|
Majorian posted:I wouldn't count on the second part, unfortunately. CHUDs have an established history of saying that they won't turn out to vote, and then...syke! I think it's a safe bet to assume all Republican voters will always vote for the Republican, regardless of what they say.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
That said, as a Portlander, it's pretty loving noticeable that all our civil unrest ended Nov 3 on the dot. I still wonder how much that did end up having an effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:55
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:I think it's a safe bet to assume all Republican voters will always vote for the Republican, regardless of what they say. Well it seems to work for them very well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Transition Team twitter reaching out. https://twitter.com/Transition46/status/1334665351301361664?s=20 Deese is pushing environmental economic justice. https://twitter.com/BrianCDeese/status/1334580820019994628?s=20 The Biden team announcements have been very heavily female. Earlier it was at 52% but it keeps going up proportionately. Some of these are not hugely major positions though, but they are positions which women often don't get anyway. https://twitter.com/Transition46/status/1334486798370795522?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 06:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I wouldn't count on the second part, unfortunately. CHUDs have an established history of saying that they won't turn out to vote, and then...syke! They didn’t show up in 2018. The question is “is this a midterm?” Or is it a chance to vote for Trump by proxy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I wouldn't count on the second part, unfortunately. CHUDs have an established history of saying that they won't turn out to vote, and then...syke! I mean, this is probably having an impact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yvhNUNo-gE Grouchio fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 07:10
|
|
|
Aruan posted:They didn’t show up in 2018. The question is “is this a midterm?” Or is it a chance to vote for Trump by proxy? Eh, they showed up enough for Kemp to very obviously put his thumb on the scale and steal the election. If Trump is effective in campaigning for the Republican incumbents and turns it into an opportunity to vote for him by proxy, then that's a problem for the Dems. Grouchio posted:I will have to dispute the second claim on the clause of 'how populism works': The chuds we heard at GA's GOP conference are convinced that their vote doesn't matter as the 'deep state' would rig the runoffs as well. They follow their leader/sinking ship to a T; if Trump isn't backing Perdue or Loeffer, neither will they. The enthusiasm leading up to their high election turnout has long since been smothered. If this pattern holds, and Trump continues to attack everyone who ever worked for him, I can predict low GOP turnout in the runoffs. Not even Kemp is defending Trump much now. We have a month, and so do Obama/Abrams. Well, we'll see. I'm admittedly currently working under the assumption that Trump is going to campaign for Perdue and Loeffler, regardless of what these Trump allies are saying right now. If I'm wrong and he doesn't, I'll be very pleased.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 07:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, we'll see. I'm admittedly currently working under the assumption that Trump is going to campaign for Perdue and Loeffler, regardless of what these Trump allies are saying right now. If I'm wrong and he doesn't, I'll be very pleased.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 07:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Eh, they showed up enough for Kemp to very obviously put his thumb on the scale and steal the election. If Trump is effective in campaigning for the Republican incumbents and turns it into an opportunity to vote for him by proxy, then that's a problem for the Dems. He's going to go to Georgia and "campaign" for them in the same way he "campaigned" for Martha McSally. One minute with them up on the stage as he belittles them, fifty nine minutes of him ranting and airing grievances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 07:38
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Aight. I somehow doubt Trump will get out of his 'I totally didn't loooose' mantra. Well, but that's not a hard thing to tie into campaigning for the GA Republicans, though: "They STOLE this election from me, and by the transitive property, from YOU! The only way to get back at them and stop their nefarious plans is to vote for Perdue and Loeffler!" Charlz Guybon posted:He's going to go to Georgia and "campaign" for them in the same way he "campaigned" for Martha McSally. One minute with them up on the stage as he belittles them, fifty nine minutes of him ranting and airing grievances. I hope so. I hope the wind is still knocked out of him by then. But I think he has every incentive to give it his all, so he can make it part of his nascent "presidency-in-exile" scam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 07:42
|
|
|
Aruan posted:They didn’t show up in 2018. The question is “is this a midterm?” Or is it a chance to vote for Trump by proxy? I wouldn't say that. Republicans got above-average turnout in 2018 - it looked a lot more like a presidential election than a midterm. They just got proportionately less above-average turnout than they did in 2020, while Democrats had very above-average turnout in both (but not as much an increase from 2018->2020 as republicans).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
