|
I dunno, but I do know gently caress kevin durant and gently caress the warriors!
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/ ARG poll for NH with a +/-4.2 margin of error. Senate: Kelly Ayotte (R) and Maggie Hassan (D) at 47-47%. Governor: Chris Sununu (R) and Chris Van Ostern (D) at 45-44%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/780860852220067841
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/781138093562793984 Donate and volunteer for your local politicians folks, it's just as important for your day to day life as the national.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Gonna triple post because no one else cares about the downballot. Generic congressional on Ispos has moved back to D +6. Similar numbers on YouGov. These are mostly or entirely pre debate numbers. Generally speaking, Dems need the congressional generic to be around D +8/9 to have a shot to take back the house. A small part of this has to do with gerrymandering, but a large part has to do with how shallow the Dems locational bench is in some areas. There was a real problem getting good candidates, and there are districts in a wave that would be competitive that the DCCC doesn't even have anyone up for election in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Schnorkles posted:https://twitter.com/PoliticsWolf/status/781138093562793984 agreeing with this. folks, i cannot stress how important the state level elections are. going from governor schwarzenegger to jerry brown and a democratic supermajority statehouse, it was like night and loving day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
I'm still skeptical that even a +8-9 D would result in the House flipping this election. Not that I wouldn't love to see it, but given what we're seeing in the polling in competitive Senate races, it's hard for me to see anything other than significantly depressed Republican turnout causing it to flip. Democrats need to win in a lot of solidly and even heavily Republican areas to have a chance, and even with Trump, that's a hell of a headwind to fight. Right now, Republicans still look likely to turn out, and even if they put Johnson or Clinton at the top, polling suggests that they'll split downballot way more than in past elections. I think that if the polls have Clinton up +4-5 in the aftermath of the final debate, that we'll see messaging like in '96, where Republicans emphasize the necessity to maintain control of Congress as a counterbalance to Clinton. I think that message will resonate well with a lot of voters who can't bring themselves to vote for Trump, but aren't particularly sympathetic to the Democrats. Frankly, I'd love to be wrong on this point, but what data there is tells me that I'm not. I think it's more realistic to make significant gains this cycle, then fight tooth and nail to staunch the bleeding in 2018 for a real chance at winning control of the House in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:agreeing with this. Funny how your insanely unsolvable multi-year debt problem seemed to be under control within like a year of Brown taking over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I'm still skeptical that even a +8-9 D would result in the House flipping this election. Not that I wouldn't love to see it, but given what we're seeing in the polling in competitive Senate races, it's hard for me to see anything other than significantly depressed Republican turnout causing it to flip. Democrats need to win in a lot of solidly and even heavily Republican areas to have a chance, and even with Trump, that's a hell of a headwind to fight. On the other hand, I personally feel two more debates vomiting vile nonsense word salad and that could easily put Trump at his 38% floor and get within one or two seats of the house.* (* source: my own rear end, polled twice daily)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Funny how your insanely unsolvable multi-year debt problem seemed to be under control within like a year of Brown taking over. it was a combination of brown and a democratic supermajority in the state assembly and senate, since proposition loving 13 made it so that any kind of tax increase needed a 2/3's majority to pass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Schnorkles posted:Gonna triple post because no one else cares about the downballot. yeah im hoping that i can fit some downballot scrutiny back in my life. whenever i check it's just like, some guy did a commercial, here's some leaked internals, the end, basically. but maybe now that it's october we'll actually have poo poo to talk about i came here to post what amounts to a graphical version of your post - that rcp got around to making a graph out of their congressional ballot and if current trends continue the democrats will winn 1000% of the vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2016_generic_congressional_vote-5279.html the debates are realistically the last chance for some kind of wave to emerge. i still don't think it will although i stubbornly continue to advance the possibility, but maybe (maybe) we'll at least start to see some of the margins we were seeing in the summer edit: and i think the correlation between the generic ballot and actual seats is almost unquantifiable - the entire sample size exhibits massive systemic realignments right up through 2010. as late as the 90s it was the democrats who had a massive systemic advantage in the house, thanks to the last stubborn remnants of the jim crow south sometimes euphemistically referred to as 'blue dog democrats' i think. however, there does exist a plausible scenario where the realignment represents a reduction in ticket-splitting, making the generic ballot more predictive of seat gains/losses than in past decades oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 22:07 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:On the other hand, I personally feel two more debates vomiting vile nonsense word salad and that could easily put Trump at his 38% floor and get within one or two seats of the house.