|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 28 2020 10:40 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 10:24 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I just voted today, I'm not a faithful person, but I have faith that Biden will win in a landslide. It's really a strange feeling. I'm overwhelmed with typically reliable information telling me this but my anecdotal experiences say the opposite. Far more Trump support around me than in 2016 and reports of that all over but none of it quantified really in the data. My analytical brain is telling me that Biden wins handily and Trump's better off spinning this all into a new more radical fox news than trying anything too drastic. My 2020 brain is telling me Biden barely wins in a squeaker, Trump throws a tantrum and Biden pulls a Gore between Nov 3 and whenever the process would best come to a conclusion on its own. Biden/Democrats would do it to prolong the legitimacy of SCOTUS rather than have them hand down a nakedly partisan ruling declaring Trump the winner despite what appears to be clear malfeasance on his part. That's interesting since I've seen the opposite in Texas where there's a lot more Biden support than there is Trump support compared to this time in 2016 when Trump signs and Hillary signs were roughly even around the greater Houston area. I've also heard that from a lot of my Texan friends and mutuals on Twitter that are spread outa cross the state.
There's less Trump support in Cincinnati's suburbs where I live than there was in 2016, but more support for him in the rural areas. That's my anecdotal experience based on signage. The Trump supporters that DO exist here have gotten significantly more obnoxious, though (lots of vulgar pro-trump stickers or drawings on lifted trucks that roll coal). So they're more visible. (I passed a vote Trump flag someone put up over the highway today... they put it up facing backwards... so you can't actually read it on the side of the road they put it on).
|
So I guess the "corona virus isn't that bad and is going away soon" strategy has been a success? I was so sure that Trump's support would drop off as his handling of covid was about as bad as could be imagined. But it doesn't matter apparently even when it affects all of our lives so drastically.
|
On October 28 2020 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 09:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me. It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats.
As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US. Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise? Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on. EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises. The bolded part is just simply wrong. Like, undeniably, verifiably, unquestionably wrong. Even a cursory study of American political history should reveal this to you. Which of those do you think Obama and Hillary opposed, rather than were not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst"? so they advocated something more moderate? Obama and Clinton advocated for nothing that was quoted. Those are all very progressive, government-led policies (in America, rather moderate in Europe), and both Obama and Clinton (and Biden for that matter) favor more centrist/market-based solutions to things. So Obama didn't really want the public option in your view? 1) A public option, depending on how it is structured, isn't necessarily close to the progressive universal healthcare that the left is advocating for. 2) Even if Clinton and Obama did want those progressive policies, they never actually pushed for them in a meaningful way. This is so consistent between issues that, even if they supposedly wanted a public option for healthcare, their record on everything else makes them decidedly moderate. 3) Historical analysis shows that Obama, when compared to the Democratic presidents of the 20th century, was middle-of-the-road and in no way was he notably progressive. No matter how you slice it, Third Way Democrats in America are decidedly centrist and there is exhaustive historical/political scholarship on this. I feel like you're completely erasing that we were supposed to believe Hillary was "A progressive who likes to get things done" or that Obama represented progressive "change we can believe in" . It's not that I disagree that they were fully centrists that embraced market solutions, it's that they and their supporters say/said they preferred social democratic policy like public healthcare and free college (w/ optional enrollment, means testing, etc) but end up for all practical purposes supporting and voting for the centrist policy/politicians with variations of Show nested quote +It just happens no politicians that advocate those policies can win this election right now, and that I am not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst".
Your point is completely irrelevant to mine.
Just because some supporters tried a marketing strategy to win over progressives doesn't change what they were actually selling and what the definition of American Third Way Democrats is.
