|
cr0y posted:But dogs can't drive!! I endlessly scream as a dog keeps driving around my house. Guess we know what dogs do once they catch the car: get in and drive it backwards Edit: hamster wearing proper motorcycle protection 
Captain Invictus fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Nov 22, 2019 |
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
Trump is going to go the way of Joe Paterno, if he gets his comeuppance his body will shut down as soon as he loses power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Honestly I think all the evidence points to Trump being turbofucked in 2020, but because of 2016 we're all over-correcting into suicidal gloom when the facts don't actually support that. It's not really any smarter to predict infinite doom forever than than it was to think Texas was in play for Clinton in 2016. A BAD THING HAPPENED ONCE THEREFORE EVERYTHING MUST BE ALL BAD FOREVER is actually some dumb loving poo poo and not a sound basis for being  forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I know everyone will think I'm a drooling moron for this: i don't want to get too far into primarychat, but one thing I've noticed when they do various dem nominee v. trump polls is that in almost all of them, you see trump's vote pretty much fixed: you'll see something like for all 5, trump gets 43/44, while the democratic candidate polled merely changes the number of "undecided" voters (so like the best candidate will be something like 51-43 and the worst will be 45-44). i'm very curious if there's any analysis of what that means. it seems to be basically 43/44% of voters will always vote for trump, but there are basically no candidates who convert an undecided voter into a trump voter. curious what that means: i have an obvious preference about what i would like it to mean, but i'm curious if that sort of situation has been seen before and what actually happened in the GE and actual election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Based on 2016/2018 results this is the likely baseline map we'll have next year. PA and MI have swung back hard and ME-2 just elected a Dem so it might come back. The issue is Dems need one of WI/IA/FL/NC/GA/AZ to win and none of them are exactly locks at this point. If this election was in 2022 or 2024 AZ is probably in the D column but the others either are moving away from the Dems (WI, IA, FL) or aren't blue enough yet to be a certain flip (NC, GA, AZ). As for the other states people talk about : Ohio is gone to the GOP and should not be a central linchpin anymore. Dems did horrible here in 2018 and if they couldn't do anything in 2018 they certainly won't in 2020. Texas is a great prize, but if you win Texas you've likely already won AZ and somewhere else to get you to 270. Kansas won't matter because if you win KS you've likely won IA. All remaining states are so heavily GOP that they're unlikely to flip in any conceivable scenario. 2020 is not going to be a cakewalk, even though the Dem nominee will probably win the popular vote by over 5 million votes because the Electoral College is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Honestly I think all the evidence points to Trump being turbofucked in 2020, but because of 2016 we're all over-correcting into suicidal gloom when the facts don't actually support that. It's not really any smarter to predict infinite doom forever than than it was to think Texas was in play for Clinton in 2016. this. i also think we have an ok shot at the senate too but trump is super hosed either way probably. that being said it won't be easy and shouldn't be treated as such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Also my guess is that while Trump will for sure contest any loss in 2020 if he loses that battle I think he will be physically, emotionally, and mentally done. Trump has never had to face loss his entire life and that aspect is going to destroy him. the question is, if he's contesting the election by the time of the inauguration will he have refused to sign all of the pardons he's going to give to himself and his family because he doesn't believe he's actually going to lose power
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Trump has never had to face loss his entire life and that aspect is going to destroy him. This is crazy talk, trump is a lifelong failure who has screwed up and run away from every single thing he ever did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:I blame our entertainment media for always portraying fascist leaders/plotters as hyper-competent super geniuses. While not a fascist, he was pretty close in terms of valuing human life - Jan Pieterszoon Coen. Really smart guy but also a genocidal maniac. There's no reason bad people can't be smart too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This is crazy talk, trump is a lifelong failure who has screwed up and run away from every single thing he ever did. He failed objectively but he's always been able to walk away and believe that either he actually won or it doesn't matter any more. Getting kicked out of the presidency is not something he can apply either of those to, especially considering what's waiting for him afterward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i don't want to get too far into primarychat, but one thing I've noticed when they do various dem nominee v. trump polls is that in almost all of them, you see trump's vote pretty much fixed: you'll see something like for all 5, trump gets 43/44, while