EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3807
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On November 09 2022 15:42 Introvert wrote: I didn't say moderate  He's a Tea Party type alright. Just again, I guess the word "needlessly" is doing some heavy lifting. but at at the end of tonight's consideration, we ought to think about how he managed to win by so much. Florida is becoming more red, but he did like 15 points better than Trump in 2020. he's convincing someone, or lots of someones. It’s a little early to be narrative-setting, but if we’re picking where to look for answers after this election: how did Republicans not clean house? You’ve repeatedly pointed out inflation, and gas prices, and Biden’s approval rating, and the longstanding historical trend for out-party gains in midterms. Funny you bring up the Tea Party, because last time you guys were here was 2010. How’s tonight looking by comparison? My point isn’t to gloat, you’ll still probably get both houses. My point is that guys like DeSantis got to decide what your party was gonna run on this cycle, and what did they pick? CRT. Trans panic. Culture war, all day every day. Republicans brought that message all over the country, with just about every conceivable wind at their back, and it flopped. Don’t get me wrong, Florida has clearly become Mecca for Christian nationalism, and we should absolutely look at how that happened, but most places that shit doesn’t sell. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4727 Posts
On November 09 2022 16:00 ChristianS wrote: It’s a little early to be narrative-setting, but if we’re picking where to look for answers after this election: how did Republicans not clean house? You’ve repeatedly pointed out inflation, and gas prices, and Biden’s approval rating, and the longstanding historical trend for out-party gains in midterms. Funny you bring up the Tea Party, because last time you guys were here was 2010. How’s tonight looking by comparison? My point isn’t to gloat, you’ll still probably get both houses. My point is that guys like DeSantis got to decide what your party was gonna run on this cycle, and what did they pick? CRT. Trans panic. Culture war, all day every day. Republicans brought that message all over the country, with just about every conceivable wind at their back, and it flopped. Don’t get me wrong, Florida has clearly become Mecca for Christian nationalism, and we should absolutely look at how that happened, but most places that shit doesn’t sell. Sorry, thought I had kind of answering that question. Even dem polling showed them getting slammed on the issues. This wasn't an endorsement of dem policies, obviously. I really do think Trump still hangs over everything. That and maybe a little sprinkle of Dobbs thrown in. That issue will settle as states continue to work that out with their own politics. Meanwhile I disagree, the GOP was hammering on things like inflation, the economy, etc. In the past two years they've done VERY well in flipping school boards where CRT is more relevant. I simply don't agree with your assessment of what they ran on, outside of certain pockets (e.g. georgia). Oz couldnt run further from abortion if he tried. Zeldin promised to not touch NY abortion laws if elected. Yet one over-performed and one underperformed. Anyway now I truly must go. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28637 Posts
I often feel like Introvert can be very hostile, but subtle about it. It reminds me of the way kids used to find ways to be incredibly mean to each other in a way that gives them plausible deniability if their victim goes to adults for respite. But it's kind of hard for a happy Republican to not come across as hostile these days, as the things they're happy about are often bad things happening to powerless people or events that mean bad things will soon be happening to powerless people. Politics is intrinsically hostile. Me telling him 'I hope you have nearly zero influence on the society you live in' is hostile. Me saying 'I hope for a 100% inheritance tax above $5 million' is hostile towards children of super wealthy parents. Me saying 'religion has no place in governing society' is hostile towards the strongly religious who feel unable to practice their faith the way they want to. I'll still argue all these points - but insist that it's not actually that I hate Introvert, rich children or religious people, and I'm not motivated by my desire to hurt either of these groups or individuals. Likewise, someone can wish for less immigrants without actually hating them, wish for less focus on actions to combat climate change without actually hating future generations and people living in more climate-vulnerable zones, and less distribution of wealth without actually hating the poor. Obviously - some people manage both just fine - it's not like hatred of immigrants or the poor does not exist, but that hatred is not intrinsic to holding views that might harm either group. But even then, politics is a competition between different groups with very different interests, and with real, tangible results, so, debating politics honestly can necessitate harsh language. However - for the political discussion to be fruitful, this harsh language needs to stay political ('the consequences of your political opinions will be disastrous in x way'), not personal (you're a terrible person for holding these political opinions). I do understand that certain topics makes this difficult, and I very much understand that it, on occasion, feels like an impossible exercise (I certainly erred according to my current stated belief back when the invasion of Iraq was a thing, and I still feel somewhat incapable of civility when discussing the Israel-Palestine question - or even people thinking Trump is a decent guy) - but even then, it is a necessity for fruitful political debate, which is a cornerstone of our democracy. There's no way around that. Introvert largely manages to keep it political, not personal, despite frequently being subject to personal attacks, and I think he deserves credit for that.  | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On November 09 2022 16:13 Introvert wrote: In my opinion, it is not really Trump that hangs over everything, but the approach to politics that he introduced to the Republican party. A significant part of the Republican party, inspired by and echoing Trump's claims about the 2020 election, has embraced the idea that Democratic party wins are inherently fraudulent. Even if Trump disappears from politics, his legacy influence on the Republican party is not going anywhere.Sorry, thought I had kind of answering that question. Even dem polling showed them getting slammed on the issues. This wasn't an endorsement of dem policies, obviously. I really do think Trump still hangs over everything. That and maybe a little sprinkle of Dobbs thrown in. That issue will settle as states continue to work that out with their own politics. Meanwhile I disagree, the GOP was hammering on things like inflation, the economy, etc. In the past two years they've done VERY well in flipping school boards where CRT is more relevant. I simply don't agree with your assessment of what they ran on, outside of certain pockets (e.g. georgia). Oz couldnt run further from abortion if he tried. Zeldin promised to not touch NY abortion laws if elected. Yet one over-performed and one underperformed. Anyway now I truly must go. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28637 Posts
I'm seeing the Senate currently as 48-47 in favor of Democrats, with Wisconsin, Georgia, Alaska (R), Nevada and Arizona yet to be called. Nevada at 50.9% vs 46.3% for D with 62% counted, Arizona with 56.3% vs 41.4% with 52% counted. Seems likely that both of these go D, does it not, at least Arizona? I get that they count the early votes first (favoring democrats), but I thought the last results were generally from bigger cities (favoring republicans). Wisconsin is 93% counted and looks to be headed for R, while Georgia looks headed for a second election. Either way, to me, it seems unlikely that Republicans get 51 senators? Am I wrong? House currently projected 216D-219R, with a +- 13 projection. That is razor thin. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
| ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1902 Posts
| ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
Currently, Jim Bognet (PA-08), Joe Kent (WA-03), David Schweikert (AZ-01), and Blake Masters (AZ Senate) are trailing. Palin will almost certainly go up against Peltola whom she already lost to in a special election just months ago and Walker very well could lose the GA Senate runoff in December. This would be an embarrassing result for the former President and seriously calls his influence into question. https://www.politico.com/2022-election/results/trump-candidates-endorsements-11-8-22/ | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28637 Posts
Nevada Senate race tightened from the previous update, that one looks very close now. I guess we're ending at 50-49 either way with Georgia as a runoff - that one obviously becoming much more significant if it's a 50R than a 50D. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On November 09 2022 17:29 Broetchenholer wrote: Rhetorical question here. Let's say, the democratic party would suddenly remember that they exist to improve the country, would create absolute unity among their legislative members and would bring a bill to change the political system to move away from winner takes all, add more senators to move to a better representation of voters, not states and reforms campaign finances to drain the influence of money interest in politics. Fully knowing that they would murder their own party with that and their individual political careers, what would need to happen for this to work? Is there even a way to push for the first part on a federal level, or is this down to every individual state? 2 Senators per state is in the Constitution, so we would need to amend the Constitution. Proposing an amendment requires either 2/3 vote in both chambers or for 2/3 of each state legislature to call for a state convention for an amendment to the Constitution. Ratifying the amendment requires either 3/4 of state legislatures or 3/4 of state conventions to ratify the amendment. So changing the Senate is practically impossible. Depending on what you mean by "reform campaign finance", it might be considered unconstitutional, thanks to rulings like Citizens United, meaning the Democrats would, with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, have to propose an amendment to introduce certain campaign finance reform. Things are also a bit unclear about how much power the federal government has over elections (fun fact: it's so unclear that there is currently a case being heard by the Supreme Court that could make it so that each state's legislature can simply decide the results of their elections, thus ending democracy!), so you would either need each state to get rid of FPTP or you would have to risk passing a bill that might get ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, at which point you would need to propose an amendment if you still wanted to pursue a solution at the federal level. American politics is fucked seven ways to Sunday. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13873 Posts
On November 09 2022 17:29 Broetchenholer wrote: Rhetorical question here. Let's say, the democratic party would suddenly remember that they exist to improve the country, would create absolute unity among their legislative members and would bring a bill to change the political system to move away from winner takes all, add more senators to move to a better representation of voters, not states and reforms campaign finances to drain the influence of money interest in politics. Fully knowing that they would murder their own party with that and their individual political careers, what would need to happen for this to work? Is there even a way to push for the first part on a federal level, or is this down to every individual state? Elections are handled on the state by state basis. Half of what you're proposing could be done tomorrow with no issue but the other half with representation simply cannot happen without a much larger reorganization of the nation itself. Yes adding a senator for every 20m people may seem simple but you're digging into some specific foundational understanding on what the nation is, not one nation but United States. Its much like trying to reorganize the eu into a singular bloc and then rewriting national lines for special eu senators. Sure Scandinavian nations and the Benelux but oh look at that Balkans region. The deep South is our Balkans. