|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Tom Cotton also wants to get into leadership, but isn't running for Majority/Minority leader. i dont think they get it. mitch still has actual power still and will probably pick some old ghoul who will do what he does but maybe dumber. idk like a Taft to obstructionist teddy. the GOP senate still has enough brains to not pick a complete moron, either way it will be a circus.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nate is almost always wrong about punditry. His numbers and analysis are still good. Ehh...538 got up to 35%, but their final call was 28.6% chance to win with their "polls only" model, and 28.2% chance to win when including the special sauce. It wasn't everyone else at 1%, that was Sam Wang (and the Huffington Post, I think). Who, despite his confidence and eat-a-bug dare that he eventually made good on, did also prior to election night talk about how he thought his model was overstating Clinton's chances a bit. NYT was at 15%. And in terms of why the difference, it's because (1) Nate Silver uses an underconfident and volatile model, and (2) Sam Wang set a term in his model for nationwide polling error below what was suggested by historical precedent, but didn't want to tinker with the model right before election day to fix it. Joepinetree has a good post somewhere talking about this in the context of Brier scores. I'll try to find it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Ehh...538 got up to 35%, but their final call was 28.6% chance to win with their "polls only" model, and 28.2% chance to win when including the special sauce. It wasn't everyone else at 1%, that was Sam Wang (and the Huffington Post, I think). Who, despite his confidence and eat-a-bug dare that he eventually made good on, did also prior to election night talk about how he thought his model was overstating Clinton's chances a bit. NYT was at 15%. Huffpo and Sam Wang being at 1% were the two big other ones I was thinking of. I forgot that the NYT and 538 had parted ways and had separate models by 2016.So not everyone else was at 1%, but the bulk of the big models were and the others were well below 538 at the time. If you find that post, it sounds like an interesting read!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 21:02
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Also if you're going to use the Michigan primary to predict the general election, it's only fair to include that Trump has underperformed the polls in every primary so far and did so by double digits yesterday. That probably doesn't mean anything for November, but neither does the vote uncommitted campaign. Interesting. Do you have any good primary polls to share of the states so far?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 21:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's Johns all the way down to replace McConnell. Anyone want to do a breakdown of which of the Johns sucks the most? Obviously they all suck, but wikipedia and my memory don't have a good apples to apples comparison, and I apparently have work to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 21:11
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Anyone want to do a breakdown of which of the Johns sucks the most? Obviously they all suck, but wikipedia and my memory don't have a good apples to apples comparison, and I apparently have work to do. They all have nearly identical politics. They are all on the more conservative side of the caucus. The biggest differences would possibly be their strategic or management style as leader, but there isn't really a 100% way to predict that. John Barasso is probably the one most likely to be a "dealmaker," but he's like a 9 out of 100 on the "dealmaker scale" and the other are 4 out of 100, so it isn't a huge difference. And that is just a guess based on the fact that he has had a decent number of cosponsored bipartisan bills for uncontroversial issues or funding certain programs. That doesn't necessarily means it translates to a specific leadership style. In conclusion, 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 21:18
|
|
|
Good news everyone https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1762906260322562233?s=20 The appeal will go forward but the court can begin to enforce the judgment
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 22:14
|
|
|
You know, I'm starting to think that Trump might not be as rich as he claims to be
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 22:15
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Good news everyone and an appellate judge just ruled on this a few minutes ago, only put a stay on his ability to take out loans, but not on the amount. essentially telling him to borrow the money if that's what it takes. it'll be interesting to see what banks want to take a half billion dollar risk on the nations scammiest rear end in a top hat https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics/donald-trump-appeals-court-new-york/index.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
Trump got into this specific bit of trouble in the first place for inflating his value for the purposes of getting loans. Now the judge wants him to go get more loans. loving LOL
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 22:38
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Good news everyone  I just this morning saw some YouTube video from Forbes explaining how Trump had enough to cover the judgment including appeal without having to liquidate any properties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