|
|
|
On October 28 2020 11:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 09:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). [quote] Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise? Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on. EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises. The bolded part is just simply wrong. Like, undeniably, verifiably, unquestionably wrong. Even a cursory study of American political history should reveal this to you. Which of those do you think Obama and Hillary opposed, rather than were not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst"? so they advocated something more moderate? Obama and Clinton advocated for nothing that was quoted. Those are all very progressive, government-led policies (in America, rather moderate in Europe), and both Obama and Clinton (and Biden for that matter) favor more centrist/market-based solutions to things. So Obama didn't really want the public option in your view? 1) A public option, depending on how it is structured, isn't necessarily close to the progressive universal healthcare that the left is advocating for. 2) Even if Clinton and Obama did want those progressive policies, they never actually pushed for them in a meaningful way. This is so consistent between issues that, even if they supposedly wanted a public option for healthcare, their record on everything else makes them decidedly moderate. 3) Historical analysis shows that Obama, when compared to the Democratic presidents of the 20th century, was middle-of-the-road and in no way was he notably progressive. No matter how you slice it, Third Way Democrats in America are decidedly centrist and there is exhaustive historical/political scholarship on this. I feel like you're completely erasing that we were supposed to believe Hillary was "A progressive who likes to get things done" or that Obama represented progressive "change we can believe in" . It's not that I disagree that they were fully centrists that embraced market solutions, it's that they and their supporters say/said they preferred social democratic policy like public healthcare and free college (w/ optional enrollment, means testing, etc) but end up for all practical purposes supporting and voting for the centrist policy/politicians with variations of It just happens no politicians that advocate those policies can win this election right now, and that I am not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst". Your point is completely irrelevant to mine. Just because some supporters tried a marketing strategy to win over progressives doesn't change what they were actually selling and what the definition of American Third Way Democrats is.
"A progressive that likes to get things done" is a quote from Hillary. She said she "takes a back seat to no one... on standing up and fighting for progressive values".
|
Do you guys fear the republicans will do court shenanigans for the election now that they have their 6 judges?
The supreme court blocked Wisconsin mail ballots from being counted if they are posted on time but arrive late due to postal service fuck ups. Kavanaugh in his opinion on the matter basically pays lipservice to Trump campaign stance on mail in ballots.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh conjured up the specter of such a protracted battle as he argued in favor of allowing states to maintain firm deadlines requiring absentee ballots to be received by election officials on Election Day.
“Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election,” Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion released Monday night. “And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.”
He talks about 'flipping the result' with the result being a election day media prognosis of the vote count. Which is pretty strange, when only the full vote count should matter. But not in Wisconsin anymore.
Kagan's dissent goes straight against it
“Justice Kavanaugh alleges that ‘suspicions of impropriety’ will result if ‘absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election,’” Kagan wrote, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
“But there are no results to ‘flip’ until all valid votes are counted. And nothing could be more ‘suspicio[us]’ or ‘improp[er]’ than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on election night. To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times, is to disserve the electoral process
Kavanaugh also mentioned a concurrence from the Bush vs Gore era as a legal precedent, even though that opinion was only voted for by 3 of the 9 justices back then. It's from Rehnquist who said that the SC should have the ultimate say over a state's election and not the state's own court. With Barrett onboard there's a real chance the SC will try to use this obscure argument as the new reality where they have the ultimate say over a state's results.
But the other three conservative justices—William Rehnquist, joined by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—embraced it in a separate opinion. Rehnquist’s concurrence rested on the electors clause of the Constitution, which says that “Each State shall appoint” presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” He accused the Florida Supreme Court of having “impermissibly distorted” the state’s election code when it ordered a recount. Because the court ran afoul of the “clearly expressed intent of the legislature,” Rehnquist concluded, it had violated the electors clause.
Rehnquist’s position constituted a breathtaking assault on state sovereignty. It is black letter law that state courts hold ultimate authority to determine the meaning of their own state’s statutes and constitution. And the Florida Supreme Court had simply provided its best interpretation of a “legal vote” under Florida law. Secretary of State Katherine Harris rejected ballots with “hanging chads” on which voters had indicated their preference but failed to punch through the hole all the way. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, citing a state statute that required the counting of defective ballots “if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter.” Federal judges had a constitutional obligation to accept that (eminently plausible) reading of the law. By refusing to do so, Rehnquist, along with Scalia and Thomas, impermissibly substituted the Florida Supreme Court’s judgment with their own.
After the 2000 election, Rehnquist’s concurrence faded into the mists of history, and for good reason. It would, after all, transform SCOTUS into a national board of elections with veto power over each state’s election rules. Rehnquist’s position was categorically distinct from typical election cases, in which federal courts decide whether some regulation complies with the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes like the Voting Rights Act. Rather than defer to state courts protecting the franchise, SCOTUS would grant itself freewheeling authority to rewrite election laws based on its own subjective sense of a legislature’s intent. And a right-leaning Supreme Court could use this power to crush state efforts to expand voting rights. Since 2000, there has always been at least one conservative justice who would not go along with this power grab.
