|
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 |
5930 Posts
On August 29 2018 10:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2018 10:23 Womwomwom wrote:On August 29 2018 09:46 Danglars wrote:
We’re under 70 days until midterm elections. What’s everybody’s predictions about the state of the House and Senate? I think Dems pick up a single-digit house majority and lose a couple seats in the Senate. I dunno where you're getting that single digit House majority unless its based off a hunch. Majority of poll nerds from 538 to G. Elliott Morris (The Economist) suggest a double digit seat Dem majority in the House is the likely outcome. From memory, Nate Silver is also suggesting that the Dems are either going to get that double digit majority or get wiped. The Senate is harder to predict mostly because there's just not a whole lot of quality polling despite the high media exposure a lot of them get. Reps are probably going to lose Arizona (Flake retiring, the Rep replacements are all awful) and Nevada (Heller trying to torpedo his seat with the ACA vote). Tennessee (popular Dem candidate, Corker retiring) and Texas (Cruz has some disgustingly bad disapproval ratings, Beto is swimming in cash and seems to be energizing younger non-voters) are the only other seats they could lose. Seats that at risk for Dems are ND, MO, IN and FL. Heitkamp and McCaskill are tied with their opponents but could probably scrape through. Dunno about Donnelly. Nelson is probably toast, he hasn't got the cash or exposure Scott has. I think the safest bet is that the Dems will get a 1-3 seat loss in the Senate come November, On August 29 2018 10:11 Nebuchad wrote:
Looks like Gillum is taking Florida on the democratic side (governor), that's nice. Another opportunity to see how a strong progressive message runs again a message of "Trump is a human being that exists" FL Dems are typically awful. Gillium is absolutely the right choice, Graham seems to be toxic in South Florida. They might as well sit this fight out if she manages to win. Yes, my predictions are contrary to most polling organizations. The majority of poll nerds and my personal prediction for the 2016 was dead wrong and I’m prepared to be wrong again.
If we're not basing our predictions on anything, there's really nothing to discuss if our predictions are going to be Charles Barkley grade ("jump shooting teams don't win") that are based off nothing but feelings.
There were a few poll nerds who were egregiously wrong (Sam Wang comes to mind) but the majority were more or less correct in their predictions. Nate Cohen and his crew at NYT predicted 85% and Nate Silver and his 538 crew predicted ~75% from memory, both of which are not 100%. Despite the huge abnormalities (Trump being an outside candidate, universal hatred for Clinton from both left and right, Comey's letter like a week before the election), they pretty much correctly determined the popular vote margin as well as how he'd win the election.
Considering the more normal circumstances behind these elections as well as significantly improved Democratic enthusiasm and turnout in special elections and primaries, I don't see much reason to believe that they're going to be "dead wrong".
|
I think a single digit lead is a pretty fair prediction even considering the polling data we have. I don't know of any significant improvement to the polling system and expecting a similar, if smaller, drift in the results is pretty reasonable to expect..
The problem with democratic enthusiasm argument as evident from the last election is that you need a positive reason to vote for the other guy and the democrats don't exactly have the most put together house at the moment.
