Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Ready, Set, Announce! Bookering the Odds

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And in case you were wanting to think positively about things, well, the model that has correctly predicted everything - including Trump beating Clinton - sees the current economic forecast and says Trump wins.

Actually, this is totally a way to think positively about things.  The disparity between Abramowitz's two variables - GDP growth and approval - have never looked this bad for a president running for reelection in the history of polling.  The only examples that come close are Truman (Korean War), Johnson (Vietnam War), and Nixon (Watergate - and he was dealing with a recession).  This disparity makes it abundantly clear Trump is the weakest incumbent in modern history running for reelection independent of the economy.  Of course, nothing about a presidential race is independent of the economy, but I'll take it.

20 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

His model in 2016 predicted Trump would win the popular vote, didnt say anything about the EC. In that sense it was wrong (but right in the sense that it predicted a Trump victory), just as it could be probably wrong about Trump's share of the vote this time around. It's very tough for him to get 51.2% of the vote as nearly half of voters are already opposed to him.

It should also be noted Abramowitz didn't agree with his own model at the time.  (Also, just as a note, most scholarly predictive models estimate the two party vote.  Trying to estimate what happens in the EC really only started with Silver, I'll give him credit for that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Where have you been?  Oppo digging, phony information and lies, have been in play since at least Reagan's day (actually  -- see Cadwallader, Adams and Hamilton and the Thomas Jefferson dirty campaigns).  It's gotten to be the public order of the day  targeting every voter, now, since the internet has made it possible to drown out responsible reporting.  It goes on all the time, with the orange nazi's trumpeting of fake news.

If you think the tech isn't there yet to alter, edit and create media to make it look 'real' -- I really don't have a clue as to where you have been living and what you've been doing for at least 15 years.

I'm well aware that the book of dirty tricks in politics is well-worn and often used.  But I disagree with your assertion that the technology now exists to make completely fabricated situations look real. Enough digging and examination will mostly show when pictures or videos have been shipped or edited. Plus Republicans don't need any excuse to believe a Democrat did something awful. 

But what about middle-of-the-road, see-it-to-believe it types? Or even Democratic supporters who might be fooled as the technology improves? We're heading towards an epistemological nightmare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm well aware that the book of dirty tricks in politics is well-worn and often used.  But I disagree with your assertion that the technology now exists to make completely fabricated situations look real. Enough digging and examination will mostly show when pictures or videos have been shipped or edited. Plus Republicans don't need any excuse to believe a Democrat did something awful. 

But what about middle-of-the-road, see-it-to-believe it types? Or even Democratic supporters who might be fooled as the technology improves? We're heading towards an epistemological nightmare. 

As trump supporters like altherion will be happy to gloat, this is a side effect of democrats embrace of the philosophy that the existence of an accusation indicates complete guilt. It’s an easily exploitable vulnerability, remedied, mostly, by democrats not nominating nor electing in the first place entitled, privileged, ass grabbing, old white men from the good old boys country club. So short term it’s a problem, but if ten years from now 70% of all elected democrats are women, it’s nto much of a problem. It’s the interregnum where we are most vulnerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest causes of the California homeless crisis is that institutional racism in housing is LITERALLY written into the California state constitution. (And was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, a decision that was crucial to opening the floodgates of the enthusiastic racist policies and rollbacks of the Nixon and Reagan administrations)  So even though we have passed something like ten billion in funding for homeless housing relief, most of it cannot be spent because the constitution is legally aligned with the racist trash from the reprehensible and racist 1950s.

that is to say, they’re going to try to repeal the white supremacy article 34 for the California constitution in 2020, but until then, even with billions in funding, little will be possible to be done for the homeless—all because racist assholes in the 1950s have control of us today seventy years later:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-affordable-housing-constitution-20190203-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

 

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been reading a lot of Virginia Dems are worried Northam will hurt them in the upcoming state legislature elections - which happen this November.  The GOP Senate has a 21-19 majority (and wasn't up in 2017) while the GOP House has a 51-48 majority (and was up in 2017).  This just smacks of typical Democratic hand-wringing.  You're worried about the GOP attacking the Dems due to Northam refusing to resign?  Then fucking impeach him.  Would the Republicans block it?  Probably, just like the Dems did with Mark Sanford (which is probably the closest recent comparison I can think of in terms of a party wanting its own governor gone and him refusing to leave), but it would certainly mitigate GOP attacks on Dem legislators.

