|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The Republican Party's stronghold on the House of Representatives may be crumbling, according to a new analysis by the Cook Political Report.
While the GOP has its largest House majority in more than eight decades, Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) at the top of the ticket could seriously jeopardize the majority that has been built.
In its analysis of congressional races, the Cook Political Report moved 10 races Friday closer to Dem favor with the assumption that Cruz or Trump could have a major affect on down-ballot races from Virginia to California.
In a blog post Friday, analyst David Wasserman wrote "Democrats would need to pick up 30 seats, a daunting challenge given the GOP's immense redistricting advantage and the vaporization of swing districts. But all cycle, Democrats have daydreamed about Republicans nominating an extremely polarizing presidential candidate, and suddenly it's almost certain they will get their wish."
According to Wasserman, Trump or Cruz at the top of the ticket could put a few kinds of districts into play for Democrats. For one, any district with a large Hispanic population could be a liability for Republicans. And, Wasserman says that "high-education" and "high-income" districts may also be more averse to Trump or Cruz.
That puts several tight races in California and Florida up for grabs.
Source
|
Also on the topic of the actual race...
Hillary is leading by 300+ pledged delegates. I don't think anyone knows precisely what it will shake out to, but it's an insane margin. Sure you can boil it down to "Bernie only needs to average whatever percent in the remaining races to catch up". Thing is, even with a streak of favorable states it hardly matters. Hillary is winning hard in Arizona (something like 60% of people vote early) and that will nullify her losses in a couple other states.
If you think California is going to tilt Bernie, you probably only have ever visited the Bay Area. This is a state that is deceptively moderate, and one might even say conservative (remember Prop 8)?
And New York, oh man. There was a poll yesterday that showed Hillary up almost 50 points. I think that's probably too much, but a "closing the gap" victory isn't going to be mean diddly squat if the result of one of the biggest remaining states is him -20.
Furthermore, the talks of superdelegates defecting or stealing pledged delegates is quite frankly disgusting.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
other people have gotten bernie phonebank calls. i'm jelly.
|
On March 18 2016 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Well then... + Show Spoiler +EDIT: In case it's not clear this isn't the email but some reasons why overthrowing Assad was/is a bad idea right now. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “Here are 10 reasons the U.S. must end its war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad: 1. Because if we succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad, it will open the door for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremists to take over all of Syria. There will be genocide and suffering on a scale beyond our imagination. These Islamic extremists will take over all the weaponry, infrastructure, and military hardware of the Syrian army and be more dangerous than ever before. 2. Because overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad is the goal of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremist groups. We should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic extremists by helping them achieve their goal because it is against the security interests of the United States and all of civilization. 3. Because the money and weapons the CIA is providing to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad are going directly or indirectly into the hands of the Islamic extremist groups, including al-Qaeda affiliates, al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others who are the actual enemies of the United States. These groups make up close to 90 percent of the so-called opposition forces, and are the most dominant fighters on the ground. 4. Because our efforts to overthrow Assad have increased and will continue to increase the strength of ISIS and other Islamic extremists, thus making them a bigger regional and global threat. 5. Because this war has exacerbated the chaos and carnage in Syria and, along with the terror inflicted by ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups fighting to take over Syria, continues to increase the number of Syrians forced to flee their country. 6. Because we should learn from our past mistakes in Iraq and Libya that U.S. wars to overthrow secular dictators (Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi) cause even more chaos and human suffering and open the door for Islamic extremists to take over in those countries. 7. Because the U.S. has no credible government or government leader ready to bring order, security, and freedom to the people of Syria. 8. Because even the ‘best case’ scenario—that the U.S. successfully overthrows the Syrian government of Assad—would obligate the United States to spend trillions of dollars and the lives of American service members in the futile effort to create a new Syria. This is what we have been trying to do in Iraq for twelve years, and we still have not succeeded. The situation in Syria will be much more difficult than in Iraq. 9. Because our war against the Syrian government of Assad is interfering with our being one-pointedly focused on the war to defeat ISIS, al-Qaeda, and the other Islamic extremists who are our actual enemy. 10. Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in direct conflict with Russia and increases the likelihood of war between the United States and Russia and the possibility of another world war.” Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said, “To destroy ISIS will take international alliances. If we are serious about defeating ISIS and solving the refugee problem, we’ll work in partnership with Russia, France, and anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and affiliated Islamic extremist organizations worldwide. “The problem is, because the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it is impossible for us to have an effective, cooperative relationship with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS. Our focus on overthrowing Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy ISIS.” “We must immediately end the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad and ally ourselves with any countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic extremists who pose a genuine threat to civilization,” Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard concluded. SourceThis feels like one of those types of emails that would be "retroactively classified". The target delegates comes from where the candidate wants to be to be on track to win the nomination with a majority. currently Hillary is on pace to win 110% She fell from 113% before Mar 15, not sure if people noticed that.