Until now. By confirming Barrett on Monday, Senate Republicans may well create a five-justice majority that is ready, willing, and able to make Rehnquist’s position the law of the land. There are currently two cases pending before SCOTUS that ask the justices to nullify thousands of mail ballots in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Both rest on Rehnquist’s Bush v. Gore concurrence.
|
|
|
On October 28 2020 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 11:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 09:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences?
I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth.
Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on. EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises. The bolded part is just simply wrong. Like, undeniably, verifiably, unquestionably wrong. Even a cursory study of American political history should reveal this to you. Which of those do you think Obama and Hillary opposed, rather than were not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst"? so they advocated something more moderate? Obama and Clinton advocated for nothing that was quoted. Those are all very progressive, government-led policies (in America, rather moderate in Europe), and both Obama and Clinton (and Biden for that matter) favor more centrist/market-based solutions to things. So Obama didn't really want the public option in your view? 1) A public option, depending on how it is structured, isn't necessarily close to the progressive universal healthcare that the left is advocating for. 2) Even if Clinton and Obama did want those progressive policies, they never actually pushed for them in a meaningful way. This is so consistent between issues that, even if they supposedly wanted a public option for healthcare, their record on everything else makes them decidedly moderate. 3) Historical analysis shows that Obama, when compared to the Democratic presidents of the 20th century, was middle-of-the-road and in no way was he notably progressive. No matter how you slice it, Third Way Democrats in America are decidedly centrist and there is exhaustive historical/political scholarship on this. I feel like you're completely erasing that we were supposed to believe Hillary was "A progressive who likes to get things done" or that Obama represented progressive "change we can believe in" . It's not that I disagree that they were fully centrists that embraced market solutions, it's that they and their supporters say/said they preferred social democratic policy like public healthcare and free college (w/ optional enrollment, means testing, etc) but end up for all practical purposes supporting and voting for the centrist policy/politicians with variations of It just happens no politicians that advocate those policies can win this election right now, and that I am not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst". Your point is completely irrelevant to mine. Just because some supporters tried a marketing strategy to win over progressives doesn't change what they were actually selling and what the definition of American Third Way Democrats is. "A progressive that likes to get things done" is a quote from Hillary. She said she "takes a back seat to no one... on standing up and fighting for progressive values".
Yea, in 2016, after the progressive movement had finally surged. Did her policies actually reflect a real progressive Democrat? No.
She also lost.
North Korea calls themselves democratic, by the way...
|
I'd say somewhere between 95 and 100% chance that ACB sides with Kavanaugh to prevent states from counting late.
Realistically, she should recuse herself from ruling on matters of an election that she was appointed in the MIDDLE of, but I have 0 expectations of her having anything resembling normal judicial principles.
Basically, Biden needs a sizable win to not have it get stolen by the courts.
On October 28 2020 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 11:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 09:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences?
I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth.
Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on. EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises. The bolded part is just simply wrong. Like, undeniably, verifiably, unquestionably wrong. Even a cursory study of American political history should reveal this to you. Which of those do you think Obama and Hillary opposed, rather than were not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst"? so they advocated something more moderate? Obama and Clinton advocated for nothing that was quoted. Those are all very progressive, government-led policies (in America, rather moderate in Europe), and both Obama and Clinton (and Biden for that matter) favor more centrist/market-based solutions to things. So Obama didn't really want the public option in your view? 1) A public option, depending on how it is structured, isn't necessarily close to the progressive universal healthcare that the left is advocating for. 2) Even if Clinton and Obama did want those progressive policies, they never actually pushed for them in a meaningful way. This is so consistent between issues that, even if they supposedly wanted a public option for healthcare, their record on everything else makes them decidedly moderate. 3) Historical analysis shows that Obama, when compared to the Democratic presidents of the 20th century, was middle-of-the-road and in no way was he notably progressive. No matter how you slice it, Third Way Democrats in America are decidedly centrist and there is exhaustive historical/political scholarship on this. I feel like you're completely erasing that we were supposed to believe Hillary was "A progressive who likes to get things done" or that Obama represented progressive "change we can believe in" . It's not that I disagree that they were fully centrists that embraced market solutions, it's that they and their supporters say/said they preferred social democratic policy like public healthcare and free college (w/ optional enrollment, means testing, etc) but end up for all practical purposes supporting and voting for the centrist policy/politicians with variations of It just happens no politicians that advocate those policies can win this election right now, and that I am not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst". Your point is completely irrelevant to mine. Just because some supporters tried a marketing strategy to win over progressives doesn't change what they were actually selling and what the definition of American Third Way Democrats is. "A progressive that likes to get things done" is a quote from Hillary. She said she "takes a back seat to no one... on standing up and fighting for progressive values".
