Yeah. I am at the end of the day aligned with the New Democrat Coalition and their ilk, especially around fiscal responsibility. I support the Problem Solvers Caucus and believe energy should be focused there for things like prescription drug and immigration reform.
I can agree on making college more affordable, but the idea of free college education is fiscally irresponsible, as is the idea of complete forgiveness of student debt through reform of the bankruptcy code. I believe in affordable healthcare, but think Medicare for all is untenable. I don't agree with completely open borders, and guaranteed federal employment, like AOC for example.
Over the past few months Biden has started to veer left in order to court the far left vote by adopting a free partial college education proposal, an aggressive green energy plan, and forgiveness of student debt. I think his view on fracking was foolhardy, not because it hurts his ability to secure votes but because an abrupt change is disastrous and leads to the kind of displacement we had in the Midwest that helped usher in Trump in the first place.
I just don't want to see a further lurch left on these types of things that have a significant fiscal impact or that try to accelerate what is a long term solution.
Which brings me back to my original point. Our system is so screwed up that there will be a strong temptation to do in 2 years what should be a longer term goal, only to have it foment anger and energy in the Repub base so they can come and unwind it at the next opportunity they get.
I also think what Trump has done with the EPA is horrendous, and yes CL, don't agree with what you just posted about grey wolves. But I don't want to see the Dems come in and double down by adding all kinds of redtape instead of reinstating and gently marching towards more inroads on environmental protection.
making college more affordable, bipartisanship on deficits and debt, lowering healthcare costs, passing comprehensive immigration reform
Thanks for clarifying. Well you align with the majority of the Democratic Party and probably the majority of this thread's members. I'm further left. But considering there are bigger fish to fry (GOP). I'm not too motivated to debate or try to change your mind.
One thing I will say is that the "moderate Republicans" that we can achieve "bipartisanship" with in Congress is extinct. Probably died with McCain. And there are some truly disgusting positions even McCain took.
With how polarized our country is. There is too little political capital in being a moderate, bipartisan Republican. They get punished by voters from both parties more so than helped. Susan Collins is seeing that now.
Strong - I would highly recommend watching the PBS Special, America's Great Divide as it covers Obama presidency through Trump. PBS does a terrific job trying to be objective, and guess what?
Kikanga hit the nail on the proverbial head. The infamous "Congress of No".
Watch the interviews from both sides, in the special, and the extended interviews and you find a general theme that goes something like this...
When Obama took office, hope abound. No question. He was a real threat to the status quo as an african american now becoming the most powerful man in the world. When he was inagaurated, you may as well thought he was Elvis and the Pope combined into one - forget these Trump rallies, people were truly given hope and cast hope on Obama.
The Republican party saw this and it scared the living bageezers out of them. A number of "high ranking" congress Republicans met and right off the bat - planned Obama's downfall. Why? They knew they were in trouble. The old white majority was becoming absorbed into diversity. The rich were going to become more targetted.
They plotted, they planned. They filibustered. They got in the way of Obama court nominations.* They gave him a choice where either one was going to lead to a crap result: Try to play by the existing rules, and watch him be able to nothing. Or, alternatively, have his party do things like invoke the nuclear option,* or pass partisan-only legislation.
When I watched and listened to how Obama operated, literally I began to get misty eyed because I could sense his frustration, his pain, with this crap. and guess what: IF. I. was president, I would have done EXACTLY what he did and also gotten the same ridicule and bastardization that he received. I actually empathize with him on an extreme level because I know the actions he took I would have, and I could feel the frustration and pain through his advisors and even other political commentators.
Meanwhile in the background you had the rise of the false narrative, National Inquirier type media frenzy - ACROSS the board it is undeniable. It's roots are almost universally agreed to begin with Sarah Palin's facebook crap, then it went even more extreme with Fox News allowing Glen Beck and others to rule their viewership. Enter Breitbart and others. Of course, then Trump and the "birtherism" issues he raised...the era of "alternative facts" (fantasy, fiction, LIES) to bring down the momentum Obama brang.
