Seriously though - life is better in CA - even with the traffic. It took me about a day to realize all the myths about hellish California - that midwesterners tell each other to feel better about scraping ice off the windshield on day 35 of the post holiday blues - was all a bunch of wishcasting. It actually took me a lot longer - a few months - to realize LA wasn't full of shallow, soul-sucking, coke-addicted vampires with fake boobs - after moving down from SF. SF pathologically hates LA. The coke thing is true though.

Talking to my stepfather's brother's son's wife (step cousin-in-law?) over Thanksgiving - I tell her I live in LA. Reflexively she replies "I'm sorry." You live in Potwin, Kansas - population 135. All you do is complain about it. But yeah - LA sux.

I used to watch this show called the Naked Archeologist. Basically the dude goes around to Biblical places and looks for actual corroborating evidence. They had an episode on the Philistines. Turns out the Philistines were actually much more sophisticated than the Hebrews by any measure. They were the seafaring, trading, cosmopolitan culture - exposed to all kinds of other cultures. Their pottery was more advanced. Etc. The Hebrews lived up in the hills and barely contacted other groups. But hey - who wrote history? Joke's on you Philistines - prepare to be a synonym for uncultured boob for the rest of western civilization.

It's like if the west coast fell into the sea tomorrow, and some bumble**** sitting on his porch in Arkansas got to write history about how life was on the west coast. Basically nothing but buggering and drive-by shootings.

Well that article explains why the Middle East is so peaceful.

The Mediterranean climate parts are generally a lot better than the harsh parts.

Im looking for zac efron nudes.

Sure. You're talking to people who obviously appreciate his analysis -- we're listening to his podcast (and presumably reading his site too). I agree with almost everything you say. He shined in 2016 when others embarrassed themselves. I don't have any models but I certainly thought Hillary was basically a lock and Nate was wrong.

Worth pointing out that he's bungled a lot of things pretty notoriously too: 538 was ALSO leading the charge pretty heavily on The Party Decides narratives, the idea that Trump is way overvalued to win the GOP nomination -- "these polls don't mean anything" style analysis of the Republican primaries. As a very, very early "no actually guise Trump might win this thing, the Republicans are truly unhinged, he's going to lose Iowa but then roll through New Hampshire, almost all of the south, hard to see how he can really be stopped," you had tons of people insisting Trump would never pull it off and referring to 538.

More on that in a moment.

Anyway: it's still not clear sometimes who he is referring to and his agitation seems a little perpetual now. It's fine -- I suspect maybe that's always been in his personality and moving into middle age makes monsters of us all, and the podcast just gives you the ability to see he's really stewing on the criticism that heads his way. Obviously sometimes he's still dunking on Sam Wang and Ryan Grim and the types of people who said he was unskewing the polls in 2016, but OTOH he seems pretty salty about all sorts of things now. And then when he's decrying this point of view or that take, it's not always clear who he's even referring to or refuting.

Case in point is that he's spent 2 or 3 podcasts now subtly or explicitly finger-wagging at liberals for criticizing poor Alabama Republicans, not appreciating the game theory calculations that made it understandable for Republicans to settle on Roy Moore even after it comes to light he tries to date children at the mall. Harry Enten then chimes in that those city slicker liberals are calling Alabama Republicans inbred hicks when actually they simply can't stand Democrats. What Alabama Republicans really care about is judges, tut-tut.

I think Vecernicek and I are being triggered by the same style -- you have a group of people who are otherwise interesting people making bad arguments. In this case, plenty of people have both 1) come to grips with understanding how voters rationally might elect a terrible human without inheriting the moral failings of the candidate but 2a) have crafted very coherent, strong arguments for why that's still basically moral apostasy and 2b) have rationalized the abdication of their moral agency with pretense ("abortions! judges!") and that 2c) that loathsome people like Moore and Trump with transparently terrible policy ideas are powerful Republicans who win their primaries and get into a position to be on a general election ballot are symbolic and demonstrative of holistic party failures, of the worsening and deepening moral and political character of the Republican Party.

