Nate Silver is way off base here

[SHRED]

Link to tweet

[lark]

1. Don't worry Nate, Russian repug SCOTUS will throw out this law.

They are as hypocritical as all the other repugs and are on the take for rw worldwide fascism as embodied in PUtin and drumpf. They are traitors to our constitution and way of life.

[brush]

14. Silver worries me sometimes. The Feds can't seem to move on this so I'm glad...

individual states are making it happen.

[samnsara]

2. I think other states have done the same?? Im bugging the heck out of Inslee..

...to make it so in Wash State

[OnDoutside]

3. Not so sure that's a wise Idea. He's not going to win CA anyway.

[hack89]

5. This is only for the primary, not the general

he doesn't need California to win the nomination so I don't see much coming out of this.

[OnDoutside]

8. Thanks.

[PJMcK]

7. It's for the Republican primary

Not the General Election.

Any challenges to the law would be heard in State Courts since it’s a state law.

[OnDoutside]

9. Thanks

[former9thward]

47. Not true.

It conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. So eventually it would be heard in federal court. It is not clear if Trump would take it court since it is CA.

[brush]

15. So you think he's not going to attempt to be on the Calif. primary ballot?

It's for the primary election.

[onenote]

18. He had the nomination won in 2016 before the CA primary was held

The repubs schedule red state primaries early. He'll have the nomination sewn up before the CA primary.

[Wounded Bear]

25. California moved it's primary to Super Tuesday...

or thereabouts. It's no longer so late in the schedule.

Not sure the Repub primary matters much this cycle, though.

[brush]

31. So you think he won't enter and cough up the taxes? Calif. is doing it to get the info out.

[OnDoutside]

21. From a screwing with his head pov, fine, but I just hope it doesn't

backfire.

[brush]

33. The state is doing it to get the info out. Only possible backfire is if the taxes are clean.

What'd think the odds are of that? He ain't hiding this long and hard for nothing.

[Perseus]

39. It may open the eyes of other governors to do the same

I am not sure how any negatives to this move by CA can be attached to the decision. I applaud the decision, and I hope it encourages other states to do the same until it becomes a federal law.

[brush]

57. My thoughts exactly.

[lame54]

4. He is sooooo right...

If Trump loses that will be all he needs to cry foul

Yes yes yes he will cry foul anyways but this gives him something tangible to cling to

[still_one]

6. This is only for the primary, not the GE. Not even sure if the Ca SC will allow this for the

primary, though the state does pay for the primary

[lame54]

11. Trump will be the first...

To beat his opponent with write ins

Can't wait to hear him brag about that

It's still a bad idea

[still_one]

13. I agree

[KPN]

48. I disagree. If tRump loses he's going to scream "rigged"

anyway. He’s also going to lose CA “bigly” anyway. And if he wins by the EC only — like he did in 2016 - the vote difference will be significantly greater, I.e., a bigger loss by popular vote for him, making the failure of the Ec thatmuch more apparent and egregious. If every clearly blue State did this, the absurdity of a GOP EC win would become abundantly clear — that is, the popular vote difference could easily be 18-20 million as opposed to the 3 million in 2016 — and a powerful argument for abolishing the EC as it now exists.

More States should do this for this reason as well as the sheer reasonable expectation that candidates and Presidents would reveal their tax returns to ensure the public trust.

[Duppers]

56. Exactly!

[pnwmom]

55. All Trump has to do is supply his tax returns like everyone else. n/t

[lunatica]

10. How is it undemocratic? Please explain

The rule applies to everybody who is on the Primary votes. Everyone else is submitting tax returns, but if Trump decides not to that’s democratic?

[customerserviceguy]

32. How would we have felt about it

if during President Obama's first term, a red state had required a long-form birth certificate to be submitted, then made public, in order to get on a primary ballot?

I suppose there are other obnoxious things that red states could require to cripple our more progressive candidates in their races. That could be a big thing with the early South Carolina primary.

