Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

[Pyperkub]

Not necessarily:

To find a clue about what might have gone wrong with Georgia’s election last fall, look no further than voting machine No. 3 at the Winterville Train Depot outside Athens.

On machine No. 3, Republicans won every race. On each of the other six machines in that precinct, Democrats won every race.

The odds of an anomaly that large are less than 1 in 1 million, according to a statistician’s analysis in court documents. The strange results would disappear if votes for Democratic and Republican candidates were flipped on machine No. 3.

It just so happens that this occurred in Republican Brian Kemp’s home precinct, where he initially had a problem voting when his yellow voter access card didn’t work because a poll worker forgot to activate it. At the time, Kemp was secretary of state — Georgia’s top election official — and running for governor in a tight contest with Democrat Stacey Abrams.

[Holman]

Kirsten Gillibrand has left the race.

In other news, the field of candidates finally qualifying for the 9/12 Democratic debate is down to 10. It will be one night only.



Not qualifying:

Michael Bennet
Bill de Blasio
Steve Bullock
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Tom Steyer
Marianne Williamson
and a few others with even less name recognition than these.

Not sad to see any of them go, although I fully expect Gabbard to try to pull a Jill Stein. The GRU has money to burn on this race.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Not sad to see any of them go, although I fully expect Gabbard to try to pull a Jill Stein. The GRU has money to burn on this race.

What would ever give you that idea?

Spoiler:

[pr0ner]

Is that Tucker Carlson's O face?

[Jaymann]

I saw Tulsi on Joe Rogan. She was very well spoken and against regime toppling wars. I like that.

[LordMortis]

You want to talk about fake news. Of course the DNC is purposely excluding Tulsi ... and Bill and Steve and John and Marianne and Tom and me and you and Trump and everyone but the 10 people who qualified.

Just stupid.

[Isgrimnur]

Google: Tulsi transparency

• Fox News
• National Review
• Axios
• Washington Times
• Tulsi2020
• Newsweek

[LordMortis]

I don't know what transparency was before but right now

To qualify for the third debate, a candidate must reach 2 percent in at least four national or early-state polls from qualifying polling organizations and must have at least 130,000 unique donors, including at least 400 donors in at least 20 states. Information released by campaigns is used to determine whether a candidate has hit the donor threshold. If a campaign announced it had reached 130,000 donors but did not say whether it had at least 400 donors in 20 states, we assumed that it had met the latter requirement as well. Candidates will have to prove to the DNC that they have met the donor requirements.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/he ... he-bubble/

[malchior]

Tulsi immediately ran to an authoritative source of truth...Tucker. Odds of pulling a Jill Stein are probably close to 100% as Putin's favorite Democrat.

Edit: Oops I see this has already been covered above! Late to the party on this one.

[Kraken]

Kirsten Gillibrand has left the race.

In other news, the field of candidates finally qualifying for the 9/12 Democratic debate is down to 10. It will be one night only.

Klobuchar and Biden are the only two on that list that I really dislike. Although I'm still firmly on Team Warren, I can see any of the others pulling up from behind, if only briefly -- in fact, given the media's love of a good horse race, it's likely that most of them will enjoy a moment in the sun. Yang is the longest shot, but he at least has the outsider thing going and a unique policy hook in UBI. Plus his line about being an Asian who likes math was a good antiTrump move.

Conventional wisdom says it's between Biden, Warren, Sanders, and maybe Harris, but there's still lots of time for a dark horse to surge.

[Defiant]

Why the news about the Iowa caucuses is a BIG deal

tl/dr: Because virtual caucuses are a terrible idea, Iowa may be switching from caucuses to using what is effectively primaries. And this may, in turn, cause NH to move up their primary, since they've always been the first-in-the-nation primary (as opposed to caucuses)

[gbasden]

Why the news about the Iowa caucuses is a BIG deal

tl/dr: Because virtual caucuses are a terrible idea, Iowa may be switching from caucuses to using what is effectively primaries. And this may, in turn, cause NH to move up their primary, since they've always been the first-in-the-nation primary (as opposed to caucuses)

I am so tired of Iowa and NH getting to decide which candidates are viable. You couldn't pick two less representative states. I would much rather see some randomized decision around primary scheduling that would mix up when states voted.

