alyaza's recent activity

  1. Comment on This Week in Election Night, 2020 (Week 13) in ~news

    alyaza Link
    on a much less significant note, we just got the order of podiums for both nights of debate: Night One Night Two

    on a much less significant note, we just got the order of podiums for both nights of debate:

    Night One

    Night one (6/26): Bill de Blasio, Tim Ryan, Julian Castro, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren - center stage - Beto O'Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, John Delaney

    Night Two

    Night two (6/27) - note - Joe Biden will be center stage, flanked by Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders.
    Full lineup: Marianne Williamson, John Hickenlooper, Andrew Yang, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillbrand, Michael Bennet, Eric Swalwell.

  2. Comment on This Week in Election Night, 2020 (Week 13) in ~news

    alyaza Link Parent
    well, you tell me, honestly:

    So the solution is that all future President's become immune to their crimes, past and present? Am I understanding their argument correctly? That cannot be ehat they are saying.

    well, you tell me, honestly:

    The idea that a presidential candidate can permissibly endorse the potential prosecution of a political opponent is itself a sign of how much damage Trump has done to that principle.
    [...]
    Harris’s statement, and to a lesser extent Pelosi’s, is a long, long way from “Lock her up!” But it is also a lot closer to that promise than anyone should be comfortable with. In a liberal democracy, the government is constrained by a network of rules, such as the presumption of innocence, that limits the deployment of power. Trump’s own efforts to use the Justice Department to go after those he dislikes have provided us with a vivid demonstration of the importance of independent law enforcement. Nothing good will come of a system in which the chief executive may direct the full force of the state against those he believes have wronged him. And nothing good will come of a political candidate running for high office on the suggestion that her administration would prosecute a particular individual. As if to emphasize the norm-breaking aspect of Harris’s statement, Trump commented in an ABC interview that “probably, if I were in her position,” he would have said the same.

    1 vote
  3. Comment on New York State Is About to Pass Its Own Green New Deal in ~enviro

    alyaza Link
    this seems to be a pretty significant bill, especially given the... less than admirable tendencies of the new york democratic party on some issues because of its more moderate members:

    this seems to be a pretty significant bill, especially given the... less than admirable tendencies of the new york democratic party on some issues because of its more moderate members:

    The bill sets an ambitious target for greenhouse gas emissions in New York: Under the current version, New York will have to reduce its emissions by 85% by 2050 from 1990 levels. The remaining 15% of emissions will have to be offset or captured.
    Under the current version of the bill, 70% of the state’s energy production will have to come from renewable sources by 2030. By 2040, the entire state’s energy production will have to be carbon free. That’s five years earlier than California’s current goal of producing all carbon-free energy by 2045.

    1 vote
  4. good morning, tildes--this is not a test. we are 503 days and dropping away from possibly the biggest election day in recent american history. no opinion pieces this week, but we do have a number...

    good morning, tildes--this is not a test. we are 503 days and dropping away from possibly the biggest election day in recent american history. no opinion pieces this week, but we do have a number of [LONGFORM] pieces this week. our polling section is large this week, and donald makes his first entry onto the TWIEN scene with his formal reelection campaign's kickoff today.

    the usual note: common sense should be able to generally dictate what does and does not get posted in this thread. if it's big news or feels like big news, probably make it its own post instead of lobbing it in here. like the other weekly threads, this one is going to try to focus on things that are still discussion worthy, but wouldn't necessarily make good/unique/non-repetitive discussion starters as their own posts.

    Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6Week 7Week 8Week 9Week 10Week 11Week 12


    News

    Polling

    Biden 49 - 39 Trump
    Sanders 49 - 40 Trump
    Harris 42 - 41 Trump
    Warren 43 - 41 Trump
    Buttigieg 41 - 40 Trump

    Biden 46 - 35 Trump
    Sanders 47 - 35 Trump
    Harris 41 - 35 Trump
    Warren 42 - 36 Trump
    Klobuchar 34 - 36 Trump
    Buttigieg 34 - 36 Trump

    Biden 50 - Trump 41
    Sanders 48 - Trump 42
    Warren 47 - Trump 43
    Harris 45 - Trump 44
    O’Rourke 45 - Trump 44
    Buttigieg 44 - Trump 43

    In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan [...] Trump trails Biden by double-digits. In three of those states — Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida — Biden’s leads sit outside the poll’s margin of error.
    Trump is also behind the former vice president in Iowa by 7 points, in North Carolina by 8 points, in Virginia by 17 points, in Ohio by 1 point, in Georgia by 6 points, in Minnesota by 14 points, and in Maine by 15 points.
    In Texas, where a Democratic presidential nominee hasn’t won since President Jimmy Carter in 1976, Trump leads by just 2 points.

