Well here we are. Trump vs. Biden. Just under 5 months and it is election day.
Printable View
Well here we are. Trump vs. Biden. Just under 5 months and it is election day.
Whoa-OH, we're halfway the-ere!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk
The only question is, what will happen when trump gets re-elected after the inevitable, widespread voter fraud, fake news and dirty election tactics?
May you live in interesting times: Ancient chinese curse.
Few times more interesting than that of Paris Commune 2: Seattle Boogaloo.
Unless the electoral suppression/fraud is on a level heretofore unseen - which to be fair isn't an outside possibility - then there is a solid basis for projecting the election not even at the standard pre-pandemic 3-to-5-point Biden win, but as a genuine 10+-point blowout. If this happens it will be due to Trump's epic Idi Amin-tier maleficent sadomasochism.
This will be such an important election for the whole world, I cannot stress this enough. I don't think people have ever ever been so interested and invested in an American Presidential election.
Its also looking good for the Dems retaking the Senate, with Greenfield now polling ahead of Ernst. Would be pretty great if Ernst lost her seat. Even with Doug Jones losing his seat in Alabama, which is extremely likely to happen, it looks like it will be a 52-48 split in Dem favor. Fingers crossed. Qualifications aside, if Doug Jones became the new AG, as the optics of “I took your senate seat and now I’m taking your old AG seat” are hilarious.
I think there will be a lot of first-time voters in this election, particularly after the whole unrest in the past three weeks or so.
......as hackers all over the Soviet Union and China can attest to....:creep:Quote:
I don't think people have ever ever been so interested and invested in an American Presidential election.
https://projects.economist.com/us-20...cast/president
Economist gave a 98% chance to Democrats.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...eral/national/
Five Thirty Eight has it at 50.1 right now.
They said it was similar odds in 2016 too, though of course things are different now.
Not the least of which is that Fearless Leader is now the incumbent. The 'what have you done for me lately' mentality tends to prevail when voters go to the polls to elect a new prez. Folks who study that sort of thing repeatedly point this out. Not sayin' that it's an automatic for Biden. People at either end of the voter spectrum aren't going to change their opinion much, so it comes down to those in the center. SARS-2 is still going to be running rampant come November, and the economy will still be in the toilet if not headed straight for the sewer. So who's to blame? And just as important, who can fix it?Quote:
though of course things are different now.
There is however one significant difference, and it showed in the primary when Sanders lost so many votes he won back in 2016 - Hillary Clinton was really, really disliked by the general public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Biden on the other hand has a significant boost of appeal especially with moderates and with many Republicans as well.
270towin.com has it too close to call. While Trump would have to get more of the 86 votes they list as toss-ups than does Biden, the task is not impossible. Trump's disapproval rating is NOT at the lowest ebb of his Presidency and was, until the riots, actually rebounding positively during the Coronavirus re-opening phase efforts.
FL, NC, PA, WI are still too close to call and while MI is leaning Biden narrowly, Ohio is leaning Trump by a narrow margin. As a FL resident, I will tell you that a repeat of the Santoris victory margin by Trump in the upcoming general is a distinct possibility. Florida has been decided into the "red" column by a very few thousand votes on numerous occasions.
I think Wisconsin and Arizona are going blue this year but as for the rest, its anybody's game. I do however think that PA is looking more favorably than that map suggests since the polling average has been steady with Biden +5.6. An upset is always possible but its different this time around: Trump is the incumbent, Covid isnt going away any time soon, and the Sunbelt has seen a huge increase across the board, so the "botching the response" narrative is an easy one to push. Ive heard some people cautioning against becoming complacent, but Ive literally seen nobody being so.
Edit: I also wonder how Florida being ravaged by Covid will impact things. A backlash against the GOP for closing too slow/pushing reopening too soon? Drive turnout down? Fall into the sea finally? All three? Its 4.5 months to election so a lot can happen between now and then.
The RNC has announced its intent to recycle the 2016 Republican platform and Donald Trump's campaign site has no policy information. The precipitate of grievance has been achieved.
At his rally, an applause line.
The crowd goes wild.Quote:
Trump can never win less than 40% of the vote, but there just haven't been many indicators that there are quite enough degenerates to turn out for him. As I've continually reiterated, Trump mustn't lose any supporters on net merely in order to repeat a break-even Electoral College victory. It's unclear that there have been enough Republican "Never-Trump" converts over 3 years to make up for the documented drain of suburban support and among white and older demographics, and the reciprocal consolidation on the Democratic coalition. If there have not been, then a Trump reelection would be a mathematical improbability.
As to the point that Biden's leads in the swing states are statistically marginal, this is true. Yet at the same time the consistency of his polling leads to date puts Biden ahead of every other challenger since, ever? The only other incumbent presidents to mirror Trump's approval level around this time were Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush, to my knowledge. Will Trump be closing the gap soon?
The September polling during the official campaign season, post-conventions, will be the most probative. The government has ostensibly chosen death with regard to the pandemic and economic crisis, so we'll have to see the effects of that over the summer.
Just to be pedantic, his all-term peak was at the beginning of April. If you're referring to the most recent high, that was a week before the Floyd killing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The Dems have a lot of work to do. Just choosing an African American woman as a running mate isn't going to be enough, if this discussion is any indication:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...e-woods-325641
Quote:
Most of my audience was Black—save for a few white men with their collared shirts tucked into khakis—but this wasn’t the target demographic I had imagined for this article. These were professional, affluent Black people. These were Black people who spent Sunday afternoons sipping Mimosas and playing spades. These were Black people who were going to vote.
Quote:
Griffith will vote this November. But she isn’t excited about it. And truth be told, she doesn’t know anyone who is. “I bet our numbers come up, because nobody liked Hillary Clinton, but I don’t think they come up much. And I know they don’t get back to those record numbers from Obama,” Griffith said of Black voter turnout. “We look at Joe Biden and see more of the same. It’s about the era he came up. It’s about his identity—he’s a rich, old white man. What are his credentials to us, other than Obama picking him? It’s nice that he worked with Obama. But let’s keep it real: That was a political calculation. Obama thought he needed a white man to get elected, just like Biden thinks he needs a Black woman to get elected. We can see through that.”
Quote:
These sentiments resurfaced in almost every conversation I had. First, that Biden choosing a woman of color might actually irritate, not appease, Black voters. Second, that the inferno of June would flicker by summer’s end and fade entirely by November. And third, that Biden does little to inspire a wary Black electorate that views him as the status quo personified. It was thoroughly convincing. Here were high-information voters, giving their personal opinions while also analyzing the feeling of their community, all making the same points in separate conversations.
Quote:
“There’s no excitement for Biden,” Moore said. “Trump can get his people riled up. Biden can’t. That’s why there’s all this talk of putting a Black woman on the ticket. But that’s not going to help him win.” Sitting in a chair nearby, ERIC BENJAMIN snickered. “He’s just the lesser of two evils.”
Quote:
“Biden’s a politician, same as the rest of them, same as Trump. But at least with Trump you know where he stands,” he said. “If we were sitting here, me and you, and you’re pretending we’re friends, but then behind my back, you act like you don’t even know me, that’s the worst. I’d much rather you just tell me to my face that we’re not friends. That’s Trump. I respect that. The Democrats always be acting like we’re friends.”
Quote:
“Now, the Democratic Party takes us for granted. But it has always taken us for granted. So, it is what it is. But I’ll be for whoever is against Trump. Am I excited about Joe Biden? Is he going to make my life better? No. But I need to send a message that Trump is unacceptable.”
The cross-section of those at that gathering was interesting: an ex-cop, a couple of local magistrates, a retired school teacher, a couple of real-estate agents, and an ex-convict. Sleepy Joe better pay attention...:inquisitive:Quote:
If you talk to younger people, they’re not going to automatically look past his history just because he was Obama’s VP. And the party had better realize that. He had better realize that. You know, that stuff on ‘The Breakfast Club,’ suggesting we’ve got to vote for him because we’re Black—young people do not respond to that.” “Exactly,” Yancey said. “It’s not a question of them voting for Trump. It’s a question of them not voting at all.”
