|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Don Jr. just went live, started crying, said this is "communist level poo poo," and called Alvin Bragg a handpicked soldier of George Soros. Has anyone ever asked these dipshits to explain why they keep focusing on the prosecutor and not the grand jury of Trump's peers who did the actual indicting?
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Greater deaths in red districts. So no. He would have won without COVID. This is only the case now, post-vaccination, partly because Republicans are less likely to be vaccinated. The blue/red county COVID death divide flipped in 2021, so during the 2020 election way more people in Democratic counties died. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate What was happening during the election were Republican states getting hit harder, partly because they didn't have the waves that Democratic states already had, and also because restrictions were much more relaxed in Republican states. And these people came out to vote for a Republican who was partly responsible for their families' deaths in record numbers. I've long maintained that COVID actually helped Trump as it was able to create a divide between Rs and Ds and radicalize and rally conservatives even further. Republicans may have slept through 2020 otherwise while Democrats had plenty to be angry about then. I AM GRANDO posted:You could make the argument that it only became a world-historic event because trump did so badly at containing it. There have been novel respiratory viruses emerging from China for like 20 years at this point. None of the other ones caught on like this. While Trump did do one of the most terrible jobs of any world leader re COVID, you can't compare the other viruses to it. It was much more transmissible, did not have a death rate as high as the others (which would make transmission less likely), and about a third of people were asymptomatic. And yes, as it was pointed out, no country was able to truly contain COVID like they contained the other viruses. small butter fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Apr 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
Oracle posted:China, Vietnam, New Zealand and Australia would beg to differ. No, because they were still able to contain COVID less than any of the other viruses from Asia over the past two decades. The original argument was comparing SARS, etc. to COVID and musing why we were able to contain those viruses but not COVID.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2023 03:21
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Yeah, I hadn't really thought of it, but I think you're right. Kill the filibuster for two years when they next have a trifecta, then pull the ladder up behind them right before they lose the Senate and dare the decorum-poisoned Democrats to do the same as them. It's the exact same logic as McConnell refusing to hear Garland's appointment to the SCOTUS: sure, the Democrats could pull the same maneuver on us, but they won't, so why shouldn't we do this? Democrats would definitely kill the filibuster again if Republicans do it first. Garland was a pretty rare situation in which their primo conservative judge died during an election year, so Democrats are not very likely to have the same situation happen anytime soon. Judgy Fucker posted:Why not? Do you believe Democrats would be willing to steal a SCOTUS seat like McConnell or no? Now, yes. Before Republicans did it, maybe not. There is no reason for them not to considering the now historical precedent and political gain. small butter fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Apr 24, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Thanks, Kalli. It's actually way more insidious than any polling can show you. For example, even though I can afford it, I was thinking about not going to a follow-up with my ENT because it would cost like $300. It should not even be a consideration - the ENT thought I should follow up, so I should. Everyone is affected by the fact that we have deductibles, copays, etc., and obviously those without any healthcare have it the worst.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
I have to say, as a Big Biden Defender, I'm appalled that he ever negotiated on the debt limit. The whole Republican argument about "compromise" is such bullshit. Compromise about what? What are you giving us that we should give you anything? Not tanking the economy? By spending money on what Congress already allocated money for? I would have just not picked up the phone if the "negotiation" didn't begin and end at "clean debt limit bill." In 2019 and 2020 when they held the House, did Democrats ever make demands re raising the debt ceiling? Maybe I'm misremembering, but I don't recall any drama about it and I follow this stuff. Edit: clarified that Democrats held the House in 2019 and 2020. small butter fucked around with this message at 04:32 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2023 04:25
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1666839607911100416 But isn't the primary accusation not that Trump simply took the documents without understanding what he was doing, but covering it up and not giving them back when the FBI asked him politely to do so?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
I'm 100% sure that if it came down to Trump and Vivek and maybe some other guy, Trump will call him something racist and Vivek will not have any self-reflection about how he came to this point.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