    Half of the registered voters in Texas would vote to reelect President Donald Trump, but half of them would not, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.
    Few of those voters were wishy-washy about it: 39% said they would “definitely” vote to reelect Trump; 43% said they would “definitely not” vote for him. The remaining 18% said they would “probably” (11%) or “probably not” (7%) vote to give Trump a second term.

    General Stuff

    • from Buzzfeed News: [LONGFORM] People In Flint Are Still In Crisis. They Want Presidential Candidates To See Them As More Than A Rallying Cry. the people of flint, long used to being a stopover location for prospective presidential candidates, are seeking to be something a little more this year as the city continues to try and recover from its massive infrastructural problems. flint has been a national issue since 2016; some of you may remember that both clinton and sanders debated there during that cycle, and donald trump also stopped over. so far this cycle though, only one candidate has stopped in the city--julian castro, who incidentally has a plan to eliminate lead poisoning. we're still quite early in the cycle, of course, so this is likely to change, but the question is worth asking whether or not it'll be anything extensive.
    • from Alternet: ‘Storm of a century’: Why voter turnout in 2020 might be nothing like we’ve ever seen. we're still quite a ways out but there is already extensive speculation that based on the 2018 midterms and the continued, extremely polarizing presidency of donald that 2020 could be the highest turnout election since 2008 (61%), or perhaps even 1960 (63%). this would most likely require about 156 million ballots to be cast, compared to the 139 million cast in 2016.
    • from POLITICO: Dems take red state detours to prove 2020 electability. a fair amount has already been said of the trend of democratic candidates going to places that they don't ordinarily go to in presidential cycles, which is the crux of this article. democratic candidates are taking the opportunity to go places that have never seen presidential candidates before, and while it's not going to win deep red states obviously, it suggests that maybe the democratic party is finally readopting something resembling the 50 state strategy.
    • from Vox: A new poll shows how sexism and electability collide in 2020. one of the things that could genuinely be holding back the female candidates in this race is sexism--but not voter sexism, interestingly. for you see, the problem confronting female candidates this year is not necessarily voter opinions on whether a woman can be president per se, but voter's perceptions of other voters' opinions on the subject: "Only 33 percent of voters surveyed believed their neighbors would be comfortable with a woman in the Oval Office, despite 74 percent saying they themselves would be comfortable with a woman president." this, vox argues here, basically leads to the electability argument kinda fucking women over.
    • from Vox: Young voters of color are supporting Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. But many want a different candidate. emphasizing how early we are in this, it's worth noting that many candidates are being buoyed in part by name recognition currently, particularly biden and sanders. they of course have solid bases, but a lot of people are defaulting to people they know since it's early, and in the next few months those people might start shopping around for other candidates.
    • from Vox: Why the Democratic Party doesn’t want a presidential debate about climate change. the longest lasting of the controversies surrounding the democratic debate series continues. the ostensible reason for this: "Perez said that even without a climate change-specific debate, it will be an issue that’s impossible to ignore. “I have the utmost confidence that, based on our conversations with networks, climate change will be discussed early and often during our party’s primary debates,” he wrote."

    Donald Trump

    • from the Guardian: Can lightning strike twice? Trump set to launch 2020 campaign. donald trump formally launches his reelection campaign today in orlando, florida. focuses of his campaign are all but guaranteed to be economy, national security, and immigration; how well he sticks to these given his inability to tout them effectively in 2018 remains to be seen, of course. socialism also seems like it's shaping up to be a part of donald's reelection message, and he may be preparing to relitigate the 2017 healthcare fight as well.

    Joe Biden

    • from NBC News: Biden's 'Back to the Future' dilemma. joe biden has an interesting issue: the crux of his appeal is based in the past, but so are most of the criticisms of him. the source of most of the things that make people like him are obviously rooted in the obama administration and his extensive legislative and senate career, but his past also leaves him open to attack because it leaves a lot to be desired. NBC offers some observations: "Biden is finding out that William Faulkner's observation applies to presidential politics: The past is never dead; it's not even past. To win, he may have to figure out how to get past his past."
    • from VICE: Biden Has an Aggressive Plan to Force China to Go Green. policy-wise, biden's climate plan has some interesting international features. per VICE, "It promises that as president, “Biden will rally a united front of nations to hold China accountable to high environmental standards in its Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure projects so that China can’t outsource pollution to other countries.”" this is not really a feature in any other candidate's plans, it is worth noting.
    • from CNN: Biden slams critics of working with GOP: 'Why don't you all go home then, man?'. biden is trying to play up the bipartisanship argument, probably against better judgment. while other candidates have stumped on the idea of nuking the filibuster in the senate and using executive orders to pass their policies instead of trying to ram things through the senate at all, biden takes a consensus line: "The fact of the matter is, if we can't get a consensus, nothing happens except the abuse of power by the executive. Zero." in the event that biden somehow cannot make this work, he intends to "[...]go out and beat these folks if they don't agree with you, by making your case -- and that's what presidents are supposed to do: Persuade the public."