People who are more knowledgeable than me regarding finance stuff: I'm pretty sure his judgement can't be discharged in bankruptcy, right? If he is somehow able to get a loan to pay the judgement, can he discharge that in bankruptcy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 22:43
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Trump got into this specific bit of trouble in the first place for inflating his value for the purposes of getting loans. Now the judge wants him to go get more loans. It's more that the judge said "It's OK for you to get loans, but you still have slightly less than 30 days to come up with half a billion. Good luck!" haveblue fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Feb 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 22:43
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:People who are more knowledgeable than me regarding finance stuff: He can't discharge it through bankruptcy no matter what as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
Considering a big part of Mitch's legacy is that he let Trump off the hook with the Jan 6th impeachment, I've always wondered what it would look like had Mitch actually put his foot down and decided to have a firm backbone for once. For reference, the 7 Republicans who voted for impeachment: Burr Cassidy Collins Murkowski Romney Sasse Toomey There were 57 total votes for impeachment vs 43 no, 67 needed, so counting Mitch he'd need to find nine more. Since Mitch's primary concern was keeping the Senate (and thus his wild wet dreams of being Senate Majority Leader) intact, let's assume he let's anyone running in 2022 off the hook. That would include: Boozman Crapo Grassley Hoeven Johnson Kennedy Lankford Lee Moran Paul Rubio Thune Tim Scott Young That's 14 of the 42 off-limits. There were four retiring Senators who's seats would be open in '22: Blunt Inhofe Portman Shelby And then there's the crazies who weren't going to listen to reason no matter what: Blackburn Cruz Hawley Tubs So 18 of the 42 are either off-limits or no-go's. That would have left 24 Senators, a number of whom either had just won an election or were four years away and/or in very safe seats, as possible candidates to switch: Barrasso Braun Capito Cornyn Cotton Cramer Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Hyde-Smith Lummis Marshall Risch Rounds Sullivan Tillis Wicker Now some of those above could probably be moved into the crazies column, but a number of those who voted no could probably have been moved to vote yes had Mitch made it clear which way his personal winds were blowing. You think Lindsay Graham wouldn't jump ship off Team Trump if it looked like it was going down? People like Tom Cotton and Joni Ernst who's presidential ambitions were all but silenced as long as Trump demanded the throne? Mitch only needed nine of the above group plus any additional retiring Senators, forgive me for being ignorant but I think if he had drawn an actual line in the sand and been willing to deal with any actual consequences he would have been able to pull it off. It might have cost the GOP the Senate in 2022, which occured anyway hindsight being 20/20, but it would potentially have left them in a better position for '24, or at least it can't be worse then where it is now with Trump making it clear any and all fundraising money is going directly to him. I imagine Mitch is retiring due to age, due to health, and due to the idea that if Trump does win and the GOP reclaim the Senate then either he has to go back to kissing the ring or Trump has him neutered and Mitch has to slither away in shame. Better to go out on your feet while you still can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:13
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:People who are more knowledgeable than me regarding finance stuff: I have been told that paying a non-dischargeable debt and then declaring bankrupcy can be challenged as an adversary procedure in Chapter 7 (e.g. using a credit-card to pay a student loan). But thats a new court-case for the Crime All The Time guy and not "physically prevented from doing this" thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:19
|
|
|
Well SCOTUS threw Trump a bone and is staying the ruling in his immunity case until April 22nd, which means that more than likely he will not have a conviction until after the election https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1762961167167664586?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Well SCOTUS threw Trump a bone and is staying the ruling in his immunity case until April 22nd, which means that more than likely he will not have a conviction until after the election yeah sounds about right. what i am curious about is if they actually rule for him. I doubt it because its loving stupid even for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
I'm sure the right-wing justices are trying to come up with a legal way to say "Only Republican presidents are immune to prosecution, Democrats are not"
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 00:12
|
|
|
Trazz posted:I'm sure the right-wing justices are trying to come up with a legal way to say "Only Republican presidents are immune to prosecution, Democrats are not" They already made a case saying "George W Bush gets to be president but you can't use this as the basis for any other legal argument."