Hillary's was never really a true "third way" or "new" democrat (this was what they were called in the early 90s).
Bill definitely was, though. If you look at their members you'll see a who's who of neoliberals (which yes, includes Hillary Clinton).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats
Not sure I'd call her a flat-out progressive, but you can see that her health care plan in the 90s was legitimately more progressive than Obamacare.
Also, Hillary would have said almost anything if she thought it would help her win, I think we can both acknowledge that.
On October 28 2020 11:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 11:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 11:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 09:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 08:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You see
[quote] That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on.
EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises. The bolded part is just simply wrong. Like, undeniably, verifiably, unquestionably wrong. Even a cursory study of American political history should reveal this to you. Which of those do you think Obama and Hillary opposed, rather than were not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst"? so they advocated something more moderate? Obama and Clinton advocated for nothing that was quoted. Those are all very progressive, government-led policies (in America, rather moderate in Europe), and both Obama and Clinton (and Biden for that matter) favor more centrist/market-based solutions to things. So Obama didn't really want the public option in your view? 1) A public option, depending on how it is structured, isn't necessarily close to the progressive universal healthcare that the left is advocating for. 2) Even if Clinton and Obama did want those progressive policies, they never actually pushed for them in a meaningful way. This is so consistent between issues that, even if they supposedly wanted a public option for healthcare, their record on everything else makes them decidedly moderate. 3) Historical analysis shows that Obama, when compared to the Democratic presidents of the 20th century, was middle-of-the-road and in no way was he notably progressive. No matter how you slice it, Third Way Democrats in America are decidedly centrist and there is exhaustive historical/political scholarship on this. I feel like you're completely erasing that we were supposed to believe Hillary was "A progressive who likes to get things done" or that Obama represented progressive "change we can believe in" . It's not that I disagree that they were fully centrists that embraced market solutions, it's that they and their supporters say/said they preferred social democratic policy like public healthcare and free college (w/ optional enrollment, means testing, etc) but end up for all practical purposes supporting and voting for the centrist policy/politicians with variations of It just happens no politicians that advocate those policies can win this election right now, and that I am not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst". Your point is completely irrelevant to mine. Just because some supporters tried a marketing strategy to win over progressives doesn't change what they were actually selling and what the definition of American Third Way Democrats is. "A progressive that likes to get things done" is a quote from Hillary. She said she "takes a back seat to no one... on standing up and fighting for progressive values". Yea, in 2016, after the progressive movement had finally surged. Did her policies actually reflect a real progressive Democrat? No. She also lost. North Korea calls themselves democratic, by the way...
The platform she adopted was pretty progressive, but the people she surrounded herself with weren't. Not sure what that would have ended up meaning.
On October 28 2020 11:16 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 10:38 Nevuk wrote:Trump is basically counting on a larger than 2016 sized polling error in state polls right now. I'm not sure I buy it: all political polling firms are going to practically go out of business if they predict that Trump loses and he wins again. I think that they're pretty much all going to be trying to overrate Trump. It's not that I think Trump has no chance, but that I think it is roughly 5-6% instead of 12-13%. Nate Silver has noted that they include pollsters with heavy partisan leans, even when they don't make a lot of sense, just as a sanity check for the model. He also noted that if they excluded Rasmussen then Biden would gain about 1.5 points, but that it wouldn't really change their prediction much. There's also stuff like Trump's mail in voting shenanigans seeming like they may backfire badly. Democrats are saying they're going to drop off their mail in vote directly at double the rate of Republicans, which would prevent USPS shenanigans from affecting them (or court challenges to prevent counting after election day). Here's a fun interactive from 538 - if you decide a battle ground state winner, it will tell you the overall odds for the election and update the odds for each state. PA is pretty dramatic. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/?cid=abcnewsIf Biden wins PA, he has a 97% chance to win, but only a 39% chance if he loses it. It's the tipping point >30% of the time on their model. (I think FL is the next closest, and that's because if Biden wins that Trump is toast, but counting out florida is always a smart bet for democrats). No other state has quite the same effect, but it is a useful tool. It's basically almost entirely about PA for Trump, which is why Biden has been there 10 times recently. Biden's lead there is +5, much smaller than his national +8. That tool will be really useful combined with this list to predict the winner. For instance, if Biden wins Ohio, he's almost certainly won PA too (same for IA), due to demographic similarities. The only ones of these Trump can afford to lose and still maybe win are AZ and WI - chances are 3% and 5% Trump respectively. I definitely need to stay up to date with the mail-in vote info. Might turn out to be a massive factor if Rs don't hand-deliver it.