* And while I would prefer it flip, I'm not losing sleep if it doesn't. There's literally no amount they could pick up that would be enough to keep the House from flipping back in 2018, and the real fight will be over redistricting in 2020, which is their only hope of getting a durable Democratic majority. The only real hope to have a majority from 2016-2020 is if Trump's rhetoric so poisons college-educated white men and white women of all educational levels to the Republicans, and thus turns a whole bunch of those gerrymandered suburban districts from +1-3 Republican to tossups or even +1 Democrat, but the jury's still out on the long-term damage that Trump is gonna do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
this election does seem like a really good opportunity for the other side of the jim crow realignment, northeastern suburban republicans who vote D for president and R downticket, to continue their progress toward the democratic party i would characterize the death of liberal republicans as a domino that couldn't start falling until the effects of the death of conservative democrats began to have its effect upon the gop. right now that sorta counts as a republican advantage - i would guess that they have more habitual ticket-splitters than democrats do (in the sense that more people will vote D for president and R downballot than vice versa - that's my hypothesis, anyway) - but i feel like it's basically inevitable. look at dudes like richard hanna, northeastern moderate republicans, retiring with obvious glee and immediately throwing grenades at the party so hopefully that process gets a giddy-up thanks to the gop coalition completely blowing up any possible pretense that moderate/liberal republicans could make that maybe they're not the baddies edit: a silver lining to the 99.99% chance that paul ryan will still be speaker in 2017 is that there's also a 99% chance that his majority is smaller and even more dominated by purity trolls who deeply hate basic governance, while the death of the jim crow democrat means that pelosi should have fewer republicans in democratic clothing in her caucus, although the democrats coming from places like the suburban midwest will deeply disappoint the kind of person who seriously thinks the democrats have moved so far to the right that the republicans' best move would be to become the new left-wing party a later edit: btw a good example of the democrats' problems is that in one of the ungerrymandered districts the courts created in virginia, in what was basically a 50-50 obama-romney district in 2012, the only democrat who bothered to file for the primary was an activist whose only prior experience was apparently losing a city council race in 2010 http://www.vpap.org/candidates/109460/elections/ now sometimes you get a great politician out of nowhere, but usually such a politician would have raised more than $12,373 by october (the republicans are running a state delegate who has raised $260K). so as good a representative as shaun brown (who, it turns out, is a black woman, which i didn't know till just now) might be, unfortunately it looks like she represents the democrats punting on 1st and goal oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 22:41 on Sep 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
I'll take this as a chance to link this article from a few months back. It's a really interesting piece about how this election is the tail end of a voter coalition realignment and the beginning of a party policy realignment. The Dixiecrat, the Reagan Democrat, and the Rockefeller Republican are dead and gone, and now it's about the new coalitions figuring out what policies they want to support. I recommend reading the whole article, but I think this sums it up well: quote:Today's Republican Party is predominantly a Midwestern, white, working-class party with its geographic epicenter in the South and interior West. Today’s Democratic Party is a coalition of relatively upscale whites with racial and ethnic minorities, concentrated in an archipelago of densely populated blue cities. I don't completely agree with everything the article says, but I think it's broad arguments are true. The only part I feel it really misses is just how much of an accellerating effect the Great Recession is having on this whole process. Up until then, Republicans had a coalition of voters who fell into two broad ideological camps. Economic voters who favored generally libertarian economic policy who paid lip service to social conservativism and socially conservative voters who paid lip service to economic libertarianism. Each side was happy because the bargain allowed them to get support for their side so long as they supported the other side. That first broke when the economy went into the tank, which disproportionately hurt the social conservative voters, who tend to be rural and have fewer job prospects. As much as Republicans try to shift the blame, the public clearly blamed Bush's economic policies. The anger from that has been floating around first in the Tea Party and now has found a full outlet in Trump. While all that was happening, the decline of the Baby Boomer population and the rise of the Millenial population changed the calculus for big business regarding social conservativism. It's enough of a fracture that it's completing the realignment of southern and rural Democrats to the Republicans. The next big shift will be, I think, a shift in big business away from Republicans because of their increasingly protectionist trade and anti-immigration policies. There's inklings of that happening now. Look at that article from a few days ago about how many fewer Fortune 100 CEOs are donating to Trump, and look at how much of a hullabaloo was made about Hillary's speeches to Wall Street. I think we'll look back on that in 10-20 years and wonder why anyone thought that big business would back a Republican or that it was weird for Democrats to be cozy with Wall Street.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
