EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3826
| 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4773 Posts
On December 07 2022 09:18 BlackJack wrote: Gavin Newsom or Jared Polis. Both popular governors and governors have also historically been more likely to become President than Congresspeople. It's a low bar, but Polis is one of the better Democratic governors, or just statewide elected Democrats. In the last few (or more than a few) decades, the Dems have nominated lots of Senators while the GOP has nominated more governors, though obviously there are exceptions (McCain, Clinton). I think it was maybe Garfield who was the last sitting congressman elected straight to the presidency? It doesn't happen. *** From what I've read over the past few years the turnout model of winning elections is falling out of favor. Just a general impression, I haven't done a study. And again, elections like the one we just had shows it's easier and more successful to get swing voters (they do, in fact, exist) to vote for you then try to turnout low propensity voters. But "turnout" been a well-accepted theory in left-wing politics for a while now so I don't expect it to die immediately. | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10170 Posts
Current voter turnout compared to November looks to be around anywhere from 90-95%, and the breakdowns seems to be almost exactly in line with November as well give or take a point or two. This means that it will come down to how well Democrats did in the GOTV in the cities. If they muster up at least 94%, they'll win. 92-93% might get dicey, and another lower could mean trouble. Unless they somehow pick up a couple of percentage points (Like if Fulton broke +51 for Warnock) | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
Probably a bad idea to disparage early voting and running candidates as bad as Walker in a race that is as competitive as this. The I've seen enough man has called it for Warnock. https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1600317857081872384?s=46&t=xO-3glofQ3qlnnNAoGftqA | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10170 Posts
On December 07 2022 10:28 PhoenixVoid wrote: I'm expecting a Warnock win by 2-4 points. Still a large amount of remaining vote in Atlanta and its suburbs while the rural counties favouring Walker are starting to run dry. Vote margins for Warnock are solid enough while Walker doesn't have the turnout necessary for a win. Probably a bad idea to disparage early voting and running candidates as bad as Walker in a race that is as competitive as this. Definitely err on the lower end of that prediction. Results are holding roughly the same as the last election, Warnock is picking up a point here or there in some counties, but it'll all average out to maybe like a half point gain for Warnock overall unless urban cities turnout big. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10170 Posts
It's probably over at this point unless something radical happens in the urban areas. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10170 Posts
TL Decision Desk projects Warnock will win the Georgia runoff and retain his seat! | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
On December 07 2022 12:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: So what does this mean for the dems in Senate? They lost the house but they have a majority in the Senate. Does anything get passed? Not a whole lot will change for lawmaking because the GOP will hold the House, but the Democrats can pass judges at a much quicker pace now they don't have to abide by a power-sharing rule with Senate Republicans. If a SCOTUS seat ends up vacant, they can also pass a justice with fewer obstacles. Also fun fact: Biden is the first president since FDR in 1934 to not lose a senator in his first midterm. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
On December 07 2022 12:38 PhoenixVoid wrote: Not a whole lot will change for lawmaking because the GOP will hold the House, but the Democrats can pass judges at a much quicker pace now they don't have to abide by a power-sharing rule with Senate Republicans. If a SCOTUS seat ends up vacant, they can also pass a justice with fewer obstacles. Also fun fact: Biden is the first president since FDR in 1934 to not lose a senator in his first midterm. But we know that some Rs will vote with Ds in the House. Is there a bill or some machination that gets bills through the House with support from both? | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On December 07 2022 12:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: So what does this mean for the dems in Senate? They lost the house but they have a majority in the Senate. Does anything get passed? Basically, Democrats will have more power in committees and issuing subpoenas, and Kamala Harris shouldn't be needed on the Hill as much. Manchin and Sinema will also have less power to block the Democrats' agenda but losing the House pretty much makes that point moot imo. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