[OhZone]

34. I'm not sure I would have a problem with that.

And in Obama's case, it would only have helped him.

[customerserviceguy]

59. It would have been an insult to him

I was very disappointed that he took Trump's birther bait. That may well have propelled Trump to where he is today.

[Hoyt]

35. That's kind of how I feel. Not a good precedent overall. Otherwise, I don't

get too upset with something aimed at the America’s most disgusting politician who has been lying about releasing his tax returns for too long.

[Gregory Peccary]

37. I agree

They will find a way to turn this into something truly offensive. Never underestimate the Republicans creativity when it comes to rigging elections

[customerserviceguy]

58. Yep, they'd love

to find a way to kneecap Joe Biden in the SC primary.

[grantcart]

60. Fine with ne

Would have created problems for George Romney ( born in Mexico) McCain ( Panama) and Cruz ( Canada) all who would have Councillor Certificates of Birth and. No " long form"

[deurbano]

64. I'd be ok if it's required of everyone... like what my kids had to submit to get their 1st driver's

licenses. A birth certificate proving native-born citizenship could be relevant (and if the requirement for everyone is the long-form version... whatever), but the problem was it wasn't demanded of all candidates or presidents since it was just a phony issue to portray Pres. Obama as "foreign." But the financial situation of someone running for president is a legitimate concern, and as long as disclosure is expected of all candidates, i don't see the problem. Are you thinking of something a red state might mandate that would harm only Democrats? (I'm tired, so may be overlooking something.)

[customerserviceguy]

65. Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring to

Give a solid red state a way to screw with a Democratic primary process, and they'll probably find a way to do it. Especially if they can use California as the justification for doing so.

[guillaumeb]

12. Transparency is only an issue for the dishonest. eom

[LiberalFighter]

16. Constitution only pertains to the general election.

States can do anything they want pretty much. Here in Indiana, a candidate must petition to get on the ballot for the primary. To do that they must get the signatures of 4,500 voters total with at least 500 signature in each congressional district.

If the courts were to overrule it the state party could respond by taking back control of the primary election. They could run their primary just like some do caucuses.

[StarfishSaver]

27. The Constitution applies to state elections as well

For example, the state couldn't put a ballot access requirement that violates the 14th Amendment.

But that said, there's no constitutional violation in requiring all candidates to submit their tax returns

[wasupaloopa]

17. The idea could discourage poor people from running for office

if they had a low credit score etc.

[StarfishSaver]

29. Credit scores aren't on tax returns

[ananda]

19. Wrong. It's a great idea!

Way to go CA !!!

[Karadeniz]

20. Condoning kleptocracy...how does that work in a a fair democracy?

[StarfishSaver]

22. Most states have ballot access laws that set forth specific requirements candidates must meet

I don't see this as any different than, for example, a requirement that a candidate obtain a minimum number of signatures on a petition in order to qualify to be on the state ballot in a presidential primary.

[budkin]

23. I love when Nate Silver acts like he's above it.

Laughable.

[Celerity]

24. An Antidote to Donald Trump's Secrecy on Taxes (Ironically from the NYT, lolol)

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/opinion/an-antidote-to-donald-trumps-secrecy-on-taxes.html

President-elect Donald Trump refused to release his tax returns during the campaign and there is no sign that he will, ever. He broke longstanding tradition and set a terrible precedent for future presidential candidates.

Good government groups have been wringing their hands about what to do. Now comes an excellent idea from a New York State senator, Brad Hoylman, a Democrat from Manhattan, that would force candidates to disclose their tax returns by making it a requirement for getting on the ballot. Mr. Hoylman says that he plans to introduce a bill that would require presidential and vice-presidential candidates to disclose up to five years of their tax returns 50 days before the general election. The state’s Board of Elections would publish the returns on its website.