I don't see anything wrong with Google providing a tool for Al-Jazeera to assist the opposition to Assad in helping people get information about how many people have defected. This is basically a more refined version of what Google provides already. People say Wikileaks is in the Kremlin pocket because they make these things sound way more nefarious than they actually are. I really don't see any "overthrowing" anywhere. But if you're wondering, the US policy has been for a long time that Assad must leave, so I guess any support for their government contributes in this way, kinda'.
On your 113% point, you do realize that they haven't updated it yet. Just hover your mouse over the graph, Clinton went from 113% to 110% and Sanders from 86% to 86%, but neither has a value for the 15th of March. This is exactly the kind of desperate hunting for positive arguments that makes it difficult to take Sandernistas seriously.
Also, I didn't see anyone post the Emerson poll for NY (14-16 March):
Clinton 71%, Sanders 23%
Trump 64%, Cruz 12%, Kasich 1%
Source
|
On March 18 2016 23:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +California's insurance exchange is threatening to cut hospitals from its networks for poor performance or high costs, a novel proposal that is drawing heavy fire from medical providers and insurers.
The goal is to boost the overall quality of patient care and make coverage more affordable, said Peter Lee, executive director of the Covered California exchange.
"The first few years were about getting people in the door for coverage," said Lee, a key figure in the rollout of the federal health law. "We are now shifting our attention to changing the underlying delivery system to make it more cost effective and higher quality. We don't want to throw anyone out, but we don't want to pay for bad quality care either."
It appears to be the first proposal of its kind in the country. The exchange's five-member board is slated to vote on it next month. If approved, insurers would need to identify hospital "outliers" on cost and quality starting in 2018. Medical groups and doctors would be rated after that.
Providers who don't measure up stand to lose insured patients and suffer a black eye that could sully their reputations with employers and other big customers.
By 2019, health plans would be expected to expel poor performers from their exchange networks. Source
Good, if they want that sweet government insurance money for their treatments they should deliver good cost/quality.
|
On March 19 2016 00:29 Ghanburighan wrote:Also, I didn't see anyone post the Emerson poll for NY (14-16 March): Clinton 71%, Sanders 23% Trump 64%, Cruz 12%, Kasich 1% Source
Here we go, Bernie's opportunity to beat his old record of poll upsets. In order to have a chance at the nomination, he will need to receive 250% of his expected votes.
|
On March 19 2016 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 23:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:California's insurance exchange is threatening to cut hospitals from its networks for poor performance or high costs, a novel proposal that is drawing heavy fire from medical providers and insurers.
The goal is to boost the overall quality of patient care and make coverage more affordable, said Peter Lee, executive director of the Covered California exchange.
"The first few years were about getting people in the door for coverage," said Lee, a key figure in the rollout of the federal health law. "We are now shifting our attention to changing the underlying delivery system to make it more cost effective and higher quality. We don't want to throw anyone out, but we don't want to pay for bad quality care either."
It appears to be the first proposal of its kind in the country. The exchange's five-member board is slated to vote on it next month. If approved, insurers would need to identify hospital "outliers" on cost and quality starting in 2018. Medical groups and doctors would be rated after that.
Providers who don't measure up stand to lose insured patients and suffer a black eye that could sully their reputations with employers and other big customers.
By 2019, health plans would be expected to expel poor performers from their exchange networks. Source Good, if they want that sweet government insurance money for their treatments they should deliver good cost/quality.
I think the general idea is good, and it does look like they are at least recognizing the need to adjust for case mix (for example any hospital that is a big dialysis center will immediately be a cost outlier no matter how efficiently they try to save) and they also aren't going to shut down providers if they're the only ones providing care in an area (which also makes them more likely to be an outlier in quality due to the economic distress in areas like that).
A quick glance at the actual proposal seems like they're pawning the analytics (or maybe just a big chunk of the analytics? Not sure) off on the insurers, though, which I am not as big a fan of.
|
On March 19 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2016 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2016 23:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:California's insurance exchange is threatening to cut hospitals from its networks for poor performance or high costs, a novel proposal that is drawing heavy fire from medical providers and insurers.
The goal is to boost the overall quality of patient care and make coverage more affordable, said Peter Lee, executive director of the Covered California exchange.
