Jump to content

U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One


Mr. Chatywin et al.

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 She also she’s been very outspoken against the US’ tendency to overthrow governments in the Middle East. Especially at the cost of losing American lives. From what I gather from his supporters that is big reason for why she’s good.

This is the third time I've noticed you misgendered her. Any reason? Oh wait, you're talking Bernie. 

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

More and more people, whether they’d be on the left or right have grown heavily dissatisfied with the idea of America playing cop for the world. Gabbard has touched into that sentiment.

 Shes also a veteran. 

So I’d say at least four things going for her.

The latter two are not why she's media-friendly and popular, which was my point. As to her policies, she's willing to justify not intervening in Syria by actively promoting Syrian propaganda that says they didn't gas their citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is how you fix the senate:

X is the average population of all the states.


Any state whose population is greater than X*2 must divide itself into smaller states, using existing county and/or city boundary lines.

States smaller than X*2 may not divide into smaller states.


a City is indivisible and may not be divided into separate states.


None of the newly created smaller states may have populations smaller than X*0.9.


None of the newly created smaller states may be larger than X*1.5 


Order of operations for borders are County Boundaries, City boundaries, or river/lake centerlines.


so if X = 308,156,000/50 


then X=6,163,127 

and X*2 equals 12,326,254 people

that means the top 6 states would need to subdivide into states not less than 5.5 million in size and not more than 9.25 million in size. 

This yields between 19 to 20 states instead of 6.


so that means East and West Pennsylvania, 


the state of Chicago and of Illinois, 


Pan Handle Florida, North Florida, and South Florida, 


New York, NYC, and Long Island, 


North Texas, East Texas, South Texas, West Texas

(if done after the 2020 census, TX is likely to divide into 5 states)


and Southern California, East Angeles, West Angeles, California and Northern California.


technically you could get six states out of California, but 5 would be easier to fit within the 0.9X to 1.5X parameters, 6 Californias would be more doable after the 2020 census, but economically and politically would not be as balanced as five Californias.*

But of course that then changes the value of X, so we have a natural recurrence:

With the new value of X*2=9,782,730 Ohio and Michigan become eligible to split

This in turn creates a new value of X*2=9,481,723 Georgia and North Carolina become eligible to split,

Which creates a new value of X*2=9,198,686 and no new states become Eligible (New Jersey is now the Largest state)

resulting in a final outcome of a healthy 67 states and 134 senators.

Adding Puerto Rico and DC doesn't change this outcome either (New Jersey is still 130,000 people short of eligibility), but does give us a lucky 69 states (go DC, hey number 69!) and 138 senators.

after the next census, one would find out if any states had grown enough to result in more required splits.

*further extrapolation of the California division

I would include take Orange, Kern, LA, Ventura, SLO and Santa Barbara counties to form the two West Angeles and East Angeles states, dividing LA county on city lines, mostly north, south lines, combining basically East LA county and Orange County to create a state with 8.2 million people, while West Angeles would have 7.5 million people.

SF, San Jose and the center of the state anchor the state of California, for a population of 6.9 million,

and Sacramento, Berkeley and Oakland would anchor the largest state of Northern California with 8.6 million people.

Moving Alameda county (Oakland) from one state to the other swings 1.6 million people, and I think Northern California could use the economic addition that Alameda county brings.

And South California would be anchored by San Diego (and include Riverside, San Bernadino, Inyo, Imperial and Mono county (giving it a border with Nor Cal, heh) for a population of 8.1 million.

That this division would result in a likely ten democrat senators is... uh, purely coincidental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

The latter two are not why she's media-friendly and popular, which was my point. As to her policies, she's willing to justify not intervening in Syria by actively promoting Syrian propaganda that says they didn't gas their citizens

That was kinda ridiculous given the unpopularity of the US being there in the first place and it’s past support of its rebels. She didn’t actually have to bring up Syrians saying they liked Assad as reason for not trying getting involved. That painted a needlessly rosey picture of a monster. She should have lamented that he is a monster ; but that doesn’t justify the US trying to oust him. She  should have just pointed to the human-rights abuses of some US allies, to intervening in Syria was never about protecting Syrians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that the US being in Syria is actually all that unpopular. Afghanistan and Iraq, sure. But Syria, fighting ISIS? Not that scary a thing. And most of the negative has to do with partisanship - Dems oppose it strongly, but didn't when Obama was in office, and Republicans are fine with it, but weren't when Obama was in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kalbear said:

It's ignoring trends in favor of historical biases, yes. 