In the article they state that Biden should not have committed to picking a woman VP. I actually agree with that. This sounds harsh, but I dont think we are ready as a country for a woman on the ticket. The average American voter has too much unconscious sexism for that to happen. Like how people still ask if a woman is too emotional to lead which isnt only a dumb question since men get just as emotional, its also sexist as hell. And its sad.
Anyways, the most recent VP poll has the two front runners, Harris and Warren, with high unfavorables as they have favorables. And the rest of the people on the list are mostly unknowns with many of them having ~50% of respondents having no idea who they are. I really like Harris, I think shes very well spoken and very accomplished, Im just skeptical of her in the VP spot due to her record as DA/AG which has been overall good and progressive, but some dark spots that cloud her record and I think unfairly gives her a bad name. Plus as the article clearly states, probably not the best choice if you want to boost turnout in the Black community. To clarify though, I do think theres a lot of misinformation about her record but as we saw in 2016, it might be too much and hobble Biden's campaign. As the saying goes, "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on."
Personally I am rooting for Congresswoman Karen Bass who recently made the list as being vetted. Shes a great congresswoman, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, sits on Judiciary and Foreign Affairs, just a really great record all around. And none of the baggage that Harris or Val Demmings have in terms of law enforcement.
Anyways, the latest poll out from Siena College/The New York Times (A+ rating from 538) looks pretty good for the swing states, but not good enough:
Quote:
FLORIDA:
Biden 47% (+6)
Trump 41%
ARIZONA:
Biden 48% (+7)
Trump 41%
NORTH CAROLINA:
Biden 49% (+9)
Trump 40%
PENNSYLVANIA:
Biden 50% (+10)
Trump 40%
MICHIGAN:
Biden 47% (+11)
Trump 36%
WISCONSIN:
Biden 49% (+11)
Trump 38%
I disagree. Even Republicans are willing, remember Palin ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Wow, it's been a year-and-a-half but someone has decided Trump's was being excessively-naughty with the impoundment on another occasion.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...190949915.html
Quote:
A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against the administration of United States President Donald Trump in its transfer of $2.5bn from military construction projects to build sections of the US border wall with Mexico, ruling it illegally sidestepped Congress, which gets to decide how to use the funds.
That's a very pessimistic slice of the Black upper-middle class. As a focus group I'm not sure what it really tells us. In the end - correct me if I missed something - but every person the author interviewed there affirmed their vote for Biden in November.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
In the 2018 midterms black turnout was higher than it had been in perhaps generations. It's hard to imagine that relative enthusiasm would suddenly evaporate in a few months. And in the latest Siena/NYT poll (see also Hooah's post), the results are about as grim for Trump as they've ever been. In that poll, only 10% of black respondents - registered voters engaged enough to respond to a major poller, so comparable to the Politico piece's subjects - offered disapproval of Biden, compared to half of white respondents.
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/up...0_84731937.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/u...legrounds.html
It's not just that poll either. Polls for the past month have been overwhelmingly favorable to Biden, to the point of opening the possibility of a Democratic EC landslide.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-is-slipping/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...uld-disappear/
https://i.imgur.com/kLMRji1.png
https://i.imgur.com/VqefapX.png
https://i.imgur.com/wc1nubz.png
As Alex Burns puts it, "Biden isn’t ahead by double digits because of his own runaway popularity. It’s because he’s broadly acceptable as an alternative to a strongly disliked incumbent." It's the economy, stupid. And the pandemic, and the civil unrest, and all the crimes and scandals and failures piled atop each other like a chain of tortoises. Now, if all that shit costs Trump 5 percentage points off his baseline it's still a horrifying sign for our country, but as far as the election itself goes it's better news than most would have allowed one to contemplate as of a year ago.
[Interesting tangent: In the NYT poll above the disapproval for BLM is roughly the same - similarly low - as that for the police.]
All that I read suggested she prioritized adopting a more conservative law-and-order persona (and we know what that means) than was justified electorally, as may have been discussed here. One can weight different factors, or emphasize aspects of her more recent career trajectory, but overall I wouldn't call her LE record progressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Just because they too are willing doesnt mean it was a great idea electorally. Palin was a terrible terrible choice as we all know. But what I am trying to say is that woman candidates are largely still unfairly treated compared to male candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I think this take is missing major context of what was going on at the time and a "tough on crime" stance was electorally justified. In 2004 when she first took office as DA of San Francisco, they were in the middle of a major crime wave with a homicide rate of 11.57. By her last year in office, 2010, the homicide rate was 5.86. So basically cutting it in half. Her predecessor Terence Hallinan (who was regarded as super progressive) had a terrible conviction rate of just 50% which frankly means that he was pretty bad at his job. Harris on the other hand had a conviction rate of the mid to high 80 percentage range. But I digress. I can list you 40 different actions she's taken as either DA or AG that were pretty significant progressive initiatives. Things like the country's first Back on Track program that reduced recidivism and was later adopted by other jurisdictions across the country. As DA she created the LGBT Hate crimes unit, the environmental justice unit, and the child sexual assault unit. As AG, Harris created the Bureau of Children’s Justice; Division of Recidivism Reduction and Re-Entry; Mortgage Fraud Strike Force; Human Trafficking Work Group; Racial & Identity Profiling Advisory Board; eCrime Unit; Privacy Enforcement & Protection Unit. The list goes on and on if you want me to expand on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Of course there will be missteps. Nobody in the DA or AG position has a spotless record. I think it comes with the territory. For example, progressive Keith Ellison is the current AG of Minnesota and we all know whats been going on there. Where I think Harris tends to trip up on is explaining some of the actions shes taken. Like let's take the whole truancy thing. Despite being on the books as a law since the 70's, shes still being criticized for it even though a lot of those criticisms are being made with incorrect or missing information. But the thing is, studies show that fighting truancy helps kids stay in school which then helps prevent them from ending up in prison or worse. In SF, 94% of homicide victims under the age of 25 were dropouts. Where Harris was involved was refining the current law to make it so the school district could better identify at-risk children and find the best times to intervene to make sure they stayed in school. It wasnt about throwing parents in jail, it was about making sure that schools, students, and parents had the resources to fix the truancy issue with harsher penalties only being used as a last resort. But the narrative is already past this sort of explanation and I think a big part of it is Harris' inability to effectively counter these sorts of misconceptions. That being said, I do think she is the frontrunner for the VP spot (its clear she really wants it despite being the best at hiding it *cough cough Stacey Abrams*) since shes the only one who seems to be doing events with not only Joe, but his wife and top advisors too. So I guess we will see in the next month who gets picked in the end but my money is on Harris.
Pessimistic...yes. Every interviewee voting for Biden...yes. But my main take was for all those blacks who won't vote at all because as a 78 year-old, rich white man, Biden is just 'more of the same'.:shrug:Quote:
That's a very pessimistic slice of the Black upper-middle class. As a focus group I'm not sure what it really tells us. In the end - correct me if I missed something - but every person the author interviewed there affirmed their vote for Biden in November.
Same question can be asked about how many young people wont vote for the same reason. Or how many Hispanics, Asians, etc. I dont think its a question that pertains only to one demographic. But at the same time how many are voting for him because hes a fundamentally decent person, especially with the dumpster fire thats been going on in the White House for the past 3.5 years? One moment that stands out to me is his interaction at the New York Times with Jacquelyn, the elevator operator. The video of that encounter had 6 times more views than the video the NYT put out about the candidates they did endorse, Warren and Klobuchar. Of course he wont be pleasing everyone. I think its unrealistic to expect that any candidate this cycle would. There was no Obama-level candidate despite the huge field. But I think a lot of people underestimate the appeal of a compassionate leader who has known great personal loss at a time when the whole nation is going through great loss. So no, Biden most likely wont be an agent of huge change and I think he will only serve the one term. But I do think he will stabilize things and make the ground fertile for better Dem candidates to succeed moving forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
White supremacist officers fired over genocidal rantings. There's a recording out there too.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/bu...243779512.html
":daisy: Negro magistrate" etc.Quote:
Three members of a North Carolina police department have been fired after a department audit of a video recording captured one of the officers saying a civil war was necessary to wipe Black people off the map and that he was ready.