the democratic candidate polled merely changes the number of "undecided" voters (so like the best candidate will be something like 51-43 and the worst will be 45-44). i'm very curious if there's any analysis of what that means. it seems to be basically 43/44% of voters will always vote for trump, but there are basically no candidates who convert an undecided voter into a trump voter. curious what that means: i have an obvious preference about what i would like it to mean, but i'm curious if that sort of situation has been seen before and what actually happened in the GE and actual election. Historically undecided voters break for the challenger. We saw this in 2016 where if you consider Hillary the incumbent almost all the undecided vote went to Trump. Her being particularly disliked also likely contributed to this. Unless the Dems re-run Hillary (lol) the 2020 Dem nominee is unlikely to have unfavorables as high as we saw in 2016 and will hopefully benefit from the tendency for undecideds to go against the incumbent. The big problem is if the undecided vote is different in certain states. I.e. if you are at 48/48 in Wisconsin but the 4% undecided are mostly white, male working class people with no degree I wouldn't put much faith in the Dems winning. Meanwhile if in GA it's 49 R /42 D and the 9% undecided are mostly black voters that still might not be enough to put the Dem over the top because not all of them will show up and the GOP doesn't need much to win things 51/49. When both are combined nationally though it looks like undecideds are breaking to the challenger when it's very regional, but since the Electoral College is a regional vote it matters. axeil fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This is crazy talk, trump is a lifelong failure who has screwed up and run away from every single thing he ever did. Yeah but this time he has near-absolute power and a base that worships him as a god. He completely blows his lid if he is even slightly questioned by people that are ultimately powerless to harm him and threatens civil war at the slightest attempt to check his actions. Hes raged so hard that he very likely had either a heart attack or a stroke over the past weekend. What the hell is he going to do when that power is forcefully taken away from him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:there's no question that trump is going to lose the popular vote, and badly. ... Out of curiosity I wonder what the minimum popular vote assumption would be to still win the election.....
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:so the problem i have with this is basically the phrase "capitalism as a system" because i think it fails to deal with the fact you have two problems: how do I convert this one country's economy to emit less carbon; and how do i convert all countries' economies to emit less carbon. Okay lets look at it from a goals oriented way first. As you say any single country could, by virtue of passing laws, formulating regulation guidelines, and raising taxes can reduce emissions "easily"; however I feel like you're glossing over the importance of domestic politics. Under one theory I've encountered which I feel like explains it convenient; if we accept as a given the "Keys to Power" theory; which posits that for any "ruler" regardless of system, their "rule" is defined by the relationship between them, the ruler, who has access to various powers and resources of the state, and their "keys" underlings and/or interest groups who get delegated power and responsibility and are given a slice of the resources of the state in turn. Under this theory, we could posit that the ultrarich constitute a very important constituency. They are additionally, a resource the state can tax (in theory), and are also keys to powers in of themselves, in some ways of looking at it they *are* the rulers and the *rulers* are merely their keys depending on your level of cynicism. As such, the ruler under this model is, in order to implement climate change mitigation, has to compete with the capitalist class for resources, influence with their keys (the media), and in some circumstances the capitalist class simply subverts the ruler control over the military to replace the ruler. We can put aside "capitalism" and look at it from a different lens, we could do machiavelli and comes to broadly the same conclusions. That there are in fact serious doubts on a single nation's ability to crack the protective bubble of entrenched interest groups. Assuming to be clear, if the capitalists aren't shadow rulers; but are either keys to power or are an interest group/demographic constituency. They are still clearly a very powerful one; and one very easily able to switch their support between different rulers, or different keys underneath those rulers that those rulers rely upon to maintain their power. So, even if we dispense with the marxist lens and look at it from power politics, you basically still have this, wildcard? Something that unlike say, young people who are unreliable and fickle, capitalists are hyperaware while also being fickle; and as time went on and their share of the wealth increased, they demand more; and further seem cagey about any talk to bring them to heel even if slightly. From a domestic politics standpoint of power politics, looking at it from the Prince's perspective for a moment; even if you manage to get a few "Barons" (heh) to defect to your side; and this lets you force through reforms; you're still left with a large