US Politics- Mute-iny on the bounty

[kairparavel]

But her emails!

 

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, karaddin said:

he's pontificated (yes I'm proud of it)

Heh.  Awesome.

And yeah, the pope coming out for civil unions definitely belongs in the US politics thread.  Biden would be the second Catholic president and he's currently winning the vote 52-40.  This is significant.  The last time the Dems had a Catholic on the ballot - Kerry 2004 - it was basically a wash.  According to the ANES (which I trust more than any other source/firm), Hillary only won Catholics 48-45.  Pew had Obama's margins at 53-46 in 2008 and 50-48 in 2012.  Biden's strength with the Catholic vote is marginal, sure, but still significant - and a tacit boost from the pope certainly doesn't hurt.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, kairparavel said:

But her emails!

 

The Republican nominated by trump and confirmed by Republicans is obviously a secret biden lackey.

Sarcasm.

[Guy Kilmore]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I think this story would be more appropriate for the Lgbtq thread.

I disagree, Lgbtq issues are a critical issue in US Politics.

41 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I'm still a long way from being a fan of the guy, as he's far from being a fan of people like me, but he's still well and truly bounds ahead of prior Popes along with most of the high ranking clergy. I'll take what we can get.

I think there's at least a thread relevant angle to consider here. he's pontificated (yes I'm proud of it) on Trump before so we know he pays at least some attention to US politics. He's made this statement while the Republicans are trying to push through a woman who everyone (that isn't civility trolling) knows is profoundly homophobic onto SCOTUS and using her supposed Catholicism as a shield against any and all criticism of her views. I'm far from certain that this timing is intention, but its at least possible - I'd be very surprised if he's not deeply uncomfortable with her cults "Catholic" views.

This is where I sit.  Something like the Catholic Church is an institution that needs to make some changes and they will be slow.  This is a step in the right direction and I hope he sets a trend for new popes. I was also thinking something similar regarding Barrett.....and maybe a message to the 5(?) other Catholics currently sitting on the court.

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

Heh.  Awesome.

And yeah, the pope coming out for civil unions definitely belongs in the US politics thread.  Biden would be the second Catholic president and he's currently winning the vote 52-40.  This is significant.  The last time the Dems had a Catholic on the ballot - Kerry 2004 - it was basically a wash.  According to the ANES (which I trust more than any other source/firm), Hillary only won Catholics 48-45.  Pew had Obama's margins at 53-46 in 2008 and 50-48 in 2012.  Biden's strength with the Catholic vote is marginal, sure, but still significant - and a tacit boost from the pope certainly doesn't hurt.

 I didn't know those statistics.  That is also a good point.

[DanteGabriel]

I have had some profound disappointments with Pope Francis but overall I still think he is a good influence on the Church. Not that the institution is anywhere near redeemed -- Dante Jr still hasn't been baptized and I don't intend to do so unless he tells me he wants to of his own free will.

Being a renegade Catholic but still an admirer of Jesuits who were some of my father's mentors and friends, I had high hopes at the start of his term, but knew even a Pope couldn't change the Church that much. I am surprised by the level of open vitriol and venom directed his way by Catholics and by clergy. In my life I've never seen this much open hostility for a sitting Pope. I legitimately hope he has a food taster. I hope his views on Trump have moved the needle at least on middle of the road Catholics. The Opus Dei types I assume are Trump dead-enders.

I wonder if, once he is gone, there will be a big conservative backlash and surge. Like Trump getting elected after Obama.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

57 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The Republican nominated by trump and confirmed by Republicans is obviously a secret biden lackey.

Sarcasm.

Someone's been a bad lackey...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

NVM, bad joke.

[Fury Resurrected]

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I think this story would be more appropriate for the Lgbtq thread.

No. The Pope is a head of state, who has vast influence over people in other countries outside of that. The papacy is political as much as it is spiritual. Also, LGBTQ issues are absolutely of political importance and part of most people in this discussion’s voting criteria.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Oh boy....
 

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Some weirdness with the 538 election predictor:

If you give Trump Oregon, which 538 thinks Biden has a 97% chance of winning, it only improves Trump's chances of winning the election overall to 53%. And it improves Biden's chances of winning Mississippi to 41% Clearly this is incorrect, and I wonder what produced the error, whether it's a simple mistake somewhere or if it gives reason to question the whole thing. 