[...]
At the 46-minute mark of the video, Piner and Gilmore began talking from their respective cars, at which time Piner criticized the department, saying its only concern was “kneeling down with the black folks.” About 30 minutes later, Piner received a phone call from Moore, according to the investigation, a segment in which Moore referred to a Black female as a “negro.” He also referred to the woman by using a racial slur. He repeated the use of the slur in describing a Black magistrate, and Moore used a gay slur to describe the magistrate as well.
Later, according to the investigation, Piner told Moore that he feels a civil war is coming and that he is ready. Piner said he was going to buy a new assault rifle, and soon “we are just going to go out and start slaughtering them (expletive)” Blacks. “I can’t wait. God, I can’t wait.” Moore responded that he wouldn’t do that.
Piner then told Moore that he felt a civil war was needed to “wipe them off the (expletive) map. That’ll put them back about four or five generations.” Moore told Piner he was “crazy,” and the recording stopped a short time later.
I really don't want to refresh myself on a topic that is now moribund, but to preface with my take from 1.5 years ago:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
1. The instinct toward caution that Harris and many other Democrats have displayed with respect to electoral politics was IMO not indicated for the constituencies Harris sought to represent at the time she did, smounting IOW to over-cautiousness.Quote:
The clip is somewhat-dishonestly presented. She's not hailing the threat delivered - which would make her look like a Saturday-morning cartoon villain - she's expressing pride that the mother was found, so that she could be offered services and the children placed in school.
Stick with the good point that the immediate and only response in that case should have been the provision of services; the threat of criminal liability should (almost?) never play a role.
The "evil cop" narrative is silly. Her record is mixed (no innuendo intended), but from what I've seen she's certainly been one of the more liberal DAs in the country (not sure as compared to blue states). Not liberal enough for you, or you don't think she'll change to be liberal enough if promoted to President? Fine. But don't fall for mischaracterizations her past.
2. That's a list of offices, some of which have no political valence, without reference to results or practices. In what sense was Harris progressive according to some independent, or even contextual, metrics of progressive law enforcement (to the extent one accepts such a thing can exist)? The benchmark should not be 'less punitive than the most traditionally conservative Democratic DAs or AGs in the country,' such as the Queens County DA or (so I heard) the Oregon AG - or else everyone becomes almost definitionally progressive.
3. Other than the multiple parents prosecuted, the truancy policy of threatening parents was overall not overtly harmful beyond the psychological component (!), but the justice system did not offer material assistance to parents who needed it (e.g. addressing problems leading to childrens' nonattendance) because social services are outside the justice system's remit; it does not determine what services are available nor provision them, though it can integrate administratively to some extent with what is available. That situation is a failure of state and society that Harris had no control over, but critics have contended it would have been better for her not to use the coercive nature of her office at all in the way she did. She certainly had the discretion to avoid the big stick.
4. Part of her cautiousness manifested in the admittedly-near universal habit of avoiding interfering with constituencies more powerful than poor minorities. Compare:
Quote:
While the Attorney General has made it clear that consumer protection and application transparency are top priorities for her office, Harris pointed out that her office seeks not to aggressively go after all application developers with a “big stick,” but rather make sure that application developers are knowledgeable of what the law is and are empowered to take steps to make sure they are compliant with the law.
A useful lens would be to reckon with which of Harris' dispositions in DA and AG offices should be considered substandard in all blue states today, including to Harris herself.Quote:
In San Francisco, we threatened the parents of truants with prosecution, and truancy dropped 32 percent. So, we are putting parents on notice. If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.
Of course that is a narrative frame that will influence the behavior of some, but what are you comparing to?Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
In 1964, black turnout was 58.5% according to this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/u...nd-beyond.html
That was the presidential election in which the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act were on the line, at the height of the civil rights movement in the country. Here is Census Population Survey dataset on black turnout in recent elections, back to 1986. I'll refer to the overreport-correction weighting (presidential in bold).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...ecY/edit#gid=0
1986: 35.8%
1988: 46.8%
1990: 33.0%
1992: 50.6%
1994: 33.2%
1996: 48.1%
1998: 36.0%
2000: 52.9%
2002: 37.7%
2004: 61.4%
2006: 36.6%
2008: 69.1%
2010: 41.6%
2012: 67.4%
2014: 36.4%
2016: 59.9%
2018: 51.3%
Presidential Average: 57% (2004-16 pres elections higher than average; 1964 too, but I don't have data on hand for other elections prior to 1986)
Midterm Average: 38% (only 2010 and 2018 above average)
Black turnout in 2016 was about the same as in 1964, and in 2018 it was potentially the highest ever for a midterm. We can't judge these things against some hypothetical super-Obama Mr. Unbeatable pulling 80% turnout.
More than being turned off or unenthused by any particular candidate, our concern about black turnout should be centered around the intense and continual suppression, which we know manifests when Republicans control the electoral infrastructure, of eligible black people who would like to vote.
I agree with this take.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I listed the offices as broader progressive (at the time) initiatives she put in place but I can certainly give concrete examples: as Deputy DA she fought against Proposition 21 which would have increased criminal penalties against crimes committed by children; as DA she created the first Back on Track re-entry program as I mentioned earlier; as DA refused to seek the death penalty even when pressured by other Dems; as DA worked to get the first safe house in SF for girls who wanted out of the sex trade; again as DA she changed how underage men/women were treated in cases of prostitution from criminals to victims; as AG she refused to defend Proposition 8 (the anti-gay marriage law and her actions led to Hollingsworth v. Perry which overturned Prop 8); as AG she issued guidance to state LE to track and report civilian complaints alleging racial profiling as well as collect data when the use of force was involved; created the first of its kind LE training that focused on implicit bias training; mandated body cameras for DOJ personnel in the field; arranged law firms to provide pro-bono legal services to unaccompanied children crossing the border. I can go on.Quote:
2. That's a list of offices, some of which have no political valence, without reference to results or practices. In what sense was Harris progressive according to some independent, or even contextual, metrics of progressive law enforcement (to the extent one accepts such a thing can exist)? The benchmark should not be 'less punitive than the most traditionally conservative Democratic DAs or AGs in the country,' such as the Queens County DA or (so I heard) the Oregon AG - or else everyone becomes almost definitionally progressive.
Was she perfect? Was she 100% progressive? Hell no. She opposed legalizing marijuana nor did she back an initiative to have independent investigations into police shootings during her time as DA and AG. As a senator shes changed her positions on those issues and has become way more progressive. But as DA/AG she was, to a point, progressive, especially for those times and saying that she wasnt I think does a disservice to the gains made under her watch. And applying purity politics to someone who has valuable insight into how the justice system works I think does a greater disservice to the cause, especially if that person is willing to own up to their mistakes and fix them going forward.
As AG, Harris created the Bureau of Children’s Justice which formed private/public partnerships to increase resources available to educators and parents to reduce truancy and was successful at that. Of course her office wasnt personally able to step in and help parents in need, but thats why the partnership was created to work with the education department. Some cases do need a big stick unfortunately. I am lucky that my parents valued my education and stayed on top of me and my schooling. However I have friends whose parents were far more lax, and skipping school for them was no big deal and that showed. In more extreme cases I could see how the threat of persecution could help make the parents care.Quote:
3. Other than the multiple parents prosecuted, the truancy policy of threatening parents was overall not overtly harmful beyond the psychological component (!), but the justice system did not offer material assistance to parents who needed it (e.g. addressing problems leading to childrens' nonattendance) because social services are outside the justice system's remit; it does not determine what services are available nor provision them, though it can integrate administratively to some extent with what is available. That situation is a failure of state and society that Harris had no control over, but critics have contended it would have been better for her not to use the coercive nature of her office at all in the way she did. She certainly had the discretion to avoid the big stick.
