Reading up on him, Hearst was a strange one. After this episode by the time WW1 rolled around he had transformed into a dogged isolationist.
I like the angle of your point about scarcity. Maybe the issue isn't that every has access, but that there's a laziness of thought to actually utilize that access. The herd mentality is made stronger by the technology when I could be used to lessen it if only the desire and effort was there.
You should write it none the less, the idea deserved better than the final product I gave it. This is a narrative that will keep happening, why I called it perpetual; each fresh outrage just keeps it going.
Cultural War Industrial Complex is a good turn of phrase.
I agree that line is very difficult to draw, but if you wish to persuade people, or at least honestly and respectfully engage them like the vast majority of folks here do, you must at least try. My argument is for discernment more than one of definition. And then once you divine who is trying to advance and advocate positions and those that just rage for attention, using some restraint in dealing with them.
I agree. One note though: depending on his in cab system he wouldn't have the choice. Most companies now the GPS is tied into the telemetry of the truck and they are not allowed to deviate from optimized route for a variety of reasons. Not sure that's the case but it's very probable.
Henry asked Cartwright why he didn't take some potato chips with him for his journey and the trucker responded, "That's worth money."
Cartwright added: "That's the load I was hauling and I didn't want to damage the property.'"
That's a pro of a truck driver who gets it, though he took it to the extreme. This is fantastic story, its almost like a parable: "There once was a trucker who GPS stranded but he refused to eat the profits..."
Emerdata. Thus the quotation marks. There will be more coming out on this story as it isn't just Cambridge but it's parent company SCL also seeking immediate dissolution in UK system. Depending on which reporting you want to believe there are a lot of tentacles to this story for people to chase where they will.
Nothing against Reuters I just, especially if I'm going to us it publically, I like the openess of having the raw data like a Pew or other usually provide. There is also (I'm mobile at the moment or I'd hunt down and link it, I believe Pew did it) some preliminary data that shows Millenials may not trend percentage-wise more conservative as they age as previous generations tend too. So it's worth keeping an eye on and watching.
the debate with regards to this is did HRC bring down turnout, or was Obama an outlier so strong that it was a return to the mean. I suspect its both with shading towards returning to the mean.
The real question is their turnout not their number. 89% of 59% turnout (HRC)kills you. 95% of 66% turnout (Obama) gives you large margins. Comparatively, the Latino vote held steady in turnout from 2012 to 2016 with 48%, the number of eligible voter went way up, almost a million votes, because of the demographic change. They see the potential, but are yet to get them into the polls voting.
Two red flags for me here
1) its an online survey
2) despite hunting for them they don't seem to be providing crosstabs to core data as all reputable polls do, which feeds into this being more survey for headlines than data-reliable poll.
Ask Hillary what happens when a segment of the African-American vote doesn't turn out for Democrats when they expect them too, not just in percentage of vote but also turnout. She got 89% of the African-American vote compared to Obama's 95+, depending on which numbers you want to use.538 did a thing on this using the Ga-6 election (Ossoff debacle) as a springboard to the same question you raise. AS for the Dems this is why they focus on Latinos so much; its rapidly become a larger, more powerful voting block.
I was not a boy scout. My daughter did do girl scouts and if you catch those leaders in an honest moment they can foresee that with the exception of holdouts scouting in 15-20 years or sooner will probably be one large national organization. Boy Scouts is larger, more infrastructure, so their fear is this will essentially be a takeover by attrition. I cant really bring my self to be upset, many will drive the culture war aspect but that's silly, this is mostly a business decision our of necessity not some great social messaging. I'm all for all kids scouting for the benefits of it.
This is not an unfair criticism, and especially academically can be applied broadly: the field of specialty tends to funnel all problems into your AOK and then gets pressed through the same small space. Scientist are guilty as well, so are PoliSCi, Analytics, Pysc, whatever field you want to name.
Plus theirs the issue that to be a "name" expert you have to have a tentpole theory to hang your hat on, regardless of its validity it does have to draw a crowd.