Dunno how to respond to this.  Trends are historical biases.

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Because in general, dem turnout is better in POTUS election years, 2020 has a lot of Republican incumbents and relatively few Dem vulnerable incumbents, and we may still have something resembling a functional election system in 2020. The map for 2022 isn't as favorable and it's an off year, and 2024 is the same map as 2018, which sucks for dems (though will be slightly better because it's a POTUS year). 2026 has a better map but by that point, if Dems haven't won, I don't think they will again. 

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.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You think that the senate simply refusing to confirm ANYONE is silly? Why? This is literally what Cruz threatened to do if Clinton won. This is what McConnell based his entire system on and got a POTUS elected. This is what Republicans threaten will happen if Dems win. 

What is the penalty for doing it?

The only penalty that matters:  the public's disapproval.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think it's likely more than not that I'm right.

Well that's adorable, but you're not.

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, NPR.

OK, can I get a link?

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And we're finding REPUBLICAN voters care a lot about SCOTUS picks and judicial picks. It is one of the big things that Trump fundraises on, it's one of the things that he ran on, it's one of the things that he campaigns on still. And it's one of the things that appear to matter. Republican voters fear that with liberal justices and appointees, they'll lose on abortion, on marriage, on gun rights. It's odd - Pew didn't ask about this at all - but it was a massive deciding factor in the senate elections in 2018. 

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.

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So anyone who didn't know didn't care, and anyone who did did? That sounds tautologically convenient. 

Sounds like I'm saying I don't think many people cared and you disagree.

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Recently being the last 40 years. Not arguing, but looking at how volatile things are compared to the 1920s isn't that useful.

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.

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The other thing that's odd is that while it is switching, it's switching with smaller and smaller swings, and Republicans are actually gaining here and there. The notion of getting a filibuster-proof majority has to be a pipe dream beyond massive recessions. 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Ah man, I'm sorry, I knew when I wrote out those numbers you'd be like "ya know..."  Ahh.  What ridiculousness.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

The other thing that's odd is that while it is switching, it's switching with smaller and smaller swings, and Republicans are actually gaining here and there. 

this is easily to mathematically test. There are 50 states, map the trend line of how many states are represented by one party after each senate election.

There will probably be some outlier years, but the trend line from 1994 to 2018 should indicate that single caucus states have steadily increased in every election, if this trend exists, it would mean that kal is correct, the swings that control the senate are getting smaller because over the decades we are steadily getting closer and closer to a 'natural' static state of R+4 advantage. 

it's a decaying orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think that the US being in Syria is actually all that unpopular. Afghanistan and Iraq, sure. But Syria, fighting ISIS? Not that scary a thing. And most of the negative has to do with partisanship - Dems oppose it strongly, but didn't when Obama was in office, and Republicans are fine with it, but weren't when Obama was in office.

The US overthrowing another government in the Middle East that’s that’s keeping a cap on religious extremists(for example fighting ISIS)? Yes pretty unpopular.A scary thing. Few people are complaining about the US bombing the hell out of ISIS. Hell plenty of support of even keeping troops in Syria to combat IS. But fighting ISIS is not something Gabbard has come out against. Hell she cites Assad’s opposition to the group as reason for why he shouldn’t(like Gaddafi and Saddam), be ousted by the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

The only penalty that matters:  the public's disapproval.

The public hasn't disapproved though. If anything, they've shown broad approval. McConnell has already shown that the public does not give a penalty for this behavior of obstruction. He showed that was the case with Obama as well. They do not turn on their party because of this. 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

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. 

Here's the link again, in case you missed it

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sounds like I'm saying I don't think many people cared and you disagree. 

Given that it was hitting national headlines repeatedly and Gabbard at least thought enough of her chances to run for POTUS, I think it's pretty clear that you are wrong that many people cared. 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

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. 

You were the one who brought up the dataset pointing out pre-civil war era results. It's a bit ridiculous for you to point out data and then say it doesn't actually count later on. 

 

4 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

this is easily to mathematically test. There are 50 states, map the trend line of how many states are represented by one party after each senate election.

There will probably be some outlier years, but the trend line from 1994 to 2018 should indicate that single caucus states have steadily increased in every election, if this trend exists, it would mean that kal is correct, the swings that control the senate are getting smaller because over the decades we are steadily getting closer and closer to a 'natural' static state of R+4 advantage. 

it's a decaying orbit.