I asked this in the Trump legal troubles thread (wrong thread): Is there a theory as to why most polls now show a Trump lead or toss-up? This seems incredibly unlikely to me given how badly Republicans have been doing, their underperformance in 2022, and them losing elections since Trump's election.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
Meatball posted:Pollsters can't really poll people under the age of 45 because they don't have landlines and almost never pick up calls from random numbers, is my guess. Is this seriously not adjusted for? Why landlines? I was polled once on my cell phone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2023 13:57
|
|
|
duodenum posted:The media needs eyeballs to make money. They will highlight anything that makes the election more of a horse race than a foregone conclusion, because the former drives more viewership. So if you're MAGA pollster Tony Fabrizio, you can poo poo out anything that serves that purpose and you stand a good chance of getting publicity across the media landscape. Can you elaborate? 538 has a bunch of polls that I'm assuming get listed when they become available, horse race or not.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2023 14:27
|
|
|
Does anyone know how the Biden administration got the Bridge Access Program created for the uninsured? At one point, the administration said that Congress had not allocated any more money for Covid boosters. So where did this money come from? Was CDC funding shifted around?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1707037275664633957 Is there a good explainer about what Biden has done that benefits unions and labor? I know there are a bunch of things in various pieces of legislation - is there a good list?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Executive action, mainly. He appointed a former union lawyer to be the NLRB's General Council, and under her guidance the NLRB has been aggressively investigating labor complaints and changing their rules to block various union-busting tactics. Thanks for this. For some reason, I thought that this rule was part of one of the pieces of legislation from 2021.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2023 13:02
|
|
|
What is Trump talking about when he says that Biden wasn't going to visit the striking auto workers and only did so after Trump said he would? Do we have details about Biden's plans? Isn't Trump specifically not visiting striking auto workers but Drake Enterprises, a non-union plant? Furthermore, wasn't Biden invited specifically by the union, and Trump was invited specifically by Drake Enterprises management?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Trump did announce his speech publicly first (you seem to know the answers to the other questions - he was invited by the owner and not the workers. He's not speaking to union workers, etc.) So were the Drake Enterprises workers even striking? If not, Trump visited them after being invited by management to do what, exactly? How does this visit even tie into the UAW strike?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
So what's so special about this particular possible shutdown that the Republican Speaker decided to go ahead and fund the government, at least for now? As far as I remember, Republicans never had an qualms about shutting down, and I think we've had at least 3-4 under them in the past decade or so. Was it personal? Was McCarthy just annoyed at the right wingers?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah I just directed you to that exact language, as GJB did earlier. The "shall" at (a) appears to control. Why didn't the Democrats redirect the funds when they had the House? Was it not a priority? Did some Democrats want this funding?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2023 05:30
|
|
|
Xalidur posted:Despite the House GOP circus and Trump being generally evil, a bunch of GE polling just came out that was either tied or with Trump ahead. I simply cannot comprehend the absolute madness, depravity, stupidity, or all three, that it would take to choose that outcome in 2024. And it's a coin flip that we might get it. I think it's extremely unlikely that the presidential race will be as close as current polling is suggesting, and even more unlikely that Trump will win. Consider that these polls suggesting ties or Trump winning are actually suggesting that Trump will tie or win the popular vote. How likely do you think that this time, finally, Trump of all people will be the rare Republican that pulls this off? Democrats have been overperforming in special elections consistently by an average of 11 points. There is a strong correlation between winning special elections and winning the general election, and much less of a correlation between polling one year out and who wins the general election. https://abcnews.go.com/538/democrats-winning-big-special-elections/story?id=103315703 Republicans barely won a majority in 2022 when it was supposed to be a slam dunk for them while polling suggested huge Republican gains. small butter fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Oct 25, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Polling isn't an exact science, especially in an age where no one wants to pick up their phone, but there seems to be a noticeable level of dissatisfaction in all the general election polling right now and that usually helps the challenger and not the incumbent. In addition to people loathing Trump and a lot of these truisms being negated by this hatred, I'd argue that Trump is as much of an incumbent as Biden. He's a rare former president running for reelection. People know how he governs. They remember his neverending daily dramas. This has been true from the beginning, and we will all be reminded of his dumb poo poo with all of these upcoming trials during election season. Trump has been losing his and Republican elections since the special elections of 2017, including most recently in 2022 (which I argue was a loss). Democrats are swinging by 11 points in special elections as we speak. Trump Republicans in swing states have been losing hard.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2023 16:49