Here's the source on it, nate silver's twitter again (it's quite useful this close to the election)
|
|
|
On October 28 2020 10:49 Starlightsun wrote:
So I guess the "corona virus isn't that bad and is going away soon" strategy has been a success? I was so sure that Trump's support would drop off as his handling of covid was about as bad as could be imagined. But it doesn't matter apparently even when it affects all of our lives so drastically.
Trump could do anything and they'd still support him. Obligatory reminder that he's literally a serial rapist who makes fun of every demographic possible, who only tweets and golfs as president. To paraphrase Trump's own words: "I could shoot someone and I still wouldn't lose voters."
|
On October 28 2020 11:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 10:49 Starlightsun wrote:
So I guess the "corona virus isn't that bad and is going away soon" strategy has been a success? I was so sure that Trump's support would drop off as his handling of covid was about as bad as could be imagined. But it doesn't matter apparently even when it affects all of our lives so drastically. Trump could do anything and they'd still support him. Obligatory reminder that he's literally a serial rapist who makes fun of every demographic possible, who only tweets and golfs as president. To paraphrase Trump's own words: "I could shoot someone and I still wouldn't lose voters."
Can you imagine if a democrat's ex wife said they raped her? Democrats would not say "Well, abortion is literally the only issue my brain is capable of caring about, so here I go voting for him anyway!"
|
On October 28 2020 11:06 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Do you guys fear the republicans will do court shenanigans for the election now that they have their 6 judges?
I'm sure it is just coincidence that Kavanaugh and Barrett worked on the Bush v Gore case.
|
|
|
On October 28 2020 12:27 plasmidghost wrote:
Does anyone have any predictions for how many people are going to turn out to vote on Election Day, whether in raw values or percentage of RVs? I must not be Googling the right phrase since I can't find any predictions
I think its just so impossible to predict everyone is throwing their hands up and saying "I don't know and I'm so stressed out right now I can't even really consider yet another angle"
|
|
|
On October 28 2020 11:06 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Do you guys fear the republicans will do court shenanigans for the election now that they have their 6 judges? The supreme court blocked Wisconsin mail ballots from being counted if they are posted on time but arrive late due to postal service fuck ups. Kavanaugh in his opinion on the matter basically pays lipservice to Trump campaign stance on mail in ballots. Show nested quote +Justice Brett Kavanaugh conjured up the specter of such a protracted battle as he argued in favor of allowing states to maintain firm deadlines requiring absentee ballots to be received by election officials on Election Day.
“Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election,” Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion released Monday night. “And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.” He talks about 'flipping the result' with the result being a election day media prognosis of the vote count. Which is pretty strange, when only the full vote count should matter. But not in Wisconsin anymore. Kagan's dissent goes straight against it Show nested quote +“Justice Kavanaugh alleges that ‘suspicions of impropriety’ will result if ‘absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election,’” Kagan wrote, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
“But there are no results to ‘flip’ until all valid votes are counted. And nothing could be more ‘suspicio[us]’ or ‘improp[er]’ than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on election night. To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times, is to disserve the electoral process Kavanaugh also mentioned a concurrence from the Bush vs Gore era as a legal precedent, even though that opinion was only voted for by 3 of the 9 justices back then. It's from Rehnquist who said that the SC should have the ultimate say over a state's election and not the state's own court. With Barrett onboard there's a real chance the SC will try to use this obscure argument as the new reality where they have the ultimate say over a state's results. Show nested quote +But the other three conservative justices—William Rehnquist, joined by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—embraced it in a separate opinion. Rehnquist’s concurrence rested on the electors clause of the Constitution, which says that “Each State shall appoint” presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” He accused the Florida Supreme Court of having “impermissibly distorted” the state’s election code when it ordered a recount. Because the court ran afoul of the “clearly expressed intent of the legislature,” Rehnquist concluded, it had violated the electors clause.