Now, I could go back further than what happened there. Yes, of course, the Dems had their moments. Yes, you can definitely (and even posters here can be accused of this, even myself as an independent) say there was intellectual pomposity and elitism that rubbed many republicans the wrong way (this being part of the "both sides" position). Heck, for some Pubs, you could go back to Robert Bork and say "hey man, you Dems did not play fair there"...
But this. What we have here? Make no mistake. At an extreme fundamental level Fox News and "alt right" media has really gone overbroad. And what the Republican leaders did to Obama? IMO, criminal.
As an aside, I spent alot of time these past few months looking into this and these are an extremely brief summary of my findings. I looked at as many neutral or fact based sources as possible and allowed myself to read and listen to as many from both sides. In sum, mark my words, in 10-15 years History books will be saying that is what happened.
EDIT: Example, take the ACA - did you know it was heavily based on Republican ideas? E.g. Romney. Why was it trounced and attacked? Because Obama asked for it. ONLY reason.
*Not just talking Judge Garland here for Supreme Court, but lower court nominations as well - creating the "precedent" to have the nuclear option used for court nominations when Pubs just kept stalling to, you know, just stall. In sum, Pubs wanted to just mix it up and either create a lame duck president, or force his hand to do things the Pubs could exploit later. Conclusion: Truly diabolical scheme.
Some swing state observations for States Trump won in 2016, comparing 2016 to 2020 (using 538). For now just looking at 4 states, 3 of which Hillary was predicted to win but did not [and had she won she would be president], and 1 that was out of reach for Hillary but now possibly open for Joe:
Michigan:
2016: Up and down curve, Hillary was favored on election day to win with a 78.9% chance of victory - but this was well below her high which was weeks before that of about 93% chance to win.
Details: Looking at actual vote share, Hillary's highest vote share was 51.7%, several times dropping below 50% to as low as 47.3%. Trump's pre-election high was around 44.1%
2020: As of today, a fairly straight line, trending upward of late. Joe has a 94% chance of victory - highest all campaign.
Details: Anticipated vote share for Joe has been fairly steady, with a low of 52.5%. Note Trump's vote share has been predicted to be as high as 46.2%.
Wisconsin:
2016: Again, up/down curve for Hillary. Was favored to win with an 83.5% chance, but she had a high previously at around 93%, and also a low around 66%.
Details: Anticipated vote share high for Hillary was around 51%....but she went into election day with a projected 49.6% vote share, and had dips before that into 46%ish. Trump's high was actually just before election day at 45%
2020: A fairly consistent line for Joe, trending upwards as election day approaches with a 93% chance to win.
Details: Like Michigan, Joe has never dropped below 50% vote share.
Pennsylvania
2016: Hillary went into election day with a 77% chance to win. Again, a very erratic curve with several instances of highs (89%) and lows (53ish%)
Details: Hillary rarely topped an estimated 50% or more vote share, typically staying around 47-49%. At one point the vote share estimation between her and Trump was as close as .06%. She went into election day with an anticipated 48.9% vote share.
2020:This state been a little more erratic for Joe, but nothing like what happened with Hillary. Started off with a 71% chance to win, which slowly spike to 81%, then slowly dropped to 69%, but since then has steadied back up to an almost constant 85% or more. Currently at 85%.
Details:Joe has never dropped below a vote share estimate of 51%. Currently at 52ish%.
Ohio:
Will make this one quick.
2016:Trump went into election day with a 64% chance to win. However, that race went back and forth with each taking different leads at different times...but as election day showed up, Trump got a big boost.
2020: As we sit today, it is a toss up per 538. Trump by far has held the lead the longest but it has also gone back and forth. Of note on October 20 it was 50/50 then it boosted back to Trump, but has now swung back with some Biden momentum.
This state most favors Trump with the most erratic movements, being very somewhat similar to the 2016 election.
