|
James Garfield posted:From Sinema's last financial disclosure she has less than $100k of assets and is still paying off student loans. It seems more likely that she had a galaxy brained plan to become president than that this is all a strategy to get as rich as possible which is going perfectly. Yeah. She's almost certainly never going to be living hand to mouth in a job at a 7-11 no matter how much she fails at her intended goals, that's true , but having a strong resume and proven networking abilities (not even active contacts) makes it a lot less likely for anyone to fall into poverty after walking away from one good job.. And not even in an "under capitalism" sense unless you're using the common secondary definition of "under capitalism" that means "in any human society with a concept of jobs." Anyone who makes it into high office has some real skills and capabilities. It's not as easy to just fail upward, buy in, or be pushed in by shadowy forces above as we like to think. But we like to think that in part because at the same time a lot of them are really bad at some other things, and have established patterns of making bad decisions that are counterproductive to their stated and/or logical goals. Many of them are ways ordinary people gently caress up too, leading other ordinary people to say "What was that idiot even trying?" There's not really any contradictions there, just people being people.
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Trump very deliberately is refusing to say anything he’d do in any conflict. He simply defaults to “it never would have happened if I was president”. It’s just magic thinking as foreign policy. It’s insane. That "A gallon of their blood for every drop of ours" reply to stories of Americans killed on 10/7 wasn't a policy statement, but it sure was a statement. And reminds me of lots of 2016 "Aww, it's just rhetoric, don't take it seriously" campaign promises he kept, like dropping more bombs than Obama and killing more civilians.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2024 00:57
|
|
|
koolkal posted:People are starting to view Biden as a warmonger negatively and if there's one thing we know about Trump, it's that he has no problem claiming viewpoints that don't at all represent what he actually thinks or what he will do. So yes, he absolutely can and will claim he would not have escalated like Biden if we end up becoming ensnared into a larger conflict in the ME. In 2016 that was true. Trump being all over the map on foreign policy for example was absolute catnip to critics of Obama and Hillary's foreign policy history who wanted to paint them as the warmongers of our times to the point of memory holing Bush over it. If you were so motivated, the "Obama's too soft, we need to kill more people" thing that anyone paying attention knew was his more genuine belief was easy to sweep under the rug because he'd never been in office and had no record of votes or actions to go on. Similarly, many who felt the ACA was underwhelming swooned for "I'll have a health care plan and it will be just beautiful!" because he was a blank slate. Or those annoyed by partisanship when he claimed to be a great dealmaker like one you've never seen. And lots of news outlets, even those that definitely weren't openly for Trump, went breathlessly with it. It's not 2016 though. Even if that sort of credulity was excusable then it's a harder sell now even if you're "Ken Bone, undecided voter" rock stupid. Trump making claims all over the place has a distinct pattern that we can compare with his actual pattern of actions and choice of allies and subordinates.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2024 01:17
|
|
|
B B posted:It would probably be easier to fight back against the "Donald the Dove" stuff if his opponent weren't actively supporting and enabling a genocide. On the contrary, you don't need to blame bad "Gonna outflank the dems from the left!" takes in 2024 on anyone other than the people making them. Eight years of contrary evidence from Trump alone have worn the plausible argument of ignorance down to nothing, leaving only dishonesty as an explanation. And even genuine bad stuff done by Dems (while Republicans shout that it's not bad enough) gives zero cover for that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:No Arab or Muslim American is under any obligation to vote for Joe Biden for any reason, least of all ones who have watched the entire Gazan branch of their family be annihilated over the past four months. I know you're probed, but this is worth pointing out to others as how the motte-and-bailey works. When a powerful and satisfying (but vulnerable) argument is successfully attacked, fall back to an easily defended (but modest and non-controverial) argument and pretend that it supports the initial claim or refutes the attack rather than being something separate. In this case: Bailey: "Why should we think Trump is going to be worse than Biden? He might even flank Biden from the left!" Counter: "Here are all sorts of reasons why that's absurd and can't even be taken as an honest mistake." Motte: "Arab-Americans do not owe Biden their votes." Now, this poster never actually said the first. Other people did. But it's hard to read it as not being in support of "their side" of the argument. While the typical description of motte-and-bailey is applied to a two-person debate, in more freeform discussions it's real friendly to the tag-team approach. If someone else's bailey is breached, and you want to support their side of the debate at least in principle, it's really simple to offer the motte as though it were in response to the attack it doesn't actually intersect with.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2024 03:48