|
|
|
This conversation is stupid. It is objectively true that voting for Democrats results in net less bad outcomes and net more good outcomes. When's the last time a Democrat started a war, or the last time a Democrat took healthcare away? You all make choices between imperfect solutions all the time in your everyday lives, but when it comes to politics and elections, that's different? Politics is a part of life, complete with all the poo poo choices that life entails. You think you can absolve yourselves of what's happening in the world because you claim that you aren't making a choice (you most certainly are)?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Serious question that I've asked tons of people and never gotten a straight answer to: To add to what other posters have said, we essentially have two choices. It's either the Democrats or the Republicans. Only one side will win the election. Who would you rather be in power? Staying home improves the chances of Republicans and reduces the chances of Democrats. You're not technically voting for a Republican, but you're helping them get power.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:There is no rationale that suddenly justifies voting for someone who has called into question the death total in Gaza. That's genocide denial. Anyone who says, "Well, it may be genocide denial, but at least it's genocide denial from my guy," should not, in my opinion, vote at all. They do nothing but drag down and pollute the civic discourse. Of course there is. Abstaining from voting does not absolve you of what happens if the Republicans win. You're making a decision to retreat and ceding power to Republicans and getting far worse outcomes because you disagree on an issue. I'm pretty comfortable voting knowing that only one party will win and helping the one with the much better policies, even if some are questionable, or if some don't go far enough. For all you know, Trump might have even been firing from the carrier stationed there. Personally sending troops. Not urging Israel to wait and cutting off all American humanitarian aid. I mean, he already inflamed tensions by moving the embassy to Jerusalem just a few short years ago. How do you know that that wasn't the final straw that led to the Hamas attack and Israel's devastating response? Truth is, anyone making your arguments makes decisions about imperfect choices every day without getting sanctimonious about them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2023 04:29
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:"you must vote for the pro genocide candidate with better domestic policies" is not persuasive to me. And if I have to own the actions Republicans do when they win despite not voting for them, you certainly have to own the genocide Joe Biden supports by actively supporting him. It doesn't have to be persuasive to you. I vote for higher taxes and Democrats who will enact policies that will probably not benefit me as much as others because I'm thinking about the net effect on other people. I mean, there is nothing difficult about this. On net, Democrats benefit society more than Republicans do. It's one of the easiest decisions you can make. Edit: Probably Magic posted:Great, so what do I need to do to absolve myself of what happens if the Democrats win, because "encouraging a genocide, frequently through misinformation," is not "questionable" or an "imperfect choice," it is, in fact, the "worst outcome," of which there isn't really some bigger, deeper bottom. Perhaps you should take this situation more seriously instead of so glibly. I'm not being glib. I'm being direct in the same way I'm being direct about eating the string beans I do have when I don't have superior cruciferous vegetables that evening. The error you're making is thinking that you're absolving yourself by not doing anything, when in fact you are when you make the decision to abstain. You would have a worse response to the conflict in every measurable way if a Republican was in power, and then they will gently caress up a lot more things nationally and overseas on top of it. small butter fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Oct 28, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2023 04:53