oh, i did see that ro khanna had to fire one of his campaign higher-ups who had worked on his rival mike honda's campaign and had kept access to a dropbox file containing proprietary honda campaign information. or something like that my vague sense of this (D on D) election is that khanna is a silicon valley creep who would probably be a token diversity republican anywhere else in the country, while honda is a long-serving incumbent and more traditional labor union democrat with some ethics problems that have caused him to lose a lot of the endorsements that helped him beat khanna last time (this is a rematch of 2014, i think? where honda won). if that's accurate at all, this should do a lot to neuter khanna's ethics-based attacks on honda of course a D on D election essentially doesnt matter, but i'd be interested in reading any fleshings out or refutations of my lovely summary if there are others who have been following this election edit: also to respond to the above post, ive got that article open in a tab and will read it soon thanks v much for that link it sounds interesting
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I think we'll look back on that in 10-20 years and wonder why anyone thought that big business would back a Republican or that it was weird for Democrats to be cozy with Wall Street. There are plenty of CEOs backing Clinton even with her very public stances against big business, at least compared to what she was espousing a decade ago. They're dealing with the after effect of the Recession as well, and will have to adapt to a population much less trusting and much more demanding of them, and their practices, than we're using to seeing outside of Europe. EDIT: Ro Khanna was utterly repulsive last electoral cycle, and yes is just a 90s era Republican in a Democratic skin suit. Well, outside of the abortion issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
ro is a political chameleon who is currently trying to play himself off as a berniecrat
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Wtf happened here, is it really just the electoral effect? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/28/senate-obama-veto-september-11-bill-saudi-arabia
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Wtf happened here, is it really just the electoral effect? Explaining why this is a lovely law takes more than one sentence, there's an election, "our ally Saudi Arabia" isn't polling well, and the administration did almost no organizing to kill this thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:EDIT: Ro Khanna was utterly repulsive last electoral cycle, and yes is just a 90s era Republican in a Democratic skin suit. Well, outside of the abortion issue. ro khanna also threw his lot in with deranged racist chinese reactionaries raising hell about data disaggregation because they thought it was a backdoor to reinstating affirmative action here, i really loving hate my ethnic kinsmen sometimes also he's been interviewed by breitbart too, if that gives you any idea of the circles he runs in but keeps quiet about 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Wtf happened here, is it really just the electoral effect? quote:The Senate voted 97-1, with the Democratic minority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, alone in supporting the veto. The House followed suit a short time later, voting 348-77 to override and putting Congress directly at odds with the White House and national security establishment. These are shocking figures for such a terrible bill, what the gently caress is wrong with the Senate? Only a third of them are up for re-election this year, so that doesn't explain it by itself
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Explaining why this is a lovely law takes more than one sentence, there's an election, "our ally Saudi Arabia" isn't polling well, and the administration did almost no organizing to kill this thing. saudi arabia is largely responsible for the events that led to 9/11, also 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:These are shocking figures for such a terrible bill, what the gently caress is wrong with the Senate? Only a third of them are up for re-election this year, so that doesn't explain it by itself No, but in two or four years when they are up for re-election, their opponent is guaranteed to run an attack ad saying that they voted against a bill that would help give justice to the families of the victims of 9/11 to protect supporters of radical Islamic terrorism. It's a bad bill, but holy poo poo is that a powerful attack ad. In how this bill's been framed in the media, it's being put on the moral level of providing discount bus fares for war widows. If there's a political downside to voting against this, I'm just not seeing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:saudi arabia is largely responsible for the events that led to 9/11, also it's a violation of international law literally. look up Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening) Explains the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 03:06
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:it's a violation of international law It's probably a sign of me spending too much time on this web site but my first thought when this news came out was "Forums Poster The Iron Rose is gonna be so pissed."