|
|
|
B B posted:There was a pretty extreme shift in vote totals. There were about 540,000 votes in the 2020 primary, and with 84% of the vote in there are only about 121,000 votes. Looks like there might be a huge enthusiasm problem, since Biden's only going to draw about 1/4th of the 2020 voters out to the polls. Pretty ominous. Bait it might be, but still the numbers are useful for serious discussion. That sounds like a better turnout than the last time a Democratic incumbent faced a primary. While I can't find South Carolina specific numbers for both, Democratic primary turnout in 2012 was some 18% of the 2008 numbers, and this one is 25%. If there's meat behind the idea that Democrats are upset with Biden whether due to his policies, his attitude, or his age, and they wanted someone else, you'd think that would be reflected in the proportionate results. If they were checking out of the election more than voters did after Obama's first turn, you'd expect to see overall numbers drop. By contrast if it was more shallow grumbling or an outright whispering campaign, the numbers we're seeing would make sense.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2024 04:58
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Thank the gods the Dems are finally listening to what the rural voters have to say, they're so underrepresented in the American system. Surely the rural folk of South Carolina, Heart of the Confederacy, are not also pasty white dudes. Yes, yes, they indeed are not pasty white dudes like the Democratic primary voters of New Hampshire and Iowa. . Your offhand sarcastic comment was more accurate than the point you were trying to convey. Of course, even that is still wrong, because SC is also less rural than either of those states. So it's just less wrong than the argument you were advancing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
metachronos posted:I am not an econ expert and am in fact a moron but. It seem like the high interest rates are used as a tool to encourage people to save money or borrow less, thus slowing velocity and reducing prices. But it's hard to see how people are supposed to do that when everyone's money is going towards rent and food which cost a fuckton now. Also interest rates are only "high" now in a relatively recent sense. They're supposed to average high enough to allow the Fed to drop them in response to economic slowdowns or recessions to juice the economy. We just ended up spending years with emergency-mode zero pr near-zero interest rates even when there was no emergency, leading to an economy that is no longer accustomed to accounting for important safety margins.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
zoux posted:I will say I have zero faith in the American electorate to acknowledge what's going on and punish the GOP for their obvious bad faith dealing. I imagine by April Fox will be full-throated "Bad bill! Good kill!" During the general this season I fully expect to see some of the both-sidesers I know talk about how Democrats wrote a border bill so draconian Republicans saved us from it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2024 22:15
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Tbf, it was 2004. Youtube didn't exist yet and people generally didn't walk around with cameras in their pockets. The cell phone I bought in early 2004 was a pretty cheap model and had a camera. But oh boy the pain of getting its postage stamp pictures off the phone and onto the internet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Nah, they could fix Gotham and still have stories. Batman is in almost as many places at once as Wolverine anyway. But they're in the same situation as Marvel where all stories must be in a constant boomerang between new changes and flipping back to the status quo. A broader view of this is that mainstream supers as a genre inherently requires the heroes to be serving the status quo because it's set in a world that roughly reflects the here and now and will be expected to still be in publication ten years from now and reflecting the "here and now" of 2034. Anti-gang superheroes can never really eliminate organized crime, science heroes can never bring their wonderous inventions to mass production, anti-authoritarian heroes can never really overthrow the corrupt systems they struggle against. Instead you have to have small victories over the threat of the day, or just stopping things from getting worse. Fortunately, good writers manage to sell that as still taking heroic efforts and justifying the heroes. There's also the related dilemma that traditionally supers are special people who are just better than everyone else in some way and act with even less accountability than real-world cops. It's really easy to make it super fascist, particularly if you don't take pains to wallpaper it with just how strong the hero's moral code and progressive values are. Batman is an intersection of both of these, and with the added complication that he's had as many different writers, alternate interpretations, and adaptations into other media as any other superhero. Batman exists in a whole lot of diffiller "pretty drat fascist actually" to full on Adam West "Gotham's not that bad except for gimmick villains and revolving door prisons." In between there are various weights of "he's a broken person whose main struggle is not to be another Arkham supervillain case, but does what good he can within that framework" to "Doing a lot more positive stuff behind the Batman act than even many fellow heroes understand." and how much of each depends on the writer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