|
On August 29 2018 12:35 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2018 10:53 Danglars wrote:On August 29 2018 10:23 Womwomwom wrote:On August 29 2018 09:46 Danglars wrote:
We’re under 70 days until midterm elections. What’s everybody’s predictions about the state of the House and Senate? I think Dems pick up a single-digit house majority and lose a couple seats in the Senate. I dunno where you're getting that single digit House majority unless its based off a hunch. Majority of poll nerds from 538 to G. Elliott Morris (The Economist) suggest a double digit seat Dem majority in the House is the likely outcome. From memory, Nate Silver is also suggesting that the Dems are either going to get that double digit majority or get wiped. The Senate is harder to predict mostly because there's just not a whole lot of quality polling despite the high media exposure a lot of them get. Reps are probably going to lose Arizona (Flake retiring, the Rep replacements are all awful) and Nevada (Heller trying to torpedo his seat with the ACA vote). Tennessee (popular Dem candidate, Corker retiring) and Texas (Cruz has some disgustingly bad disapproval ratings, Beto is swimming in cash and seems to be energizing younger non-voters) are the only other seats they could lose. Seats that at risk for Dems are ND, MO, IN and FL. Heitkamp and McCaskill are tied with their opponents but could probably scrape through. Dunno about Donnelly. Nelson is probably toast, he hasn't got the cash or exposure Scott has. I think the safest bet is that the Dems will get a 1-3 seat loss in the Senate come November, On August 29 2018 10:11 Nebuchad wrote:
Looks like Gillum is taking Florida on the democratic side (governor), that's nice. Another opportunity to see how a strong progressive message runs again a message of "Trump is a human being that exists" FL Dems are typically awful. Gillium is absolutely the right choice, Graham seems to be toxic in South Florida. They might as well sit this fight out if she manages to win. Yes, my predictions are contrary to most polling organizations. The majority of poll nerds and my personal prediction for the 2016 was dead wrong and I’m prepared to be wrong again. If we're not basing our predictions on anything, there's really nothing to discuss if our predictions are going to be Charles Barkley grade ("jump shooting teams don't win") that are based off nothing but feelings. There were a few poll nerds who were egregiously wrong (Sam Wang comes to mind) but the majority were more or less correct in their predictions. Nate Cohen and his crew at NYT predicted 85% and Nate Silver and his 538 crew predicted ~75% from memory, both of which are not 100%. Despite the huge abnormalities (Trump being an outside candidate, universal hatred for Clinton from both left and right, Comey's letter like a week before the election), they pretty much correctly determined the popular vote margin as well as how he'd win the election. Considering the more normal circumstances behind these elections as well as significantly improved Democratic enthusiasm and turnout in special elections and primaries, I don't see much reason to believe that they're going to be "dead wrong".
That's all well and good sweeping the universal perceptions under the carpet that were wrong, and focusing on what we knew that was right. I've spent some time reviewing this thread in the months prior to Trump's election. It was a sure bet! No way Trump wins. Reason #1, #2, #3, #4 why Clinton's unfavorability wouldn't carry the day, and how the outsider was just so universally disliked and flawed and Trump's October surprise was just too damaging for the country.
I may have had an inkling then that, should Clinton lose, the usual suspects would come forward with the half-hearted notions that 85% was not 100%, and they were basically right in being so wrong.
I think at this near moment, the blue wave will materialize, but not be as large as some pollsters predict. The Dems have been pretty bad at fielding candidates in many races. The national Democratic party is a bunch of uninspiring, sexegenarian/septuagenarian political machine types that are barely waking up on superdelegates and having their own message. That weighs against the built-in backlash against the sitting president in the midterm following, as happened with Obama and Republicans' histioric House gain against him. Those are among my reasons for doubting as big a gain as others have predicted.
Hell, 70 days in Trump era is enough for huge changes. And the sitting president is still under investigation, with leaks everywhere from Mueller's guys to his own administrative state. It almost feels like too far out to make a prediction, but you have mine. And no, I won't be saying I was more or less correct if Republicans hold, or Democrats own the House by double digits.
|
5930 Posts
What metric are you using when making the claim that "Dems have been pretty bad at fielding candidates in many races"?
Democrats are practically competing in every seat they can, a first in decades where Reps are running uncontested in 20 seats while Dems are running uncontested in 80 seats. From memory, this is the first time in like 30 years that the entirety of Texas is contested. You can't say they're not fielding diverse candidates either, a good number are women or people of colour.
If your argument is that the Dem candidates cannot push out incumbents then sure that's an argument you can make. But I dunno where you get the idea they're "bad at fielding candidates". In a lot of cases they're fielding candidates that are generating high fundraising and increasing turnout while simultaneously pushing out third way Democrats.
The national Democratic party is a bunch of uninspiring, sexegenarian/septuagenarian political machine types that are barely waking up on superdelegates and having their own message. That weighs against the built-in backlash against the sitting president in the midterm following, as happened with Obama and Republicans' histioric House gain against him. Those are among my reasons for doubting as big a gain as others have predicted.