In certain ways, I don't think the presidential election models are really telling you very much this year. Biden's way ahead in the polls; that should be obvious. He's also not so far ahead that he can be completely comfortable, however, which should also be obvious-ish.
Damn this dude likes to hedge his bets. All day with this stuff. Way to sit firmly on that fence, Nate.
In certain ways, I don't think the presidential election models are really telling you very much this year. Biden's way ahead in the polls; that should be obvious. He's also not so far ahead that he can be completely comfortable, however, which should also be obvious-ish.
Damn this dude likes to hedge his bets. All day with this stuff. Way to sit firmly on that fence, Nate.
If it wasn't for 2016 PTSD, we'd be talking about Biden's Cabinet now. His lead, with 4 days to go, is bigger than Obama's in 2008 and 2012. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
@BrettFavre·2h
My Vote is for what makes this country great, freedom of speech & religion, 2nd Amnd, hard working tax paying citizens, police & military. In this election, we have freedom of choice, which all should respect. For me & these principles, my Vote is for ( a t ) RealDonaldTrump
Jemele Hill on Tweeting: "If You Vote for Trump You're Racist, No Wiggle Room"
Quote:
At this point, seeing that Donald Trump has established without a doubt that he is a white supremacist, if you're still supporting that, what does that say about you? What should I call you, if not a racist? I don't know what else to call you because he has pretty much made it blatantly clear that he believes America is only for some people, not all people. He doesn't govern all of us. He only wants to govern some of us.
In certain ways, I don't think the presidential election models are really telling you very much this year. Biden's way ahead in the polls; that should be obvious. He's also not so far ahead that he can be completely comfortable, however, which should also be obvious-ish.
Damn this dude likes to hedge his bets. All day with this stuff. Way to sit firmly on that fence, Nate.
If it wasn't for 2016 PTSD, we'd be talking about Biden's Cabinet now. His lead, with 4 days to go, is bigger than Obama's in 2008 and 2012.
Well, to be fair, it’s not just the 2016 PTSD, it’s also the clear evidence that the GOP intends to steal the election. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
In certain ways, I don't think the presidential election models are really telling you very much this year. Biden's way ahead in the polls; that should be obvious. He's also not so far ahead that he can be completely comfortable, however, which should also be obvious-ish.
Damn this dude likes to hedge his bets. All day with this stuff. Way to sit firmly on that fence, Nate.
If it wasn't for 2016 PTSD, we'd be talking about Biden's Cabinet now. His lead, with 4 days to go, is bigger than Obama's in 2008 and 2012.
The other people running models, Elliot Morris from The Economist and whoever runs Leantossup seem much more confident in what their models are saying. Also guys like Dave Wasserman and Harry Enten and even Charlie Cook (who’s usually very measured) seem pretty confident. Nate Silver on the other hand will say 2-3 things in his Twitter about how bad it’s going for Trump, then follow it up with something where he firmly hedges his bet and casts doubt on his own model.
Strong - I would highly recommend watching the PBS Special, America's Great Divide as it covers Obama presidency through Trump. PBS does a terrific job trying to be objective, and guess what?
Kikanga hit the nail on the proverbial head. The infamous "Congress of No".
Watch the interviews from both sides, in the special, and the extended interviews and you find a general theme that goes something like this...
When Obama took office, hope abound. No question. He was a real threat to the status quo as an african american now becoming the most powerful man in the world. When he was inagaurated, you may as well thought he was Elvis and the Pope combined into one - forget these Trump rallies, people were truly given hope and cast hope on Obama.
The Republican party saw this and it scared the living bageezers out of them. A number of "high ranking" congress Republicans met and right off the bat - planned Obama's downfall. Why? They knew they were in trouble. The old white majority was becoming absorbed into diversity. The rich were going to become more targetted.
They plotted, they planned. They filibustered. They got in the way of Obama court nominations.* They gave him a choice where either one was going to lead to a crap result: Try to play by the existing rules, and watch him be able to nothing. Or, alternatively, have his party do things like invoke the nuclear option,* or pass partisan-only legislation.
