Jump to content
ants

US Politics: Bounties from a Jericho Walk

Recommended Posts

I suspect if Biden is going to win he's going to win big, and that will probably mean winning some states that have been red since at least Reagan. I don't see a Biden win coming down to snatching one or two states that went to Trump in 2016. If the non-Trump fanatic general public is really placing deserved blame on the Administration for making the COVID-19 epidemic worse than it should have been, and loads of lives lost without even being able to point to a growing economy as the silver-lining, it's going to be very hard for Trump to come back from that. Especially since I would expect case numbers to keep rising (or at least not decrease) as Autumn comes along.

Ironically, you can't really blame Trump for the recession, because recession is hitting the whole world and it was inevitable no matter what the Administration did. Or rather, you can only blame Trump for the recession if you think early action could have knocked the disease out of the USA AND the recessions in most other countries in the world wouldn't inevitably bring the USA into recession. The severity of recession could have been mitigated, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I was rather astonished to read about Trump tweeting yesterday that Republican internal polls were fantastic, and the msm ones were fake.

Well, maybe not astonished. Amused.

eta: I know about the bounties the Russians supposedly paid for killing soldiers, but, um, what does the thread title mean?

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


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

I was rather astonished to read about Trump tweeting yesterday that Republican internal polls were fantastic, and the msm ones were fake.

Well, maybe not astonished. Amused.

The Democrats polls must be fake too, because they're releasing them every day.  (FYI, when one side is releasing internal polls and the other side isn't, it means you're winning). 

Perhaps Trump's anti-science party has somehow discovered the holy grail of polling and the mainstream sites are completely off base?  Or maybe Trump has just fired all the pollsters that give him bad news.  Which of those seems more likely at this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like outlets are starting to call McGrath defeating Booker in the Kentucky primary.

Share this post


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

Looks like outlets are starting to call McGrath defeating Booker in the Kentucky primary.

Not really surprising. As much momentum as he got in the final days of the campaign, early voting had been going on for a while and McGrath was the presumptive nominee for so long those early votes went overwhelmingly to her. 

She's a terrible candidate, but she probably has a better chance of beating McConnell than Booker.

Share this post


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

Looks like outlets are starting to call McGrath defeating Booker in the Kentucky primary.

I guess that's good. Since she has so much money raised that she can probably force McConnell to spend more on his own race rather than giving quite as much to others. But his Senate Leadership Fund has so much cash that it probably doesn't matter, and he should easily win (just like he would against Booker).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Fez said:

Since she has so much money raised that she can probably force McConnell to spend more on his own race rather than giving quite as much to others.

Agreed.  I'm too lazy to find it, but I remember this paper years ago that showed a shockingly strong correlation between the amount of contributions a MC received from their party leader or leadership and success rate/vote share.  McGrath's money hopefully muddles that.

ETA:  This could also potentially be a boon with Cornyn's race.

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Doocey (or whatever that muppet's name is) and Lamar Alexander have called on Trump to wear a mask...sometimes, so hopefully he will take their advice. It's quite worrisome that the US is having an uptick all over again, and even a small gesture from him can mean some of his supporters may follow suit (of course, they'll swear up and down Trump was never opposed to wearing masks).

I dont see any hope for him regaining support by November since the COVID situation is not going to get better. Look for lots of demonization of the BLM protests though.

Share this post


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

So I've heard mutterings from conservatives that the polls must be wrong, and they invariably point to the Trafalgar group that was most accurate in swing states in 2016, and which is again showing competitive races in MI/WI in 2020. Dont want to dismiss this completely out of hand, but I should note that they used a somewhat unusual methodology in 2016 that looked for 'shy' Trump voters etc...(one of their tricks was to ask who their neighbor was voting for...something I dont fully understand). Anyhoo, something to keep in mind, but again, there are reasons why 2016 methodology wont work in 2020.

I couldn't say the same for the rest of the state, but to me, up here in "reddish" northern Wisconsin, it still feels anecdotally like Trump has a chance at winning at least our county. 