Its hard to tell. In that same speech you linked to she said she was going to go aggressively after perpetrators of mortgage fraud (which she did). During her tenure she also went after eBay, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, Volkswagen, and Bank of America for various violations. So I think the characterization that she went soft on rich constituents is not a correct one.Quote:
4. Part of her cautiousness manifested in the admittedly-near universal habit of avoiding interfering with constituencies more powerful than poor minorities.
This is a fair take, and Harris herself has said that there would be things she would have done differently now and she has become more progressive as a senator since then. Actually if statistical rankings mean anything, shes one of the most progressive senators we got. Anyways my overarching point wasnt that she had a flawless or super progressive record, it was that for the time it was a decently progressive record. Of course it wouldnt be considered that progressive today, because as a country our attitudes have changed even just over the past 4 years. But if we look at everything through the lens of today, we are going to be toppling statues of Lincoln. Which apparently people now are trying to do which is just... ugh.Quote:
A useful lens would be to reckon with which of Harris' dispositions in DA and AG offices should be considered substandard in all blue states today, including to Harris herself.
Exactly this. Case in point, the shenanigans going on in Georgia. The primary was just a practice run.Quote:
More than being turned off or unenthused by any particular candidate, our concern about black turnout should be centered around the intense and continual suppression, which we know manifests when Republicans control the electoral infrastructure, of eligible black people who would like to vote.
Agreed.Quote:
Same question can be asked about how many young people wont vote for the same reason. Or how many Hispanics, Asians, etc. I dont think its a question that pertains only to one demographic.
Trump would cut off his hand before he ever did anything like that:shrug:Quote:
One moment that stands out to me is his interaction at the New York Times with Jacquelyn, the elevator operator.
Like maybe this:Quote:
More than being turned off or unenthused by any particular candidate, our concern about black turnout should be centered around the intense and continual suppression, which we know manifests when Republicans control the electoral infrastructure, of eligible black people who would like to vote.
https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1275557397042548737
Scroll down to the door banging cuts...
...although they were eventually let in:embarassed:
Couldn't find those, but the replies I saw make me want to claw my eyes out. With hashtags such as #MaskFascists saying it is a conspiracy to get everyone in masks with taglines of "healthy people don't spread disease, no masks" etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
I believe you have to expand the original discussion by clicking the 'view more replies' link. I tried it again and got the video of voters banging on the polling site doors to be let in (and for some reason you have to scroll back to the top) , which is what I was trying to highlight:shrug:
And there is THE problem. I wonder how those same people would feel if surgeons in an operating room wore no mask? I also have to wonder how these same people feel about having to wear a seat belt while driving a vehicle? They save lives, as do masks, but there's no hashtag rebellion that I know of to ban their use!?!Quote:
With hashtags such as #MaskFascists saying it is a conspiracy to get everyone in masks with taglines of "healthy people don't spread disease, no masks" etc.
:rolleyes:
Suspect you mean these two messages:Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
"Door banging getting really aggressive now:"
"The scene right outside the locked doors in Louisville:"
Yes. :2thumbsup:
Rumor has it that if his poll numbers keep falling Trump could drop out of the race. Like this guy says though, I am skeptical. But say he does for "health reasons" or some other excuse, would the GOP run Pence or someone else? I could see one of the Trump kids stepping up to keep the Trump/Pence thing going. Plus with a cult around Trump Im not entirely sure that everyone would follow Pence. But that would probably be balanced out with a stronger showing of evangelicals.
It won't happen. Handing the nomination to his son is tantamount to hereditary dictatorship which would cause many to either cut loose or fight within the party. For as much as political actors within the GOP treat Trump as a cult of personality, political actors inherently have a personal path to power they wish to obtain. Centralized power within a family can only be maintained through force or religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Yes it would be like a hereditary dictatorship, but this is the GOP we are talking about. They will toss democracy if they felt it suited them. I cant remember exactly when this was but a poll taken over the past year with potential 2024 candidates ranked had Don Jr in the #1 spot. Their trend towards autocracy is worrisome to say the least.
Sad and absolutely, frickin' hilarious:
https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/s...65068048158720
As one commenter put it---AntiqueFa.
~D.....:shame:
I greatly doubt his ego and the perquisites of the presidency will be overridden by the desire to quit (though of course Trump is notorious for cutting his losses when he fails). This is a pretty unique situation, but in the end his office is what gives him his (in his mind) absolute authority. He won't drop it just because he feels bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Best case, Trump runs from prison in 2024 like an anti-Debs, splits the GOP ticket like a Roosevelt, and his idiot children subsequently take up the mantle of driving the national party's elections into the ground.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Some needed context on the situation in Kentucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
We're still ~4 months out so a lot can still change in ways we probably cant fathom right now (it is 2020 after all) but should his polling remain where it is now or worse, the scenario I envision is that he resigns for "medical reasons" so he can save face by saying that he quit before he could lose the election and later spin some yarn about stepping down for the good of the country. If he does quit I dont think he would ever run again (he can then claim he is undefeated), but he would prop up one of his sons or proteges in congress one day (presidential candidate Matt Gaetz *shudder*).Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
They will toss Democracy for everyone else. I am specifically talking about the internal political structure of the GOP. Republicans have no problem with a single party dictatorship as long as they as an individual have a path to party leadership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Don Jr. is an idiot and is not a good politician, it chafes current conservatives to work under his father, why would they willingly be led by Don the II.
Sure but since when has the internal GOP power structure been good at opposing anyone from within? I have zero confidence they learned anything from 2016 considering almost every single prominent Republican who opposed Trump in 2016 is now a lapdog. I dont think the GOP base would care if Don Jr was a good politician, his dad sure ain't. Good at campaigning sure, but at anything else he fails. All Don Jr needs is his dad to stump for him which Im sure he'd be glad to do in order to continue the Trump name. Or for Ivanka. You are right that one of the kids probably wont ascend after their dad, but I can definitely see them playing a prominent role within the party itself in some form or another. As the story goes, if Trump lost in 2016 he was going to create a news network and feature prominently in it and I could see that path being taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Point taken.Quote:
Some needed context on the situation in Kentucky.
Lawyers, Guns and Money? So Kirkland & Ellis meets NRA meets Wall Street....:quiet:
As Monty noted, I have little or no doubt that Trump will continue his bid for a second term. He was the underdog in 2016 and I suspect he believes that he can repeat that performance yet again. He is NOT a scientific campaigner; he goes with his gut.
That said, if he DOES drop out prior to the convention, then the delegates would be committed to vote for him anyway on the first ballot. He would then be offered the nomination. Were he to refuse, it would go to open balloting on the floor.
If he has been nominated and has accepted, but then drops out after the convention has been adjourned, the RNC committee members would meet to decide a new nominee voting, the for the appropriate number of delegates in their jurisdiction by proxy (no re-assembly of the convention would be made). They would be free to choose whomever they saw fit as long as a majority of those proxy votes supported the nomination and that nominee agreed to run.
A winner has finally been called in the KY Dem primary, with McGrath eking out a win. I was rooting for Booker since it seemed like he was the favorite of actual Kentucky Dems plus I just dont think that McGrath is a very good campaigner at all (and I like Booker more personally). But lets be honest here, neither of them were going to win against McConnell, but I do hope that Booker goes on to challenge Rand Paul in 2022 since Paul is just a gigantic all-around moron. At least McGrath and her massive amount of funding will hopefully tie up McConnell's resources. But mark my words, Booker is one to watch for the future, I have really high hopes for him.
