Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

Man, Dems throwing Strickland under the bus.

Would rather use that money trying to win NC, AZ and/or MO.

MO seems like the most fool's gold of the three but Jason Kander has such an excellent profile I want to see him become Senator so he has a good platform for VP someday.

 

[Metaphoreus]

For older and less technically inclined people, email is exactly like a chat.

In what way?

 

[Valhelm]

She deleted it. But.

zero tact

 

[Iolo]

tbh I would be reluctant to accept any pills from Dr. Stein, chill or otherwise

 

[aspiegamer]

I'm such a sucker for all of the Clinton stories about the Bin Laden raid like she's going on about right now. Yeah, it's overplayed a little, but I'll be damned if that wasn't the ballsiest thing I've ever seen. Ballsy for so, so many reasons.

tbh I would be reluctant to accept any pills from Dr. Stein, chill or otherwise

Would prefer actual pills, personally.

 

[User 463088]

Can confirm even the Ohio Democratic party has basically given up on Strickland. Spoke to a girl I know who's an organizer for the party.

 

[Boke1879]

THat is the great thing about being out of the public eye, you can say crazy shit


I think people should step back on constantly consuming news. back in my day we had news at 6pm and 11pm and we were just fine

Agreed. People need to sit back and chill. You see how the polls today are bothering people. Now Clinton is out there rallying and now people are complaining Trump is getting more attention.

Chill people lol

 

[HylianTom]

I'm such a sucker for all of the Clinton stories about the Bin Laden raid like she's going on about right now. Yeah, it's overplayed a little, but I'll be damned if that wasn't the ballsiest thing I've ever seen. Ballsy for so, so many reasons.Would prefer actual pills, personally.

In my infomercial, I want Morgan Freeman to narrate a short retelling of that night. They can even leave in the part where she says "fuck the Correspondants' Dinner!"

 

[thebloo]

In what way?

In the way they use it. Email: "could you come to my desk, please?"

Pls print

 

[Zukkoyaki]

It isn't like this was a disastrous poll day either. There have been four that went T+2, C+3, C+3 and C+4 in four-way matchups. About what many would expect.

 

[Dierce]

Fuck Jill Stein.

She is perfectly ok with hanging around with liberal progressive leader Putin of freedomland so for her, orange turd winning is just fine. She probably truly believe that the actually effective progressive party in the US must be taught a lesson for not being batshit insane.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

https://twitter.com/TheDailyEdge/status/773233691258748928

CNN eh its not fair but we're not going to hold trump to standards even though he's running to be the most powerful person in the world.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

A Gater who spent 90% of his time calling black people thugs for not supporting police has been arrested for assaulting a police.

lmao.

 

[BitStyle]

She deleted it. But.

Was Jill Stein always such a twitter shitposter?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Juvy court judges compensate for their college football team losing games by being racist to black kids.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w22611

Did the study actually find that black kids were given longer sentences than white kids under those conditions? Or was it more of a structural consequence? There's a difference between (a) more black kids appearing in juvenile court and therefore being more burdened by this and (b) judges specifically giving black kids longer sentences than white kids. (In either case, of course, the sentence should not be affected by sports.)

In the way they use it. Email: "could you come to my desk, please?"

Pls print

But would how such people use it (assuming that you're right) justify presuming all email to be nothing but chatting, and therefore exempt it from disclosure? Because that's what Yglesias is suggesting.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Accidental double post. I thought you guys talked faster than this.

 

[nature boy]

https://twitter.com/TheDailyEdge/status/773233691258748928

CNN eh its not fair but we're not going to hold trump to standards even though he's running to be the most powerful person in the world.

This makes me fucking furious. Might as well call Trump the winner of the debates.

"He didn't throw poop at his opponent. Well done!"

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

https://twitter.com/TheDailyEdge/status/773233691258748928

CNN eh its not fair but we're not going to hold trump to standards even though he's running to be the most powerful person in the world.

CNN is trash.

 

[User 463088]

Hillary's doctors slash necromancers must have worked magic. I enjoyed mom's speech. She was great.

Also, of course, MSNBC was bitching about "IS A GAGGLE A PRESS CONFERENCE?"

lol

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

So here's something that's been tickling me but I've been unable to find any good resources on the subject so I was wondering if you guys had an answer.

People talk about the urban/suburban-rural divide between the parties but are there any examples of rural areas that will elect like, non-conservative Democrats? This got brought up when I was meeting with one of the people at the campaign I'm interning for now that even in Idaho Boise elects almost entirely Democrats and has almost all of the Democratic representation in the state legislature, but the state party still almost entirely is incapable of appealing to any of the rural voters.

I know someone like John Bel Edwards is really popular right now in Louisiana even though mostly got elected because of how badly Jindal's tenure hurt the state. Are there any examples of Democrats selling their policies well to a rural district and winning a seat there?

Edit: Aside from obligatory pictures of the candidate on a horse, which is apparently a necessary component of winning an Idaho election.