Oh hey look someone already tested this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The US overthrowing another government in the Middle East that’s that’s keeping a cap on religious extremists(for example fighting ISIS)? Yes pretty unpopular.

You not liking it does not mean it's broadly unpopular. 

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

A scary thing. Few people are complaining about the US bombing the hell out of ISIS. Hell plenty of support of even keeping troops in Syria to combat IS. But fighting ISIS is not something Gabbard has come out against. Hell she cites Assad’s opposition to the group as reason for why he shouldn’t(like Gaddafi and Saddam), be ousted by the US.

She came out against the airstrikes on Assad and said that she had evidence that the US was arming the rebels in Syria. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Kal is wrong and DMC is right, the following are the seats that should be flipable for Democrats in 2020:

Maine

North Carolina 

South Carolina

Georgia

Kentucky

Iowa

Montana

Texas

Colorado

Arizona

And some of those states like Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, West Virginia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Alaska, Oklahoma and Idaho should also be possible (Wyoming is probably a lost cause).

But if Kal is right and DMC is wrong there is zero path to a majority because only Maine, Colorado and Arizona are the only possible seat flips and democrats will lose Alabama, giving republicans a 51-49 majority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be a bit more cautious there - I would say that the only way that dems get a majority is if it's something like D+5 or more, similar to (but not quite as high as) the previous wave election. And even then, you need a strong candidate. 

That said, North Carolina is a better chance for dems than Arizona. In theory Iowa is as well, but I doubt that this is the case any more given 2018 results. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So there is no trend, or if anything the trend is ups and downs, which means there is no extrapolation to be had; we might just as well be due for a swing to a ton of split state delegations. but even that is hard to see happening because, 

18 all republican states have an election in 2018. if democrats flipped five of them, that would switch us from 14 split state delegations to 15 split state delegations (assuming we lose Alabama but gain Maine, Arizona and Colorado).  To really change that split state number, democrats need to flip more than 5 of those 18 all republicans states, and that's going to be a tall order.

so it's not really a decaying orbit, not yet at least. there doesn't seem to be a strong reversion to single party rule. But if democrats flip Maine, Arizona Colorado, lose Alabama, and flip no republican seats, it is 10 split state delegations and we're in a decaying orbit and are totally and completely fucked in the long term.

Note, there are only 19 all republican states, the 18 seats in the 19 all republican states up for election in 2020 is 94% of their all republican states, that's got to be unusual!


And if anything, parties are most vulnerable to losses when they're in the range of 19-21 single states delegations, possibly because they believe themselves in such a position of strength they never see the losses coming.

Perhaps we are not thinking about this senate election correctly, perhaps Republicans are in a uniquely vulnerable position because such a large proportion of their single state caucuses are exposed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The public hasn't disapproved though.

Trump's aggregate disapproval literally says otherwise.

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They do not turn on their party because of this. 

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!

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

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.

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Given that it was hitting national headlines repeatedly and Gabbard at least thought enough of her chances to run for POTUS, I think it's pretty clear that you are wrong that many people cared. 

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.

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You were the one who brought up the dataset pointing out pre-civil war era results. It's a bit ridiculous for you to point out data and then say it doesn't actually count later on. 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Trump's aggregate disapproval literally says otherwise.

Trump's aggregate disapproval is because of senate obstruction from 2010 to 2016? That's an interesting hypothesis. 

Quote

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! 

Independents matter much less in senate races than in POTUS races. As long as McConnell gets reelected it's pretty clear that the public 'disapproval' doesn't matter to the senate. Partisan lean is going to matter a whole hell of a lot more in states. And as Trump pointed out, his disapproval didn't seem to matter that much in the 2018 senate race, given that they gained a net 2 seats and more Dem incumbents lost than has happened in something like 75 years. 

Quote

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. 

It certainly is different, but it's still important to people, and its importance is increasing. 

Quote

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 say that. To say that she was some kind of nonentity is obviously wrong. 

Quote

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.

Yeah, you don't know this forum very well at all. 

8 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

So there is no trend, or if anything the trend is ups and downs, which means there is no extrapolation to be had; we might just as well be due for a swing to a ton of split state delegations. but even that is hard to see happening because, 

There's actually a trend, it's just not an insane one. But the trendline is towards single-party states. 

Quote

Perhaps we are not thinking about this senate election correctly, perhaps Republicans are in a uniquely vulnerable position because such a large proportion of their single state caucuses are exposed?