number of incredibly powerful self-interested power players who are always seeking their moment to turn on you to become the next "King". Under either framework, of Machiavelli or the Keys, the solution seems broadly the same. Become the Sultan in the case of Machiavelli; in practical terms this doesn't mean "become a dictatorship" but it does mean no longer having "powerful (robber) barons" that have control delegated to them. Ultimately this means needing to completely dismantle them of their relevance in being "keys" to holding power. The exact method as to "how" a nation reduces its emissions pales in-comparison to the task of actually achieving unhindered political consensus to act decisively. The Keys to Power theory better outlines the web of interconnection that lets them "control" that consensus. The (US) government could throw Manhatten Project level of effort and funding at nuclear power, at decarbonization, at electrifying the car grid, empowering a METI like bureaucracy to shift the economy out of fossil fuel use tomorrow and see results within a record breaking amount of time while also funding a UBI, M4A, and space travel. The "harm" of these policies and a public backlash can be mitigated or prevented altogether with the right combination of social policies supplementing these changes to ease the nation through the transition. China can't quite actually give no fucks; they're ultraparanoid about domestic unrest, back in 2011 it was reported China sees over 70,000 protests a year over a variety of political, economic, and environmental problems. The government swiftly intervenes, acquiesces to the demands of the protestors while arresting the ring leaders in a carrot and stick approach to maintaining stability. So while it is authoritarian, lets not overemphasis this, China clearly has constraints in what it can do and has to be careful about when it wields its stick because of the "Keys to Power" theory above. The ruling oligarchy has keys and resources and has to be very careful in balancing those keys and interests even if the keys are more concentrated into the military and bureaucracy than in a democracy. But it is true though that China is able to act in ways the US cannot; and it largely comes down to a very important fact. The ultrarich in China, insofar as they can be cleanly separated from the party apparatus which is still mainly comprised of true believers and technocrats; are a tiny fraction of the political relevance or share of the economic wealth of the Chinese socio-economic political establishment. There are probably Generals or even Colonels in the PLA with more influence than the richest Chinese billionare; and as long as that is true the Chinese upper class remember Deng's "rubbing a raddish up their butt" speech and behave and knuckle under. Which lets China build nuclear power plants and tax the rich while eliminating taxes on farmers. So not yet addressing "all nations" it seems like a lot of signs and evidence point to while maybe not eliminating rich people, eliminating their influence and power or dwarfing it by the influence and power of other groups. As for all nations I feel like this is the easiest part. As soon as the US and China can both be willingly and enthusiastically onboard with implementing reforms and some sort of international consensus exists, like say, establishing a new core organ of the United Nations that's in charge of climate change matters instead of it being parcelled up between the Human Development Fund, the World Bank, and the various technical institutions and real money and development aid is put into it you can see I think a quick snowball effect. Individual nations have an easier time getting its keys to turn if the world has a hand in turning them; probably because many nations can in an international sense "lend" each other keys and that "keys of power" politics is equally applicible on the global stage. But there's a step 1, and step 1 is certain nations need to see climate change mitigation as not as "cooperating" in a game of the Prisoner's Dilemma, while also being able to navigate the domestic political obstacles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Out of curiosity I wonder what the minimum popular vote assumption would be to still win the election..... i believe I've seen something to the effect that if trump loses the popular vote by more than 5% it's nearly impossible to see him get a EC win, but at any loss less than 5% it's in play this is a good post and i would like to respond, but i think fool of sound decided this conversation needed to stop so i don't think i can respond. just wanted to recognize it so you didn't feel like it got ignored! evilweasel fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
