Democrat 2020

[Viking]

@ Montmorency

You seem to be doubling down on your initial perspective.

My post does not need any context, though it does have. In particular this from PHF:

I reject any suggestion this is a "privilege" because that suggests I was given something I don't deserve

and the part I quoted from ACIN:

I'm with Monty, it seems that you fully understand the racist implications of modern conservatism but you understand that to acknowledge that reality is a threat to your socio-economic status.

The question that interested me was this: does the existence of a disprivileged group necessarily create benefits for the non-disprivileged group?

The society acting as the control for the analysis of this question is a society where the disprivileged group is not present, but the reason for why the disprivileged group is not present is completely irrelevant.

If we take the specific case of the US, there could be no African-Americans there because the slave trade to the US never happened. There could be no "native" Americans in the US because no people had colonized the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans. In another relevant scenario, it could be that both groups are present in the country, but neither are disprivileged because the US has transformed into a more utopian version of itself.

But again, the history leading up to the society used as a control is not relevant for this particular analysis; so it is of no interest to imagine specific scenarios.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In quest of speed in reporting results, the Iowa Dem Party adopted a new "app" for all precinct reports from the 1700 caucus sites. Many of the report efforts failed outright or were miscoded, so they have had to go with the much slower paper backups.

Caucuses are weird things. There is no secret ballot, registered democrats gather in a hall somewhere in their precinct to publicly show support for a candidate. People physically move to a spot on the gymnasium floor to gather as a gaggle of folks in support of candidate X. Then if candidate X fails to get 15% in the first count they move to where their second choice is and so on. Finally, they tabulate the results and the combo determines who will get how many of Iowa's 41 delegates to the convention.

The reporting portion of that failed, the app crashed, and when everyone tried to call in their backup the IDP could not process things. Since it was late and the hold times were horrible, a bunch of precinct captains simply went home and started calling in their results this morning.

[Montmorency]

What we know from the partial results in Iowa, which are well-distributed and so said to be representative enough to project the final result:

Sanders won the popular vote, but Buttigieg edged him out in state delegate-equivalents.

Sanders performed as polled or better (per average). Warren and Klobuchar achieved the high-end of their intervals, which is to say did well. Biden underperformed; in fact he came in at 4th place. Buttigieg heavily outperformed polling, and did well in almost all parts of the state.

Ultimately the delegate counts themselves are meaningless because Iowa represents 1% of pledged delegates. If Sanders current polling holds up, he has a 10-point advantage in New Hampshire and should win easily. If Buttigieg and Warren want to continue they have to pull off more surprises, preferable in Latino-heavy Nevada (which is/was intending to use the same Shadow app for tabulation and reporting!!!).

I predict Biden will continue sinking.

Meanwhile, in the parallel GOP caucus the result that Trump beat his two opponents with 97% of the vote was announced promptly.

In quest of speed in reporting results, the Iowa Dem Party adopted a new "app" for all precinct reports from the 1700 caucus sites. Many of the report efforts failed outright or were miscoded, so they have had to go with the much slower paper backups.

Caucuses are weird things. There is no secret ballot, registered democrats gather in a hall somewhere in their precinct to publicly show support for a candidate. People physically move to a spot on the gymnasium floor to gather as a gaggle of folks in support of candidate X. Then if candidate X fails to get 15% in the first count they move to where their second choice is and so on. Finally, they tabulate the results and the combo determines who will get how many of Iowa's 41 delegates to the convention.

The reporting portion of that failed, the app crashed, and when everyone tried to call in their backup the IDP could not process things. Since it was late and the hold times were horrible, a bunch of precinct captains simply went home and started calling in their results this morning.

One set of factors in this cluster:

Sanders, after 2016, wanted full reporting of the two rounds of voting. He perceived he could use this to stir the narrative in his favor in the 2020 caucus. The Iowa Democrats made the changes. Then they decided that they needed a way to report the results fast (because the media demands speed). The way to do this, in their minds, would be digital technology: an app.

Well, it's a typical kind of misadministration story for the age. The app was poorly designed and untested. It was deployed without training, for use by elderly-skewed volunteers. The backup method of reporting by phone failed as the lines were overwhelmed by hundreds of callers.

