Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nah

U.S. Politics: One Wave, Two Waves, Red Waves, Blue Waves

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

Trump has no reason to tell them anything except to accept the results of the election.

It's already been pointed out that he was asked the exact same question during the election, he had no reason to tell them anything else then either (as I believe you may have said at the time), and yet he equivocated. So here, you're just going to have to accept you're wrong, I'm afraid. 

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

Furthermore, I don't think the vast majority of Trump's supporters will react positively to unconstitutional power grabs -- there are a few who would welcome such a thing, but the rest are proud of being Americans and I don't see how this can be sold as anything but flagrantly un-American.

Numerous other things Trump supporters are enthusiastic about are also flagrantly un-American. They get around this by redefining in their own minds what's 'American' and what is not, and by justifying bad things for the 'greater good'.

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

The USA is a constitutional republic and it has never claimed to be a pure democracy.

This is not what was under discussion, and not relevant to the point. 

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

He's certainly trying to de-legitimitize a Democratic victory, but there is nothing new in this: it's standard political maneuvering and Democrats have been doing the same exact thing to him personally since he won as well as to several of his appointees and allies (most notably Justice Kavanaugh).

It really is not. Democrats accept that Trump won. They have opposed his policies and criticised him, they have even pointed out that he lost the popular vote (which is true), but they have accepted that he won. The idea that any foul play by the right can be excused as 'politics as usual' and utterly unremarkable is one of your go-to lines, and it's rubbish. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

I'd call Altherion something worse, but that would be a big no no on here lol.

What i don't get is why people keep engaging with him. He's been spewing his BS for years and somehow still gets people to bite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very very very MANY ways the orange nazi and his family and cronies are enriching themselves personally in D.C.:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/opinion/trump-administration-corruption-conflicts.html?

Here's just one of them from the list:

Quote

 

Trump Inc. is expanding overseas.

During Trump’s presidency, his companies have pushed to expand overseas, with help from foreign governments. One example: In May, an Indonesian real-estate project that involves the Trump Organization reportedly received a $500 million loan from a company owned by the Chinese government. Two days later, Trump tweeted that he was working to lift sanctions on a Chinese telecommunications firm with close ties to the government — over the objections of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. He ultimately did lift the sanctions.

 

There are o so many others listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I just read Ralston's early voting blog and feel better about Nevada now ... the Democrats are building a solid firewall there in early voting, but its still a bit too early to say if it's enough. Not sure about the Governor race, but I presume it will be similar to the Senate one (I cant see it splitting, in other words, if Rosen wins then Sisolak is likely winning too)

Didn't we have the conversation in 2016 that we shouldn't trust early voting predictions, except maybe in Nevada?  Because while early voting can be a significant portion of the total vote in some states (10-50%), only in Nevada is it like 75%+, and those voters are a reasonably representative sample. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Didn't we have the conversation in 2016 that we shouldn't trust early voting predictions, except maybe in Nevada?  Because while early voting can be a significant portion of the total vote in some states (10-50%), only in Nevada is it like 75%+, and those voters are a reasonably representative sample. 

Yep. Although even in Nevada there is still the potential hiccup of crossover voting messing with the numbers; though my understanding is that its generally an inelastic state (unlike, say, most New England states, where many Democrats will happily vote for the right Republican) and results are almost entirely based on turnout. For other states, maybe eventually statisticians and modelers will have a better understanding of how to understand and utilize early voting data, but we're far from it right now. 

I remember in 2016 I was rapt following the Florida early voting data, which all the "experts" were saying was showing a solid Clinton win, and we all saw how that turned out. The thing was, based on what they knew, they were right, Clinton had very strong EV numbers across a host of swing counties in the state. But they had very incomplete knowledge and did not realize such strong turnout in rural counties was available to overcome those numbers. I don't think the experts are in any better a position to explain the EV data this year either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fez said:

Yep. Although even in Nevada there is still the potential hiccup of crossover voting messing with the numbers; though my understanding is that its generally an inelastic state (unlike, say, most New England states, where many Democrats will happily vote for the right Republican) and results are almost entirely based on turnout. For other states, maybe eventually statisticians and modelers will have a better understanding of how to understand and utilize early voting data, but we're far from it right now. 

