Name: David Allen
Hometown: Washington, DC
Home country: USA
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 62,353
Hometown: Washington, DC
Home country: USA
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 62,353
- 2016 (23)
- 2015 (44)
- 2014 (9)
- 2013 (18)
- 2012 (51)
- 2011 (16)
- December (16)
- Older Archives
I looked and I couldn't find this one posted anywhere. If it's a dupe let me know...
Posted by Skinner | Sun Feb 7, 2016, 08:40 AM (44 replies)
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders can be called "establishment" in the sense that they are both career politicians who served in perhaps the most exclusive club in the world: the United States Senate.
On the other hand, both Clinton and Sanders represent groups of people that have been historically excluded from the establishment generally and the presidency in particular. As president, both would be history-making trailblazers: Sanders as the first Jewish president, and Clinton as the first woman president.
For whatever reason, Bernie Sanders has chosen not to emphasize his religion in his campaign. Perhaps it is because his campaign is concerned that lingering anti-Semitism would put him at a disadvantage. Perhaps it is because he is laser-focused on his campaign message of the people-versus-the-billionaire-class to the exclusion of everything else. But whatever the reason, the fact that Sanders has not emphasized his religion has the real-world effect of limiting its discussion as an issue in the Democratic presidential primary. As a liberal and as a person who values diversity, I think electing our first Jewish president would be a great thing for this country, and it is one of the many benefits I see of a Sanders presidency.
On the other hand, as the administrator of this website, I must admit some small amount of relief that his religion is not an issue because I cannot stomach the thought of reading post-after-post about "I would like to have a Jewish president, but not just any Jew!" For one thing, it just sounds bad. On its face it's a totally non-controversial thing to say but scratch the surface and it has a certain smell to it ifyouknowwhatImean. For another thing, Duh. Nobody here wants Eric Cantor to be president of the United States.
Unlike Sanders, Hillary Clinton has chosen to emphasize the historic nature of her campaign. She does mention frequently that she is a woman, and that is important because there has never been a woman president before. I am not ashamed to admit that one of the reasons (but not the only reason) I support Hillary Clinton is because she is a woman and I believe it is well past time that this country elects a woman as president of the United States.
If I were a Sanders supporter -- and if he wins the nomination I will be -- then one of the reasons why I would enthusiastically support his candidacy is that I think it is well past time that this country elects a Jew (or any non-Christian) to be president of the United States. So ultimately the point I am trying to make would hold for Sanders as well as Clinton.
Which brings me to my point.
We all know that Hillary Clinton has used her gender to argue that she is not part of the establishment. This argument is dismissed out-of-hand by many people here. I do not think it should be. (And again, in case it isn't obvious by this point in my post: if Bernie Sanders were pointing to his religion as evidence that he is not part of the establishment, I do not believe that argument should be dismissed either. But he is not pointing to his religion, perhaps because he does not need to convince anyone that he isn't part of the establishment.)
Now, allow me to state outright: The Clintons are part of the establishment, full stop. It is so obvious that it does not even need to be justified or explained. But if you are going to quote me on this you had better give the full context and provide a link back to this post so people can read my entire argument, otherwise you are being disingenuous.
Hillary Clinton is part of the establishment, but because she is a woman she does not have full access to the privileges that accrue to the establishment. If you think that's wrong, take a look at the long history of female Presidents of the United States. Oh wait a second, there haven't been any female Presidents of the United States.
That is the very definition of sexism. This should not be controversial here on DU -- everyone here knows it to be true. If we lived in a level gender playing field, then by now there should have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 22 men and 22 women presidents. Or, if we assume a slow move in the direction of equality, then we should at least see some gender parity in the last, say, four presidencies. But no. It's dudes all the way down.
It is a well-known fact that members of traditionally excluded groups need to be better than their white male counterparts in order to be taken seriously -- or even considered -- as candidates for employment. It's not enough for a woman or an African American or a Latino to be as good as the white dudes they are competing against. They need to be much better. They need to prove themselves again and again, whereas white guys are assumed, by default, to be competent.
So, if a woman is going to get ahead -- if a woman is going to climb to the absolute HIGHEST LEVEL of power on the entire planet -- SHE WILL FAIL IF SHE DOES NOT USE EVERY ADVANTAGE AVAILABLE TO HER.
There is a reason why the first credible woman candidate for President of the United States has strong ties to the establishment: Because she would not be the first credible woman candidate for President of the United States if she did not. Period. Full stop.
Hillary Clinton is, on paper, the the single most qualified human being on the planet at this moment in time to be President of the United States. Nobody else comes close. Her resume could be put next to the resumes of almost any man who has aspired to the office of President of the United States, and would not be found lacking.