When I watched and listened to how Obama operated, literally I began to get misty eyed because I could sense his frustration, his pain, with this crap. and guess what: IF. I. was president, I would have done EXACTLY what he did and also gotten the same ridicule and bastardization that he received. I actually empathize with him on an extreme level because I know the actions he took I would have, and I could feel the frustration and pain through his advisors and even other political commentators.
Meanwhile in the background you had the rise of the false narrative, National Inquirier type media frenzy - ACROSS the board it is undeniable. It's roots are almost universally agreed to begin with Sarah Palin's facebook crap, then it went even more extreme with Fox News allowing Glen Beck and others to rule their viewership. Enter Breitbart and others. Of course, then Trump and the "birtherism" issues he raised...the era of "alternative facts" (fantasy, fiction, LIES) to bring down the momentum Obama brang.
Now, I could go back further than what happened there. Yes, of course, the Dems had their moments. Yes, you can definitely (and even posters here can be accused of this, even myself as an independent) say there was intellectual pomposity and elitism that rubbed many republicans the wrong way (this being part of the "both sides" position). Heck, for some Pubs, you could go back to Robert Bork and say "hey man, you Dems did not play fair there"...
But this. What we have here? Make no mistake. At an extreme fundamental level Fox News and "alt right" media has really gone overbroad. And what the Republican leaders did to Obama? IMO, criminal.
As an aside, I spent alot of time these past few months looking into this and these are an extremely brief summary of my findings. I looked at as many neutral or fact based sources as possible and allowed myself to read and listen to as many from both sides. In sum, mark my words, in 10-15 years History books will be saying that is what happened.
EDIT: Example, take the ACA - did you know it was heavily based on Republican ideas? E.g. Romney. Why was it trounced and attacked? Because Obama asked for it. ONLY reason.
*Not just talking Judge Garland here for Supreme Court, but lower court nominations as well - creating the "precedent" to have the nuclear option used for court nominations when Pubs just kept stalling to, you know, just stall. In sum, Pubs wanted to just mix it up and either create a lame duck president, or force his hand to do things the Pubs could exploit later. Conclusion: Truly diabolical scheme.
Strong post--and not as in strong9.
Allow me to add, for the purpose of emphasis and to illustrate a specific event. Upon Googling about this meeting (known mostly to political junkies), that happened, literally on day one of the Obama presidency, I found this particular description--from that documentary.
Quote:
On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration.
“The room was filled. It was a who’s who of ranking members who had at one point been committee chairmen, or in the majority, who now wondered out loud whether they were in the permanent minority,” Frank Luntz, who organized the event, told FRONTLINE.
Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan.
After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning. [Emphasis mine]
And they did just that. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
In certain ways, I don't think the presidential election models are really telling you very much this year. Biden's way ahead in the polls; that should be obvious. He's also not so far ahead that he can be completely comfortable, however, which should also be obvious-ish.
Damn this dude likes to hedge his bets. All day with this stuff. Way to sit firmly on that fence, Nate.
If it wasn't for 2016 PTSD, we'd be talking about Biden's Cabinet now. His lead, with 4 days to go, is bigger than Obama's in 2008 and 2012.
The other people running models, Elliot Morris from The Economist and whoever runs Leantossup seem much more confident in what their models are saying. Also guys like Dave Wasserman and Harry Enten and even Charlie Cook (who’s usually very measured) seem pretty confident. Nate Silver on the other hand will say 2-3 things in his Twitter about how bad it’s going for Trump, then follow it up with something where he firmly hedges his bet and casts doubt on his own model.
Sam Wang at the Princeton Consortium as well, though he was even more gung-ho and confident of Hillary winning than was Nate. Here, he has a Biden win at a 93% probability. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
@BrettFavre·2h
My Vote is for what makes this country great, freedom of speech & religion, 2nd Amnd, hard working tax paying citizens, police & military. In this election, we have freedom of choice, which all should respect. For me & these principles, my Vote is for @ RealDonaldTrump
Now waiting for Tiger Woods, Shaquille O'Neal and Charles Barkley to make it official.