I remember in 2016 I was rapt following the Florida early voting data, which all the "experts" were saying was showing a solid Clinton win, and we all saw how that turned out. The thing was, based on what they knew, they were right, Clinton had very strong EV numbers across a host of swing counties in the state. But they had very incomplete knowledge and did not realize such strong turnout in rural counties was available to overcome those numbers. I don't think the experts are in any better a position to explain the EV data this year either.

What's weird about that is that I kept a very basic spreadsheet of the early vote in 2012 and 2016, and it clearly showed that the early vote in Florida (and Ohio and North Carolina) was not going as well for Democrats as it did in 2012.  So I personally felt very worried about Florida (since Obama had virtually no margin for error there), but I somewhat trusted the experts who said that the early vote looked really good.  Confirmation bias was really strong in 2016. 

On the plus side, I don't get the impression it's happening again.  Plenty of people are confident about the House or the governors races, but it is always tempered with "so long as the normal rules apply to 2018". 

EDIT:  I rechecked my spreadsheet.  The states I was tracking was FL, NC, NV, IA and CO.  That very rudimentary calculation based on the change in early voting between 2012 and 2016 had Clinton winning NV and CO, and losing Florida, NC and Iowa (badly).  Which is exactly what happened. 

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Didn't we have the conversation in 2016 that we shouldn't trust early voting predictions, except maybe in Nevada?  Because while early voting can be a significant portion of the total vote in some states (10-50%), only in Nevada is it like 75%+, and those voters are a reasonably representative sample. 

Yes, Nevada is the exception, which is why I'm following the blog. It will be about 60% of the final vote, I believe. In 2014 the R/D split in Clark County was almost even, while now it may be 30-35k in early voting, so at least 2018 wont be like 2014 (which we already knew). That firewall is supposedly important to offset rural votes, the turnout from which we dont really know. There is also the question of who is winning the (few) independents), but in such a tight race those small numbers matter.

So all told its still too close to call, but all told there arent any immediate red flags for Democrats (but also not evidence of a 'blue wave', at least not in Nevada)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Triskele said:

Unless one is not concerned about being misunderstood about a minority of readers.  The vast majority of regulars who saw that post from JA knew it was 100% sarcasm.  And that was not just from the text alone and post history but even supported by very recent posts which also represent a "signal" of sorts.

I'm sorry, but how do you know that "the vast majority of readers" knew any such thing? I would assume that the vast majority of readers of this thread don't even ever post on it. I think it's completely inaccurate to make a statement like that with no research to back it up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I'm sorry, but how do you know that "the vast majority of readers" knew any such thing? I would assume that the vast majority of readers of this thread don't even ever post on it.



That's probably why Trisk specifically said 'the vast majority of regulars', and not 'of readers'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GOP's chance to play victim after last weeks fiasco?  Perhaps unsurprisingly, this happened in Florida:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/shots-fired-into-florida-gop-office-while-unoccupied/ar-BBP4HvD?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=msnclassic

 

Four shots were fired into the window of a Republican Party office in South Daytona, Fla., at some point between Sunday afternoon and Monday morning, according to law enforcement.

No one was injured in the shooting, South Daytona police Capt. Mark Cheatham told The Hill, though a front window was broken and some damage was done to the drywall inside the office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yes, Nevada is the exception, which is why I'm following the blog. It will be about 60% of the final vote, I believe. In 2014 the R/D split in Clark County was almost even, while now it may be 30-35k in early voting, so at least 2018 wont be like 2014 (which we already knew). That firewall is supposedly important to offset rural votes, the turnout from which we dont really know. There is also the question of who is winning the (few) independents), but in such a tight race those small numbers matter.

