[Terez]

Zoolanderis Derake, on 13 March 2016 - 12:00 AM, said:

Terez: Joined 16-January 07. Avoiding the Inn since ???????

Since I got banned essentially for going off topic in the Inn. I think that was in '08 or '09? Maybe as late as 2010 or 2011. (Time flies.) Anyway, I prefer the DB where the rules and moderation are more predictable.

This post has been edited by Terez: 13 March 2016 - 12:06 AM

[worry]

Whoa. I've always heard the Inn was the "Wild West" from people who were here before me. Getting effectively banned from there of all places is definitely impressive and frankly admirable!

Anyway, I have to link to a Tweet here since the video is embedded there (not youtube) but it's Marco Rubio's reaction to the Trump stuff:
https://twitter.com/...726783969890304

As journo Brian Beutler says: "A politician's face is a blank canvas but beyond despair I see Rubio anguished over doing the wrong thing knowingly." I really can't tell if it's acting (as in "I see an out from that stupid pledge") or if he's genuinely demoralized. Maybe both.

[Terez]

I'd tell you the ban story but again, the rules are pretty clear here in the DB.

Much has been made of Rubio today. It's a combination of 1) demoralization because he's losing; 2) demoralization because the base of the GOP is so scary; and 3) obvious exhaustion. He looked like he was only half-awake.

[Silencer]

^someone thought that the site rules didn't apply in the Inn, for some reason.

[Terez]

Going off-topic was never against the rules in the Inn.

[worry]

Terez, on 13 March 2016 - 12:25 AM, said:

I'd tell you the ban story but again, the rules are pretty clear here in the DB.

Much has been made of Rubio today. It's a combination of 1) demoralization because he's losing; 2) demoralization because the base of the GOP is so scary; and 3) obvious exhaustion. He looked like he was only half-awake.

Yah, I won't go super into it beyond this one post cuz it's the DB (and also cuz I don't know the specifics), but in general I'd say aside from some very specifically focused threads in the Inn (like Photos or Weird News), the nature of conversation is that it evolves and branches. Other people can and will bring it back around if they want w/o the hubbub of over-regulation, which is often more disruptive than the conversation (and I'm barring major breaks in the rules like cruelty, epithets, piracy talk, etc). I mean a convo lasts a few posts, maybe over a few days, but the thread's gonna stick around longer than that and survive a digression. Or at least that's how I feel, here in America, in terms of USA Politics!

Anyway, back to Rubio. Yeah I agree with you. It's all three. But I really do think the other candidates are gonna (finally) start painting Trump as not just a bad choice, but illegitimate. In that light, maybe they will take it as an out from the pledge. Probably that's just wishful thinking on my part, but Cruz's reaction to the rally was pretty pointed (and more sensible than Clinton's for sure). I'm not saying it won't also be a cynical, political move on top of (or not even necessitating) disgust.

This post has been edited by Zoolanderis Derake: 13 March 2016 - 12:52 AM

[Tsundoku]

Is this really the last throw of the dice? Or is there "hope" (a relative concept with GOP candidates) in this "brokered convention" thing?

http://www.news.com....7ac51fc7a28f2fd

That the frankly also-terrifying religious fucking nutjob Cruz is second is really a sad, sad indictment on the depths the Republican party is plumbing, and the human effluent who seem to make up a disturbingly large proportion of their core membership.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 13 March 2016 - 09:28 AM

[Terez]

It won't be over until he has 1237 delegates. It will just be difficult for Rubio and Kasich to justify staying in if they don't win their home states, which both should technically be able to do since their positions in those states are elected by statewide vote. Kasich is head of state in Ohio, so it's not surprising he's in a better position to actually win there. Rubio doesn't seem to have a chance in Florida.

So, Rubio (who has more delegates and state wins than Kasich) will be forced to drop out, and maybe Kasich will be able to stay in. Even assuming Kasich and Cruz get most of Rubio's votes, that's a weaker front against Trump getting his 1237 delegates. And if he gets closer to the 1237 than any of the other candidates get to him, it will be very difficult to get away with giving the nomination to someone else at the convention. Technically it's possible by the rules, but no one wants to piss off his followers, not just because they can sink the Republicans in November, but also because they're the crazy people with all the guns.

This is why it would be smart to consolidate behind the #2, Ted Cruz. But he's almost as scary in his own special way which is kind of in the background at the moment because Trump is hogging all the attention, so the Establishment is super-reluctant to go that route. Which means that Cruz is lagging behind Trump more than he should be, and maybe it's more difficult to deny Trump the nomination at the convention (assuming he doesn't just win a majority of delegates outright).

So no, Tuesday is not the end of it. But every state matters, and Trump is still gaining, and he might gain a lot on Tuesday.

