Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It really isn't. There are a crazy amount of democratic ways to ensure that this isn't the case which are in place in basically every other democracy on the planet. The EC doesn't even guarantee this either - nothing ensures one candidate will get 270, even when there are only two candidates.  

And do you know what happens if there isn't a majority of ec votes for one person?

I'm not doubting what you say here because I don't know, but my problem is that when the EC is brought up to be eliminated, the implied and incorrect assumption seems to be that we will remain 2 major parties which are fairly evenly balanced. That preventing a popular majority win of 20-30% or something by a possibly wacko faction isn't being brought up in discussions of alternate systems is deeply concerning to me. 

Yes, it goes to the House which is another check and balance though an imperfect one.* 

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, the implication here is that the ec actually does this, which is demonstrably false, as 2 of the 5 elections in the last 19 years were won by someone who got fewer votes than the other one. 

I know that. You misread what I said. I said "reflective" because I know it's not perfect. It just gets close sometimes. A lot closer than a popular vote win of like 30% or something. 

I'm not against getting rid of the EC in principle, but don't do so under the false assumption that we'll stay two major parties which means one will always get a clear majority of 50%+ or close enough if accounting for the Green, Libertarian, etc parties. 

Can you point me to these "crazy amount of democratic ways to ensure that this isn't the case which are in place in basically every democracy on the planet" are accounted for in discussions of moving to a popular vote in the US? I've not come across any. 

 

*The backup House vote involves state delegations and is more complex than the typical House vote. 

https://heavy.com/news/2016/11/what-happens-if-no-candidate-gets-receives-270-electoral-college-votes-majority-win-election-donald-trump-hillary-Clinton/

Edited by Lollygag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DMC said:

Well there's the hiccup right there.  And why I don't think it's a problem.

Agred, which is essentially what I said in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lollygag said:

 

Can you point me to these "crazy amount of democratic ways to ensure that this isn't the case which are in place in basically every democracy on the planet" are accounted for in discussions of moving to a popular vote in the US? I've not come across any. 

 

I'm sure I'm less knowledgeable about this particular point than many others on this thread, but the first most obvious answer is to have a runoff provision in popular vote Presidential elections -- if no one gets over 50% in the first go around, you have a runoff with only the top two vote getters from the first round. There are several states in the USA that already use that system in voting for governors.

Or you could use a ranked choice voting system like the one which is already in place in the state of Maine. (The link below questions the constitutionality of this, but of course any elimination of the E.C. that would include ranked choice voting would be a constitutional amendment which would overcome that objection.)

https://www.popsci.com/best-voting-system-math

Share this post


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

Pretty sure I disagree diametrically with the weird consensus about the Kelly marriage.  First of all, people can vehemently disagree and still have great relationships.  GTFO that that can't happen, it happens all the time.  And there's generally nothing morally wrong with it.  Second of, political operatives can DEFINITELY get together even if they're on opposing sides.  Frankly, that should happen every once in awhile statistically. 

I don’t think anyone is saying that you cannot disagree with your spouse about their politics, or even who they work for. I’ve dated a staffer for a Republican before, and we had a great relationship while we were together. What’s a bit odd here though is how publicly their disagreement is, and how vicious one side is. I can’t say I’ve seen anything like it before. We have examples like the aforementioned Carville and Matalin, but they’ve always been rather respectful of their disagreements. And then there’s this:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Rep. Devin Nunes (R. Fresno CA) is suing Devin Nunes Mom and Devin Nunes cow and—because Devin Nunes is unaware of who Donald Trump is—Devin Nunes is also suing twitter for suppressing conservative tweets, including his own, and Devin Nunes materially blames twitter for singlehandedly reducing his rightful margin of victory in elections, a right to which he is unquestionably and eternally entitled in all elections:

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article228102484.html

"Like Devin Nunes' Mom, Devin Nunes' Cow engaged in a vicious defamation campaign against Nunes."

Let these words redound through the history of our Glorious Republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More interesting stuff from the SCOTUS tea leaves today. Things remain complicated; although Alito and Thomas remain just the worst.