So all told its still too close to call, but all told there arent any immediate red flags for Democrats (but also not evidence of a 'blue wave', at least not in Nevada)

I haven't gone through the entire tally of his posts, but is there a reason why we shouldn't be using the 2016 early vote as the benchmark to compare in Nevada?  Using my very (VERY) rudimentary math, Democrats won the early vote by just under 7 points in 2016 (according to party registration), and won the final statewide vote by 2.5 points in both the Senate and Presidential contests.  So it would seem logical that the important benchmark for whether Democrats will win is if they can exceed D+4.5 in the early vote.  If they can, then they'd be "on track" to win, and if not, they're falling short.

Obviously, there are all the caviats that people could be registered Democrats who vote Republican and you don't know what the 19% of unaffiliated voters are doing.  Polls indicate that among self proclaimed "independents", Republican support has declined sharply since 2016, so there's a good chance Republicans are coming up short from their 2016 benchmarks with that group. But nonetheless, D+4.5 seems like a reasonable starting point to say whether or not Democrats are favored to win the Governor and Senate races in Nevada.  And thus far, they're falling short. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have apologized.  Yes, I should have known better. But with the 'A's, I confused Arryan with Altherion.  I'm seeing 'Aryan' in a comment about nazis and killing Jews, and flashes of so many people I love were behind my eyes, and I just didn't SEE.  I have trouble always distinguishing who is who with my wretched vision.  The very realization that there were people in that house of worship, who had managed to survive the Holocaust, to be shot at for being Jewish, here, in the USA, when living memory of the Holocaust is still very much in play -- it left me not seeing straight at all.:crying:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I haven't gone through the entire tally of his posts, but is there a reason why we shouldn't be using the 2016 early vote as the benchmark to compare in Nevada?

I'd be careful about doing this, yes, because they're different electorates.  In 2016 there were a little over 1.125 million votes in Nevada for president.  In 2014, there were a little over 547 thousand votes for the governor's race (there was no US Senate race), or less than half.  It's very possible the differences in partisanship (and even party registration) between these two electorates are significant, and would subsequently be reflected in the early vote makeup.  Now, given the increase in enthusiasm and more competitive top-ballot races, we should expect considerable turnout increase from 2014.  However, I still would compare the early vote numbers to 2014 rather than 2016, if only because this is a better test against a Type I error (or false positive), which means you're less likely to be disappointed.

Anyway, want to add I agree with the consensus that early vote returns generally mean squat, except in Nevada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Altherion said:

 

He's certainly trying to de-legitimitize a Democratic victory, but there is nothing new in this: it's standard political maneuvering and Democrats have been doing the same exact thing to him personally since he won as well as to several of his appointees and allies (most notably Justice Kavanaugh). And again, why would he feel his Presidency is under threat? The House can order investigations and the like, but he's already being investigated by Mueller so this changes little. It can also impeach him, but a conviction in the Senate requires 67 votes which means more than a dozen Republican Senators would need to switch sides to remove him. In fact, having a House controlled by the opposition is not entirely bad for a President who is up for reelection in two years: it provides somebody in power to blame.

That's not remotely true, but you already know that, so there's no need to go into detail about why you are wrong, in the facts. Suffice it to say that one side is using fact based election results for political attacks, the other side is using factless scaremongering for political attacks. Difficult to argue that's the exact same thing, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mudguard said:

...

If the Democrats take back the House, I think it's really unlikely that Republicans will do anything systematic to try and overturn the elections to retain control of the House.  I just don't see any way Republicans could realistically prevent the newly elected Representatives from being seated. 

...

Depends, does the house have any say in court appointments? Because as long as the GOP keeps control of the senate they seem happy to keep stuffing the courts with young conservative candidates in life-time appointments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Seli said:

Depends, does the house have any say in court appointments? Because as long as the GOP keeps control of the senate they seem happy to keep stuffing the courts with young conservative candidates in life-time appointments.