Its exactly 4 months until the general election. Things are only going to get crazier as a rumor comes that GOP leadership is giving Trump until Labor Day to "turn things around" and if not, he's on his own. I think this rumor is utter :daisy:, the GOP is too intertwined with Trumpworld to cut it loose. They had their chance to cut themselves loose of Trump with impeachment and they failed miserably. No reason to think they wont go down with the ship even as his polling keeps dropping. Also didnt they say something similar in 2016 after the Access Hollywood tape?
A slight chance perhaps with a first day pardon for dear old Donald after he's pardoned everyone else on the last day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
~:smoking:
So because this timeline is the dumbest timeline, Kanye West is claiming hes running for president. I'm pretty sure he's just saying this to stir up controversy/get in the news cycle but who knows, he's similar to Trump in the sense that he has delusions of grandeur.
Obviously this means that Biden needs to pick Taylor Swift as VP.
https://giphy.com/gifs/taylor-swift-...oVKDYkme6xfmdGhttps://media.giphy.com/media/l4EoVK...fmdG/giphy.gif
He's got an album coming out, so it's probably just for publicity. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Oh I am 95% sure that this is the case too. Especially since for the states in which the filing deadline hasnt passed yet, he would need literally thousands of signatures to get on the ballot to run as an independent. In Florida he would need over 130,000 signatures. But even if he just pushes for a write-in campaign I think its not going to hurt Biden or Trump as it feels like the only people who would vote for him are the ones who werent planning on voting for either main party anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Csargo
Also didnt he do this in 2016 too?
Yeah, I don't think it he actual said it in 2016 but sort of hinted at running iirc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Well I'll believe Kanye when he actually files so :shrug:
They delayed counting the absentee ballots in the New York Democratic primary, originally July 1, now set to begin 2 weeks after election day (June 23) fhsdgegagahrgek
November is going to be pure sex in this country.
Granted that New York is neither a battleground state nor has extensive experience handling mail ballots, but I wonder how the midwestern and southern states that matter will operationalize.
On an interesting note from available non-mail returns, a substantial proportion of the ballot decisions on the presidential primary left the party delegate section blank (on the New York ballot you vote for the candidate and for the delegates who would vote for them at the DNC). I can't comment on the significance of that since for all I know it happens that way every presidential primary, but it does suggest to me a measure of contempt for the system of voting both for party candidates (directly) and for party electors pledged to vote for those candidates at the party convention.
White House Trade and Manufacturing Policy director and assistant to the president Navarro with the white supremacy foghorn
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1279142640055812096 [VIDEO]
Quote:
Navarro: They spawned the virus, they hid the virus, they send hundreds of thousands of Chinese nationals over here to seed and spread the virus
The GOP elites may very well be pressuring Trump, but it is a bluff and one that even Trump should be able to see.
I have a feeling that we might not know who won the election for a week at least after especially in states where it might be very close like Florida or Pennsylvania.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
I believe Santoris should ask for special funding to set up the re-count and pay for it NOW -- it is foregone that it will be required.
I am predicting Trump takes Florida by fewer than 10k.
Damnit.
Why? Biden is showing a great lead. The two latest polls that show a more even matchup are both rated C- by 538. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...neral/florida/Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
A- polls show Biden with a clear lead.
I'll be far more interested in what the polls in Florida have to say in early August when the death toll from the current COVID wildfire there gets logged:inquisitive:
So far, the toll is falling heaviest among Dem districts. Though there are a lot of "purple" swaths in Florida.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
Very interesting cohort survey that suggests the toll of CV19 on a county is correlated with reductions of support for Donald Trump, also implicating the increasingly-evident shift among older Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
When the vast majority of new cases are coming out of red states, or even red counties, and concentrated in swing states like Florida, Arizona, and *gulp* Texas, then Trump has a lot to worry about this summer.
It is rather macabre that Trump's most ardent supporters may be enhancing their chances to die just prior to the election as an expression of their support for Trump (not masking, refusing to social distance, etc.). It could even affect the margins in states such as Florida and North Carolina where the margins are thin.
Not sure if this is something Sartrean or more like Poe would have written...
This is unrelated to thread topic, but we still got 4 months to go so it's meh right now. I've been thinking of what I would promise when running for local government given the current climate of US politics and the fact I have been hopping around from purple district to purple district, following work.
The US is really in need of new ideas and while I myself identify as a Progressive or maybe a very left Neoliberal, it's been difficult to really expand my mind's horizon of what is possible besides mainly data driven, targeted neoliberal reforms. Big ideas are just as likely to get sabotaged 5-8 years down the line as they are to fail before they even get to the presidents desk. My way of thinking is perhaps Democrats and the left in general need to be more clever and pursue policies in the background that mainly improve the efficiency and outputs of government so we can change the social meme of government being naturally ineffective and wasteful. But how would I do that on a city level?
There are some ideas I have kicking around like transitioning to an LVT and repealing NIMBY laws to allow medium density, mixed residential/commercial zoning...but I am afraid whether we are at the point that any and all reform is now painted as a 'leftist' policy. For example, Republican commenters in the local papers make it clear that the expectation in the wrongful application of police force is not to rectify with any policies but to demand that people's expectations of what is proper compliance needs to shift to what the most hawkish law enforcement imagine it to be. This move of the GOP to go from a right-wing liberal party to a nationalist reactionary party has really set us up for the culture wars Fox News has been raving about for decades.
That's the Democratic party brand, it's what they already do.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Sorry, did I say brand? :mean:
The Holy Grail of leftist ideology is really to create a sort of perpetual motion machine by empowering the "common person" to self-radicalize and self-organize, which grassroots we know by now was the engine of social democracy and civil rights around the world in the 20th century (as compared to top-down action alone). Neoliberals and technocrats in a meta-sense are perhaps too focused on what they might accomplish with dictation, but that is clearly a vulnerable strategy even when at its best (and when it's not at its best it reproduces many of the social flaws carried over by the agents, or just results in outright bad or damaging policy).
Culture war is a long-term move that began at least with the Birchers and patriarchal reactionary evangelicals in the 50s, make no mistake.Quote:
This move of the GOP to go from a right-wing liberal party to a nationalist reactionary party has really set us up for the culture wars Fox News has been raving about for decades.
Anyway, socialists are gaining an increasing presence in city governments across the country today, so adjusting for local conditions I'm not sure how scared you ought to be of Republican op-eds. Even in Seattle, Amazon won the battle against the head tax in 2018 but in the subsequent election it lost the war and now an even higher tax is being imposed. If you really want a taste of power do the research on your target jurisdiction, the target office, and on what makes an effective political campaign.
Hmm, they do a tremendous job of not promoting that aspect. On the national level it is hard to really shake the assertion that Democrats love to bring attention to Big Bills once they are in power and spend everything they have on these Big Bills. Both Obama and Clinton would have done better to spend their political capital on less controversial, efficiency driven improvements rather than harping on universal health care for the past 30 years. Even now there is no clear path to universal health care, assuming Biden gets everything he is promising. So what exactly have Dems done, cause as far as I can tell the Veterans are still struggling to get healthcare, the Post Office is broke, funding for research and development in some fields is not being expanded, and the IRS is still trying to move beyond computers older than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
There are already plenty of radicalized socialists spending all their time talking theory over the internet, radicalizing other people. They never leave their room though, so there is a missing component beyond being part of a grassroots organization. Anyone can stand in a march with friends for a day. Some can march in the streets for a few weeks. Few actually carry out their lives as political agents, despite the strength of their opinions.Quote:
The Holy Grail of leftist ideology is really to create a sort of perpetual motion machine by empowering the "common person" to self-radicalize and self-organize, which grassroots we know by now was the engine of social democracy and civil rights around the world in the 20th century (as compared to top-down action alone). Neoliberals and technocrats in a meta-sense are perhaps too focused on what they might accomplish with dictation, but that is clearly a vulnerable strategy even when at its best (and when it's not at its best it reproduces many of the social flaws carried over by the agents, or just results in outright bad or damaging policy).