With the whole “trump inspires his base to vote but people to vote against him even more” thing I wonder how that will effect the math, since I don’t know if there’s been a presidential election like that before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i don't want to get too far into primarychat, but one thing I've noticed when they do various dem nominee v. trump polls is that in almost all of them, you see trump's vote pretty much fixed: you'll see something like for all 5, trump gets 43/44, while the democratic candidate polled merely changes the number of "undecided" voters (so like the best candidate will be something like 51-43 and the worst will be 45-44). i'm very curious if there's any analysis of what that means. it seems to be basically 43/44% of voters will always vote for trump, but there are basically no candidates who convert an undecided voter into a trump voter. curious what that means: i have an obvious preference about what i would like it to mean, but i'm curious if that sort of situation has been seen before and what actually happened in the GE and actual election. Here's my take: In 2012, Obama's re-election year, Ted Cruz won by 16 points and got 4.4 million votes. In a 2018 midterm, he beat O'Rourke by 1.5 points on 4.2 million votes. O'Rourke got almost a million more votes than Cruz's candidate in 2012. We can parse this with "well, everyone hates Cruz," but here's the rub: Texas's population increased by almost 3 million from 2011-2018. The new citizens are largely immigrants or from places like New York and California. Any Trumpian demographic swing in places like Ohio and Wisconsin are offset by changes in the Virginia, The Carolinas, Georgia and yes, Texas. Republican dominance is structural (gerrymandering, uneven representation from tiny states, and a voting base that literally shows up for every single election). But they're dying off faster than they can be replaced and new voters coming of age are comfortable self labeling as "socialists." It's a house of cards. Republican grip on the Legislative and Executive branches will collapse in epic fashion when it finally goes. Dems have been saying "Texas is a swing state" for years and republicans laugh when it gets won, once again, by a republican. They're missing that these changes happen fast once the inflection point is passed. The "gently caress trump" vote might just be the ticket
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Republican dominance is structural (gerrymandering, uneven representation from tiny states, and a voting base that literally shows up for every single election). But they're dying off faster than they can be replaced and new voters coming of age are comfortable self labeling as "socialists." It's a house of cards. Republican grip on the Legislative and Executive branches will collapse in epic fashion when it finally goes. Dems have been saying "Texas is a swing state" for years and republicans laugh when it gets won, once again, by a republican. They're missing that these changes happen fast once the inflection point is passed. The "gently caress trump" vote might just be the ticket Ok, now do your Orwellian/Dick take (since they've been nailing the prognostication of our political future so far)....
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
axeil posted:The issue is Dems need one of WI/IA/FL/NC/GA/AZ to win and none of them are exactly locks at this point. If this election was in 2022 or 2024 AZ is probably in the D column but the others either are moving away from the Dems (WI, IA, FL) or aren't blue enough yet to be a certain flip (NC, GA, AZ). Exactly. Everyone is looking at 2018 and the off year elections that have been an outlet for people who hate Trump and using it as proof that he is going to get demolished in 2020. As much as we tried to make all of those elections a referendum on Trump, he wasn’t actually on the ballot, and the GOP war machine and Russian interference weren’t much of a factor. 2020 is an uphill battle. If the election were today, Trump probably wins against any of the candidates. Another thing to consider is that none of the candidates are going to be great at uniting the anti-Trump vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i don't want to get too far into primarychat, but one thing I've noticed when they do various dem nominee v. trump polls is that in almost all of them, you see trump's vote pretty much fixed: you'll see something like for all 5, trump gets 43/44, while the democratic candidate polled merely changes the number of "undecided" voters (so like the best candidate will be something like 51-43 and the worst will be 45-44). i'm very curious if there's any analysis of what that means. it seems to be basically 43/44% of voters will always vote for trump, but there are basically no candidates who convert an undecided voter into a trump voter. curious what that means: i have an obvious preference about what i would like it to mean, but i'm curious if that sort of situation has been seen before and what actually happened in the GE and actual election. I'm not sure how the polls control for the likely electorate but the likely electorate I imagine will drastically change based on the candidate. Also, I imagine the distribution of votes throughout the states likely changes based on the candidate. For instance (again without getting too far into primary-chat): I think it's reasonable to assume that Bernie Sanders would boost turnout among the 18-39 vote more than Joe Biden would. Do the polls weigh the electorate differently in the case that Bernie wins the primary, or do they assume the electorate is the same in a Biden/Trump scenario vs. Sanders/Trump scenario? I think head-to-head polls need to have different turnout models for each D candidate but I'm not sure if they do (and I'd guess they don't). Sanders in particular seems like a decent bet to have a drastically different turnout model than Biden or Warren, particularly when it comes to youth and Hispanic turnout. Mind_Taker fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Nov 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:this. i also think we have an ok shot at the senate too but trump is super hosed either way probably. that being said it won't be