|
as halfway crooks posted:no you dont get it, hes losing in the polls and this time is different That's the point, though. Donald Trump was crushing in polls, he was the leading candidate forever, but people kept writing him off because he was Donald Trump. If you looked at it as pure numbers, Donald Trump was always a strong candidate to win the primary. Donald Trump won because he was fundamentally a strong candidate. Donald Trump in the general election is a shitstorm. His polling is garbage, his unfavorables are historically bad, and the press is more serious in the general election than the primary. Virtually every number for him is trending in the wrong direction. He's not going to win, in virtually every way he's an awful, awful candidate. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 19:06 on May 9, 2016 |
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I meant the governor, who's political career will be over and state Republicans who's career and majorities will be endangered by this stupidity. I don't think it is certain that standing by HB2 will mean Republicans do worse in November. Only in the scenario where the Justice Department gets to shut down the kindergartens, maybe, but even then seems a bit like it might backfire.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Xanderkish posted:This is a pro-click and is making me rethink relying on five-thirty-eight somewhat. This article is lazy as gently caress, actually. Lumping in 538 with Vox, NY Times makes no sense - 538 always makes a big deal about showing what they got wrong versus what they got right and predictions are going to be wrong based on the math they are based on. The criticizing 538 because they rely on polling data? Come on. This is really nothing more than contrarian bullshit after getting absolutely smoked in the past few election cycles. When there is plenty of polling data, 538 (and everyone else who bothers to average polls) actually does really, really well. Most conventional pundits hate this sort of thing because it means they can be held accountable for loving up and they can't claim that the race is neck and neck when all data points to a clear winner.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think it is certain that standing by HB2 will mean Republicans do worse in November. Only in the scenario where the Justice Department gets to shut down the kindergartens, maybe, but even then seems a bit like it might backfire. the longer you continue to ostracize the state, the more damage it's going to do to Republicans, particularly in a year where they're already worried about the top of the ticket dragging them down. Solkanar512 posted:This article is lazy as gently caress, actually. Lumping in 538 with Vox, NY Times makes no sense - 538 always makes a big deal about showing what they got wrong versus what they got right and predictions are going to be wrong based on the math they are based on. The criticizing 538 because they rely on polling data? Come on. 538 also developed an alternate model going ahead in the primaries based on demographics that was extremely predictive. Dexo posted:Honestly that seems to be the problem with 538 this primary season is that they didn't just look at the numbers in regards to Trump they inserted their own biases and thoughts where they shouldn't have. No, they made assumptions based on previous primary elections that were/are entirely valid ways to make predictions. This whole nonsense is partially media-feeding-on-media bullshit. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 19:08 on May 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Honestly that seems to be the problem with 538 this primary season is that they didn't just look at the numbers in regards to Trump they inserted their own biases and thoughts where they shouldn't have. Because looking at the numbers a Trump win should have been seen.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I meant the governor, who's political career will be over and state Republicans who's career and majorities will be endangered by this stupidity. McCrory will go back to his day job as a PR flack for Duke Energy. He was installed as governor to make sure they get a slap on the wrist for various crimes and he's accomplished that task. I can't imagine he's getting much enjoyment when he can't even go on Fox News without getting hassled.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Everybody thought the polling was wrong. Everybody.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why not? The impact of cutting off funding is huge and the injunctions against the Clean Power Plan, the immigration EOs etc all make me think the courts will stop any funding cutoff. Think of the children. Apparently there has never been an attempt to withhold funds based on title IX and the processes is entirely different, it's not a court action, since the funds are taken and provided voluntarily they can't make the argument that they are entitled to the funds they can unilaterally be removed, looks like the closest case is the withholding of highway funds if the drinking age wasn't set at 21, were there any lawsuits over that?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:the longer you continue to ostracize the state, the more damage it's going to do to Republicans, particularly in a year where they're already worried about the top of the ticket dragging them down. Unless the narrative backfires and it becomes about the Democrats punishing the children of NC in an attempt to unseat Republicans. Or if all that happens is a few conventions move and everyone forgets. Either way, I don't think this is such a foregone mistake for the Republicans from a political perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Apparently there has never been an attempt to withhold funds based on title IX and the processes is entirely different, it's not a court action, since the funds are taken and provided voluntarily they can't make the argument that they are entitled to the funds they can unilaterally be removed, looks like the closest case is the withholding of highway funds if the drinking age wasn't set at 21, were there any lawsuits over that? Yes -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole And SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Feds. Trabisnikof posted:Unless the narrative backfires and it becomes about the Democrats punishing the children of NC in an attempt to unseat Republicans. Or if all that happens is a few conventions move and everyone forgets. Either way, I don't think this is such a foregone mistake for the Republicans from a political perspective. This is mostly just dumb Arzying. "What if Republicans win the media narrative  "
