StrangeSox

The test results have a range of possibilities. One end of that range overlaps with her family's oral tradition. This has been pointed out to you, but you're insisting on focusing on the extreme end of the range at 1/512. Even then, she still has actual ancestry. Years of racist smears were wrong. Here is the Boston Globe's explanation: "Bustamante calculated that Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree “in the range of 6-10 generations ago.” That timing fits Warren’s family lore, passed down during her Oklahoma upbringing, that her great-great-great-grandmother, O.C. Sarah Smith, was at least partially Native American." She didn't abuse any system. Go read the other long Boston Globe story I linked. She's never claimed official tribal recognition and has never sought it. She never benefited in any hiring process. You just don't know what you're talking about. She's faced years of right wing racist smears about her family's story, and now that she went ahead and got a DNA test that aligns with her family's story, she's still getting attacked by the same people. Nobody was talking about "blood quantum laws" at any point until the goal posts got shifted there. Yes it's very funny to the people who have laughed at the slurs thrown her way to continue to laugh in their own ignorance. That'll never change.

This is not the thread for right wing conspiracy bullshit. Warren was right about her family history both with what she was told growing up and, it turns out, what's in her DNA. She didn't gain any advantage from her correct belief that she has Amerindian heritage during any hiring process. Her being correct anyway still somehow shows corruption and why affirmative action programs need to be eliminated for some reason. She was right. Years of racist right wing smears are wrong. tl;dr the linked tweet correctly predicting that right wingers won't actually care about the truth and will just shift their goal posts again and again

how is that an argument against increased taxation and tax enforcement against the wealthy?

Ok. Still weird that it isn't on her website. e: apparently I just glossed over that in her first paragraph on her policy page, my mistake! But a Medicare buy-in for everyone is a pretty progressive position! That would be a fantastic improvement on our current status. If it's playing well in IA-01, great, progressive policies *do* work in the midwest!

Her website doesn't mention either of those for some reason.

1) in what way are "moderate" and "centrist" not synonmous? 2) I dunno about internals, but the only close poll I've seen recently is a Blum internal that still has him down by a point. Internal polls that still show your candidate down are only ever released in desperation to try to create a "it's still a race!" narrative. I dunno, you're obviously more plugged in than me, but it looks like she's doing well. 3) AOC's race was in the primary. Maybe random potshots at her for tweeting about video games because it would have potentially been bad (I'm trying to imagine how hackneyed an attack ad based on that premise would be, and it's hard) if she were running in a different race are kinda silly and that's why you're getting some pushback?

so what is your candidate's position to help him? she pushing for M4A so he gets adequate health care? a jobs guarantee so he doesn't have to live in destitution? what platform is going to win this guy over? I'm confident that the solutions that the Bernies and the AOCs push for would help this guy. Help him a lot more than the centrist positions, anyway. I also recognize that's not the same thing as "what will get him to vote for you"

Iowa famously banned vidja games in 1992 as "the Devil's entertainment," proving conclusively that a candidate who talks about video games in a one-off tweet would be doomed to failure reddy you seem mad that the centrist candidate you're working for, who seems like she's going to go on to a pretty decent win, isn't getting national attention like more surprising candidates who have platforms that stand out are. Finkenaur's fine I guess, but of course someone like AOC who 1) has a surprise upset against a high ranking Dem and 2) who has a platform that diverges from the mainstream dem platform is going to get more attention. Posting over and over about how only centrism could ever win anywhere but the coasts is also a pretty entrenched position.

Progressive candidates could never win in the Midwest because one of them from NYC plays video games. I have a BS in poly sci never question me.

And his supporters will lap it up because so are they.

The new standard is that Republicans won't have to open up their tax returns but Democrats have to open up their chromosomes.

She claimed, based on family history and tradition, to have AmerIndian background. She has that background. She's faced years of racist attacks from conservatives over it, and I'm sure Trump will continue to use his favorite slur to refer to her, but she has that background. She didn't "misuse" anything. She didn't claim this status to get into law school or to get hired by Harvard. She didn't campaign on this (it was brought up by her opponent and his staff). What's sad is how conservatives will just keep shifting goalposts. Now it's "oh she doesn't have enough AmeriIndian blood!" as proof of...something. e: these ancestry tests are only so accurate, so the actual reported range is 6-10 generations. Of course you went with the extreme end of the range for some reason. Warren's own claim is that her 5th generation grandmother was at least partially AmerIndian based on family history. She is as correct as these sorts of DNA tests could ever allow her to be. She isn't claiming tribal membership. She had a family legacy she talked about at various times decades ago. That legacy was a family tradition which was plausible but, who knows, maybe it would turn out wasn't accurate. But...it did. Her family tradition was correct.

Warren has not benefited from any "affirmative action" style programs. What about Warren believing her family history of having AmerIndian heritage and then it turning out to be correct confirms corruption to you?

The article claufield linked is an opinion piece on CNN, but it references polls by other companies, too. CNN's most recent polls seem to have been done by SSRS, who at least at 538 is rated "A-" in quality.

This is just the norm with the GOP now, so we'll see zero rebukes from leadership or threats to not seat him in the next Congress if he were to win at the same time everyone is clutching their pearls about some random Dem using some strong language somewhere.

Look, Putin denied interfering in our election. MSB denied murdering Khashoggi. What else can you do but believe them??? It must have been a rogue team of terrorists that broke into the Saudi Consulate, murdered Khashoggi, and then dismembered and removed his body all without Saudi officials noticing. It's the explanation that makes the most sense, really. edit: Maybe they can get Ed Whelan to fire up the Zillow machine to find the real culprit

Contrast the fabricated conservative conspiracy that Warren lied about her ancestry (she didn't) in order to benefit from affirmative action programs (again a thing she didn't do) with Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's family actually financially benefiting from programs based on dubious ancestry claims. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s family benefited from U.S. program for minorities based on disputed ancestry

I'm sure now that Warren has actually confirmed genetic American Indian ancestry, the years-long racist attacks against her from conservatives over this issue will end.

Rcp is okay but makes some weird choices in who they count sometimes. Some really garbage pollsters get into the mix with them. They also just do straight aggregation, for better or worse, so the "house effect" and quality for each pollster isn't taken into account. Cnn is a respected pollster. I'm not sure what you mean by "fudge with the numbers" since you also complain about them reporting registered voters/all adults numbers. Likely voter screens are the most "fudging the numbers" you can do since the pollster has to determine what their likely voter model is. When other research firms poll, they will also do registered voters as their making sample and then pare those results down based on their likely voter screen, and they'll usually report both numbers. All pollsters also adjust for demographics. Nobody just straight reports the raw numbers because that's not how good statistical surveys are done. If your sample doesn't match the population you're sampling, you need to adjust.

Probably should have started Winston instead of Watson this week

I missed the third down play before the missed fg, what was it

Howard was trash until ot

Every aspect of the team did poorly at a critical time today Coaching, offense, defense, special teams