It's a fine academic exercise. In reality every person has biases, prejudices, knowledge gaps, etc. so by this logic we would eventually disqualify everyone from the voting franchise. In such a case is it not better to have more participation so those biases are balanced out against a large number of other people? If you take only the self-aware out of the voting pool you are consolidating power to those driven expressly by the motivations you are seeking to remove. I prefer to keep it simple as opposed to over-engineering it: the more participation the better for the country.
Was honestly not familiar with either, so until I read up on them I couldn't tell you. I'm open to hearing folks out, but would doubt either would change that particular opinion.
@burtlikko was asking last night on twitter about places in the US to live and the only reason I left off the Flagstaff/Sedona area off my list was his airport requirement. So that would be in line with the geographical argument. We visited it several times while living in Vegas as a weekend get away and found it to be amazing, and part of that is because of the location, so it's a two-edged sword.
I see where that came off that way let me refine it a bit. You are correct, and there are examples before Rome as well. In the context of the colonies/revolution: As was pointed out earlier, private property ownership was much more common in the colonies than in England itself. It was one of, if not the biggest, differences between the colonies and England proper, where property ownership was mostly the very wealthy and almost always The Crown/politically connected. By the time of the revolution it reached a point where the colonist and the English were practically speaking different languages when it came to "rights" since those in power mostly didn't have a concept of a multitude of landholders outside a small, elite group. Its a very weird dynamic that those in the colonies, in this way, were exercising more rights "as Englishmen" than the Englishmen themselves. To use a modern term, there was much more political engagement in the colonies. But it started with them owning property, and once the Crown started to notice the growing wealth (and their own debt from wars and such) and came calling for a bigger piece, now you have a disagreement and we know how that went.
There was a real debate about England's rights to property, such as taxes and such. To point, I'd have to look the number up(I'm thinking 50Kish) but there was a large migration of loyalist to Canada of those who thought England was still the better way to go.
Yes, using "Nobody" was just a device, more than literal term, to raise the point that the graphic raised. You are certainly not alone in voting for Clinton to repudiate Trump. The reserve is definitely true that Trump received a lot of "anti-Hillary" votes separate from himself. One reason I think Trump supporters are so wrong about him having a "Mandate" is they assume every vote for Trump was an enthusiastic one. There was a substantial group that either out of dislike for HRC, or just a protest vote, or as many have said they just wanted send a "F the system" message voted for Trump.
I remember being in line for that election and the people where debating amongst themselves, still unsure who to vote for even waiting to do so. Couples arguing back and forth, and so on. I'd never seen that at a polling place before. People truly agonized over it, and I include myself in that.
Fair point. The idea of private property in and of itself was, for that time period, a radical idea. The restriction of the right to vote to property holders was the standard practice in the colonies and carried over after the revolution. Adams and others wanted a restricted vote, many others wanted it expanded. Franklins famous anecdote about the man with the dead mule comes to mind in arguing for a wider franchise. It was a real debate while forming the government post revolution, among other things was the idea that men who had fought in the revolution of all people should be enfranchised to vote in the government they paid for in service and blood whether they had property or not. Its fascinating and important history to read up on. State laws started popping up starting with NJ amending their state constitution in 1807 that did away with property restrictions but also banned women. Women would have to wait another century for suffrage to take hold, for example. Freed slaves sporadically had some voting rights but the vast majority had to wait post-civil war for a consistent voting franchise even in the north, and even then came Jim Crow and further struggle for what should have already been theirs. Contrast that to immigrants in the mid 19th century being drug to vote right of the boats. All part of our messy experiment in a free people self governing.
Separate from the current discussion, this is darn fine-and universally true-parenting advice.
I’ve seen how quickly kids reflect what’s happening in the home, so when Bug acts out, the first thing my wife and I look at is what’s going on with us.
No Worries. The Census definition is voting age for eligible. They have all the data broken down in to demos, including age, race, and a dozen other things like residency and comparing native and naturalized voters, etc. FWIW, the total number of people voting was similar to 2012, so other than adjusting for population change the assumption would be the "Nobodies" we are discussing is probably proportionally similar as well.