[Kraken]

Why the news about the Iowa caucuses is a BIG deal

tl/dr: Because virtual caucuses are a terrible idea, Iowa may be switching from caucuses to using what is effectively primaries. And this may, in turn, cause NH to move up their primary, since they've always been the first-in-the-nation primary (as opposed to caucuses)

I am so tired of Iowa and NH getting to decide which candidates are viable. You couldn't pick two less representative states. I would much rather see some randomized decision around primary scheduling that would mix up when states voted.

Hoo boy, that could shake things up. As interminable as our primary campaign season is, you kinda have to play the game by the same rules each time so that those candidates with only an outside shot can deploy their meager resources effectively. There's nothing magical about IA or NH, but a small state has to go first if a dark horse (e.g., Carter...Clinton...Obama) is to have any shot at an upset. If you don't care about that, we could simply have all the states vote on the same day. But then a half dozen big states would always end up picking the nominee, who would usually be the richest and best-known candidate.

[gbasden]

Why the news about the Iowa caucuses is a BIG deal

tl/dr: Because virtual caucuses are a terrible idea, Iowa may be switching from caucuses to using what is effectively primaries. And this may, in turn, cause NH to move up their primary, since they've always been the first-in-the-nation primary (as opposed to caucuses)

I am so tired of Iowa and NH getting to decide which candidates are viable. You couldn't pick two less representative states. I would much rather see some randomized decision around primary scheduling that would mix up when states voted.

Hoo boy, that could shake things up. As interminable as our primary campaign season is, you kinda have to play the game by the same rules each time so that those candidates with only an outside shot can deploy their meager resources effectively. There's nothing magical about IA or NH, but a small state has to go first if a dark horse (e.g., Carter...Clinton...Obama) is to have any shot at an upset. If you don't care about that, we could simply have all the states vote on the same day. But then a half dozen big states would always end up picking the nominee, who would usually be the richest and best-known candidate.

I don't see a problem with mixing it up - if its random, it will end up with a mix of big and small states. I've spent my entire voting life in a state where the primary never mattered. The nomination was essentially decided before we ever voted. That blows. If, though, for some reason it had to be a small state, how about we find some that aren't effectively 100% white?

[Remus West]

If, though, for some reason it had to be a small state, how about we find some that aren't effectively 100% white?

Name one. Seriously, I can not think of a single one. Hawaii?

[gbasden]

If, though, for some reason it had to be a small state, how about we find some that aren't effectively 100% white?

Name one. Seriously, I can not think of a single one. Hawaii?

So, it looks like Iowa is the 31st largest state in the U.S. at 3.1 million people. New Hampshire is number 42 with 1.3 million people. There are a bunch smaller than Iowa that would be more representative. According to this, Wyoming as the smallest state has about 15% minority population compared with New Hampshire's 8%. DC, if we didn't disenfranchise them, would be majority minority. Alaska is ~37 percent minority with 735,000 people. North Dakota and South Dakota have twice the diversity of New Hampshire, and are easily under a million people. Mississippi is almost 40% non-white and is smaller than Iowa. Hawaii as you mentioned. New Mexico at under a million is majority non-white.

I think we could easily find some.

[El Guapo]

Why the news about the Iowa caucuses is a BIG deal

tl/dr: Because virtual caucuses are a terrible idea, Iowa may be switching from caucuses to using what is effectively primaries. And this may, in turn, cause NH to move up their primary, since they've always been the first-in-the-nation primary (as opposed to caucuses)

I am so tired of Iowa and NH getting to decide which candidates are viable. You couldn't pick two less representative states. I would much rather see some randomized decision around primary scheduling that would mix up when states voted.