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Please articulate how a Republican could possibly handle this Israel/Palestine situation worse. small butter posted:For all you know, Trump might have even been firing from the carrier stationed there. Personally sending troops. Not urging Israel to wait and cutting off all American humanitarian aid. I mean, he already inflamed tensions by moving the embassy to Jerusalem just a few short years ago. How do you know that that wasn't the final straw that led to the Hamas attack and Israel's devastating response? You can use your imagination, though. In addition to above, maybe Trump would get on stage and call Palestinians racist slurs and then single out Tlaib and call for their deportation. Maybe stop Palestinian aid completely until we can figure out what the hell is going on. Maybe he will bomb Iran for providing weapons to Hamas after assassinating another Iranian general. We can write books about how this could be even worse.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2023 05:44
|
|
|
I have a question for the non-voters who call Biden evil because of his support for Israel. How do you think any other Democratic president, including Bernie, would handle this situation? Let's say Bernie would stop funding Israel and let's forget that this is ultimately a Congressional decision. Israel would still attack. The $3b in yearly aid is nice, but Israel is a very high-tech economy with a very advanced military with an annual GDP of around $500b, so American aid is a drop in the bucket. Israel, given their politics, and given the history of Jews getting massacred, will always go full-scale HAM as a response to such a terrible attack by Hamas. So Bernie stops funding Israel, maybe breaks ties with them. Now what? It will make it more difficult to get aid into Gaza and the Palestinians will still be decimated. Maybe it will make Israel even more mad. Maybe you will feel better because "at least the party I voted for is not complicit," but the reality of mass death remains the same. I just don't really see a viable solution here that doesn't involve America threatening Israel militarily.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
Kalit posted:As far as your last point, I believe a president can implement sanctions without needing congressional approval? Or at least to a certain degree. Of course Biden wouldn't do this, but the poster I was replying to specifically mentioned if the president was any other possible D president. The reason this will probably not work is that Israel will decimate Gaza for a few months to meet their political bloodlust goals, stop, and then say "we good?" The only way to force them to stop is to do so militarily.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2023 19:11
|
|
No way to know if it would/wouldn't work. But it would make a huge impact on their economy, which I imagine would at least make them think harder about proceeding
|
fridgraidr posted:Voting for a democrat and voting for a republican president are basically the same thing, in fact, it’s probably better if a republican wins actually because… I never understood this mutually-exclusive set of arguments. The two parties are identical, but Trump et al winning would be so bad that they would bring about revolution. So which one is it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:The problem is that "is the suffering of trans people worth the suffering of Palestinian people" should not be a question asked in a sane world. But it's apparently calculus that each person has to make in order to just vote in an election. But that's not the question being asked. Because Palestinians would still suffer, and even more so under Republicans, and you will also get trans persecution at home. Again, the question is: is the world better off under Democrats or Republicans? The answer is actually obvious to you but you think you can absolve yourself of injustice in the world by not participating. Unfortunately, someone much less moral than you will make that choice for you. Edit: theCalamity posted:I don’t think that will be very convincing. You’re asking people to support the person who is helping in murdering their family, an extraordinary position and this doesn’t really match what is being asked of them. In fact, I think they will become very angry with you if you tried that. Bold prediction: most Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim Americans will vote for Biden because the other choice is... Trump. One is continuing support for Israel like all American presidents, Trump will do all that and so much more, and then call you a terrorist on top of it. small butter fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Oct 30, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Is the polling thread still open? This would have worried me pre-midterms, but not now. Not only is this suggesting a Trump popular vote win, but Republicans keep underperforming in special elections by 11 points, which are a better indicator one year out than polls. The people who turned out in 2022 aren't going to suddenly stay home because it's Biden and not... *checks notes* Abigail Spanberger. I'm just wondering why the polls are so off, as they were in 2022. Edit: underperforming by 11 points. small butter fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I feel these polls are a little bit skewed, someone should do something about that There's either something wrong with the polls or there's something wrong with all the other data points that show Democrats ahead. There's no way around this. The data points showing Democrats winning: 1. Consistently overperforming in special elections by an average margin of +11 since the start of the year: https://abcnews.go.com/538/democrats-winning-big-special-elections/story?id=103315703 Special election results are strongly correlated with winning the upcoming election. 