On December 07 2022 12:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: But we know that some Rs will vote with Ds in the House. Is there a bill or some machination that gets bills through the House with support from both? It can definitely happen. Bipartisan legislation passes all the time. I was more thinking about those flashpoint, party-line bills like the IRA that originated from the Senate. Those will almost certainly be obstructed by the House. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44384 Posts
On December 07 2022 11:51 FlaShFTW wrote: Yeah, it's over. Warnock is gonna win by a clear margin now, about 1-2 point gain in the more relevant counties, and his margins in the outstanding counties are outpacing his November performances. TL Decision Desk projects Warnock will win the Georgia runoff and retain his seat! So happy this is the case! | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
On December 07 2022 12:59 PhoenixVoid wrote: It can definitely happen. Bipartisan legislation passes all the time. I was more thinking about those flashpoint, party-line bills like the IRA that originated from the Senate. Those will almost certainly be obstructed by the House. I agree. But even on the flashpoint bills, there were Rs that went over with the Ds. I guess I'm asking if there is a flashpoint bill pending that would get Rs to vote with the Ds to pass it? Or are looking at party-line all the way with no bipartisan support for "popular" bills? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
On December 07 2022 06:56 ChristianS wrote: @BJ: Candidates tend to come out of primaries bruised. They had to spend a bunch of money already, and members of their own party were trying to tear them down. Maybe that depends a little on how that primary goes but my impression is that most of the 2020 candidates came out less liked than they went in - the fact they already lost once to Joe Biden doesn’t speak well of their ability to drive a movement where he couldn’t. And considering we haven’t had a blue wave since 2018 there’s not a lot of new faces to choose from that we didn’t already examine and discard in 2020. Warnock maybe? AOC? @Drone: Sure, but that’s unusual behavior for approval rating, right? Normally there’d be a lot of movement based on, I dunno, the inflation or the latest scandal or a RATF effect when a war starts or whatever. But Biden’s is doing the same thing Trump’s did: start ~50%, drop somewhere in the 35-45% range at the first controversy, and just kinda stay there for the rest of time. It’s as though by the 100 day mark, almost everybody has decided how they’re gonna answer that question if asked and hardly anybody changes their mind. Thing is, the reason we care is because it used to be predictive of how people will vote, and *that* doesn’t seem to be locked in stone the same way. For both Biden and Trump, there’s apparently a decent chunk of people that say they don’t approve of the President, but will still vote with that team when the time comes, and another decent chunk that won’t but maybe would have under different circumstances. The generic congressional ballot, for instance, moves around as new events happen in a way that *does* seem to be predictive of voting. That’s also kinda intuitive, introspectively? Most people will acknowledge (at least if you ask in the right context) that both parties suck, that every election both candidates seem even worse than the last one, and that they’re voting more against the other team than for their own. So of course everybody’s “approval” is low, right? I don’t “approve” of Joe Biden but I’d sure as hell vote for him over Trump or Desantis right now. Naw there is a significant difference between Biden and Trump. Trump had 48% for one week, by day 11 he was down to 44%. Biden still had 52% after 6 months. There was a considerable chunk of voters who approved but who stopped approving. (His big drop coincided fairly well with Afghanistan withdrawal.) Now of course a huge chunk of voters are determined by party affiliation, and 60% was never attainable. But 52% was - for Biden, but not for Trump. Elections in the US however boil down to margins of a few percentage points in key battleground states, a 10% drop-off matters plenty. And Biden’s needle has moved since then, too - he was down to 38% in summer, but rose to 42% by September, a rise that can be attributed to political wins, and which was probably an element in the relative mid-term success. I mean, the mid-terms also clearly show that the quality of the politician matters. There were 8 point swings between governor and senate races in a few states, swings that made one race go one way and the other race the other way. While you are right that the political climate has changed and that less can be inferred from approval ratings than before, I feel like you're hand-waving away the percentages the polls actually do move - and those few percentages have the potential to be decisive. I'd think hell no to the prospect of battling an incumbent with 52% approval but feel like a 38% approval was an invitation. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11522 Posts
