Of course, that's fine.

But, someone whose journalistic experience was - until four months ago - compiling box scores for MLB.com does not have the sophistication or experience to engage in broad-based statistical analysis of political organizing trends.

Since her claim was made without evidence (such as quoting a subject matter expert or providing citable data points), we are left to rely on her personal expertise.

I personally choose not to rely on personal expertise for a statement on the sociology of political organizing when said expertise is limited to compiling box scores for San Diego Padres games.

Others may do so, if you choose. No problem!

Or that the Divine Nine will vote for Biden based on Harris' affiliation, considering she ...

and that, during her primary run, her ...

This is like saying that just because you work at McDonald’s you don’t know how to cook escargots. Your job is not the sum total of your knowledge.

•

Almost. It's more like saying just because you work at McDonald's you don't know how to calibrate the accelerometer and gyroscope on an inertial measurement unit.

You might be able to, but I'm not willing to assume so in the absence of evidence.

Others are free to make that assumption, however.

Perhaps you missed the part of her bio where it says she was the Post's Washington Nationals beat reporter from 2014-2018. (Or, more likely, chose to ignore it.)

Is this a bit? Please tell me you're just doing a bit.

Or this part:

Education: Yale University, B.A. History and International Studies, Stanford University, Master's in Communication

The Washington Nationals ... as in the baseball team? :)

Like I said, I don't agree reporting on baseball games qualifies one to undertake original analysis on the sociology of political organizing, to build a particle accelerator, or to design a naval frigate.

• If this were Bob Woodward, Christiane Amanpour, or Hannah Arendt, I would accept her making an assertion like this without presenting any evidence (e.g. a quote from an academic or the citation of a data set) because of a demonstrated background and pedigree in political journalism that makes them a SME on the topic.
  
• If it's Perez Hilton, Samantha Ponder, or Chelsea Janes, I'm inclined to skepticism in the total absence of any evidence (e.g. a quote from an academic or the citation of a data set).

The basis of media literacy is critical evaluation of information presented.

Like I said, others are absolutely free to disagree. I love that we're able to share a rainbow of perspectives in this marketplace of ideas! Thanks, Sister Havana!

They only pick and choose a convenient narrative that will incite others to react, my opinion they are trying to gaslight others. And then retreat when called out on it.

I saw that, too.

Argumentum ad verecundiam would suggest we not use "authority" as evidence of fact, however, in this case I'm not even sure that someone having an M.A. degree in comms makes them on authority on the sociology of political organizing. And I'm not sure reporting on baseball games pushes her over the top.

I have better than an M.A. and I would not deign to present myself as able to undertake original analysis of an entirely separate discipline. I would feel qualified to source an expert or data set to support a conclusion but, of course, she didn't do that. She made the comment without evidence. Chelsea Janes having an M.A. degree in comms is, unfortunately, only proof that Chelsea Janes has an M.A. degree in comms. It's not evidence that 100% of the Divine Nine are currently organizing for Biden/Harris. That is an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims generally require extraordinary evidence; here we have no evidence of any kind.

Loving this discussion, gang! It's great to be able to bat around our different viewpoints like this!

I won't say that I have the expertise to "undertake original analysis on the sociology of political organizing" but I am going with my gut. If I were putting money down or staking my candidacy on a group of supporters, I would be all in for the Divine 9 over FIJI.

That's a fair and reasonable opinion to have. And you stated it fairly and reasonably, as an opinion, not as a scientific or quantitatively proved fact. +1

I was just about to write the same. There is STRONG support among the Divine Nine for the Biden/Harris ticket. FWIW, two of my FIJI friends are voting the Biden ticket, as well. When I picked up signs for my yard, both asked me to get one for each of them.

My son is a FIJI and he definitely isn't voting for the ticket that includes brother Mike Pence and the current President, whose sons are also FIJIs. Fraternal loyalty has its limits.

Agreed. I have twice had opportunities to vote for a member of my fraternity for public office and have voted "the other guy" each time.

I doubt 100% of FIJI are voting Trump-Pence as strongly as I doubt 100% of the Divine Nine are volunteering for Biden-Harris, as the Washington Post claimed without evidence.