Using tax paying to justify voting for Trump is as stupid as it gets. _________________ “Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
― Isaac Asimov
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52656 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:09 am Post subject:
Buck32 wrote:
Black20Ice wrote:
Quote:
@BrettFavre·2h
My Vote is for what makes this country great, freedom of speech & religion, 2nd Amnd, hard working tax paying citizens, police & military. In this election, we have freedom of choice, which all should respect. For me & these principles, my Vote is for (@) RealDonaldTrump
Now waiting for Tiger Woods, Shaquille O'Neal and Charles Barkley to make it official.
Using tax paying to justify voting for Trump is as stupid as it gets.
Oh it’s not stupidity at play. It’s something far worse. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
The pressure to shut down the PA vote count is going to be insane.
Even if the 538 forecast for PA proves accurate (Biden +5), given partisan disparities in mail-in voting, Trump could hold a 16 POINT lead by the end of Tue night.
This is exactly what Barrett was brought in to do.
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67702 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:11 am Post subject:
Black20Ice wrote:
Quote:
@BrettFavre·2h
My Vote is for what makes this country great, freedom of speech & religion, 2nd Amnd, hard working tax paying citizens, police & military. In this election, we have freedom of choice, which all should respect. For me & these principles, my Vote is for ( a t ) RealDonaldTrump
Now waiting for Tiger Woods, Shaquille O'Neal and Charles Barkley to make it official.
Do those 3 support Trump? I was surprised Lil Wayne is a Trump supporter. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
538 now has the Senate 77% chance for the Dems. Seats 52-48. _________________ Nobody in the NBA can touch the Laker brand, which, like the uniform color, is pure gold.
Joined: 19 Nov 2001 Posts: 17659 Location: Orlando
Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2020 10:20 am Post subject:
32 wrote:
New Rasmussen Poll:
Biden 49%
Trump 46%
Both this and the IDB/TIPP poll have started moving more and more back to Biden over the past few days. This is them starting to herd with the non-partisan pollsters so they can then claim to be legitimate after the election.
The pressure to shut down the PA vote count is going to be insane.
Even if the 538 forecast for PA proves accurate (Biden +5), given partisan disparities in mail-in voting, Trump could hold a 16 POINT lead by the end of Tue night.
This is exactly what Barrett was brought in to do.
Ok, so am a bit confused by the twitter post. I will repost LS's summary of recent Supreme Court decisions in NC and PA as well. In sum, this is my confusion, maybe someone can clear it up:
1. In PA, as long as "ballot received" before 8pm on election day, you are good. I am assuming "received" does not mean "counted", it just means in hand.
2. Pro-Biden voters have been sending lots of ballots super early.
3. According to reports at least 1/3 of last year's total PA voters have already sent in their ballots. [I saw that somewhere]
Why would this cause a Trump advantage as long as ballots received before 8pm?
For reference, LS's summary of the NC and PA decisions are below:
Quote:
Here is the analysis:
North Carolina - Supreme Court rejected review (with Roberts & Kavanaugh joining the 3 libs) based on the notion that NC's election board had authority, as provided by the NC state constitution, to enter into a settlement (a consent decree) on behalf of all of NC to resolve the lawsuit. Republicans tried to get the consent decree overturned, but because the NC constitution provided the authority substantiating the consent decree/settlement, it was upheld by the 4th circuit. Thus, SCOTUS rejecting review kept the 4th circuit ruling upholding the settlement/consent decree (protecting voters' rights) in place.