First, there was a 6-3 decision by Kavanaugh on something about maritime law where Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the liberals.

Second, there was a 5-4 conservative decision by Alito, because those definitely still exist despite encouraging signs, about immigration law and detaining noncitizens who commit crimes. Interestingly though, and already being ignored by Twitter*, Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion emphasizing that he considered this to be an extremely narrow case (and he and Roberts didn't join to all of Alito's decision) about a technical aspect of the 1996 immigration law; and that it doesn't address major constitutional issues such as how long noncitizens can be detained or under what circumstances. 

*Political Twitter is already claiming the case gives unlimited detention authority to ICE though.

Third, a complicated decision about fuel taxes and tribal law that was 5-4 with Gorsuch joining the liberals; although Gorsuch and Ginsburg (!) wrote a concurring opinion together saying they agreed in the judgment for not for the reasons given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's a funny idea, but it's hard to believe. And George is taking it to new levels that could easily get his wife fired (not that he would mind). It's one thing to publicly question a spouse's boss' work effort, but it's another to question his sanity. 

 

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don’t think anyone is saying that you cannot disagree with your spouse about their politics, or even who they work for. I’ve dated a staffer for a Republican before, and we had a great relationship while we were together. What’s a bit odd here though is how publicly their disagreement is, and how vicious one side is. I can’t say I’ve seen anything like it before. We have examples like the aforementioned Carville and Matalin, but they’ve always been rather respectful of their disagreements. And then there’s this:

 

 

Y'all George Conway was a partner (and is now of counsel) at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.  Do a little googling about them.  Money is not an issue for them, like ever.  Their own marital dynamics...their business.  I don't think George is or ever was considered particularly liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 

Y'all George Conway was a partner (and is now of counsel) at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.  Do a little googling about them.  Money is not an issue for them, like ever.  Their own marital dynamics...their business.  I don't think George is or ever was considered particularly liberal.

I never looked at this through the lens of finances. I’d be more worried about reputation and happiness, especially if I had more money than god, hence why I said it would be interesting to have dinner with them (or at least be a fly on the wall).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I never looked at this through the lens of finances. I’d be more worried about reputation and happiness, especially if I had more money than god, hence why I said it would be interesting to have dinner with them (or at least be a fly on the wall).

Knowing some of his partners and their politics, I think that reputation is exactly the lens. If I had to guess, he/they is/are (trying) to preserve their and their children's re-entree back into a certain segment of NYC-area monied intellectual society.

Edited by Mlle. Zabzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Knowing some of his partners and their politics, I think that reputation is exactly the lens. If I had to guess, he/they is/are (trying) to preserve their and their children's re-entree back into a certain segment of NYC-area monied intellectual society.

My best guess from afar is that they’re Northeast country club Republican types, and I’d suspect that they are deeply unhappy with the Trump Administration outside of the tax legislation and some regulatory reforms. “Re-entry” into that segment of society will not be easy for Kellyanne.

Also, is “re-entrée” a regional thing or have I been misspelling the word this entire time? Or are you just rocking your love of French? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Rep. Devin Nunes (R. Fresno CA) is suing Devin Nunes Mom and Devin Nunes cow and—because Devin Nunes is unaware of who Donald Trump is—Devin Nunes is also suing twitter for suppressing conservative tweets, including his own, and Devin Nunes materially blames twitter for singlehandedly reducing his rightful margin of victory in elections, a right to which he is unquestionably and eternally entitled in all elections:

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article228102484.html

 

But all is not lost, Nunes also declared this Westeros politics threads to be politically neutral in nature because of the format in which it exists!

 

Nunez getting reelected with 52.7 % from any district is the disgrace here. Im still hoping he gets ensnared in a obstruction of justice charge eventually, the man is a traitor through and through.

Share this post


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

My best guess from afar is that they’re Northeast country club Republican types, and I’d suspect that they are deeply unhappy with the Trump Administration outside of the tax legislation and some regulatory reforms. “Re-entry” into that segment of society will not be easy for Kellyanne.