Its a good point @maribou makes. It applies in polls like "generic ballot" ones that are frequently used currently for the primary, such as X candidate is beaten handily by generic Y party candidate. Of course they poll better because there is no negative. Unknown always polls better than known. It's why celebrities poll very well, but if they actually run they come down very quickly once they have to actually take positions on things. So like "Nobody" in the post, or "Generic", they will always have the advantage of not actually having anything bad to say about them, since they don't exist.
The designer of the graphic, Philip Kearney, used the US Census Bureau data for eligible voters and Tom McGovern for the county data. McGovern is very respected and has been used by everyone from The Guardian to Townhall so he is hardly partisan. Alaska he used different data, which for various reasons has to use more localized data. You can find the full rundown of his methodology at the link in the post.
You would have to be more specific about which "voter fraud" laws you feel deemed some inelible.
To your point, the founders never envisioned nearly half the populace of eligible voters not participating. Democrats stayed home as well; As Cook has somewhat famously pointed out, if Hillarys gets 77,759 more votes in three counties to win PA, WI, MI-which Obama easily did-the "demagogue overrode the system" is a mute point. The system worked fine, the people selected, either by participating or not, the president.
The other statistical oddity that relates here is that while Clinton was short of Obama's 2012 totals but close (65M and change) and Trump picked up 2M+ voters that didn't come out for Romney, the votes for "all others" went up an eye-popping 5.6M in 2016. Nearly triple the 2012 number.
My overriding theory on political matters is more participation is always a better thing for the country as a whole. What is happening, and data like this alludes too, is that when participation goes down you end up with the results being dominated by the most passionate voices. We talk about the two extremes becoming harder and louder, but part of that equation is many people nominally in the middle of them are just checking out of the process all together. Whether that's out of frustration or just going "pox on both your houses" we tend to focus on the vocal engaged group and not the-and I hate this term but for lack of a better one-"silent" block of voters staying home.
On “The Yellow Journalism of the Culture War”
Reading up on him, Hearst was a strange one. After this episode by the time WW1 rolled around he had transformed into a dogged isolationist.
I like the angle of your point about scarcity. Maybe the issue isn't that every has access, but that there's a laziness of thought to actually utilize that access. The herd mentality is made stronger by the technology when I could be used to lessen it if only the desire and effort was there.
"
You should write it none the less, the idea deserved better than the final product I gave it. This is a narrative that will keep happening, why I called it perpetual; each fresh outrage just keeps it going.
"
Cultural War Industrial Complex is a good turn of phrase.
I agree that line is very difficult to draw, but if you wish to persuade people, or at least honestly and respectfully engage them like the vast majority of folks here do, you must at least try. My argument is for discernment more than one of definition. And then once you divine who is trying to advance and advocate positions and those that just rage for attention, using some restraint in dealing with them.
On “Morning Ed: Labor {2018.05.03.Th}”
I agree. One note though: depending on his in cab system he wouldn't have the choice. Most companies now the GPS is tied into the telemetry of the truck and they are not allowed to deviate from optimized route for a variety of reasons. Not sure that's the case but it's very probable.
"
Lb9:
That's a pro of a truck driver who gets it, though he took it to the extreme. This is fantastic story, its almost like a parable: "There once was a trucker who GPS stranded but he refused to eat the profits..."
On “Cambridge Analytica to “Cease Operations””
Emerdata. Thus the quotation marks. There will be more coming out on this story as it isn't just Cambridge but it's parent company SCL also seeking immediate dissolution in UK system. Depending on which reporting you want to believe there are a lot of tentacles to this story for people to chase where they will.
On “The new Reuters poll”
Nothing against Reuters I just, especially if I'm going to us it publically, I like the openess of having the raw data like a Pew or other usually provide. There is also (I'm mobile at the moment or I'd hunt down and link it, I believe Pew did it) some preliminary data that shows Millenials may not trend percentage-wise more conservative as they age as previous generations tend too. So it's worth keeping an eye on and watching.
"
the debate with regards to this is did HRC bring down turnout, or was Obama an outlier so strong that it was a return to the mean. I suspect its both with shading towards returning to the mean.