 

[BitStyle]

https://twitter.com/TheDailyEdge/status/773233691258748928

CNN eh its not fair but we're not going to hold trump to standards even though he's running to be the most powerful person in the world.

This baby gloves shit for Trump is tiring. Media showing more and more how close they want this race to be. With standards like this, why even have a presidential debate?

CNN, man...

 

[Mac_Lane]

The media's been terrible this entire election cycle. Can't wait to see Hillary crush Drumpf in the debates to the face of the world.

 

[minor effort]

I'm not sure how some of you here are able to still watch cable news after this past month of forced horse racing. I admire your willpower. I usually want to kick the TV over.

 

[Paches]

What happens if Hillary flops in the first debate and Trump is crowned? I am frightened of everything.

 

[User 463088]

So Trump saying Hillary "doesn't have a Presidential look."

Hmm......I wonder what that could possibly mean.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I'm not sure how some of you here are able to still watch cable news after this past month of forced horse racing. I admire your willpower. I usually want to kick the TV over.

I haven't watched cable news in about a decade

I haven't even had cable for 5 years.

 

[Valhelm]

Was Jill Stein always such a twitter shitposter?

It's her only platform and she's got nothing to lose!

 

[Dierce]

This makes me fucking furious. Might as well call Trump the winner of the debates.

They absolutely will and I'm willing to bet money on it just to lessen the disappointment. That is why I think the campaign strategy of letting orange turd run the media by counting down the days and betting it all on the debates is a misfire. I would absolutely love to be wrong on this but I can't see a scenario where Clinton can win the debates just because of how low the expectations will be for the unqualified bloated orange turd. Not to mention his lies so either Clinton will spend most of the debate arguing against the lies and not making a point herself or ignoring them completely and letting them stick.

 

[Syncytia]

I'm not sure how some of you here are able to still watch cable news after this past month of forced horse racing. I admire your willpower. I usually want to kick the TV over.

Watching the Trump surrogates struggle to justify crazy shit is just too good.

 

[User 463088]

Watching the Trump surrogates struggle to justify crazy shit is just too good.

Did you just catch the one on MSNBC? It was great. "I have no idea what Trump meant by Hillary doesn't have a Presidential look...BUT SHE'S MAYBE LITERALLY DYING BECAUSE SHE'S LAZY AND DEAD"

 

[minor effort]

Watching the Trump surrogates struggle to justify crazy shit is just too good.

But it's so frustrating watching them get a pass from the hosts on a regular basis. I've mostly written off Chris Matthews on account of that.

I'll watch clips of cable news online if anything truly noteworthy happens, but I've lost my patience for anything more than that.

I haven't watched cable news in about a decade

I haven't even had cable for 5 years.

Yeah, I didn't have cable during 2012 and that helped keep me sane during that election.

 

[thebloo]

But would how such people use it (assuming that you're right) justify presuming all email to be nothing but chatting, and therefore exempt it from disclosure? Because that's what Yglesias is suggesting.

Well, no. But it's a discussion to be had about the purpose of the FOIA. At what point do you actually draw the line?

 

[TestOfTide]

Just for the laughs about the media being to liberal:

https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/773230111118200832

I thought Trump said we should consider ANYONE fighting ISIS an ally?

Oh right that was just him sucking up to Putin and possibly implying we should also back Assad. He doesn't care that Iran is fighting ISIS too.

 

[whyamihere]

(or we ignore the state polling from the past week but okay Nate you do you)

@NateSilver538
Saying "state polling averages don't show a shift toward Trump yet!" is basically saying "I like polls from 3 weeks ago more than today's!"

 

[Teggy]

They need to stop saying gaggle. It's sort of funny if you say it once but it's dumb used excessively.

 

[Joeytj]

(or we ignore the state polling from the past week but okay Nate you do you)

UGH, Nate is so insufferable

 

[Syncytia]

Did you just catch the one on MSNBC? It was great. "I have no idea what Trump meant by Hillary doesn't have a Presidential look...BUT SHE'S MAYBE LITERALLY DYING BECAUSE SHE'S LAZY AND DEAD"

Yeah, I love that guy he always entertains.

But it's so frustrating watching them get a pass from the hosts on a regular basis. I've mostly written off Chris Matthews on account of that.

I'll watch clips of cable news online if anything truly noteworthy happens, but I've lost my patience for anything more than that.

It depends on the anchor, I've noticed quite a few of them have been getting real sick of their BS lately.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

(or we ignore the state polling from the past week but okay Nate you do you)

I like how he defends their model: "Our model values state polling more than national!" *Proceeds to adjust all of the state polls based on national ones and downplays recent, strong state polls for Clinton*

 

[plagiarize]

So, I was thinking about something, and maybe someone more data focused has already done an article on this, but we usually look at the national poll results to get an idea of how the down ticket votes my go right? I understand the logic there too, as most people tend to vote one party all the way down the ticket...