..So, are you suggesting the courts are going to invalidate the (House) election results?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's not remotely true, but you already know that, so there's no need to go into detail about why you are wrong, in the facts. Suffice it to say that one side is using fact based election results for political attacks, the other side is using factless scaremongering for political attacks. Difficult to argue that's the exact same thing, IMO.

Actually, let's go through all the ways that @Altherion is completely wrong, shall we? It'll be educational.

  • it's standard political maneuvering and Democrats have been doing the same exact thing to him personally since he won
    No, it's not standard. It is so unusual, in fact, that no POTUS candidate has even been questioned on whether or not they would accept the results of an election, win or lose. If you'll recall, Gore not only accepted losing, he did so while presiding over and dismissing points of order that would have helped him. 

    What is standard is that Republicans have won the general election while losing the popular vote in 2 of their last 3 victories. 
  • as well as to several of his appointees and allies (most notably Justice Kavanaugh)
    Justice Kavanaugh was being accused, credibly, of sexual assault. By comparison, an Obama appointee who was accused of simply having an undocumented immigrant on their payroll at one point in their life was dismissed before even getting a hearing. The notion that this is some kind of Democrat scheme - to actually listen to people when they credibly accuse others of crimes - is ridiculous. 
    As to his appointees, Trump appointed an absurd amount of people with either no experience or literally conflicts of interest. This is not normal for any POTUS - Bush's appointees weren't nearly like this. The last person who was like this was Reagan, who tried this with the EPA - and had their nominees get run out on rails early on in his administration by his own party
  • And again, why would he feel his Presidency is under threat?
    Because Trump feels threatened by anyone who doesn't kiss his ass or brings up any criticism. 
  • The House can order investigations and the like, but he's already being investigated by Mueller so this changes little. 
    This is a common misstep, so I wanted to specifically address it. Mueller can investigate, but he cannot subpoena POTUS officials easily, he cannot demand comments, he cannot get other parts of the government's data, and he cannot order hearings on things outside of his mandate. Furthermore, congress cannot be fired for doing these things. Mueller has to ask Rosenstein for permission; congress does not. 
    One important thing congress can do that Mueller cannot: get Trump's tax returns. 
    Another important thing congress can do that Mueller cannot: have public hearings and questioning of witnesses. 
    Another: congress can investigate things like emoluments. Mueller cannot. 
  • In fact, having a House controlled by the opposition is not entirely bad for a President who is up for reelection in two years: it provides somebody in power to blame.
    Sure! It also means that nothing gets done at all, and he's constantly getting grilled for various things in his personal life that he does not want to be grilled on. And he hates that shit. Hates it hates it hates it. That said, having someone to blame isn't that useful to him, as he's already blaming Democrats for not getting his stuff done as it stands. There's not much more room for him to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

..So, are you suggesting the courts are going to invalidate the (House) election results?

That certainly seems like a plausible thing to happen in the case of voting irregularities, doesn't it? This isn't all that weird; after all, it's happened already this century with a much less partisan court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That certainly seems like a plausible thing to happen in the case of voting irregularities, doesn't it? This isn't all that weird; after all, it's happened already this century with a much less partisan court. 

On the scale of overturning the majority party in the House?  No, it doesn't seem plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

On the scale of overturning the majority party in the House?  No, it doesn't seem plausible.

Wait - you're saying that overturning the House majority is somehow bigger than overturning the POTUS election? Come on, man. 

A more palatable thing that would be hard for Dems to fight would be to have a lot of voting irregularities and results reported - on all sides, but more affecting dem wins - and that requiring massive recounting, court challenges and the like, which eats up much of the 2019 session. By the time it gets close, many states simply appoint people as interim reps, and that stays the law of the land until 2020 basically. 

Or...you have state governments validating Republican wins tainted massively with voter fraud/suppression/issues, lawsuits are filed, and the courts refuse to hear those cases. 

Honestly, I think this is where you're just not imaginative enough. I often agree with you about the fundamentals of the system favoring Dems right now and if all things were equal, you'd see great results - but things are decidedly unequal, and I think  you're going to see Republicans putting their thumbs on the scales more heavily now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×