the Greenleif Stark Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 To the people all in love with Booker, please come to the great state of NJ and talk to the people of NJ, talk to the people of Newark and listen to what they think of Cory Booker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Supreme Court temporarily halts Louisiana abortion law https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/01/louisiana-abortion-supreme-court-1144009 Quote The Supreme Court put on hold Friday night a Louisiana law that would have shut down any abortion provider in the state that does not have admitting privileges at a hospital less than 30 miles away. Abortion providers, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, had petitioned the court for an emergency stay, saying the law, due to take effect Monday, would leave just one qualified abortion provider to practice in the state. The state contended there was no need for an emergency stay since the law would be implemented over time and not shut down facilities overnight. The court's stay, ordered by Justice Samuel Alito, noted that it was not a sign of any of the justices' views on the merits of the law, and merely a means of giving them more time to consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/read-the-transcript-of-the-october-1975-npr-interview-with-sens-joe-biden-and-edward-brooke The right seems to be having a field day with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, the Greenleif Stark said: To the people all in love with Booker, please come to the great state of NJ and talk to the people of NJ, talk to the people of Newark and listen to what they think of Cory Booker It's a fair point. The Beast ran an expose talking about a lot of the ugliness he did, which amounted heavily to a lot of talk and less action. While there's nothing that says to me that he's deeply UNpopular there, he isn't as beloved as one might expect. That said, he's one of the few people who has a ton of crazy upside and has a lot of actual experience governing, just not senating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: Does it really matter? Obviously everyone has their own standard, but personally all I care about is if they're left enough, not who is the most left of center. Once a candidate meets that benchmark, then all I'd care about is electability. . Uh, if you read the post I quoted it says: Since we're doing this, I'll throw mine in (based on policy considerations and not eligibility - mainly for the purpose of pulling the Democratic platform further to the left). I'm assuming (my bad if I'm wrong) that eligibility=electibilty. So because the list seemed to directly contradict that (based on my knowledge of the candidates mentioned) I was asking for clarification: is there something I don't know (like a policy I'm unaware of)? I wasn't disputing the validity of having a subjective preference, it's just the ordering of candidates seemed to contradict the stated metric used to rank them. I was just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 2, 2019 Author Share Posted February 2, 2019 11 minutes ago, Kalbear said: GWB won with barely more than that. And he won handily. And GHWB had a 54% approval at election time, and he lost. These are both wildly inaccurate statements. GWB had an approval of 47-50 for the entire year up to his reelection. I don't know how this link works, but at the worst use the dropdown menu. This assertion is plainly wrong. And according to Gallup, GHWB still only had a 43% approval after losing to Clinton in 1992 - November 20-23. Sure, it improved afterwards, but most are fine approving of a lame duck. Anyway, this assertion is very easily demonstrably wrong. 20 minutes ago, Kalbear said: If you bump that up to 45%, it'll be much higher in those states that matter. I kind of agree with what your getting at, but there've been two polls recently that say ~48 percent of Wisconsin and Michigan voters will "definitely" not vote for Trump. That's a huge, almost impossible, hole to come out of as an incumbent. 23 minutes ago, Kalbear said: In any case, it isn't remotely a 'definitely', and I don't think anyone should think that a 40% approval rate magically turns into an auto-loss. It doesn't now. It does if he's at 40 on November 1, 2020. I will gladly put all of my assets on that against you giving me 10 dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 25 minutes ago, the Greenleif Stark said: To the people all in love with Booker, please come to the great state of NJ and talk to the people of NJ, talk to the people of Newark and listen to what they think of Cory Booker Why would I talk to anyone from NJ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 1 minute ago, DMC said: These are both wildly inaccurate statements. GWB had an approval of 47-50 for the entire year up to his reelection. I don't know how this link works, but at the worst use the dropdown menu. This assertion is plainly wrong. And according to Gallup, GHWB still only had a 43% approval after losing to Clinton in 1992 - November 20-23. Sure, it improved afterwards, but most are fine approving of a lame duck. Anyway, this assertion is very easily demonstrably wrong. How is 47% particularly different than 45%? Your assertion was that Trump will be in the 45% range. All I was saying is that GWB won with barely more than that - which is true. His approval rating during the 2004 campaign was as low as 46%, and went up around 47-48% right before the election. Are you telling me a 3% approval rating is not 'barely more'? You are right about GHWB though - I got that from 538, and I didn't realize it went past their election time. 1 minute ago, DMC said: I kind of agree with what your getting at, but there've been two polls recently that say ~48 percent of Wisconsin and Michigan voters will "definitely" not vote for Trump. That's a huge, almost impossible, hole to come out of as an incumbent. You seem really assured of that. Care to back that up with data? I remember similar things about Kerry and Bush, and as it turned out those same people who definitely didn't vote for Bush just, well, didn't vote at all. Don't take not voting for Trump as a necessary win for Democrats. It's better than nothing, but the Democrat candidate matters a whole lot too. And that