L. Ron DeSantis posted:Did you not see the report that just came out that was basically "Biden willfully retained classified docs but we aren't prosecuting because he's a forgetful old man"? And have you not seen Project 2025 and the countless reports about what Trump plans to do in office? In what way is this materially different from every other "Republican swears Democrats are simultaneously criminal and incompetent but in a way that will conveniently never involve statements under oath or a chance of falsifiability" event though?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2024 01:10
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:It will, because I maintain that Haley wipes the floor with Biden in a general. We're talking about the person who lost a primary to an empty chair, right? Or am I thinking of someone else?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2024 02:19
|
|
|
small butter posted:God drat some of you have memory problems about the goldfish memories of voters. Not that long ago Trump said he liked Viktor Orban, the leader of Turkey, and that Kim Jong Il, Chinese dictator, ruled over 1.4 billion people. Those were hardly the only times. It never stuck. The closest one was "Tim Apple" and that gets referenced more often in Apple discussion than Trump discussion. People who don't like Trump will joke about when it happens but are more worried about the crimes and deeper incompetency than his verbal slipups, and it would be true even if the ideal 40 year old smart charming progressive came down from the mountain tomorrow to replace Biden.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2024 05:19
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I have to give Larry Hogan credit. He's chasing the Latin vote.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Biden's mannerisms ARE part of his strategy but so was Bush's. That was always a lazy take though. GWB isn't the first or last person raised in the south who learned to code switch into generic American accents for business school/work where a Southern accent knocks ten points off your apparent IQ, entered Southern politics where it makes you seem more sincere instead, and switched back. Like sure he was born in NE but he was living in West Texas before he was out of diapers and spent his formative years there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2024 02:01
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The entire game in the general is energizing the voters. Yeah, I mean the polling people posted the other day made it clear that while the left is still pretty enthusiastic to turn out against Trump, moderate and independent Biden 2020 voters are flagging. Do you think there's anything specific that can be done to shore up his right, since that's where the problem is? Personally I'd rather Democrats not return to the years of moving right to chase them, but it makes a tricky question.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2024 02:13
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Who actually gives a poo poo about the specific medical causes of Biden looking like a total idiot / semi-comatose fossil? The perception is what is important and no one is going to care about these "well actually it's a stutter that causes these hundreds of gaffes" explanations, even if they are correct. His age is a major concern and all of these verbal / mental mistakes are going to keep compounding the issue. That's secondary in the current discussion to the issue of people trivializing disabilities, and separately to people confidently regurgitating utter falsehoods that they picked up from their circles right in the face of people with direct experience on the topic. In short, the thread/forum not being just a boomer Facebook feed but lefter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Or we could evaluate it based on other, similar statements he's made vis-a-vis technology such as: Yeah, he's an idiot. In a really familiar way of "heard a thing he didn't fully understand and was too intellectually incurious to look more into, but workshopped it into a cool factoid he could drop in conversation to show his knowledge or further an argument. Probably now believes it's the earnest truth." The thing lots of bullshitters and bar storytellers do, and that even happens around here often enough. It's not particularly age-related apart from how old men seem to be prone to do it on a social level. Trump definitely doesn't seem as well now as he did in 2016 but there are lots of possible reasons only some of which are neurological.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2024 22:03
|
|
|
cdc posted:Mmmmm, baby. Gotta love the Electoral College. While I'm all for eliminating the Electoral College, doing so makes it even less likely that you or your friends circle will be deciding votes in a Presidential election. However, in both cases, the argument whether to participate is the same as any other argument about the principle of collective action vs the individual, and American culture has a remarkable tendency to reject the former being real.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 02:33
