Midterm Elections 2018

[dukelion]

OMG Cyber warfare at it's finest and most dramatic!

Oh the humanity!

Anonymous vows to take down, expose QAnon

This Qanon stuff really reminds me of the Manalishi guy on the PackPride boards who claimed to have insider info on the UNC scandal.

Dude had a lot of people convinced....including on this board.

[BandAlum83]

This Qanon stuff really reminds me of the Manalishi guy on the PackPride boards who claimed to have insider info on the UNC scandal.

Dude had a lot of people convinced...including on this board.

QAnon=Guccifer 3.0?

[Troublemaker]

I agree with every word of this, and I suspect we agree on the actual issue as well.

Perhaps. In my ideal world, nobody loses their job over prior tweets. Not Roseanne, not Sarah Jeong. Of course, in my ideal world, people aren't online all day tweeting their thoughts.

But, at some point, there has to be a way for it to translate into votes, correct? Do you think that there will just be a vague sense that Democrats support that line of thinking, and it will hurt some of their candidates even if those candidates don't make statements on the issue? That could be true.

Right. I'm saying it should be one prong in the R strategy to reduce the motivational deficit the Rs face in the midterms. One reason the party in control of the White House historically gets walloped in the first midterms after winning the Presidency is because the party not in control of the White House is more angry and energized to get to the polls. See if the double standard Sarah Jeong seemingly represents gets some Rs energized. Especially in the districts like OH-12 that are full of upper middle class suburbanites who aren't all that into Trump in the first place.

[Neals384]

I think that each organization needs to decide for itself what is and isn't acceptable. In turn, each consumer needs to decide if that organization's standards are acceptable or not. At the end of the day, we the consumers have the power to make change happen. Don't let another organization decide your standards. Does it really matter if your standards are different than mine and are different than the NY Times?

My wife and I are bit of odd-balls when it comes to raising our boys. We are exceedingly old fashioned and have to explain to our kids why we do things others don't, or why others do things we don't. Just because we don't do let them do something their friends parents' might doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it something we don't allow them to do. Every family sets their standards differently. Different isn't wrong, it's just different. If everyone were the same, the world would be a boring place.

Don't like the NYT's actions, don't click on their links and read their content. Don't care or like them? Feel free to read and click their ad links.

i don’t understand this at all. Or the other responses to my post. Racism, in any form, is morally wrong. Stereotyping, in any form, is always incorrect: it’s just stupid to generalize about any group of people.

[thedukelamere]

i don’t understand this at all. Or the other responses to my post. Racism, in any form, is morally wrong. Stereotyping, in any form, is always incorrect: it’s just stupid to generalize about any group of people.

What about uNC fans? If we can't generalize about that flock of lemmings I'm taking my ball and going home.

[Neals384]

The more examples I have of this kind of stuff, the more convinced I am that any kind of bias present in reporting is completely swamped by the confirmation biases present in the receivers of the information.

A Harvard study disagrees.
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-c...0a9d-189799085

money quote:

• Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.

[Highlander]

I seem to remember that Mitt Romney had to change a lot of his social media stuff before announcing for the Utah Senatorial position earlier this year, because it all liksted him as a resident of somewhere back east. Don't remember all of the details.

Hillary, of course, was not a long-time resident of NY when she ran for (and won) a Senate seat. I seem to recall a Kennedy doing something similar too.

Does not work often, but a big enough name can pull it off I guess every once in awhile.

Another quirky example of state switching - when Dick Chaney was nominated as GWB's VP, his primary residence was Dallas, Texas. However, the twelfth amendment forbids electors from voting for both a President and a VP from one state. So, Cheney put his Dallas home up for sale and moved (back) to Wyoming. It's certainly unfair to call him a carpetbagger as he grew up in Casper, WY, attended the University of Wyoming, and served for a decade as a congressman from Wyoming. Still, I found it an odd part of our constitutional law that required him to move at all. I imagine the original intent was to prevent a single state from monopolizing the presidential ticket.

[Acymetric]

The more examples I have of this kind of stuff, the more convinced I am that any kind of bias present in reporting is completely swamped by the confirmation biases present in the receivers of the information.

A Harvard study disagrees.
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-c...0a9d-189799085

money quote:

• Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president.

