Jump to content

US Politics: Four Days and Counting


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Galactus said:

 

 


Eh, native americans might have some beef with that, considering the long and impressive amount of propaganda levied against them. 

African Americans, women, LGBT, the poor (see, for that latter, the rhetoric about how the poor needed to die because being poor meant without any value to the state, in the Gilded Age, the Depression and right now though They who believe it usually keep that on the down-low except among each other, but the nazi and the obscenely wealthy oligarchs these days tend often to forget about keeping their real views from the voters) etc., have a lot to say about this -- not to mention many others. 

Not to mention the violence that literally broke out on the Hill prior to the War of the Rebellion against members who didn't think slavery was the bestest thing evah.

Anyone can say that hate isn't an official part of US politics from even colonial days knows nothing of either political history or any other history of the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

538 just updated their Senate and House models a few minutes ago.  The House model is at the highest it's ever been - 87.6% in the classic model and 85.7% in the Deluxe model.  Meanwhile, the Republican chances just dropped to 81% in the classic and 82% in the deluxe after staying steady at about 84% over the past week.  Seems their models, at least, are encouraged by the last barrage of polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there's this from Wasserman's final CPR House ratings update:

Quote

Just by winning all of the races at least "leaning" their way, Democrats would net 16 of the 23 seats they need for a majority. In that scenario, Democrats would only need to win eight of the 30 races in Toss Up to win control (they currently hold one Toss Up, Minnesota's 1st CD). Conversely, Republicans would likely need to win 23 of the 30 Toss Up races to keep their majority. That's not impossible, but it's very difficult.

If the 30 races in Toss Up were to break evenly, Democrats would score a net gain of 30 seats. However, history shows that one party typically wins a lion's share of close races. In 2006 and 2010, the party riding the "wave" averaged 100 percent of all the seats at least leaning their way, 57 percent of the Toss Ups, 19 percent of the opposite party's "Lean" seats, and nine percent of the other side's "Likely" seats.

If that historical pattern were applied to our final ratings, Democrats would gain 40 seats. But high enthusiasm on both sides of the partisan divide may limit how deeply Democrats can drive into Trump country. Bottom line: anything from a Democratic gain of 20 to 45 seats remains well within the realm of possibility, but a gain of 30 to 40 seats - and House control - is the most likely outcome.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump Tries to Intimidate Voters With ‘Law Enforcement Is Watching’ Tweet

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/trump-tweet-intimidate-voters.html

Quote

 

It says a lot about how far this country has devolved in respecting voting rights that this year the old “police are watching” gambit is coming from the Oval Office:


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
 Law Enforcement has been strongly notified to watch closely for any ILLEGAL VOTING which may take place in Tuesday’s Election (or Early Voting). Anyone caught will be subject to the Maximum Criminal Penalties allowed by law. Thank you!

7:41 AM - Nov 5, 2018
78.9K
51.6K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
This is rather absurd on its face, since it’s not clear what he means by “law enforcement,” given his lack of authority over the state and local personnel mostly responsible for election administration. And how does Trump know that state and local prosecutors would pursue Maximum Criminal Penalties for illegal voting? Yes, in theory the feds could intervene to punish fradulent voting in elections involving federal offices. But since in-person voter fraud (the kind Trump is talking about) is as rare as a blue rose, there’s no reason it should be a priority for stretched-thin federal agencies.

There has, traditionally, been an important role for the Feds on Election Day: enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in places where minority voters have historically struggled to exercise the franchise. The evisceration of the VRA by the Supreme Court in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision has liberated election officials in the mostly Republican South and elsewhere to do everything in their power to discourage robust minority voting. But still, as in the past, the Justice Department has announced it is deploying attorneys to 35 jurisdictions to monitor VRA compliance. Trump, however, is signaling that they are not necessarily going to be there to fight for the right to vote, and may in fact have the opposite intention. Even if Sessions’s minions plan to act in good faith, their ultimate boss is suggesting The Law is there to keep an eye on those people.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

Compromise - drink in bed.

Only if Teng Ai Hui is NOT a registered US voter who hasn't voted early. Please let's not have him do anything which would make it less likely for him to show up at the polls. (If he's already voted, drink away.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Only if Teng Ai Hui is NOT a registered US voter who hasn't voted early. Please let's not have him do anything which would make it less likely for him to show up at the polls. (If he's already voted, drink away.)

I live overseas.  Voted absentee.  Ballot is in the mail. 

:cheers:  :cheers:  :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

54 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Trump Tries to Intimidate Voters With ‘Law Enforcement Is Watching’ Tweet

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/trump-tweet-intimidate-voters.html

 

That tactic seems to go against trying to set things up to claim voter fraud as the reason for Democrats winning a House majority. How could there have been voter fraud when POTUS himself assured the public of close police scrutiny and maximum prosecution? If there is no prosecution then it must mean there was no voter fraud.

