|
The dems don't need to go after Jr, because Sr is almost certainly going to be in jail unless he's won the election and pardoned himself.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Every Democratic president will be impeached when Republicans have the house from now on, mark my words. The funny thing is without gerrymandering Republicans would almost never have the House. It's the one branch of government that actually represents the national electorate... except for all the gerrymandered red and swing states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2023 23:53
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:The funny thing is without gerrymandering Republicans would almost never have the House. It's the one branch of government that actually represents the national electorate... except for all the gerrymandered red and swing states. Yeah, and if not for the electoral college, they'd probably never hold the executive again. Weird how these anti-democratic systems lead to anti-democratic outcomes e: to be clear I do not think they would literally never hold those offices again, but I do think it would force them back to the center because all of a sudden it's not enough to play to your howling, hateful base and count on the systemic advantage to do the rest. For all we rag on the Dems for trying to triangulate and push to the center, they really do have to try to reach out to a wider variety of potential voters to push enough numbers to overcome those republican advantages. I think they'd be better served by pursuing populist reforms that could shift people who have given up/don't vote, instead of upper middle class racist white people (but I repeat myself), but it's still a more complex equation than we give them credit for at times. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Eh, I don't think you're thinking with enough propaganda-brain. What is actually said in a Republican-lead non-public deposition only tenuously, at best, means a drat thing. The outcome will be whatever talking points Fox vomits into the brains of the swine feeding at their trough. In their minds it will be smoking gun proof of BIDEN CRIME FAMILY thus making it absolutely clear how Joe Biden is directing the corrupt and very unfair DoJ to ensure RIGGED AND STOLLEN, violating the very constitution of our country. Just look how hard they're going after Trump. If they put even half that much effort into going after the EXTREMELY CORRUPT BIDEN'S, they'd have already locked them up. It's just MORE EVIDENCE at how CORRUPT the DOJ is. MAGA!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
B B posted:This is most certainly the most important election of our lifetime, just like the last one, the next one, and the one after that. And another thing, why do people keep telling me it’s the hottest year on record? Every year? I mean come on! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:The funny thing is without gerrymandering Republicans would almost never have the House. It's the one branch of government that actually represents the national electorate... except for all the gerrymandered red and swing states. Honest question, why then did Republicans get 3 million more votes than Democrats for house seats? Is or that Democrats just don’t run people in no-hope elections while Republicans do? I’ve always wondered but never been able to find an answer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Pretty sure I invoke the humor exception more than anyone Okok the Treaty of Rigel (as featured in my last stellaris game)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:And another thing, why do people keep telling me it’s the hottest year on record? Every year? I mean come on! To be fair, 2016 was actually the most important one, most likely, due to the Supreme Court changing hands. Every other one is important, but less so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:The funny thing is without gerrymandering Republicans would almost never have the House. It's the one branch of government that actually represents the national electorate... except for all the gerrymandered red and swing states. They'd have problems with both the house and presidency if we expanded the house numbers to actually reflect the population. But we can't do that because everything needs to pander to land without people on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 01:25
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Honest question, why then did Republicans get 3 million more votes than Democrats for house seats? That is precisely what Democrats do, and there are many turbo-gerrymandered red states where they just don't bother on some seats to save money, including mine. Also, turnout in different states will be apples and oranges depending if it's a swing state with a competitive senate race or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 02:49
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:That is precisely what Democrats do, and there are many turbo-gerrymandered red states where they just don't bother on some seats to save money, including mine. Also, turnout in different states will be apples and oranges depending if it's a swing state with a competitive senate race or not. Though it varies a lot year to year. In 2022 there were twice as many uncontested Republicans as there were uncontested Democrats, in 2020 it was about even but the number was smaller since it was a presidential year where turnout is higher anyway, and in 2018 uncontested races heavily favored Democrats to a greater extent than 2022 did Republicans. Possibly since opposition parties always feel a tailwind in midterms and that encourages more potential candidates to take the plunge. Running for major office is a lot of work and expense: the person doing it has to be willing to put in months of time and labor and will probably be sinking their own money in as well. And it's not like the party can just assign someone do it. When it's a no-hope election, that means it mostly appeals to bored rich people, crazies, and the most relentless self-promoters. All in all though, the analysis I saw after the fact suggested that with generic opponents on the ballots in all uncontested districts, 2022 just would have had a smaller Republican majority in the popular vote, not none at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 03:36
|
|
|
Does anyone have any news out of Virginia so far?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:Does anyone have any news out of Virginia so far? Isn't the election tomorrow? EDIT: https://twitter.com/samshirazim/status/1721138633938178371 https://twitter.com/samshirazim/status/1721138752062448109 https://twitter.com/samshirazim/status/1721138882949927049 I don't really have a good idea who to follow for Virginia drip feeds. Eric Cantonese fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 03:48