Also, is “re-entrée” a regional thing or have I been misspelling the word this entire time? Or are you just rocking your love of French? :P

I meant entree in the social sense.  As in, if your last name is Vanderbilt, you have entree into the most exclusive social clubs in New York.  And it's not a thing to my knowledge.  I made it up because it sounded faux-fancy and snobby like them :)  And I think you are 1000% right, again, entirely from afar.  And I'm not so sure they are in love with the tax stuff, as I believe they are NJ residents who pay a boatload of state and local taxes.....their bill probably went up significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

What’s a bit odd here though is how publicly their disagreement is, and how vicious one side is. I can’t say I’ve seen anything like it before. We have examples like the aforementioned Carville and Matalin, but they’ve always been rather respectful of their disagreements.

I don't think it's odd at all.  If Matalin was one of Trump's primary public advocates, Carville would still be staying just as "vicious" stuff about Trump.  He may not revel in it the way George seems to, but that's just more of a comment on Conway.

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

If I had to guess, he/they is/are (trying) to preserve their and their children's re-entree back into a certain segment of NYC-area monied intellectual society.

This too.  As I said earlier, working for Trump is actually a pretty big negative in some pretty influential circles - even non-Democratic ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I meant entree in the social sense.  As in, if your last name is Vanderbilt, you have entree into the most exclusive social clubs in New York.  And it's not a thing to my knowledge.  I made it up because it sounded faux-fancy and snobby like them :)  And I think you are 1000% right, again, entirely from afar.  And I'm not so sure they are in love with the tax stuff, as I believe they are NJ residents who pay a boatload of state and local taxes.....their bill probably went up significantly.

OK, total tangent, but you mentioning the Conway's as Jersey residents made me picture Kellyanne's NJ drivers license and that got me wondering if these people have to physically go to the DMV or if there is some workaround for high ranking public officials.  It would be so weird to go to the DMV and take a number, go to your seat, and Kellyanne Conway is waiting next to you.  That can't be a thing that could really happen, right?   

I wonder what Sarah Huckabee Sanders' DL photo looks like.  She always looks angry and put-out, could the bullshit of the DMV take Crabby McCrabbyface to another level?  Or might it be something really crazy and unexpected like an image of her smiling?   I feel like there's a good chance Trump doesn't even have a DL, he has probably been driven by someone else everywhere outside of a golf cart long before the presidency necessitated it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New CNN Democratic Candidates Poll:

Quote

 

Biden - 28%    Sanders - 20%

Harris - 12%    O'Rourke - 11%

Warren - 6%    John Kerry 4% 

Booker - 3%    Klobuchar 3%

 

Compared to previous CNN polls in December and October, Biden is down slightly, Sanders, Harris and O'Rourke are up, and the rest are mostly just treading water.  I'm really surprised Kerry is polling at 4%, are there really people who are nostalgic for a repeat of his underwhelming 2004 campaign? 

Biden may really be benefiting from a market inefficiency in the Democratic primary.  Lots of Democrats are always talking about bringing out the youth vote, and as a result virtually all the candidates are targeting younger voters.  Sanders relied on it in 2016.  Harris, O'Rourke, Booker and (especially) Buttigieg talk about it regularly.  But in a primary, the 50+ crowd is going to make up a large portion (40 or 50%) of the voters.  So which candidate is speaking particularly to them?  Just Biden.  Now, I'm sure you could say that all those candidates want to appeal to every voter, and that's true to some extent, but you can't target everybody.  And unless something changes, Biden could end up cleaning up with older voters, while everyone else is scratching and clawing for younger voters that often don't show up for primaries anyway. 

Share this post


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

New CNN Democratic Candidates Poll:

Compared to previous CNN polls in December and October, Biden is down slightly, Sanders, Harris and O'Rourke are up, and the rest are mostly just treading water.  I'm really surprised Kerry is polling at 4%, are there really people who are nostalgic for a repeat of his underwhelming 2004 campaign? 