On the ground, the process was confusing. This had nothing to do with technology, it was just the nature of the caucus and its volunteer administration. Precinct leaders and caucus chairs were unclear on the rules and the math. People got tired and bored over time and many left before the second round.

Similar disasters have occurred in the past, though perhaps not on this scale. Look up "2012 Santorum Iowa."

The technical difficulties in Iowa put a spotlight on the terrible nature of the caucus itself. It's yet another argument for relying on proven and time-tested analog electoral technology. Hopefully we can also get a national primary now.

[Montmorency]

Yes she did: she listed herself on the minority law teacher list at the university of pensylvania between 1987 and 1995.

We have her acknowledging it happened, claiming she did so "in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am."

That is not her "pretending" to be Native American.

I have major issues with that part; inflicting on people the average court's inability to determine intent is cruel and unusual, but that is not what I was reffering to.

If you had looked down two paragraphs you would have found this:


The platforms are being censorious enough individually, we (or at least "I") do not want a government office coordinating what gets boosted and what gets suppressed. This is an immensely dangerous proposal and should be ringing warning bells in every mind who reads it. I would like to believe most people arent stupid enough to believe only "thier guys" will ever end up in a position to use such an oppressive organ.

You have not explained why it is censorious or dangerous.

Tech platforms have long had legal requirements around sharing information on potentially-criminal content. Ask the mods here.

In any case, outside the Left-Wing of the democratic party I can't see this playing well with the "average blue collar worker" whom Warren supposedly seeks to help.

You mean you can't see it playing well with "conservative white men" who were never going to vote her anyway. Thankfully, these do not typify blue-collar workers.

Warren identified as white. She also thought her Native ancestry meant something in her generation. Millions of other Americans think this way, and it is not an unfamiliar conceit at all. I've already explained this.

Maybe if you gave more credit to the concept of white privilege you wouldn't find it difficult to wrap your head around.

The question that interested me was this: does the existence of a disprivileged group necessarily create benefits for the non-disprivileged group?

The society acting as the control for the analysis of this question is a society where the disprivileged group is not present, but the reason for why the disprivileged group is not present is completely irrelevant.

If we take the specific case of the US, there could be no African-Americans there because the slave trade to the US never happened. There could be no "native" Americans in the US because no people had colonized the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans. In another relevant scenario, it could be that both groups are present in the country, but neither are disprivileged because the US has transformed into a more utopian version of itself.

But again, the history leading up to the society used as a control is not relevant for this particular analysis; so it is of no interest to imagine specific scenarios.

Scenarios of totally different world histories are obviously no way to test anything. There are always disprivileged groups in every society though.

Watch the literal meaning of your words. If you really want a scenario for comparing the interaction of groups, how about one where the demographics that immigrated from Norway to the US in the 19th century never left? That's also a fantasy scenario, but maybe you can do something with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@ Montmorency

You seem to be doubling down on your initial perspective.

My post does not need any context, though it does have. In particular this from PHF:



and the part I quoted from ACIN:



The question that interested me was this: does the existence of a disprivileged group necessarily create benefits for the non-disprivileged group?

The society acting as the control for the analysis of this question is a society where the disprivileged group is not present, but the reason for why the disprivileged group is not present is completely irrelevant.

If we take the specific case of the US, there could be no African-Americans there because the slave trade to the US never happened. There could be no "native" Americans in the US because no people had colonized the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans. In another relevant scenario, it could be that both groups are present in the country, but neither are disprivileged because the US has transformed into a more utopian version of itself.

But again, the history leading up to the society used as a control is not relevant for this particular analysis; so it is of no interest to imagine specific scenarios.

Here's my question to you - in the Old World where your notional "dis-privileged group" is usually the result of voluntary immigration for work the group tends to be tightly clustered around major industrial cities - London and Birmingham in the UK - the group is sparsely represented or not represented at all in outlying, low income, areas because there is no impetus to immigrate there.

In this scenario, what is the benefit of being part of the "privileged"? Or put another way, how do quantify the benefit of a member of an oppressive group when they themselves are not participating or benefiting from the oppression? Boiled down to a nub - what does it matter if immigrants clean all the toilets in London if there are no immigrants to clean toilets in Torrington?

