Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About DMC

  • Rank
    Pithy Witticism

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,576 profile views
  1. DMC

    Up in Smoke: Drug Legalization and Dealing

    It's turned into the best thread derail ever.
  2. Might as well be a LeBron contract.
  3. I don't think Trump will be significantly primaried, no. Doubt Kasich will bother, and even he would just be a sideshow. Honestly can't think of anyone that could legitimately challenge him right now. If he goes down, he goes down. But we're very far from there yet.
  4. Uh, what? This is you ridiculously extending logic well over the breaking point. That's not true. Why are you comparing the Senate group that ran in 2018 to the Senate group that will run in 2020? That's an incredibly ignorant thing to do. Ok, so you have no actual evidence beyond the Supreme Court. Thanks.
  5. Trump's aggregate disapproval literally says otherwise. The GOP electorate turning on its party is not the same as the public at large expressing disapproval. When are you guys gonna get this through your head! And, again, that link is about the Supreme Court. That is fundamentally different than lower court and executive branch appointments, and I think you know that. At least I hope you do. I could continue to argue this but I really don't care. Sure. You're right. People thought Gabbard was the bees knees. That's why she got so much attention upon her rollout. I didn't have any datasets going back before [ETA: sorry, I mean before here, not at] the civil war. I made a typo that suggested I did, but the fact you think that I did suggests you didn't actually look at the data I provided. Anyway, it's irrelevant. My point there was agreeing with you that such old data doesn't really matter. But that doesn't change the fact that recent data has shown an increased level of instability among congressional majorities. That's what the evidence suggests. Bottomline. Honestly no reason to continue arguing.
  6. Dunno how to respond to this. Trends are historical biases. I would advise stop overthinking things and pretending your image of 2024 will have anything to do with reality. That's not meant to be a burn. No one's image of 2024 will be remotely accurate. This is not a worthwhile practice for anyone to do. The only penalty that matters: the public's disapproval. Well that's adorable, but you're not. OK, can I get a link? You claim things while admitting you can't back it up in the same breath (e.g. nothing mentioned here was remotely a deciding factor in the senate elections of 2018). Kinda respect that. I think the GOP constituency cares more about SCOTUS picks than Dems do, agreed. And I know one could provide data for such an argument. But my point is this does not extend broadly to "judicial and executive appointments." Nobody cares about that outside the beltway. Sounds like I'm saying I don't think many people cared and you disagree. No datasets go back to the 1920s. Maybe a Maya Sen article or two but that's about it. I was just trying to provide as much context as possible above in the Senate analysis. For the second time, allow me to clarify that almost all political science datasets start ~1945, at the earliest. It's getting a little annoying having to repeat this. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ah man, I'm sorry, I knew when I wrote out those numbers you'd be like "ya know..." Ahh. What ridiculousness.
  7. But..it is a way of saying Dems can win back power too. In fact it's a way of saying they're likely to. Saying it isn't is ignoring the data. Why do you think 2020 is the best shot possible? That's really..silly. I'm not sure about anything, but I don't think you're 16/4 spread should be assumed over the next 20 years at all. That's just ass pulling. I think this prospect is really..silly. I don't think any of this is in any way insurmountable. In fact, don't think it's even legitimately arguable to suggest such. Sorry man, it's just in your head. We're finding voters care more about judicial and executive confirmations? Please cite. I'm not denying the links man. Just that anyone not really into it gave a shit. Because it has been more volatile recently at a statistically significant level. Yes. ThIs is the F point! From what we've seen with a polarized era, it switches back every decade or so.
  8. Didn't see this, thought the whole post was about Cook which I knew. The answer is no, she didn't ignore any of that. She controlled for election swings. She controlled for party in office. And she controlled for many other conditions you haven't even thought of.
  9. Yes, for the third (?) time, they have an advantage. You were arguing that "historic" data didn't matter, that was what this bit was about. Now you're substantively agreeing it does, so...cool. Yes, that's pretty much the operational definition of instability. And the fact we're still pretty close to that status quo is every reason not to freak out. Until they are. You nor I have any idea what will be competitive in 2020, ultimately. We can try to prognosticate, and in general we'll be right, but there always at least seems to be a Doug Jones that comes out of nowhere. Or some weird demo shifts no one anticipated that changed Georgia or Texas or something. Nobody knows anything, especially being sure about the Senate composition for the next 20 years. Talk about bug bet. This is, like, a complicated contract. Will Brown even be running in 2024? I'd bet not. It he does, yeah, I'd bet he'd win, because he's smart and cautious. K. That's a fair baseline I suppose - current composition plus Jones losing. Ha! That's silly. If it matters at the national level - which it does - then at matters at a certain amount of states, necessarily. What? We're finding out what now? That no one bothered to read the Constitution? I sure as hell hope not. Confirmation power is partisan. The Dems have played their role in exacerbating that recently, poorly. It is what it is. I haven't seen any date to support this. My point is blue sips are not a relevant issue. They have been used and abused depending on the leadership for a very long time. I don't think I missed it, I just didn't view it as significant. Meh, to each their own.
  10. Stupid people, and even smart people, tend to make really regrettable statements about pretty politicians. Mostly female, in my experience. That's also a thing.
  11. Partisanship is a trend. I agree it's not useful before a certain point that's far before Lincoln, or even FDR's, time. But your approach is ignoring the trend entirely. I'm not sure you understand that. House majorities have been much more stable since the modern presidency (i.e. FDR). And they should continue to be with polarization, that's intuitive. Also, personal scandals like Roy Moore have very little effect at the aggregate level. Does the GOP have an advantage? Yes. Does that mean there's a certain baseline? No. What's your wannabe baseline? No, it's not tougher. Because both parties have a coalition that is close to winning during any even-ish conditions. Which, actually, makes it much easier than usual. Which is why Frances Lee wrote a book about it. I don't know why you're focusing so much on judicial/executive appointments when talking about the overall composition of the Senate. And frankly I don't see a reason to respond. Are you seriously trying to place this much importance on the blue slip - which varied considerably throughout its existence in terms of impact - on the whole of Senators' power? Uh... TIMES INFINITY!!!! I still don't know why you guys think Gabbard was a media darling. She was trivia in 2016. Anyway, I stand by what I said. I think talking about female politicians' looks doesn't lead to anything good.
  12. DMC

    Up in Smoke: Drug Legalization and Dealing

    I don't think so. Can't remember any part where the monkey is about to shoot anybody. The monkey drives, and it's hilarious, but there's nothing like that.
  13. So...He's a leftist. I'm absolutely SHOCKED. The pig socks were the shit. If you wanted the hero we needed, yeah, no. Not gonna fault Kaep for that though. Oh, so Kaep is wrong for getting as much as he can from the NFL because they've clearly determined he's not allowed to play. That makes sense how? He's supposed to take the lowest possible salary as compensation because why? Isn't your side all into capitalism and the free market and stuff?
  14. Don't need to suspect, I know I'd feel almost insistent on Kaep getting at least ten times that in the settlement. Who gives a shit about AAF? And why is Ty not supposed to want to feel a certain way? This sounds like you want me to get in your van.