Sounds like he'd make a good prez.

Here is a picture of Obama's Chief of Staff



Dude is 47 years old. ****ing white house jobs age you big time.

Musk is ineligible to be President

I'm not big on Warren generally but she gets the most important thing right: she is unapologetically liberal, and never apologizes for it.

Don't pay real attention to HastenDan. He's an alt-right shill along the lines of CassandraRules. He has no true interest in liberal politics whatsoever.

Thread:

https://twitter.com/Eviljohna/status/858414773142245376

Highly related thread:

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/858678333537755136

Will it though? I imagine if Frank Luntz read bolded he'd be laughing pretty hard. I mean this is exactly how Republicans keep winning even though their platform is insane. Because what you do doesn't really matter. It's what you say that's important to unengaged potential voters.

Like, if I'm Warren and somebody asks me how I feel about Obama's paid speech, my answer sure as **** wouldn't contain the word "troubling". I'd simply deflect and say something like, "Obama was repeatedly blocked by Reps when trying to raise taxes on the 1% when inequality has run rampant, blah blah blah. And as president I'll work hard with Dems to end citizens united and prevent the evil oil and tobacco companies from buying republicans that are willing to deny science."

Disaster averted while simultaneously staying on message and keeping her values amirite?

Yeah, exactly. Don't defend his conduct, that's all. Don't make it an issue.

Fairbanks is more of a naked opportunist, I think, she's in it for the social media footprint and switches sides based on where the gullible and eager retweeters are. Also her paycheck is literally coming from Russia.

Bernie Sanders consistently polled >80% favorability with Clinton voters, and while Clinton polled worse than that among Sanders voters a lot of those unfavorables were soft(disappointment at losing) and while she was maybe like net ~+15 with Sanders people her almost all of the unapprovers still voted for her(also +15 approval is still pretty good).

The bitterly held grudges over the 2016 primary are nearly entirely localized to a handful of dip****s on Twitter with no engagement with left politics besides their personal loyalty to one candidate or the other, most left-of-center people who aren't Perpetually Online would be baffled by it.

You should read less StormFront and more liberal netroots outlets. Also as someone who manages to be both Perpetually Online and engage with politically active people in the real world, if you ever step away from Xbox you would realize your assumed understanding of the topic is flawed.

Remember how you had a meltdown and said that you are a dip**** that didn't understand anything and that no one should listen to you? Yeah... Keep firing off those hot takes.

LOL at me for saying this, but maybe you're just too smart to understand why Obama took that $400k. I'm inferring that you think Obama is either too stupid to think about the optics, or too greedy to give a **** about the country his daughters will spend their lives in while completely ****ing up his calculation of the utility of 400K for a former president with a high approval rating (which would also be really stupid of him). Help me out here please because I must be missing some major pieces to this puzzle.

Re bolded: Remember when Trump made all those attack ads about Obama picking Geithner? And remember all the hate that Hillary got because Obama didn't legalize weed? And how Dems were labeled the war monger party over Hillary's Iraq vote? Me neither bro.

What I remember is people discussing politics based on their perceptions of things like House of Cards, The apprentice, Dancing with the stars, Tom brady, op eds from NASCAR drivers, Wayne Lapierre, and other asinine ****.

YOU should take this **** somewhere else besides this thread. Thanks

Dan your strategy of mercilessly taunting the handful of 2p2 regs who hurt your feelings by being mean to Ron Paul in 2012 doesn't seem like it's working so far tbh.

Also that thing where you keep bringing up my self-awareness to engage in the tiniest amount of introspection after a disastrous and unexpected failure... I honestly don't see how that looks bad for me? You seem to think it's some giant self-own because over on the_donald the standard play is to pretend this is all a game and just lie with a ****-eating grin. This is why, again, your response to literally everyone thinking you're a right winger is just insincere personal attacks(the judo flip of trying to call the dang libs racists and homophobes) instead of thinking "Jesus I must be seriously miscommunicating my ideals here".

The future of the Democratic party is not outreach to libertarians who happen to have randomly attached themselves to Gabbard and Sanders. It's also not flipping back the tiny amount of Obama 08->Trump 16 white working class guys. It's non-voters, it's people who think politics is bull****.