But with two candidates that are clearly *not* liked, are we putting too much emphasis on that metric this time around. Surely the margin of errors there are much larger than normal given the unpopularity of the candidates.

Or am I wrong for some obvious reason I've over looked?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Amazing how all of the Stein supporters will complain about pandering Hillary when their candidate is the most blatant embodiment of "how do you do fellow kids"

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I love JSRF myself. I have grind on PC and really need to play it.

And I think Tarkus, Retro, and Meta are all conservatives who post semi-regularly (though you gotta say something that's slightly off semantically to summon Meta, or mention FOIA).

Yglesias' argument is better than Jack's. In fact, his reasoning is similar to the reasoning for attorney-client, physician-patient, and priest-penitent privileges against testifying in court. But I'm not quite persuaded by it, for several reasons:

1. As Yglesias notes, in-person and over-the-phone conversations aren't subject to FOIA. Why isn't that accommodation sufficient for frank discussions? It seems to me that at this point, we're balancing two interests: that of the government employees in having frank discussions via email (or Whatsapp or what-have-you)--not their interest in having frank discussions at all--and the public interest in government transparency. Isn't it obvious which should prevail?
2. Email isn't exactly like letters or memos, but neither is it exactly like a personal chat. Maybe it shouldn't automatically be treated like the former, but that doesn't come close to showing that it should automatically be treated like the latter. Unless Yglesias has some better system of sorting emails into disclosable versus nondisclosable than presumed-non-disclosure, I think we should simply err on the side of disclosure.
3. It's not clear to what extent fear of FOIA leads to a different outcome than a general fear of leaks.
4. We have good reason to want records from executive agencies regarding inputs, as well as outputs. We ought to know why they're doing what they're doing, and not merely know what they're doing.
5. At bottom, the problem is frank conversations that are (or could become) politically embarrassing. That's not a good reason to exempt the conversations from disclosure--in fact, the whole point of FOIA was to remove that as an excuse for non-disclosure.

You later suggest that FOIA should include more exemptions. Depending on the exemptions, I might or might not agree with that, but it's still a much better suggestion than Yglesias' presumption against disclosure.

The sun continues to rise.

And to respond to this, I think I just have different opinions on transparency, especially since I've done DoD stuff before. My disagreements all come from your question, "Isn't it obvious which should prevail?" since my answer is that no, it isn't obvious to me which should prevail. I care more for outcomes than methods (though obviously it should never be 100/0 either way, but I do lean more towards outcomes), so transparency isn't super sacred to me.

 

[B-Dubs]

So, I was thinking about something, and maybe someone more data focused has already done an article on this, but we usually look at the national poll results to get an idea of how the down ticket votes my go right? I understand the logic there too, as most people tend to vote one party all the way down the ticket...

But with two candidates that are clearly *not* liked, are we putting too much emphasis on that metric this time around. Surely the margin of errors there are much larger than normal given the unpopularity of the candidates.

Or am I wrong for some obvious reason I've over looked?

People are less likely than ever to ticket split, unless this election is an aberration that should still hold true.

 

[Slayven]

A Gater who spent 90% of his time calling black people thugs for not supporting police has been arrested for assaulting a police.

lmao.

looked that up, could not have happened to a better guy

 

[shadowsdarknes]

What if Hillary is too busy coughing in order to respond to Trump?

 

[Slayven]

Amazing how all of the Stein supporters will complain about pandering Hillary when their candidate is the most blatant embodiment of "how do you do fellow kids"

I am holding out for her Tweet of her planking

 

[gaugebozo]

What if Hillary is too busy coughing in order to respond to Trump?

First debate, never stop coughing. Sure, there will be a, "Trump defies expectations!" narrative, but then you're set up for the comeback narrative after the 2nd and 3rd.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Was Jill Stein always such a twitter shitposter?

Her whole campaign is based around Trump's playbook.

 

[Gruco]

So Trump and Clinton are holding rallies at the same time, MSNBC is covering Trump with Hillary's rally being shown in a mini box on the screen. And now I'm seeing liberals on my timeline hand wring over this, as if it's some sexist slight or worse. I really, really cannot stand Media Matters types who monitor the media and look for things to cry about.

You're winning. It's not 2003 anymore. Grow a pair.

Can you explain the relationship between testicle growth and ignoring the vapid media in greater detail? It's not clear to me how these things are related to one another

For that matter, "you're winning" is a really bad reason to not care about something. I don't want to "win", I want to run the score up as high as imaginably possible.

My approach.

1) Panic!
2) Panic harder.
3) PANIC!!!!!
4) Blame Nate Silver

 

[Plinko]

(or we ignore the state polling from the past week but okay Nate you do you)

Does he have any evidence of recent state polls that show this?

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

Does he have any evidence of recent state polls that show this?

No but one of the guiding principles in his model is to say that state polls lag natl. ones.