I'd say there's three dominant dynamics in the Georgia runoff that determined the outcome of the Nov 3 and how they shift will determine the Senate: 1. Educated suburbanites breaking for Biden but not as much against Purdue (which I'll call the suburbs vote.) 2. Massively increased turnout in uneducated white voters across the board (which I'll call the MAGA vote.) 3. Massively increased registration, turnout and absentee participation by black voters (which I'll call the Abrams vote in recognition of the sick 98% registration she and many others achieved.) What we really need to look at is how each group will turn out relative to the Nov 3. If you're a democratic strategist, you want to employ as many resources you can getting the Abrams vote to show up or mail in. You see the same efforts (grass roots organizing buttressed by big name attention and appeals that strongly tie in to local people, organizations, and issues) but with increased resources and attention, which is a reason to be optimistic. On the other hand, you aren't voting against Trump, but I see very little evidence of a trump saliency dynamic for Abrams voters. For the MAGAs, you have no Trump on the ballot and two extremely establishment looking candidates. Loeffler tacked hard to the right in the jungle, but that still only shifted single digit % of R votes. To the 21% of the vote that went for Collins, she's vulnerable to accusations of being corrupt and part of the anti-trump (and really, anti-poor white people) swamp. Purdue didn't have to fight a republican so publicly, but he's just as vulnerable to corruption charges and even more establishment looking. Obviously, these attack avenues are being pursued with excellent billboards. That counteracting both an inherent lack of Trump on the ballot and charges of being insufficiently MAGA hinge on Trump putting concerted effort into a project which only indirectly benefits himself is even more reason for optimism. Finally, the suburbs are more of a tossup. There is a small inherently Republican tendency among the group, but it's much less monolithic than we are accustomed to assuming and that R edge is small if the delta between Trump and Purdue is predictive. The suburban vote is probably least susceptible to swings in voter turnout year to year, but the GOP has gone all in on wild eyed radical attack ads that move the needle much less in the suburban vote. There are some points to be gained by convincing suburban voters who are D to show up and R not to turn out because Loeffler and Purdue are toxic, but it's small potatoes. On Nov 3 the Abrams vote plus the suburban anti-Trump vote won in a unheard of high turnout scenario. The runoff will come down to wether the MAGA turnout decreases more than the Abrams turnout by enough to offset the R margin in the suburban vote. It's worth noting all the dynamics are in favor of that result, and the best argument for an R win is "it won't be enough of a gap". I think the D's have the stronger position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, we'll see. I'm admittedly currently working under the assumption that Trump is going to campaign for Perdue and Loeffler, regardless of what these Trump allies are saying right now. If I'm wrong and he doesn't, I'll be very pleased. His latest tweets have shifted to 'you had better win GA for me or they won't win either', though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 17:26
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:His latest tweets have shifted to 'you had better win GA for me or they won't win either', though. Muahaahahabaha *twirls evil moustache*
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jtlevy/status/1334908352808226818?s=21 An important 2020 nugget.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:His latest tweets have shifted to 'you had better win GA for me or they won't win either', though. https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1334928653889761281 I expect that at his rally Saturday, Trump is going to be a bit less subtle. He's going to get applause drunk and start saying things he thinks, and he's gonna say something like "Wow, all these Republicans won, but I didn't? How is that possible, why should your favorite president be the only one to suffer. They're not gonna want me to say this but maybe if they felt some pain in Congress they'd learn their lesson". It's going to be explicit. Especially since the strongest argument in favor of a salty Trump voter turning out for the GA senate candidates is to prevent a Dem trifecta, which necessarily requires the admission that Trump lost the election. https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1334942296341680128 Well if there's one thing the Party Who Only Has Grievances as a Platform is good at, it's getting over stuff. zoux fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:His latest tweets have shifted to 'you had better win GA for me or they won't win either', though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/status/1334925088760627201 This is nothing less than shocking and whether or not it goes any further than this, a watershed moment in decrim history. All the states who are fighting against legalization at home are going to have a very difficult task if the Feds decrim/deschedule/legalize cannabis. I'd be interested to see how much money states get in federal aid for marijuana interdiction and law enforcement; once that carrot goes...