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:It's not exactly shy Biden voters. The thing is you see a lot of people online talking about protest voting because Democrats aren't far enough left (or, on other sites, because Republicans aren't far enough right), but evidence doesn't support that happening enough to matter. In 2016 and 2020 there was a lot of talk about Sanders voters not turning out for the nominee because they wanted a socialist, but they turned out at very high rates. The polling is showing similar things this year where the further left you go the more enthusiasm there is to vote in a Biden/Trump matchup: the dropoff is toward the center. This isn't to say that we shouldn't expect plenty of loud #walkaway posturing insisting it's from the left this year, but like the last two elections we should expect the noise to be far in excess of the numbers. Whether it's more successful in getting others to stay home than it has been in the past is another question, Killer robot fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 03:02
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:1996? That one seemed pretty chill to me, all things considered. Probably 1996, yes. Not because it wouldn't have been really bad if Newt Gingrich's Contract with America Republican majority had gotten a trifecta, but because the election was never really looking that close that time. And curiously enough, the answer to the question is the same whether you interpret the question in the sarcastic "Hurr, the way electoralists always insist it is to vote-scold you!" sense or in the "Full hindsight, results of the election and its aftermath seen years in retrospect" sense because the people saying it were as bang-on right every time even when I laughed at it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 04:39
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Bill Clinton is younger than Trump and Biden. Last time most people who couldn't stand either of those two wanted someone even older so I'm skeptical that many people actually consider the age thing a deal-breaker.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 04:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Thank you, I appreciate it. Those are vague threats, though - they remind me of Trump promising to kill all of ISIS' families, something that he didn't follow through on. It's a bloodthirsty and insane post, but it's also in-keeping with his long pattern of offering tough talk on foreign policy and then not following through. Trump saying he would drop more bombs and kill more civilians than Obama was one of the most visible kept promises of his 2016 campaign. That's even with him trying to cover it up by instructing the US government to stop tracking and publishing civilian casualties. Seriously here. In 2016 the "Trump is an unknown that could do anything, who are we to say if his victory would be good or bad" was marginally defensible. It was absolutely idiotic even in the moment, let alone hindsight, and without exception it came either from credulous fuckwits with the worst political instincts (in both the moment and in hindsight), or people who fully knew what a Trump victory would entail but wanted it anyway whether for its own sake or merely to own the libs. But it had the thinnest veneer of plausibility and people were expected to entertain it. In 2024 that veneer is long since stripped away and there is no cover for polishing the rotted particle board and insisting that it could be fine hardwood under there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2024 23:31
|
|
|
Obama's post-honeymoon poll numbers definitely suffered compared to his real-world electability under increasing radicalization of the right, the explosive growth of pervasive right-wing media, tireless laundering of the previous administration's reputation by his critics, and the difficulty of getting representative samples when people under 40 wouldn't answer their phone. For Biden it's all there or accelerated, and now it's people under 50, well into their prime voting years. It makes it hard to tell how much of it translates into actual votes against him that Generic Democrat would have won.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:this. i think if poo poo was really bad behind closed doors we would have seen way more actual challanges then bored red state dem rep and RFKs failson and tiktock lady. Both the people who are acting and those who are not make perfect sense once you recognize that the unpopularity and lack of enthusiasm comes almost entirely from Biden's right. Including acknowledging that most of the people in that space are real dumb or politically incoherent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 20:09