easy and shouldn't be treated as such. RE: the Senate, this is the likely Senate map for next year:  I'm giving the Dems a big benefit of the doubt with KS since Pompeo might be the nominee and getting indicted at the same time. Unlike 2018, in 2020 the GOP is playing defense nearly everywhere, while in 2018 the Dems were mostly defending seats and really only trying to pikcup AZ, NV and TX. The Dems can still easily hit a majority by just winning CO/ME and 2 others if they win the Presidency or 3 others if they don't. The big problem for Dem Senate chances in 2020 is it requires them to win a Trump state somewhere. Or they need to flip a Trump 2016 state blue at the top (i.e. GA, NC, TX, etc.) and have that carry their Senate candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Here's my take: well what i would like to think is that the polls say trump gets 44% max, and at a minimum any of the people who will vote for one of the democrats will talk themselves into supporting whichever democrat challenges him because if they disliked that dem enough to flip, well, they'd know that now, and more likely most of the people unsure as well because you know if you like trump by now - because i would like that to be true. but obviously that is, uh, motivated reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
you can flip that Colorado seat to blue but other than that looks ok as a baseline
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:2020 is an uphill battle. If the election were today, Trump probably wins against any of the candidates. Another thing to consider is that none of the candidates are going to be great at uniting the anti-Trump vote. edit: Like, my worry with Biden is that he's going to plummet in popularity as the general wages on. I think he'd thrash Trump if you could have a surprise election tomorrow. I know this is close to primaryChat, and I don't want to go down that road, but this post just seemed insane to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:I'm not sure how the polls control for the likely electorate but the likely electorate I imagine will drastically change based on the candidate. Also, I imagine the distribution of votes throughout the states likely changes based on the candidate. all polls at this point are registered voters, not likely voters, so they would reflect no adjustments for what turnout effect different candidates would have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mviser/status/1197972302983581696
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There are enough republican senators who, for reasons related to their next election (needing to seem to have taken the charges seriously), won't vote to dismiss. McConnell has heavily hinted this is the case and another senator has outright confirmed it. I don't believe this at all. I think taking the impeachment trial with any seriousness, even pretending to, gives too much credibility to the Democrats and opens up the possibility to do more damage than just treating it as a partisan circus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Here's my take: This is a good post/point. Look at VA. People thought Obama was crazy for contesting it in 2008 given that it voted for Dubya in 2004 by 9 points and it now has a Dem trifecta and the state GOP effectively dead only 11 years later and no one is considering it winnable by Trump in 2020. Things can move very quickly and as soon as TX starts voting for Dems even half the time the GOP electoral strategy falls apart everywhere but the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Exactly. Everyone is looking at 2018 and the off year elections that have been an outlet for people who hate Trump and using it as proof that he is going to get demolished in 2020. Democrats did not try to make either 2018 or the elections this year a referendum on Trump. They specifically avoided doing it. Republicans tried to do that. The reason is, basically, anyone who hates Trump is as close to 100% going to vote for Democrats anyway, so you're not getting any new votes by focusing on it. Republicans tried to focus on it to try and hold people who voted for trump but hated the GOP health care bill or the like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Strange Poon posted:I don't believe this at all. I think taking the impeachment trial with any seriousness, even pretending to, gives too much credibility to the Democrats and opens up the possibility to do more damage than just treating it as a partisan circus. Again, Cornyn has flat out said that this is the case. Maybe he's lying, but he said it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:all polls at this point are registered voters, not likely voters, so they would reflect no adjustments for what turnout effect different candidates would have. Then to be honest it seems like these polls are kind of worthless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Strange Poon posted:I don't believe this at all. I think taking the impeachment trial with any seriousness, even pretending to, gives too much credibility to the Democrats and opens up the possibility to do more damage than just treating it as a partisan circus. You're looking at it wrong. It's not about what's best for Trump. It's about if, say, Senator Gardner - a Republican Senator in a state that voted for Hillary Clinton - can win re-election if he rubber-stamped a "trump not guilty" verdict without even pretending to consider it, because he must get some votes from