Biden may really be benefiting from a market inefficiency in the Democratic primary.  Lots of Democrats are always talking about bringing out the youth vote, and as a result virtually all the candidates are targeting younger voters.  Sanders relied on it in 2016.  Harris, O'Rourke, Booker and (especially) Buttigieg talk about it regularly.  But in a primary, the 50+ crowd is going to make up a large portion (40 or 50%) of the voters.  So which candidate is speaking particularly to them?  Just Biden.  Now, I'm sure you could say that all those candidates want to appeal to every voter, and that's true to some extent, but you can't target everybody.  And unless something changes, Biden could end up cleaning up with older voters, while everyone else is scratching and clawing for younger voters that often don't show up for primaries anyway. 

I’m not nostalgic, but at least Kerry and Gore both lost the electoral college by only one state. Clinton lost by three states.

but I agree, Biden is going to crush the field by servicing that particular cohort, especially in iowa. But will the Biden oldsters be stubborn enough to outlast the presumed hordes of  psychoticly dedicated youngsters at the vile undemocratic events (caucuses) or will they spit “get off my lawn” and give up and go to bed at 8pm?

iowa caucus riots to be the nexus of white race riots when they explode into violence when the rabid sanderistas face down the manically grinning O rourke bobbleheads and both sides refuse to compromise and end the damn caucus?

Share this post


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

Biden may really be benefiting from a market inefficiency in the Democratic primary.  Lots of Democrats are always talking about bringing out the youth vote, and as a result virtually all the candidates are targeting younger voters.  Sanders relied on it in 2016.  Harris, O'Rourke, Booker and (especially) Buttigieg talk about it regularly.  But in a primary, the 50+ crowd is going to make up a large portion (40 or 50%) of the voters.  So which candidate is speaking particularly to them?  Just Biden.

Good analysis.  I think the question is what happens if one of the other candidates breaks out in terms of coverage, polling, or one of the early states?  Biden is the heuristic choice for older voters because he's both the safe and viewed as the most electable (which are correlated, but not exactly the same) choice.  That will almost certainly be challenged at at least one point. 

And while there's not really public data to back this up, I think Biden's support is particularly soft.  How many would be ready to stick with him - or rather how many would be perfectly willing to switch support if another alternative is presented as equally viable?  I think that percentage of his supporters is much much larger than anyone else's, even Bernie's.  So basically the thing is would I take Biden over any other candidate right now in terms of probability?  Sure.  But I'd also definitely take the field over Biden in terms of probability, by a much larger margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I meant entree in the social sense.  As in, if your last name is Vanderbilt, you have entree into the most exclusive social clubs in New York.  And it's not a thing to my knowledge.  I made it up because it sounded faux-fancy and snobby like them :) 

Fair enough.

Quote

And I think you are 1000% right, again, entirely from afar.  

I know country clubbers when I see them. I grew up with these types, and I did not always love it. 

Oh well, at least it left me with a sweet golf swing. One day I'll have to challenge @Fragile Bird to a round, spot her a stroke on each hole, let her tee off from where she wants and then proceed to thoroughly roast her!

Quote

And I'm not so sure they are in love with the tax stuff, as I believe they are NJ residents who pay a boatload of state and local taxes.....their bill probably went up significantly.

I'll obviously defer to you here, but I would have assumed the federal savings would have off set any state losses, at least with the types they want to associate with.

Share this post


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

I don't think it's odd at all.  If Matalin was one of Trump's primary public advocates, Carville would still be staying just as "vicious" stuff about Trump.  He may not revel in it the way George seems to, but that's just more of a comment on Conway.

Maybe, but I do at least think they would be on the same page. The Conways don't give off that vibe, at least to me.

Quote

This too.  As I said earlier, working for Trump is actually a pretty big negative in some pretty influential circles - even non-Democratic ones.

It's possible that the people of loath Trump the most are Establishment Republicans who've been pushed out of power. That is, after all, what they've spent their entire lives pursuing. 

Share this post


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

Maybe, but I do at least think they would be on the same page. The Conways don't give off that vibe, at least to me.

The point, which has been my main point the entire time, is we have no way of knowing that.  And I really don't like trying to read "vibes" from public figures when it comes to their marriage.  That's tabloid stuff, should be next to "Obama's brother appears to endorse conspiracy Michelle is a man!"

Share this post


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

×