ignores things like 3rd parties thrown into the mix at a regional level, or scandal for the dem candidate, or hacking, or voter suppression, or... 1 minute ago, DMC said: It doesn't now. It does if he's at 40 on November 1, 2020. I will gladly put all of my assets on that against you giving me 10 dollars. Nah. I'd rather do the standard all in bet - if you lose, you have to eat a bug. I guess I'd stick with what 538 came out from the prior election, which is that there is very little I would say makes me think confidently about ANY assertion based on prior data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 31 minutes ago, the Greenleif Stark said: To the people all in love with Booker, please come to the great state of NJ and talk to the people of NJ, talk to the people of Newark and listen to what they think of Cory Booker I read this article this morning, seems positive enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Even at 40% approval the people on team trump in 2016 are going to stay on their team, which means he’s getting a huge come home effect when it gets down to actual voting millions of disapprovers will vote for him anyway because even disapproving trump it’s better for them individually than not voting or voting for the hated other team. so I don’t think with high partisanship that disapproval matters at all, trump will still get 98%+ of his 2016 voters. the only way he loses is if the democrats can make up the difference by expanding participation. And he’s got a pretty easy path to victory fanatically devote voter registration and gotv efforts in his tipping point states and make sure that no matter how much resources democrats invest, that they cannot make up the 2016 voter deficit in those states because as they expand their base in those states, trump is also expanding his base in those states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 On Northam - I'm going the pragmatic route and wanting him gone. If he leaves, the Lt. Governor (Dem, Fairfax) will become Governor, and due to the rules can also run for Governor in 2021. He would be able to be the longest tenured governor in Virginian history. He appears to be pretty solid on his own right, and condemning Northam for this would give him some both sides cred. There's very little value in keeping Northam in, by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 2, 2019 Author Share Posted February 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, Kalbear said: How is 47% particularly different than 45%? Your assertion was that Trump will be in the 45% range. Ok, what exactly are we talking about here? The goalposts seem to be constantly changing - and I'm not blaming you for that. Let's set it at, like I said, Trump's approval is 45/52 when we wake up on election day 2020. If it's at that, yes, I'm saying he can't win. Why is 45 particularly different than 47? Because it's two points less, and Trump's margin of victory was much less than that. 10 minutes ago, Kalbear said: You seem really assured of that. Care to back that up with data? What, that it's very difficult to come out of a hole when a near majority are "definitely" voting against you? No, I'm not your data monkey. But I'm confident that assumption would be confirmed if you look at the data. 13 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Nah. I'd rather do the standard all in bet - if you lose, you have to eat a bug. Eating a bug seems much easier than what I was suggesting. Hell, throw me a few bucks and I'll eat any bug you want. I'm like Kenny, without the immortality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Just now, DMC said: Ok, what exactly are we talking about here? The goalposts seem to be constantly changing - and I'm not blaming you for that. Let's set it at, like I said, Trump's approval is 45/52 when we wake up on election day 2020. If it's at that, yes, I'm saying he can't win. Why is 45 particularly different than 47? Because it's two points less, and Trump's margin of victory was much less than that. I just don't think that approval rating corresponds that directly to voting, and certainly not with the kind of certitude you're espousing here. If it was 45 or 47% I'd say it was the same thing as far as voting goes. Now, 45 vs 55%? Maybe we're talking. Or 45 vs 35%? Okay, now we're getting into Carter levels. Now, here's the good news. I've seen basically nothing from Trump that would indicate that he can do anything to win back and get a higher approval rating. Obama, Clinton, Reagan - all pivoted and became far more centrist in the second half of their first terms. Heck, so did Bush 1, though that killed him with the No New Taxes thing. It's certainly possible that Trump can do something that will increase his popularity somehow, but I've seen zero signs that he has any desire to do it, any desire to do anything other than continue to feed his base no matter how unpopular it is with the rest of the people. If he does this emergency declaration that'll echo for months, and notably with his own party yelling at him; that's not going to make him any friends. Just now, DMC said: What, that it's very difficult to come out of a hole when a near majority are "definitely" voting against you? No, I'm not your data monkey. But I'm confident that assumption would be confirmed if you look at the data. Again, saying they definitely won't vote for Trump is not the same thing as them definitely voting for the other person. Kerry learned that to his sorrow. Just now, DMC said: Eating a bug seems much easier than what I was suggesting. Hell, throw me a few bucks and I'll eat any bug you want. I'm like Kenny, without the immortality. Two years seems reasonable. And it's a win win - either I'm wrong and a dem wins and Trump loses (and probably doesn't actually leave the office without a fight), or I'm right and you eat a bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: Does it though? It certainly improves the situation and makes it easier to fund other programs, but eventually we'll have to reexamine the entire budget and the process that delivers it to us. I won't bore you with any equations showing the dynamics of debt in discrete time. But, there is pretty simple equation where you can to a back of an envelope calculation: Given G > R: You have (D/y) / G , D where