US Politics: For Whom the Bell Tolls

[Fez]

It continues to be impossible to poll the Alabama special election tomorrow.

Which aligns with some work SurveyMonkey did last week. https://www.surveymonkey.com/curiosity/alabama-senate-race-a-poll-without-a-prediction/ Using the five most commonly used turnout models, the same sample varied anywhere from Jones+8 to Moore+9.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

27 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Scott I'd be fine with keeping our current long term inflation expectations anchored at 2%, if weren't for conservative idiocy. But, since conservative idiocy is like our default mode, probably 3% would be better. The reason is that with the wicksellian rate likely to be lower in the future, at a 2% inflation rate, you're closer to hitting the ZLB and that's when all sorts of bad shit happens( sorry libertarians but markets don't clear by price. But keep dreaming.). If you're at the ZLB then you are pretty much left doing fiscal stimulus (well, I know perhaps you can do negative interest rates or whatever, but there are some problems with that I think), which we know won't happen in this current environment. So 3% would probably be better.

Okay, now I just need to google the terms you're using.    

Thanks.

[OldGimletEye]

22 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay, now I just need to google the terms you're using.    

Thanks.

The Wicksellian Rate is from Knute Wicksell. Its also called the natural rate of interest. In his Treatise On Money Keynes endorsed the concept. He later reversed his opinion of it in the GT. However, it still a useful concept in my opinion*, and Keynes' conclusion that the natural rate depends on the state of employment makes sense. Anyway, when the natural rate doesn't equal the money rate of interest, then something has to adjust. And since prices don't adjust quickly, the nominal flow of output adjust and well so does the real flow of output.

*There are some very left Keynesian's that think the whole concept is nonsense. I won't get into that right now.

[denstorebog]

24 minutes ago, Fez said:

It continues to be impossible to poll the Alabama special election tomorrow.

Which aligns with some work SurveyMonkey did last week. https://www.surveymonkey.com/curiosity/alabama-senate-race-a-poll-without-a-prediction/ Using the five most commonly used turnout models, the same sample varied anywhere from Jones+8 to Moore+9.

The CTs are already out saying that the Fox poll is really a massive GTVO effort aimed at Republicans, despite Fox' polling company being separate from its news org, and despite it being an A+ pollster over at 538.

Regardless, tomorrow should be fun.

Just to put the nail in nailbiter, though, CB Polling just tweeted that their final poll tonight will show a  big swing towards one of the candidates.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah that's basically what I was getting at.  Aggregate demos and surrounding area are obvious answers to lots of those, but there's nothing I've seen that can systematically explain the differences.  I would suggest the way to try would be to look at/generate individual-level data, but that's really all I got on the subject.

Nearly all the places mentioned have military near by, and OK is big in Natural gas and oil production. I assumed that would affect their political leanings

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

There are some very notable exceptions to the rural/urban divide though. Jacksonville, San Diego, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, Colorado Springs, etc. are all relatively conservative, as are a host of smaller cities like Tulsa and Wichita. In some cases you can argue that they are still more liberal than the states around them, but that's not always the case (like with San Diego or Colorado Springs).

Meanwhile there are some liberal rural areas, like all of Vermont, along with some parts of New Hampshire, Massachusetts and upstate New York. Some of Iowa (although a lot less than there used to be), most of New Mexico, and some scattered counties throughout the Great Plains are as well. 

I can think of reasons why some of these places may be the way they are, but not all of them; and I'm not sure any of those reasons are truly satisfactory.  

Do you realize is that one reason almost all of the cities you mention are more "conservative" is because they have annexed most of their suburbs and so include people who in other metro areas would likely live outside the city limits? Jacksonville and Indianapolis have basically merged with the counties they are part of, and Oklahoma City and San Diego cover huge geographical areas. Tulsa and Wichita also probably have a higher percentage of the total population of the metro area within the city limits than average. 

[S John]

12 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

Nearly all the places mentioned have military near by, and OK is big in Natural gas and oil production. I assumed that would affect their political leanings

Yea I was thinking that as well.  Jacksonville, San Diego, and Colorado Springs all have a significant military presence that probably tips the scales a bit in the conservative direction.  

[IheartIheartTesla]

19 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Just to put the nail in nailbiter, though, CB Polling just tweeted that their final poll tonight will show a  big swing towards one of the candidates.

I am not familiar with CB polling, but a big swing at this point can only mean towards Moore, no? After the yearbook 'revelations' just before the weekend that's what I would suspect.

[denstorebog]

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I am not familiar with CB polling, but a big swing at this point can only mean towards Moore, no? After the yearbook 'revelations' just before the weekend that's what I would suspect.

Well, Fox News Polling would disagree. Plus, Jones has been doing massive campaigning for the last weeks while Moore is sitting it out.

It all seems pretty up in the air at this point. Or rather, it seems completely dependent on what weight the pollster gives to none-white and non-landline voters

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I am not familiar with CB polling, but a big swing at this point can only mean towards Moore, no? After the yearbook 'revelations' just before the weekend that's what I would suspect.

As far as I can tell, the last CB poll had it at a tie (Moore up by .56%), so one would think the swing could be a big lead for either.

[Fez]

33 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Do you realize is that one reason almost all of the cities you mention are more "conservative" is because they have annexed most of their suburbs and so include people who in other metro areas would likely live outside the city limits? Jacksonville and Indianapolis have basically merged with the counties they are part of, and Oklahoma City and San Diego cover huge geographical areas. Tulsa and Wichita also probably have a higher percentage of the total population of the metro area within the city limits than average. 