Bear in mind that race relations in Europe are mostly shaped by voluntary post-war immigration due to a need for labour, as opposed to forced immigration into the US and Caribbean via slavery, or the white themselves being the immigrants who forcibly displaced natives as in Australia and New Zealand (and also Canada and the US).

[Viking]

Scenarios of totally different world histories are obviously no way to test anything. There are always disprivileged groups in every society though.

Watch the literal meaning of your words. If you really want a scenario for comparing the interaction of groups, how about one where the demographics that immigrated from Norway to the US in the 19th century never left? That's also a fantasy scenario, but maybe you can do something with it.

But the alternative scenarios are not of any interest in and of themselves; the quest is to study this world. It's not alternative history hour.

If you are interested in establishing that someone, more or less just from from existing, gains from the fact that a group of people is underprivileged, how would you do this without at least implicitly invoking a scenario where this group is no longer underprivileged?

Here's my question to you - in the Old World where your notional "dis-privileged group" is usually the result of voluntary immigration for work the group tends to be tightly clustered around major industrial cities - London and Birmingham in the UK - the group is sparsely represented or not represented at all in outlying, low income, areas because there is no impetus to immigrate there.

In this scenario, what is the benefit of being part of the "privileged"? Or put another way, how do quantify the benefit of a member of an oppressive group when they themselves are not participating or benefiting from the oppression? Boiled down to a nub - what does it matter if immigrants clean all the toilets in London if there are no immigrants to clean toilets in Torrington?

Bear in mind that race relations in Europe are mostly shaped by voluntary post-war immigration due to a need for labour, as opposed to forced immigration into the US and Caribbean via slavery, or the white themselves being the immigrants who forcibly displaced natives as in Australia and New Zealand (and also Canada and the US).

If the underprivileged group is small, the odds that their misfortune would benefit a median citizen would be slim. Only those close to their exploitation would stand to gain significant benefit from it.

If the group of underprivileged people is relatively large, however, the question becomes more complex. For example, if the underprivileged are paid salaries that would likely be considered unacceptable for members of the rest of the population, I imagine that the country could achieve greater economic growth than it otherwise would have, which could benefit most members of the society, including those far removed from the exploitation itself.

There does not have to be any exploitation, of course; e.g. if the underprivileged group cannot land or create any jobs and are forced to live off welfare, both sides are losing.

[Montmorency]

In this scenario, what is the benefit of being part of the "privileged"? Or put another way, how do quantify the benefit of a member of an oppressive group when they themselves are not participating or benefiting from the oppression? Boiled down to a nub - what does it matter if immigrants clean all the toilets in London if there are no immigrants to clean toilets in Torrington.

Because the society still advantages the privileged group, regardless of geography. Geography in itself may be another, distinct, dimension of privilege. They - white people specifically - are also all inculcated into the psychology of the white racial frame - unless they're raised by wolves or something.

Just one example of privilege: rural whites remain, certainly in the US, the rhetorical emphasis of our politics. Welfare for rural whites or for white farmers is not recognized as social provision or an entitlement, it is invisible and treated as normal.

But the alternative scenarios are not of any interest in and of themselves; the quest is to study this world. It's not alternative history hour.

If you are interested in establishing that someone, more or less just from from existing, gains from the fact that a group of people is underprivileged, how would you do this without at least implicitly invoking a scenario where this group is no longer underprivileged?

I don't understand, I thought your clarification was that you invoked a scenario where the disprivileged group never existed in the first place. At any rate, I don't believe it is possible to draw inferences about the real world from a constructed counterfactual. What you're talking about in the quote above sounds like controlling for intersections of demographic variables, which social science research generally already does to my knowledge.

[Greyblades]

So the last 72 hours was a clusterf- I mean a lack-linnen Shabbaroon.

Cant remember a more interesting three days for a political system that didnt involve the start of a civil war.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If the underprivileged group is small, the odds that their misfortune would benefit a median citizen would be slim. Only those close to their exploitation would stand to gain significant benefit from it.

If the group of underprivileged people is relatively large, however, the question becomes more complex. For example, if the underprivileged are paid salaries that would likely be considered unacceptable for members of the rest of the population, I imagine that the country could achieve greater economic growth than it otherwise would have, which could benefit most members of the society, including those far removed from the exploitation itself.