I don't think the situation we find ourselves in was part of anyone's Grand Plan. Evangelicals of the 1950s would have balked if you said they would be defending someone with the record of Donald Trump.Quote:
Culture war is a long-term move that began at least with the Birchers and patriarchal reactionary evangelicals in the 50s, make no mistake.
Even slight degrees of public attention can change things, especially on the local level, even more especially for purple districts.Quote:
Anyway, socialists are gaining an increasing presence in city governments across the country today, so adjusting for local conditions I'm not sure how scared you ought to be of Republican op-eds. Even in Seattle, Amazon won the battle against the head tax in 2018 but in the subsequent election it lost the war and now an even higher tax is being imposed. If you really want a taste of power do the research on your target jurisdiction, the target office, and on what makes an effective political campaign.
My understanding is that socialists continue to lose on national and state levels in primaries or in the general elections when compared to moderates and neoliberals. It's great if progress is made within cities, but those by definition are the easy pickings for a socialist candidate, once in the suburbs and rural areas they seem to fall apart although I can't explain why.
Really? One of the major left criticisms of the Democratic Party is exactly that it doesn't publicize it's accomplishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
For example (read a couple pages):
https://books.google.com/books?id=oi...page&q&f=false
Uh, the ACA? I think you may be talking about something else. You're not referring to how Democrats advertise/message their record in government, but on their framing of tentpole priorities in elections?Quote:
Both Obama and Clinton would have done better to spend their political capital on less controversial, efficiency driven improvements rather than harping on universal health care for the past 30 years.
Incremental improvements. :shrug:Quote:
So what exactly have Dems done, cause as far as I can tell the Veterans are still struggling to get healthcare, the Post Office is broke, funding for research and development in some fields is not being expanded, and the IRS is still trying to move beyond computers older than me.
That's why one priority is reestablishing labor militancy, since labor is both a major component of people's lives and a locus of the expression of power in real-time.Quote:
There are already plenty of radicalized socialists spending all their time talking theory over the internet, radicalizing other people. They never leave their room though, so there is a missing component beyond being part of a grassroots organization. Anyone can stand in a march with friends for a day. Some can march in the streets for a few weeks. Few actually carry out their lives as political agents, despite the strength of their opinions.
Maybe not if they saw the man firsthand, since ultimately Trump really is an expression of everything they admire (ignore what they claim to admire, that's always been a put-on). It's not a conspiracy dude, it's just ideology congealing over time. You really have to understand the deep movements and philosophies influencing the Republican Party and its base over the past century if you want to understand the past decade.Quote:
I don't think the situation we find ourselves in was part of anyone's Grand Plan. Evangelicals of the 1950s would have balked if you said they would be defending someone with the record of Donald Trump.
Well, I'm not sure there have been many socialist candidates trying to run in rural areas. The bench isn't exactly unlimited or evenly spread across the country, so putative electoral support isn't the only limiting factor. Here's a relevant article.Quote:
Even slight degrees of public attention can change things, especially on the local level, even more especially for purple districts.
My understanding is that socialists continue to lose on national and state levels in primaries or in the general elections when compared to moderates and neoliberals. It's great if progress is made within cities, but those by definition are the easy pickings for a socialist candidate, once in the suburbs and rural areas they seem to fall apart although I can't explain why.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/onli...-rural-america
The most important thing is not to run a shitty campaign (e.g. Eliot Engel), after that your program or ideology is almost an afterthought. On the local level retail politics and institutional cooperation (e,g. endorsements) is key.
I will take a read, maybe my perception is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The ACA can be said to be an improvement in the sense that more people are now covered under private health insurance...but as far getting to end goal, this ended up being a terrible waste of effort. Midterm backlash, catering to private insurance companies, lack of public option. Then the inevitable sabotage from SCOTUS (either that or Robert's had to toss the whole thing) which allowed much of the Medicaid expansion to be withheld by GOP Governors. Then the GOP removed the mandate which was one of the key components of the policy, and basically tinkered with the requirements for coverage to the point where I don't know how well of a metric insurance coverage even is anymore.Quote:
Uh, the ACA? I think you may be talking about something else. You're not referring to how Democrats advertise/message their record in government, but on their framing of tentpole priorities in elections?
Yeah I think I am more talking about priorities. It's not so much "let's upgrade department infrastructure and increase R&D to maintain competitive advantages" it's "we need to dismantle entire systems and we promise that the replacement will be better". Whether or not you actually agree the gov can and will do some things better, it feels like Dems are always asking for these priorities and big issues to be accepted on faith that execution will go well.
But improvements could have been much better and less costly to achieve, I think.Quote:
Incremental improvements. :shrug:
What does leftist theory say about the acceptance of militarist mentality among manufacturing vs service vs other types of jobs.Quote:
That's why one priority is reestablishing labor militancy, since labor is both a major component of people's lives and a locus of the expression of power in real-time.
I think that could be said on any level. Bernie certainly could have used some of the endorsements he threw away. I'm not a campaign manager, but to my eyes it seems it comes down to voter engagement and turnout, at least for a purple/swing district. Finding friends in the establishment is probably the way to go for NYC where a single party is dominant.Quote:
Well, I'm not sure there have been many socialist candidates trying to run in rural areas. The bench isn't exactly unlimited or evenly spread across the country, so putative electoral support isn't the only limiting factor. Here's a relevant article.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/onli...-rural-america
The most important thing is not to run a shitty campaign (e.g. Eliot Engel), after that your program or ideology is almost an afterthought. On the local level retail politics and institutional cooperation (e,g. endorsements) is key.
The point is that the Obama Dems (and I believe pre-Obama as well) were very reluctant to 'toot their own horn' or emphasize what government was accomplishing for people, believing either that it would be unseemly and counterproductive to do so, or that people would just recognize good government on their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Well, it includes regulatory improvements relating to scope, quality, or reliability of coverage. And of course Medicaid expansion, though I grant that in theory a Medicaid expansion would be an easier 'lift' than the ACA package - but then again just look at the recent history of Republican opposition to Democratic priorities. So does it really make sense to charge Obama with trying to deliver less than the ACA? Since that is what is implied by prioritizing lower-profile and more targeted policies. Obama gained 60 votes for the ACA, but he should have settled for 60 votes for just Medicaid??? Or Bill Clinton, who passed what he did with the votes he had, and it's far from clear that he would have accomplished more or better by being less ambitious.Quote:
The ACA can be said to be an improvement in the sense that more people are now covered under private health insurance
TBH the only available venue for sub rosa tinkering is the executive or judiciary, and both branches have processes that are protracted and detailed, with many opportunities for public apprehension.
Whatever your theory is, it doesn't seem relevant.
It turned out the mandate, one of the most legacy-Republican ideas in the ACA, wasn't worth jack, so whatever. The most deleterious development surrounding the mandate is that it has been and still is used by Republicans as a lever to try to get the whole program declared unconstitutional.Quote:
Then the GOP removed the mandate which was one of the key components of the policy,
For most people the coverage standards and subsidies still apply, you're thinking of a small minority of plans on the exchanges for "catastrophic" insurance that have been promoted and authorized by the Trump admin.Quote:
and basically tinkered with the requirements for coverage to the point where I don't know how well of a metric insurance coverage even is anymore.
No one actually cares to hear "let's upgrade department infrastructure and increase R&D to maintain competitive advantages", it's already part of what Biden is saying, and "we need to dismantle entire systems and we promise that the replacement will be better" is not something you ever hear from Dems at the presidential level other than Sanders. Maybe Kucinich or Dean were like that, I don't know anything about their rhetoric. I just don't accept your characterization of the Democratic Party as it is.Quote:
Yeah I think I am more talking about priorities. It's not so much "let's upgrade department infrastructure and increase R&D to maintain competitive advantages" it's "we need to dismantle entire systems and we promise that the replacement will be better". Whether or not you actually agree the gov can and will do some things better, it feels like Dems are always asking for these priorities and big issues to be accepted on faith that execution will go well.