They're vulnerable this election, but not crazily so. Dems were considered super vulnerable but at the end of the day most of the seats were defended and fairly easily; it was only the seats in Republican states that ended up being losers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

She came out against the airstrikes on Assad and said that she had evidence that the US was arming the rebels in Syria. 

And? This doesn’t contradict what I’ve said in regards to her.  This demonstrates her being against the US doing a regime change in the Middle East(something entirely reasonable). Something, again that draws some people to her . Something I’ve already stated she does.

And the US did arm Syrian rebels. It’s not a secret https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2017/7/25/16025136/trump-syria-cia-twitter-program-end-covert Are you for the US trying to oust Assad? Your pointing to her being against bombing of the man seems to imply it’s a bad thing for her to do.Is her being against  the US ousting dictators with the justification of them(the dictators) having committed crimes against humanity one of her shit policies? I’m genuinely curious what your point in bringing it up is if not. I think you’re wise enough to recognize the US playing world’s policeman is not a good thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kalbear said:

Trump's aggregate disapproval is because of senate obstruction from 2010 to 2016? That's an interesting hypothesis. 

Uh, what?  This is you ridiculously extending logic well over the breaking point. 

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Independents matter much less in senate races than in POTUS races.

That's not true.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As long as McConnell gets reelected it's pretty clear that the public 'disapproval' doesn't matter to the senate. Partisan lean is going to matter a whole hell of a lot more in states. And as Trump pointed out, his disapproval didn't seem to matter that much in the 2018 senate race, given that they gained a net 2 seats and more Dem incumbents lost than has happened in something like 75 years. 

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.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It certainly is different, but it's still important to people, and its importance is increasing. 

Ok, so you have no actual evidence beyond the Supreme Court.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, lokisnow said:

If Kal is wrong and DMC is right, the following are the seats that should be flipable for Democrats in 2020:

I agree with six of those.  I wouldn't go as far as four of them, for different reasons - KY, MT, SC, and TX.  Also, this goes both ways.  Michigan (Peters) and New Hampshire (Shaheen) are potential GOP pickups as well as the assumed Alabama.

9 hours ago, lokisnow said:

But if Kal is right and DMC is wrong there is zero path to a majority because only Maine, Colorado and Arizona are the only possible seat flips and democrats will lose Alabama, giving republicans a 51-49 majority.

Competitive states even in a tough environment will still be dependent on the candidates.  Abrams could still have a shot against Perdue, for example.  But yeah, it's very unlikely the Dems could pickup the Senate in 2020 if we're working off an EVEN generic ballot or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The US overthrowing another government in the Middle East that’s that’s keeping a cap on religious extremists(for example fighting ISIS)? Yes pretty unpopular.A scary thing. Few people are complaining about the US bombing the hell out of ISIS. Hell plenty of support of even keeping troops in Syria to combat IS. But fighting ISIS is not something Gabbard has come out against. Hell she cites Assad’s opposition to the group as reason for why he shouldn’t(like Gaddafi and Saddam), be ousted by the US.


Yea, Gabbard is an Assadist, and she's also a huge fan of Modi, who is a hard right authoritarian. She's pure trash. She doesn't care about Syrian civilians, she loves dead muslims. 

She's also homophobic & anti choice. Horrible person and horrible candidate.


Lets put it this way, Steve Bannon loves her and wants to work with her. She considers him a friend

 

Oh, and anyone, let alone a politician, that cites that the syphilitic dick sore that is Jimmy Dore, who is so ignorant he had no clue what the hell the Kurds were doing in Syria or the autonomous region they set up in northern syria, all while trying to pass himself off as some expert and bringer of truth, and also praises that white supremacist Tucker Carlson, should be ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The US overthrowing another government in the Middle East that’s that’s keeping a cap on religious extremists(for example fighting ISIS)? Yes pretty unpopular.A scary thing. Few people are complaining about the US bombing the hell out of ISIS. Hell plenty of support of even keeping troops in Syria to combat IS. But fighting ISIS is not something Gabbard has come out against. Hell she cites Assad’s opposition to the group as reason for why he shouldn’t(like Gaddafi and Saddam), be ousted by the US.

The Syrian government fighting ISIS? Buddy, you are quite misinformed. The Syrian government and the Russians were quite happy to ignore ISIS entirely for years on end so ISIS and the rebels would fight each other. Assad and company only ever focused their efforts on non-ISIS rebels. It was left to the Kurds, Iraqis, the US (mostly air power) and a few rebel groups to fight ISIS.

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...