TrueBlueGED

Of course I do. But given your constitutional leanings, I couldn't resist the quip :)

So President Neo would do what the president doesn't have authority to do? I'll start drawing up the articles of impeachment :p

1) The only instances where I could see email coverage being construed as positive were the Dem debate when Sanders said he was tired of hearing about it, when Comey declined to recommend prosecution (both times) and the blip when Powell's use of private email came out. Would those things combined even reach 10% of total email coverage? As to whether it hurt, throughout the general there was a clear negative correlation between news coverage and the polls for both candidates, so I can't see Clinton being helped by the focus on emails over policy. 2) The gatekeepers (again, of which editors are only one part) also have business incentives not inherently aligned with the liberal agenda. 3) Hey, I was in record months ago saying I didn't think Trump the president would be as bad as Trump the candidate. Of course, given my Trunp-related prediction record this cycle, I don't think that should comfort anyone :lol: More realistically, I think he'll govern domestically as a stereotypical Republican. Big tax cuts, deregulation, military spending...and no regard for the debt and deficit. At least to start--once the easy stuff he agrees with Republican leadership is out of the way, that's where it gets dicey. Foreign policy is a total wild card, though--don't think anyone has any idea what to expect on that front.

Two units on the Devils.

FWIW, only the major broadcast networks and papers are considered MSM by political scientists. Your phraseology also speaks to your own inherent bias: describing Fox as merely "center-right" while the others are painted as "well left of center." And I have never denied that journalists are more liberal than they are conservative, but that's not the same thing as the media having a pervasive liberal bias. What conservatives never acknowledge is that while journalists are liberal, the gatekeepers to their content (editors, news directors, corporate owners, advertisers) are more typically right of center. There's also a difference between moments in time where bias shows through, and that bias being systemic and continual in nature. The former can happen (and does happen) without the latter being true. Hence the disconnect between perception and the failure of research to find a consensus on ideological bias. Again, ideological bias being separate from ratings and negativity biases, which are very real. You post those two Newsweek covers as evidence of liberal bias, but the alternative explanation is they're "shock value" headlines designed to garner attention and drive circulation--things the more conservative people involved in the news care about. I have a picture of my own to share: If liberal bias shows through in the MSM, some liberals think the email server was much ado about nothing (while many many more acknowledge it was something, but simply believe it was given undue attention relative to other things during the campaign), liberals believe Trump is an existential threat, and liberals greatly prefer Clinton's policy proposals to Trump's...why would the coverage look like this? It "harms" liberals in every possible way. Of course, he also removed the lobbying restrictions Obama put in place for the transition, and now has lobbyists serving key roles in his transition team. It's also worth noting that Obama put a bunch of lobbying restrictions in place in an attempt to close the revolving public-private door, but had to waive them a number of times for important staffing positions. I should note, I don't have much of a problem with any of this. The lobbyists Trump has included on his transition team have important White House and Congressional staffing experience, and particularly for somebody who has never held elected office, that experience is hugely valuable and tapping into it is the right thing to do. Further, the White House has ~2500 staffing positions to fill (between the White House staff and the Executive Office of the President), and the number of people fully qualified to fill those positions is quite limited--there's simply going to be overlap with lobbying experience. All I'm saying is I think any hope or expectations for real lobbying restrictions with teeth should be significantly tempered.

Wasn't aware I needed a concession. Trump won, I've just been awaiting a PM with your charity's information. You were right about him winning, but you're still wrong about why :p Anyone who thinks race is why Trump won the general is completely misreading what happened. There's simply no empirical evidence to support it--counties and voters that went twice for Obama switched, and he did as well as Romney with minorities. How anyone can make a racial argument out of that is beyond me. The election was about Clinton's inability to turn out the Obama vote--when all is said and done, she'll have received roughly 5 million fewer votes, while Trump wins with McCain/Romney totals. Turnout turnout turnout. I still have a more full post mortem post in the works. That said, anyone who denies that Trump's foundation that propelled him through the primaries was built on racial politics is working through some serious dissonance. I certainly didn't predict a Wisconsin win, but in the event of a Florida loss, I did say Wisconsin was the most likely of the blue states to go his way due to it having the largest number of his best demographic (whites without a college degree). I demand partial credit! :D

If you listen to pregame, you won't see the opening face off.