The republican strategy of targetted voter suppression makes it very clear that they also believe this to be true. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On December 07 2022 15:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: Naw there is a significant difference between Biden and Trump. Trump had 48% for one week, by day 11 he was down to 44%. Biden still had 52% after 6 months. There was a considerable chunk of voters who approved but who stopped approving. (His big drop coincided fairly well with Afghanistan withdrawal.) Now of course a huge chunk of voters are determined by party affiliation, and 60% was never attainable. But 52% was - for Biden, but not for Trump. Elections in the US however boil down to margins of a few percentage points in key battleground states, a 10% drop-off matters plenty. And Biden’s needle has moved since then, too - he was down to 38% in summer, but rose to 42% by September, a rise that can be attributed to political wins, and which was probably an element in the relative mid-term success. I mean, the mid-terms also clearly show that the quality of the politician matters. There were 8 point swings between governor and senate races in a few states, swings that made one race go one way and the other race the other way. While you are right that the political climate has changed and that less can be inferred from approval ratings than before, I feel like you're hand-waving away the percentages the polls actually do move - and those few percentages have the potential to be decisive. I'd think hell no to the prospect of battling an incumbent with 52% approval but feel like a 38% approval was an invitation. Sure, if you look at an overlay of Biden’s and Trump’s approval ratings over their presidency (like 538 shows) it’s apparent that Biden started higher and stayed there longer. Trump loses his honeymoon phase almost immediately (basically when he fired Comey iirc), Biden keeps his a bit longer (usually the fall is attributed to the Afghanistan withdrawal). But isn’t it interesting they end up in more or less the same place? And sure, they’re not *perfectly* flat but considering some of the crazy swings both these presidencies have had, isn’t it kind of wild that the movement is, like, drifting from 38 to 42 over a few months before kind of reverting to the mean? I’m not saying candidate quality doesn’t matter, or that 3-4 points isn’t a significant movement in a swing state. But I’m not sure the evidence is very strong that the thing we’re measuring (approval rating) is well-correlated with how people would actually vote. If Biden’s approval rating improves by 4 points by next election do we think that it’s reasonable to assume most races will be more or less the same as this year, but 4 points towards the Dem? If his approval rating doesn’t move at all by then, is it reasonable to assume we’ll get more or less the same outcomes as this year? Because 40 years ago I think it might have meant that. But 40 years ago a president with a 42% approval rating should have gotten slaughtered in the midterms, and 40 years ago the honeymoon period would be like 75%, not 52%. I’m not sure the RATF effect even still happens anymore. My interpretation, at least, is that people answer that question differently than they used to. Their votes are still contingent, their opinions still vary with new events, but you can’t monitor that movement very well by watching the approval rating any more. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28674 Posts
But the point of departure for this discussion, as I perceived it, was whether other republicans should aim for challenging Biden, and whether the incumbency boost or the approval rating is the most important factor.. While I think Biden's approval rating is pretty irrelevant for a match up against Trump, I also think the incumbency boost is. However, I think both are highly relevant for a match up against somebody else - a lower approval rating should, logically, indicate a higher willingness to plunge into the unknown. If there was some hypothetical reasonably unknown Republican who somehow isn't currently on the radar but who could string together a somewhat coherent anti-(illegal)immigrant anti-taxation 'let abortion be decided by the states' 'the election in 2020 was fair' 'gays are okay but some of this new stuff with children changing genders like underwear scares me' then suddenly we'd have an actual campaign on our hands. If such a match up were to happen, I'd picture Biden's approval rating basically ending up being the decider. (While this is obviously a stretch (the notion that such a candidate exists), while he's not my ideal candidate in terms of policy, I think Pete Buttigieg is probably the most gifted democrat politician in the post-Obama era, and I think he was essentially completely unknown nationally at this point of Trump's term, so it shouldn't be impossible.) | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On December 07 2022 16:17 Simberto wrote: The republican strategy of targetted voter suppression makes it very clear that they also believe this to be true. That is correct too. I've gone from hating voting to actually pushing people to vote, which is not something I thought I'd ever do, but ultimately it is necessary and crucial in America | ||
| ||