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Assuming Biden wins this year so elections are still a thing, who would the DNC tee up to run in 2028? The DNC will back whoever gets the votes, but I think there's been only one primary in my memory that people would have accurately guessed that four years out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Actually that probably is bad news for Biden. A large part of his appeal is not being Trump when the only other option is Trump. Trump has unparalleled Republican turnout though, even in 2020 after all of his fuckups were fully apparent. He turned out massive numbers of new or at least infrequent voters for a Republican turnout unparalleled in the modern era. To put things in perspective, he got over 30% of eligible voters, not even just registered voters. The only Republicans of the previous 50 years to beat that were Reagan in 1984 and Nixon in 1972. Not their first terms, not any of the three Bush terms, never mind the losers. And he didn't do it by sparking Republican turnout since then, that's for sure. People turned out for him specifically. There's little reason to believe any other Republican candidate can count on those millions of long-time non-voters who turned out for Trump 2020. For that matter, it's a good question as to how many of them will turn out for challenger Trump. In the runup to 2022 a popular theory from critics of the Dems was that Trump had benefited bigly from signing those stimulus checks, and sending contractor money to rural counties for wall construction. Assuming there's meat to that, it should be less of a factor the more distant that gets in the past and the more Republicans run on ending handouts while the Democrats actually did some big infrastructure/manufacturing bills. Even if a lot of people have tried to bury effects of the IRA, people in the industries directly funded by them tend to know better what all that money was earmarked for.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2024 10:11
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Yeah to be clear I think Hur I'd the one acting unreasonably here the same way Comey was unreasonable in 2016 - either put someone on trial or not, but declining to put them on trial while excoriating them to the press is just prosecuting them in a different court where they don't have the same rights to defend themselves or clear their name. It gets into "innocent until proven guilty" territory imo. It's a really standard part of the playbook for dishonest accusations by the right wing and it's reasonable to be suspicious of it even when you believe the accusation itself is plausible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The article is neither laudatory nor tongue-in-cheek. It's claiming that Trump looks physically strong and energetic while using makeup and dye to hide signs of age, but still makes mistakes mentally. This is because the article is neither a sloppy blowjob nor a hit piece - it's trying to explore why he might not be perceived as having the same age problems as Biden despite the fact that he probably does. Though I'm pretty sure most of the people thinking that haven't really seen many relatively recent Trump rallies and are mentally filling in stuff from 2016 when that was all over the air or right-wing meme gifs of happy dancing or something since in more recent appearances the guy much more looks and acts his age.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
B B posted:It seems to me that if the recordings definitely dispute what Hur is claiming happened and during the interviews and support Biden's version, the Biden administration would be calling for them to be released. This would be an excellent opportunity to show how sharp and focused he is. With all the clarity and finality of a long-form birth certificate, I'm sure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2024 23:00
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:im not one to usually say this, but give no attention to the date as an account money whale Given what people sink into egirls and gachas these days it's not even much of a whale we have here only spending  once or twice a day. In fact, they claim to be a porpoise.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 04:35
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:it's pretty likely that any candidate that the dems can muster in a forced replacement or emergency will not be able to garner the same voter enthusiasm that biden is likely to carry into a general election All the same it hurts the idea that the low enthusiasm on Biden's right flank can be easily fixed by replacing him with some younger, more vital Democrat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
zoux posted:They aren't polling candidates. They are polling voters and voters don't show a preference for any candidate that would improve on Biden's polling. Is the polling accurate? Who knows, but that's the evidence we have to work with and it doesn't support the idea that the people are clamoring for a certain candidate. And if there isn't a different candidate, then there's no reason to replace the incumbent loving president on the ticket. And as I already pointed out, when you look at who specifically is unhappy with Biden, the overwhelmingly likely possibility if it did happen is Biden being primaried from the right. As someone who would not like to see the Democratic Party move right I find the lack of serious primary challenge a relief.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 23:04
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I think Rashida Tlaib is also foreign born, but I'd rather give her a choice ambassador spot. Like Ambassador to Israel. You're probably thinking of Omar, who was born in Somalia.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 01:57
|
|
|