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On November 09 2022 17:50 Sermokala wrote: Elections are handled on the state by state basis. Half of what you're proposing could be done tomorrow with no issue but the other half with representation simply cannot happen without a much larger reorganization of the nation itself. Yes adding a senator for every 20m people may seem simple but you're digging into some specific foundational understanding on what the nation is, not one nation but United States. Its much like trying to reorganize the eu into a singular bloc and then rewriting national lines for special eu senators. Sure Scandinavian nations and the Benelux but oh look at that Balkans region. The deep South is our Balkans. I think one key difference between the EU and the US is that each nation/state has its own left/right fluctuations and changing coalitions, and they are not in sync in anyway. A nation on the size of California having one dominant party for so long is unheard of. Denmark very recently remained socialist while Sweden flipped conservative/far right, for example. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28637 Posts
The Norwegian conservative party today would be considered Clinton democrats, and people who vote for our Socialist Left party would have no problem aligning with Sanders. So yes, there are fluctuations, but they're on a much smaller scale than moving from current mainstream Democrat to current mainstream Republican. California also elected a republican governor as late as 2006 | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13873 Posts
On November 09 2022 18:22 Slydie wrote: I think one key difference between the EU and the US is that each nation/state has its own left/right fluctuations and changing coalitions, and they are not in sync in anyway. A nation on the size of California having one dominant party for so long is unheard of. Denmark very recently remained socialist while Sweden flipped conservative/far right, for example. Yeah to the point where it's impossible to have variety of different ideology in parties. Gh should be backing me up but the only real socialism in America that we've seen came from great lakes area states. Wisconsin had real socialist governments, Minnesota had real socialist candidates to the national level, it even stood by socialism in 1984 when the rest of the nation went to reagon. But what happened to socialism in America? Coasties who can't be bothered to learn the difference between Missouri and Minnesota. That decided sacrificing Detroit and Chicago for New York and silicon valley was more than preferable. | ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
On November 09 2022 17:50 Sermokala wrote: Elections are handled on the state by state basis. Half of what you're proposing could be done tomorrow with no issue but the other half with representation simply cannot happen without a much larger reorganization of the nation itself. Yes adding a senator for every 20m people may seem simple but you're digging into some specific foundational understanding on what the nation is, not one nation but United States. Its much like trying to reorganize the eu into a singular bloc and then rewriting national lines for special eu senators. Sure Scandinavian nations and the Benelux but oh look at that Balkans region. The deep South is our Balkans. Making the senate something it's not meant to be would be stupid if one could make the house what it actually is meant to be. Having two chambers with one representing the nations population and one the states is actually a very good system I think - my problem with it is that the House is not that representative of the population. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21633 Posts
On November 09 2022 19:04 schaf wrote: Nothing can change without support from both parties, because of the %'s of votes and states requires to actually make changes.Making the senate something it's not meant to be would be stupid if one could make the house what it actually is meant to be. Having two chambers with one representing the nations population and one the states is actually a very good system I think - my problem with it is that the House is not that representative of the population. And real representation is something the Republicans will never accept for the foreseeable future because their power is directly tied to the lack of proportional representation. I think Republicans haven't won the popular vote since 1988, with the single exception of 2004 where Bush was carried by 9/11. Voting to make the House actually represent the population would immediately end the Republican party. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28637 Posts
But - most districts are at 95+, many at 99, and there aren't any big, populous republican-friendly districts with a lot of uncounted votes. There are, however, two significant areas remaining: Milwaukee, currently at 82%, with a 70:30 lead for Johnson. There are roughly 63k remaining votes here. If those go at the same split, we get 44k vs 19k - so Johnson catching up by 25k, thus, 7k remaining. Dane is another big one. There, they've progressed further, the count currently being at 93%, giving us roughly 20k remaining votes. There, the current vote is 77% vs 22.5%. Following that pattern, we'd get something like 15.5k vs 4.5k - so democrats getting another 11k more than republicans, putting them 4k ahead. Giving another small D boost is Rock, there's roughly 10k remaining, with current pattern giving 5.5k vs 4.5k, so 1000 more. Obviously there are question marks regarding whether the current trends continue for the rest of the districts, and there's the added question mark of how many remaining votes are found in the uncounted R-friendly districts. (These are like 50 total - but they're mostly very small, and mostly closer to 99% counted.) Actually just looking through it now, I'm noticing Waukesha has about 15k uncounted and they're going 63% republican so far. This fairly quick look gives me the impression that we'll end up with a 4 digit of votes R-win for the Wisconsin senator race. Nevada, with a quick look, simply adding uncounted votes from the various districts and assuming similar voting patterns as we've seen so far, looks like a fairly secure Republican win. There, patterns would have to be kinda significantly different for the final 20% of votes for it to change. Arizona looks like a pretty certain D win. 110k up, and the districts with most remaining votes are currently leading democrat. That'll leave us with 50 R, 49 D, Georgia going to a runoff. Deja vu? | ||
| ||