"The first few years were about getting people in the door for coverage," said Lee, a key figure in the rollout of the federal health law. "We are now shifting our attention to changing the underlying delivery system to make it more cost effective and higher quality. We don't want to throw anyone out, but we don't want to pay for bad quality care either."
It appears to be the first proposal of its kind in the country. The exchange's five-member board is slated to vote on it next month. If approved, insurers would need to identify hospital "outliers" on cost and quality starting in 2018. Medical groups and doctors would be rated after that.
Providers who don't measure up stand to lose insured patients and suffer a black eye that could sully their reputations with employers and other big customers.
By 2019, health plans would be expected to expel poor performers from their exchange networks. Source Good, if they want that sweet government insurance money for their treatments they should deliver good cost/quality. I think the general idea is good, and it does look like they are at least recognizing the need to adjust for case mix (for example any hospital that is a big dialysis center will immediately be a cost outlier no matter how efficiently they try to save) and they also aren't going to shut down providers if they're the only ones providing care in an area (which also makes them more likely to be an outlier in quality due to the economic distress in areas like that). A quick glance at the actual proposal seems like they're pawning the analytics off on the insurers, though, which I am not as big a fan of.
It has to be done with care, certainly but atleast they are making an effort and that alone is to commended, esp when it seems no one else is.
People are in a terrible position to negotiate the cost of healthcare, it has to come from either the insurance or the government.
|
On March 18 2016 22:34 Sermokala wrote:
538 is updated and the 110% is from the 3/15 primaries. I don't think you read the link to it or just don't understand part of it. But nothing about what you said makes sense if you understand it.
No, 538 is not fully updated: the delegate numbers from the 3/15 primaries aren't complete yet. If you take a look at the "total delegates" column, you'll see that Florida had 214 delegates to award, and currently Clinton is at 133 and Sanders at 65. 133 + 65 = 198 --> all of the delegates have not been entered yet (and given Clinton's margins in the state, she's likely to get a good share of those remaining). The same is true of Illinois, for which the remaining delegates still need to be entered.
Secondly, in your previous post, you didn't write "110%", you wrote "Hillary has 11% of her projected delegates", which is why I was asking you where that 11% number was coming from. Everything I said in my post was accurate. If you think it doesn't make sense, perhaps you misread it.
On March 18 2016 22:34 Sermokala wrote:
The target delegates comes from where the candidate wants to be to be on track to win the nomination with a majority. currently Hillary is on pace to win 110% of the delegates she needs to win with pledged delegates. I think the confusion comes from the superdelegatets that are in hillaries camp already. 538 doesn't take into account those beacuse they have no statistical basis to account for.
I know 538 doesn't take into account superdelegates. My point was that 538's targets are based on a model which takes into account the demographics favoring each candidate and the extent to which those demographics are found in the various states. This means that the fact that many upcoming states will favor Bernie was already taken into account in the model when his targets for previous (and upcoming) states were calculated, and the same goes for Clinton's targets. He has clearly failed to meet most of his targets so far, while Hillary has met most of hers handily.
The article's outdated, so I suggest you follow the page I referred to. I'm not sure where you're getting the "8 point margin" from. Sanders needs to win the remaining delegates/votes by a bit more than a 14 point margin (~57,5% to ~42,5%). Like I said, it's simply not going to happen.
|
On March 19 2016 00:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 19 2016 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2016 23:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:California's insurance exchange is threatening to cut hospitals from its networks for poor performance or high costs, a novel proposal that is drawing heavy fire from medical providers and insurers.
The goal is to boost the overall quality of patient care and make coverage more affordable, said Peter Lee, executive director of the Covered California exchange.
"The first few years were about getting people in the door for coverage," said Lee, a key figure in the rollout of the federal health law. "We are now shifting our attention to changing the underlying delivery system to make it more cost effective and higher quality. We don't want to throw anyone out, but we don't want to pay for bad quality care either."
It appears to be the first proposal of its kind in the country. The exchange's five-member board is slated to vote on it next month. If approved, insurers would need to identify hospital "outliers" on cost and quality starting in 2018. Medical groups and doctors would be rated after that.
Providers who don't measure up stand to lose insured patients and suffer a black eye that could sully their reputations with employers and other big customers.
By 2019, health plans would be expected to expel poor performers from their exchange networks. Source Good, if they want that sweet government insurance money for their treatments they should deliver good cost/quality. I think the general idea is good, and it does look like they are at least recognizing the need to adjust for case mix (for example any hospital that is a big dialysis center will immediately be a cost outlier no matter how efficiently they try to save) and they also aren't going to shut down providers if they're the only ones providing care in an area (which also makes them more likely to be an outlier in quality due to the economic distress in areas like that). A quick glance at the actual proposal seems like they're pawning the analytics off on the insurers, though, which I am not as big a fan of. It has to be done with care, certainly but atleast they are making an effort and that alone is to commended, esp when it seems no one else is. People are in a terrible position to negotiate the cost of healthcare, it has to come from either the insurance or the government.