Just to lay my cards on the table and repeat myself, then: the appropriate analysis of the Alabama race IS that, sure: voters when presented with a first past the post system and two dominant political parties where significant political power is afforded to parties that maintain tight discipline and collude effectively -- it's entirely rational for voters to dismiss or ignore the moral failings of the candidate they are presented with and vote for them anyway, since the value of one vote in the Senate that aligns broadly with your party is so valuable.

Co-sign.

But what's the second level argument? Nate et al need to make it or recognize it. Alabama Republicans and Republicans writ large are proving time and again that they the broad party goals they align with are white supremacy, authoritarianism, anti-empiricism, degrading treatment of Other Lesser Humans (women, racial minorities, etc.) -- all that Moore and Trump transparently embody both in their political AND personal conduct. When critics point this out and note the severe moral, philosophical, and social degradation that these kinds of politicians represent, about how the GOP is granting power and authority to these types of people, it's a non-sequitur to refer back to game theory and first past the post electoral systems. We get it; that's not the point. Why are these powerful Republicans? Why are Moore and Trump winning primaries? Why are they acceptable to voters at all? Sure, partisanship is strong, fine. There are other Republicans in the world BESIDES authoritarian racist sexual assault and ephebolia enthusiasts. But why are THOSE people winning primaries and taking control of the party?

Back to the 2016 GOP primaries and Nate. And why this is important to belabor: his current posture about Roy Moore *and* going HAM on the notion Trump was significantly overvalued in the primaries suggests to me that Nate is quietly, if only subconsciously still very wedded to the notion that the Republican Party are a moderate center-right party, that they are good-faith operatives in a healthy pluralist democracy that the Democrats and the left have to bargain with for systemic, normative reasons.

You see this tic constantly in centrists, heck even liberal and leftist pundits who are INSISTING you stop seeing what is so very clear, right in front of our faces, that tens of millions of Americans ARE embracing a fascist style. Obviously this is a pet peeve of mine, so this is me getting salty about an age old battle: no, actually, the right-wing in America is way, way out of bounds and are lurching ever more into reactionary, authoritarian, fascist positions that undermine what are supposed to be our shared civic norms. Their stated pretenses allow worsening, coarsening of the political culture, and critically: they get away with it because centrist and even liberal pundits apologize for this or deny it's happening and finger wag at anyone who points it out. Their analysis, the lectures, the hectoring, the conclusions that Trump will ultimately fail in the 2016 primaries, that GOP voters are REALLY just into judges and abortion prohibitions and that's why they settle on Moore (instead of his 'jail the gays, ban the Muslims from office, ignore federal court orders') all assume there's a great silent mass of reasonable, moderate Republicans who are being dragooned into reactionary right-wing fascism and it's important the left not be too hasty or speak of this because it's bad, very partisan, very ideological analysis, it's quite offensive and wrong to label so many people.

And so we all drive steadily towards some pretty destructive cliffs, symbolized by Trumpism, partly (surely not totally) because of institutional, almost systemic opinion elite guardianship of the Republican Party. Sure, there's tens of millions of angry racists desperate for revanchist, rage fueled politics who want to target blacks, Muslims, immigrants, and whoever, but the Republican Party are by definition good faith bargaining partners in the duopoly and don't you ever speak too ill of their collective moral rot, that's not nice, too partisan, The Party Decides and they'll settle on Rubio eventually or something, well oops OK not that, but Roy Moore, well he's because judges, not fascism.

You get the feeling we're gonna be marching immigrants captured in Mexico near the border to private prison forced labor camps and Nate Silver is going to be on his podcast reminding liberals that yeah, that's all bad, but let's not criticize the Republicans too much for their inhumane treatment of all non-white men, because they really care deeply about judges and that's just how game theory in a two party system works, wise up silly liberals.

I don't know. I grew up in Kansas and have a great personality

Woo, some hot fire from Dvaut.