Hoo boy, that could shake things up. As interminable as our primary campaign season is, you kinda have to play the game by the same rules each time so that those candidates with only an outside shot can deploy their meager resources effectively. There's nothing magical about IA or NH, but a small state has to go first if a dark horse (e.g., Carter...Clinton...Obama) is to have any shot at an upset. If you don't care about that, we could simply have all the states vote on the same day. But then a half dozen big states would always end up picking the nominee, who would usually be the richest and best-known candidate.

God forbid if the states that have most of the population have a decisive role in picking the nominee.

[Smoove_B]

Add me to the list of people that DNGAF what Iowans think of Kamala Harris' ability to eat a fried pork chop on a stick. If that makes me a coastal liberal, then so be it. Seriously though, at some point we really need to take a good hard look at the entire system. It's absolutely failing us. Or maybe it's just really good now at delivering the crap we feed it. Either way...not good.

[LordMortis]

Seriously though, at some point we really need to take a good hard look at the entire system. It's absolutely failing us. We have absolutely failed it.

Our system of government for nearly 250 years has relied on the collective stewardship of the people it governs. Without that stewardship, of course grifters and sociopaths are going to seize and weild power but what's worst, is we're proving Lincoln wrong.

From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.

In a trial of 250 years, espionage and global monetary influence from affluent citizens of the world might very well convince us to become author and finisher pick up where Abe left off.

[Remus West]

If, though, for some reason it had to be a small state, how about we find some that aren't effectively 100% white?

Name one. Seriously, I can not think of a single one. Hawaii?

So, it looks like Iowa is the 31st largest state in the U.S. at 3.1 million people. New Hampshire is number 42 with 1.3 million people. There are a bunch smaller than Iowa that would be more representative. According to this, Wyoming as the smallest state has about 15% minority population compared with New Hampshire's 8%. DC, if we didn't disenfranchise them, would be majority minority. Alaska is ~37 percent minority with 735,000 people. North Dakota and South Dakota have twice the diversity of New Hampshire, and are easily under a million people. Mississippi is almost 40% non-white and is smaller than Iowa. Hawaii as you mentioned. New Mexico at under a million is majority non-white.

I think we could easily find some.

I really thought Iowa was much bigger than that. Sort of boggled by the idea of Mississipi being smaller honestly. I need to reimage my mental map I guess.

[Isgrimnur]

Equatorial bias from Mercator propaganda.

[noxiousdog]

It's not the system; it's the people. The same stuff that is going on here is going on in the UK. For whatever reason, people have gone xenophobic again. I would guess that since there isn't a clear us against them (US vs Soviets; Allies vs. Axis), we have an innate need to make people "the others".

[Smoove_B]

Mitch McConnell cocking up the process isn't the people. Yes, they elected him but the fact that he has unilateral power to upper-deck democracy is a problem.

Regardless, people are absolutely the problem but the system is a mess. We're absolutely getting what we deserve.

[LordMortis]

Mitch McConnell cocking up the process isn't the people. Yes, they elected him but the fact that he has unilateral power to upper-deck democracy is a problem.

Regardless, people are absolutely the problem but the system is a mess. We're absolutely getting what we deserve.

One senator shouldn't have that much power but we elected people and people and people who have enabled him and even after it's all clearly headed south they continue to enable him. The system is a mess because we let become that way (or perhaps it's stay a mess, lost in the reconstruction and the coming of American "exceptionalism" industrialization when we changed and must change even faster)

[noxiousdog]

Mitch McConnell cocking up the process isn't the people. Yes, they elected him but the fact that he has unilateral power to upper-deck democracy is a problem.

He doesn't. He's happy to be the face of it, but if the Republicans didn't want him doing it, it wouldn't happen.