    Bernie Sanders

    Elizabeth Warren

    Kamala Harris

    • from Buzzfeed News: Kamala Harris Has A Network Of Black Sorority Sisters Mobilizing For Her In The South. one advantage kamala harris has going for her organization wise is sorority sisters. harris is a member of the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, the oldest (greek letter) sorority for black females in america, and as it happens that is a very convenient for campaign organizing. harris is fairly distant from the front runners in the south currently, polling only around 8% in south carolina (biden is polling at 40%!), so she'll probably take every volunteer she can get. harris's campaign in fact identifies the sorority connection as one of the keys to sucessful organization in the south as of now.
    • from the Atlantic: Kamala Harris’s Mistake. harris is not without criticism this week, of course. some people are not very appreciative of her statement on the DoJ most likely having no choice but to prosecute donald in a post-trump presidency because it reeks too much of some sort of effort to create an illiberal democracy, or some similar criticism like that.

    Pete Buttigieg

    • from POLITICO: Pete Buttigieg raised staggering $7 million in April alone. despite stalling in the polls, pete buttigieg is still raising fairly large amounts of money (in part because of his continued appeal to some liberals, but also probably because he is apparently one of the favorite sons of many wall street types); it is worth bearing in mind though that we currently do not have anybody to compare this against besides biden, who has supposedly raised 19.8 million according to basic math. it's entirely possible that buttigieg is on the short end of the stick. we'll have to see.
    • from CNN: Buttigieg cancels top-dollar California fundraisers to focus on officer-involved shooting in South Bend. buttigieg also had to cancel appearances at a number of events this week to handle an officer-involved shooting that took place in south bend this week. this move has mostly been praised, but i imagine will be under a decent amount of scrutiny given that buttigieg is running for president and will, if he wins, have to address things like this on a national level.

    Everybody Else

    • from POLITICO: Julián Castro in Fox News town hall: Let’s talk about me, not Hillary. julian castro was the latest candidate to have a fox news town hall, at which he rebuked the network's efforts to tie everybody to hillary clinton (and also rebuked efforts to talk about really any other candidate actually in the primary). castro also doubled down quite significantly on his plans for immigration and in his criticisms of donald trump, despite the conservative audience at home.
    • from CNN: Amy Klobuchar joins Democrats calling for impeachment proceedings. amy klobuchar, the other other female candidate, became the latest democrat to call for impeachment proceedings that is running for president. this brings the total number of candidates in favor of impeachment proceedings up to about a dozen, according to CNN.
    • from the Atlantic: This Isn’t Going According to Plan for Kirsten Gillibrand. kirsten gillibrand's mighty, shambaholic campaign continues to get press--but most likely not for the reasons she'd want. last week i had an article on how she's used to uphill battles, but in this case it seems like she picked off a battle that is entirely too much for her abilities as a skilled campaigner, because her polling remains incredibly bad. her one solace is she's made the first debate, but that's about it. that, i think, is really her last chance to start rising in the polls before she's going to be relegated to perennial 1%er status the rest of the way.
    • from POLITICO: How Rep. Eric Swalwell would tackle gun violence in America. eric swalwell has a plant to tackle gun violence. it is quite straightforward, and "includes banning assault weapons, instituting a gun buyback program and requiring licenses for all gun owners." he also says he "would hold weapon manufacturers responsible by “lifting the shield of liability that protects” them" and wants insurance to be a part of gun licensing.
    • from New York Magazine: [LONGFORM] Tulsi Gabbard Had a Very Strange Childhood, which may help explain why she’s out of place in today’s Democratic Party. And her long-shot 2020 candidacy. this piece by NYMag is an extensive profile of possibly the second most odd candidate running in the primary and perennial 1%er tulsi gabbard, the congresswoman for hawaii's second congressional district, noted "progressive" candidate, apparent hindu nationalist, and supposed assad apologist. gabbard is an interesting candidate mostly because of her own incredibly unique past, but also because of the incredibly odd people she brings together to form her 1% coalition that polls just behind yang but just ahead of williamson, usually (that coalition being progressive types, hindu nationalists, intellectual dark web dogwhistlers, and more).
    • from CBS News: Marianne Williamson on bringing spirituality back into politics. marianne williamson, who is arguably the weirdest candidate of the cycle ahead of gabbard, takes a very interesting line of approach to the campaign, which i think i'll just quote directly: "The problem [with politics] is with an over-corporatized, over-secularized political conversation so disconnected from values, so disconnected from issues of moral and ethical responsibility, as to have broken itself off of the major river of American thought and American life. That's why so many people can't relate to it." interestingly, williamson also supports a 200-500 bllion dollar reparations package.
    • from Vox: [LONGFORM] Andrew Yang is promising to revitalize America. His nonprofit tried, too, but couldn’t. andrew yang is running on a platform of revitalizing america among other things, but his record on the issue suggests he might have a hard time messaging on that. as Vox reports, yang intended to create 100,000 jobs through venture for america, but VFA has failed to create even 4,000 "jobs" so far. given that VFA is sorta kinda a model for yang's campaign, this does leave a number of questions up in the air.

