Jump to content

U. S. Politics: A noun, a verb and no collusion.


LongRider

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I just saw a story that not one Democrat has been invited to tomorrow's state dinner for French president Macron.

Isn't that just...weird?

Weird in any other administration. Throw away Monday news for Trump. And I fear this phenomenon is becoming more common. People aren't political wonks and/or  junkies just shrug their  shoulders at a lot of this stuff. His odd behavior has been increasingly normalized. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

No, it's still an assumption, although at least it's a founded one now.  The increase in eligible voters without a corresponding increase in turnout should lead one to assume latinos are being disproportionately disenfranchised due to voter id laws/voter suppression.  That would lead to a hypothesis (that I'd agree with) that the gap between eligible voters and turnout among latinos is significantly higher within states with high levels of voter suppression.  Even then, that doesn't explain why the remaining voters tend to support Trump at higher rates - and it especially doesn't explain why Latina women saw a 9 point shift while Latino men only saw a 1 point shift during the same time period in the same polling.

Except...they didn't end up supporting Trump any more. Unless you're talking about non-Latinx voters. That was the entire point of one of my links - which was that Latinx turnout was roughly the same for Trump as it was Romney and was lower than McCain. 

This also assumes some fairly silly things, like latinx voters are universally similar across the country in their voting patterns (they aren't) or that the overall demographic of latinx is evenly spread throughout states (it isn't). Ultimately the same thing is true as it was before - for the most part, the states that are increasing in minority population are ones that are pretty heavily blue, and the exceptions to that are the ones that are working best on voter suppression. 

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

I really (really) don't think assuming the marginal gains Trump made among minorities are not going to be exacerbated is wishful thinking.  In fact I think assuming he's going to continue to make gains among minorities is rather ridiculous.  As for his gains among uneducated whites, I certainly think it's possible for the Dems to stem the tide.  66-29 is a pretty big number, one it's plausible to think is a ceiling and had as much to do with the economy as racial resentment.

I think that it's more likely that Trump will make gains in minority voting simply by reducing their overall voting numbers. That appears to be the GOP strategy, that's what they're going with for their propaganda, that's the goal of the 2020 census, that's what Trump continues to state over and over. So yes, his marginal gains will probably stay about the same or even look better at a percentage basis because the overall percentage of those minority voters will decrease, and those that do vote will consider themselves 'safe'. 

As to the economy, there have been zero studies that indicate that this was the primary indicator towards uneducated white populations voting for Trump and many that indicate that yes, racial resentment was the big factor. Hell, their opinion of the economy changed by what, a 40% swing a day after the election? They feel positive about it now, they felt bad about it before, and things like facts aren't going to get in the way. 

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

See, this continues to demonstrate you are misunderstanding.  The study in question were the one's that estimated the actual turnout at 44%, and it was based on firms I trust much more than exit polls - namely the ANES and CCES.  It's the exit polls that got it wrong, and that's what the study details.

The exit polls were also what people were basing their forecasts on, is what I'm saying. That's what 538 was basing its forecast on too (though at least they were cautious about it). Back in the day I stated that one of the things that made me somewhat worried about the election was that the polls are fine, but they're all based on certain assumptions of demographic turnout, and nothing about Trump's election up unto that point was particularly standard. I even stated that if he can increase white men by something like 2% he'd win. @lokisnow congratulated me on my mathematically-based pessimism before linking to Sam Wang's assertion that it was a 99.5% certainty that Clinton would win (and then had to eat a bug on live TV). 

But I'll say it again, in one sentence so it's clearer. Yes, demographics favor democratic hopes, right now. The problem is that everything else doesn't - incumbent advantage, economy, obstructionism, poll numbers, the makeup of the EC and the US in general, Russian interference, voter suppression - all are not in favor. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The exit polls were also what people were basing their forecasts on, is what I'm saying. That's what 538 was basing its forecast on too (though at least they were cautious about it).

I'll respond to the rest later - Yanks game about ot start - but wow, just no.  Exit polls (obviously) are taken on election day. The forecasts are based on polling prior to election day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caught yellow-handed.