I agree with the general thesis about normalization, but it's in like the business and media communities (not going to pot shot the ny times about nazis, that's more complex) and 2nd and 3rd tier pols. And maybe boomers, but that's just slander. However, i think your take on Nate is a bit off. I think he genuinely concerned about the right but bites his tongue some. Also, you'd be grumpy if you had that hair and hairline combo. I don't feel bad, as he probably gets plenty of sweet nerd tail.

Dvaut i hope you copy and past your posts into a big word doc or something. You could self-publish a 1000 page plus manifesto. Would perhaps be useful to historians or some future AI.

some of the most miserable, hateful people live in southern USA where there is virtually no cold weather fwiw

I believe the article said all things otherwise equal - by starting in the South the predisposition to hate is much higher.

"Matt Lauer: NBC sacks star Today Show host over sex allegation"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42168640

i always hated matt lauer

I am pretty sure this environmental determinism conversation belongs in SMP. Jesus Christ.

Anyway, everybody know that people who grow up in Mediterranean climates tend to have elongation in the frontal brain pan. That is the real mechanism here.

That's exactly the reaction I would expect from a cranky New Yorker.

Lots of drama in the sumo world. One of the best wrestlers turned heel and smashed a guy's head in with a beer bottle. I guess they haven't invented folding chair shots yet.

The folding chair shot is not invented, it is discovered, like the new world

Keith harassment scandal incoming? Thinking trump is done because of pochantas is not legitimate so what’s he up to?

Shocking news coming out of the Republican higher education bill
https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-g...ion-1511956800

When Gunderson says

he is talking about his fellow CEOs.

But then why do what future AI will do for us? Curating and building compendiums of internet posts so they can be self-published and sold on Amazon for 49 cents is like exactly what AI will be constructed to do, right?

ALSO I wouldn't normally respond here but I wanted to get back to Nate:



Number 3 is definitely hottake territory and part of his new "Democrats do it toooooooooo" thing he's on this week. This is a pretty good preview of the future pundit spin on the eventual Moore victory. That is, Moore is going to win and rather than note it's because the Republicans are rank deplorables who are hitching their wagons to authoritarian racist madmen, you're going to hear about how Democrats did this and really threw the whole thing away because Al Franken.

The real answer is #2, which both caused the initial response bias making Jones look artificially stronger in the polls for a time. As the allegations fade from view, GOPers feel more confident responding to pollsters and telling them what they intend to do and always intended to do - vote for Moore. Franken and Conyers ain't got **** to do with it but Garbage Punditry is going to insist that Democrat hypocrisy was vital in turning the whole thing around and swaying the critical mass of moderate Republicans back into Moore's corner.

haha dvault needs to preserve his takes for the HISTORICAL RECORD

he certainly could have a 1000 page manifesto. You know who else had a manifesto?

This headline is so terrible - it makes it sound like Matt Lauer is the one doing the reporting.

Hamilton and John Jay?

I could make the Dvaut Politics Forum Manifesto but I want .005 BTC

The article is obviously right, but it doesn't go down another level and ask why are all the Republican donors stupid, but stupid in ways that happen to solidify their power?

I mean it's pretty self evidently false that Republican donors are only favoring upstart eccentrics over meticulous grinders. They're perfectly happy to fund the Federalist Society and Cato while giving O'Keefe a VP's salary.

I mean look at this. This is classic misreading the market. You think Conservative donors want a election results desk that's painted red vs painted blue? That they want their statisticians to vote Republican instead of Democrat? They don't want a "conservative" results system that churns out the same results as the AP, they already have the AP! They want voter fraud allegations and voter purges to reduce Democratic voters. Conservative media doesn't want to be an equal in quality but conservative instead of liberal, they're parasites on the mainstream media. That's why conservative donors fund them, because they're not trying to be the next New York Times, they're trying to make people not believe the NYT when it reports that conservative donor John Doe's company dumped some waste into the river.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-ar...he-first-place