    anyways, feel free to as always contribute other interesting articles you stumble across, or comment on some of the ones up there.

    3 votes
  5. Comment on Trump vows mass immigration arrests, removals of ‘millions of illegal aliens’ starting next week in ~news

    alyaza Link Parent
    i wish people would stop trotting this trope out, honestly. aside from the fact that presidential polling basically cannot be predictive (only suggestive) of who wins the presidency due to the...

    Polls predicted Hillary would win, right up to election day. Polls may not be effective if people are still embarrassed to admit they are likely to vote for Trump.

    i wish people would stop trotting this trope out, honestly. aside from the fact that presidential polling basically cannot be predictive (only suggestive) of who wins the presidency due to the electoral college, what happened on election day, 2016 is far more complicated than polling and reducing it purely to what the polls said is incredibly reductive because it was a confluence of events and fuckups on the parts of multiple people that is almost certainly not going to happen in 2020.

    as far as actual polling goes, hillary was only polling nationally at around 3 percent ahead of trump on aggregate, well within the margin of error for losing the election. the people who got it wrong on that front were not the pollsters, who actually nailed it, but the punditry, who treated her candidacy and the polling as indicative of a slam dunk against donald when it really was not for a variety of underlying reasons and spectacular misfortunes.

    to quote nate silver: "The Real Story Of 2016"

    Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.3 Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968.
    [...]To be clear, if the polls themselves have gotten too much blame, then misinterpretation and misreporting of the polls is a major part of the story. Throughout the campaign, the polls had hallmarks of high uncertainty, indicating a volatile election with large numbers of undecided voters. And at several key moments they’d also shown a close race. In the week leading up to Election Day, Clinton was only barely ahead in the states she’d need to secure 270 electoral votes. Traditional journalists, as I’ll argue in this series of articles, mostly interpreted the polls as indicating extreme confidence in Clinton’s chances, however.

    the media especially fucked up how they covered the polling: "The Media Has A Probability Problem"

    Probably the most important problem with 2016 coverage was confirmation bias — coupled with what you might call good old-fashioned liberal media bias. Journalists just didn’t believe that someone like Trump could become president, running a populist and at times also nationalist, racist and misogynistic campaign in a country that had twice elected Obama and whose demographics supposedly favored Democrats. So they cherry-picked their way through the data to support their belief, ignoring evidence — such as Clinton’s poor standing in the Midwest — that didn’t fit the narrative.

    silver also notes that the election also was very arguably never clinton's to lose in the first place as the media presented it; clinton just happened to get lucky with donald as a truly awful candidate which shifted media priorities away from some of the underlying factors that made her theoretical presidency an uphill battle: "It Wasn’t Clinton’s Election To Lose"

    But Clinton faced more headwinds in 2016, trying to win a third consecutive term for her party amid a mediocre economy. Against a “generic” Republican such as John Kasich or Marco Rubio, she might have been in a toss-up race or even a slight underdog, in fact. [...]
    Instead, 2016 was generally treated as Clinton’s race to lose when that conclusion didn’t necessarily follow from the empirical research on presidential campaigns. A better perspective was that Clinton was leading in the polls despite somewhat challenging conditions for Democrats, no doubt in part because of Trump’s flaws as a candidate. However, that made her vulnerable if the candidate-quality gap closed — whether because of her own problems as a candidate or because Trump’s performance improved — in which case partisanship would kick in and she’d be headed for a barnburner of a finish.
    Incidentally, Clinton slightly outperformed the “fundamentals” according to most of the political science models, which usually forecast the popular vote rather than the Electoral College. For instance, the economic index included in FiveThirtyEight’s “polls-plus” model implied that Trump would win the popular vote by about 1 percentage point. Instead, Clinton won it by roughly 2 percentage points.