Also, the same same website that propagated the Northam photo is now bringing up old sexual assault allegations of Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax:

Quote

Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax said Monday that it’s no coincidence an uncorroborated sexual assault accusation from more than a decade ago has emerged right as he potentially could be elevated to the state’s governorship.

The accusation surfaced Sunday night on the fledgling conservative website Big League Politics, the same site that on Friday unearthed a racist photo on Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s yearbook page that has gravely imperiled his governorship.

 

Share this post


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

Been reading a lot of Virginia Dems are worried Northam will hurt them in the upcoming state legislature elections - which happen this November.  The GOP Senate has a 21-19 majority (and wasn't up in 2017) while the GOP House has a 51-48 majority (and was up in 2017).  This just smacks of typical Democratic hand-wringing.  You're worried about the GOP attacking the Dems due to Northam refusing to resign?  Then fucking impeach him.  Would the Republicans block it?  Probably, just like the Dems did with Mark Sanford (which is probably the closest recent comparison I can think of in terms of a party wanting its own governor gone and him refusing to leave), but it would certainly mitigate GOP attacks on Dem legislators.

Also, the same same website that propagated the Northam photo is now bringing up old sexual assault allegations of Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax:

 

And, to making the point that politically racism is intimately entwined with sexism, all of this frantic digging was in response to protection of women's rights to abortion -- INFANTICIDE! They Screamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

There’s no way that will hold up in court considering it’s a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Quite the contrary, any gag order imposed for security issues will likely be validated by the courts, since this is the basis for restrictions on the 1st Amendment already. The legal precedents are well-established and in this instance there might even be a way to make executive privilege part of it, if you say that executive privilege also means the *current* president is free to place limits on the former presidents' freedom of speech for security reasons.

Share this post


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

Been reading a lot of Virginia Dems are worried Northam will hurt them in the upcoming state legislature elections - which happen this November.  The GOP Senate has a 21-19 majority (and wasn't up in 2017) while the GOP House has a 51-48 majority (and was up in 2017).  This just smacks of typical Democratic hand-wringing.  You're worried about the GOP attacking the Dems due to Northam refusing to resign?  Then fucking impeach him.  Would the Republicans block it?  Probably, just like the Dems did with Mark Sanford (which is probably the closest recent comparison I can think of in terms of a party wanting its own governor gone and him refusing to leave), but it would certainly mitigate GOP attacks on Dem legislators.

Also, the same same website that propagated the Northam photo is now bringing up old sexual assault allegations of Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax:

 

Yeah, a democrat refusing to resign over a picture of ignorant and dumb behavior in college thirty five years ago is probably not going to affect the outcomes of races in unrelated state legislative contests. Particularly as this whole kerfluffle is only occurring because of the tsunami of fake abortion stories about the Virginia legislature last week that dominated right wing social media prior to this.

the election is ten months away, grab them by the pussy faded to nothing after three weeks, I think he’s probably fine and like all scandals it’ll fade in a couple weeks.

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Quite the contrary, any gag order imposed for security issues will likely be validated by the courts, since this is the basis for restrictions on the 1st Amendment already. The legal precedents are well-established and in this instance there might even be a way to make executive privilege part of it, if you say that executive privilege also means the *current* president is free to place limits on the former presidents' freedom of speech for security reasons.