That's who needs to be won over, and they aren't going to be won over with conspiracy theories and inside baseball owns of deficit scolds who now support tax cuts or the people who denied Garland a hearing but bitched about the Gorsuch filibuster.

All of the people still relitigating the 2016 primary, both left and center, all those score settlers and grudge holders:

What's the point?

What they want is just personal affirmation that they were right and good and people they hate were wrong and bad. OK. So what? What do we do with that information?

It's entirely personal, and therefore entirely pointless. Peter Dao has a name recognition of like 3 people. That's 2 too many, but who the **** cares what he thinks? He has no connection to left wing politics besides Clinton, she's not running again, we should consign him to the dustbin of history where he belongs. All of the intraleft squabbling is an insane waste of time and resources when we literally are facing a resurgent white supremacist populist movement in this country. Dan is right that anyone who can't be relied on to be an ally in that fight needs to be completely excommunicated, the issue he's wrong about is that Mike Tracey, Zaid Jilani, and so forth are just as worthless as David Brock. Cut all of them to the curb, they don't agree with us on the big issues, and egalitarianism(SINCERE egalitarism, not merely saying you support UHC as an intellectual exercise to own the libs) is a litmus test that needs to be applied.

The number of Obama voters who voted Trump is not a small number. It's actually those voters that cost her the election as most of them were in the Rust Belt which she was expected to win over pretty convincingly.

How Did Trump Win Over So Many Obama Voters?

Obviously the 100 million+ who didn't vote is a much larger number but getting them to vote, let alone vote for the person you want them to is arduous from a purely practical perspective as many of them aren't even registered to begin with. It's way harder to convince a person to register, then get them motivated to inform themselves before finally convincing them that your favorite candidate is the right candidate for the position. You don't have to go through all of those practical steps to motivate an active voter. You just need to appeal to them with a positive message for their future.

That isn't to say that GOTV should not focus on getting first-time or lapsed voters. It's just that it takes up more resources and the success rate may not be as high as it would be to flip active voters.

The election was determined by 80,000 people there are dozens of things that cost her the Rust Belt.

The issue with "flipping" active voters is that the sort of person who can go Obama->Trump clearly either developed different positions along the way(anecdotally from newspaper articles, a lot of them became a lot more racist, they namecheck Obama's racial divisiveness and BLM) or are just so incoherent politically they can't possibly be relied on to stay flipped. The second group was lost when Obama turned his momentum from anger about the financial crisis into an administration that prosecuted ~no Wall Street guys and then spent 3 ****ing years trying to pass a bipartisan Social Security cut.

https://chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/

This article should be required reading for every organizer, every candidate, and every campaign hack. Making people understand the policy stakes of elections is a necessary step to meaningful reform. We know we cannot rely on the media to do it.

That article was published in 2004, and it strongly suggests that at some point in the near future Chris Hayes will invent time travel.

Looks like the 2020 election will ignore issues almost entirely and be an all-out mudslinging war. Maybe Jerry Springer can moderate the first debate. He does have political experience after all.

This would be a good strategy on the part of the Dems.

Isn't this what many point to as a major reason HRC lost? That she talked too much about why DJT was horrible, and hardly at all about positive reasons to vote for her?

Yes. It hurt her a lot. It's terrible politics to do this. Sell the positives of your own product, now how much the other guy's product sucks.

When Zuckerberg runs in 2020, will it be as an independent or Dem?

This is a guy who just beasts everything, never makes a wrong move basically, why wouldn't he win?

Subfallen you want to apply some Bayesian looking back at worshipping tech dweebs with money vis a vis the Thiel/Trump connection? Now that we have several months of data.

Now apply some of that insight into whether Zuckerberg "beasts everything, never makes a wrong move basically" just because he's very wealthy off one good idea he had 10 years ago.

FlyWf -

Sorry, I'm out of practice deciphering your prose. "[S]ome Bayesian looking back at worshipping tech dweebs with money vis a vis the Thiel/Trump connection?"

What does this mean?

---

Edit - are you saying that I have the wrong likelihood ratio for updating the prior probability of political success, given success in tech?