There does not have to be any exploitation, of course; e.g. if the underprivileged group cannot land or create any jobs and are forced to live off welfare, both sides are losing.

I'd agree with most of that.

Now, so let's take a slightly more concrete example. In London the majority of cleaners are non-British, either African or Eastern European, and these people will accept lower rates of pay than a British person would in the same job. Given that London has higher wages than other parts of the country this has a knock-on effect of lowering the wages of cleaners across the UK, especially if they work for London-based outsourcing companies. However, in rural areas cleaners are local people, because there are no immigrants, but they are only paid the lower wage that attracts immigrants in the capital. This is not the only issue, in the UK poor white males from British households have the lowest educational attainment, below non-white British males, and therefore the poorest job prospects. This has been acknowledged to be the result of a lack of intervention by the state or charities as they focused on the educational attainment of non-whites.

In both cases the imagined "white privilege" ends up hurting some of the most vulnerable in society, the poor and uneducated, simply because they are white. The fault is with those who insist on constructing "whites" as a monolithic group, something which doesn't even work in South Africa. In reality the term "white" is a very broad and near-useless descriptor for people who have historically lived in Europe. Within Europe itself that group constitutes the majority of the "dis-privileged" as you call them as well as the majority of the privileged. Asking these people to accept the idea of "white guilt" is absurd because whilst their masters benefited from colonialism and slavery etc. they did not, often quite the opposite.

Finally, I'd point out that none of this has anything to do with racism - the fact that you do or do not benefit from the presence of an "outgroup" under-class in your society does not in any way determine whether or not you might be racist to that group. Medieval English people, for example, were quite capable of indulging in antisemitism despite there being no Jews in England.

How does this apply to the US? Well, there are parts of the US outside the original colonies that were never slave-owning and as a result never really developed the insititutional structures to oppress Black people, nor did they have large amounts of non-white immigration. In those states, in rural areas, you will find, as in Europe, and ignored and overlooked white underclass with absolutely no privileges.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...lts-confusion/

So Bernie won?

Do we know yet?

[Viking]

I don't understand, I thought your clarification was that you invoked a scenario where the disprivileged group never existed in the first place. At any rate, I don't believe it is possible to draw inferences about the real world from a constructed counterfactual. What you're talking about in the quote above sounds like controlling for intersections of demographic variables, which social science research generally already does to my knowledge.

In the earlier previous post I presented three different scenarios; in one of them the non-European ethnicities were still present, just no longer underprivileged:

In another relevant scenario, it could be that both groups are present in the country, but neither are disprivileged because the US has transformed into a more utopian version of itself.

This is also happens to be compatible with my initial post:

if the disprivileged group either disappeared

If a group of people is no longer underprivileged, one can say that the underprivileged group no longer exists, while the group of people that once made up this group still does. But the point I have been trying to make here is that the exact scenario is irrelevant, and discussing different scenarios ultimately becomes a distraction from the original debate.

Inference about this world and alternative versions of it seem to me like two sides of the same coin. If you infer that you caused an avalanche by skiing down a slope, it follows that you presume that in alternative version of this world, in which everything is the same except that you did not ski down that slope, no avalanche would be triggered.

[Greyblades]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...lts-confusion/

So Bernie won?

Do we know yet?

Probably, but the time for the iowa victory lap is gone, buttigieg took the spotlight at the usual time even though the results werent in so while it wont be as big a bump as a legit iowa win pete's has the optics win.

[Montmorency]

Pete won in the sense that his share of the vote gains him 13 delegates at the convention, whereas Sanders gets 12. The major candidates would have known this on the night of the caucus, as their precinct captains on the ground would have reported all the raw results to the campaigns; Buttigieg's prompt declaration of victory was opportunistic but not necessarily unfounded. But the Iowa DP might be recanvassing, so the results aren't certified yet. (There are ~4000 total pledged delegates in the primaries - don't personally be taken in by the navel-gazing media circus around early primaries.)

If Biden truly crumbles going forward, the winner of the black vote in South Carolina may be the presumptive nominee.

So the last 72 hours was a clusterf- I mean a lack-linnen Shabbaroon.

Cant remember a more interesting three days for a political system that didnt involve the start of a civil war.

In other news, 4chan spammers played their own small part in the Iowa dysfunction.