Which isn't as important for the House, which is where the Dems are making gains because they are fielding candidates that are not "a bunch of uninspiring, sexegenarian/septuagenarian political machine types". These are problems for incumbent Democratic senators, who are exactly what you described, and are exactly the ones who are the ones likely to get wiped.
Just today you had Andrew Gillum, a 39 year old black man, push out Gwen Graham who is as political machine as you can imagine. He's not running for a house seat but he's absolutely representative of the type of Dem candidates springing up all over the place.
|
On August 29 2018 13:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2018 12:35 Womwomwom wrote:On August 29 2018 10:53 Danglars wrote:On August 29 2018 10:23 Womwomwom wrote:On August 29 2018 09:46 Danglars wrote:
We’re under 70 days until midterm elections. What’s everybody’s predictions about the state of the House and Senate? I think Dems pick up a single-digit house majority and lose a couple seats in the Senate. I dunno where you're getting that single digit House majority unless its based off a hunch. Majority of poll nerds from 538 to G. Elliott Morris (The Economist) suggest a double digit seat Dem majority in the House is the likely outcome. From memory, Nate Silver is also suggesting that the Dems are either going to get that double digit majority or get wiped. The Senate is harder to predict mostly because there's just not a whole lot of quality polling despite the high media exposure a lot of them get. Reps are probably going to lose Arizona (Flake retiring, the Rep replacements are all awful) and Nevada (Heller trying to torpedo his seat with the ACA vote). Tennessee (popular Dem candidate, Corker retiring) and Texas (Cruz has some disgustingly bad disapproval ratings, Beto is swimming in cash and seems to be energizing younger non-voters) are the only other seats they could lose. Seats that at risk for Dems are ND, MO, IN and FL. Heitkamp and McCaskill are tied with their opponents but could probably scrape through. Dunno about Donnelly. Nelson is probably toast, he hasn't got the cash or exposure Scott has. I think the safest bet is that the Dems will get a 1-3 seat loss in the Senate come November, On August 29 2018 10:11 Nebuchad wrote:
Looks like Gillum is taking Florida on the democratic side (governor), that's nice. Another opportunity to see how a strong progressive message runs again a message of "Trump is a human being that exists" FL Dems are typically awful. Gillium is absolutely the right choice, Graham seems to be toxic in South Florida. They might as well sit this fight out if she manages to win. Yes, my predictions are contrary to most polling organizations. The majority of poll nerds and my personal prediction for the 2016 was dead wrong and I’m prepared to be wrong again. If we're not basing our predictions on anything, there's really nothing to discuss if our predictions are going to be Charles Barkley grade ("jump shooting teams don't win") that are based off nothing but feelings. There were a few poll nerds who were egregiously wrong (Sam Wang comes to mind) but the majority were more or less correct in their predictions. Nate Cohen and his crew at NYT predicted 85% and Nate Silver and his 538 crew predicted ~75% from memory, both of which are not 100%. Despite the huge abnormalities (Trump being an outside candidate, universal hatred for Clinton from both left and right, Comey's letter like a week before the election), they pretty much correctly determined the popular vote margin as well as how he'd win the election. Considering the more normal circumstances behind these elections as well as significantly improved Democratic enthusiasm and turnout in special elections and primaries, I don't see much reason to believe that they're going to be "dead wrong". That's all well and good sweeping the universal perceptions under the carpet that were wrong, and focusing on what we knew that was right. I've spent some time reviewing this thread in the months prior to Trump's election. It was a sure bet! No way Trump wins. Reason #1, #2, #3, #4 why Clinton's unfavorability wouldn't carry the day, and how the outsider was just so universally disliked and flawed and Trump's October surprise was just too damaging for the country. I may have had an inkling then that, should Clinton lose, the usual suspects would come forward with the half-hearted notions that 85% was not 100%, and they were basically right in being so wrong. I think at this near moment, the blue wave will materialize, but not be as large as some pollsters predict. The Dems have been pretty bad at fielding candidates in many races. The national Democratic party is a bunch of uninspiring, sexegenarian/septuagenarian political machine types that are barely waking up on superdelegates and having their own message. That weighs against the built-in backlash against the sitting president in the midterm following, as happened with Obama and Republicans' histioric House gain against him. Those are among my reasons for doubting as big a gain as others have predicted. Hell, 70 days in Trump era is enough for huge changes. And the sitting president is still under investigation, with leaks everywhere from Mueller's guys to his own administrative state. It almost feels like too far out to make a prediction, but you have mine. And no, I won't be saying I was more or less correct if Republicans hold, or Democrats own the House by double digits.