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/status/1334925088760627201 I'd be curious if more federal attention polarizes the issue. Like now red states will never legalize Chuck and Nancy's demon weed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
Normally I'd say you're right but it's becoming less and less controversial for conservatives as well, feeds well into their "limited government" schtick, good source of non-tax revenue (I know it will be heavily taxed but that's not the kind of taxes Republicans whine about), saves money on jails, etc. Matt Gaetz of all people was the biggest Republican supporter of this in the House
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:58
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/Public_Citizen/status/1334925088760627201 It's been around for ages and is moving through despite/because it's DoA in the Senate. The bill's really crappy, it has zero regulatory language. zoux posted:Normally I'd say you're right but it's becoming less and less controversial for conservatives as well, feeds well into their "limited government" schtick, good source of non-tax revenue (I know it will be heavily taxed but that's not the kind of taxes Republicans whine about), saves money on jails, etc. Matt Gaetz of all people was the biggest Republican supporter of this in the House McConnell would've supported a similar bill if there weren't a pandemic and funding crisis, but, again, the bill as written is messaging language too destructive to enter law as drafted.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's been around for ages and is moving through despite/because it's DoA in the Senate. The bill's really crappy, it has zero regulatory language. Is that what the headlines are going to say, or are they going to say "For the First Time, Congress Votes for Legalization"
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 21:00
|
|
zoux posted:Is that what the headlines are going to say, or are they going to say "For the First Time, Congress Votes for Legalization" My point is it's not shocking and not a watershed moment. We don't have to buy a facile framing.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 21:01
|
|
|
They know it's not going to pass the senate regardless so the actual text of the bill doesn't matter. It's a political stunt meant to both drive their own turnout in the GA special elections with the promise of decriminalization, and to potentially depress some republican turnout by forcing them to shoot down an initiative that's popular even among their own voters. It's interesting that they're staking out the position given the Biden's campaign's extreme reluctance on the topic, however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
I'd be very surprised if President Biden vetoed a decrim bill that got out of the house and a 50+1 Senate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Biden won so they don't have to avoid scaring the suburbanites off or whatever they considered the strategy to be
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
zoux posted:I'd be very surprised if President Biden vetoed a decrim bill that got out of the house and a 50+1 Senate. I doubt he'll veto literally anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:They know it's not going to pass the senate regardless so the actual text of the bill doesn't matter. It's a political stunt meant to both drive their own turnout in the GA special elections with the promise of decriminalization, and to potentially depress some republican turnout by forcing them to shoot down an initiative that's popular even among their own voters. It's interesting that they're staking out the position given the Biden's campaign's extreme reluctance on the topic, however. Eh, I bet there is a push by some state governments for the federal government to change its policy soon because of the complications that are happening with legalization on the state level. It maybe symbolic but its an important symbolic first step.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
pretty interesting take on 2020: https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii126/articles/mike-davis-trench-warfare
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
The Edison poll is exactly the one I was making GBS threads on earlier since it's worlds from Associated Press's 10x larger and more comprehensive Votecast, And the results bore out in ways consistent with the votecast and not at all the Edison poll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Eh, I bet there is a push by some state governments for the federal government to change its policy soon because of the complications that are happening with legalization on the state level. It maybe symbolic but its an important symbolic first step. Here in Texas, Austin and Ft. Worth are no longer arresting for non-felony cannabis possession. The real reason is they don't want to, but they legal reason they are using is that the legislature legalized industrial hemp last session and so they would, theoretically, have to test every single weed seizure to make sure it wasn't perfectly legal hemp and they have neither the lab capacity nor the money to do that. I don't think