[El Guapo]

Mitch McConnell cocking up the process isn't the people. Yes, they elected him but the fact that he has unilateral power to upper-deck democracy is a problem.

He doesn't. He's happy to be the face of it, but if the Republicans didn't want him doing it, it wouldn't happen.

There needs to be some mechanism by which the minority leader can force votes on a few things. Not anything that the minority leader wants or at any time (otherwise that would become a way for a minority leader to bottle up the Senate and prevent them from doing anything), but at least force a vote periodically on select items.

Otherwise what McConnell can do is simply bury anything that he doesn't like that he know might well pass if put to a vote. Then GOP senators in purple / blue states can complain and fulminate and look independent, but McConnell is ultimately the responsible actor there, and only the voters of Kentucky have a way to hold him accountable.

[Zarathud]

McConnell made his career out of being the jackass manipulating the Senate rules to kill popular bills for Republican donors. He’s not changing.

[LordMortis]

McConnell made his career out of being the jackass manipulating the Senate rules to kill popular bills for Republican donors. He’s not changing.

And we have not held accountable the people who need to hold McConnell accountable. Congress should have been putting a stop to him and we should be electing a Congress that slapped him out of power and the people of Kentucky should have him exposed for the piece of shit he is and taken all their federal graft away. Have them shown what cutting pork really is concurrent with having them feel what it's like to have federal spending match federal taxes collected.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-l ... ment/2700/

[Holman]

McConnell made his career out of being the jackass manipulating the Senate rules to kill popular bills for Republican donors. He’s not changing.

And we have not held accountable the people who need to hold McConnell accountable. Congress should have been putting a stop to him and we should be electing a Congress that slapped him out of power and the people of Kentucky should have him exposed for the piece of shit he is and taken all their federal graft away. Have them shown what cutting pork really is concurrent with having them feel what it's like to have federal spending match federal taxes collected.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-l ... ment/2700/

What? Nobody outside of KY can do a thing to McConnell unless he openly breaks the law.

The GOP loves him for his results. KY kind of dislikes him, but they're a bunch of conservatives who aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot to send him a message.

It's going to be hard to use the budget to punish the guy who with his Prez is 2/3 in charge of approving the budget.

"Senate Majority Leader" isn't a constitutional position. It has been created and given its power through the long and tangled process of making Senate rules.

Guess who's in charge of those rules today.

[LordMortis]

What? Nobody outside of KY can do a thing to McConnell unless he openly breaks the law.

Congress can treat him like a pariah. They can refuse to feed him and his state the fuel for graft. He was allowed to take the power and the money he took. Congress let him. Congress let him install the Supreme Court that backs him. I have influence on three of those people. Three people who should be stopping federal<>Kentucky corruption that incentivized the people of Kentucky to vote for that piece of shit. McConnell did not start taking in federal dollars and make Kentucky the state 3rd most dependent on federal dollars per capita by himself.

It's going to be hard to use the budget to punish the guy who with his Prez is 2/3 in charge of approving the budget.

And we have failed the system. We let the system become two people acting as 2/3rds of the budget approval and we vote for a Congress who accepts this on our behalf.

[Blackhawk]

"The people" let the political mice chew away at the edges of the boards, little by little. Now we've got gaping holes in the ship. Making them stop gnawing now isn't going to do much, nor is bailing. We need to put this sucker in dry dock and rebuild.

[Zarathud]

Republicans have had an incredible double standard for decades — white people and corporations and the military can have lots of welfare. But not anyone else.

[LordMortis]

Republicans have had an incredible double standard for decades — white people and corporations and the military can have lots of welfare. But not anyone else.

When I get something it's benefits from the taxes I paid for (whether I pay taxes or not is our elephant) , when you get something, it's welfare. Republicans only care you whiteness when it comes to I being white. You not being white, is just light being shed on you not being I but rather you being you.

I want to take my social security checks and move to another country where my money will go much further than it will here where we are expected to pay a living wage...