Rehnquist’s position constituted a breathtaking assault on state sovereignty. It is black letter law that state courts hold ultimate authority to determine the meaning of their own state’s statutes and constitution. And the Florida Supreme Court had simply provided its best interpretation of a “legal vote” under Florida law. Secretary of State Katherine Harris rejected ballots with “hanging chads” on which voters had indicated their preference but failed to punch through the hole all the way. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, citing a state statute that required the counting of defective ballots “if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter.” Federal judges had a constitutional obligation to accept that (eminently plausible) reading of the law. By refusing to do so, Rehnquist, along with Scalia and Thomas, impermissibly substituted the Florida Supreme Court’s judgment with their own.
After the 2000 election, Rehnquist’s concurrence faded into the mists of history, and for good reason. It would, after all, transform SCOTUS into a national board of elections with veto power over each state’s election rules. Rehnquist’s position was categorically distinct from typical election cases, in which federal courts decide whether some regulation complies with the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes like the Voting Rights Act. Rather than defer to state courts protecting the franchise, SCOTUS would grant itself freewheeling authority to rewrite election laws based on its own subjective sense of a legislature’s intent. And a right-leaning Supreme Court could use this power to crush state efforts to expand voting rights. Since 2000, there has always been at least one conservative justice who would not go along with this power grab.
Until now. By confirming Barrett on Monday, Senate Republicans may well create a five-justice majority that is ready, willing, and able to make Rehnquist’s position the law of the land. There are currently two cases pending before SCOTUS that ask the justices to nullify thousands of mail ballots in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Both rest on Rehnquist’s Bush v. Gore concurrence.
The decision for Wisconsin. I think it's pretty compelling on its face. When do elections end? How much accommodation is insufficient in terms of the pandemic? Who decides?
The "chaos and impropriety" blurb substantially hacks off the reasoning before the passage. Read (large margin) 3 pages of the opinion to be better informed about what "vote count should matter." And please, file your ballot in a timely manner. Wisconsin voters received theirs over the summer for gods sake.
The concurrence from Bush vs Gore appears ...
... as a footnote explaining a sentence of the concurring opinion. Let's keep the "With Barrett onboard there's a real chance the SC will try to use this obscure argument" in the wackos and losers conspiracy theory place. And don't just side by default with judges changing election law on the eve of an election.
|
Biden's choices this close to the election are pretty quizzical. It's very 2016. Hillary Clinton took much time off from in-person campaigning at the close of the election. Biden's called press lids and stayed home on several days in the 2 weeks before election day. Now at a week away, he holds no campaign events or "virtual" campaign events, and no pressers.
Early voting may make this not matter, and it will only come to the fore if he manages to lose.
See if you're reminded of the close of the Hillary campaign with these juxtaposed images (Twitter)
|
On October 28 2020 13:29 Danglars wrote:Biden's choices this close to the election are pretty quizzical. It's very 2016. Hillary Clinton took much time off from in-person campaigning at the close of the election. Biden's called press lids and stayed home on several days in the 2 weeks before election day. Now at a week away, he holds no campaign events or "virtual" campaign events, and no pressers. Early voting may make this not matter, and it will only come to the fore if he manages to lose. See if you're reminded of the close of the Hillary campaign with these juxtaposed images (Twitter)
I feel the same way. Seeing him not just having speeches and stuff every day makes me worry they are getting complacent again. But the dude is old. This could also be them making sure he is not overworking himself. Him fainting or something during a speech would be legitimately terrible. He has plans to visit the Midwest and Pennsylvania. I don't think he's just sucking his own dick. I think they are playing it safe and making sure they are doing everything right. This could also be them spending a lot of time strategizing and planning the sort of things he should be talking about in his upcoming speeches based on data and stuff. Biden just isn't the self-absorbed entitled shitbag that Clinton is. I don't see him feeling like he deserves to be president, just that he wants to win. Clinton felt like she earned the throne and that people were defying their queen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
