US Politics: Town Hell

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Otherwise, Biden could do far worse for an AG.

That poll's still a pretty big outlier, but agree with the quoted.  I was reticent to link this due to jinxing fears, but Matt Yglesias had a pretty comprehensive piece on potential Biden Cabinet picks a couple days ago.  For AG he mentioned Jones along with Xavier Becerra and Julian Castro (and Tom Perez, but please no).  I like all three.

[Gaston de Foix]

3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It would be an Christmas miracle if Jones won.

For sure.  But if you told me in Feb that Biden would have a huge cash advantage and be ahead by 10 points nationally, I wouldn't have believed you. 

[Gaston de Foix]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

That poll's still a pretty big outlier, but agree with the quoted.  I was reticent to link this due to jinxing fears, but Matt Yglesias had a pretty comprehensive piece on potential Biden Cabinet picks a couple days ago.  For AG he mentioned Jones along with Xavier Becerra and Julian Castro (and Tom Perez, but please no).  I like all three.

Becerra and Castro have never prosecuted a case, just like Bill Barr.  And Barr's comments about "headhunters" have seriously ruffled feathers with the DoJ.  I really think the Department needs someone with actual background in criminal law.  And the AG will have a bulging inbox from Trump-era machinations.     

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Becerra and Castro have never prosecuted a case, just like Bill Barr.  And Barr's comments about "headhunters" have seriously ruffled feathers with the DoJ.  I really think the Department needs someone with actual background in criminal law.  And the AG will have a bulging inbox from Trump-era machinations.     

Well, I don't know what your definition of "prosecuting a case" is, but Becerra has been California's AG for four years (and was a Deputy AG 30 years ago).  His experience is actually (and rather obviously) far more relevant to the traditional role of an AG.  Castro's legal experience is admittedly quite light, yes, but he's also actually ran a Cabinet department before.  I don't see any reason for a background in criminal law to be a litmus test.  

[Ran]

Nate Cohn and Harry Enten have been spending time today to warn people not to misread high early turnout figures to mean anything in particular regarding the final results. I find this slightly odd, though, because surely one can at least prognosticate whether this will be a high turnout election based on the figures, no? And when you look at polling such as that done by Monmouth -- here's their recent Arizona polling -- they actually use two models, one assuming high turnout and one assuming low turnout, and every high turnout model that I can see always gives Biden ~+2 points over Trump.

And of course, the other thing is that votes cast now are being done in the current environment where almost all the polling as Biden in a double-digit lead nationally, whereas who knows how much it will have tightened on Election Day? The fewer votes left to be cast on November 3rd because they were already cast in October, the better for Biden, I'd think. 

[Ormond]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah I saw that article linked at RCP over 24 hours ago.  Do you just have some alert set to "bad news for Biden from bullshit right wing sources?"  If you read the article, and clicked on the nbcnews links it was based on, you could read the fine print under their party registration "data" they are using in Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin:

So ironically, you're the one who is relying on a polling model instead of actual results.  If you want to see the actual party registration data for early, mail-in, and or total votes counted, look here.  That's based on the publicly reported results by the secretaries of state.  15 states publicly report this.  The above three do not.  Four are swing states - Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania (and Nevada if you want to count it).  Check out the party breakdown in those states.

This is not to say the party registration spread is that big of a deal right now.  @Fez mentioned yesterday that it's hard to tell this soon even in a regular cycle and he's absolutely right.  Democrats always start off with a huge lead in Florida.  The only thing the numbers reliably tell us so far is the pace of voting strongly suggests a high turnout election.

I believe that Michigan doesn't even register voters by party, so the best you could do there to get an estimate on this issue would be to see if voters in precincts which had voted more for Democrats in the past were doing more early voting than those in precincts that had voted for Republicans in the past.  --And that wouldn't be as good an indication. I remember seeing a leader of the Democrats in Wisconsin saying that in the primary election they had earlier this year where a Democrat won a state Supreme Court seat in a hotly contested election, at first on election day they were worried because vote totals were up more in traditionally Republican areas than in Democratic ones. But when votes were counted it turned out that it was the Democrats who lived in traditionally Republican areas who were the people really turning out in bigger than expected numbers. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

JFK allegedly had an affair with Marilyn Monroe. Donnie Stormie Daniels.