    moreover, we cannot ignore the fact that it is entirely likely that of any singular event, the comey nothingburger at the end is what cost clinton the election the most (although silver argues against this conclusion), and that had it not happened we'd not even be having a conversation about polls and punditry and predictions: "The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election"

    Clinton woke up on the morning of Oct. 28 as the likely — by no means certain — next president. [...] Clinton led by approximately 6 percentage points in national polls and by 6 to 7 points in polls of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Her leads in Florida and North Carolina were narrow, and she was only tied with Trump in Ohio and Iowa.1 But it was a pretty good overall position.
    [...]
    Clinton’s standing in the polls fell sharply [after the Comey letter]. She’d led Trump by 5.9 percentage points in FiveThirtyEight’s popular vote projection at 12:01 a.m. on Oct. 28. A week later — after polls had time to fully reflect the letter — her lead had declined to 2.9 percentage points. [...] In the average swing state, Clinton’s lead declined from 4.5 percentage points at the start of Oct. 28 to just 1.7 percentage points on Nov. 4. If the polls were off even slightly, Trump could be headed to the White House.
    [...]you could postulate that the Comey letter had only about a 1-point impact. Perhaps Clinton’s lead would have been whittled down to around 4.5 points anyway by Election Day because of mean-reversion. And she led in the final polls by about 3.5 points. [...] Nonetheless, Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 percentage point, and those states were enough to cost her the election. She lost Florida by just slightly more than 1 point. If the Comey letter had a net impact of only a point or so, we’d have been in recount territory in several of these states — but Clinton would probably have come out ahead.

    trump was also simply better at targeting states and pumping money into them than clinton was overall (despite clinton's ground game not really being an issue), which played a part in his victory against the popular vote.

    that's not to say that people shouldn't engage with polls somewhat skeptically or be cautious in the runup to 2020, but your takeaway is the wrong takeaway from 2016. the polls for the most part got it right; the people projecting models and writing articles about them for the most part did not; but the polls in general are only one part of the story of why the 2016 election shook out the way it did seemingly in the face of all contrary assumptions, and it's just not likely we'll see the same thing happen even in part in 2020.

    4 votes
  6. Comment on Twitch is suing the trolls who flooded Artifact streams with porn and gore in ~games

    alyaza Link
    well, this is one way to deal with a situation like this! no idea how this is going to shake out, but i'm going to guess this will probably deter people from trying this with other games that bomb.

    well, this is one way to deal with a situation like this! no idea how this is going to shake out, but i'm going to guess this will probably deter people from trying this with other games that bomb.

    4 votes
  7. Comment on Malaysia’s Missing Airplane in ~news

    alyaza Link
    posted o'er yonder six hours ago

    posted o'er yonder six hours ago

    3 votes
  8. Comment on Harvard rescinds admission to Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv over past comments in ~news

    alyaza Link
    incredibly funny to me that this has conservative pundits slobbering about how he "NEEDS A FAIR SHAKE AND A HONEST CHAAAAaAaAAAaaaAaAaAAAANCE" as if they'd give a shit in literally any other...

    incredibly funny to me that this has conservative pundits slobbering about how he "NEEDS A FAIR SHAKE AND A HONEST CHAAAAaAaAAAaaaAaAaAAAANCE" as if they'd give a shit in literally any other circumstance or as if kashuv isn't going to probably land in some other ivy league which doesn't care enough about his shitheadery to not accept him, lol. maybe next time kashuv should try not being a dipshit edgelord if he wants to get into harvard. being 16 does not absolve you from consequences for the dumb shit you say, and i'm pretty sure kashuv knew that nigger isn't exactly some play word to throw around at that age unless he's the most sheltered white kid alive.

    8 votes
  9. Comment on This Week in Election Night, 2020 (Week 12) in ~news

    alyaza Link Parent
    barring calamity, yes.

    barring calamity, yes.

    1 vote
  10. Comment on This Week in Election Night, 2020 (Week 12) in ~news

    alyaza Link Parent
    NBC News has this piece out "The matchups to watch at the Democratic presidential debate" which is possibly of some interest. beyond that though the past 2 or 3 days have been pretty dead for this...

    NBC News has this piece out "The matchups to watch at the Democratic presidential debate" which is possibly of some interest. beyond that though the past 2 or 3 days have been pretty dead for this cycle so far when it comes to news, and it looks like my next edition of this will be quite a bit shorter than this one was.

    1 vote