***Official Political Discussion Thread***



mgid:arc:imageassetref:bet.com:2e66ad5d-48c9-11e7-a442-0e40cf2fc285
 
Idk if or how much you and others here listen to podcasts but this series in particular was really interesting imo.
Sheldon Silver was the most flagrantly crooked but I was kinda shocked that I hadn't heard about all this corruption, given my extensive interest in US politics and scandals.
I can't drive due to my epilepsy, which forces me to spend many hours on public transport, so I have lots of time to consume a ton of podcasts. I usually have one on when working from home too.

The New York State of Crime series is 4 episodes.


Speaking of politics and podcasts, I figured I'd share my list of politics-related podcasts. In case anyone ever wonders if I listen to domestic political podcasts, the answer is no. :lol:

Serious Trouble
https://www.serioustrouble.show/podcast
Hosted by Ken White (goes by Popehat on Twitter) and Josh Barro. It's pretty lighthearted, easily digestible and Ken White is a funny dude.
This one's paid (with free episodes). During the Trump presidency, they hosted the All The President's Lawyers podcast.

The Lawfare Podcast

Bit of everything here, largely focused on law and/or US national security/intelligence. Generally hosted by Benjamin Wittes.
I'd say this is moderately digestible, some episodes definitely require at least a mild understanding of the topic and/or underlying subjects.
Example:
d44953d34ba7973e31d25dca031b90bc.png



The National Security Law Podcast

Title speaks for itself really. It's hosted by Steve Vladeck and Bobby Chesney, both law professors and legal scholars.
You've probably seen tweets by Steve Vladeck in this thread regarding Supreme Court news etc.
I wouldn't describe this as easily digestible but for the topic, I think this is about as easy as it's going to get.
At minimum you definitely need a basic understanding of the US judicial system (particularly the federal court system) and relatively common judicial/court terms (standing, certiorari/cert, ... etc).
Given that I'm neither a lawyer or American and I don't have the google stuff, it's not that difficult to get into.
2cad0ea44a9c73a3dcdcc4e473fb1c1f.png


I’m going to give all of these a listen. Have you hered of the ALAB series aka All Lawyers are Bastards.


It takes a intermediate legal understanding to enjoy but it's really good if you like legal podcasts! The character break down of some notorious lawyers is great.
 
the non-orange GOP candidates must all be praying something happens to pull trump out of the race. it’s incredible that fat criminal piece of **** is by far the front runner.
 
Definitely. But his underlying political ideology pre-blatant corruption was this wacky web of not trusting white people — which makes who he ended up being even more hilarious.
Story time from da aepps life archives.

When Clarence Thomas was the head of the EEOC my father had a case in front of him. Many of you know that I grew up in Wyoming so I am used to that Old West Racism. The Klan in Wyoming accessorize their robs with Cowboy Hats and refer to themselves as the KKC ( Ku Klux Cowboys). My dad worked for the Bureau of Reclamation as a software engineer and was subjected to racism every day. Clarence essentially ruled that they had to give my dad back pay and a promotion he was passed over which shows how bad things were. Clarence is a difficult subject for me because on one hand he used to see how racism impacts everyone but on another he let money and power influence him to drop any principles that he had before.

Clarence is the aepps of NT. He stuck in the satire so long that he started to believe it himself.
 
If I recall and please correct me if I’m wrong, but his model still had Hillary at 70+% in 16 so yes it was better than others but 70% in politics is still high and IMO played into some of the apathy people had in 16 about voting on the dem side. Back in 08 his model called 49 of 50 states correctly and I think in 12 he called them 50 of 50 correctly.

I’m not defending Nate’s recent behavior because it’s mostly indefensible.

But back in October of ‘16, I attended a live taping of the 538 podcast. Everyone on his team and in the audience was fairly confident about the outcome, but Nate made a huge deal both pointing out that he’d lost some confidence in the model given new political realities and also that the existing model still had Trump at a significant chance of winning. He was pretty much the line naysayer that night and I remember wishing I’d paid more attention.
 
If I recall and please correct me if I’m wrong, but his model still had Hillary at 70+% in 16 so yes it was better than others but 70% in politics is still high and IMO played into some of the apathy people had in 16 about voting on the dem side. Back in 08 his model called 49 of 50 states correctly and I think in 12 he called them 50 of 50 correctly.

He had it down to 65-70,

70% is not "a lot", people just take 70 and round up to 100. It's dumb.

70% by which by win probability, that's the chance of a football team winning the game up 3, with an entire quarter left to play.

If your team was up 3 with and entire quarter left would you feel confident? You have a 70% victory. Obviously not.

And also you ignore the context. He gave Trump bY far the best shot, and TOLD people there was a ton of uncertainty and pretty much outlined how Trump could take it.

Looking at his forecast gave the best understanding nof what could happen.

The most recent performance by 538 in the last midterms was terrible. Predicted that Republicans would have a 17 house seat advantage which in reality became 4 and if not for Clownmo and the NY Supremes on the NY gerrymandering case the house and Senate remain in our hands.

This is not true, it was always skeptical of the "red wave" as they outlined
this idea he predicted a landslide is just wrong. They don't just give outcomes, they model uncertainty and the chance of a polling error.

I understand that modeling of this type will miss because I think polling in America has gotten harder, more tribal and less accurate but as his prestine record has become less prestine he's revealed himself and his actual political takes are not good. He once described his views as in between Gary Johnson and Mitt Romney.

I mean this really seems to be the crux of it, Nate has some hot takes you don't like
and as a result you've convinced yourself that actually he's dumb and bad at his job.

The reality is Nate can have bad takes and be good at forecasting. Annoying bad people can be good at things, it's okay.

He is obviously good at forecasting, and the increased unreliability of polling makes his model more valuable not less.

Looking his forecast consistently gave the most accurate and realistic idea of the range of outcomes.
 
Back
Top Bottom