Obviously if he's divulging classified information that's one thing.  But other than that I gotta strongly agree with @Tywin et al. here.  I'm no legal scholar, but looking at the obvious relevant case law on prior restraint (e.g. Schenck v. US 1919; Near v. Minnesota 1931; NYT v. US 1971; Haig v. Agee 1981), seems pretty damn clear he wouldn't be violating any established standard if he's just tweet-shitting like he does now.  And I highly doubt the courts would uphold any type of gag order attempt.  Maybe under this SC if Trump was a Democrat, but even then I could only see Kavanaugh and Alito voting to uphold for sure.

Share this post


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

Obviously if he's divulging classified information that's one thing. 

I'm assuming that's what we're talking about on some level or the other. Either that or other kinds of threats to national security (like inciting violent action) that can also be dealt with under the current laws. The usual tweet-shitting I wouldn't be too concerned about. Once Trump is out of office his relevance will gradually fade. Worse case scenario he'll have the same media power as Ann Coulter or other right-wing nutjobs. And that's all assuming he remains i) as energetic as he is today (he's 72 after all, and the presidency isn't an easy job) and ii) out of jail/ serious legal trouble.
An interesting question would be whether a judge can restrict his use of social media if he's convicted (or merely indicted even) of something like obstruction of justice through said social media. Or of anything else for that matter.
One could even speculate that all this is a moot point because once he's out of office twitter will quickly have numerous reasons to suspend his account.

Share this post


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

I'm assuming that's what we're talking about on some level or the other. Either that or other kinds of threats to national security (like inciting violent action) that can also be dealt with under the current laws.

Well then yeah, those clearly are violating established standards of prior restraint.

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

An interesting question would be whether a judge can restrict his use of social media if he's convicted (or merely indicted even) of something like obstruction of justice through said social media. Or of anything else for that matter.

Pretty sure a judge could for any other citizen if they're under indictment (hell, Roger Stone's judge is considering a gag order), so don't see why one couldn't with Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Been reading a lot of Virginia Dems are worried Northam will hurt them in the upcoming state legislature elections - which happen this November.  The GOP Senate has a 21-19 majority (and wasn't up in 2017) while the GOP House has a 51-48 majority (and was up in 2017).  This just smacks of typical Democratic hand-wringing.  You're worried about the GOP attacking the Dems due to Northam refusing to resign?  Then fucking impeach him.  Would the Republicans block it?  Probably, just like the Dems did with Mark Sanford (which is probably the closest recent comparison I can think of in terms of a party wanting its own governor gone and him refusing to leave), but it would certainly mitigate GOP attacks on Dem legislators.

Also, the same same website that propagated the Northam photo is now bringing up old sexual assault allegations of Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax:

 

What would they impeach him for? Has he lied or obstructed in some impeachable way?

There has to be a political statute of limitations on dumb, non-criminal behaviour. Otherwise the racist reactionaries in the right will win. The left can dig up dirt on dodgy sexist, racist etc behaviour by the right. But most of the right doesn't care, and in some quarters it improves the street cred. If the left finds evidence of cross-dressing, homosexual behavior etc, they can't use it, because that's weaponising something that progressives want to normalise. But the right has no qualms about using that stuff, since to a lot of them that stuff is evil and despicable. 

The more the left / progressives allow the right's expose's of left / progressive political figures to ruin careers, the worse it's going to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What would they impeach him for? Has he lied or obstructed in some impeachable way?

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process.  The Virginia constitution states impeachment can happen for "malfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty, or other high crime or misdemeanor."  Not hard to build a case for at least one of those.

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

There has to be a political statute of limitations on dumb, non-criminal behaviour. Otherwise the racist reactionaries in the right will win.

The already incredibly high standards for conviction of an impeachment render this pretty damn moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't really see people discussing this last thread so thought I'd bring it back up here given it's magnitude. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/joe-biden-on-busing-so-wrong-that-he-was-alas-way-ahead-of-his-time

Could very easily be used to depress the AA turnout in 2020 should he decide to run and win the nomination.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Didn't really see people discussing this last thread so thought I'd bring it back up here given it's magnitude. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/joe-biden-on-busing-so-wrong-that-he-was-alas-way-ahead-of-his-time

Could very easily be used to depress the AA turnout in 2020. 