The real question is their turnout not their number. 89% of 59% turnout (HRC)kills you. 95% of 66% turnout (Obama) gives you large margins. Comparatively, the Latino vote held steady in turnout from 2012 to 2016 with 48%, the number of eligible voter went way up, almost a million votes, because of the demographic change. They see the potential, but are yet to get them into the polls voting.
"
Two red flags for me here
1) its an online survey
2) despite hunting for them they don't seem to be providing crosstabs to core data as all reputable polls do, which feeds into this being more survey for headlines than data-reliable poll.
"
Ask Hillary what happens when a segment of the African-American vote doesn't turn out for Democrats when they expect them too, not just in percentage of vote but also turnout. She got 89% of the African-American vote compared to Obama's 95+, depending on which numbers you want to use.538 did a thing on this using the Ga-6 election (Ossoff debacle) as a springboard to the same question you raise. AS for the Dems this is why they focus on Latinos so much; its rapidly become a larger, more powerful voting block.
On “Boy Scouts to Drop Boy as Girls Join”
I was not a boy scout. My daughter did do girl scouts and if you catch those leaders in an honest moment they can foresee that with the exception of holdouts scouting in 15-20 years or sooner will probably be one large national organization. Boy Scouts is larger, more infrastructure, so their fear is this will essentially be a takeover by attrition. I cant really bring my self to be upset, many will drive the culture war aspect but that's silly, this is mostly a business decision our of necessity not some great social messaging. I'm all for all kids scouting for the benefits of it.
On “Nobody Won 2016 Election in a Landslide”
This is not an unfair criticism, and especially academically can be applied broadly: the field of specialty tends to funnel all problems into your AOK and then gets pressed through the same small space. Scientist are guilty as well, so are PoliSCi, Analytics, Pysc, whatever field you want to name.
Plus theirs the issue that to be a "name" expert you have to have a tentpole theory to hang your hat on, regardless of its validity it does have to draw a crowd.
"
It's a fine academic exercise. In reality every person has biases, prejudices, knowledge gaps, etc. so by this logic we would eventually disqualify everyone from the voting franchise. In such a case is it not better to have more participation so those biases are balanced out against a large number of other people? If you take only the self-aware out of the voting pool you are consolidating power to those driven expressly by the motivations you are seeking to remove. I prefer to keep it simple as opposed to over-engineering it: the more participation the better for the country.
"
Was honestly not familiar with either, so until I read up on them I couldn't tell you. I'm open to hearing folks out, but would doubt either would change that particular opinion.
On “I Have a Beautiful Dream”
@burtlikko was asking last night on twitter about places in the US to live and the only reason I left off the Flagstaff/Sedona area off my list was his airport requirement. So that would be in line with the geographical argument. We visited it several times while living in Vegas as a weekend get away and found it to be amazing, and part of that is because of the location, so it's a two-edged sword.
On “Nobody Won 2016 Election in a Landslide”
I see where that came off that way let me refine it a bit. You are correct, and there are examples before Rome as well. In the context of the colonies/revolution: As was pointed out earlier, private property ownership was much more common in the colonies than in England itself. It was one of, if not the biggest, differences between the colonies and England proper, where property ownership was mostly the very wealthy and almost always The Crown/politically connected. By the time of the revolution it reached a point where the colonist and the English were practically speaking different languages when it came to "rights" since those in power mostly didn't have a concept of a multitude of landholders outside a small, elite group. Its a very weird dynamic that those in the colonies, in this way, were exercising more rights "as Englishmen" than the Englishmen themselves. To use a modern term, there was much more political engagement in the colonies. But it started with them owning property, and once the Crown started to notice the growing wealth (and their own debt from wars and such) and came calling for a bigger piece, now you have a disagreement and we know how that went.
There was a real debate about England's rights to property, such as taxes and such. To point, I'd have to look the number up(I'm thinking 50Kish) but there was a large migration of loyalist to Canada of those who thought England was still the better way to go.