I mean... Trump did lose the popular vote by the largest majority in US history. I think he would have lost in almost any country in the western hemisphere except for the USA. The popular vote is irrelevant for who actually runs the country, but ignoring it in order to pretend that people hated Clinton more than Trump is self-serving at best. People blatantly hated Trump more, they just didn't hate Trump more in the right places.
As for how the midterms go? Dunno. From everything I've seen and read up on, it looks like the Dems have a bit of a hill to climb to get there, but the momentum is pretty obviously on their side. They're winning things they should be losing left and right. But will the voters actually turn out when it counts? It's a difficult X factor in the American system. It's been a left wing truth on your shores that if young people actually voted the Republicans would mostly get massacred... but they don't. The voting demographic in America skews brutally towards the older groups.
At least, going by sources like this one: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/14/younger-generations-make-up-a-majority-of-the-electorate-but-may-not-be-a-majority-of-voters-this-november/
So it seems to me like Democrats are trumpeting that they've got the unwavering support of the largest collection of mutes ever known. That seems to lay the groundwork for another crushing disappointment, to me.
|
5930 Posts
Its the story of Beto vs Cruz.
Beto is +19 with those 18-34 and +8 with those 35-54. Cruz is +17 with those 55-74 and +22 with those over 74. Its as close as you can get to a generational divide. Younger people really like Beto, older people really like Cruz. Younger people always have awful turnout compared to older people who are a super reliable voting bloc. Beto might actually have a chance because no one actually likes Cruz and Beto's been proactive about not accepting PAC donations and visiting the entire state. Considering the partisan lean of Texas, the number of undecided voters is probably not a terrible thing for Beto.
When young people vote, I think we generally see the more left candidate typically wins. Gillum beat Graham off the back of younger voters who helped push him over the line at the last minute (and also give the Democratic Party their one of their best turnout results ever). If Nelson's ass is getting rescued in November, its going to be Gillum driving turnout and not because he did anything good.
On August 29 2018 20:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2018 12:54 Sermokala wrote:
I think a single digit lead is a pretty fair prediction even considering the polling data we have. I don't know of any significant improvement to the polling system and expecting a similar, if smaller, drift in the results is pretty reasonable to expect..
The problem with democratic enthusiasm argument as evident from the last election is that you need a positive reason to vote for the other guy and the democrats don't exactly have the most put together house at the moment. I think the problem is more coverage; the dems can put together a good positive reason to vote for them; but those reasons are fairly dry, and in the crazy times we live in they simply don't generate enough coverage for people to hear those reasons enough to remember them. then again, ads buys focusing on those positive reasons should provide enough coverage, hmmmm. I wonder what % of the ad buys focus on those reasons.
The Democratic candidate is often bad at campaigning and doesn't understand media interaction. Nelson doing fuck all while Scott is blanketing the state with advertisements and engagement tours is a perfect example.
Candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can knock off their incumbents because they understand that you have to do the hard yards at the at the coal face. Its the main reason why Clinton couldn't hold the Midwest.
|
On August 29 2018 12:54 Sermokala wrote:
I think a single digit lead is a pretty fair prediction even considering the polling data we have. I don't know of any significant improvement to the polling system and expecting a similar, if smaller, drift in the results is pretty reasonable to expect..
The problem with democratic enthusiasm argument as evident from the last election is that you need a positive reason to vote for the other guy and the democrats don't exactly have the most put together house at the moment.