ETA: If you then lock in Mississippi for Biden it decreases Biden's chances in Washington from 75% (with Trump winning Oregon) to 59%. So the predictor thinks Biden's chances decrease 24% in Washington if he loses Oregon, and then another 16% if it turns out that happens in the same universe where he also won Mississippi. Seems doubtful.

[Fragile Bird]

@DMC right now on CNBC there’s an interview with a guy named Paul Tudor Jones talking about the impact of a Democratic win on the stock market, looking at tax increases. Once again the point is being made that tax increases will be retroactive to Jan. 2, because the Dems won’t introduce new taxes in 2022, an election year. The expectation is for market compression.

[DanteGabriel]

So I went down the rabbit hole of Rudy Giuliani's many adventures of late, I discovered that his "communications director" is a 20-year-old Instagrammer who puffed up her resume or fabricated titles at every turn to get herself into the top levels of the Republican grifting circuit. Whether or not an inexperienced Liberty University undergrad is qualified to do the job is one thing -- the fact that she is the communications director for a guy whose every public move has been a farce or a disaster for several years tells me she wasn't hired for her effective communication skills.

[Fragile Bird]

19 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

So I went down the rabbit hole of Rudy Giuliani's many adventures of late, I discovered that his "communications director" is a 20-year-old Instagrammer who puffed up her resume or fabricated titles at every turn to get herself into the top levels of the Republican grifting circuit. Whether or not an inexperienced Liberty University undergrad is qualified to do the job is one thing -- the fact that she is the communications director for a guy whose every public move has been a farce or a disaster for several years tells me she wasn't hired for her effective communication skills.

Isn’t Giuliani going through an nasty divorce, or just finished the divorce? I remember him saying some ugly things about his wife some time ago.

[Ormond]

6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Isn’t Giuliani going through an nasty divorce, or just finished the divorce? I remember him saying some ugly things about his wife some time ago.

Giuliani's divorce from his third wife was settled in December 2019. I guess different people might have different ideas on whether something settled 10 months ago was "just finished."

[DanteGabriel]

7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Isn’t Giuliani going through an nasty divorce, or just finished the divorce? I remember him saying some ugly things about his wife some time ago.

He concluded his third divorce a couple of months after he hired his grifter comms director, yes. I'm not sure which wife he bad-mouthed. His second wife and mother of his kids found out they were getting divorced when he had a press conference to announce it.

[Fez]

45 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Some weirdness with the 538 election predictor:

If you give Trump Oregon, which 538 thinks Biden has a 97% chance of winning, it only improves Trump's chances of winning the election overall to 53%. And it improves Biden's chances of winning Mississippi to 41% Clearly this is incorrect, and I wonder what produced the error, whether it's a simple mistake somewhere or if it gives reason to question the whole thing. 

ETA: If you then lock in Mississippi for Biden it decreases Biden's chances in Washington from 75% (with Trump winning Oregon) to 59%. So the predictor thinks Biden's chances decrease 24% in Washington if he loses Oregon, and then another 16% if it turns out that happens in the same universe where he also won Mississippi. Seems doubtful.

It could very well be a bug, but I have a different theory.

If you start at the base map and lock in Mississippi for Biden, it causes Biden's chances to go down in a bunch of states actually: ME, NH, VT, OR, WA, HI, and maybe a few others too (i didn't check every red state). My theory is that the predicator thinks that the only way Biden can win Mississippi is if a whole lot of low-income (and maybe some other) white voters stay home; having black turnout go up isn't enough. And if that many white voters are staying home in Mississippi they likely are in a lot of other states too. In most states that hurts Trump, but there are a handful of states where the kinds of white voters that would need to stay home in Mississippi actually lean towards Biden elsewhere. So if they're staying home everywhere it actually hurts him in those states. 

Supporting this theory, is this map from 2012 that used exit polls: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/buzzfeedpolitics/what-the-2012-election-would-have-looked-like-with

That year, if only white men were allowed to vote, Romney would've won almost every state. The exceptions are WA, OR, VT, ME, and MA, which would go to Obama. That's pretty close to the list of states where Biden's chances go down if he wins Mississippi.

