May 31, 2016

Can we get more guidance about the rules applicable to "general election season"?

Some of the Clinton supporters have exhibited what I hope are wildly exaggerated ideas about the "crackdown" they long for. There is of course the mass expulsion of Sanders supporters. I assume you're too smart to cater to that fantasy, and it won't matter because the worst of the Clinton zealots won't be able to do anything about their disappointment except whine in their protected group.

More serious is the restriction on post content. Based on alerts, hides, and complaining posts that I've seen, some of them think that anything remotely negative about Hillary Clinton is utterly unacceptable. If they think it's a restrictive rule, and they're wrong, they'll be firing off bogus alerts left and right, and getting some unjustified hides. If the rest of us think it's a permissive rule, and we're wrong, we might trigger hides or even PPRs.

You gave some helpful indication in this thread with this comment:

"Thoughtful" and "club" are terms that are in the eye of the beholder. A post like "The new revelation about Pagliano's testimony shows that Clinton knew she was acting wrongfully" might come in either category, or for that matter both. Would you elaborate on where you draw the line?

Another category that occurs to me is polling. To some Clinton supporters, it's "Trump-humping" to post anything that's discouraging to Clinton or encouraging to Trump. It might help if you make clear that this isn't the case. If XYZ Polling's early-September poll result is that Clinton's unfavorability has gone from 47% to 55%, I think we should be able to post that and discuss it. If it's not OK, well, it's your site and I'll abide by your rules, as long as I know in advance what they are.

I know there are few bright-line tests in this area, but thanks for any guidance you can give.

April 30, 2016

David Brooks discovers that columnists live in a bubble.

OK, to most of us this is not exactly a startling revelation, but it's always easier to see other people's biases. I give Brooks some credit for coming to a bit of self-awareness.

The context, in his April 29 column titled "If Not Trump, What?", is that Brooks is bemoaning the looming nomination of Trump. He rejects the course of going along with Trump. (He doesn't come right out and say he wouldn't vote for Trump, but he implies it.) He continues:

It's easy to make fun of Brooks, but perhaps he actually has learned something and will take it to heart in his future writing. We'll see how often he goes where he's uncomfortable.

March 25, 2016

Knitters, can you advise me about caring for an item?

Years ago my mother was an avid knitter. In cleaning out the house after her death, I found a large afghan that she had made. Unfortunately, she didn't append a little tag with the care instructions that I always look for on clothes I buy.

Based on some quick online research, it appears that proper care depends in part on exactly what the material is. I think of it as "yarn" and my knowledge ends there.

It seems that I couldn't go wrong with washing it by hand in the bathtub with cold water. "Lay flat to dry" seems to be a common instruction but that's a lot easier to do with a sweater than with something this size. Can this safely be put in a drier? My laundromat's drying options are Delicate, Permanent Press, and High. If I can use a drier at all, I'd like to use the highest setting that won't damage the afghan.

Thanks for any help you can give!

March 22, 2016

Sanders is the underdog, but here's Nate Silver's site on small chance versus no chance

In an NCAA basketball tournament game on Sunday night, Texas A&M was trailing Northern Iowa by 12 points with only 35 seconds left to play, and came back to win it. Silver got his start analyzing sports rather than politics. On his site, Neil Paine, who's a senior sportswriter for FiveThirtyEight, wrote:

(from "Texas A&M Pulled Off A 1-in-3,000 Comeback")

He also mentions some similarly unlikely sports comebacks (or collapses) that have occurred.

It's a good thing those Texas A&M players were too busy with the tournament to be reading Clinton supporters' posts on DU, or they would have just gone to the locker room instead of finishing the game.

March 1, 2016

How Clinton supporters can help elect Bernie

I begin with a couple of safe predictions:
* Clinton will do well on Super Tuesday, winning most of the states and a big majority of the pledged delegates that are at stake.
* Clinton supporters on DU will post numerous threads celebrating the victory, many of which will also opine that the race is now over (or maybe even DONE).

So I’m going to survey DU and contribute to Bernie on this schedule:
1) For every OP impugning Sanders’s character for not withdrawing (He’s not a real Democrat, he’s out to hurt the party, he’s on an ego trip, whatever), or attacking Sanders supporters on DU in light of Super Tuesday: $10
2) For every OP that doesn’t go quite that far but states or implies that Bernie should drop out: $5.
3) For every OP along the lines of “It’s OVER it’s DONE” but doesn’t get strident about it: zero (I personally think Clinton’s chance of winning the nomination is greater than 50% but still less than 100%, so I disagree with the posts that have proclaimed or will proclaim that she’s inevitable, but just disagreeing with my prognostication isn’t being obnoxious, and this plan is to emphasize “rewarding” the obnoxious).
4) Non-OPs: zero (I don’t want to have to wade through all those threads and besides my means are limited).