Candidates who fail to provide the documents would not appear on the state ballot and the state’s Electoral College electors could not vote for them. This is a smart proposal not just for New York but for other states as well. Even if a handful of states imposed the requirement, all major party nominees would have to disclose their tax returns.

Mr. Trump might well challenge such a law if he seeks a second term and wants to continue hiding his tax returns. As drafted, the bill should withstand constitutional scrutiny, said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law scholar at Harvard. “Ballot access requirements vary significantly from state to state, and it seems that N.Y. might be able to simply add tax disclosure as a procedural ballot access requirement,” he wrote in an email.

snip

[Goodheart]

26. What's "undemocratic" about it? Candidates of all parties have to abide the same rules.

[bucolic_frolic]

28. Has Nate released his tax returns?

There must be some reason he's against release of Trump's tax returns. Wonder what it could be?

Journalists can influence elections. So can Cabinet officials. Transparency could be taken a lot further so we know who's grinding an axe, who's an ideologue, and who's just reporting.

[Ford_Prefect]

30. I have never found Nate to be a fount of wisdom no matter how popular his opinions are with some.

He got it right ONCE and then could not explain how he did it, nor AFAIK has he repeated the same accurately. In my view his magic formula frequently seems to demonstrate statistical bias.

I prefer Public Policy Polling as a source. (publicpolicypolling.com)

[jimmy the one]

70. nate's 538 is not a poll, but an analysis of polls

Ford Prefect: He {nate silver of 538} got it right ONCE and then could not explain how he did it, nor AFAIK has he repeated the same accurately. In my view his magic formula frequently seems to demonstrate statistical bias.

Hi Ford. I'm presuming you are referring to nate's prediction of who would win the presidency, his odds board?
Remember that 538 is not a poll, it is an analysis of polls, an odds board like at the racetrack. Nate gets all the state's polls, the reputable ones hopefully not rasmussens, which were 94% accurate per RCP avgs, dumps them into a meat grinder cranks the handle and out comes a prediction. He put hillary about a 4 to 5 favorite, with trump about 4 to 1, the others small chance. Four to one shots come in regularly at racetracks, as do favorites losing.
I think it's wrong to say 538 was incorrect, since hillary actually won the election. In other words the people elected hillary clinton president, it was ~538 electors from the electoral college who put trump into office. The outdated antiquated obsolete electoral college, which were it in effect today as in 1792 hillary would be vice president since she rec'd the second most electoral votes.

Trump got 46% of the popular vote. Hillary got 48%. Libertarians got ~3.5%, stein's green party ~1.0%, mcmullin (mcmormon) got about a half percent.
Libertarian veep candidate weld had a tacit 11th hour agreement with hillary to 'voter swap' in close states, so as to block trump from becoming president (note weld is currently running against trump in repub primary, and obviously hates trump). Stein's green party would've largely backed hillary due to being green even tho stein herself disliked hillary a lot as well as disliking trump a lot, and mcmullin's party likely would've balked at supporting trump. In other words the predominance of these 4 main parties would have been anti-trump. The anti-trump vote likely about 53% to trump's 46.5 or so, a minor mandate against trump & 90% of trump's policies. Yay.

Ford: I prefer Public Policy Polling as a source. (publicpolicypolling.com)

Nate Silver & 538 rank Public Policy Polling with a B grade, pretty good, with a slight democrat bias but close to parity, better than most. Rasmussen gets a C+ which is actually not that good, more than half the pollsters rank better than rasmussen which strategically pads its polls to republicans (scott rasmussen a devout right wing nutjob). Rasmussen not stupid, they pad trump while 'counter padding' other republicans in races where who gives a sh** so as to give appearance of no bias, ha.

Public Policy Polling IVR/online 411 B ... D{em lean}+0.3
Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion IVR/online C+ ... R{epub lean} +1.5
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Alas, PPP and rasmussen both use IVR = Interactive Voice Response, and online polls, which are not the better methods of polling which is live telephone interaction with respondents, so it's hard to completely agree with you.