[amphibian]

EmperorMagus, on 12 March 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

amphibian, on 12 March 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

Kansas is cratering. Louisiana is about to bite it extremely hard. These are the direct consequences of this successful Republican policy and focusing too heavily upon the shitshow that is the national level campaign is to ignore and encourage the less catchy actions of the GOP.

I don't know what you mean by this.
Is it just their fiscal policy or it something more going to "crater" these states?

It is primarily fiscal policy and the drop in job creation/wealth accumulation in hands of rich. Governor Jindal presided over tax cuts for corporations and the rich that have nearly bankrupted Louisiana. They are cutting everything to the bone and reducing the effectiveness of Louisiana government programs for anything to "we can barely fill potholes in the busiest streets" levels.

Kansas elected a super group of Tea Party politicians for its legislature and governor about five years ago. Since then, they've put the state into economic freefall and driven quite a few people out of Kansas (mostly the middle class more liberal ones who could afford to move).

[amphibian]

The Bobby Jindal is the worst governor in Louisiana history article earlier in the thread tells us about what specifically he did and what the terrible consequences are.

Here is a short article on what Kansas has done: https://www.washingt...d44e_story.html

[Terez]

After Michigan, where Hillary went from having a 20-point lead in the polls to losing the state, many have been concerned about the methodology of polling on the Dem side in the midwestern states, particularly Ohio and Illinois which are voting this Tuesday.

The consensus in the few days following the MI upset was that Ohio was the state Bernie had the best chance of winning of the two. The reasons given were that Illinois was generally more conservative and predictable and less likely to go for the insurrectionist candidate. Also, Bernie's talking points on NAFTA and the like have more impact in a former manufacturing powerhouse like Ohio than in agricultural Illinois.

The factor everyone (except Bernie himself) overlooked: Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago. Rahm worked for the Bill Clinton administration. He was also a 3-term congressional rep in one of the Chicago districts. Then he was Obama's chief of staff, and a controversial choice. Rahm came to Obama from Hillary; he had worked on Hillary's campaign against Obama. His position in the Obama administration probably helped him get elected in Chicago. He was also a Wall St. banker during the Bush years.

He has come under fire in Chicago in recent months, partly because of his role in the alleged Laquan McDonald coverup, which involved the Black Lives Matters protestors, but partly just because of his mismanagement of the city.

Apparently it wasn't very well understood in Chicago how close Rahm was to Hillary until Bernie and his surrogates started talking about it more in the last week. Rahm's fiscal sins fit right into Bernie's corruption message, and I think that was all it took for Hillary's "firewall" in Chicago to begin to collapse. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bernie beat the 30% of black support he had in Michigan.

Illinois is one of the most dependable blue states in the country. Take out Chicago with its significant black population, and you've got a red state.

I haven't been studying poll methodology, and 538 hasn't written anything about this yet, but it's possible that this shift in the polls simply reflects a post-Michigan methodology review. But I doubt that tells the whole story. Keep in mind, the Chicago Trump rally got shut down on the evening of the 11th. All this polling was conducted before then.

[Vengeance]

My wife knows several people who helped shut down trumps rally. I think that trumps camp figured that the rally would be shut down. Chicago is not very red at all so the people going to the rally wouldn't be from the city. UIC pavallion is located toward the south side and the west side and UIC has a high Asian ( Muslim) and black student body. Coupled with the fact that it is easy for both Mexican Americans and African American to get to meant that the rally was in hostile territory from the get go. While there are neonazi gangs in Chicago the majority are Hispanic and black and they are way better armed then those southern idiots. That rally didn't even start to get out of hand. 46 people get shot on a typical warm Chicago night. Out of hand would have seen the police pull back and the Latin Kings and gangster deciples move in. Total blood bath.

You don't go to the most segregated city in the country and try to have a white power rally on the southwest side. Just asking for trouble. I think trumps camp did it on purpose.

Everyone in Chicago knew and knows rahms connection to the clintons. This city eats politics for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. You want something to happen fast you contact your friend who knows an alderman who is owed a favor and bamm that shit is done. See how other places do politics and they would never get shit done here or would be laughed out. It isn't called a Chicago machine for no reason. He was a congressman from here for years. The problem when he ran for mayor is that a. He inherited a shit show from Daley
b. He started to force close neighborhood schools then gave public money to his charter school pals who don't have to answer for anything they do. He did this in the mainly south and west sides. C. Nobody of consequence ran against him. D. He supported raner for gov a rebublican. That shit doesn't flow in this city. It totally came back to bit him though. E. His assholish ways are fine in DC but here when you need help to get shit done not so much.

His connection to Clinton doesn't hurt her to much I think. The people who were going to vote for her before will still regardless of rahm. But his active support would hurt her which is why you don't see him campaigning for her.

[Terez]

Vengeance, on 13 March 2016 - 10:20 PM, said:

Everyone in Chicago knew and knows rahms connection to the clintons. This city eats politics for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

I dunno about that. I'm sure it's true for the middle class and the activist segments of the poor, but there are low-information voters everywhere. Sometimes it's really surprising how much dedicated, regular voters don't know.