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:It's probably a sign of me spending too much time on this web site but my first thought when this news came out was "Forums Poster The Iron Rose is gonna be so pissed." Not for the reason you probably thought though! We generally should avoid doing poo poo that violates international law. Fortunately, international law is remarkably flexible, especially international humanitarian law. Not so much in this case. It's a bad bill not because it will piss off our allies for no gain. But it'll also violate international law, and contribute to the perception that the United States doesn't care about international law. That's not a good thing in my book. We must respect international law as much as we possibly can, and we must encourage all countries to participate in the international system, to cooperate and embrace diplomacy. That's a good deal harder when we make ourselves look like massive hypocrites. I mean this is kinda not much when compared to Iraq. But every little thing adds up. There is nothing positive about this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
there was a poll of virginia today asking who mcauliffe should appoint to replace tim kaine if he becomes vp http://cnu.edu/cpp/pdf/sept%2028%202016%20report-final.pdf  tim kaine has 52-33 favorables bobby scott 21-10 with 54 'no view' so he's not exactly a household name in most of the state. he has slightly more favorables than 'no view' in hampton roads where he's from and is almost there in richmond and among black voters; maybe it'll help generate democratic turnout for the odd year special election he'd surely be running in if he's appointed 54-43 approval for obama edit: btw that question i screenshotted above was asked only to democrats and independents who lean democratic edit: also they mispelled beyer's name. if this were a primary, which of course it isn't, it would help scott that he's got plurality support in the non-nova democratic strongholds while beyer and connolly sorta split nova. but that's got nothing to do with anything oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 06:10 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:there was a poll of virginia today asking who mcauliffe should appoint to replace tim kaine if he becomes vp "Don Buyer"  The guy's name is Don Beyer, he's my representative. https://beyer.house.gov/  Seriously, how the gently caress do you misspell the name of the representative for Arlington and Alexandria in a poll of Democrats?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Wtf happened here, is it really just the electoral effect? Who was going to stop it? It's basically a feel good bill (ignoring the potentially real effects on our own leaders getting sued, which everyone did) and nobody is going to vote for you for voting against a bill that let's you sue terrorist governments (Americans could give a poo poo about the sovereignty of other nations) which due to the lingering suspicions about 9/11 is basically what the public thinks the House of Saud is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/781612545534750720 This is, to my knowledge, the first poll showing Hassan ahead for a little bit. That race just seems to be rocking back and forth between +2 Ayotte and +2 Hassan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/781678733228904448 oops
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
can we just impeach McConnell jfc like literally into a peach and then launch that peach into the loving sun
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Why Obama have never told the Senate that eating rat poison is bad is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
ultra important downballot news http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article105237121.html quote:A Democratic legislative candidate in Miami-Dade County was previously a legal adviser to a company called Canna Teaze that marketed cannabis-infused sexual wellness products — like “hemp honey dust” and lubricants — but Ivette Gonzalez Petkovich says it’s a “dirty mischaracterization” for her Republican critics to use that job experience as a way to question her values.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JoshWMUR/status/782963551795236864
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
as if they don't all have holes in them
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to get a "Make America Great Again" hat without giving money to Trump or the Republicans at large? I realized I'm going to want the poo poo out of it once he loses the election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Does anyone know how to get a "Make America Great Again" hat without giving money to Trump or the Republicans at large? I realized I'm going to want the poo poo out of it once he loses the election. These should all be republican/trump free: https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=&SearchText=make+america+great+again
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Are there any estimates to what Trump's lack of ground game and GOTV will do to results? I mean the polls are calibrated with the implied assumption that both parties will have their normal usual participation, or is that taken into account with how pollsters also ask about likely voters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
Well, I have to applaud Kelly Ayotte's Condom Sense, but her answering questions / debate sense could use some work: In debate, GOP senator says Trump is ‘absolutely’ a role model
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 16:04
|
|