Cheers, Ford.

[MichMan]

36. Does this also require tax returns for all state and local candidates as well ?

before they are placed on the ballot? The people have a right to know the financial status of every single elected officeholder for all the same reasons.

[dalton99a]

40. Only presidential and gubernatorial candidates

[MichMan]

43. So much for transparency

[BootinUp]

38. Let him go back to where he fucking came from. Nt

[zentrum]

41. Nate is dead wrong. Dems need

...to fight for once. Need to shake it up. Love Newsome for doing this.

[TheRealNorth]

42. I don't necessarily like making it more difficult to run for office

But then I remember Republicans keep making it more and more difficult to vote. (Or cast a meaningful vote in gerrymandered districts)

[KPN]

49. +1000!

[ecstatic]

44. All this handwringing while democracy is at stake. FFS,

sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to get shit on track. So glad that some lawmakers understood this, especially when forcing through civil rights. I saw a great special on PBS that showed how they literally had to stop southern confederate congress members from having ANY say during certain periods following the Civil War. That's what it took. I really wish we had more people like that who were willing to take the necessary steps to move forward. Instead, we just waste time worrying about what the other side will do. They can't do shit when the facts are on our side. Evil can't survive long when people are willing to fight and stop it.

[KPN]

51. Yes, the interminable hand-wringing.

[C Moon]

45. I like this...my concern is that this next election is going to be held up in courts

for months and months—if not years.

I think that's the GOP's plan if Trump loses.

The manner in which McConnell was pushing through appointing judges, is worrisome.

If anyone here recalls how terrible the 2000 election was (going on forever), I fear the 2020 election will make 2000 look like a cakewalk.

[SunSeeker]

46. WTF? What's anti-democratic is Trump refusing to be transparent. nt

[SCantiGOP]

50. I agree with Silver

It’s a stunt and has zero chance of withstanding a court challenge. The Constitution clearly spells out the requirement to be President: 35 years old and a native born citizen. That’s it, nothing else.

[StarfishSaver]

53. Actually, many states have ballot access requirements that mandate candidates do certain things

in order to qualify to be on the ballot.

For example, most states, including California, require candidates to submit petitions with a minimal number of signatures in order to qualify to be on the ballot. This is constitutional. As long as it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause or other constitutional provisions, it's fine. Here, the requirement applies to all candidates seeking to be on the presidential primary ballot, so it doesn't violate equal protection. Requiring candidates to submit their tax returns is no different than requiring them to submit signed petitions.

These prerequisites are separate from qualifications which, as you correctly noted, or limited to being 35 years old and a natural born citizen of the United States. I

[Midwestern Democrat]

61. Agreed - plus, I'm not sure a state can unilaterally force someone to waive their federal

confidentiality rights as a pre-condition for running for a federal office.

[StarfishSaver]

68. There's no such thing as a federal confidentiality right

A state can't violate anyone's constitutional rights, but there's nothing stopping them from rewiring someone to show their tax returns. Banks, insurance companies, employers, college student loan departments, etc. regularly require applicants and others to provide their tax returns as a condition of obtaining loans, financial aid, jobs, etc.

[uponit7771]

62. This is about a states primary not general election

[BootinUp]

63. Not true. States are in charge of their selection

Process.

[SCantiGOP]

66. SC used to be in charge of their selection process

They said only whites could run in the Democratic Primary. Supreme Court said bullshit.

[BootinUp]

67. Valid point. I just don't see tax returns as a violation

Civil rights.

[StarfishSaver]

69. It's not

I'll bet everybody running for president has turned over their tax returns to a bank in recent years.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. KGB is already in our systems, gotta vote still but mass chaos and war coming which is

exactly as planned by bannon and putin.

count on it

[warmfeet]

54. It should be an amendment to the constitution.

Thank you California, for keeping this issue front and center!