As I was saying, there just isn't evidence for this, that adopting the least-ambitious platforms would generate greater electoral success at any point in recent history.Quote:
But improvements could have been much better and less costly to achieve, I think.
Here is the Dukakis platform from 1988.
http://www.4president.org/brochures/...88brochure.htm
I don't know what you mean by "militarist mentality," but what you'll generally hear from the intersectional left today is that the women and POC of the service sector are the "real" modern working class.Quote:
What does leftist theory say about the acceptance of militarist mentality among manufacturing vs service vs other types of jobs.
The more culturally-conservative anti-anti-Trump horseshoe theory kind of leftists might be more bullish about the white working class (WWC), but they seem moribund to me.
Uh, sure. But orgs and endorsements on the local level are important not just because they can give you money - which of course you probably also need - but because they can activate the networks of people that they mediate. At the local level people are also especially likely to be checking endorsement lists because they have no idea otherwise who the candidates are; this person is supported by the NRA, this person is supported by a teacher's association, etc.Quote:
I think that could be said on any level. Bernie certainly could have used some of the endorsements he threw away. I'm not a campaign manager, but to my eyes it seems it comes down to voter engagement and turnout, at least for a purple/swing district. Finding friends in the establishment is probably the way to go for NYC where a single party is dominant.
I mean at this point a Biden win is a foregone conclusion.
What we are looking at now is who he surrounds himself with to pull the levers. Will it be the "Bernie" wing or the "Biden" wing?
Just to quickly jump in, check out the revamped climate action plan produced by the Sanders-Biden unity committee. As Eric Levitz points out, a moderate presidential candidate doesn't tack left during the (effectively) general election, having defeated his leftist challenger, unless he puts stock in the substance of the policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I thought Brexit II was a foregone loss. It turned into a landslide and reinforced Brexit. Now they have more COVID cases in UK than USA.
Like a herd animal, right wingers keep their identity publicly quiet hence polls around the world being skewed to the left, also right wingers vote as a herd.
Left wing is like a bag of cats, so I expect a lot of hissing and scratching and then a lot of protest votes. Donkey votes match the mascot after all.
I mean, Labour started the 2019 election season about 10 points behind in polling, were about 10 points behind on election day, and secured 32.1% to 43.6% at the ballot box.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
There's just not much evidence for the second sentence that I can identify, past or present. Now, it's possible that in the future all our cohort of old right-wing people for the pool of respondents will die and the rest will systematically reject engagement with polling as an arm of The Evil Medias, resulting in a permanent uncorrectable skew towards left or liberal parties, but that's not manifested yet.
Civil rights legend John Lewis has passed away.
I knew this day was coming since he got diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer last year, but I am absolutely devastated. Not only was he my congressman when I lived in Georgia, I had the wonderful opportunity to meet him a number of times, and each time he was the single nicest person in congress. And he remembered my name when I met him for the final time last year which was extremely touching. He was the definition of a living legend and whoever takes his seat next will have very large shoes to fill.
Polling around the world tends to be more left than the results. UK, USA and Australia all showed stronger shifts to the left in polls vs the actual election results.
I've been dreading the day I read Alex Trebek's obituary, as he too has Stage IV pancreatic cancer. However, his most recent update has him with a new beard and "good numbers". It's amazing what modern medicine can do nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
Why do you think there is a systematic tendency across elections?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...partisan-bias/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...te-polls-been/
If you skim through those articles, you will see that in US presidential elections the national polling bias changes every election, often toward alternating parties, and state polls may have their own bias divergent from national polls' bias.
The 2012 Obama-Romney election was the latest episode of significant Republican bias in polling. Usually problems with polls can be explained in methodological terms. For example, in 2016 it was found that a major factor underrepresenting Republican support in polls was nonweighting of education (i.e. non-college voters, especially non-college whites). These and other oversights have been adjusted for this cycle.
Partisan bias in sub-presidential races also constantly fluctuates.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ard-democrats/
Another recent non-American case, but where the polls were off:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-were-way-off/
Sorry, but this just seems like one of those common political myths.Quote:
Emmanuel Macron’s 32-percentage-point victory in France’s presidential election runoff may end up being touted as a triumph for French pollsters, who consistently gave him a huge advantage. But it shouldn’t be. The polls leading up to the contest between the centrist Macron and his far-right opponent were the least predictive in French history, underestimating Macron’s support, rather than Marine Le Pen’s, to the surprise of some. ... The average poll conducted in the final two weeks of the campaign gave Macron a far smaller lead (22 percentage points) than he ended up winning by (32 points), for a 10-point miss. In the eight previous presidential election runoffs, dating back to 1969, the average poll missed the margin between the first- and second-place finishers by only 3.9 points.
I don't pay much attention to polls, just a big distraction, IMHO. What bodes dire for Fearless Leader is that since 1900, only one president has ever won a second term when a recession started in the last term of presidency...William McKinley in 1900.
https://www.newsweek.com/heres-all-p...ssions-1493467
Old article, but the warning is the same...nothing sways voters like a recession.Quote:
Since then, the four presidents who ran for a second term during such an economic downturn—William Taft in 1912, Herber Hoover in 1932, Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992—were unsuccessful.
Similar article in Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...year-recession
I don't know which Kool-Aid Bloomberg was drinking to make that statement, as it took at least four years to climb out of the last recession in 2008, and the economic situation in the US is tied to the pandemic like flies on on dung heap. And it isn't getting better anytime soon.Quote:
The sudden turnaround in the labor market raised the possibility that the economy could grow fast enough between now and November for Trump to defy the historical record and win another term.
:book2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/17/polit...ump/index.html
Quote:
The official portraits of former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were removed from the Grand Foyer of the White House within the last week, aides told CNN, and replaced by those of two Republican presidents who served more than a century ago.
White House tradition calls for portraits of the most recent American presidents to be given the most prominent placement, in the entrance of the executive mansion, visible to guests during official events.
That was the case through at least July 8, when President Donald Trump welcomed Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. The two stood in the Cross Hall of the White House and made remarks, with the portraits of Clinton and Bush essentially looking on as they had been throughout Trump's first term. But in the days after after that, the Clinton and Bush portraits were moved into the Old Family Dining Room, a small, rarely used room that is not seen by most visitors. That places the paintings well outside of Trump's vantage point in the White House. In their previous location, the pictures would have been seen daily as Trump descends the staircase from his third floor private residence or when he hosts events on the state floor of the White House. Now, they hang in a space used mainly for storing unused tablecloths and furniture. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The portrait of former President Barack Obama is not expected to be unveiled for a formal ceremony during Trump's first term, a sign of the bitter relationship between the 44th and 45th presidents. Trump has accused Obama of unsubstantiated and unspecified crimes, and has questioned whether Obama was born in the US for years.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
The Bush portrait has been replaced by that of William McKinley, the nation's 25th president, who was assassinated in 1901, and the Clinton portrait has been replaced by one of Theodore Roosevelt, who succeeded McKinley, three people who have seen the portraits this week tell CNN. Trump has shown more of an affinity for those predecessors than his more recent ones.
You can bet your a$$ he knows the significance of William McKinley:deal:Quote:
The Bush portrait has been replaced by that of William McKinley, the nation's 25th president
I wouldn't use French politics as the basis. They have a very strong united but small right wing base, and a very broad disjointed left. In the first round it is quite common to have the right wing candidate poll higher than most if not all of the left wing candidates. Then in the final round all the left wing voters rally around a single choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What works differently in the USA is that it isn't a two round system nor a preferential voting system. Nor is there compulsory voting either, and by all means it seems stacked with gerrymandering (straight out corrupt in most nations) and making it difficult to vote. So whilst the polls are of a random sample of the voting age people, it doesn't reflect how many are going to actually vote.