Users on a politics-focused section of the fringe 4chan message board repeatedly posted the phone number for the Iowa Democratic Party, which was found by a simple Google search, both as screenshots and in plain text, alongside instructions.

"They have to call in the results now. Very long hold times being reported. Phone line being clogged," one user posted at about 11 p.m. ET on Monday, three hours after the caucuses began.

"Uh oh how unfortunate it would be for a bunch of mischief makers to start clogging the lines," responded another anonymous user, sarcastically.

Some users chimed in, posting alleged wait times on hold, imploring others to “clog the lines [and] make the call lads.”

Apparently this also happened:

Now, so let's take a slightly more concrete example. In London the majority of cleaners are non-British, either African or Eastern European, and these people will accept lower rates of pay than a British person would in the same job. Given that London has higher wages than other parts of the country this has a knock-on effect of lowering the wages of cleaners across the UK, especially if they work for London-based outsourcing companies. However, in rural areas cleaners are local people, because there are no immigrants, but they are only paid the lower wage that attracts immigrants in the capital. This is not the only issue, in the UK poor white males from British households have the lowest educational attainment, below non-white British males, and therefore the poorest job prospects. This has been acknowledged to be the result of a lack of intervention by the state or charities as they focused on the educational attainment of non-whites.

In both cases the imagined "white privilege" ends up hurting some of the most vulnerable in society, the poor and uneducated, simply because they are white. The fault is with those who insist on constructing "whites" as a monolithic group, something which doesn't even work in South Africa. In reality the term "white" is a very broad and near-useless descriptor for people who have historically lived in Europe. Within Europe itself that group constitutes the majority of the "dis-privileged" as you call them as well as the majority of the privileged.

Whiteness is just one variable, and certainly not considered monolithic in the sense you're using. For example, in context of African or Asian immigrants those Eastern Europeans enjoy the benefits of whiteness - but Eastern Europeans in relation to "native" Britons are derogated.

Return to the idea of a "dividend." Let's say I'm a shareholder of White Co. and Mann Co. and I derive a metaphorical value of $1000 from each. That doesn't make me rich in itself - but it is an advantage over someone who gets a nil or even negative value.

And you may want to think again if you believe a full survey of governmental benefits - the state or political component of privilege - for rural whites shows cumulatively less than that for non-whites.

Asking these people to accept the idea of "white guilt" is absurd because whilst their masters benefited from colonialism and slavery etc.

Reject this equivocation between privilege and guilt and it becomes easier to follow.

they did not, often quite the opposite.

They did.

Finally, I'd point out that none of this has anything to do with racism - the fact that you do or do not benefit from the presence of an "outgroup" under-class in your society does not in any way determine whether or not you might be racist to that group.

As you acknowledge in the next sentence, racism as psychology is not determined by lesser or greater proximity. Ultimately all forms of privilege encourage chauvinisms (closer to your heart might be alleged common urban attitudes toward rural life).

How does this apply to the US? Well, there are parts of the US outside the original colonies that were never slave-owning and as a result never really developed the insititutional structures to oppress Black people, nor did they have large amounts of non-white immigration. In those states, in rural areas, you will find, as in Europe, and ignored and overlooked white underclass with absolutely no privileges.

You don't know what you're talking about. Like, every bit of that is wrong.

Inference about this world and alternative versions of it seem to me like two sides of the same coin. If you infer that you caused an avalanche by skiing down a slope, it follows that you presume that in alternative version of this world, in which everything is the same except that you did not ski down that slope, no avalanche would be triggered.

The problem is that you cannot excise or arbitrarily modify just any a variable or cluster of variables to draw a meaningful causal inference, due to interactions. If the disprivileged groups existed but were not disprivileged on the basis of that group membership, the whole arrangement of the society would certainly be different in cascading ways whose selection inevitably produces fiction. For example, what if everything was the same but we all lived on the Moon instead of Earth? The fatal flaw is that it wouldn't and couldn't be the same. There's no constrained comparison available.


Just as an example, here is where the legal code and justice system may intersect with elements of privilege and patriarchy.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...111/ssqu.12402

Objective
I test for racial and gender bias in the enforcement of “stand your ground” (SYG) laws, controlling for potential confounders often invoked to reject claims of racism and sexism.