I wasn't aware of that. But at the same time, there are also plenty of cities that have annexed some/all of their suburbs and are reliably Democratic, like Los Angeles, Houston, San Antonio, Nashville, etc.

[Ormond]

12 minutes ago, Fez said:

I wasn't aware of that. But at the same time, there are also plenty of cities that have annexed some/all of their suburbs and are reliably Democratic, like Los Angeles, Houston, San Antonio, Nashville, etc.

It would be interesting to get more complex data on this. Houston seems to be the real exception to the rule to me. Los Angeles did its big annexation of the San Fernando Valley so long ago, and its total metro area is so huge, that there's been plenty of time and space for the conservatives to move outside of the new city limits. (A lot of the San Fernando Valley annexation was way back in 1915, and it seems to have been completed by 1935.)   

P.S. And by the way, the Republicans in Texas have just rewritten the annexation laws there so that San Antonio, Austin, and Houston will now have a much harder time annexing conservative suburban areas:

http://www.statesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/abbott-signs-bill-limiting-annexation-powers-cities/OYYGbRsuKGHhGMgihjgOWL/

[Zorral]

Listened to the press conference held by three incredibly courageous women who are calling for 1) in depth, probing investigative and legal processes for accusations of sexual harassment and abuse; 2) to have the so-called POTUS be investigated; 3) called for POTUS to resign; 4) explicitly stated that they didn't think there was or would be, at least right now, any real, effective legal action in these matters concerning these men; 5) that the only solution is a non-partisan political one; 6) they have little faith in the latter, as little as in the legal system.

They were impressive: measured, comprehensive, calm, realistic, including knowing what is likely to happen to them now -- and what has already happened to them, when they first came out with their horrible experiences via the orange t*rd.

One of the takeaways for me from their press conference is that finally perhaps this nation has come to the limits of going to law to right wrongs.  This is how the US has functioned for a very long time with injustices and cruelties, whether how people with physical and emotional diabilities are treated, Civil Rights, racism, sexism, religious freedom, etc.  We go to law to sort it out.  But in these areas, despite laws, regulations, HR departments, etc., there has been no succor, no making whole.

Not to mention as sidebar, how life this AM and today has been derailed by the guy who tried to blow up himself and so many others of us in the Port Authority subway tunnel.  So we stayed home and listened to these brave women speak.

 

[Martell Spy]

The Doug Jones Coalition
Democrats feel momentum in Alabama, but they’ll need black and white voters to beat Roy Moore.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/12/in_alabama_doug_jones_scrambles_to_assemble_a_winning_coalition.html

Behind Trump’s plan to target the federal safety net
Under the banner of welfare reform, the administration is eyeing changes to health care, food stamps, housing and veterans programs.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/11/trump-welfare-reform-safety-net-288623

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Behind Trump’s plan to target the federal safety net
Under the banner of welfare reform, the administration is eyeing changes to health care, food stamps, housing and veterans programs.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/11/trump-welfare-reform-safety-net-288623

 

Quote

Federal health officials are encouraging states to impose work requirements on able-bodied adults on Medicaid — a major philosophical shift that would treat the program as welfare, rather than health insurance.

How about just allocating more money to TANF and then mandating states use it to help people find unemployment. It's not like were spending huge amounts of money on it.

Quote

The Agriculture Department said last week that it would soon give states greater control over the food stamp program, potentially opening the door to drug testing or stricter work requirements on recipients of the $70 billion program long targeted by fiscal conservatives.

That's right folks:  We spend 70 billion dollars on SNAP out of 3.8 trillion dollar budget. But, you know, conservatives really think they are showing fiscal rectitude here.

And I think the people that are oh so worried about people being employed, spewed fucking nonsense for 10 years when we had a big unemployment problem. Like oh, I don't know, bringing up the 1970s and such.

Quote

Another initial move has already backfired — the Veterans Affairs Department announced it would redirect hundreds of millions of dollars from a program for homeless veterans to local VA centers, but it reversed course after fierce blowback from advocates.

Conservatives. Always willing to send somebody else's kid to war, but then don't want to spend the money to put those people back together again.

Quote

Now that they control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, Republicans believe they have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to overhaul those programs, which they have long argued are wasteful, are too easily exploited and promote dependency.

Yeah because people like Paul Ryan misrepresent other people's research.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

This is the crap Evangelicals are peddling for Trump:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Prophecies-Astonishing-Tomorrow-Coming/dp/0998142670

[Mexal]

Looks like the ground effort in Alabama has been similar to the effort in Virginia.

 

 

[denstorebog]

25 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Looks like the ground effort in Alabama has been similar to the effort in Virginia.

 

 

Would love to see Moore's numbers. Well, for the latter, it's something like 2.

[OldGimletEye]

Yes, the left shouldn’t start playing nice with Neo Cons.

Kristol has no real principles when it comes to domestic policies. He’ll say anything he has to in order to get whomever to go along with his cockamamie foreign policies.

Trading one set of buffoonery for another set of buffoonery doesn't seem like a good deal.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/11/16759130/truce-left-right-resistance-wittes-kristol

Quote

Here’s a sentence I never expected to find myself writing: Recently, influential liberal commentators recommended that liberals quit arguing with conservatives about public policy.

 

[IheartIheartTesla]

I just read a good bit of analysis on WaPo about why there was such a spread of numbers. Fox News actually has a combination of landlines and cell phone data while Emerson is landline only. Jones has a huge lead among cellphone users making the Fox News poll better for him. A different poll that used a combo had not such a huge disparity for cell phone users, but still Jones a bit ahead. And the ground game may be helping a fair bit. Turnout modeling is also pretty tough to do.

Still, I don't want to hope too much. It will be a close run thing.