Texas and the other red states will decrim before the feds do, once that happens, and your state is surrounded by states who have legalized - how do you keep enforcing interdiction laws? You can't keep it out of the US at tightly controlled international border checkpoints, there's no way you could do that for a state, if it's even constitutional. I can tell you anecdotally that the general quality of weed on the black market, here at least, has skyrocketed since California legalized, and pretty much everyone here gets it from there or other domestic sources. You can buy oil cartridges fairly easily here - complete in the original packaging from the state of origin. But yes the patchwork of differing laws at the state and local levels make it even more likely that the whole country is headed towards legalization, bolstered by the fact that the laboratories of democracy that have legalized recreation use have been doing just fine, and some might say, even chilled out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I'd be curious if more federal attention polarizes the issue. Like now red states will never legalize Chuck and Nancy's demon weed. There may be polarization with more federal attention, but we know that weed is something where hypocrisy has been the norm for a looong time, and it's already functionally legal in some pretty red areas. I'd also speculate that there's a difference in the usual GOP/Dem social divide, in that the rural areas often have a lot of available weed, by dint of it being easier to grow safely. Sort of a moonshiner dynamic. With home cultivation being permitted in places like Oklahoma or Montana, I think the ship's sailed. (I'll also note that making it a federal issue has ramifications for folks in Indian country, where people (correctly, imo) often worry about the negative impacts of white drug tourism if they were to legalize first.) e: also there's plenty of big money behind this stuff now. Hence someone like McConnell being willing to let hemp cultivation and transit into the farm bill in 2018. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
Like, anything that uses that Edison poll is a garbage in garbage out analysis*. * including that the results literally can't square with a winning map.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1334910356653793280?s=21 Turn out increase in Washington. It's worth noting the turnout increase in a state that only has vote by mail. This is probably the best indication that there was a dramatic increase in interest, because voting was equally easy as it was in 2016, which is to say very easy. E: Oregon is also fully vote by mail. https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1334664278935285760?s=21
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
Utah has been default vote-by-mail for years as well and we had huge turnout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:26
|
|
|
Pot isn't some plucky underdog leftist issue. It's got a multibillion VC lobby and investment from groups all over ag and wall street, and has for decades now. A number of red ag states are practically slavering over it; McConnell just doesn't have any cover for passage, and the specific bill isn't designed to pass. For those not familiar with the concept of a "messaging bill": quote:Members of Congress take many votes on policies that have no hope of becoming law. Often called “messaging votes” or “position taking votes,” they allow members the chance to reveal a policy position without any risk that it will actually come into being. These votes have become a familiar part of the Congressional agenda, with hundreds occurring in each chamber every year. Taken from this otherwise very suspect site that I'd not rely on without a bunch of further research for anything but the quoted material. https://www.legbranch.org/honest-messengers-how-symbolic-messaging-votes-in-congress-match-vote-choices-on-real-votes/ Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Dec 5, 2020 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:32
|
|
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:Muahaahahabaha *twirls evil moustache*
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Pot isn't some plucky underdog leftist issue. It's got a multibillion VC lobby and investment from groups all over ag and wall street, and has for decades now. A number of red ag states are practically slavering over it; McConnell just doesn't have any cover for passage, and the specific bill isn't designed to pass. Boehner is big in it
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Pot isn't some plucky underdog leftist issue. It's got a multibillion VC lobby and investment from groups all over ag and wall street, and has for decades now. A number of red ag states are practically slavering over it; McConnell just doesn't have any cover for passage, and the specific bill isn't designed to pass. How is this bill not designed to pass specifically?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:20 |
|
|
Grouchio posted:I still don't get the good news bit of this Because if Trump actually tells his cultists not to vote for the GA candidates they're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2020 01:33
|
|