If my algorithm yields a contribution of less than $27, I'll round up to $27, so as not to lower Bernie's famous average -- but I strongly suspect that that won't be an issue.

I’ll probably do my census on Thursday, to give all the venom time to come out. I’ll check the Hillary Clinton Group and GD-P, but if anyone spots a qualifying OP elsewhere, please let me know.

So who’s in with me?

February 26, 2016

WaPo: "It’s time to start speculating about Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick"

In this column, Chris Cillizza offers his thoughts about whom Trump might select as a running mate. Trump doesn't have the nomination locked up yet, but he's clearly the front-runner, so it's a question worth asking.

At one point, I thought a Trump/Cruz ticket was a good chance. Cillizza rules it out on the basis of the strong enmity that's developed between the two. It would certainly be a "team" with some teamwork problems, but picking a rival isn't unheard of. Reagan picked George H.W. Bush after the latter had (correctly) derided his "voodoo economics" proposals. Still, Trump/Cruz is looking unlikely.

The prospects Cillizza mentions ("in no particular order&quot are: Nikki Haley, Rick Scott, Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, and a businessman to be named later (someone like Carl Icahn or Jack Welch). On that last point, Cillizza comments:

From a conventional point of view, either Kasich or Rubio would address that experience issue, by bringing on board someone who'd served in elective office, and either would also help in a key swing state. Of course, to pick anyone who'd served in elective office might undercut Trump's outsider appeal. One of the commenters suggests that Trump pick a general; that might be a way of adding experience without resorting to a politician. Too bad for Petraeus he couldn't keep his pants zipped.

Another commenter suggests Susana Martinez. IMO that idea makes more sense than Haley -- if you're going to pick a youngish female governor, might as well try to appeal to Latinos rather than Indian-Americans, and might as well go for a swing state.

Here are a couple other ideas, trying to walk the line between adding experience and not looking like a conventional politician:
* Joe Scarborough -- practiced law, then served in Congress but that was a while back, has made a successful third career in media, good name recognition, accustomed to being on camera, Floridian, nobody but a few diehard leftists would worry about the "dead intern" story.
* Gary Johnson -- successful businessman, then won two terms as Governor of New Mexico to give him the experience to complement Trump, but not a conventional Republican politician because he ran as the Libertarian candidate in 2012 and got more than a million votes.

OK, I know no one wants to contemplate the prospect of President Trump, but he could well be the nominee and he'll have to pick someone to run with him. Go ahead and speculate.

February 24, 2016

How many Jury Blacklist slots for Star members?

The instructions say 15. Someone said it was 20 so I tried adding a couple (I was already at 15) and the software accepted the new additions. So which is true:

A. The limit was increased from 15 to 20 but the instructions weren't updated.
B. The limit is still 15 but the software lets you list as many names as you want but only the first 15 will be given effect.

If the answer is B then I suggest that an attempt to add a 16th name should generate an error message rather than an apparent success. It's a trap for the unwary. I wouldn't call this a high priority, though, because it says right there that you can have only 15.

ETA: After I posted this another question arose. Someone said, "I think that people you've blocked cannot vote on your posts, either." That makes no sense to me -- because use of the Ignore function is, IIRC, unlimited, there would effectively be no limit on the jury blacklist. So I add another "which is true" pair:

C. People you've blocked cannot vote on your posts, either, so they're effectively on your jury blacklist.
D. People you've blocked CAN vote on your posts.

Thanks for clearing up these two points.

January 25, 2016

5 Reasons Democrats Should Be Proud Of This Presidential Primary

This article from The National Memo notes the rancor between some supporters of Clinton and Sanders, ascribing it to a minority of "fanatics" on each side. Overall, though, it praises the entire conduct of the contest to date between the two leaders (alas, ignoring O'Malley).

The five reasons, each elaborated on in the article: "Sanders is speaking to the great crises of our time {income inequality}." "Clinton is speaking to the most immediate disasters we face {reproductive rights, health care}." "Both candidates rise when challenged to present fresh policy ideas." "Both candidates have avoided the personal mudslinging endemic to tight races (so far)." "The Democratic candidates aren’t damaging their party the way Republicans are."