Vengeance, on 13 March 2016 - 10:20 PM, said:

His connection to Clinton doesn't hurt her to much I think. The people who were going to vote for her before will still regardless of rahm. But his active support would hurt her which is why you don't see him campaigning for her.

So if you had to guess, what do you think has caused the polls to shift so drastically in the last week?

[Vengeance]

Bad polling. To begin with.

[Abyss]

Vengeance, on 14 March 2016 - 01:10 AM, said:

Bad polling. To begin with.

And what makes the better story, for the most eyeballs and clickys.
Hillary coasts to win isn't a story.
Sanders surges fwd, Clinton surges back to win, THATS A STORY.


...and apparently Trump scratching his nose is all the stories.

[Terez]

Abyss, on 14 March 2016 - 04:53 AM, said:

Vengeance, on 14 March 2016 - 01:10 AM, said:

Bad polling. To begin with.

And what makes the better story, for the most eyeballs and clickys.
Hillary coasts to win isn't a story.
Sanders surges fwd, Clinton surges back to win, THATS A STORY.

I would really hope that level of media poll manipulation isn't going on. I wish 538 could write something intelligent about this; it seems this primary season has been especially difficult for them.

[Terez]

Robert Rubin, Too Big To Jail

tl;dr: Rubin wildly and disastrously misrepresented Citi's subprime exposure to market analysts. That's illegal. Now that the statute of limitations has passed, we're allowed to know that the illegality of his actions was recognized by the commission investigating the housing crisis. But no charges were filed, because Rubin and his ilk are considered too powerful to prosecute. Yves Smith goes into a lot more detail about what was known when and by whom.

Edited to add another article about the two-tiered justice system, as it relates to Hillary's ongoing FBI investigations.

Hillary Clinton, Too Big To Jail

The author of the article tweeted, "Why isn't it more of an issue that a presidential candidate is under investigation by the FBI? tl;dr answer:

Nathan Robinson said:

Nobody seriously believes the law would be applied to Clinton with the same pitiless irrationality as it was to Bryan Nishimura. Yet that leaves us with a stark choice: either treat the Clinton scandal as troubling and a major campaign issue, or acknowledge that we are entrusting an oligarchical justice system to make the issue go away for Clinton in a way it wouldn’t for anyone else.

This post has been edited by Terez: 14 March 2016 - 05:30 PM

[amphibian]

Terez, on 14 March 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

Abyss, on 14 March 2016 - 04:53 AM, said:

Vengeance, on 14 March 2016 - 01:10 AM, said:

Bad polling. To begin with.

And what makes the better story, for the most eyeballs and clickys.
Hillary coasts to win isn't a story.
Sanders surges fwd, Clinton surges back to win, THATS A STORY.

I would really hope that level of media poll manipulation isn't going on. I wish 538 could write something intelligent about this; it seems this primary season has been especially difficult for them.

It's the cumulative effect of landlines dropping out of use and most people refusing to take a non-online poll. The pollsters have not adjusted yet and their sample sizes are shrinking to previously laughable amounts.

[Illuyankas]

A decent article if you ever thought Cruz might have at least one fan. (PS. He doesn't)

[Terez]

amphibian, on 14 March 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

Terez, on 14 March 2016 - 04:32 PM, said:

Abyss, on 14 March 2016 - 04:53 AM, said:

Hillary coasts to win isn't a story.
Sanders surges fwd, Clinton surges back to win, THATS A STORY.

I would really hope that level of media poll manipulation isn't going on. I wish 538 could write something intelligent about this; it seems this primary season has been especially difficult for them.

It's the cumulative effect of landlines dropping out of use and most people refusing to take a non-online poll. The pollsters have not adjusted yet and their sample sizes are shrinking to previously laughable amounts.

Looking just at the Michigan polling, it's not just a problem of landlines and sample sizes. Polling in other contests has not been so terrible. In Michigan, there were faulty demographic assumptions in the methodology; the sample was nowhere near representative. Without good methodology, no poll would ever be accurate; there were folks inside Michigan who were criticizing poll methodology in the days leading up to the primary in the comments at 538. They were right. Why couldn't 538 see what they saw?

538 has been separating "polls only" and "polls plus" forecasts; often their "polls plus" forecasts are more wrong than the "polls only" forecasts. For example, the Oklahoma polls only forecast gave Bernie a 52% chance of winning. Their polls plus forecast (i.e. their official forecast) gave Hillary a 51% chance of winning, by a margin of a tenth of a percent in the vote share. Bernie won by a 10.4-point margin. Sure, Oklahoma was hard to poll. But it's like they weren't paying attention to anything on the ground; all the pundits knew Bernie had a good shot of winning OK for a long list of reasons that should have gone into the "polls plus" forecast. But instead, 538 went in the wrong direction. Why?