That resume is evidence that she is part of the establishment. But here's the thing: She wouldn't be taken seriously as a candidate without that resume. It is a Catch 22. A woman needs to be better than everyone else in order to get the job. She needs to take advantage of EVERY advantage available to her in order to be taken seriously. She needs to forge deep ties to the people who hold the power. Otherwise, she would have NO CHANCE. Hillary Clinton has done everything necessary in order to become the first woman President of the United States. But now she is getting penalized because of it. Sorry, lady -- I know you needed those establishment ties to get where you are, but now we are going to penalize you for it. Maybe next time you can try to be the first woman President of the United States but do it without any of the traditional advantages that every previous president has enjoyed. Sucks to be you.
I totally get that we are in an anti-establishment moment, when many people are fed up with the people in power. But I think it is unrealistic to believe that we will ever have a first woman president in this country if we expect that first woman president to be handicapped by a lack of establishment ties. Imagine if Hillary Clinton was from a tiny blue state and called herself a socialist and had Albert Einstein hair...
No... F*cking... Way... would she ever be taken seriously as a possible first woman president. No way.
Hillary Clinton is this close to the presidency. But like so many women who have ever aspired to rise to the top of their chosen profession, she knows that she is still a million miles away. She may be part of the establishment, but she hasn't made it to the top. No woman has. Not yet.
Posted by Skinner | Fri Feb 5, 2016, 11:46 AM (194 replies)
There seems to be a fair amount of confusion about these coin flips which decided some delegates in Iowa. But I think some people don't realize there are two types of delegates that were chosen last night: one kind which is really important, and another kind which isn't nearly as important.
(Disclaimer: This is something I just learned today. Any Iowa caucus experts who wish to add additional clarifying information are encouraged to do so.)
The kind of delegates that are really important are pledged delegates. Iowa will allocate 44 of them based on yesterday's caucuses: Clinton will get 23 and Sanders will get 21. These are the delegates that count when we choose our eventual nominee. These were not decided by coin toss.
The kind of delegates that are much less important are precinct delegates. A facebook commenter over on fivethirtyeight explained this pretty well:
The coin flips determined precinct delegates, of which there were about 11,000. those in turn elect the 1,600 county delegates, which in turn go on to nominate the actual 44 delegates from iowa for the national convention.
So the coin flips did not affect who won or lost last night. The coin flips did not affect the number or allocation of pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention that will come from Iowa.
Posted by Skinner | Tue Feb 2, 2016, 04:14 PM (142 replies)
As most of you know, a week ago we shut down Democratic Underground for a day and a half in order upgrade our web servers. We had been running the site on the same old web servers for about a decade, and they served us well for a long time, but it was clear that they were nearing the end of their useful lives as we experienced ever more frequent glitches and instances of degraded performance. The limitations of our old servers were most obvious during times of especially high traffic that occur during big news events.
The upgrade was many months in the making, but it seems that we pulled it off just in time. Over the weekend we saw a big news double-whammy, with the DNC server breach and the Democratic presidential primary debate both occurring over a two-day period. Democratic Underground is already significantly busier now than it was a year ago but this past weekend really pushed us over the edge -- in fact, measured by number of posts, Saturday was our single busiest day since general election day in 2012.
In the past, this is the type of thing that would have crippled the site, and we would have been forced to systematically remove functionality from the site in order to deal with the stress on our servers and maintain access for our members. But this past weekend we were prepared for the massive spike in traffic -- the new servers held up beautifully without needing to resort to any emergency measures.
I know that people generally don't notice when an emergency fails to happen, so I wanted to make sure that you all were aware of it. I especially want to express my appreciation for all of the behind-the-scenes work that my fellow DU administrator Elad has put into this server upgrade. It was an enormous task with a huge learning curve and many sleepless nights, and it's not over yet. I am grateful for and extremely impressed by all of his hard work.
And while we're on the topic of things that happen behind the scenes that go unnoticed...
Back in October of 2014 Google changed their search algorithm and over the following three months DU saw a 41% decline in search traffic and a related 38% decline in ad revenue. The good news is that we have spent much of 2015 clawing our way back up, and for the first time in a long time we we have seen both our traffic and our ad revenue gradually increasing over the course of an entire year. (Yay!) The bad news is that we started from a significant deficit, and for the first time ever we will not break even for the year.
That means that 2015 is the first year that Democratic Underground cannot afford to pay a year-end bonus to Elad, who worked so hard on the server upgrade, or to EarlG who works just as hard but on more obvious things like the Pic of the Moment and various forum administration duties.
So I am asking you, in the spirit of the season, to please consider re-upping your DU subscription a little early this year or maybe kicking in a couple extra bucks.
Just click here to help out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/star
Thank you, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year.
Posted by Skinner | Mon Dec 21, 2015, 02:08 PM (210 replies)
The learning gap between humans and machines is closing.
Sanskrit, Tibetan, Gujarati, and Glagolitic were among 50 handwritten languages researchers used to test a computer program that proved to be as good, or better, than humans at recognizing the figures Ė a cognitive step for machines, and a leap forward for the potential that coders could build more sophisticated Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the future.
The program, developed by three researchers whose findings were published last week in Science, can recognize handwritten drawings after only viewing the figures a few times and also passed a basic Turing test.
