

[Cat]

So there's going to be Perry, Davis, and...uhh...umm...oops?

I don't really know what you're trying to say but the Republican candidate is Greg Abbott, not Rick Perry, who runs on the platform of his current job is suing Obama all day and actually doing that.

 

[benjipwns]

So there's going to be Perry, Davis, and...uhh...umm...oops?

It's probably just Abbott and Davis, I doubt they'll let in Medina, Glass and Parmer. Let alone retiring Governor Perry.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't really know what you're trying to say but the Republican candidate is Greg Abbott, not Rick Perry, who runs on the platform of his current job is suing Obama all day and actually doing that.

Ah balls, I forgot he's not running. So much for my Rick Perry joke

 

[benjipwns]

How much of the debate is going to be about Abortion and ObamaCare? 50%? 60%?

I should make a monte carlo simulation.

EDIT: Remember this race for Texas' fourth most powerful position?

Good times.

 

[Black Mamba]

The whole thing is dumb, especially for the Senate races compared to Presidential, and even then a lot of the same problems exist. Only a few states actually matter, and trends tell you like 95% of the information.

You don't even really need a sophisticated model, RCP's average is just a straight average of polls, including shitty ones, that get dropped after so many months or if a new poll comes out from the same pollster and it really doesn't do too much worse than these models.

RCP says 47-45 GOP with 8 toss ups, 50-49-1 if forced to pick, so 50-50 if Orman is with Dems.
Wang says 51-49 Dem.
Silver's most likely is 52-48 GOP. But he says there's a 60% chance that Republicans will have between 53 and 49 seats. An 80% chance between 54 and 48.

So we have basically two or three seats that we're talking about where every single model says "it could go either way" and another three or four that are leans but could change.

The most anyone is going to be wrong is like probably two seats. We're talking about an extremely narrow set of possibilities at stake.

It's like wow! Amazing! So you would be a bit less wrong!

If your model says one team is going to win 95 out of a 100 times and they lose, that's not an indictment of your model anymore than it saying 53 times and they lose. And it doesn't mean there's anything to necessarily correct for. Especially if you can't with the available data.

Reminds me of this much funnier kerfluffle in some ways:
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/2/6088485/how-political-science-conquered-washington
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/14/all...ournalism_and_the_phony_washington_consensus/
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/17/6291859/area-pundit-angry-at-political-science-for-proving-him-wrong

Anytime a model predicts something should win 95%+ of the time and doesn't, you should look at your model and figure out if the outcome was an outlier or your model was wrong.

It's worth exploring at that point because the likelihood of the model being wrong is pretty significant.

 

[benjipwns]

I'd want it to happen in more than one trial run though. Now in the case he talks about, I could see looking at how your model accounts for momentum, because the polls were all a week-ish old and downward trending for her and upward slightly for Reid, BUT her lead going into that last week was significant enough that the final polls didn't get much within 3 points. At the same time though, how much faith do you want to put into trying to model five days of unknown momentum?

Not to mention all the last minute ballot stuffing by the corrupt Democratic machine.

 

[pigeon]

Anytime a model predicts something should win 95%+ of the time and doesn't, you should look at your model and figure out if the outcome was an outlier or your model was wrong.

It's worth exploring at that point because the likelihood of the model being wrong is pretty significant.

It's not really binary, though. These models should really be producing estimates of the margin of victory, which would be much more useful for identifying systemic failures.

 

[benjipwns]

I think Wang does project popular vote for the Presidential elections.

 

[ivysaur12]

Has there been any recent polling for the Connecticut governor?

 

[benjipwns]

Just Quinnipiac and YouGov back at the start of the month.

YouGov had it 42-41 Malloy
Quinnipiac had it:
49-43 Foley
46-40-7 Foley with Visconti included

 

[WayneMorse]

Malloy is one of the most progressive governors in the country (like I said a week or two ago him and Jerry Brown are my two favorite governors) so him losing re-election will show the DNC that the whole revival of progressive populism in the party doesn't actually go as far as affecting votes.

 

[benjipwns]

That's a tough race because it's an immediate rematch, so voters get an easy "do-over" option. And it was a really tight election last time. So you only need a few dissatisfied Malloy voters to flip it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-left-blasts-hillary-clinton-in-secret-emails

I've worked with people like this. Its reddit IRL.

They ignore half the country at their peril (see the modern GOP). You can move the country in a progressive direction without creating litmus tests and creating a false impression of a politician (warren)

but whatever these people aren't running the party or gonna stop Clinton.

 

[Black Mamba]

It's not really binary, though. These models should really be producing estimates of the margin of victory, which would be much more useful for identifying systemic failures.

When you give something a probability of winning with an error, you actually know the margin of victory predicted.

For example, if you're predicting a 75% chance of winning with 3% error, you're essentially calling it a 51-49 final outcome (or something like 49-47 if there's a 3rd party).

This is for an individual race, not a probability of holding the senate.