I think the problem is more coverage; the dems can put together a good positive reason to vote for them; but those reasons are fairly dry, and in the crazy times we live in they simply don't generate enough coverage for people to hear those reasons enough to remember them.
then again, ads buys focusing on those positive reasons should provide enough coverage, hmmmm. I wonder what % of the ad buys focus on those reasons.
|
This story is troubling and something the Trump administration would totally do. It is sort of amusing that they thought the former CIA officer wouldn’t notice the Super PAC had information they shouldn’t have. But amusement aside, all of this is illegal. No one should have government security applications, especially super PACs. And if they did get a copy of one, they should have reported it to the FBI.
|
Turning more and more into the Watergate speed run so often talked about. You'd think somebody that was surrounded by talk of impeachment would try to avoid doing things that other people got impeached for. The "enemies list" parallel gets clearer and clearer.
|
I think it is getting a bit slow for a watergate speedrun. Afaik the whole watergate thing took about 2 years, which is how far we are into this thing too. (I know, it feels strange, but this stuff has actually been going on for two years now)
|
On August 29 2018 22:21 Simberto wrote:
I think it is getting a bit slow for a watergate speedrun. Afaik the whole watergate thing took about 2 years, which is how far we are into this thing too. (I know, it feels strange, but this stuff has actually been going on for two years now)
Two years in to the second term. It took Nixon 4 full years to get here Trump started out at.
|
On August 29 2018 13:38 Womwomwom wrote:What metric are you using when making the claim that "Dems have been pretty bad at fielding candidates in many races"? Democrats are practically competing in every seat they can, a first in decades where Reps are running uncontested in 20 seats while Dems are running uncontested in 80 seats. From memory, this is the first time in like 30 years that the entirety of Texas is contested. You can't say they're not fielding diverse candidates either, a good number are women or people of colour. If your argument is that the Dem candidates cannot push out incumbents then sure that's an argument you can make. But I dunno where you get the idea they're "bad at fielding candidates". In a lot of cases they're fielding candidates that are generating high fundraising and increasing turnout while simultaneously pushing out third way Democrats. Show nested quote +The national Democratic party is a bunch of uninspiring, sexegenarian/septuagenarian political machine types that are barely waking up on superdelegates and having their own message. That weighs against the built-in backlash against the sitting president in the midterm following, as happened with Obama and Republicans' histioric House gain against him. Those are among my reasons for doubting as big a gain as others have predicted. Which isn't as important for the House, which is where the Dems are making gains because they are fielding candidates that are not "a bunch of uninspiring, sexegenarian/septuagenarian political machine types". These are problems for incumbent Democratic senators, who are exactly what you described, and are exactly the ones who are the ones likely to get wiped. Just today you had Andrew Gillum, a 39 year old black man, push out Gwen Graham who is as political machine as you can imagine. He's not running for a house seat but he's absolutely representative of the type of Dem candidates springing up all over the place.
You have to have a pretty twisty definition of establishment to make it so Gillum isn't included. He was a Clinton delegate in 2016, had a speaking slot at the 2016 national convention, and was listed as a potential VP in the Podesta emails (on the "longlist"). He's been in government since 2003. Also, George Soros and Tom Steyer both donated to him (that's totally going to be an attack in the general).
This is more a case of a better, but somewhat lesser known, candidate who was willing to put in the work doing retail politics beating a better known one with more fundraising. I wouldn't say much more than that.
|
Didn't Roger Stone say some where Mueller is indicting Trump Jr next for lying to the FBI? I mean, speed run it is, I feel like this is all trying to happen before the midterms, just like it did before the presidential election.
My blood boils, I don't understand how some people become lawyers if they can't even spend the time researching their own "facts". I just overheard a lawyer call Gillum some racial slurs, along with having her facts about him completely wrong. I just don't get it. How do they become lawyers? Is the bar not that hard to pass?...
Gillum also ins't as establishment as you expect Tick. He's not a millionaire, so that's one. Guy grew up in one of the worst ghettos in Miami, that's two. And is a random dude who made it by doing what he speaks from what I learned about him.
|
On August 29 2018 22:49 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Didn't Roger Stone say some where Mueller is indicting Trump Jr next for lying to the FBI? I mean, speed run it is, I feel like this is all trying to happen before the midterms, just like it did before the presidential election.