It's very hard to get transparency data, and IIRC a lot of providers expressly forbid insurance co's from doing price and quality comparisons in their contracts since it has an impact on their business.
There have been a few initiatives, like one led by the Cleveland Clinic awhile back but it collapsed. I think it was because the Cleveland Clinic was shown to less impressive than their reputation suggests.
|
You know an industry is messed up when they forbid price/quality comparisons in their service contracts with other vendors/insurance. And then on top of that it is healthcare.
For profit health care, likely not the best way to get that done. Likely pretty bad.
|
On March 19 2016 00:58 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure where you're getting the "8 point margin" from. Sanders needs to win the remaining delegates/votes by a bit more than a 14 point margin (~57,5% to ~42,5%). Like I said, it's simply not going to happen.
I knew people would end up misunderstanding this.
|
On March 18 2016 22:47 oneofthem wrote:
wikileaks is basically working for mother russia at this point. good for google though
Russia is the antithesis for all anti-American-democratic-liberalism? It's either murica or putin? Can we get some dialectical analysis on this?
|
On March 18 2016 23:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 23:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Cool thing is that if Clinton isn't indicted now, we know for sure she won't be during the general. And really, even disregarding the fact that she's clearly safe, she's a Clinton. You think a Clinton is going to jail? It's not possible. Guilty or not, sadly but actually thankfully in this specific case lolol. Especially at her age, especially being the presidential frontrunner. It just ain't happenin. If David Petraeus didn’t get jail time, there is no chance Clinton will. And I don’t even know if they will charge her. I don’t think they can charge her alone. Other people would need to be charged. And I don’t really see much of a gain for the FBI or justice department beyond creating a political football.
I'm curious, since you frequently use Patreus as a benchmark here - do you believe Patreus should have gotten jail time? If so, wouldn't it follow that Hillary (and all others who are complicit in the same type of activity - cuz you're right, it's a wide spread problem) should also? That is, of course, assuming that the investigation determines that charges should be filed - if they're not, it's a moot point.
In an ideal world (because I can acknowledge one reality while still striving for a different one), shouldn't accountability matter? If wrong-doing is determined, shouldn't we avoid brushing things to the side "cuz lots of people do it"? That's how I feel for all public officials - politicians, police, etc. Obviously we're not in an ideal world, and I don't entirely disagree that charging tons of people is a pipe dream of an endeavor. But security issues don't get addressed by lowering the standards.
+ Show Spoiler +Tangentially related, we've had an absurd number of security patches and updates at work recently, and it's annoying as hell.
|
On March 19 2016 01:18 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 22:47 oneofthem wrote:
wikileaks is basically working for mother russia at this point. good for google though Russia is the antithesis for all anti-American-democratic-liberalism? It's either murica or putin? Can we get some dialectical analysis on this?
Considering that the Kremlin is singing the praises of 'murica Trump, I don't think that dichotomy is viable. Source
|
On March 19 2016 01:07 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2016 00:53 Gorsameth wrote:On March 19 2016 00:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 19 2016 00:30 Gorsameth wrote:On March 18 2016 23:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:California's insurance exchange is threatening to cut hospitals from its networks for poor performance or high costs, a novel proposal that is drawing heavy fire from medical providers and insurers.
The goal is to boost the overall quality of patient care and make coverage more affordable, said Peter Lee, executive director of the Covered California exchange.
"The first few years were about getting people in the door for coverage," said Lee, a key figure in the rollout of the federal health law. "We are now shifting our attention to changing the underlying delivery system to make it more cost effective and higher quality. We don't want to throw anyone out, but we don't want to pay for bad quality care either."
It appears to be the first proposal of its kind in the country. The exchange's five-member board is slated to vote on it next month. If approved, insurers would need to identify hospital "outliers" on cost and quality starting in 2018. Medical groups and doctors would be rated after that.
Providers who don't measure up stand to lose insured patients and suffer a black eye that could sully their reputations with employers and other big customers.