To be fair, JFK would have tried to sleep with her too. I can't find it, but there's a short cartoon about him, and one part has a pie chart that says "53%: JFK has slept with, 47%: JFK will eventually sleep with," or something to that effect. 

[Gaston de Foix]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, I don't know what your definition of "prosecuting a case" is, but Becerra has been California's AG for four years (and was a Deputy AG 30 years ago).  His experience is actually (and rather obviously) far more relevant to the traditional role of an AG.  Castro's legal experience is admittedly quite light, yes, but he's also actually ran a Cabinet department before.  I don't see any reason for a background in criminal law to be a litmus test.  

I mean neither has been a front-line prosecutor as opposed to running a government department dealing with prosecutions.  Kamala has been the former, for example, as well as having done the latter.  

I understand why one would think running a government department qualifies one to run a larger department doing the same thing, but prosecutors tend to think actual experience investigating, charging and trying cases is important: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2020-10-14/william-barr-department-of-justice-doj

Becerra would be a good fit as a replacement for Kamala as Senator, and I like Castro and I hope he gets a cabinet appointment.  

The other candidate who I suppose is a natural fit for AG is Sally Yates.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

To be fair, JFK would have tried to sleep with her too. I can't find it, but there's a short cartoon about him, and one part has a pie chart that says "53%: JFK has slept with, 47%: JFK will eventually sleep with," or something to that effect. 

Arguably. But the punchline was rather the other way round. MM was viewed as arguably the most attractive women of that time. I dunno, who is the equivalent of Marilyn Monroe in 2020, anyway, fill in hottie of your choice could Donnie score that?

 

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, Ran said:

Nate Cohn and Harry Enten have been spending time today to warn people not to misread high early turnout figures to mean anything in particular regarding the final results.

Reading Enten's CNN piece, I can't find anything individually objectionable in what he's saying - primarily emphasizing it already was tricky to extrapolate early voting stats to final results before covid, and that Dems usually do have an advantage in early voting in certain states like FL and NC but it bit them in the ass last time.  Both points are true, but I do think his broader point is a little off.  There's nothing wrong with saying the early voting numbers so far clearly indicate a high turnout election, and in turn a high turnout election is very likely to benefit the Democratic candidate.  Neither of those things are controversial.

Looking at Cohn's Twitter it appears he's mostly just warning about extrapolating from party registration stats.  Clearly I agree with that.

5 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I understand why one would think running a government department qualifies one to run a larger department doing the same thing, but prosecutors tend to think actual experience investigating, charging and trying cases is important: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2020-10-14/william-barr-department-of-justice-doj

I just skimmed it, but that op-ed is pretty much solely attacking Barr.  I don't see where he said the AG should be a former AUSA or DA or something.  Even if he did, I strongly disagree.  The AG doesn't need experience trying cases if only because the AG shouldn't be meddling in their prosecutors' cases - that's the main objection to Barr in the first place!  Becerra has the administrative and political experience that is traditionally valued far more for any prospective AG.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Arguably. But the punchline was rather the other way round. MM was viewed as arguably the most attractive women of that time. I dunno, who is the equivalent of Marilyn Monroe in 2020, anyway, fill in hottie of your choice could Donnie score that?

 

It's because of how she walked. Otherwise there's a few interchangeable blonds. The one missing from the scene still has the best picture. 

But it doesn't really matter, and besides, the time of American Presidents behaving like they're French has long since passed.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

"You watch last night," the President told his Georgia supporters on Friday, referring to the NBC town hall, "and you see the anger and the hatred. And I'm saying (to Guthrie) 'Look, let's just do this thing. Take it easy. Relax.' ... You see that thing where she's screaming?"
Trump and Biden and America's two, polarized political realities live on prime time
Trump and Biden and America's two, polarized political realities live on prime time
"With Savannah," Trump continued, "it was like -- her face -- the anger, the craziness," he said, making motions with his hands to suggest a cloud of anger exploding around her head. "I mean, the craziness last night."
"We got very high marks last night, but they thought it was very unfair," he added, not specifying who "they" was, but accusing ABC News of taking a much softer approach questioning Biden during their policy-focused town hall -- even though Trump claimed earlier in the day that he hadn't bothered to watch Biden's simultaneous event.
Predicting that there will be a "red wave" on Election Day -- in contradiction with all the current polling -- Trump dismissed his own problems with "suburban women" at another point during the Georgia rally.
"I heard they like my policies, but they don't like my personality," Trump said. "They don't care about my personality. They want to be safe, and they want to keep their American dream."