This and K-9's post are why I don't think we should get so hung up on the specific categorizations and precise foundation. The important part of Haidt is that of motivated reasoning. Political science goes after motivated reasoning from a different foundation, yet the conclusion that it exists and is how we both interpret politics and rationalize our political actions is similarly reached.

Shocking, right? Maybe what Bylsma is doing is the best way for this roster to win (that's an argument I disagree with, but it's for another thread), but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue his approach is conducive to the generation of offense.

Yea, ultimately people aren't much interested in fighting for their point of view from the minority position. Watcha gonna do?

Well, losing our best offensive player is certainly a part of it. Though O'Reilly, Okposo, and Reinhart are quality offensive players, they can't make something out of nothing the way Jack can. So we're left needing to manufacture offense structurally, but the structure installed by the coach isn't designed to do that. So here we sit.

Correct. That doesn't remove the ability to hate it on principle, however :) ...but it's definitely not worth the angst. And it's certainly not worth trying to change versus other things that require similar effort.

Tying votes (particularly at the mass level) to any policy is nearly impossible. I do agree that voters make retrospective judgments about whether they like or dislike things, and whether they think things in the country are going well or not, and those judgments contribute to vote choice. But because so much of that is filtered through partisanship, stacked onto the multiple causality of vote choice with ordered preferences, and stuffed into the box of the cyclical nature of politics and...good luck teasing that out effectively (without even touching on the differences of presidential year and midterm elections). I certainly agree that 2006 was partially about Iraq, and 2010 was partially about Obamacare...but to what degree? For whom? With Obamacare, for example, a majority opposed it...but it was a low-50% majority, and some of that majority were liberals who were mad it wasn't more liberal. Do we really think the far left repudiated the Party based on this? I'm skeptical, to say the least. The majority of the rest were going to vote Republican anyway. Then tack onto it the lack of economic recovery, the fact that 2008 artificially inflated the Democratic majorities due to dissatisfaction with the last couple years of the Bush Administration (Dems won a LOT of seats in right-leaning districts due to this, and then lost them all in 2010), and that the Obama coalition consisted of demographics with low turnout propensities particularly in midterm elections....and like I said, good luck getting definitive causality out of any of that. Disapproval of Obamacare mattered, but so did a bunch of other stuff. The post-election narratives, however, are rarely interested in this level of nuance. That is disgraceful. It's also not proof of a pervasive liberal bias in the media. There remains no consistently replicated evidence of this--some studies find bias, others don't, and it all depends on the methodology employed and how certain news items are coded. Sometimes there's a lot of negative coverage of one side because, well, more negative things are there. Going back to 2008, for instance, it's not the media's fault that the last couple years of the Bush administration played out as it did, nor is it the mainstream media's fault that John McCain selected a running mate who couldn't name a newspaper. Just like it's not the media's fault that Hillary saw fit to create a private email server that dominated headlines about her for the entire campaign cycle. Conservatives think the media is biased towards liberals. Liberals think the media is biased towards conservatives. Conservatives think their candidates get a disproportionate share of negative coverage, while liberals think conservatives don't get enough negative coverage (look at liberal complaining about the coverage of Trump this cycle). People think negative stories about their side are a result of bias, just as lack of negative stories about the other side are a sign of bias. How can one thing be simultaneously biased in both directions? Negativity bias, ratings bias...very real. Ideological bias? Not so much. I have a general rule: if both sides think something sucks, but in opposite directions, it probably doesn't suck (or maybe it does, but it sucks equally!). Yes, yes, I like that: the media is an equal opportunity sucker. And it does so to generate revenue! Pretty sure I just called the media a hooker. I'll stand by that. PS: In the digital age where people choose their news and news sources, what does "the media" even mean anymore anyway? I have no reason to think he won't. Whether that matters or not, who knows, but I think being in the Oval Office, seeing it all unfold and being in the middle of a veritable storm of responsibility has a way of weighing on a person. Though I was deeply critical of his campaign and am extremely skeptical of his capability to do the job, never for a moment did I think he was going to get into the place and just start working half days while golfing the rest of the time.