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Isn't the election tomorrow? Oh poo poo my bad I thought it was tonight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bluevirginia/status/1721550989377827075
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
This implies to me that Youngkin was mostly successful in convincing tuned-in, motivated R partisans that voting early isn't the devil. That's not useless, as it converts probable votes into certain, locked in votes, but it's not as useful as motivating lower-propensity voters to vote early. Honestly, nobody has a good read on what to expect. There's definitely a sense that Democrats have a slight edge based on the new legislative maps and their overperformance in special elections this year, but beyond that who knows! I'm glad I'm working the polls tomorrow, it's a good way to keep busy and avoid doom scrolling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 04:03
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Honestly, nobody has a good read on what to expect. There's definitely a sense that Democrats have a slight edge based on the new legislative maps and their overperformance in special elections this year, but beyond that who knows! I'm glad I'm working the polls tomorrow, it's a good way to keep busy and avoid doom scrolling. That's a healthy attitude.  I wish I had more time to volunteer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
I'm kind of vaguely holding a theory in my head that the data we have is super useless at predicting the election outcomes for next year, but gives the democrats more than enough information they could use to positively influence their chances, especially if they shake up their cushy strategist positions with some kind of means testing or otherwise just set every single lucy football fetishist Third Way style dorkwad on fire and kick them out of their offices for good Will they??!??! yeah who the gently caress holding their breath on this one. But it's there so they should!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 07:06
|
|
|
"Do-less-than-nothing"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 07:17
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:I'm kind of vaguely holding a theory in my head that the data we have is super useless at predicting the election outcomes for next year, but gives the democrats more than enough information they could use to positively influence their chances, especially if they shake up their cushy strategist positions with some kind of means testing or otherwise just set every single lucy football fetishist Third Way style dorkwad on fire and kick them out of their offices for good Early polling serves one purpose, and that's fundraising. Anyone who has given any money to a candidate has been flooded with the emails or spam texts; "We're losing/barely winning in the polls to a Trumpist in Bumfuck Nebraska, can you donate $25 now so we can prevent democracy from being beaten to death with a sock full of broken glass?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 07:44
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:I'm kind of vaguely holding a theory in my head that the data we have is super useless at predicting the election outcomes for next year, but gives the democrats more than enough information they could use to positively influence their chances, especially if they shake up their cushy strategist positions with some kind of means testing or otherwise just set every single lucy football fetishist Third Way style dorkwad on fire and kick them out of their offices for good If they were serious about winning elections they would have done this in 2012-2015. The DNC wants, nay, needs to go back to the 1990s where they could have unrestricted corporate capitalism and a booming economy rather than accept reality as it is and the path to prosperity is through restricting and dismantling the corporate state and building progressive economics like a space development complex in place of the pentagon system. But anyone who could make that decision gets paid a lot better individually by trying to go back to the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 09:14
|
|
|
Polling is meant to influence the elections. People want to vote for winners
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 10:05
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:Polling is meant to influence the elections. People want to vote for winners If this is true then why did Donald Trump win the 2016 election
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 14:22
|
|
|
Wanted to highlight a current event in case folks don't typically venture out of their bookmarks. The latest D&D feedback thread is currently open here. Definitely interested in whatever you folks have to say, and Koos has a couple of specific topics he thought might be relevant in the second post in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Early polling serves one purpose, and that's fundraising. Mid-Life Crisis posted:Polling is meant to influence the elections. People want to vote for winners "Voters think Biden is too old." "Voters disapprove of Biden's handling of the economy." "Voters trust Republicans on the economy." These are all things that are arguments - not unsupported arguments, and in some cases pretty well-supported arguments, but still arguments - that are being framed as facts, based on polling. As I said when the Trump +4 poll was under discussion, why do polls where Biden leads Trump get no coverage whatsoever, but a poll where Trump leads Biden is basically the first domestic story to resonate since 10/7, and dominates the news for two days? Happy we are going to have some actual electoral results to look at after today - that will be much more useful information than any poll can be this far out from the election. Voters in Virginia and Ohio HAVE been paying attention, because gubernatorial races are a big deal - so we can see how much an actual campaign is or isn't moving voters away from Republicans (like it seems like it should, given the unpopularity of their policies and fanatical devotion to a man 50% of the country loathes deeply.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:If this is true then why did Donald Trump win the 2016 election Because Hillary Clinton did the worst possible job at capitalizing on her advantages
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:Eh, I'm pretty sure it's also used in crafting strategy and messaging. Even among polls specifically commissioned by someone hoping for a specific outcome there's a pretty wide spectrum ranging between "designed to create a narrative to help a candidate/position" and "designed to earnestly identify where the candidate/position is failing and succeeding to inform their strategy." Unfortunately, the first end by design tends to not be very good polling and the second tends to be commissioned privately and never released..