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:This article is lazy as gently caress, actually. Lumping in 538 with Vox, NY Times makes no sense - 538 always makes a big deal about showing what they got wrong versus what they got right and predictions are going to be wrong based on the math they are based on. The criticizing 538 because they rely on polling data? Come on. This is also a very good point and I am rethinking my rethinking of 538 and also realizing I need to think more critically about this stuff and/or educate myself more.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Apparently there has never been an attempt to withhold funds based on title IX and the processes is entirely different, it's not a court action, since the funds are taken and provided voluntarily they can't make the argument that they are entitled to the funds they can unilaterally be removed, looks like the closest case is the withholding of highway funds if the drinking age wasn't set at 21, were there any lawsuits over that? BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yes -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole So thinking the Obama administration will not successfully withhold funds over HB2 is arzying now? Or that Republicans will win a media narrative in NC? I think withholding funds for Medicare expansion is a more recent example.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
i didn't think the polling was wrong. i did think trump was a dilettante but oh, how i was wrong
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So thinking the Obama administration will not successfully withhold funds over HB2 is arzying now? Or that Republicans will win a media narrative in NC? Thinking Republicans will win the media narrative, so we shouldn't try is pretty much classic stupid lefist defeatism. Trabisnikof posted:I think withholding funds for Medicare expansion is a more recent example. Constitutionally different (and also a lovely decision.)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jbview/status/729739983804874753
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
They thought Trump was a Cain/Carson/Bachmann/Gingrich type that had a short life at the top. Once he endured the Summer though, they failed to adapt. That was the issue.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Thinking Republicans will win the media narrative, so we shouldn't try is pretty much classic stupid lefist defeatism. When did I say we shouldn't try? I'm just saying don't get your hopes up for any "raw dogging".
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Nate Silver got fuckin' rekt.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Highly recommend Keepin it 1600, Jon Favreau and Dan Pfeiffer's podcast. Really smart political analysis from two former White House insiders, and surprisingly entertaining. I'm still waiting for Jon Favreau & Jon Favreau to team up on something, anything.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Lots of Trump shells in the Panama papers lol
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Thinking Republicans will win the media narrative, so we shouldn't try is pretty much classic stupid lefist defeatism. Sebelius is the most recent example, and Roberts directs address Dole in it Or are you saying the NC case is constitutionally different? If so, my bad
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Sebelius is the most recent example, and Roberts directs address Dole in it My assumption is that because of how Title IX exists, it would be seen as different from those cases. I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:The EU should really have its own combined military at this point. The EU should also have abolished national sovereignty beyond the level of American state sovereignty at this point, in favor of a true federal government. But so far, they refuse to really do either (there is a minor EU coordinated force that's formally responsible for covering the few EU members that aren't NATO members, but in practice it is still expected that if those countries got attacked by someone it'd be the much better run NATO forces formally invited in to provide help.)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:My assumption is that because of how Title IX exists, it would be seen as different from those cases. I could be wrong. I think it would depend on how much title 9 money there is, and how essential it is to the university System and state budget there. If it qualifies as Roberts' "gun to the head" where in the state can't possibly/reasonably turn it down, then it would violate the precedent of Sebelius. In that case, I think in some states the government money in question was about 25% of state budgets. No clue about the UNC system. Compared to Dole where it was like 2% of state budget or such (not sure on the numbers). But again, without 4 other justices backing Roberts, who knows if they'll follow Sebelius