Methods
Regressions, simulations, and genetic matching are conducted using case‐level data from 237 incidents in the U.S. state of Florida between 2005 and 2013.

Results
Controlling for potential confounders, the probability of conviction for a white defendant against a white victim is estimated to be 90 percent with much error; for a black defendant it is nearly 100 percent with little error. For a male defendant in a domestic case, the probability is 40 percent, whereas for a female defendant it is 80 percent.

Conclusions
Enforcement of SYG laws appears biased against people of color in general and women specifically in the home. Policy implications are especially stark because these findings contradict recent research conducted for the U.S. Senate.

[Hooahguy]

I really hope that if anything comes of the 2020 election season is that it brings about the permanent death of the caucus. Or even better, Iowa no longer being the first contest. Really South Carolina should be first.

[Montmorency]

I really hope that if anything comes of the 2020 election season is that it brings about the permanent death of the caucus. Or even better, Iowa no longer being the first contest. Really South Carolina should be first.

Multi-round national primary. Can you dig it?

[Viking]

Reject this equivocation between privilege and guilt and it becomes easier to follow.

In theory, when not using an ethical model that would link them, they are separate. In practice, when using the first word in communication, it may cause the latter; so in practice there is a link.

The problem is that you cannot excise or arbitrarily modify just any a variable or cluster of variables to draw a meaningful causal inference, due to interactions. If the disprivileged groups existed but were not disprivileged on the basis of that group membership, the whole arrangement of the society would certainly be different in cascading ways whose selection inevitably produces fiction. For example, what if everything was the same but we all lived on the Moon instead of Earth? The fatal flaw is that it wouldn't and couldn't be the same. There's no constrained comparison available.

Everything was the same in the example with the avalanche. In the scenarios where a disprivilege group is not present in a society, more changes are necessary for the alternative society to be physically possible.

If we look at a specific real person, we can e.g. take this person's job, income, social well-being, health and see what the odds are that such a person can exist in the alternative society without adding a different underprivileged group, and without adding new privileges of any sort. If the existence of such a person seems very much possible, then there is not much of a reason to presume that the real person benefits significantly from the existence of the underprivileged group in the actual society, because in a society with the given geography, technology and similar culture, legal system etc., the life the real person lives is a life that you would expect a person like that to live in a society with these kinds of parameters; the underprivileged group just doesn't have much of an impact on that.

You can still make the argument that the existence of the underprivileged group has impacted (i.e. made such developments much more probable), for example, the culture and legal system in a way that benefits the person we are looking at, but unless we are looking at changes that in practice may require the past or concurrent existence of the underprivileged group (such as cultural expression), this becomes a different argument.

Just as an example, here is where the legal code and justice system may intersect with elements of privilege and patriarchy.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...111/ssqu.12402

In my initial post, I was talking about the sum of the experiences of specific individuals. The challenge of linking that question to the body of empirical studies is monumental: for a given individual, you need to study how a given empirical study relates to them, and you need to sum over all possible questions relating to benefits and disadventages, which requires that an adequate number of questions have been studied adequately empirically.

Taking a specific Individual and taking a look at the particular example you posted, you would need to look at e.g. whether the person lives in a place where such a law applies, how they relate to ownership of weapons (e.g. do they own a gun, have they thought about getting one?), whether they live in an area where the law is commonly (or ever has been) invoked. The list goes on. Note that I am not here talking about trying to identify confounding factors (an issue where this study is likely just scratching the surface), this is about trying to establish whether a benefit is theoretical or actual for a given individual.

[Hooahguy]

Multi-round national primary. Can you dig it?

I wish every state had a 2 round ranked choice primary. I'm not sure it should be a single day of voting for the whole nation, because having it drawn out even a bit is good to filter out the candidates that arent doing so well. But I do think Iowa and New Hampshire should be dropped from the first and it should be changed to South Carolina or the battleground states, such as Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.

[Hooahguy]

On a side note, I am not a fan of Bloomberg, but his ads have been really great recently. He is doing what Ive been trying to tell people for a while: keeping it focused on how terrible Trump is. The election needs to be a referendum on Trump. Anything else and Trump wins. The economy isnt doing badly which means the chances for reelection are high, so if Dems can keep it focused on the terribleness and lawlessness of Trump, then the Dems will win. Otherwise I am skeptical that the Dems can win where they need to win.