people who voted against Trump. Gardner will probably wind up voting to acquit, but he wants to pretend that he seriously weighed the evidence and then voted to acquit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Theoretically, if the dems win the house / senate / presidency in 2020 they can immediately pass election and democratic reforms to kill gerrymandering / make election day a holiday / re-institute the voting rights act / make Puerto Rico and DC states and that along with demographic changes would destroy the GOP at a national level for a long time. Of course they will have to fight the very heavens to do that (to the point where they will have to pack the courts because Roberts is not going to let the new Jim Crow fall apart on his watch, plus all the blue dogs that don't want to give up their safe gerrymandered seats) but its possible. Good luck convincing Pelosi and Schumer to upset the Bailey's enough to do it though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Then to be honest it seems like these polls are kind of worthless. The difference between RV and LV polls is usually ~2% or less. So if a poll says 51-44% that's still quite useful, especially in a year where you have a reason to believe it would not be the typical 2% movement to Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Democrats did not try to make either 2018 or the elections this year a referendum on Trump. They specifically avoided doing it. Republicans tried to do that. On the flip side, that's why I hate the narrative that every Trump voter is an irredeemable Nazi who hangs on his every word. The number of these exact people is scary, but if they represented most "Trump voters", would you expect to go 1 for 3 in southern and very conservative states governor races on him explicitly making it a referendum on himself? It doesn't add up
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Theoretically, if the dems win the house / senate / presidency in 2020 they can immediately pass election and democratic reforms to kill gerrymandering / make election day a holiday / re-institute the voting rights act / make Puerto Rico and DC states and that along with demographic changes would destroy the GOP at a national level for a long time. Of course they will have to fight the very heavens to do that (to the point where they will have to pack the courts because Roberts is not going to let the new Jim Crow fall apart on his watch, plus all the blue dogs that don't want to give up their safe gerrymandered seats) but its possible. one issue is that if Dems have a very thin senate majority (50-50 or 51-49) they have a much bigger problem doing anything aggressive that requires abolishing the filibuster because Manchin and Sinema are going to be, uh, a tough lift on that one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
God could you even imagine if Trump lost the popular vote by like triple what he lost it by in 2016 and still won the EC? I legit wonder if there's be riots over that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
Master of the Flying Guillotine was a really good moviequote:On the flip side, that's why I hate the narrative that every Trump voter is an irredeemable Nazi who hangs on his every word. The number of these exact people is scary, but if they represented most "Trump voters", would you expect to go 1 for 3 in southern and very conservative states governor races on him explicitly making it a referendum on himself? It doesn't add up It's so much easier to "other" than, say, accept criticism that the candidate they ran somehow had lower trustworthy numbers than a clear and obvious charlatan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Here's my take: You really shouldn't discount the people who are moving to Texas from states other than CA and NY. Play around with the Census Bureau's migration flows data and you'll see that red states make up a very significant chunk of net migration into Texas. Then there's the "Alamosexual" effect, where people move to Texas because they see it as a conservative promised land and they go hardcore Republican on arrival. If a Chud looking for a new job has a choice between CA, VA, NC, or TX... they are going the Texas and they are absolutely buying a King Ranch F-150 on arrival and slapping a "Come and take it" sticker on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:Then to be honest it seems like these polls are kind of worthless. They kinda are? A year out h2h match-ups are somewhat predictive of the future outcome but as EW has pointed out, they all show fairly similar pictures no matter who you pick as the Dem. There were some polls back in the fall that had Biden/Bernie up more than the others but that's fallen off as the name recognition for other contenders. You'll even see this across polls, you're generally not seeing a big difference in terms of candidates matched up against Trump and that's making some people think that maybe these h2h polls actually are telling us things but if you look back to history the polls a year out had Obama losing in 2012 and Hillary winning easily in 2016 neither of which happened. The problem is it doesn't matter if the Dem wins nationwide by 5 points if they lose all the swing states again and with the exception of the Siena/NYTimes poll, which was deeply worrying, we're not getting much of a view on those matchups. If this is straying too close to primarychat FOS, just let us know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2019 22:08
|
|