The brainwashing is strong up here, HillBills gonna Hillbilly and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, roberts in espinoza v. montana department of revenue has unsurprisingly ruled in favor of religious schools.  it is not really too exciting--the state was already permitting public funds to be used for private education, and some parents wanted to use them for religious schools.  pretty sure it is inept to discriminate against religion after you've diluted public education with bullshit private schools that were created for the purposes of segregation.  the interesting thing:  

Quote

The Montana Legislature also directed that the program be administered in accordance with Article X, section 6, of the Montana Constitution, which contains a “no-aid” provision barring government aid to sectarian schools. See Mont. Code Ann. §15–30–3101. In full, that provision states: “Aid prohibited to sectarian schools. . . . The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination.” Mont. Const., Art. X, §6(1).

(slip op. at 3). fair enough. but then, the remedy:

Quote

The Supremacy Clause provides that “the Judges in every State shall be bound” by the Federal Constitution, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2. “[T]his Clause creates a rule of decision” directing state courts that they “must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal law[].” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U. S. 320, 324 (2015). Given the conflict between the Free Exercise Clause and the application of the no-aid provision here, the Montana Supreme Court should have “disregard[ed]” the no-aid provision and decided this case “conformably to the [C]onstitution” of the United States.

(slip op. at 22). where are the states' rights protesters against this act of federal totalitarian tyranny that has found the constitution of the great state of montana to be unconstitutional?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sologdin said:

where are the states' rights protesters against this act of federal totalitarian tyranny that has found the constitution of the great state of montana to be unconstitutional?

Ha!  That damned supremacy clause!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I dont see any hope for him regaining support by November since the COVID situation is not going to get better.

So...Fauci warns U.S. could see 100,000 new coronavirus cases per day:

Quote

Anthony Fauci testified to a Senate committee Tuesday that he would "not be surprised" if the U.S. begins reporting as many as 100,000 new coronavirus cases per day, adding, "I'm very concerned and not satisfied with what's going on because we're going in the wrong direction."

The big picture: The country is currently seeing about 40,000 new cases daily, but that number will rise rapidly "if this does not turn around," Fauci said. He added that the outbreaks in various parts of the country put "the entire country at risk" and "clearly we don't have this under control."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MisterOJ said:

She's a terrible candidate, but she probably has a better chance of beating McConnell than Booker.

Why do you say that? From what I can tell as an outsider, she seems like a pretty good candidate, she's raising money and McConnell doesn't seem like he's in a strong position, even if he has a lot of money to burn, both on his race and others to try and increase his support, he seems weak. 

And more importantly, he seems scared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Ryan Grim and the Intercept crew have taken against her, fairly predictably. She did fumble some things in her last run, but so far seems to be doing a lot better. Not sure she can really beat McConnell, but her fundraising is likely to help keep McConnell's own funds in check, which has its advantages looking at the wider election picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

uptick all over again

Not an 'uptick' but a wildfire conflagration of increased infections. This is one of the reasons, as they have learned in Washington State:

Only 1 in 5 isolating when COVID symptoms develop, King County says

https://komonews.com/news/coronavirus/only-1-in-5-isolating-when-covid-symptoms-develop-king-county-says

Our governor says he's sending state police to monitor NYC compliance with covid-19 rules, as the amount of non-compliance is out of control. It's gotten more than likely he will follow-through on the threat to prohibit NYC from the third stage of reopening -- no restaurant seating.  I wish he would reclose the bars and outside dining too, but doubtless the owners would burn him at the stake, after tarring and feathering him.

Please, everyone, take this piece linked to below seriously: which, considering where we live and what's going on with the bar-restaurants all day every day, I do, and was thinking of it the entire hour we were with with a friend late Sunday night outdoors.  Those we thought we could rely on to tell us the truth are still hedging their words in public so think carefully about what this piece says.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/outside-lower-coronavirus-risk-precautions_l_5ef9fba4c5b612083c50c804

"Think You Won't Get Coronavirus Outside? Think Again.

Some people seem to confuse lower COVID-19 risk with no risk. But the outdoors aren't magic, and you should still take precautions."