These two posts do not necessarily contradict each other, but any further discussion about why they are or aren't contradictory probably goes pretty far outside the bounds of the rules set for this thread even if we all promised to be really, really civil about it. Maybe best to revert back to discussing specific races that are approaching, and cut short the general discussion of media as it relates to politics (or take it offline)?

I am quite enjoying this thread, even though I am doing a lot more reading/learning than I am posting.

[dudog84]

These two posts do not necessarily contradict each other, but any further discussion about why they are or aren't contradictory probably goes pretty far outside the bounds of the rules set for this thread even if we all promised to be really, really civil about it. Maybe best to revert back to discussing specific races that are approaching, and cut short the general discussion of media as it relates to politics (or take it offline)?

I am quite enjoying this thread, even though I am doing a lot more reading/learning than I am posting.

I was just about to respond to that, but I always read the rest of the way through the new posts. Thanks for stopping me.

[PackMan97]

i don’t understand this at all. Or the other responses to my post. Racism, in any form, is morally wrong. Stereotyping, in any form, is always incorrect: it’s just stupid to generalize about any group of people.

My point was not to content of the young Ms. Jeong's tweets (which I have not read), but of the actions of the NYT. The NYT reviewed tweets from 4+ years ago, talked to Ms. Jeong and issued a statement. Ok.

The standards I was talking about are the NYT's regarding reviewing past behavior and past social media accounts. It is solely the NYTs actions and standards that I was discussing. If I were to be judged on what I said 25 years ago (most of which is still on the internet, just under a different username), well...let's just not go there. Should I be fired or denied a job because of that? How about what I said 15 years ago? 10? 5? I don't know where an organization's standards should be. Everyone is going to set them differently.

I think the weaponization of history is a very dangerous game and really has no good outcome.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

My point was not to content of the young Ms. Jeong's tweets (which I have not read), but of the actions of the NYT. The NYT reviewed tweets from 4+ years ago, talked to Ms. Jeong and issued a statement. Ok.

The standards I was talking about are the NYT's regarding reviewing past behavior and past social media accounts. It is solely the NYTs actions and standards that I was discussing. If I were to be judged on what I said 25 years ago (most of which is still on the internet, just under a different username), well...let's just not go there. Should I be fired or denied a job because of that? How about what I said 15 years ago? 10? 5? I don't know where an organization's standards should be. Everyone is going to set them differently.

I think the weaponization of history is a very dangerous game and really has no good outcome.

Well, let's be honest. This is all uncharted territory. When Facebook broke big, I was working in-house for a staffing agency. I advised applicants to treat their Facebook walls like a billboard, and to be aware that people by and large could see it as a representation of themselves, not just their buddies from high school. It never occurred to them that potential employers would look them up (we did, constantly) to see what they posted.

Well, fast forward a dozen or so years, and people are slowly becoming more aware that their internet personas might have real life consequences. It is a sobering thought for anyone who used the perceived anonymity of the internet's hey day for anything remotely sketchy.

All that being said, put me in the camp of "Tweets should probably not get yoh fired, but also, maybe be smarter about what you Tweet."

Point of reference: I don't Tweet or InstaFace or anything. I haven't in many years.

[PackMan97]

All that being said, put me in the camp of "Tweets should probably not get you fired, but also, maybe be smarter about what you Tweet."

Tru Dat!

About three years ago I found a wallet with $200 in it...tried to track the person down since there was no phone number/license in it but I did have a student id card. Found their facebook account and almost decided to pocket the $200 and toss the wallet. However, I'm not one to keep what I didn't earn and made sure it made it back to it's owner. One just never knows.

[Bostondevil]

These two posts do not necessarily contradict each other, but any further discussion about why they are or aren't contradictory probably goes pretty far outside the bounds of the rules set for this thread even if we all promised to be really, really civil about it. Maybe best to revert back to discussing specific races that are approaching, and cut short the general discussion of media as it relates to politics (or take it offline)?

I am quite enjoying this thread, even though I am doing a lot more reading/learning than I am posting.

I agree that the posts don't contradict each other and that dropping any discussion of media bias from this thread is for the best. I will, however, continue to point out when the data/survey results/statistics are not necessarily in agreement with the headlines or general reporting of articles (when linked here by my fellow posters).

[dudog84]

Tru Dat!

