U.S. Democratic Primary

[iNow]

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

He might try a bunt...

If that’s the case, it will be a sacrifice bunt

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, iNow said:

If that’s the case, it will be a sacrifice bunt

He's a team player...his problem is that he sees his team as including everyone

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

He's a team player...his problem is that he sees his team as including everyone

That’s all well and good. Even presidents need strong teams, but they first must demonstrate themselves capable of leading them. 

I know you’re in the Yang Gang, a full fledged member of the math posse. I see them everywhere when I interact with candidates (including this weekend when I spoke with a US Senator also running), and the vibe I get is it’s like a bloods and crips thing, somewhat like the Bernie Bros from 4 years ago, but this isn’t a blood In blood out situation. 

He’s a total long shot, it ain’t gonna happen, and he would IMO be FAR better positioned as a cabinet member for whomever actually wins. There he could achieve far more of what he actually wants than he could if he also had to focus on countless other topics and perform like a monkey as head of state. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s all well and good. Even presidents need strong teams, but they first must demonstrate themselves capable of leading them. 

I know you’re in the Yang Gang, a full fledged member of the math posse. I see them everywhere when I interact with candidates (including this weekend when I spoke with a US Senator also running), and the vibe I get is it’s like a bloods and crips thing, somewhat like the Bernie Bros from 4 years ago, but this isn’t a blood In blood out situation. 

He’s a total long shot, it ain’t gonna happen, and he would IMO be FAR better positioned as a cabinet member for whomever actually wins. There he could achieve far more of what he actually wants than he could if he also had to focus on countless other topics and perform like a monkey as head of state. 

Nope...just a Canadian colluder...trying to influence your election with some non-tribal humanity.

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

He’s a total long shot, it ain’t gonna happen, and he would IMO be FAR better positioned as a cabinet member for whomever actually wins. There he could achieve far more of what he actually wants than he could if he also had to focus on countless other topics and perform like a monkey as head of state. 

Yang has more out there on policy than any other candidate. Can't say I agree with him on everything but he has certainly put himself out there.

Who are you rooting for at this point?

[iNow]

22 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who are you rooting for at this point?

Integrity, courage, and passion. 

Tonight’s debate was great. I saw a good amount of the above three being demonstrated. 

I’m a resident in the first state of the nation to vote. The outcome here defines the tone and momentum and I take the responsibility seriously. I’ve got my top 3, but I’m also not yet decided. 

I met with two candidates this weekend. I like them both, but don’t think either will win and they’re not in my top 3. 

[iNow]

I’m still watching the 2nd night and undecided who’s making the best case, though Cory Booker struck me as really well received. His message was clear and seemed to rise above a lot of the pettiness.

And for you my friend JCM, I’m happy to share that Yang finally found his voice and also his spine tonight. He’s done a wonderful job expressing himself and his ideas. He clearly practiced, and while I remain unconvinced he’s gonna go all the way, he at least finally gave people a true look into who he is and what he stands for, people who before tonight didn’t even know he existed. He did (technically, is doing) really well. 

Julian Castro has remained strong, too, but not IMO strong enough. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

 

And for you my friend JCM, I’m happy to share that Yang finally found his voice and also his spine tonight. He’s done a wonderful job expressing himself and his ideas. He clearly practiced, and while I remain unconvinced he’s gonna go all the way, he at least finally gave people a true look into who he is and what he stands for, people who before tonight didn’t even know he existed. He did (technically, is doing) really well. 

 

I think he did well. Mission accomplished for tonight. We'll see how it gets received...

In the main event, Biden I think did much better than he did in round 1. Harris got exposed a bit (more by Gabbard I think), but again I think spoke well.

All around it was pretty good debate.

[CharonY]

On 7/29/2019 at 11:02 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yang has more out there on policy than any other candidate. Can't say I agree with him on everything but he has certainly put himself out there.

 

I think the trouble I have with his policies are that they are often presented as pitches, rather than a cohesive plan. I.e. you have on proposal that involves issues and mechanisms on the federal level, right next to proposals that appear to be very local in application.  There are grand proposal such as overhauling the welfare system, next to unionizing MMA fighters. Based on that it looks a lot like a brain storming session with mixed priorities rather than cohesive policy proposals. I think part of it is based on his background, which includes little policy experience but more solutions pitching. While not necessarily against this approach, a bit of more prioritization and a cohesive write-up would inspire more confidence.

On the opposite end I would put Warren, where the issues around a theme are outlined and then the pitches are that describe specifically these issues are going to be solved. Just to bring up the MMA example, why isn't it framed around strengthening union? The latter would make more sense in demonstrating a position. Or why is the GI bill filed under foreign policy? Again, it reads a bit student essays to me. They can have good ideas, but have trouble to form a cohesive narrative and contextualize the ideas properly. A little bit more polishing from someone would help a lot to make it look, well, more professional.