[edyzmedieval]

Just like in any democracy, turnout is key for any election and for whoever you support. Energising the voter base and making sure that they go out of their way to vote - including convincing as many as possible outside of their immediate family to do the same - is the key to victory.

In the Democratic case, since they have the Primaries, Bernie's supporters are by far the strongest ones.

[Greyblades]

Bloomberg can focus on Trump's record as much as he wants; after the bust up in Iowa no ad is going to overcome the disillusionment that's coming once the primaries finish.

Once again be it the bernie bros or the business dems (or in Buttigeig's case it might even be the ethnic vote) a good chunk of the dems are going to be reluctant to turn out for the other guy.

Trump will need only hammer on the socialist or rigger buttons and the race is his.

[Hooahguy]

Thats what I worry about. I think if the nominee is Bernie then we are headed for a repeat of the rout of Labour last year. And even if he isnt, his campaign is extremely toxic and will yell about rigging even if there was none. I think a lot of his followers honestly think that a collapse of the system is the only way to "revolution" so they dont mind if Trump wins again.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Thats what I worry about. I think if the nominee is Bernie then we are headed for a repeat of the rout of Labour last year. And even if he isnt, his campaign is extremely toxic and will yell about rigging even if there was none. I think a lot of his followers honestly think that a collapse of the system is the only way to "revolution" so they dont mind if Trump wins again.

It was a toss up between Bernie and Pete for me. But I told myself to make my choice today since CA allows for vote by mail.

[Hooahguy]

My primary (DC) isnt until June so I have a while, plus I am anticipating the field to be much smaller.

[Montmorency]

In theory, when not using an ethical model that would link them, they are separate. In practice, when using the first word in communication, it may cause the latter; so in practice there is a link.

You can use a different term, but ultimately I don't think defensiveness is a function of the terminology.

If we look at a specific real person, we can e.g. take this person's job, income, social well-being, health and see what the odds are that such a person can exist in the alternative society without adding a different underprivileged group, and without adding new privileges of any sort. If the existence of such a person seems very much possible, then there is not much of a reason to presume that the real person benefits significantly from the existence of the underprivileged group in the actual society, because in a society with the given geography, technology and similar culture, legal system etc., the life the real person lives is a life that you would expect a person like that to live in a society with these kinds of parameters; the underprivileged group just doesn't have much of an impact on that.

I don't really see the logical connections between these postulates, nor how they can add up to a model for causal inference. It seems to me an arbitrary arrangement you're suggesting.

Note that I am not here talking about trying to identify confounding factors (an issue where this study is likely just scratching the surface), this is about trying to establish whether a benefit is theoretical or actual for a given individual.

If I understand you right then what you're asking for is basically impossible in a scientific context. It would be like looking at a cloud and demanding a total characterization of a single atom within that cloud, in order to credit theories about the physics of clouds.

I wish every state had a 2 round ranked choice primary. I'm not sure it should be a single day of voting for the whole nation, because having it drawn out even a bit is good to filter out the candidates that arent doing so well. But I do think Iowa and New Hampshire should be dropped from the first and it should be changed to South Carolina or the battleground states, such as Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.

Here's a schema, applying parameters for a 2020-like field:

Feb. 3: National primary round 1 (Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar, Yang, Gabbard, Bloomberg)

Mar. 3: National primary round 2 (eliminate bottom half of field, or below a fixed threshold, or some other criterion)

April. 3: National primary round 3 (runoff between top 2)

Shortly after: DNC

Notably, there are a lot of ways to tweak the formula while retaining the basic structure. I think a national primary is superior to any staggered schedule, and while it does demand more participation (multiple election days) we can compensate by making voting easier, which is on the topline of the Democratic agenda on all levels anyway. A multiround primary gives everyone a chance to campaign, and in many cases even a second chance for second-tier candidates to catch up. It does disadvantage some dark horse candidates by removing lead times for media hype to build over high performance in early primaries, but I'm pretty OK with that. (Also, get public financing for elections.)

