|
Pick posted:I am not familiar with the pollster however Neither is the 538 mega-list https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ They're probably going to get plenty of attention now, though!
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
on the one hand this is the natural conclusion of a poo poo-ton of polls that never show trump cracking like, 42 on the other hand there ain't no way in hell i'm believing a B+17 from a pollster i've never heard of
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Neither is the 538 mega-list https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ Looks like it's another UK pollster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:on the one hand this is the natural conclusion of a poo poo-ton of polls that never show trump cracking like, 42 I’ve heard of them they’ve been polling all year but this is definitely an exceptional result.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
Pick posted:Looks like it's another UK pollster. It looks like they got the UK's election last year pretty spot on. Election eve poll they had 45/33/12 for Conservatives/Labour/Lib Dems, and the final result nationwide was 44/32/12. Whether that translates to the US or not is obviously up in the air.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:Biden at 50%, only 2% undecided Not gonna let a poll from Monmouth of North Carolina be ignored on the last page. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Also - and this obviously worthwhile - I'd appreciate it if people had any thoughts about what the future of this thread soul be post-election. I do think it has a different tone and feel than USPol which I appreciate, so maybe a thread on "the political" - i.e. political strategy in general? Political decision making? I feel like USPol is a lot of reaction, and here its a lot more of stepping back and going "why". The 2024 race begins November 4th!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
Pick posted:I am not familiar with the pollster however Fairly Biden friendly based on their 538 polls. They had Biden up +9 on 9/11 and up +14 in August. Still hilarious 8 point swing since their last poll
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
Biden says he's "not a fan of" court packing which imho means it's very very on the table. That's a great way to pretend you answered and phrase it so you can use it later. "I'm not a fan of it, that's why it's so sad we have to do it."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
Durbin’s questioning is pretty decent. Feinstein was ineffectual, Leahy was basically dying before our eyes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
yea, I don't know how anyone can think Biden doesn't support court packing at this point: he has show no hesitation in coming out against policies which are much more popular among Democrats
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
When only Republicans are saying Biden is making a mistake by not being firm on court packing; or when it's only republican trolls on Twitter saying it's a missed opportunity, then you know saying anything on court packing is a mistake. These same people are just transitioning from "Why doesn't Joe spend the next few weeks discussing this fictitious payment to Hunter" to this. I have to say though, the term court packing is really getting the "Death Tax" treatment here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:yea, I don't know how anyone can think Biden doesn't support court packing at this point: he has show no hesitation in coming out against policies which are much more popular among Democrats Eh, I don't think it's quite that simple. Court packing doesn't equate to "socialism" or "radical leftism" to most people, so I think that answer's being judged more independently. If he says he's for M4A then there will be spin ads about commies in Florida. If he says he's for court packing most people didn't even know it was an option until like a month ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:When only Republicans are saying Biden is making a mistake by not being firm on court packing; or when it's only republican trolls on Twitter saying it's a missed opportunity, then you know saying anything on court packing is a mistake. These same people are just transitioning from "Why doesn't Joe spend the next few weeks discussing this fictitious payment to Hunter" to this. sure, but all of the faux right wing outrage came after he refused to answer it originally - and I just don't see a world in which Biden is ok explicitly saying he doesn't support M4A but punts on court packing because he's afraid of blowback from the Democratic party
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
I'm beginning to see something of a pattern in the polls. Starting around October 6-ish, beliefs about Biden's lead start to diverge. On the one hand we have a group of polls (IBD, YouGov, Morning Consult) that show no change in the race since September, basically. On the other hand we have a group of polls (ABC/WaPo, UNC, Opinium) showing a widening race with Biden up by 12 or more. This divergence is healthy, I'd wager, since it means we're capturing a broader set of methodologies and assumptions. However, at the same time, this is a divergence with multiple modes, so one of those modes is probably right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:37
|
|
|
Or, to put it another way: Biden has refused to answer the question on court packing because of one of two reasons: 1. He's against court packing but doesn't want to admit that because he's afraid he'll turn off progressive voters, which on my end doesn't track because: a. he has already come out against more popular progressive policies, b. court packing isn't a granular 'progressive' issue in the same sense social policies or health care is, but it is something they can hit him on as 'radical' since the GOP treats a non answer as a yes answer regardless, and runs their attacks based on that. 2. He does support court packing. There's no upside to him refusing to answer unless he actually does want to pack the court and just doesn't want to admit (because he would face blowback from moderates). Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
At the very least we know it's a genuine threat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Also - and this obviously worthwhile - I'd appreciate it if people had any thoughts about what the future of this thread soul be post-election. I do think it has a different tone and feel than USPol which I appreciate, so maybe a thread on "the political" - i.e. political strategy in general? Political decision making? I feel like USPol is a lot of reaction, and here its a lot more of stepping back and going "why".
