US Politics: Butter Not Guns

[ants]

5 hours ago, mcbigski said:

IDK, there's been a lot of talk on the right about ballot harvesting in California last time around swinging several districts.  Mail in makes that easier.  Don't have to look as hard to find a trunk full of ballots once you know what your target number is, like Franken, that Senate election in SD about 12 years ago, and that Washington Governors race a few years back.  Hell, in even in CT a judge kept polls open only in Bridgeport and maybe New Haven two hours after the rest of the state which almost certainly put Malloy over the top for Governor.

Um, ballot harvesting isn't illegal and the Republicans have said they need to do it more.

I've no idea what the Franken or SD, Washington governor ones are referring to.  Why bring up Malloy when is opponent said "that, despite some problems, his team found no credible evidence of fradulent voting and he believes a recount would not change the outcome of the race.".  Are the other references of such dubious quality?

Overall, it feels like you haven't put up any argument why mail in voting would increase fraud, let alone how/why the postal service is meant to perform it.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

Sounds like McConnell really wants to pass something.  Sounds congressional Dems have some leverage here.  

I told you so many times I love spaghetti.

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

I've read it. A few citations illustrating poor judgment, held up as what, she's not perfect so she's no good-- it's just more toxic purity bullshit that's becoming an increasingly odious, and honestly, kind of dehumanizing calling card of the far left. Be perfect or you suck. GTFO

In the article her truency initiative is cited as damning yet fails to mention not ONE SINGLE PARENT was actually put in jail. Or that it was for chronic offenders that missed like more than 80 days or some shit, and it was all about keeping kids in school. Because thats bad. Or no? The article doesn't even mention her back on track initiative, etc.

Generally, one sided reporting like that is considered a hit piece. But hey, don't take it from me. Take it from a defender that often found herself across from Harris.

Who to believe? 

Tough one.

That's what I meant about facts. Your facts aren't shit if they're selective.

Well, your facts are at odds with what Harris herself told the LA Times about parents being jailed.

Quote

Speaking on the liberal podcast “Pod Save America,” Sen. Harris said the arrests and, in some cases, jail sentences of parents in multiple California counties were an “unintended consequence” of the statewide law, which built on her tough-on-truancy approach as San Francisco district attorney.

Personally, I'm fine with Harris getting the VP slot.  There's plenty to criticize in her record, and if Biden / Harris win I will be holding their feet to the fire (ineffectually, I assume) come January.  In the meantime, I'm happy with Harris over a bunch of other possibilities, though I think it's kind of weird to hear everyone hammering the left for ideological purity and 'evangelism' and then watching Simon get roasted for criticizing the Dem VP pick.  I mean, I get that getting Trump out of office is paramount but I don't see why we should go 100% tribal and suspend all judgment and criticisms of our leaders in the meantime.

ETA: correction she said it on a podcast not to the LA Times

[maarsen]

As a Canadian I have no vote in US elections but I do have opinions. Kamala Harris is a good choice for VP. As mentioned before in an earlier iteration of this thread, having spent her high school years in Québec not only showed her how a different country works but also how a province with a distinct culture within Canada manages to exist. Not only that but for 4 years she may have been weaned off of the American exceptionalism teat. 

[Fragile Bird]

I am watching a CNBC interview with Frank Luntz, a ‘political strategist’ who is obviously a Republican, who just claimed that Harris is being protected in the media from her previous comments and actions. He actually warned the CNBC hosts that ‘in this era of cancel culture you need to be very careful about your comments’ about Harris.

He also has a duplicate of the Oval Office in his house with various artifacts from past presidents. Trump shipped him a chair. He also has a duplicate Lincoln bedroom, ‘the only Lincoln bedroom where you don’t have to be an intern to sleep in the bed’, and one of his ‘artifacts’ is the cigar box from Clinton’s desk. The CNBC hosts did not go there. He just boasted that it cost him a million dollars to recreate the rooms and now that he’s shown it off in an interview with CNBC he can write it off as an expense.

You see some bizarre things on CNBC.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

7 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Chuck Todd haters, we take your point – but it doesn't look like he's going anywhere
When Todd should have reclaimed the mic from a guest who came prepared to steamroll him, he got flattened – again

https://www.salon.com/2020/08/11/chuck-todd-haters-meet-the-press/

 

What an idiot...he is so incompetent. I feel like that "point" is one of the easiest typed to respond to because it is batshit crazy.

[Fez]

I'm still confident in Biden winning (not withstanding uncertainty about Trump cheating), but the fact that the race has gotten closer over the past month sickens me. I get that Trump has cultists and that like 40% of voters are going to support him no matter what. But the idea that someone wasn't going to vote for Trump a month ago, and the events of the past month convinced them to become a supporter again boggles my mind.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I am watching a CNBC interview with Frank Luntz, a ‘political strategist’ who is obviously a Republican

Frank Luntz has been a douchebag on cable news for nearly a quarter century now, usually on FNC.  He is one of the first innovators of manipulating "focus groups" to push one's own agenda while making it look like he's "just asking questions."  He also is behind Gingrich's rise/reign in the mid-90s that is often cited as the onset of the poisoning in political discourse (if not necessarily the beginning of the rise in polarization).

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I am watching a CNBC interview with Frank Luntz, a ‘political strategist’ who is obviously a Republican, who just claimed that Harris is being protected in the media from her previous comments and actions. He actually warned the CNBC hosts that ‘in this era of cancel culture you need to be very careful about your comments’ about Harris.