Trump Told Comey He Wasn’t in Moscow Long Enough to Make a Pee Tape. He Lied.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/flight-records-disprove-trumps-main-alibi-for-the-pee-tape.html

Quote

Bloomberg News has obtained an additional piece of information disproving Trump’s alibi. Flight records show that Trump arrived in Moscow on early Friday morning, November 8, 2013. He departed early Sunday morning, November 10. Trump absolutely had enough time for a golden showers performance if he had wanted to have one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republican Ad Accuses Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wanting to Abort the Next Martin Luther King Jr.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/republican-ad-tammy-baldwin-wants-to-abort-the-next-martin-luther-king-jr.html

Quote

 

The Times has published an overview of the effort to unseat Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, which, like every close Senate race this year, could end up tipping control of the upper chamber. A lot of it is what you’d expect—well-financed right-wing groups will attempt to portray Baldwin as a radical leftist whose leftist values are out of step with the blue-collar ways of Wisconsin’s humble cow people. But there’s also this, which will blow the ol’ hair back:

By July [2017], a Milwaukee radio station was carrying audacious ads about Ms. Baldwin’s support for abortion rights. “Did you know one out of three babies aborted in American are black? One out of three. And Tammy Baldwin is a big reason why,” the ad said. “That could be the next Frederick Douglass or Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King they’re aborting.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself wondering if this is why Hannity needed Cohen's services:

(yes, the source isn't exactly top notch, but are presumably more credible than the right-wing stuff infesting my Facebook.

https://mfi-miami.com/2018/04/sean-hannity/

 

The Guardian has confirmed Hannity’s chosen investment strategy. The newspaper scoured through thousands of pages of public records in seven states. The records show a real estate portfolio of remarkable scale. Yet, Sean Hannity has not publicly acknowledged his real estate holdings.

Sean Hannity is the owner of a group of shell companies that bought 870 homes for $90m in 2013. The properties range from luxurious mansions to rentals for low-income families. The portfolio covers properties in seven states.

The list of properties bought by the Hannity-linked companies includes multimillion-dollar homes used by Hannity. It also features single-family units priced as low as $50,000 in relatively poor suburbs.

Additionally, the Fox New blowhard amassed part of his property collection with support from HUD. Yet, Hannity has been praising HUD Secretary Ben Carson and dissing former Obama HUD Secretary Julien Castro on his show last year.

----------------------------------

 

Dunno.  Maybe Hannity could be looking at criminal charges here?

 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And in a moment of cowardice, 73 years of history making goes out the window...

Apparently Trump called and asked for his vote with a sweet 'pretty please'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Apparently Trump called and asked for his vote with a sweet 'pretty please'.

Now I know you're lying because nothing about Trump is sweet. 

And now this bitch gotta spin a rhyme

'Bout a motherfucker who's face looks like meat

That I find at the back of the fridge

Meant to cook it but I forgot when I made a Roast

 

'Made a Roast

'Made a Roast

'I forgot to cook the meat when I made a Roast

 

Put the left overs on the bottom rack

Pushed them peas past the butter

Past the apple stack

 

Who was I to say where the Ribeye went

Wasn't good enough to fetch

Till I smelled that stench

Went lookin through the shelves like an eyeless fish

Never thought I'd see

Somethin like this

 

Came floodin' back like a Pepsi stream

Forgot to cook that meat

Now I got to scream

 

Cause I

 

'Made a Roast

'Made a Roast

'Forgot to cook that meat 'cause I made a Roast

 

Reached a hand down to the rotten mess

The Presidential Steak a perfect likeness

Couldn't tell which one was more spineless

That meat had way more kindness

And now it's in the neighbor's bushes perfect crime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Caught yellow-handed.

Trump Told Comey He Wasn’t in Moscow Long Enough to Make a Pee Tape. He Lied.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/flight-records-disprove-trumps-main-alibi-for-the-pee-tape.html

 

Trump will be pissed to hear that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I'll respond to the rest later - Yanks game about ot start - but wow, just no.  Exit polls (obviously) are taken on election day. The forecasts are based on polling prior to election day.

Sorry, you're correct, I was hasty here. Their projections were based on prior data about the demographics and voting patterns. I meant polls, not exit polls in the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Except...they didn't end up supporting Trump any more. Unless you're talking about non-Latinx voters. That was the entire point of one of my links - which was that Latinx turnout was roughly the same for Trump as it was Romney and was lower than McCain. 

Except...that's not what the links you provided showed at all.  One link clearly showed an increase in Latino turnout from 2008 to 2012.  The other demonstrated the gap between eligible Latino voters and those that actually turned out increased, but still, Latino turnout increased in the aggregate in 2016.  Again, I agree that that increasing gap is problematic, but the way you're posing is unconvincing because it's an inaccurate representation of the data you yourself are presenting.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

This also assumes some fairly silly things, like latinx voters are universally similar across the country in their voting patterns (they aren't) or that the overall demographic of latinx is evenly spread throughout states (it isn't).

Well, of course.  My original example was based on exit polls, which are national.  You got better state-by-state data?  Great, love to see it.  If not, I don't see what your gripe is about.  I used the national exit poll data because it's the simplest (and easiest accessible) proxy data to use.  I'm not assuming latinos vote the same across the country, or evenly spread, I'm simply providing the best data that is readily available.  You wanna present better numbers?  By all means.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Ultimately the same thing is true as it was before - for the most part, the states that are increasing in minority population are ones that are pretty heavily blue, and the exceptions to that are the ones that are working best on voter suppression. 