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The EU should also have abolished national sovereignty beyond the level of American state sovereignty at this point, in favor of a true federal government. I'm not laughing at you but HAHA European nationalism would never ever allow that to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I think it would depend on how much title 9 money there is, and how essential it is to the university System and state budget there. If it qualifies as Roberts' "gun to the head" where in the state can't possibly/reasonably turn it down, then it would violate the precedent of Sebelius. In that case, I think in some states the government money in question was about 25% of state budgets. No clue about the UNC system. Compared to Dole where it was like 2% of state budget or such (not sure on the numbers). Title IX funding's about 850 million for NC public schools, 1.4 billion for the UNC system. The state budget's around 22 billion.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Still waiting for this press conference to start. Don't know why I'm watching this it will only depress me (but, you know, see also: all political news ever)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I think it would depend on how much title 9 money there is, and how essential it is to the university System and state budget there. If it qualifies as Roberts' "gun to the head" where in the state can't possibly/reasonably turn it down, then it would violate the precedent of Sebelius. In that case, I think in some states the government money in question was about 25% of state budgets. No clue about the UNC system. Compared to Dole where it was like 2% of state budget or such (not sure on the numbers). I think it would be difficult to argue that Title IX would classify as that kind of "gun to the head," because it's wrapped up in an entirely different type of government funding mechanism.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
DOJ is just filing a lawsuit, boring but still a complete waste of money for N.C.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
So some people in my family have the idea that Trump, regardless of how the rest of the Primary & General election goes, will be disqualified from the Office of the President because of financial reasons. My mother, who is a financial planner whose firm includes various politicians, is basically convinced that Trump will screw himself because he won't relinquish his control of his finances/companies. The argument goes (according to them): As the president you have to put your financials away into a blind trust. Also you can't be an active CEO of a company, etc. Trump, being who he is, will never agree to do this, or somehow doesn't know that he'll have to. Somehow this will mean the FEC will disqualify him from taking the presidency. This sounds like wishful thinking to me. Not the "you have to resign as CEO/put your financials away", that true as far as I know. But the whole being disqualified part. What would really happen if Trump wins in November and basically says "Nah gently caress it, I'm staying on as Trump CEO and not putting my funds away into a blind trust and going to keep actively trading in the stock market."?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Crain posted:So some people in my family have the idea that Trump, regardless of how the rest of the Primary & General election goes, will be disqualified from the Office of the President because of financial reasons. My mother, who is a financial planner whose firm includes various politicians, is basically convinced that Trump will screw himself because he won't relinquish his control of his finances/companies. I don't think the President has to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Crain posted:So some people in my family have the idea that Trump, regardless of how the rest of the Primary & General election goes, will be disqualified from the Office of the President because of financial reasons. My mother, who is a financial planner whose firm includes various politicians, is basically convinced that Trump will screw himself because he won't relinquish his control of his finances/companies. I'd have to dig through election law, but I don't think he could actually be disqualified. He will, however, be appearing in court during this election cycle as part of a fraud case against Trump University.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
e: ^^^ read somewhere, maybe this thread, that it has been pushed to after electionCrain posted:So some people in my family have the idea that Trump, regardless of how the rest of the Primary & General election goes, will be disqualified from the Office of the President because of financial reasons. My mother, who is a financial planner whose firm includes various politicians, is basically convinced that Trump will screw himself because he won't relinquish his control of his finances/companies. I would think he'd be way too busy to do anything either way. But hasn't he already turned some of the control over his "empire" to his children for the duration of the election?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Alabama Inmates on Strike, Say They Will "No Longer Contribute to Our Own Oppression"quote:We will no longer contribute to our own oppression," Kinetik told Solitary Watch. "We will no longer continue to work for free and be treated like this." https://twitter.com/chrisrodley/status/728454700559826944
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
USA Today already got the story for us: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/10/06/donald-trump-campaign-ethics-questions/73409764/ Short Version: He does not have to turn over any of his companies. Longer Version: Ethically, he should but this is Donald Trump. It's not as if he actually does much with the day to day operation of the company. Trump's entire business model is based on seeming to be successful, so basically all he does is live YOOGE as part of a branding strategy.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Lots of Trump shells in the Panama papers lol If Trump didn't come up a bunch in papers from a tax-dodging-assistance firm I'd be stunned. He plays bankruptcy laws to his advantage like a true master of the craft so it's a given he'd be using shells and all sorts of international shady poo poo for taxes too.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Alabama Inmates on Strike, Say They Will "No Longer Contribute to Our Own Oppression" Jesus. See also, "The Great American Chain Gang,", an in-depth report on American penal labor from The American Prospect. It's about two years old but, since nothing ever improves or matters, still equally relevant.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Did DOJ announce how they're gonna gently caress NC up yet
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Did DOJ announce how they're gonna gently caress NC up yet They filed a lawsuit but the press conference has just started.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Loretta Lynch owns that FIFA presser was great.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 21:04
|
|