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 00:26
|
|
|
small butter posted:Interesting. Do you have any good primary polls to share of the states so far? 538 has poll averages for most of the states, here's a tweet summarizing it https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1762695643909312996
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 00:29
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:538 has poll averages for most of the states, here's a tweet summarizing it Very impressive that polls seem to manage to get worse and worse every cycle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Huffpo and Sam Wang being at 1% were the two big other ones I was thinking of. I forgot that the NYT and 538 had parted ways and had separate models by 2016.So not everyone else was at 1%, but the bulk of the big models were and the others were well below 538 at the time. I think this is the one I was thinking of. might've also been this one. On the subject of volatility, seeing a post from 2018 reminds me that Silver also gave people panic attacks during election night with the midterms, because he had a live prediction tracker that didn't take into account that a bunch of likely R vote counts might come in before areas favoring Democrats reported results. So their election night tracker briefly swung to something like less than a 40% chance for Dems to take the House (down from like 85% going into the night, depending on which of the three models he had up you looked at). He was actually changing stuff in the model on the fly during the night because it seemed so out of whack. link
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Good news everyone
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 01:47
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:yeah sounds about right. what i am curious about is if they actually rule for him. I doubt it because its loving stupid even for them. They can rule after the election that he's ineligible but because it was not decided until then, and there can be no ex post facto, he's still president because he was duly election. Chaos option, this happens between the election and the electoral college votes and the electoral college picks his VP instead of him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 05:16
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:They already made a case saying "George W Bush gets to be president but you can't use this as the basis for any other legal argument." The same disclaimer they slapped on Roe, yeah terrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 05:31
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:They can rule after the election that he's ineligible but because it was not decided until then, and there can be no ex post facto, he's still president because he was duly election. I think the person you are responding to was talking about the "President is immune from being prosecuted for any crimes" argument, not being on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 05:53
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I think the person you are responding to was talking about the "President is immune from being prosecuted for any crimes" argument, not being on the ballot. drat, way too many lawsuits at once
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 05:58
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:USCE 2024: drat, way too many lawsuits at once
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 13:43
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:Very impressive that polls seem to manage to get worse and worse every cycle. Yeah my pollyanna rear end hoped after the Obama years that the science would just keep improving until we'd practically know the outcome down the the unit digit. Trump came along and bent the sheer forces of reality and mathematics to his whim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 14:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Biden's openly pushing for a humanitarian ceasefire. He's just doing it through private direct negotiations with Israel and Hamas, rather than public posturing. It seems like Bidens public comments on the closeness of a ceasefire deal were public posturing, since neither the Hamas representative nor Israeli officials knew anything about it. Guardian posted:Basem Naim, the head of Hamas’s political division in Gaza, said over WhatsApp on Tuesday that the Palestinian Islamist movement had not yet formally received a new proposal for a ceasefire since last week’s indirect talks in Paris mediated by the US, Egypt and Qatar.Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that Biden’s comments came as a surprise and were not made in coordination with the country’s leadership. Hamas was continuing to push “excessive demands”, they said. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/hamas-and-israel-pour-cold-water-on-bidens-hopes-of-imminent-ceasefire
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:05
|
|
|
as I work on my mental health, coming out of my depression during these times is just too much. I'm probably just going insane but seeing the world burning, while a genocidal war is occurring on the other side of the world, and all I can do is either vote for it's cheerleader or a dictator in waiting. I'm at the point where I really want off this ship (as in the SS US, not this life  ) but I haven't the first clue what to do. The thought of raising my children in this environment is weighing on me so heavily.Please tell me I'm insane, that I can at least fix. EDIT- This is not about actually wanting or planning a move, more about the feeling of helplessness. Apologies for the derail. Grater fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Feb 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:27