UK has a slightly different issue where it is difficult for the younger lefter crowd to take time off to vote at the elections.
Australia - election boundaries are set by an independent commission, voting it is on a weekend, postal votes are common, preferential voting is (technically) compulsory with a fine for not attending. The votes still tend to be more right voting than left than indicated in polling. This might be due to the preferential voting and the more extreme right wing groups with a smaller base not getting polled (literally had an idiot Senator from One Nation in on 12 votes - need a massive sample size to capture that in a poll).
The tactics seem pretty clear from trump and pompeo: attack China/communism and conflate those with "enemies within".
I've become slightly obsessed with watching right-wing nut job YouTube and Twitter. The level of detachment from reality is terrifying. There is a clique of people who genuinely think trump is some kind of moral genius who is the only defence we have to communism (the latter being I'll defined other than is being "Stalin" and "bad").
What's actually scary is that these people are too stupid to realize that if he gets re-elected, what you're seeing in Portland Oregon (and coming soon to a city near you), will be repeated as long as he can get away with it. Won't hear these morons bitching about a loss of personal freedoms until such tactics involves them. Republicans should also be concerned as this is definitely not the kind of federalism they espouse. But it's not surprising since Fearless Leader admires such people as Putin, Kim Jong-un, and others like them.Quote:
The level of detachment from reality is terrifying. There is a clique of people who genuinely think trump is some kind of moral genius who is the only defence we have to communism
It is not the kind of federalism conservatives such as myself espouse. Max Boot, George Will, P.J. O'Rourke, Jennifer Rubin...conservatives true to their principles have great trouble supporting that yutz.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai
But make no mistake, Trump has taken the reins of the party and the GOP now embodies -- overtly or tacitly -- has own brand of Demagogic Pseudo-fascism. Trumpers want to kick ass and ignore the names because they have to oppose the people who are really destroying America -- liberal socialists.
The GOP needs to be handed a soup-to-nuts electoral debacle that keeps the party out of power for the better part of a decade. THEN, perhaps they will re-think the "kill the left at all costs" mantra crap that is gutting American conservatism.
I give credit to the Lincoln Project for actually committing to not turning around to oppose Dems after the election if Biden wins:
Even though I love their ads, Ive been wary of the LP. If they actually follow through with this then maybe Ill begin to trust them a bit more. I think having two main parties that operate in good faith is good for America, so if they can rebuild the GOP (or something else) into a party that doesnt want to turn us into a dictatorship, then more power to them.Quote:
The group is preparing to vehemently oppose efforts by GOP senators to obstruct and stymie Biden’s agenda, should he win the presidency, Weaver confirmed.
...
But will the Lincoln Project remain committed to concrete expansions of voting rights after Trump is gone? Weaver said yes, noting it will keep advocating for automatic voter registration and a restored Voting Rights Act, and continue fighting efforts to “make it difficult for black people or poor people to vote.”
Why was the polling gap in 2017 France greater than in all national elections since at least 1969? 10.2% compared to a prior average of 3.9%. The nearest polling gap was in 2002 between Chirac and Le Pen pere. What's the theory here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
And further down in the article, a look at other Euro elections:
Quote:
Some analysts have argued that people are afraid to admit that they are voting for a far-right candidate such as Le Pen because they don’t want to give a socially undesirable response. That theory was bolstered twice last year, both when the “leave” vote in the U.K. referendum over leaving the European Union did slightly better than polls suggested and when Trump outperformed his polling. But the “shy insert-far-right-candidate here” theory doesn’t hold up when you look at a larger sample of European elections. And it didn’t hold up in France: There was no systematic bias in the polling against the far-right candidate (Le Pen).
As my colleague Nate Silver has pointed out, right-wing populist candidates and parties (in local and parliamentary elections) have, on average, pretty much matched their polling averages3 in European elections since 2012.
Indeed, the French presidential election is the sixth consecutive European election in which the populist right-wing candidate or party underperformed its polling.
None of this is to say that there aren’t “shy voters” in the electorate. It’s just that we may be thinking about them in the wrong way. Instead of undercounting conservative support because people are afraid to give a socially undesirable response, the polls may simply be missing unenthusiastic supporters — people who aren’t excited about their candidate enough to answer a poll but still vote. In fact, when the idea of a “shy” voter was originally formed in 1992, it had nothing to do with right-wing populists. Instead, pollsters were underestimating the strength of the mainstream and relatively milquetoast Conservative Party in the U.K.
[...]
Maybe we should talk less about “shy” voters and more about “apathetic” voters or “reluctant” voters.
Here is the Florida GOP and the federal courts conspiring to suppress the votes of ex-felons, upon whom the former have been striving to impose an unconstitutional poll tax in the form of conditioning voter registration on payment of fines. They've been at it for 1.5 years, since the Florida electorate approved reenfranchisement in a referendum. For extra Kafkaism, Florida does not even maintain proper records on what fines a given applicant owes, with the cherry on top being that the backlog of applications cannot be completed before the 2024 election at current staffing levels. Of course, trying to vote without the satisfaction of the state would be another felony...Quote:
What works differently in the USA is that it isn't a two round system nor a preferential voting system. Nor is there compulsory voting either, and by all means it seems stacked with gerrymandering (straight out corrupt in most nations) and making it difficult to vote. So whilst the polls are of a random sample of the voting age people, it doesn't reflect how many are going to actually vote.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-poll-tax.html
You all might recall that I was much more sanguine about the success of reenfranchisement in early 2019.
Process factors beyond the immediate scope of polling, such as Democratic-intending voters going through more trouble voting or getting suppressed by the government, can certainly skew results in theory, assuming pollsters don't try to correct for it. But does it in practice? And to the extent it does, it would have to - in the US - manifest in specific states where these are extant factors. They wouldn't be in all or even most states. You would expect it in Southern and midWestern states in particular. Supporting evidence might be the polling in 2018 that had Dems as mild favorites for the Senate and Gov seats in Florida, but turned into narrow Republican victories. For most recent presidential elections Florida polling has indeed had a Democratic skew. On the other hand, Florida polls - like state polls in general - had a Republican skew in 2012 (when Obama won the state again). This occurred in the context of a national Republican skew in polling that cycle, which implicates internal polling design and not government action.
At all levels, the valence and magnitude of bias change every election, and tends to be associated with identifiable methodological choices that can be adjusted. If one simply assumes a particular static bias, their predictions of electoral outcomes will not be very accurate going by history. Systematic polling bias for left parties has to be measured and analyzed, not just hypothesized.
The problem is that in the second-party preferred vote the mainstream center-right and center-left parties each typically pull about 50% of the vote. That means polling in aggregate will fall within a single polling error at least. Every election. These are close elections. From what I can see on Wiki Australian polling is precise.Quote:
Australia - election boundaries are set by an independent commission, voting it is on a weekend, postal votes are common, preferential voting is (technically) compulsory with a fine for not attending. The votes still tend to be more right voting than left than indicated in polling. This might be due to the preferential voting and the more extreme right wing groups with a smaller base not getting polled (literally had an idiot Senator from One Nation in on 12 votes - need a massive sample size to capture that in a poll).
Bottom line is, Biden is multiple polling errors (MOE) ahead of Trump currently, and if that continues to hold until November then going by the entire history of polling a Trump victory would be a vanishingly-unlikely event. The real bias might be the lure of licentious, if often relevant, speculation on tail-end probabilities.
(I will admit that there is clearly an elevated vulnerability in this cycle to unprecedented "rigging" measures, but almost definitionally polling cannot account for lawlessness on such an unprecedented (in our context) scale, so that's kind of beside the point of just how such a hazard might manifest. No poll can weight for a coup, for example. And in practice, as I've been saying, to the extent the electoral process functions semi-normally, sufficient key states to do not have Republicans in charge of the electoral apparatus that the threat remains a mostly-rhetorical one.)