[J.C.MacSwell]

44 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think the trouble I have with his policies are that they are often presented as pitches, rather than a cohesive plan. I.e. you have on proposal that involves issues and mechanisms on the federal level, right next to proposals that appear to be very local in application.  There are grand proposal such as overhauling the welfare system, next to unionizing MMA fighters. Based on that it looks a lot like a brain storming session with mixed priorities rather than cohesive policy proposals. I think part of it is based on his background, which includes little policy experience but more solutions pitching. While not necessarily against this approach, a bit of more prioritization and a cohesive write-up would inspire more confidence.

On the opposite end I would put Warren, where the issues around a theme are outlined and then the pitches are that describe specifically these issues are going to be solved. Just to bring up the MMA example, why isn't it framed around strengthening union? The latter would make more sense in demonstrating a position. Or why is the GI bill filed under foreign policy? Again, it reads a bit student essays to me. They can have good ideas, but have trouble to form a cohesive narrative and contextualize the ideas properly. A little bit more polishing from someone would help a lot to make it look, well, more professional.

I can't say I disagree with any of this. I like him, and his core proposals. I hope he hangs around enough to have them gain traction, and I think he would make a good POTUS despite his inexperience, and his rhetoric is much more positive than most of the other candidates.

Warren has the best chance to win the Primary, but what she is selling is giving the centre to Trump. If Trump was not so obnoxious he could beat her readily IMO, and she could beat him easily from a more central position. 

 

[CharonY]

32 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Warren has the best chance to win the Primary, but what she is selling is giving the centre to Trump. 

I think I am not too convinced about that. At least most of her policies mesh well at lest in terms of goals with many general polls among independents. While her support is much stronger among the progressive wing, her support among moderate/conservative dems is only behind Biden (who is at the top). 

That being said, I think much, if not most of politics is about name recognition and meta-narratives, rather than actual positions and proposals. Biden pretty much is the default candidate pretty much merely because of him being known as vice-President and being attached to a president who is (now) very well liked among Dems. At the same time Warren is branded as ultra-left (though in European parlance one could probably consider her to be a Social Democrat), which generally used to have a very negative connotation in US-politics. Yet if the proposals (or the essence of it, such as say antitrust regulation) were discussed independent on the person, quite a lot of folks including independents are quite for it. In other words, politics is mostly about perception and branding rather the actual reality behind policies. And it makes sense. If you ask whether folks want medicare for all, you get quite different responses than when you ask whether you want a public option that may remove your existing employer-based insurance. No one is really asking for numbers, it is all about snap decisions on how things seem to affect your current situation and then stick to the opinion come hell or decent maths.

[CharonY]

I found an interesting report in which the position in terms of immigration and economics are outlined. 

Quote

To analyze Americans across both dimensions, this report breaks them into groups based on their scores on the economic and immigration indexes. Along each dimension, respondents were broken into six groups, corresponding to their placement along each dimension. 

Quote

About half (49 percent) of the electorate is consistently to the left on both dimensions, while a quarter (25 percent) are consistently to the right on both dimensions. That leaves just over a quarter of the electorate as cross pressured: those that either lean left on economics and right on immigration (19 percent), or those that lean right on economics and left on immigration (8 percent).

Quote

This analysis also finds a relatively small political center. The 2x2 region in the middle of the “Share of Electorate” panel accounts for only 13 percent of the electorate. This suggests that the center is a relatively lonely place to be in today’s politics. Though some potentially pivotal votes may still exist in the center, the mass of the electorate today is elsewhere.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

One can certainly see that the median point in those graphs doesn't coincide with the peaks...but in each case it is far from "lonely" positions, which are clearly on the right and left extremes.

It is easy to see that one should not venture to far left to get a majority, if the voting was based on those graphs.

(not to mention the obvious...that the scale of graphs along the x axis are pretty arbitrary, the choice of which defines the position of the peak.) 

But assuming it is correct, the left has more room to maneuver...they just better not go too far.

 

[CharonY]

15 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

which are clearly on the right and left extremes.

I think you are looking only at the individual index and drawing your conclusions from there. The point is that if we add at least two issues, the middle intersection becomes depleted. The likelihood of the extremes to be maximized in individual scales is, even by chance highly unlikely (just the way the surveys are set up). Or specifically that there are cross-corre

One key conclusion is that:

Quote

As in 2016, the 2020 presidential election is likely to hinge on cross-pressured voters, who are torn between one party that is more aligned with their attitudes on immigration and one party that is more aligned with their economic values. These Americans are not necessarily centrist. Many have off-center preferences on both economics and immigration — preferences that just don’t line up with either of the two major parties. Indeed, relatively few centrists exist in today’s very polarized electorate, at least on these two major issues now dominating American politics: economics and immigration.