By 2019, health plans would be expected to expel poor performers from their exchange networks. Source Good, if they want that sweet government insurance money for their treatments they should deliver good cost/quality. I think the general idea is good, and it does look like they are at least recognizing the need to adjust for case mix (for example any hospital that is a big dialysis center will immediately be a cost outlier no matter how efficiently they try to save) and they also aren't going to shut down providers if they're the only ones providing care in an area (which also makes them more likely to be an outlier in quality due to the economic distress in areas like that). A quick glance at the actual proposal seems like they're pawning the analytics off on the insurers, though, which I am not as big a fan of. It has to be done with care, certainly but atleast they are making an effort and that alone is to commended, esp when it seems no one else is. People are in a terrible position to negotiate the cost of healthcare, it has to come from either the insurance or the government. It's very hard to get transparency data, and IIRC a lot of providers expressly forbid insurance co's from doing price and quality comparisons in their contracts since it has an impact on their business. There have been a few initiatives, like one led by the Cleveland Clinic awhile back but it collapsed. I think it was because the Cleveland Clinic was shown to less impressive than their reputation suggests.
Which is why such initiatives have to come from those with power. If the government or large insurance companies tell a hospital they can either provide insight into their cost/quality or not receive their customers anymore then they have little choice but the comply.
ps.
How is 'Free market healthcare' supposed to work when they forbid cost/quality comparisons? The entire basis of free market rests upon openness of information to allow consumers to make the best choice.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 19 2016 01:18 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 22:47 oneofthem wrote:
wikileaks is basically working for mother russia at this point. good for google though Russia is the antithesis for all anti-American-democratic-liberalism? It's either murica or putin? Can we get some dialectical analysis on this?
they are running a campaign to wedge the european alliance and europe. it's sort of important
|
On March 19 2016 01:22 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2016 01:18 IgnE wrote:On March 18 2016 22:47 oneofthem wrote:
wikileaks is basically working for mother russia at this point. good for google though Russia is the antithesis for all anti-American-democratic-liberalism? It's either murica or putin? Can we get some dialectical analysis on this? Considering that the Kremlin is singing the praises of 'murica Trump, I don't think that dichotomy is viable. Source
Such a transparent ploy!
I think the only way to really resolve this is start organizing the American-led global government with universal open borders and no trade barriers.
Maybe though even oneofthem thinks Putin is useful as the face of the Other. So long as we are winning and he is not.
|
On March 19 2016 01:20 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 23:41 Plansix wrote:On March 18 2016 23:33 Mohdoo wrote:
Cool thing is that if Clinton isn't indicted now, we know for sure she won't be during the general. And really, even disregarding the fact that she's clearly safe, she's a Clinton. You think a Clinton is going to jail? It's not possible. Guilty or not, sadly but actually thankfully in this specific case lolol. Especially at her age, especially being the presidential frontrunner. It just ain't happenin. If David Petraeus didn’t get jail time, there is no chance Clinton will. And I don’t even know if they will charge her. I don’t think they can charge her alone. Other people would need to be charged. And I don’t really see much of a gain for the FBI or justice department beyond creating a political football. I'm curious, since you frequently use Patreus as a benchmark here - do you believe Patreus should have gotten jail time? If so, wouldn't it follow that Hillary (and all others who are complicit in the same type of activity - cuz you're right, it's a wide spread problem) should also? That is, of course, assuming that the investigation determines that charges should be filed - if they're not, it's a moot point. In an ideal world (because I can acknowledge one reality while still striving for a different one), shouldn't accountability matter? If wrong-doing is determined, shouldn't we avoid brushing things to the side "cuz lots of people do it"? That's how I feel for all public officials - politicians, police, etc. Obviously we're not in an ideal world, and I don't entirely disagree that charging tons of people is a pipe dream of an endeavor. But security issues don't get addressed by lowering the standards. + Show Spoiler +Tangentially related, we've had an absurd number of security patches and updates at work recently, and it's annoying as hell.
Because the core of the case is her releasing top secret information or putting it as risk of being released. It has not been proven that she released the information, only that she had a private server that put that put a small amount of information(6 emails) at risk.
In contrast David Petraeus released top secret information to his mistress and did so knowingly. She was not authorized to have that information and it was a crime. He was charged and received probation, while also having to resign. I don't think he should have gotten jail time, but I would be upset if Clinton was charged with anything more severe than what he was charged with. I personally think this is all a huge waste of time.
Of course the final details are different, but the core of the case is putting top secret information as risk. One was done intentionally, while the other was due to poor practices and we cannot confirm any information was released.
And of course I think people should be held accountable, but it should be everyone. Not just the democratic front runner. And I don’t think poor practices that happened under the review of the NSA should be the sole fault that person. The NSA should be clamping down on this shit, not expect civilian elected or appointed officials build their offices around security requirements. This isn’t fixing the problem, it’s a politically motivated witch hunt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