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:on the one hand this is the natural conclusion of a poo poo-ton of polls that never show trump cracking like, 42 Still only a modest outlier when you consider the Biden +12 from WaPo the other day!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Or, to put it another way: I'm not sure if he outright supports it but I do think he doesn't want to box himself in post-election. Best to keep your options open. I completely agree with point 1, if he was completely opposed he'd just say so. He might also think the threat of packing might keep the court "in line" so to speak. If they do something massive like eliminate obamacare or overturn row-v-wade, there could be a lot of energy in the Senate to add some more justices. If they keep low and let those things stand, probably not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
I think you guys underestimate how unpalatable court packing is with most of the country. Polls show most of the country doesn’t support it by 15+ points and it would turn into a huge attack vector. Strategically, it’s better not to commit to it publicly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
Yeah if you look at what happened with Roosevelt, he was unable to pack the court but just the threat of it seemed to have turned the court to different opinions in some cases to stave it off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
Riven posted:Yeah if you look at what happened with Roosevelt, he was unable to pack the court but just the threat of it seemed to have turned the court to different opinions in some cases to stave it off. Exactly, it's a kind of leverage that he doesn't want to give up
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
I've said before and I'll say it again: Biden's happy enough to tell people to gently caress off when presented with other leftist ideas - abolish/defund the police, M4A, Green New Deal etc - that his careful refusal to do the same with a policy that polls worse than any of those besides maybe full police abolition makes little sense unless you assume he's at least thinking real hard about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
In Roosevelet's case, its moreso that a bunch of the Justices died and retired so he got to make his appointments without court packing. quote:With the retirement of Justice Willis Van Devanter in 1937, the Court's composition began to move in support of Roosevelt's legislative agenda. By the end of 1941, following the deaths of Justices Benjamin Cardozo (1938) and Pierce Butler (1939), and the retirements of George Sutherland (1938), Louis Brandeis (1939), James Clark McReynolds (1941), and Charles Evans Hughes (1941), only two Justices (former Associate Justice, by then promoted to Chief Justice, Harlan Fiske Stone, and Associate Justice Owen Roberts) remained from the Court Roosevelt inherited in 1933.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Also - and this obviously worthwhile - I'd appreciate it if people had any thoughts about what the future of this thread soul be post-election. I do think it has a different tone and feel than USPol which I appreciate, so maybe a thread on "the political" - i.e. political strategy in general? Political decision making? I feel like USPol is a lot of reaction, and here its a lot more of stepping back and going "why".