2. Adding to the Senate, governorships, and state legislatures, while barely losing the House during unprecedented inflation, the stock market making new lows, and economy scaremongering in 2022 Previous midterm results are strongly correleated with winning the upcoming election. 3. Incumbency advantage Incumbents typically win their election. 4. Trump lost in 2020 Previous election losers have only gone on once to win the general. Trump was kicked out the first time for a reason. 5. Trump's many indictments which may lead to a guilty verdict next year 6. Polls have been underestimating Democrats this entire cycle, from special elections that Democrats demolished to their 2022 midterm results 7. Democrats have been on a roll since 2018 8. The current polls suggest Trump winning the popular vote, which is extremely unlikely 9. House chaos that will not get any better The data points showing Republicans winning: 1. Polls showing Trump ahead 2. Some of the above is specific to Democrats and not Biden Am I missing anything from either list?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
Lumpy posted:So.... they are exactly the same as when he won? (and to be fair, lost) No, they're actually getting worse and there's been reporting on it. Trump is older and under legal pressure like never before. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/30/us/politics/trump-biden-age.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:If he actually loses because of this I think you're right, but I think the confidence people feel about saying they won't vote Biden a year from now is not going to be borne out in the results when they think "huh, do I want Donald loving Trump to have another crack at it?" This is what will happen, exactly. While Biden will probably lose some Muslim support, it's a choice between a Democrat who supports Israel and a Republican who supports Israel. Except this is the Republican who did the Muslim ban and called you a terrorist. One thousand things will happen between now and then, some of these wounds will heal, and in the end, one choice is clearly better than the other.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I keep saying this: the Democrats' overperformance in special elections will translate to the general. Midterms were a disaster for the GOP when the party in power almost always gets crushed. They keep losing special elections in loving 2023, an off off year. This is when the GOP is supposed to be making gains. They couldn't do it in 2018, 2020, 2022, 2023, and they will do it with Trump on trial in 2024? Bullshit! People won't vote for Biden after voting for every other Democratic centrist? Bullshit!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 03:42
|
|
|
Let me also remind everyone that we're all talking about an off off year election. When the party in power is supposed to get clobbered. Alaska in play in 2024? We'll see, we'll see.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 05:55
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:I almost wonder if we'll not see some sort of weird inversion of a Presidential candidate helping out downballot next year, if Biden's polling remains lovely. Like people will turn out to vote to secure abortion rights and get dems into state houses and governor's mansions, and vote for Biden too when if it was just Joe they wouldn't have bothered. Or they're not really eager for Biden but realize they've voted straight ticket Dem so gently caress it, might as well, at least he's not the other son of a bitch. Do you think it's reasonable that the people voting for all these random, often centrist Democrats will continue to vote for them in 2024 due to abortion, but when it comes to Biden vs the architect of the abortion bans, they'll sit it out?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
zoux posted:Every democrat on the planet is quaking in their boots and pissing themselves in terror about Biden's polling; there's just nothing to be done about it except hope the polls are wrong or that they move when Trump is on the news 24/7 running on the platform of "I won the 2020 election". It's not that the polls are "wrong," it's just that polls before the 300-day mark have zero success in predicting the outcome consistently. Special elections a year out are just as or more predictive than polling a few weeks from election day. This bodes well for Democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:Have you guys considered that maybe traditional outlets are hemorrhaging revenue and desperately need engagement??? I actually just sent them an email about this story. They initially claimed and later deleted that special elections are not predictive of the general, which is simply untrue. There is no retraction as far as I can see (unless I really hosed up and mixed it up with another NY Times article).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
The Top G posted:Ok, fair play. Thank you for sharing the article. No, they are bullshit. They start to become slightly predictive at the 200-day mark: https://archives.cjr.org/united_states_project/its_way_too_early_for_2016_polls_to_be_predictive.php In other words, flipping a coin and calling it has as much predictive value as these polls. And while commentators have been saying that special elections are not predictive, they most certainly are: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...six-years-later Edit: anecdotally, do you remember the +5 Romney polls over a year from the election, and the +10 Clinton polls also a year from the election?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2023 23:21
|
|