Pennsylvania - SCOTUS basically said there isn't enough time to fully review the dispute (which is whether votes received after 8PM EST on election day) will still be counted. SCOTUS basically said, since the PA secretary of state is going to ensure all ballots received after 8PM EST are separated so, if necessary, they can be taken out of the vote count after-the fact, SCOTUS can punt its decision and wait to see if its an issue later. Basically, if those votes received after 8PM EST (regardless of when post marked) effect the ultimate outcome, either side will be able to appeal and, it appears, SCOTUS will likely throw those votes out. The reasoning is that the PA state legislature has made it clear that votes received after 8PM EST must not be counted, regardless of when they were mailed, and the Court's do not have the ability to override the state legislature's legislation (only the State itself or Congress has that ability).
Damn this is a lot of lawyers for one state. With DeSantis as Governor, I guess you can't have enough.
Quote:
Biden has a whopping 4,000 lawyers standing by or already working in Florida to either avoid or combat an election recount next week, according to a report
Damn this is a lot of lawyers for one state. With DeSantis as Governor, I guess you can't have enough.
Quote:
Biden has a whopping 4,000 lawyers standing by or already working in Florida to either avoid or combat an election recount next week, according to a report
McConnell is handing Democrats the reason to scrap the filibuster. There is no chance Senate Democrats (if they’re in the majority) are going to let McConnell block a COVID relief measure
Quote:
Manu Raju @mkraju
McConnell pours cold water on doing a stimulus package in lame-duck, which is what Pelosi’s pushing for, and says it’s better to do at beginning of year. “I think that’ll be something we’ll need to do right at the beginning of the year,” he said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show
The pressure to shut down the PA vote count is going to be insane.
Even if the 538 forecast for PA proves accurate (Biden +5), given partisan disparities in mail-in voting, Trump could hold a 16 POINT lead by the end of Tue night.
This is exactly what Barrett was brought in to do.
Ok, so am a bit confused by the twitter post. I will repost LS's summary of recent Supreme Court decisions in NC and PA as well. In sum, this is my confusion, maybe someone can clear it up:
1. In PA, as long as "ballot received" before 8pm on election day, you are good. I am assuming "received" does not mean "counted", it just means in hand.
2. Pro-Biden voters have been sending lots of ballots super early.
3. According to reports at least 1/3 of last year's total PA voters have already sent in their ballots. [I saw that somewhere]
Why would this cause a Trump advantage as long as ballots received before 8pm?
For reference, LS's summary of the NC and PA decisions are below:
Quote:
Here is the analysis:
North Carolina - Supreme Court rejected review (with Roberts & Kavanaugh joining the 3 libs) based on the notion that NC's election board had authority, as provided by the NC state constitution, to enter into a settlement (a consent decree) on behalf of all of NC to resolve the lawsuit. Republicans tried to get the consent decree overturned, but because the NC constitution provided the authority substantiating the consent decree/settlement, it was upheld by the 4th circuit. Thus, SCOTUS rejecting review kept the 4th circuit ruling upholding the settlement/consent decree (protecting voters' rights) in place.
Pennsylvania - SCOTUS basically said there isn't enough time to fully review the dispute (which is whether votes received after 8PM EST on election day) will still be counted. SCOTUS basically said, since the PA secretary of state is going to ensure all ballots received after 8PM EST are separated so, if necessary, they can be taken out of the vote count after-the fact, SCOTUS can punt its decision and wait to see if its an issue later. Basically, if those votes received after 8PM EST (regardless of when post marked) effect the ultimate outcome, either side will be able to appeal and, it appears, SCOTUS will likely throw those votes out. The reasoning is that the PA state legislature has made it clear that votes received after 8PM EST must not be counted, regardless of when they were mailed, and the Court's do not have the ability to override the state legislature's legislation (only the State itself or Congress has that ability).
Because Pennsylvania doesn’t even begin to count mail-in ballots until Election Day, and they may not finish before the polls close. Also some of their counties don’t count until after Election Day. So if early voting and Election Day voting is heavily Trump, it’s going to appear he’s ahead until the mail-in ballots are counted. Normally this isn’t an issue but with a massive amount of mail-in ballots obviously it becomes a problem.
Meanwhile in Florida mail-in can start to be counted before Election Day, so we’ll have a much better idea of where the state is on election night.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