"
Yes, using "Nobody" was just a device, more than literal term, to raise the point that the graphic raised. You are certainly not alone in voting for Clinton to repudiate Trump. The reserve is definitely true that Trump received a lot of "anti-Hillary" votes separate from himself. One reason I think Trump supporters are so wrong about him having a "Mandate" is they assume every vote for Trump was an enthusiastic one. There was a substantial group that either out of dislike for HRC, or just a protest vote, or as many have said they just wanted send a "F the system" message voted for Trump.
I remember being in line for that election and the people where debating amongst themselves, still unsure who to vote for even waiting to do so. Couples arguing back and forth, and so on. I'd never seen that at a polling place before. People truly agonized over it, and I include myself in that.
"
Fair point. The idea of private property in and of itself was, for that time period, a radical idea. The restriction of the right to vote to property holders was the standard practice in the colonies and carried over after the revolution. Adams and others wanted a restricted vote, many others wanted it expanded. Franklins famous anecdote about the man with the dead mule comes to mind in arguing for a wider franchise. It was a real debate while forming the government post revolution, among other things was the idea that men who had fought in the revolution of all people should be enfranchised to vote in the government they paid for in service and blood whether they had property or not. Its fascinating and important history to read up on. State laws started popping up starting with NJ amending their state constitution in 1807 that did away with property restrictions but also banned women. Women would have to wait another century for suffrage to take hold, for example. Freed slaves sporadically had some voting rights but the vast majority had to wait post-civil war for a consistent voting franchise even in the north, and even then came Jim Crow and further struggle for what should have already been theirs. Contrast that to immigrants in the mid 19th century being drug to vote right of the boats. All part of our messy experiment in a free people self governing.
On “Public Education in the United States, Part I”
Separate from the current discussion, this is darn fine-and universally true-parenting advice.
On “Nobody Won 2016 Election in a Landslide”
No Worries. The Census definition is voting age for eligible. They have all the data broken down in to demos, including age, race, and a dozen other things like residency and comparing native and naturalized voters, etc. FWIW, the total number of people voting was similar to 2012, so other than adjusting for population change the assumption would be the "Nobodies" we are discussing is probably proportionally similar as well.
You can find all the cross tabs and tables here
"
Its a good point @maribou makes. It applies in polls like "generic ballot" ones that are frequently used currently for the primary, such as X candidate is beaten handily by generic Y party candidate. Of course they poll better because there is no negative. Unknown always polls better than known. It's why celebrities poll very well, but if they actually run they come down very quickly once they have to actually take positions on things. So like "Nobody" in the post, or "Generic", they will always have the advantage of not actually having anything bad to say about them, since they don't exist.
"
The designer of the graphic, Philip Kearney, used the US Census Bureau data for eligible voters and Tom McGovern for the county data. McGovern is very respected and has been used by everyone from The Guardian to Townhall so he is hardly partisan. Alaska he used different data, which for various reasons has to use more localized data. You can find the full rundown of his methodology at the link in the post.
You would have to be more specific about which "voter fraud" laws you feel deemed some inelible.
"
To your point, the founders never envisioned nearly half the populace of eligible voters not participating. Democrats stayed home as well; As Cook has somewhat famously pointed out, if Hillarys gets 77,759 more votes in three counties to win PA, WI, MI-which Obama easily did-the "demagogue overrode the system" is a mute point. The system worked fine, the people selected, either by participating or not, the president.
The other statistical oddity that relates here is that while Clinton was short of Obama's 2012 totals but close (65M and change) and Trump picked up 2M+ voters that didn't come out for Romney, the votes for "all others" went up an eye-popping 5.6M in 2016. Nearly triple the 2012 number.
"
My overriding theory on political matters is more participation is always a better thing for the country as a whole. What is happening, and data like this alludes too, is that when participation goes down you end up with the results being dominated by the most passionate voices. We talk about the two extremes becoming harder and louder, but part of that equation is many people nominally in the middle of them are just checking out of the process all together. Whether that's out of frustration or just going "pox on both your houses" we tend to focus on the vocal engaged group and not the-and I hate this term but for lack of a better one-"silent" block of voters staying home.
"
I've heard that as well. It's a good one.