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
At the end of the day, I think most quality polls publish their methodology and so it is almost universally going to better to assume the data is accurate and reverse engineer the cross tabs to see exactly what constituency is being measured and then objectively deciding if that is important or not. I’m sure there are some Twitter analysts doing it but a lot of people like to just point to one or two aspects of it and then craft a message for views.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:If this is true then why did Donald Trump win the 2016 election More importantly, people want to feel like they belong as part of something. Fivethirtyeight posted this: quote:How useful are early polls?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
The Supreme Court is hearing its first gun case after its major ruling in Bruen last year that set the new precedent for how courts should judge the constitutionality of gun control legislation. As expected, the court seems to be leaning towards a 6-3 split over whether it is constitutional to restrict someone's right to own a handgun if they have a domestic violence restraining order (but, have not been convicted - or in some cases charged - with a crime). Given the new standards laid down in Bruen last year, this isn't that surprising. If the second amendment needs to be treated on an equal level with the other amendments in the bill of rights, then it is hard to argue that you can deprive someone of a right when they haven't even been officially charged with a crime. Justice Thomas issued one of his extremely rare questions from the bech with a banger: quote:Justice Thomas questioning Rahimi's lawyer: How do we know that the defendant's conduct rendered him "dangerous"? For reference, this is what the defendant did according to the briefs submitted to the court: quote:At the center of Rahimi’s challenge is the Feb. 2020 civil protective order entered against him in a state court in Texas. The order stemmed from a Dec. 2019 incident in a parking lot in which Rahimi (among other things) dragged his then-girlfriend, who is also the mother of his child, back to his car when she tried to leave after an argument. Rahimi pushed her inside the car, where she hit her head on the dashboard. And when Rahimi realized that someone had witnessed the incident, he fired a gun at the bystander. The general principle they are debating (can you deprive someone of rights without a formal conviction of a crime/just a civil protection order?) isn't going to be decided entirely on the specific facts of this one case, but Thomas either used his "once-every-five-years question from the bench" to show that he didn't read the case information or he has a wild definition of what constitutes "dangerous activity" in criminal law. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/court-to-hear-major-gun-rights-dispute-over-domestic-violence-restrictions/ Here is the full summary and background of the specifics of the case and the legal questions to be determined here. This case will set the floor for where new gun control legislation can go after the Bruen decision. quote:A Texas man’s challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bars anyone subject to a domestic-violence restraining order from possessing a gun will come before the justices in oral argument on Tuesday. A federal appeals court in Louisiana agreed with Texan Zackey Rahimi, that the law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), violates the Second Amendment, which protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” But the Biden administration contends that the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit “endangers victims of domestic violence, their families, police officers, and the public.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
Is there polling for the Virginia state House and Senate? Would be interesting to compare the results to the polls.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is there polling for the Virginia state House and Senate? Would be interesting to compare the results to the polls. Doesn't look like anyone has done public polling of all the different 140 legislative districts in Virginia. Just a few statewide polls that don't really tell you much about how the actual seats will be distributed. Virginians still like Tim Kaine a lot, but also still like Glenn Youngkin. They are significantly pro-choice, but divided on who should run the state legislature. So... not really much you can divine from that about what the next legislature will actually look like after tonight.  https://apnews.com/article/virginia-election-state-legislature-what-to-watch-f5901d85cec6081d6c0409321a908d63 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/2024/virginia/
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1721971763557404841 Can someone explain to me what specific Biden policies border hawks claim is causing "the border crisis"? I don't mean cynically or sarcastically, I just don't know 1) what they mean by border crisis, 2) what changed to cause a border crisis, and 3)what they want to do to "fix it". Normally I'd just assume they were lying about it but Democrats are also pretty universal on acknowledging a border crisis, or at least "the situation on the border is bad". Are the parties agreeing that the same things are bad or bad for different reasons?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
Any doomscrolling fuel for Election Day yet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:36
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Any doomscrolling fuel for Election Day yet? Look at this loser doom scrolling about the current election. We're on to 2026, square.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1721971763557404841 1) they mean the constant growth of undocumented crossings at the southern border. You’re seeing year-over-year increases on per-month crossings, which are in the hundreds of thousands some months. 2) this is a ton of different factors, but between the economic pain visited on the global south from neoliberal global economic forces, political unrest and violence, and climate change. You could argue that the political unrest and climate change are a subset of the whole neoliberal global economy. But these factors all combine to mean people want to leave their home countries, and the US is a place that’s seen as more safe, stable and able to offer a better standard of living. That’s the benefit of sitting at the top of that neoliberal economic order. 