 

Again, have you even read the article?  Even if Biden runs and wins the primary this probably wouldn't depress black turnout.  Why would you think it would?

Edited by larrytheimp
Eta: what's the magnitude you're talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I'm assuming that's what we're talking about on some level or the other. Either that or other kinds of threats to national security (like inciting violent action) that can also be dealt with under the current laws. The usual tweet-shitting I wouldn't be too concerned about. Once Trump is out of office his relevance will gradually fade. Worse case scenario he'll have the same media power as Ann Coulter or other right-wing nutjobs. And that's all assuming he remains i) as energetic as he is today (he's 72 after all, and the presidency isn't an easy job) and ii) out of jail/ serious legal trouble.

Not really. There are certainly some obvious examples of things that Trump could say that would get him silenced, but that wasn't exactly what I had in mind. I am more worried about him stoking anger (not necessarily violence) and being as divisive as possible to get his base in an uproar. 

I think you're wrong to assume he'll fade from relevance once he's out of office, assuming he's not in jail. Trump is a modern P.T. Barnum, and he knows how to draw attention. It's quite possible that he'll start a new media company once he's out of office, and if he can be successful at that, the amount of damage he could do is unpredictable. It could be that I'm fretting over nothing, but Trump is a vindictive attention w---e, and he has as big a reach as anyone who has ever lived. That will fade with time, but he could use said platform once he's out of office to do an immense amount of damage, and he wouldn't be phased one bit by the devastation he could leave in his wake. That's certainly a volatile situation imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Didn't really see people discussing this last thread so thought I'd bring it back up here given it's magnitude. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/joe-biden-on-busing-so-wrong-that-he-was-alas-way-ahead-of-his-time

Could very easily be used to depress the AA turnout in 2020 should he decide to run and win the nomination.

 

One might begin to consider whether poster is a troll of some sort?

There is so much to go after Biden for, of which I'm so aware, starting with his protection of and shilling for credit card companies and Big Chemical, which makes him totally unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.  Not to mention this stuff, of course.  There is so much. But it's the racially divisive that the poster focuses on, not the money side of things . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I am more worried about him stoking anger (not necessarily violence) and being as divisive as possible to get his base in an uproar.

So same as today, but without the powers and influence of the presidency...

Nah, sorry, can't get worried about that. By the time Trump's out of office, either his base will be pandered to by another slimeball Republican politician (they'll be lining up to take the role) or said base will have become less relevant and/or less vindictive.
By himself, Trump is a nuisance, but not smart enough to be much more than that. If anything he could be a useful idiot if the resentment and anger he's fueling aren't used by someone smarter. He could even be a problem for Republicans, which would be hilarious.
Really, I don't think Trump would be a major problem outside of office. Trumpism otoh... The worst-case scenario imho is Trump finding a smarter, younger, more charismatic piece of shit dude to name his spiritual/political heir. Picture an American version of Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz basically. And then that guy running for president. Now that, that would be terrifying. After 8 years of Trump (yeah, I'm assuming the buffoon is reelected) a smarter version of Trumpism might destroy America as we know it for good.

Edit: on a completely different note, I think the latest SMBC (online comics) is funny. So there, check it out:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Again, have you even read the article?  Even if Biden runs and wins the primary this probably wouldn't depress black turnout.  Why would you think it would?

You asked the same thing when I cited articles showing Trump's poll numbers weren't particularly hurt among non-hispanic whites and Pelosi's poll numbers plummeted in the aftermath of the shutdown.  The question I asked was if the information in the article would dissuade Pelosi to go through another shutdown. Still don't see what you read in the articles that makes me asking if Peloshi would be more reluctant to go through a shut-down so unreasonable.  Here, Biden is expressing pretty negative views on a policy meant to help in the process of desegregate. It's not really hard to see why someone might think this story could depress the voting rate for African-Americans in 2020 should he run and be nominated. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


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

×