[Maithanet]

I would also just caution against using the 538 predictor on clearly edge cases like Trump winning Oregon.  It is hard to calibrate what exactly is going on nationally if there's a polling miss as huge as that.  We would naturally assume it's "Trump landslide!", but there's definitely a chance that it is something unique to Oregon that has been missed by pollsters. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Lots of new polls coming out and it will make your head spin looking at it all, I suggest Nate Cohn's analysis (NYT, Upshot) snapshot every night about what the polls say for the entire day. For instance, a snippet from last night:

Quote

An unclear picture in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is probably the most crucial battleground state, and on Wednesday we got four polls showing Mr. Biden ahead there by an average of seven points. But if you look more carefully, there are at least a few reasons these polls weren’t quite as great for him as the topline numbers suggest, and they’re consistent with the broader evidence of modest tightening in the race.

I'm sure today will bring new analysis, as the PA numbers seem modestly better.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 10/21/2020 at 7:12 AM, DMC said:

What a farcical statement.  He needs to be 7 or 8 points up for you to "concede" he's got a strong chance of winning the state?  I know 2016 traumatized us all, but this is like battered political junkie syndrome or something.

I do think that until Trump is gone (please let it be just two months instead of four years), it's hard to get over that 2016 trauma. Trump subverts every expectation. 

13 hours ago, karaddin said:

I'm still a long way from being a fan of the guy, as he's far from being a fan of people like me, but he's still well and truly bounds ahead of prior Popes along with most of the high ranking clergy. I'll take what we can get.

I think there's at least a thread relevant angle to consider here. he's pontificated (yes I'm proud of it) on Trump before so we know he pays at least some attention to US politics. He's made this statement while the Republicans are trying to push through a woman who everyone (that isn't civility trolling) knows is profoundly homophobic onto SCOTUS and using her supposed Catholicism as a shield against any and all criticism of her views. I'm far from certain that this timing is intention, but its at least possible - I'd be very surprised if he's not deeply uncomfortable with her cults "Catholic" views.

I think this is also relevant to U.S. politics too (for the reasons you noted). Religious dogma has twisted itself so much into U.S. politics, that a lot of decisions and votes are cast based purely on religious leaders. We have to consider such statements from religious right now as we're seeing judicial activism trying to rollback the civil rights of the LGBTQ+ community.

My students and I discussed this earlier in the semester. One of them said that as a future teachers, they believed you shouldn't be political in the classroom. We brainstormed a list of "topics" you couldn't address in a classroom (based on this "no politics" rubric), and we quickly came to the conclusion: you can't avoid politics. In the U.S., everything is political--including religion. And much like my stance on healthcare--while I'm glad the Pope is potentially moving in the right direction, so many people just cannot wait for these dogmatic leaders to shuffle into modernity. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

41 minutes ago, Fez said:

It could very well be a bug, but I have a different theory.

If you start at the base map and lock in Mississippi for Biden, it causes Biden's chances to go down in a bunch of states actually: ME, NH, VT, OR, WA, HI, and maybe a few others too (i didn't check every red state). My theory is that the predicator thinks that the only way Biden can win Mississippi is if a whole lot of low-income (and maybe some other) white voters stay home; having black turnout go up isn't enough. And if that many white voters are staying home in Mississippi they likely are in a lot of other states too. In most states that hurts Trump, but there are a handful of states where the kinds of white voters that would need to stay home in Mississippi actually lean towards Biden elsewhere. So if they're staying home everywhere it actually hurts him in those states. 

Supporting this theory, is this map from 2012 that used exit polls: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/buzzfeedpolitics/what-the-2012-election-would-have-looked-like-with

That year, if only white men were allowed to vote, Romney would've won almost every state. The exceptions are WA, OR, VT, ME, and MA, which would go to Obama. That's pretty close to the list of states where Biden's chances go down if he wins Mississippi.

I appreciate some of the insights above, but I'm still not persuaded it makes a lot of sense. There's a world of difference between saying Obama would have won that set of states even if only white men could vote and, on the other hand, saying that in those states white men provided him his margin of victory, such that if their turnout fell he would have lost them. That implies he ran better among white men in those states than he did among white women or minorities. I strongly suspect- though I admit I'm too lazy to look into it- that Obama would have won all of those states by even wider margins if not a single white man had voted.