About three years ago I found a wallet with $200 in it...tried to track the person down since there was no phone number/license in it but I did have a student id card. Found their facebook account and almost decided to pocket the $200 and toss the wallet. However, I'm not one to keep what I didn't earn and made sure it made it back to it's owner. One just never knows.

Could/should have given it to charity. Just a thought for the future.

[Troublemaker]

At the time of this post, ElectionBettingOdds and PredictIt have O'Connor (D) as a 9 to 1 underdog in OH-12, so it looks like Balderson (R) will squeak through with 90+% of the precincts having reported.

Still, if the result holds, OH-12 being so close is a moral victory for the Ds insofar as it's another sign that the midterms are looking really good for the Ds, at least on the House side of things. The Ds continue to crush these special elections, consistently outperforming previous vote shares by 20-30 points

[CrazyNotCrazie]

It looks like the Republicans eeked out the win in Ohio 12, though it is not final. Regardless of the outcome, the Dems were clearly able to close the gap in a district that has historically been a strong Republican lean. I assume there will be a rematch in a few months, likely without as many resources poured into the race since both parties have plenty of other contests to worry about.

The question still remains whether active campaigning by Trump and Pence is helping and hurting Republican candidates in districts like this. Trump tweeted that Balderson (the Republican) was down 64-36 in polls before he came to town for a last minute speech - I'm not quite sure where he got those poll results from as it was generally considered to be a very tight race until the end.

A big part of the Republican strategy seems to be making voters fear the possibility that if the Democrats take the House, Pelosi will be Speaker of the House.

[Troublemaker]

The question still remains whether active campaigning by Trump and Pence is helping and hurting Republican candidates in districts like this.

Trump was 5-0 last night, which doesn't tell us much, as obviously the question becomes whether the margins would've been greater had he not endorsed and campaigned for them. Still, typically it's up to the candidates themselves to ask the White House to either campaign for them or to stay away, depending on what their internal numbers say. If we assume basic competence on the part of these candidates and their campaign staff, which might be a stretch, Trump is probably helping more than he's hurting.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Trump was 5-0 last night, which doesn't tell us much, as obviously the question becomes whether the margins would've been greater had he not endorsed and campaigned for them. Still, typically it's up to the candidates themselves to ask the White House to either campaign for them or to stay away, depending on what their internal numbers say. If we assume basic competence on the part of these candidates and their campaign staff, which might be a stretch, Trump is probably helping more than he's hurting.

I don't put a lot of weight in Trump's impact on single party primaries. True, I think that his support can have a lot of impact on someone getting the Republican nomination in the primary, but I am much more interested in how they do in the general election. From what I have read, there are some districts where Trump's support is expected to help, but there are others where some believe that Trump is supporting the candidate in the primary who is less likely to win the general election. It will be interesting to see how these play out.

For a candidate like Balderson, if Trump says he wants to get involved, Trump is getting involved. Balderson is not going to call up Trump and tell him to go away. I think there are some races where Trump's presence is requested, but there are others where he imposes himself on the situation.

[OldPhiKap]

My takeaways from last night, for what they are worth (very little, I am afraid):

Dems
- O'Connor's flip-flop of sorts on whether he would back Nancy Pelosi for speaker gave the GOP powder to attack. Fair or not, Dems will continue to get clubbed with Pelosi and this hurts in the Midwest and in the heartland. Note the different approach taken by Connor Lamb and others who have said they will not support Nancy.
- The moderate wing of the party still has more sway in the heartland than the progressive wing. I am in the camp that believes the Dems have the best chance in 2020 by nominating a moderate, not a more extreme, candidate. But that may be confirmation bias because as an independent I want consensus-builders which used to exist but are hard to find these days.

GOP
- I would be worried. The economy is booming, yet the Dems are generally performing over the elevated level you would expect in the midterm anyway.
- The GOP dumped a crazy amount of money into Ohio, and only got a squeaker. They can't do that in November.

[PackMan97]

A big part of the Republican strategy seems to be making voters fear the possibility that if the Democrats take the House, Pelosi will be Speaker of the House.

As we all should. In 2009 Nancy Pelosi started an official youtube channel. Yes, this is an official verified account. Her first video just proves that she is a crazy cat person. Please watch the entire video and if you don't fear the possibility of another round of Speaker Pelosi...well, I just don't know what to say.



Mods: Please don't ban me. You need to watch the video...and I hope y'all are dog people.