Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lokisnow

U.S. Politics: Impoverished In Squalor

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

TALLAHASSEE — Florida's Republican-controlled Legislature is moving to roll back parts of a historic November constitutional amendment that reinstated voting rights for convicted felons, drawing sharp opposition from Democrats in a key 2020 presidential battleground.

A bill that would limit voting rights that ex-offenders gained under the ballot measure cleared its first stop in a Republican-controlled Florida House committee on a party-line vote Tuesday, and the president of the state Senate said he expects his chamber to draw up a companion measure.


Democrats and others condemned the move, likening the legislation to a poll tax imposed on African-Americans during the Jim Crow era.

 

Florida felon voting rights imperiled amid GOP opposition

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2019/03/19/felon-vote-sparks-battle-for-florida-as-gop-moves-to-define-rights-921875

Share this post


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

Fair enough.

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!

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.

I think for them it would at best be about a push.  Most of their income will be taxable at the top marginal rate of 37% federal (down from 39.6% - so a 2.6% benefit), but they would have given up the rate benefit of the deductibility of state and local taxes.  So they would have gone from an effective rate of ~45% (39.6% plus 39.6% of 8.97%) to an effective rate of ~46% (37% plus 8.97%,), for those marginal dollars all else being equal.  This of course does not take into account the potential effects of property taxes and bracket shift.  In addition, I believe NJ has a new tax for marginal dollars above $5 million of over 10% - not sure if this applies to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.  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. 

Is there polling that shows older votes are more likely to prefer older candidates?

My main colleague and I were just discussing the Democrats a couple of hours ago. I'm 67 and she's 62. We both agreed that Biden, Sanders, and Warren are "too old" and, though we are really still undecided, agreed that if we had to vote for one of the declared candidates today it would be Harris.

Of course as Ph. D. academic psychologists we may not be representative of the average over 50 Democratic primary voter. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Is there polling that shows older votes are more likely to prefer older candidates?

My main colleague and I were just discussing the Democrats a couple of hours ago. I'm 67 and she's 62. We both agreed that Biden, Sanders, and Warren are "too old" and, though we are really still undecided, agreed that if we had to vote for one of the declared candidates today it would be Harris.

Of course as Ph. D. academic psychologists we may not be representative of the average over 50 Democratic primary voter. :)

One of the reasons I'm partial to Beto, aside from being familiar with him as a 'local' candidate, is I really want to see a young, fresh optimist juxtaposed with Trump's curmudgeonly and dark worldview.   To be fair I think Clinton was almost successful at doing this in 2016.  Especially when I think back to the gloom and doom Republican convention vs. the Democratic convention where I thought they did a good job of projecting positivity about the  country and it's values.  It didn't save Clinton, but I think that's because the right simply had had too much time to work on making her into the devil, and she's always had a charisma problem, unfair as that may be.  

Like, I wonder, if we didn't have presidential term limits could Trump have defeated Obama head to head?  My gut says no, even after the propaganda machine had 8 years to work Obama over.  

Share this post


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

Is there polling that shows older votes are more likely to prefer older candidates?

There's polling that shows older Democrats prefer Biden more.  Here's the latest CNN poll.  Go to page 41 - he's the top choice of 36% of 45+ year-old and 19% of <45 year olds.  While I'm too lazy to prove it, that's a pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post, sorry.

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 minutes ago, S John said:

One of the reasons I'm partial to Beto, aside from being familiar with him as a 'local' candidate, is I really want to see a young, fresh optimist juxtaposed with Trump's curmudgeonly and dark worldview.   To be fair I think Clinton was almost successful at doing this in 2016.  Especially when I think back to the gloom and doom Republican convention vs. the Democratic convention where I thought they did a good job of projecting positivity about the  country and it's values.  It didn't save Clinton, but I think that's because the right simply had had too much time to work on making her into the devil, and she's always had a charisma problem, unfair as that may be.  

Like, I wonder, if we didn't have presidential term limits could Trump have defeated Obama head to head?  My gut says no, even after the propaganda machine had 8 years to work Obama over.  

Obama might have won. He certainly keeps Pennsylvania and Michigan. Wisconsin I think still goes to trump because the greater efforts at racist voter supppression there is more successful in that state at squashing black turnout even with Obama on the ballot. That makes it either a 269 tie or a 1-2 vote trump win in the electoral college, depending on Nebraska’s urban district and Maine’s rural district.

obamas wins in Ohio and Florida were narrow and trumps were not, I think trump keeps both.

but Obama was incredibly well loved in Iowa and always wildly outperformed the regional trend in that state.

so iowa could have given him a 275 win, a state abandoned early on by Clinton since she was so reviled there. So long as Clinton’s faithless electors didn’t also fuck him over like they did her, which could have pushed the whole race back towards tie territory, so it’s worth remembering that 2016 had the most faithless electors of all time.

so I don’t think he would have had such a slam dunk against trump that a lot of people think, pinning your hopes on Iowa is not a lot to hang your hat on.

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think its that older voters prefer older candidates -  it's that they prefer more vetted, more centrist ones. And Biden is a known commodity, one that they're cool with. 

 

Share this post


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

Fair enough.

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!

Trust me, I’d need at least 5 strokes on each hole. While I love to trudge around with my friends (uh, in a golf cart) my skills are pretty abysmal. I imagined that, in my old age, I’d take lessons but, bah, I don’t care enough.

And I have never set foot in a country club. Golf clubs only for social games thrown by employers or charity events!

Share this post


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

snip

For what it's worth, I think Obama wins Wisconsin.  The win was narrow enough that Obama would have had to have outperformed Hillary by enough to make the difference despite the voter suppression.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, S John said:

Like, I wonder, if we didn't have presidential term limits could Trump have defeated Obama head to head?

Not a chance. First, it's generally hard to beat an incumbent. Second, Obama was never as unpopular a candidate as Clinton. Third, Trump's style of campaigning would come off rather differently when applied to a sitting President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×