Posted by Skinner | Sun Dec 13, 2015, 06:48 PM (7 replies)
Posted by Skinner | Sun Dec 13, 2015, 06:38 PM (5 replies)
Our long-awaited DU server upgrade is finally happening this weekend. Elad and the other admins have been working hard the last few months to prepare to move the site into a new, cutting-edge web server -- just in time for the 2016 presidential campaign.
We have a massive amount of data we need to move over to the new server, and a long list of other things to do, so you should expect the site to be offline for an extended period of time. Downtime will begin at 8PM ET (5PM PT), and will likely continue through Sunday and possibly into Monday.
We have made every effort to make the transition as smooth as we can. But once the site is back online we will undoubtedly encounter some unexpected glitches and bugs. Hopefully they will be minor (fingers crossed). We want to thank you in advance for your patience, and for your help identifying any problems.
Skinner, EarlG, and Elad
Posted by Skinner | Fri Dec 11, 2015, 11:01 PM (182 replies)
Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical country with 100 people, all of whom are eligible to vote. They decide that they're going to have a government made up of exactly one person, called "The Big Cheese," and they are going to select The Big Cheese with a popular vote.
Out of the 100 citizens, 10 of them think that they would like to be the next Big Cheese, and enter their names as candidates. They campaign, tell their fellow citizens why they should be elected, and eventually there is an election. Ballots are printed with 10 names, and each voter gets to select one person.
Everyone votes, and when the 100 votes are counted, the results look like this:
Doug gets to be the Big Cheese, because he got the most votes. His term lasts for one year, and then there is another election. The same 10 candidates want to run for office again. Their platforms are basically the same ones they ran on one year previously. And most importantly the overall makeup of the electorate has not changed much, so everyone pretty much expects that Doug is going to win again with his paltry 24 votes.
But then Marianne has an idea. She realizes that she's probably not going to win. But she also realizes that Hannah's platform is basically identical to her own platform. Marianne realizes that even though she can't be The Big Cheese, she is able to make her platform the law of the land if she steps aside and asks her supporters to vote for Hannah. Her supporters immediately realize the genius of the idea and go for it. So now there's an election with only 9 candidates, and here are the results:
Math, Baby! Hannah is the new Big Cheese! She serves her one-year term, and it's election time again. Doug is pissed that he got beat last time through a dirty trick, so he teams up with Bree, who has almost the same platform as Doug. But Bree won't play ball unless she gets to be the candidate, so Doug drops out. Guess who wins this time?
After three elections, almost everyone has figured out that if you want to have a chance to control the government, you have to team-up with like minded people in order to do it. Unfortunately, it gets more difficult as the coalitions become larger and the participants' platforms are less similar.
Bob agrees to drop out when Hannah promises to give everyone free health care. Lance drops out when Hannah agrees to support the metric system. Matthew and Jessica (who share a similar worldview) agree to join with Bree and Tom (who share a similar, but more extreme worldview), but only if Matthew is their candidate. Jenny throws her support behind Matthew, then changes her mind and supports Hannah. Now they have their fourth election:
This all seems so obvious, right? We have a winner-take-all system, and if you want to have a shot at governing you need to enter into a coalition with like-minded people.
Not everyone in the coalition is going to be your ideological soul-mate. The chosen candidate of the coalition is not going to be your ideological soul mate. If you want to get to 50%+1, you have to share a party with people you do not entirely agree with.
But sharing a party is ok. Because parties are not The Prize. They are merely a means-to-an-end. They are a tool to increase our chances of affecting change. Nothing more, nothing less.
The American Constitution does not mention political parties. But the American political system as it currently exists naturally gravitates toward a two-party system. Relatively large third parties can arise in the short-term, but it is almost inevitable that they will be absorbed into the two party system. Because people realize they have more to gain from joining a coalition of like-minded people.
This is why as long as the Democratic Party is the more liberal of the two parties, its favored candidates will always get my vote.
And this is why if my favored primary candidate does not win, you can count on my support in the general election if YOUR favored candidate becomes the nominee.
I'm not taking a loyalty oath. I'm not signing on some dotted line in blood. And I'm sure as hell not sacrificing my principles. It's just simple common sense: We are more likely to win the general election if we stick together.
Posted by Skinner | Tue Oct 27, 2015, 12:50 PM (248 replies)
On Friday, Mitt Romney made a startling statement to the Boston Globe's Taryn Luna: He argued that without "Romneycare," the universal health care plan he signed into law as Massachusetts governor, Obamacare would never have become law.
Speaking after the death of his friend and political ally Tom Stemberg, the founder of Staples, Romney said that Stemberg encouraged him to pursue health care reform. That, Romney argued, led indirectly to Obamacare. Moreover, Romney argues that's a good thing: "So, without Tom a lot of people wouldn't have health insurance."
Read more: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/23/9604510/mitt-romney-obamacare-admission
Surprised that he's finally taking credit.
Posted by Skinner | Fri Oct 23, 2015, 03:17 PM (17 replies)