No, there was a joint fundraising agreement between him and the RNC. He fundraised less than normal candidates, but he still did it. He did make some loans to his campaign, but it was not a self-financed campaign.

*leans into mic like Trump during the debates* Wrong. :p

It befuddles me that anyone presumes to speak for the military, be they active service, retired, or never served, as if the military is some uniform (no pun intended) group. More right than left, and more Republican than Democrat, to be sure...but not exactly monolithic.

The myth will be spouted following every presidential election from now until the end of the Republic, whether the victory margin is negative, positive, or a landslide. And even in the event of a landslide, it'll still be false. But what can ya do? They gotta talk about something superficial.

6 million? Your numbers are off, sir. Anyway, presidential mandates are a myth created by incoming administrations as a means to reduce congressional opposition to the early presidential agenda, which features pillars of the campaign. I cannot stress strongly enough how the American public does not vote on policy. Presidential mandates are, were, and always will be (barring a radical transformation in American voters), a myth. Edit: I just realized you said candidates, not candidate. Whoops. Nevertheless, my statement stands :)

That's not gonna go in Robin Lehner's highlight reel. Sad that Risto didn't get a chance to shoot.

Samson!

I can't believe we didn't score on either of those chances.

The OT is literally the only part of the game I've seen, and I'm pretty sure it's the best 3-on-3 the Sabres have played since the start of last season.

If you really think this is going to happen, I think you're in for some disappointment.

I'm going to have a pretty length preliminary (I say preliminary because I want to wait until the ANES final release around February to compare it to the media polling) post mortem tonight or at least by Friday, I think. It was a polling miss to be sure, but in the immediate aftermath, the magnitude of the miss is being pretty drastically overstated. The national polls will likely end up off only 1-2 percentage points. The state polls are where the bigger misses were...but many were also quite accurate. I think the perception of a massive polling miss is due to the certainty of most poll-based forecasts--the high 90% stuff that was prominent. Empiricists across disciplines have a bad habit of understating statistical uncertainty (look no further than my posts here) when discussing models with non-quants. The models simply didn't adjust for the correlation of errors in state polls (ironically, a similar statistical mistake played a huge role in the financial collapse in 2008)...even Nate Silver, who was pointing this out in the run up to election night, didn't adjust enough for it. A further problem the forecasts had is that there were far fewer high quality state polls conducted this cycle. With the need to call an increasing number of cell phones, and the decreasing response rates, conducting high quality polling is becoming quite a bit more costly, so there's less of it. I don't think the forecasters paid this enough (or in some cases, any) heed. It's worth noting that even the RNC's internal model had Trump losing by at least 30 electoral votes. So it definitely wasn't some liberal media/academic thing. Back to the polls themselves, we know that social desirability effects exist. It's not new. But as the effects were not present in the primaries, I don't think it was an unreasonable assumption that they simply weren't going to be there. The assumption looks to be wrong, but it wasn't a case of pollsters sticking their heads in the ground. I also don't think it was the biggest contributor to the polling miss. That, I believe, lies with the likely voter screens that the polls employ. My guess at this point is the polls were over-emphasized prior voting history as a predictor of voting in this election. That would be an especially large problem for younger voters and some minority voters, for whom 2008 and/or 2012 was their first election they could vote in or chose to vote in in the case of the minorities, and they were uniquely motivated to vote by Obama. Take Obama out of the equation, add Clinton's struggles with young voters in the primaries, and you have all of the ingredients for overestimating her turnout. Though Trump clearly mobilized rural voters beyond what McCain and Romney were able to do, and was able to attract some working class whites away from the Democrats, given his victory with fewer votes than both Romney and McCain received, I think the emerging story of the election is Clinton's total failure to turn out voters and replicate the Obama coalition. That's about all the time I can dedicate to the topic for a bit, hopefully can write more tonight or tomorrow...but unsurprisingly, I have quite a bit of actual work to do myself with this whole thing.

I'm going to bed. Final thought: Clinton not conceding tonight is moronic. It would take direct intervention from God for outstanding provisional ballots to be enough to trigger automatic recounts in the states she needs AND for those automatic recounts to give her enough votes to win the EC.