to is the total deficit, as opposed to the primary deficit and G is the nominal rate of growth. According to the CBO's calculations, the total deficit every year is about 8.2% through 2040-2049. If you assume about 4% nominal GDP growth, then total debt/GDP ratio would stabilize right around 205%. That's much higher than the average we have held over our history, but really not particularly alarming for a country that controls it's own monetary policy and has history of not defaulting. The UK went above that level on two occasions and pretty much just fine. Except there is one fly in the ointment. And that is according to the CBO the average interest rate on federal debt will be about 4.4%, so the G > R condition does not apply. In short the debt won't converge to a stable path. According to the CBO about 2/3s of our healthcare spending will because of what it calls excess user cost, which is cost basically over nominal GDP. The other 1/3 with regard to healthcare spending is due to an aging population. According to the Excel table provided by the CBO current spending on major healthcare programs is about 5.2% of GDP. By the 2040s it rises to about 8.9%. Shave off the the excess user cost and you're right around 6.46% GDP on major healthcare programs. Assume debt service payments are constant, and revenue is constant under CBO projections and the total deficit per year is at about 5.8% per year. Just assume G > R, which is a fair assumption if we ever get our healthcare cost under control. Then debt/GDP ratio would stabilize around about 145%, and that is the debt/GDP ratio converging to that number after the 2040s, where current CBO estimates predict it will continue to rise beyond that. In this little exercise, I assumed debt service payments would stay the same. But that is not likely, if we get a handle on our healthcare cost. The sooner the better. The CBO has debt service payments at about 5.2% of GDP by the 2040s. Lower healthcare cost, then that is likely not to happen and also the G > R condition is likely to remain true. File here: https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 2, 2019 Author Share Posted February 2, 2019 16 minutes ago, Kalbear said: just don't think that approval rating corresponds that directly to voting, and certainly not with the kind of certitude you're espousing here. If it was 45 or 47% I'd say it was the same thing as far as voting goes. I think it does. In fact I know it does. Any incumbent that has 45% approval on the morning of election day is going to lose. 20 minutes ago, Kalbear said: It's certainly possible that Trump can do something that will increase his popularity somehow, but I've seen zero signs that he has any desire to do it, any desire to do anything other than continue to feed his base no matter how unpopular it is with the rest of the people. If he does this emergency declaration that'll echo for months, and notably with his own party yelling at him; that's not going to make him any friends. Uh. Yeah. 21 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Again, saying they definitely won't vote for Trump is not the same thing as them definitely voting for the other person. Kerry learned that to his sorrow. Again, 2004 was a fundamentally different race than 2020 will be. 22 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Two years seems reasonable. And it's a win win - either I'm wrong and a dem wins and Trump loses (and probably doesn't actually leave the office without a fight), or I'm right and you eat a bug. Feel like at this point you just want to see me eat a bug. I can give you pics of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Just now, DMC said: I think it does. In fact I know it does. Any incumbent that has 45% approval on the morning of election day is going to lose. BUG BET BUG BET Just now, DMC said: Again, 2004 was a fundamentally different race than 2020 will be. I suppose, but it's certainly going to be closer to 2004 than, say, 1976 is. Just now, DMC said: Feel like at this point you just want to see me eat a bug. I can give you pics of that. I don't not want you to eat a bug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 Yeah I’m with kal fundamentally I do not think that approval/disapproval is predictive of voting behavior in this level of partisan polarization. and even if it is been predictive in the past it may simply be a false cognate so to speak, that they track together but don’t have an actual causal mechanism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 2, 2019 Author Share Posted February 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Kalbear said: I suppose, but it's certainly going to be closer to 2004 than, say, 1976 is. yeah, sure. 2 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I don't not want you to eat a bug WHY NOT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 2, 2019 Share Posted February 2, 2019 1 minute ago, lokisnow said: Yeah I’m with kal fundamentally I do not think that approval/disapproval is predictive of voting behavior in this level of partisan polarization. To be clear, I think it's a reasonable indicator, but I don't think it's particularly precise, nor is it a replacement for 'who are you going to vote for' type of polls. Most notably it fails when the other person is even more disapproved of (or at least is comparably disapproved of). When you have two shitty choices, most people are going to go with the thing they know. 1 minute ago, lokisnow said: and even if it is been predictive in the past it may simply be a false cognate so to speak, that they track together but don’t have an actual causal mechanism As far as I can tell there's no magic number that has been predictive. The lowest that anyone has had and won is 50%, the highest that anyone has had and lost is 35%. There's a big range in between that no one has tested so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 2, 2019 Author Share Posted February 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, lokisnow said: and even if it is been predictive in the past it may simply be a false cognate so to speak, that they track together but don’t have an actual causal mechanism There's a very obvious causal mechanism. The voters preferences is a causal mechanism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.