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Or, to put it another way: There really isn't much blowback to theoretical Biden court packing now because very few people understand the dynamics at play. If the Dems were to actually try it in 6 months or so you would see pushback like you would not believe, capital knows the Supreme Court is their last and best bulwark against a millennial wave enamored of Bernie Sanders and AOC and the health insurance lobby knows the only thing keeping them in business is court decisions. I think Biden could be personally opposed to court packing (or like me just assuming it won't happen) and it would still be sound strategy not to engage. Saying "I fundamentally reject court packing" would not end the story, the next step is just to use it as a wedge against all the Democrats who have suggested it. Most importantly the possibility of court packing has always been a check against SCOTUS going back to FDR. How Roberts and Gorsuch write their decisions in a Biden Administration where court packing is openly discussed as a live political prospect and how they write them in one where the idea has been thoroughly rejected would be very different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Or, to put it another way: If I was him, I don't think I'd admit to support court packing before the election or at least until ACB is confirmed. If she somehow doesn't get confirmed, court packing is going to get viewed much more negatively than if she does. If she does get confirmed, it might get a boost in popularity, more so if she gets confirmed by a lame duck senate post election. Even then I don't see an upside in talking about it even until he's actually president. So my thought is that you're right and his answers so far hint that he likely supports court packing or at least wants his options open. wilderthanmild fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
Yea, he shouldn't answer "yes" but I think non-answer is a "yes" in this case - or at least a "I"m very open to this."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
Opinium are one of the better UK pollsters; As noted, they got the last GE pretty much spot on. There are obviously big differences between the UK / US electorate and electoral systems and Biden +17 is certainly an outlier, but Opinium are a proper firm and not a fly-by-night partisan outfit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
Wisconsin absentee returns are at 25% of the total 2016 vote. Early voting not started yet. https://twitter.com/benwikler/status/1316041209308217344?s=19
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:03
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:
I don't think he does support it - but I think he's willing to do it. And, ironically, the fact he doesn't want to do it will probably make wrangling reluctant Dem senators easier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
Joe Biden is definitely 100% instinctually against court packing and really doesn't want to do it on a personal level. That doesn't mean he won't support doing it if the party as a whole is in favour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
Surely this will work this time https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1316044898441875456
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:I've said before and I'll say it again: Biden's happy enough to tell people to gently caress off when presented with other leftist ideas - abolish/defund the police, M4A, Green New Deal etc - that his careful refusal to do the same with a policy that polls worse than any of those besides maybe full police abolition makes little sense unless you assume he's at least thinking real hard about it. I think it’s worth reframing these from “leftist” to “broadly not popular” “Defund the police” is not popular M4A when framed as what it is - you will lose your current insurance and get Medicare - is not popular. Medicare if you want it is popular. Expansion and public option are popular. GND I honestly can’t recall polling but if I had to guess, I’d be willing to bet that implementing most of it, which is Biden’s platform, is popular. I think what he’s been trying to say is that he will wait to see if Republicans do something so out of bounds that the public supports adding justices. And they’ll come up with a framing that’s not “court packing” maybe like “moderating the courts” I dunno
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
Chinese Gordon posted:Joe Biden is definitely 100% instinctually against court packing and really doesn't want to do it on a personal level. That doesn't mean he won't support doing it if the party as a whole is in favour. Bingo
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
I think he'd call it something like depoliticizing or regularizing the courts. They'll need time to rebrand it. Right now they need to win the election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
Pick posted:I think he'd call it something like depoliticizing or regularizing the courts. They'll need time to rebrand it. Right now they need to win the election. Seems like "expanding" is the verb people are landing on, which has the advantage of being both accurate, and value-neutral-to-positive (because if Court=Good More Court=More Good, right?). Its really not that hard of a sell at all but most of the people doing the selling are just dogshit
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
paternity suitor posted:I think it’s worth reframing these from “leftist” to “broadly not popular” Chinese Gordon posted:Joe Biden is definitely 100% instinctually against court packing and really doesn't want to do it on a personal level. That doesn't mean he won't support doing it if the party as a whole is in favour. very strong number posting in the number thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I think you guys underestimate how unpalatable court packing is with most of the country. Polls show most of the country doesn’t support it by 15+ points and it would turn into a huge attack vector. I think this is a flawed premise though. A lot of data suggests that people's opinions on things like this aren't formed in a vacuum and sealed in for eternity, they're often defined by party preferences and the actions of political leaders. One example:  Republicans' views of Russia have followed their political leaders in becoming more favourable since Trump took over the party. Not overwhelmingly, but a huge change considering the overall opinion of Russia among Americans as a whole is worse than ever. I remember seeing similar polling on other issues like support for Medicare for All rising among Democrats once there were leaders making it a central plank of their campaign. Public opinion on issues like court packing isn't fixed and people are often willing to follow their party leaders on issues like this, especially if it's something they haven't thought about much before, like expanding the Supreme Court. Imo the Democrats are often too willing to cave because public opinion doesn't support something in a vacuum, instead of making the case for why the thing is necessary and providing the political leadership for Democratic voters to follow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 17:20
|
|