On a side note, I am not a fan of Bloomberg, but his ads have been really great recently. He is doing what Ive been trying to tell people for a while: keeping it focused on how terrible Trump is. The election needs to be a referendum on Trump. Anything else and Trump wins. The economy isnt doing badly which means the chances for reelection are high, so if Dems can keep it focused on the terribleness and lawlessness of Trump, then the Dems will win. Otherwise I am skeptical that the Dems can win where they need to win.

Bloomberg's ads are indeed relatively good. The bottom line for Trump is that he has to perform at least as well as he did in 2016 in the key states, or he loses by default. The fundamentals are surprisingly shaky for him despite theoretical advantages - polarization is likely an overriding factor.

Michigan and Wisconsin elected Dem governors in 2018 if you recall. And to the extent the economy matters, it has been outright bad in the Midwest, partly due to the trade war.

Thats what I worry about. I think if the nominee is Bernie then we are headed for a repeat of the rout of Labour last year. And even if he isnt, his campaign is extremely toxic and will yell about rigging even if there was none. I think a lot of his followers honestly think that a collapse of the system is the only way to "revolution" so they dont mind if Trump wins again.

Very few Democrats are engaged in the Very Online rhetorical contests. They won't have trouble unifying for the nomination.

It was a toss up between Bernie and Pete for me. But I told myself to make my choice today since CA allows for vote by mail.

I suppose posting disparaging content about Buttigieg won't make a difference anymore?

[a completely inoffensive name]

I suppose posting disparaging content about Buttigieg won't make a difference anymore?

Not any more. But don't feel bad, I voted for Bernie as a strategic vote which I can explain in detail if you are curious.

[Montmorency]

Not any more. But don't feel bad, I voted for Bernie as a strategic vote which I can explain in detail if you are curious.

I'm just relieved whenever the fewer people I have to think about.

You can explain for posterity.

[Hooahguy]

Very few Democrats are engaged in the Very Online rhetorical contests. They won't have trouble unifying for the nomination.

It wasnt long ago that Rep. Tlaib led a Bernie rally in booing against Hillary Clinton. Hillary's comments aside (which I think are 100% true), a member of congress leading a chant against the former Dem nominee who is still very popular among the base doesnt really make me think that unity will come easily. Especially when after Iowa a number of other Reps like AOC and Omar go about spouting unsupported conspiracy theories about the DNC.

And things are only going to get nastier I think.

About your national primary idea, that seems pretty interesting but logistically I can see it being a nightmare. Getting people to the polls once a month for 3 months is hard so turnout might be low.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wish every state had a 2 round ranked choice primary. I'm not sure it should be a single day of voting for the whole nation, because having it drawn out even a bit is good to filter out the candidates that arent doing so well. But I do think Iowa and New Hampshire should be dropped from the first and it should be changed to South Carolina or the battleground states, such as Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.

The system is a pastiche of the Roman Assembly, either deliberately or as a post-hoc justification. It's obviously not a democratic system so we have to conclude, it having been this way for so long, that it's not designed to be democratic. I would suggest the point is to wear down the candidates, so it has to be torturous and somewhat incoherent.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The system is a pastiche of the Roman Assembly, either deliberately or as a post-hoc justification. It's obviously not a democratic system so we have to conclude, it having been this way for so long, that it's not designed to be democratic. I would suggest the point is to wear down the candidates, so it has to be torturous and somewhat incoherent.

There is no point in wearing down the candidates to this degree. We can spend 6 months leading up to the national primary voting day going back forth between all the candidates and then let the voters narrow it down for another 6 months between the top 2-3 candidates and decide at the convention.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm just relieved whenever the fewer people I have to think about.

You can explain for posterity.

I would like Pete to win, but the outlook for Bernie after Iowa is pretty consistent across most states right now. Bernie would get a plurality but not anywhere near a majority. I've said this to you in our PM's a brokered convention after Iowa is highly likely and that Bernie will never win a brokered convention because the DNC is run by the 60% of neoliberals and moderates who would absolutely refuse to pick him.

So to me, the best option is to vote for Bernie and increase his potential mandate at the brokered convention which will force the DNC to run a unity ticket that leans heavily progressive on certain issues. Otherwise they will risk having the progressive faction collapse at the general. I honestly like Pete more than Bernie and I align with him more on policy, but I can't let the DNC think they will win running to the middle again. We need both sides to unite otherwise the united right will continue to edge out with their rigged processes.