Ok, but that doesn't really support your assumption - or "hypothesis" - in the least.  If it's states that are heavily blue - thus presumably NOT engaging in voter suppression, while simultaneously red states are suppressing the latino vote - then the obvious assumption would be the opposite:  the Dems should see gains in the margins of Latino vote, not the losses they saw from 2012 to 2016.  You're concurrently arguing that voter suppression caused a quelling in latino vote due to voter suppression, and this also caused a rise in latina female support for Trump. 

In academic terms, that does not follow.  This rationale is faulty (to put it nicely), and in fact the logic of it should dictate precisely the opposite:  As in, when blue states enjoy a higher proportion of "latinx" voters - since latinx voters are being suppressed in red states - then the margins favoring the Dems among latinx voters should logically increase.  That's the logical hypothesis from such an argument.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I think that it's more likely that Trump will make gains in minority voting simply by reducing their overall voting numbers. That appears to be the GOP strategy, that's what they're going with for their propaganda, that's the goal of the 2020 census, that's what Trump continues to state over and over. So yes, his marginal gains will probably stay about the same or even look better at a percentage basis because the overall percentage of those minority voters will decrease, and those that do vote will consider themselves 'safe'. 

Ok, Trump's goal is to suppress the minority vote.  No argument here (although this has already been going on far before Trump, and I'm unsure how much more damage he can do considering the advancements in disenfranchising ex-convicts and the voter-id laws already on the books).  But you still have no rationale for why the remainder of minorities will support Trump at greater margins.  Why?  Particularly if their racial cohorts are being disenfranchised. 

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here or just radically misunderstanding how elections work.  There's no reason for those remaining voters to increase their margins for Trump.  In fact, if he kills the turnout capability of a specific minority, there's every reason to believe the margin among the remaining demographic to increase opposition to the party/candidate that has disenfranchised those that look like them.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

As to the economy, there have been zero studies that indicate that this was the primary indicator towards uneducated white populations voting for Trump and many that indicate that yes, racial resentment was the big factor.

That's just patently wrong, although unsurprisingly full of shit like this whole post you've had.  I don't know how many times I've shown the economic models predicting the national vote almost exactly, I'm not gonna do it again.  If you want studies that show those that went Obama-Trump also identified the economy as their main concern, there's plenty of those out there as well.  I'm done walking you through basic research and empirical facts.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The exit polls were also what people were basing their forecasts on, is what I'm saying. That's what 538 was basing its forecast on too (though at least they were cautious about it).

Heh.  Oh yeah already covered this.  But it is telling.  This demonstrates a gross and laughable misunderstanding of what we're talking about.  And you're one of the more informed posters here.  I'd hope this embarrassment will help to convince others to stop being so hostile to anyone that proposes an alternative viewpoint in the future.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The problem is that everything else doesn't - incumbent advantage, economy, obstructionism, poll numbers, the makeup of the EC and the US in general, Russian interference, voter suppression - all are not in favor. 

Well, I'd argue vehemently on poll numbers.  But other than that, fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lost Causism. An idea that needs to frickin' die.

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/23/17271408/confederate-memorial-day-racism-civil-war-slavery

Quote

Monday is Confederate Memorial Day in Alabama, one of two states that still set aside a state holiday — meaning government offices are closed — to honor those who fought for the Confederacy during the American Civil War. The other, Mississippi, will celebrate Confederate Memorial Day on April 30.

In addition, other states, including South Carolina (which celebrates Confederate Memorial Day on May 10), Florida (which will celebrate Confederate Memorial Day on Thursday), and Texas (which celebrated Confederate Heroes Day on January 19), honor the legacy of the Confederacy without closing government offices

.................................................................................................

Age Discrimination watch.

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/20/17261798/ibm-layoffs-retirements-older-workers-age-discrimination-claims

Quote

Last month, ProPublica reported that over the past five years, IBM has targeted its older American employees for layoffs. The numbers are staggering: Since 2013, it’s estimated that IBM eliminated more than 20,000 employees ages 40 and older in the US.

.........................................................................................

Krugman on the guy that helped us understand that the US may not have the best healthcare system in the world. Shocker. Shocker.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/22/opinion/a-tribute-to-uwe-reinhardt.html

Quote

As you might guess, over the years I’ve gotten to know quite a few economists. Some of these economists have been very smart, making important intellectual contributions. Some of them have been lovely people – friendly, funny, and engaging. To be honest, the overlap between these categories is, well, less than you might have hoped. Professional success requires a reasonably big ego – you have to believe that you can offer insights that other people have missed – and often seems to require pretty sharp elbows, if only to get a word in. These qualities may be necessary, but don’t easily go along with being nice.