Trump flails and shows no ability to reset as some Republicans voice their concerns

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/donald-trump-joe-biden-gop-defections/index.html

[Fez]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

So in "the War for the Senate" news a B/C rated Alabama poll shows Jones 1 point ahead of Tuberville: 

I fully believe Jones will do far, far better than the Democratic average in Alabama, for a variety of reasons; including the fact that Tuberville is a terrible candidate who is barely campaigning. I do not believe Jones will win.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Nate Cohn and Harry Enten have been spending time today to warn people not to misread high early turnout figures to mean anything in particular regarding the final results. I find this slightly odd, though, because surely one can at least prognosticate whether this will be a high turnout election based on the figures, no? And when you look at polling such as that done by Monmouth -- here's their recent Arizona polling -- they actually use two models, one assuming high turnout and one assuming low turnout, and every high turnout model that I can see always gives Biden ~+2 points over Trump.

My opinion is that no, you can't even prognosticate if its going to be high turnout. Because for all we know, every Democrat planning to vote already is and that election day turnout will be incredibly low. There's too many variables that we can't account for. I don't think early voting figures should be used for literally anything; except campaigns trying to better target GOTV operations. No other analysis is useful.

[Guest]

My son is a first time voter this year.

I just sent him a link to research the state questions on the ballot, and he replied back saying he'd already researched them on his own and thinks he's made up his mind. 

I'm a proud papa.

[DMC]

34 minutes ago, Fez said:

No other analysis is useful.

Fair enough it's your opinion, but this opinion is simply wrong.  It'd be like saying polling analysis isn't useful.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

Fair enough it's your opinion, but this opinion is simply wrong.  It'd be like saying polling analysis isn't useful.

But which of you forgot to carry the one on the zombie apocalypse?

[Maithanet]

I think you can safely say that what we are seeing looks like high Dem turnout.  It doesn't guarantee it, but the signs are definitely pointing that way.

[DMC]

49 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I just sent him a link to research the state questions on the ballot, and he replied back saying he'd already researched them on his own and thinks he's made up his mind. 

I'm a proud papa.

Good for your son! 

Reminded me of the exchange I had with my mom when I got my Florida ballot a few weeks ago.  Texted her I got it and said it might take me a bit to fill out due to the 13 ballot initiatives.  She texted back something like "give me a couple days and I can help you with the initiatives and ask [her] neighbor about the judges cuz he works with them."  I was like "thanks ma, appreciate it...but I think I'll be fine looking things up myself."  It was sweet and I know she was just trying to help but in my head I'm like..you do know what I do for a living right?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Good for your son! 

Reminded me of the exchange I had with my mom when I got my Florida ballot a few weeks ago.  Texted her I got it and said it might take me a bit to fill out due to the 13 ballot initiatives.  She texted back something like "give me a couple days and I can help you with the initiatives and ask [her] neighbor about the judges cuz he works with them."  I was like "thanks ma, appreciate it...but I think I'll be fine looking things up myself."  It was sweet and I know she was just trying to help but in my head I'm like..you do know what I do for a living right?

Posting electoral wisdom on a fantasy board on the internet?

[Ran]

Honestly, the amount of stuff on the Florida ballot -- and I'm guessing a lot of other ballots -- is part of why voting can take so damned long. I believe my particular version of the Florida ballot (for Palm Bay in Brevard County) had 24 separate items to vote on, including 7 judges and 6 constitutional amendments. Took me a couple of days to get through my research before I felt I could vote properly.

That's one place with party list systems nd so on are easy. In Sweden I think it's three votes -- parliament, local municipality, and the Church of Sweden (which only members vote on, and I suspect the vast majority of the relatively small percentage of Swedes who retain membership don't actually vote in it).