My blood boils, I don't understand how some people become lawyers if they can't even spend the time researching their own "facts". I just overheard a lawyer call Gillum some racial slurs, along with having her facts about him completely wrong. I just don't get it. How do they become lawyers? Is the bar not that hard to pass?...
Gillum also ins't as establishment as you expect Tick. He's not a millionaire, so that's one. Guy grew up in one of the worst ghettos in Miami, that's two. And is a random dude who made it by doing what he speaks from what I learned about him. Giuliani is a lawyer, that kind of says it at this point right?
On August 29 2018 21:35 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/nedprice/status/1034602286541144065This story is troubling and something the Trump administration would totally do. It is sort of amusing that they thought the former CIA officer wouldn’t notice the Super PAC had information they shouldn’t have. But amusement aside, all of this is illegal. No one should have government security applications, especially super PACs. And if they did get a copy of one, they should have reported it to the FBI.
I'd put the odds of a full scale investigation into how someone obtained classified information when it is leaked should be near 100%.
Something tells me Trump won't put a lot of priority on it. Hopefully the relevant institutions do the investigation without telling him.
|
Being a lawyer is just a profession, not a magical stamp of quality. Like doctors, the quality of lawyer varies wildly and not all of them are good at the same things.
|
|
|
I would see it as awful overreach into free press. Freedom of speech is reasons why National Enquirer exist (a conspiracy tabloid in America)... He also overturned the only law that would have regulated his "negative" press, you know, net neutrality. So maybe they are showing only negative news about him...
|
I want to see Google taken to task, but preferably by congress through a form of formal regulation. Trump isn’t wrong that their website is “biased”, but its biased towards the user. It feeds you what you want to see and I don’t think google discloses that or gives people an option to turn that off. And they are the least of the offenders too. Facebook is way more aggressive with that tactic.
But conservatives in the House have been trying to influence the media though these tech companies for a while. Its time for the Democrats and others to get in on the game, regulate these companies and bring back some sort of fairness doctrine that forces companies to weed out the yellow journalism of the internet.
On August 29 2018 23:29 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I would see it as awful overreach into free press. Freedom of speech is reasons why National Enquirer exist (a conspiracy tabloid in America)... He also overturned the only law that would have regulated his "negative" press, you know, net neutrality. So maybe they are showing only negative news about him...
The National Enquirer and others like it are not news. They don’t even try to claim that they are. Unlike Fox NEWS, they don’t even have a true reporting staff and will say they are entertainment at the drop of a hat. They don’t want to be seen as news, so the public does not threat them as such.
In contrast, clowns on youtube talking about the news are the same thing, but don’t really make the distinction.
|
The basic idea is valid. Big web companies like google or facebook are in dire need of some regulations. The Trump administration should not be regulating a backyard sale, let alone anything relevant. You can see that from the start of their argument. It is not an argument about ensuring well informed voters in a functioning democracy. Or about ensuring fair competition in the news industry. Both of those would be valid reasons for looking into regulations of internet giants.
But the Trump reason is "because they say mean things about Trump". That is not a good reason for a government to be regulating things. The main value of an independent media is them being able to inform if the government does bad things. Trump makes it very clear that he sees any bad news about himself or his government as "fake", and thinks that it shouldn't exist. The government should never have the power to shut up dissenters, and i cannot see how any regulations based on such a fundamentally flawed goal could ever be sensible and in favor of the public. They will always only be in favor of the Trump clique.
What you would need to pass sensible regulations would first be a different goal, and then an institutionalized way to make sure that the regulations actually serve that goal, and not the goal of turning media into government propaganda. I do not see anything related to Trump as capable of that.
|
One of the things to remember is this has nothing to do with freedom of the press. Google is not the press, it is a broadcast network that carries different news outlets. Same with Facebook and Twitter(though to a lesser extent). They don’t generate anything, they just broadcast it to whoever tunes in and use software to pick what the viewers get to see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