3) This is the tricky part. Ideally, Dems would want to provide more routes to immigrants to come in, and not just asylum seekers (imo) because we have had a huge impact on the conditions that drive the desire to migrate here. We empower a ton of the economic policy that creates the conditions we see, sometimes at gunpoint. The problem is that red state governors do poo poo like fill buses with immigrants and send them to blue states, both as a practical way to save money, and as a political move to embarrass Dems. This is working, because you have blue state mayors and other government officials complaining they don’t have the budget or capacity to serve these migrants. Ultimately, to avoid a genocidal situation at the southern border, something has to change. We can expect to see large parts of the global south become inhospitable to human life if the route we’re on continues, and mitigation efforts are outpaced by warming and sea level rise. So do you just militarize the southern border and prepare to shoot anyone crossing? Because that’s the kind of decision we’re heading for sooner or later. Neither party wants to own that, but through gridlock, cowardice and inaction, they both will some day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1721971763557404841 the only difference i know of is that in the past a larger portion of immigrants were purely economic, and were more likely to have family in the us that would act as a support structure, typically providing temporary or permanent shelter and access to work. now a larger portion are refugees seeking asylum because of instability in their country of origin. these refugees are less likely to have that familial support structure, and thus need more temporary assistance when they first arrive, which is putting increased stress on local governments compared to previous immigration patterns of course, whether this rises to the level of a crisis is debatable, and the solutions to fix the so called crisis probably wouldn't be any different from what republicans proposed under previous immigration patterns because that's not what they actually care about
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Any doomscrolling fuel for Election Day yet? I'm not sure of anywhere but i'll get you started with a personal anecdote. My polling place outside of Richmond was empty but there were a lot of people giving out information for Democrats but only one lady giving out stuff for Republicans. Looks like early voting was down this year from 2021. https://www.pilotonline.com/2023/11/06/virginia-elections-by-the-numbers-voter-turnout-appears-down-campaign-spending-brings-in-millions/ I'm interested in the Richmond centric issue about the casino proposal, I'm not in a district that votes on it though. It's frustrating because the proposal was rejected a year or two ago already, but they came back with basically the same proposal and a huge media push. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2023-11-07/virginias-capital-city-voting-again-on-whether-to-allow-a-casino
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1721971763557404841 The bill they recently passed in the House (and Senate Republicans are proposing a modified version of) is basically: 1) Build a border wall. 2) A bunch of changes to asylum law. - Requires DHS to take DNA samples of people applying for asylum so they can check if people who were rejected are trying again under a fake identity. - Make people ineligible for asylum if they claim it after getting caught on the border. You will be required to claim asylum at a port of entry. - Make people ineligible for asylum if they passed through a safe country and declined to seek asylum there to instead continue to the U.S. to seek asylum. - Change the standard for "fear of persecution" to "more likely than not" from "credible possibility" to grant asylum for people who claim to fear persecution if they are sent back. - People in the U.S. who go through the asylum process and are rejected have to prove a credible specific reason they will be persecuted to appeal instead of just making the claim. - Anyone convicted of a serious felony is illegible for asylum. 3) Removing the executive branch's discretion for parole and waivers. - Ban DHS from issuing broad "class-based" exemptions to give people parole to stay in the U.S. and require them to follow the law as written with exceptions only granted for instances spelled out in law. - Codifies two unofficial parole programs into permanent programs that automatically qualify for parole. One for children of active duty American troops and another for people fleeing Cuba who are related to American citizens. - Bans DHS from issuing parole that lasts longer than one year. - Caps the number of parole slots DHS can issue. 4) Misc. - Require that DHS officially keep families detained together and ban child separation (lol). - Require DHS to send asylum seekers to a country that borders their home country if they can't find a safe third country to host them while they wait or they don't want to be detained by DHS. No letting them in to the U.S. while they wait if they don't qualify for a specific program. They can choose to be detained while they wait, choose a safe third country, or choose to be sent to a contiguous country to their country of origin while they wait. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senate_republican_working_group_one_pager.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 11:12 |
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1721971763557404841 They want some small concessions on a few of the immigration items they typically complain about. “wapo” posted:Senate Republicans have released a sweeping set of U.S. border security proposals as a condition for sending more aid to Ukraine, laying out a draft plan to resume construction on parts of the U.S.-Mexico border wall, curtail humanitarian parole for people who cross into the United States and make it more difficult for migrants to qualify for asylum. My read is they want the Ukraine funding but feel like they have to ask for something. The immigration issue funding is also something they’re likely to get because going into an election year the Biden administration will be nervous/sensitive about the issue. It all wreaks of kayfabe. Both sides are ok with the funding, but republicans need to look like they forced it and Dems need to look like they were forced. The real issue is the house who will stymie for different reasons. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:00
|
|