He also has a duplicate of the Oval Office in his house with various artifacts from past presidents. Trump shipped him a chair. He also has a duplicate Lincoln bedroom, ‘the only Lincoln bedroom where you don’t have to be an intern to sleep in the bed’, and one of his ‘artifacts’ is the cigar box from Clinton’s desk. The CNBC hosts did not go there. He just boasted that it cost him a million dollars to recreate the rooms and now that he’s shown it off in an interview with CNBC he can write it off as an expense.

You see some bizarre things on CNBC.

Fuck that guy. Seriously.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Well, your facts are at odds with what Harris herself told the LA Times about parents being jailed.

Personally, I'm fine with Harris getting the VP slot.  There's plenty to criticize in her record, and if Biden / Harris win I will be holding their feet to the fire (ineffectually, I assume) come January.  In the meantime, I'm happy with Harris over a bunch of other possibilities, though I think it's kind of weird to hear everyone hammering the left for ideological purity and 'evangelism' and then watching Simon get roasted for criticizing the Dem VP pick.  I mean, I get that getting Trump out of office is paramount but I don't see why we should go 100% tribal and suspend all judgment and criticisms of our leaders in the meantime.

ETA: correction she said it on a podcast not to the LA Times

And to be honest, I don't think she's a terrible pick. I just worry about those aspects of her history right now. I also realize how unlikely it is that Pence or Trump (or any of his goons) can legitimately leverage that. But with all polls saying this will be a good ol' Trump stomping in November, I do worry about things like that hurting turnout. If people think it's ok not to vote because Trump is going to lose anyway, that's where the biggest risk of this election comes from.

And we've seen it happen in this country many times before.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'm still confident in Biden winning (not withstanding uncertainty about Trump cheating), but the fact that the race has gotten closer over the past month sickens me. I get that Trump has cultists and that like 40% of voters are going to support him no matter what. But the idea that someone wasn't going to vote for Trump a month ago, and the events of the past month convinced them to become a supporter again boggles my mind.

I agree if people are changing their minds, but you also have to consider how much of it is "undecideds" coming home to Trump.  Anyway, it's only been about a point in the aggregate (ok, so a net 2 points).  Can't be surprised by tightening at this stage, and it's likely to continue.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

I agree if people are changing their minds, but you also have to consider how much of it is "undecideds" coming home to Trump.  Anyway, it's only been about a point in the aggregate (ok, so a net 2 points).  Can't be surprised by tightening at this stage, and it's likely to continue.

Isn't part of it that pollsters are switching to likely voter models rather than registered voters? I had assumed that was why the race tightened up; I'm a little more nervous then if that's not the explanation for it tightening.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Isn't part of it that pollsters are switching to likely voter models rather than registered voters? I had assumed that was why the race tightened up; I'm a little more nervous then if that's not the explanation for it tightening.

Yes, good point.  But the GOP candidate only getting a 1 to 2 point bump out of that is a good thing in my book.

[IheartIheartTesla]

538s model is out, and puts Biden's chance of winning the election at ....70%. Their prediction for election day is +6 Biden, with Trump slightly favored in the EC. As in 2016, their predictions are on the more conservative side compared to other aggregators.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Their prediction for election day is +6 Biden, with Trump slightly favored in the EC.

Trump is not favored to win the EC based on their model.  Their current projections have Biden (slightly) favored in Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, and the Nebraska 2nd, which would give Biden a 319 to 219 EC victory.

[Fez]

20 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Isn't part of it that pollsters are switching to likely voter models rather than registered voters? I had assumed that was why the race tightened up; I'm a little more nervous then if that's not the explanation for it tightening.

Part of it. But not entirely. For instance the Change polls that dropped this morning are likely voters, but so were their July polls, and they showed a 3 point tightening. 

Races generally tighten as it gets closer to the election day, so in that sense this isn't surprising. But this year truly is unique in how utterly fucked everything is, and how much of that fuckedry can be squarely placed on Trump, and I'd hoped that would lead to something different. Again, the supporters are the supporters, I get that. But if someone previously even reached "undecided" levels, I just don't get how they could be convinced to "come home" to the cult considering everything going on.

[Freshwater Spartan]

22 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

538s model is out, and puts Biden's chance of winning the election at ....70%. Their prediction for election day is +6 Biden, with Trump slightly favored in the EC. As in 2016, their predictions are on the more conservative side compared to other aggregators.

That's about the same % that 538 have Clinton leading into the 2016 election.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Frank Luntz,

History will remember this man as one of the worst humans to ever live.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

That's about the same % that 538 have Clinton leading into the 2016 election.

Pretty much exactly the same.

[JGP]

4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Well, your facts are at odds with what Harris herself told the LA Times about parents being jailed.

Personally, I'm fine with Harris getting the VP slot.  There's plenty to criticize in her record, and if Biden / Harris win I will be holding their feet to the fire (ineffectually, I assume) come January.  In the meantime, I'm happy with Harris over a bunch of other possibilities, though I think it's kind of weird to hear everyone hammering the left for ideological purity and 'evangelism' and then watching Simon get roasted for criticizing the Dem VP pick.  I mean, I get that getting Trump out of office is paramount but I don't see why we should go 100% tribal and suspend all judgment and criticisms of our leaders in the meantime.

ETA: correction she said it on a podcast not to the LA Times

I couldn't read it [paywalled] but I believe you. I was wrong about that.  

And your criticism of my rail at Simon isn't unfair. We're dealing with a lot of this far left purity bullshit up in Canada right now too and I find it beyond annoying, so it's definitely bleeding over. I'm not going to start listing my beefs with the far left though because I might not stop, and frankly, whatever my issues with perfection politics are... I'm borderline flirting with actual hate of the right. Priorities.

I did go hard at Simon inthread and while most of it was directed at him-- I really didn't like the piece he linked as justification for griefing.

You're right though larry, and I'm sorry Simon.