I.e. if someone wanted to get the crowd on economics, one would need to move quite left on immigration, too, to gather most of the folks. But one would lose the (smaller ) group which is left on economics but right on immigration. If one balances both out into two moderate proposals, you lose out over 80% of the electorate.

 

It is correct to state that it also is arbitrary to some degree as the question invariably is what actually is perceived as left vs right by the voters. And perhaps even more important, it is really only relevant in the swing states.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

I think you are looking only at the individual index and drawing your conclusions from there. The point is that if we add at least two issues, the middle intersection becomes depleted. The likelihood of the extremes to be maximized in individual scales is, even by chance highly unlikely (just the way the surveys are set up). Or specifically that there are cross-corre

One key conclusion is that:

I.e. if someone wanted to get the crowd on economics, one would need to move quite left on immigration, too, to gather most of the folks. But one would lose the (smaller ) group which is left on economics but right on immigration. If one balances both out into two moderate proposals, you lose out over 80% of the electorate.

 

It is correct to state that it also is arbitrary to some degree as the question invariably is what actually is perceived as left vs right by the voters. And perhaps even more important, it is really only relevant in the swing states.

If you combined those graphs to include Dems, Independants and Republicans, and then picked median positions...you would be in a pretty healthy spot to attract voters if in competition with one other competitor that had to pick one side or the other at any discernible distance from your positions. All other factors being equal (which of course they aren't) if you've lost out on 80% of potential voters your opponent must lose that also...or more.

This is generally true unless voters are somewhat indifferent on some policies and more passionate on others.

[CharonY]

As mentioned, you are forgetting the intersection (which is the key point of the ppaper). Folks in the middle in economics for example are either left or right in immigration (and vice versa). So if you moved right on both you lose the perhaps 12% of moderates but gain 20ish (or more) of the more right electoraten(mostly reps). Going left from there gives you a bit more. In either case one could risk especially those that are left on economics and right on immigration. One of the points of the report is specifically looking only on one axis misses out on those trends.

[J.C.MacSwell]

27 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As mentioned, you are forgetting the intersection (which is the key point of the ppaper). Folks in the middle in economics for example are either left or right in immigration (and vice versa). So if you moved right on both you lose the perhaps 12% of moderates but gain 20ish (or more) of the more right electoraten(mostly reps). Going left from there gives you a bit more. In either case one could risk especially those that are left on economics and right on immigration. One of the points of the report is specifically looking only on one axis misses out on those trends.

Positions. plural. If I pick the median position of the combined economic graph, and independently, the median position on the combined immigration graph.

Where do you counter to get your huge advantage? (assuming you have to take a stance and choose a position on each)

 

Edited August 10, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[CharonY]

The cross

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Positions. plural. If I pick the median position of the combined economic graph, and independently, the median position on the combined immigration graph.

Where do you counter to get your huge advantage? (assuming you have to take a stance and choose a position on each)

 

The cross analysis shows that it does not work that way. If you take the median of both, you'll get only a small set of the electorate. Again because the folk in the median of one indicator are not the same as in the other.

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The cross

The cross analysis shows that it does not work that way. If you take the median of both, you'll get only a small set of the electorate. Again because the folk in the median of one indicator are not the same as in the other.

How?

How can you possibly choose positions on both...to one side or the other of the median in each case...that makes you inherently better off to any significant extent? 

You can only choose one position on each in this one dimensional analysis. Any spot you pick for each is "lonely" if you only consider voters that will agree 100% with your position. (the median positions, including all potential voters, are not far from the highest points)

Why do you feel straying markedly from the median will give you an advantage over your single opponent taking the median positions on these issues?

Is the assumption that no one votes unless they are fully happy with both positions? If that's the case I think the author is suggesting the parties "play themselves" (in the case of the Democrat's that's probably the case...though they still could win but only because Trump is such an ass)

 

[CharonY]

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How?

How can you possibly choose positions on both...to one side or the other of the median in each case...that makes you inherently better off to any significant extent? 

You can only choose one position on each in this one dimensional analysis. Any spot you pick for each is "lonely" if you only consider voters that will agree 100% with your position. (the median positions, including all potential voters, are not far from the highest points)

Why do you feel straying markedly from the median will give you an advantage over your single opponent taking the median positions on these issues?