All of which is to say that I count myself incredibly lucky to have gotten to know Uwe Reinhardt, who was both one of the best economists and one of the nicest people I’ve ever encountered. I only wish now that I had managed to spend more time with him and May when I had the chance.

 

Quote

I wasn’t a real health economist, even though I was obliged to play one on TV.

LOL. Oh no worries. I'm not a historian or a political scientist either. Though I like both subjects and rather than going to school and becoming one, I hope to play one TV someday and maybe even get elected president. Seems the thing to do these days. 

Quote

Uwe’s most famous paper had the not especially diplomatic title “It’s the prices, stupid: why the United States is so different from other countries.” At the time, it was common for U.S. politicians to bash the imagined horrors of foreign health care. Back in 2008, a guy named Rudi Giuliani – whatever happened to him? – warned that if a Democrat was elected, “we are in for a disaster. We are in for Canadian health care, French health care, British health care.”

But what Uwe showed was that while America spent much more on health than anyone else, we weren’t getting better care or even more care than other countries; we were just paying higher prices. That was a hugely important insight, one that Uwe delved into in a series of path-breaking papers. To give you a sense of the kinds of things he explored, another of his major papers was titled “The pricing of US hospital services: chaos behind a veil of secrecy.”

This was way back when conservatives were on their "Murica has got the best health care system in the world!" phase, before they moved on to "Death Panels" and "we got something better than the ACA!" (when they really didn't and just lied their asses off) and other random conservative horseshit.

.......................................................

Being able to fix your broken pipes with a combination of duck tape and kite string doesn't apparently lessen income inequality. Shocker.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/us-inequality-its-worse-than-we-thought

Quote

The idea that income inequality might be tempered by “home production”—with low-income families cooking meals at home rather than eating out; mowing the lawn instead of hiring a service—is both intuitively and emotionally appealing. If families can’t earn big bucks, goes the notion, at least they can provide for themselves and thereby soften the blow of poverty due to low wages and unemployment. The story aligns well with America’s ethic of self-sufficient individualism.
But is that comforting picture a reality, or a myth?

 

Quote

In fact, differences in home productivity among U.S. households are three times greater than wage dispersion, they find, and time that households put into home production doesn’t vary sufficiently to make up the difference. The idea that people without high-paying jobs have lots of time on their hands is a myth as well. “Thus, there is little scope for home production to offset differences that originate in the market sector. Rather, home production amplifies these differences.”

That's because people who are broke, don't drive cars to the grocery store. They walk or they take the bus. And that takes extra time. If a pipe in their home breaks that don't go to hardware store and buy a new pipe and the tools to replace it. They do ad hoc fixes like duck tape and kite string usually having to do it repeatedly which takes extra time. Relatively small problems or task often become very time consuming task. And plus a lot of these folks hold down jobs too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Republican Ad Accuses Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wanting to Abort the Next Martin Luther King Jr.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/republican-ad-tammy-baldwin-wants-to-abort-the-next-martin-luther-king-jr.html

 

Conservatives. Allegedly they fret that the next MLK may not be born.

But, then they turn around and support Lost Cause theories and then say "if only african americans tried harder...."

dear lord. What a bunch of clowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Conservatives. Allegedly they fret that the next MLK may not be born.

But, then they turn around and support Lost Cause theories and then say "if only african americans tried harder...."

dear lord. What a bunch of clowns.

I watch a lot of news, the message has definitely shifted to "If only blacks were more grateful to Mr. Trump"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

I watch a lot of news, the message has definitely shifted to "If only blacks were more grateful to Mr. Trump"

Just shows how the conservatism just gets crazier and crazier. Just when you think they have hit rock bottom and can't get any more wacko they are like "think we've reached the limit of our nuttiness! Yeah, well we're going to show you! Well get even more wacko!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Conservatives. Allegedly they fret that the next MLK may not be born.

I thought on of their main issues with abortion was they were aborting all the white babies.  Now they're concerned with black babies?  That's a tough sell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

I thought on of their main issues with abortion was they were aborting all the white babies.  Now they're concerned with black babies?  That's a tough sell. 

Yes, definitely for people that have a ball park clue about American political history over the last 200 or 100 years.

But, I guess this is meant for the dumb asses that are pretty clueless about it and many of whom will just eat that shit up. The thing about the conservative mindset is they love to come up with dubious arguments that liberals are the "real racists". Of course there is  truth to the fact that at times the progressive movement has had some major failing on racial matters, something that conservatives love to gleefully point out, like say Jonah Shitbird, but of course not acknowledging how conservatives gleefully and often played on white resentment to win votes and advance their policy goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...