Aegis posted:Republicans had majorities in both houses until January 2019. And even after that, absolute refusal to hold a president accountable is a form of alignment. This is particularly important in the context of the kind of transformative figure Trump was, and the executive nature of the presidency. A president who wants to build things must have the cooperation of Congress to pass legislation, because building things through executive orders alone is both limited and precarious. For example, LBJ's transformative victories relied on having a massive Congressional majority including some friendly Republicans that offset how much of his own party was in conflict with his more ambitious proposals. A president who wants to smash things and do crimes only needs a Congress that stays out of the way. It's a case-specific manifestation of how it is easier to destroy than create. Nixon only resigned because his own party would have helped convict him in an impeachment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 03:46
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Yes Clinton did promise that. One of the things he ran on was universal healthcare. They put Hillary in charge. It got stomped pretty hard. That’s where the demonization of Hillary started and the reaction brought in the whole contract with America Gingrich stuff. It didn't really start then. Even before she was brought in to deal with it the right was horrified that she was an equal partner in their marriage, was given a share of the credit in his political success beyond the traditional the "behind every good man" wife cliche, and a professional who didn't immediately change her last name and become a homemaker. But it sure kicked it up for exactly the same reason. That's the root cause of the endless hammering of "arrogance" for someone showing an absolute typical amount of ambition for senators, white house insiders, and major presidential candidates. Any younger Gen-Xer or older millennial grew up baked in that whether from conservative relatives, jokes on TV, or friends at school parroting both of those; but when you're young it's easy to not think about it. Admittedly, a lot of the Hillary panic was, as I said before, over transformative vibes. Nancy Reagan had at least a much actual power in the White House as Hillary Clinton, but she was happy to present as the smiling wife rather than as the equal partner and that was the important thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 04:59
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Bill was perceived as transformational in 92. By 08 Hillary was perceived as the establishment dem and Obama was perceived as transformational. In 2008 it was notable that their policy proposals were nearly identical to each other (and starkly different from Clinton 2016) with a strongly vibes-based difference of "fresh-faced outsider" vs "connected enough to get things done." In retrospect, while I strongly supported Obama at the time and still don't dislike him, it's hard to deny first-term Obama wasn't really that connected or able to get things done, whether or not you believe the lib-whisperers who insist that he secretly never wanted to. It's hard to know if Clinton would have done better, but it's unlikely that she would have done less, compromised with the right more, or had a bigger reactionary wave in 2010.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 09:37
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:You're right that "getting smoked" is probably overstating it, but I do think that if Trump loses, it's going to be because of abortion. It's a massive issue that affects literally half the people in the country, Democrat or Republican. I just don't think that any strategy other than avoiding the topic/deflecting to other issues is going to work for Trump. The more abortion is being talked about and the less the economy/immigration/other issues are being talked about, the better Biden's chances are. Though one fun fact of it all is that if Trump loses by a small amount people will name a whole list of factors as what caused it, and most of them (other than millions of dead people/immigrants voting in Georgia or something) will be true. And same if he wins by a small amount. That's just how big elections go: there are lots of contributing factors and if it's real close any of them can tip it. You're right that abortion alone has cost Republicans a lot of elections recently that they would have won otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
small butter posted:Regarding Suozzi and NY-3, I actually don't think you can compare it to Biden in 2020. That's because there was a heavy shift in NY to Republicans in 2022, so heavy that it's likely that NY (and to some degree, CA) cost Democrats the House. Democrats overperformed in 2022 nationwide but underperformed in these two states. So this makes the Democratic swing in NY-03 that more impressive to me. While I'm upstate and don't follow city politics closely, I understand that in 2022 part of Democratic underperformance in New York was in heavily Jewish districts a result of city/state level Democrats moving to regulate Hasidic schools that focus entirely on religious instruction to the point of deliberately leaving students unprepared to find work or further education in the secular world. Advocates for those schools (including opportunistic Republican groups) successfully spun it as an antisemitic crackdown despite the schools being lovely by any measure. The bright news there was that one of those was Santos' district that flipped back Dem by a significant margin despite the Republican candidate being an Orthodox Jew and Republicans still trying to capitalize on it. That suggests it's not necessarily a long-term turn against Democrats on the national level. Though it does make the whole I/P optics issue all the more fraught within the party.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2024 04:38
|
|