 

Quote

But air flow may not matter all that much if you’re sitting next to several people for hours. So use the space available to you, Flinn urged, and follow guidelines to keep at least 6 feet between you and others. Think about building layers of safety: Being outdoors is a good start. Being outdoors in a mask is even better. Being outdoors, in a mask, away from others? Better still....

Another reason partner and friend and I are discontinuing sitting outside and drinking wine together. It's that late at night but, as the article explains, the sheer density of the stuff due to the density of bodies, has the stuff hanging in the air for a very long time. There are these people here all around us, and the density of people have been present all day and all night already. Even though we find a spot many many feet away from those who are still out there drinking talking eating yelling -- we're more than likely to sitting in a miasma of the stuff.

 

Share this post


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

Why do you say that? From what I can tell as an outsider, she seems like a pretty good candidate, she's raising money and McConnell doesn't seem like he's in a strong position, even if he has a lot of money to burn, both on his race and others to try and increase his support, he seems weak. 

And more importantly, he seems scared.

She just doesn't have much at all in the way of personality. But, she ticks off all the boxes that make her appear to be a Democrat candidate who should be able to win in Kentucky. She's former military and pretty moderate/conservative. And because she seems to be a good candidate on paper, she is great at raising money from establishment Democrats. But, to a large swath of the general public here, she comes across as wooden and just not very genuine.

 In her only other election, she lost the 2018 House of Representatives race pretty convincingly to Andy Barr, a seemingly beatable Republican incumbent. So, there's just a lot of belief that if she couldn't beat Barr, how in the world is she going to beat McConnell? 

Trust me, Mitch is *not* popular in this state at all. But, he's never been popular. I've been voting against him since 1994 - and it just doesn't matter what happens, he keeps getting elected.

Now, if McGrath were to somehow find a modicum of personality (and come out as convincingly anti-abortion) I'd give her a decent shot at beating McConnell. I don't think either of those things are likely to happen, so we will probably see yet another win for Mitch. Even with that against her, she still has a better chance at winning than Booker would have. I voted for Booker, but there is no way this state was going to elect a Black progressive Democrat to the Senate this year.

Edited by MisterOJ

Share this post


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

Why do you say that? From what I can tell as an outsider, she seems like a pretty good candidate, she's raising money and McConnell doesn't seem like he's in a strong position, even if he has a lot of money to burn, both on his race and others to try and increase his support, he seems weak. 

And more importantly, he seems scared.

Are you kidding me? Amy McGrath has positioned herself as a Trump Democrat, she is basically a Republican. Amy McGrath is only raising money because the Democratic Party threw their weight behind her hard, even though they know she sucks. I took a quick look through her contributions and of 75363 contributions from individual donors, 3992 came from donors in Kentucky. Frankly this is still a highly flawed analysis since a lot is coming from ActBlue which muddies the water a lot, but what indicates to me is that her fundraising is more a fuction of the support that Schumer and the party are throwing behind her. Literally anyone could have raised that much money in that position.

Gilead is charging $3120 for it's Covid treatment course using a drug that was developed with at least 70 million dollars of tax payer money. These people should be on trial for their malfeasance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Are you kidding me? Amy McGrath has positioned herself as a Trump Democrat, she is basically a Republican.

And how the fuck do you expect a Dem to win in Kentucky if they're not Republican-lite?

Seriously, this bullshit about how Joe Manchin isn't a "real' Democrat gets real fucking old. You're right, she's not progressive. And you know what else? She won't vote to dismantle the ACA, which makes her way better than McConnell. Take the fucking wins you can get when you can  get them. 

Share this post


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

Are you kidding me? Amy McGrath has positioned herself as a Trump Democrat, she is basically a Republican.

This is ridiculous.  She may be way too moderate for your tastes, but what the hell is a Trump Democrat?  She actively disagrees with Trump on almost all main issues - other than guns.  I agree she appears to be a pretty milquetoast candidate that is very (very) unlikely to win, but let's not conflate moderate Dems with Trumpism.  That's how your party loses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...