Is the assumption that no one votes unless they are fully happy with both positions? If that's the case I think the author is suggesting the parties "play themselves" (in the case of the Democrat's that's probably the case...though they still could win but only because Trump is such an ass)

 

On 8/9/2019 at 11:14 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

Either I am misunderstanding your point of confusion or you misunderstood the setup of the report. Each responded was asked a set of questions regarding immigration and economy. From this you can plot the responses on one axis separately as in the top graphics, or you plot each response for economics of a given person against their response on immigration (the square plots). From there you can see that only few folks end up in the middle. I.e. folks in the middle of economics apparently are rarely  also in the middle in immigration (and vice versa). It does not make a prediction on how folks end up voting other than the reasonable assumption that folks are more likely to vote for whoever is closer to their view. As seen in the graph, the center position is occupied by few. But if you move either bottom left or upper right, you get closer to more of the electorate and hence represent more voters. Unless your assumption is that voters either predominantly vote on single issues (which is not part of the report) or that somehow people do not follow their own preferences.

Perhaps you could clarify that a bit.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Either I am misunderstanding your point of confusion or you misunderstood the setup of the report. Each responded was asked a set of questions regarding immigration and economy. From this you can plot the responses on one axis separately as in the top graphics, or you plot each response for economics of a given person against their response on immigration (the square plots). From there you can see that only few folks end up in the middle. I.e. folks in the middle of economics apparently are rarely  also in the middle in immigration (and vice versa). It does not make a prediction on how folks end up voting other than the reasonable assumption that folks are more likely to vote for whoever is closer to their view. As seen in the graph, the center position is occupied by few. But if you move either bottom left or upper right, you get closer to more of the electorate and hence represent more voters. Unless your assumption is that voters either predominantly vote on single issues (which is not part of the report) or that somehow people do not follow their own preferences.

Perhaps you could clarify that a bit.

Assuming the graphs correctly scaled the left and right on each issue:

And assuming very few of the voters were near the median on both issues:

How do you take advantage of that knowledge?

If I pick a position at the median for each (which could be the same position depending on how the graphs correlate)

Where do you go to do better?

The premise is that the Democrat positions, well to the left of centre, have less scatter...so by picking there you have more "happy" voters...

So do you pick there?

If so, by trying to maximize "happy voters", you have positioned yourself much more objectionably for most.

 

...and unnecessarily...since a position closer to the median would keep all your same voters and cut into mine...

under your assumption:

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

 the reasonable assumption that folks are more likely to vote for whoever is closer to their view.

 

The main problem with this weak position (too far left of the median) for the 2020 election is that it is a strong one for the Primaries. Some Democrats recognize this (thus the support for Biden) but too many don't know or don't care (thus the support for Warren and Sanders)

The main problem with the median is that, though a generally more agreeable position, it may not get people motivated enough to actually vote for you... 

but having your single opponent stray far enough from it may provide that motivation for you

Edited August 11, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Assuming the graphs correctly scaled the left and right on each issue:

And assuming very few of the voters were near the median on both issues:

How do you take advantage of that knowledge?

If I pick a position at the median for each (which could be the same position depending on how the graphs correlate)

Where do you go to do better?

The premise is that the Democrat positions, well to the left of centre, have less scatter...so by picking there you have more "happy" voters...

So do you pick there?

If so, by trying to maximize "happy voters", you have positioned yourself much more objectionably for most.

 

...and unnecessarily...since a position closer to the median would keep all your same voters and cut into mine...

under your assumption:

 

The main problem with this weak position (too far left of the median) for the 2020 election is that it is a strong one for the Primaries. Some Democrats recognize this (thus the support for Biden) but too many don't know or don't care (thus the support for Warren and Sanders)

The main problem with the median is that, though a generally more agreeable position, it may not get people motivated enough to actually vote for you... 

but having your single opponent stray far enough from it may provide that motivation for you

You're far too fixated on the median position, a successful society requires both extremes in balance, but the median position means society is either in transition or has stopped working. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

You're far too fixated on the median position, a successful society requires both extremes in balance, but the median position means society is either in transition or has stopped working. 

I'm saying it is a better starting point. I never said it was optimal. That could very well be to the left, but it gets harder and harder to make a case the further left you stray.

Slightly left may mean progress if done well and lead to better outcomes, but there are limits, and not just in terms of what society is ready for and will accept.

So far no one has suggested any position better than the median, other than a vague implication that it is to the left of it, or in fact far enough left to avoid "no man's land" in the middle, which I consider highly suspect. For the Democrats that relies on Trump continuing to be rude and narcissistic (a reasonable assumption) but also being able to paint him as a White Supremacist. 

Edited August 11, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So far no one has suggested any position better than the median, other than a vague implication that it is to the left of it.

Balance, did I say that right? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Balance, did I say that right? 

...as a starting point.

 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...as a starting point.

 

But that's my point, it cant be a starting point, because it's the end point

Edited August 11, 2019 by dimreepr