I don't have kids why should I pay for public schools.

I'm healthy why should I pay health insurance premiums?

I bought this on the Internet why should I pay sales tax?

Why can't government fix the roads? They should pay for the rims they destroyed on my car?

Who's paying for that bussing?

The economy is better than it's ever been. My retirement is doing great. You just need to learn how to trade derivatives.

Obamacare sent my rate through the roof.

[malchior]

It's not the system; it's the people. The same stuff that is going on here is going on in the UK. For whatever reason, people have gone xenophobic again. I would guess that since there isn't a clear us against them (US vs Soviets; Allies vs. Axis), we have an innate need to make people "the others".

The reason people have gone xenophobic again is probably a side effect of the real problem. That is that a plutocratic element has taken control of both governments and many other governments in the West. They've put immense pressure on the working 'classes' and those same forces then gave them the 'usual suspects' as scapegoats. That is the problem in the nutshell.

;tldr Immense and increasing inequality is the fuel and the rage is being channeled by those who benefit most at 'outsiders' like problems always are.

[noxiousdog]

It's not the system; it's the people. The same stuff that is going on here is going on in the UK. For whatever reason, people have gone xenophobic again. I would guess that since there isn't a clear us against them (US vs Soviets; Allies vs. Axis), we have an innate need to make people "the others".

The reason people have gone xenophobic again is probably a side effect of the real problem. That is that a plutocratic element has taken control of both governments and many other governments in the West. They've put immense pressure on the working 'classes' and those same forces then gave them the 'usual suspects' as scapegoats. That is the problem in the nutshell.

;tldr Immense and increasing inequality is the fuel and the rage is being channeled by those who benefit most at 'outsiders' like problems always are.

I don't believe that. Despite the rhetoric, people love inequality. They love their kings and they love their celebrities. If they were so upset about inequality, why would they love the people that are the poster children for that inequality? Why would they spend their limited dollars FUNDING that inequality? The most xenophobic people in America love a failed business man that inherited his wealth. How much more unequal can you get?

People are innately tribal and xenophobic. It's repeated over and over and over worldwide. Scandinavia is one of the most equal, but they have the fewest minorities.

[LordMortis]

Despite the rhetoric, people love inequality.

It feeds a dream that they can become one of the elect. I can only imagine it feeds why we gamble and how so many can spend so much on Lotto tickets.

first thing I could find

https://lendedu.com/blog/how-much-do-am ... e-lottery/

If equality means we're all equally poor then inequality means I have chance to not be equally poor. Now I just have to choose my path to escape...

[malchior]

It's not the system; it's the people. The same stuff that is going on here is going on in the UK. For whatever reason, people have gone xenophobic again. I would guess that since there isn't a clear us against them (US vs Soviets; Allies vs. Axis), we have an innate need to make people "the others".

The reason people have gone xenophobic again is probably a side effect of the real problem. That is that a plutocratic element has taken control of both governments and many other governments in the West. They've put immense pressure on the working 'classes' and those same forces then gave them the 'usual suspects' as scapegoats. That is the problem in the nutshell.

;tldr Immense and increasing inequality is the fuel and the rage is being channeled by those who benefit most at 'outsiders' like problems always are.

I don't believe that. Despite the rhetoric, people love inequality. They love their kings and they love their celebrities. If they were so upset about inequality, why would they love the people that are the poster children for that inequality? Why would they spend their limited dollars FUNDING that inequality?

It isn't about belief. There is reams of data showing that people don't understand inequality or know that how bad it actually has become. Most people don't understand how rigged the system is. Heck there are many delusional millenials who think they will be wealthier than their parents despite being far behind where they were at the same age. The main point is inequality doesn't smack them in the face but the downstream effects of them are and they are being redirected at the wrong targets.

The most xenophobic people in America love a failed business man that inherited his wealth. How much more unequal can you get?