|
|
|
Grater posted:as I work on my mental health, coming out of my depression during these times is just too much. I'm probably just going insane but seeing the world burning, while a genocidal war is occurring on the other side of the world, and all I can do is either vote for it's cheerleader or a dictator in waiting. You don't really have any direct control over the Israeli military or Hamas, do you? If not, then your best options for directly changing them would be: 1) Become an Israeli citizen and either become a MK or vote against Bibi. 2) Get a leadership position within Hamas and attempt to steer them towards a ceasefire and renouncing terrorism. Other than that, probably get cognitive behavioral therapy and do what you can in the U.S. The I/P conflict is going to happen regardless of whether you live in Mexico or America. Healthiest to focus on what you can control rather than existential questions about your unborn children's lives 40 years in the future that you have no control over. Especially if you are prone to depression or anxiety.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
Grater posted:as I work on my mental health, coming out of my depression during these times is just too much. I'm probably just going insane but seeing the world burning, while a genocidal war is occurring on the other side of the world, and all I can do is either vote for it's cheerleader or a dictator in waiting. I wish I had something more sunny to say, but with this planet, the only way up I see is for all of us to get into the mix in some way to try to steer the actual process. You do what you need to do to stay sane, but disengagement is basically letting the bad actors steer the ship you're on. Plus, I've found volunteering and active involvement makes me feel a lot better. Even if it's non-political, helping someone in need can make you feel a lot less helpless. I don't blame you for wanting to get out of America, but even if you ignore the rightward lurch in a lot of other developed countries and the drawbacks that come with expat life in "emerging markets," you're often still going to deal with bodies of immigration law designed to keep out as many people as possible. If you have some means, go ahead an look into it, but I don't think leaving the US is going to be a magic bullet. And in all events, I hope you're getting therapy. This is all my opinion, but regular therapy is something everyone should be getting in this day and age.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:41
|
|
|
I realize I cannot impact the ongoing war in any meaningful sense, that's not at all what I'm getting at. I just don't really see much good happening lately anywhere and at this point even the "best" outcomes this country has in front of it put us in for some dark times. When I say I don't know what to do, it's about me and my family at this point. My young kids deserve a future not mired in existential crisis. EDIT - ^^I am getting therapy. And I'm 45 and have volunteered, gotten involved and so forth but I no longer believe it can make a difference. Thank you for the advice though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:44
|
|
|
Get off the internet and quit loving up your kids’ brains by asking them how they can possibly enjoy their ice cream cone knowing the water wars are pending
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
Grater posted:I realize I cannot impact the ongoing war in any meaningful sense, that's not at all what I'm getting at. I just don't really see much good happening lately anywhere and at this point even the "best" outcomes this country has in front of it put us in for some dark times. Right, this is probably better suited for E/N, but is the sense of global existential crisis going to disappear if you move to the U.K., Canada, or Mexico? I don't think anyone can predict what the world will look like in 25+ years, so you can't really live your life chained to existential anxiety about what impact a decision you make now will have on your kids in half a century. You need to dial the timeframe back about 39 years and 11 months and focus on what you can control to feel good about that. Edit: You mentioned your kids aren't unborn, but the same thought process applies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Get off the internet and quit loving up your kids’ brains by asking them how they can possibly enjoy their ice cream cone knowing the water wars are pending Believe me, I try. I do not talk politics around them but they bring a lot home from school.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Right, this is probably better suited for E/N, but is the sense of global existential crisis going to disappear if you move to the U.K., Canada, or Mexico?
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:54 |
|
|
Grater posted:I realize I cannot impact the ongoing war in any meaningful sense, that's not at all what I'm getting at. I just don't really see much good happening lately anywhere and at this point even the "best" outcomes this country has in front of it put us in for some dark times. if it makes you feel better, I think the world is savable and if you do what you're doing and taking care of your family, it will work out in the long term. I know that the idea that "nothing matters" is very compelling, but I also do not see how it makes me happier (or wiser) to marinate in that. I try to be active and engaged because it is how I want to spend my time. And yeah, even I have to occasionally do the following: Tiny Timbs posted:Get off the internet I am much, much happier when I cut down my online time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2024 15:51
|
|