Though I'm sure the lack of any actual prosecution, or significant investigation, won't stop the usual conspiracy media from claiming there are prosecutions happening up and down the country. Or that the deep state has intimidated law enforcement to not prosecute even when there are clear cases of fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody remember that episode of the Sunbow G.I. Joe cartoon where there's a city having an election? Punks are going around intimidating voters saying you better vote for (call him "Smith") and to their faces the voters would be scared and say "Yes, sure I'm voting for Smith!" then when they leave they say "I'm definitely not voting for Smith now if that's the tactics he's using. I'm voting for the other guy, he'll clean those punks up!"

Then it comes to be found out that Other Guy is backed by COBRA and the Tomax and Xamot are using the punks, unbeknownst to them who really are for Smith, to get exactly this outcome with the voters turned away from Smith because they don't like the punks supporting him.

In the end the Joes uncover the plot and Other Guy ends up only getting two votes, Roadblock surmises it's his parents who voted for him but turns out it was Tomax and Xamot.

 

Where's G.I. Joe when we need them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to birthright citizenship. I thought I would look up what our law is in this regard. In New Zealand to be born a NZ citizen at least one parent needs to be a citizen or permanent resident at the time the child is born. That was implemented in 2006, under the Labour (center-left) government. Before 2006 NZ birthright citizenship was more or less the same as is current in the USA.

I can't say I disagree with our current law. From memory I think what largely precipitated this law change was reporting of several cases of pregnant non-citizens / residents travelling to New Zealand on visitor visas in their last trimester of pregnancy and giving birth here so that their child could have NZ citizenship. Naturally the media and certain political interest blew the actual number of people doing this out of proportion. But even so, I'm not a fan of people gaming the system like that. Albeit I'm not terribly animated about immigration in a general sense. I don't care where you're from or where you're born, I only care about whether you play well with others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

@Altherion

I'm glad we can agree on that.

Well, you have a point, but one way or the other I don't see how the idea of universal human rights could disappear. It's the strength of each and every right that is in doubt, since different regimes/cultures have different standards at different times. However, some rights not being much recognized anymore is slightly different from the entire framework not being viable. On the contrary so far human rights have proven surprisingly resilient.

I stand corrected.

I have to say I find it hard to imagine a failure of human rights as an ideology that wouldn't be temporary. Long-term failure would result in an apocalyptic scenario.
I do believe that is actually the story of Star Trek though. Humanity almost destroyed itself before coming together.

It's always difficult to imagine how society can evolve too far from what it currently is, but this has happened throughout history. You can read historical arguments about why a given society (say, one with an absolute monarchy) is close to the ideal form of government and they'd be fairly convincing... if one didn't know what happens next. Is our moral system different in that it truly is the last revision or are we just as blind to what the future will bring as they were? So long as technology is advancing, I'd guess that society will continue to evolve. Even as it stands, the idea of universal human rights has an obvious flaw: it grants equal rights to individuals who are obviously not equal regardless of how one chooses to measure them. There are a few ways technology can amplify this and bring the idea down.

For example, it makes it easier to quantify who is a worthy citizen and who is not. It used to be quite difficult to put together all sorts of court records, purchasing history, known associates, etc. etc., but we're on the verge of being able to do so for nearly everyone. Once this is done, what is the moral argument for people who are obviously contributing a lot to society to have the same rights as those who are obviously detrimental? In fact, China is already experimenting with this. At the moment, the effects are limited in both space (it's only in a few regions) and in scope (the carrots are along the lines of lower utility bills and the sticks are things like transportation restrictions), but there's no reason the idea cannot be extended.

A more far-fetched (but still fairly realistic) future is one in which we use either genetic engineering or cybernetics to create human beings who are clearly better than the common stock. Both fields are currently in their infancy as far as human modification is concerned, but there's no obvious reason why we won't be able to create literal Übermenschen eventually and it won't make much sense for them to have the same rights as creatures which are obviously inferior.

Of course, the Star Trek future (with or without the preceding calamity) is also a possibility, but I wouldn't bet money on it at this point.

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

In a nutshell, fascist countries (in the loose sense of the term) are not nice to live in. They tend to disregard things like separation of powers or individual liberties.

For all its flaws, the official US ideology has seldom been about hatred. The domestic consequences of hostility have thus been rather mild, though they do exist.
This may be changing though. I don't think the US has ever had a president as crass as Trump.

The official US ideology has indeed never been about hatred, but the practical actions that enabled, say Manifest Destiny, fall only slightly short of genocide. The leading families of Boston, Philadelphia, etc. did quite well for themselves over the centuries. The Native Americans and African Americans... not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Things that worry me:

  • GOP enthusiasm might not be terrible for an off year election
  • ratfucking at the polls or in other ways on top of the already ratfucked gerrymandered maps
  • Russian interference

Things that make me optimistic

  • overall polling looking strong for the House
  • legit signs that women are voting Dem in overwhelming numbers
  • some signs that the youth vote ought to be better than off year elections of years past

But those things making me optimistic also make me worried a la can it be relied upon?  Ballot is in the mail, and I should be really busy tomorrow and not able to pay much attention until the evening news...almost prefer to be distracted like that so I won't be so nervous.  If they don't get the House it is going to be one seriously painful night.  