Following on the above. They are under immense economic pressure and the richest people said *THIS BROWN PERSON* here is stealing your job. They are taking *YOUR RESOURCES*. The ivory tower intellectuals would talk about all the benefits of globalization without accounting for all the external effects. Meanwhile, the wealthiest people have been over the last 30 some odd years have been collecting their rents extracted from their control of the system including tax policy. They have been systematically moving capital off-shore and stream-lining the economy (and keeping the returns almost all to themselves) while making themselves insanely wealthy in the process. This also had a side effect that they put more economic pressure on these same people.

And they created a monster. Trump was all set up and prepped to come along and channel that rage by saying to these angry people...these brown people ruining their lives are *MURDERERS* and *RAPISTS*. We need to keep them out. *BUILD THAT WALL*. The Chinese are *ROBBING YOU*. All our allies are taking advantage of us. It resonates because these people want for so much and are the must vulnerable in many way - including under education.

Edit: Also seeing an effect here on the left that is more straightforward where they point at inequality and say these people have economically enslaved you. The problem is the trap was already set in the past. There aren't easy solutions to that problem despite the Bernie bros approach to politics.

People are innately tribal and xenophobic. It's repeated over and over and over worldwide. Scandinavia is one of the most equal, but they have the fewest minorities.

Sure if this was a simple system. It is far more complicated than *people are tribal*. Like all great changes in history...the basis is largely "economic" in the sense that changes in how people are influenced day after day move behaviors of nations. That "nature" is being used as a defense to avoid a reckoning about it. We wonder why the guillotines haven't rolled out and this is a large factor why. They've been bamboozled into attacking the wrong target.

[noxiousdog]

If they don't understand inequality, how can they be mad about it?

Your theory also doesn't hold up with the evidence. It's not millenials and poor people that are voting Republican. It's non-educated older whites that are doing pretty well relatively. Sure, it's the coal miners that get the news, but it's the wealthier households that actually vote that makes the difference.

[malchior]

If they don't understand inequality, how can they be mad about it?

Did you grok any of the above? I never said they were mad at the inequality. I literally posted information about how people don't understand inequality and its effect on them. They are mad due to the downstream effects of inequality on them.

Your theory also doesn't hold up with the evidence.

It does. You are totally missing the forest for the trees here.

It's not millenials and poor people that are voting Republican.

Where did I say this?

It's non-educated older whites that are doing pretty well relatively.

Edit: Relatively to certain populations -sure. Not sure that really matters much but not true compared to their parents. They are under a lot more pressure than their parents. The millennials are under even more pressure. They just are delusional about it so far (see above). The pressure on millennials has manifested itself more as left-wing populism versus right-wing populism but it is the same fount.

One recent study (Guvenen et al. 2017) finds that the median lifetime income of men born in the 1960s is 12–19% lower than that of men born in the 1940s. Another highlights that the share of medical expenses to consumption has approximately doubled every 25 years since the 1950s (Hall and Jones 2007). And Case and Deaton (2015, 2017) have started an important debate by showing that the mortality rate of white, less-educated, middle-aged men has been increasing since 1999.

More they've seen almost no overall wealth formation relative to the 80s. Median wealth for a white household has barely budged in 30 years. In that time, they've seen their factory jobs get vacuumed overseas or out of country (Ross Perot!). This was driven by globalization policy run through both parties. The GOP pushed through "right to work" that depressed wages. It was a rent extraction of the highest order that *mostly* benefited the wealthy and more so the *super wealthy*. And as folks have fallen behind they've gotten angrier but have no view on why this has been happening to them other than their politicians pointing at the brown boogeyman.

[noxiousdog]

There's nothing incorrect about your data, though I'd argue there's caveats around the great recession and rising health care costs as opposed to upper class theft. I mean, duh, those that got to participate in the post war expansion did better than those that their early years were during the 70's. I'm shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!

I just think you are drawing the wrong conclusions.

See the Wait but Why discussion in EBG.