 

It's now more than ever time to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

We have to keep hoping a blue wave will turn the tide, but we can't let our sanity ride on that. Stay on guard for just about any possible scenario and avoid the feeling of being caught off guard. We must craft a center of peace and calm within us and keep a path back to that no matter what the outcome is after tomorrow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Even as it stands, the idea of universal human rights has an obvious flaw: it grants equal rights to individuals who are obviously not equal regardless of how one chooses to measure them.

You think that's a flaw??? The whole point of universal rights is that you don't measure people. The flaw with measuring people is that how you choose to measure can radically alter which people are classified as "worthy" and which are not.

Quote

there's no reason the idea cannot be extended.

That it's a dystopian nightmare scenario sounds like a pretty good reason to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, felice said:

You think that's a flaw??? The whole point of universal rights is that you don't measure people. The flaw with measuring people is that how you choose to measure can radically alter which people are classified as "worthy" and which are not.

There's a set of behaviors (e.g. not repaying one's debts) that nearly all cultures agree is bad. The bet China is making is that they can build a better society by measuring people than by going entirely without measurement. As the Vox article points out, the US is not that far from this: we don't have the kind of comprehensive score that they're aiming for, but we do have a credit score which provides incentives such as lower mortgage and car rates.

36 minutes ago, felice said:

That it's a dystopian nightmare scenario sounds like a pretty good reason to me.

Maybe and maybe not. We'll see soon enough -- they claim that it'll be ready in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's natural to be anxious after 2016, but I also want to emphasize that it is rational to be more confident today than in 2016.  Trump won 2016 by a handful of states - namely Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin - being slightly off in the polls.  As I've explained many times over, the polling error and expected result based on environmental factors were not unusual.  In comparison, the Dems failing to retake the House would truly be an anomaly.  It would be a whole hell of a lot more polling errors that would range from slightly to significantly off.  Moreover, to revisit a quote from Wasserman at Cook Political Report I posted hours ago:

Quote

If the 30 races in Toss Up were to break evenly, Democrats would score a net gain of 30 seats. However, history shows that one party typically wins a lion's share of close races. In 2006 and 2010, the party riding the "wave" averaged 100 percent of all the seats at least leaning their way, 57 percent of the Toss Ups, 19 percent of the opposite party's "Lean" seats, and nine percent of the other side's "Likely" seats.

If you take those percentages and apply them to CPR's ratings for the Republicans to win - i.e. be the recipient of the wave - then based on CPR's current ratings the GOP would still end up with 217 seats, or lose the House by a seat (feel free to check my back-of-the-napkin math, but based on the ratings this would mean the GOP would win 17 of the tossups, 3 of the Dem leans, and 2 of the Dem likelys along with 195 GOP seats leaning or better - and that's rounding up).  Considering the conditions - GOP president, unpopular president, generic ballot, fundraising advantage - that would be a truly unique election in American politics.  It would not only be a "systematic" polling error, as Silver loves to say, it'd be a rather historic error on behalf of career prognosticators.  And the GOP would still come up one short.

It's right to be concerned about Republican enthusiasm, and voter suppression, and if key Dem constituencies will truly turn out.  And of course anomalies always can and do happen.  But it's also right to say there should be much more positivity on the eve of this election than in 2016 - at least when it comes to the Dems retaking the House.

Further, on a similar note, it's not as crazy to imagine the Dems taking the Senate as it is the GOP retaining the House.  The Dems would have to thread the needle - pickup Arizona and Nevada plus defend Missouri, Indiana, and Florida.  But all of that looks very plausible.  Heitkamp, however, looks cooked in ND, so it would take a fairly large miracle for either O'Rourke or Bredesen.  That's quite unlikely, but it would only take a miracle in one race if everything shakes out right for the Dems, not how many it'd take for the GOP in the House. 

Finally, the governors races look really good.  9 clear pickup opportunities, and then even Georgia, Kansa, Oklahoma, and South Dakota could be fun to watch (also, remember the GOP will almost certainly "pickup" Alaska's seat as it moves from Independent to GOP).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I can't say I disagree with our current law. From memory I think what largely precipitated this law change was reporting of several cases of pregnant non-citizens / residents travelling to New Zealand on visitor visas in their last trimester of pregnancy and giving birth here so that their child could have NZ citizenship. Naturally the media and certain political interest blew the actual number of people doing this out of proportion. But even so, I'm not a fan of people gaming the system like that. Albeit I'm not terribly animated about immigration in a general sense. I don't care where you're from or where you're born, I only care about whether you play well with others.

The same thing is happening in the US, it's mostly Asian women doing it from what I've heard.

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...