Recent Posts
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 19, 2024, 03:04:26 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

Filter Options Collapse
        


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 03:02:15 PM 
Started by Vice President Christian Man - Last post by LAKISYLVANIA
Obviously complicated but IMO:

-France: This is a less informed take, but both have kind of weird legacies of early revolutions and a tendency towards culture war politics.

It's a less informed take because it makes no sense

Maybe for the 19th century, it makes sense, but we live in the 21st century. When answering this question, i look to how the states are established in the 21st century, nobody really evaluates Germany too based on that it used to be the Holy Roman Empire...

France basically is the western country closest to a form of democratic socialism with well established and strong labor unions and labor laws.

USA is basically the opposite of that and the furthest away of that.

In fact one could argue, France is the least political similar to USA within the western world.

 2 
 on: Today at 03:00:17 PM 
Started by Woody - Last post by The Economy is Getting Worse
Biden is failing to give younger, nonwhite, and working class voters any reason to vote for him

He has steadily improved in the polls since the SOTU, yeah the state by state polls Lean Trump but the NPVI is Leaning Biden Marist had it Biden +3 do you know what a Biden +5 victory can be 360 EC votes with TX
Biden has good instincts and know he needs to focus on kitchen table issues, which is the same playbook Obama and Clinton used effectively. Sadly his staffers insist he focuses on culture war issues and divisive pandering, which is why democrats have slid big time with working class voters over the last 30 years.
If Biden had good instincts he would not be running again after 9% inflation, multiple foreign policy failures, and a migrant crisis.

 3 
 on: Today at 03:00:12 PM 
Started by iceman - Last post by 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
Georgia is the only state that was remotely close in 2020 where blacks make up a clear majority of Democratic voters. So it would take only a small change in the black vote to flip the state all else being equal. I would look for it most in somewhat integrated areas with a lot of young people.

 4 
 on: Today at 03:00:03 PM 
Started by DrScholl - Last post by Fuzzy Bear
This was dumb and everyone involved came out of it looking like a childish moron

Maybe, but going the "high road" hasn't really helped the Democrats. MTG definitely deserves to be called out for her BS. Unfortunately the times so far have a changed and Republicans have no desire to actually return to having good faith discussions over issues as it should be and as you should expect from lawmakers (who should actually act as role models).

It’s not about the high road, it’s about messaging.  Congress devolving into argument about whether Crockett has false eyelashes or MTG bleaches her hair (which btw, who cares if either of those are true?  What are they, 12?  Get a thicker skin people Roll Eyes ) while Comer uselessly flails around in a pathetically incompetent effort to restore order just made everyone look like obnoxious bickering children.  A big part of Democrats’ pitch is supposed to be “we’re the grown ups, you can trust us not to burn the House down even if you don’t love everything about us, whereas the other option is a rabid, lawless, deranged mob.” 

This, too. Democrats are supposed to be the mature ones, and too bad if it involves biting our tongues sometimes. You can already see the both-siders making this a both sides thing. Mind you, there are enough low-info voters who actually think that simplistically, and if Crockett hadn't retaliated, there would be simply no way of both-siding. It would serve as another classic example of the GOP being classless and being unable to rein in its members. Now we're hearing the traditional both sides bullsh**t that "they both are wrong," and unfortunately, it's all a wash.

Both parties should be censured.  If they can be fined, they should be fined as well.  And the leadership of both parties should relegate them to less politicized committees.

That, of course will not solve the problem.  Nor is this the first time we have been here.  There were fist fights and a vicious caning in the Halls of Congress leading up to the Civil War, and this is part of the process that led up to secession and the Civil War.  (Many Congressmen were living in dumpy rooming houses and heavily drinking, as DC wasn't the swinging town it is now.) 

I do think that the people of North Georgia could elect a more effective advocate for their causes than MTG.  I would certainly support a primary challenger. 

It's funny you should mention this. I read The Field of Blood by Joanne Freeman a few years back and recently began perusing it again (will probably reread it when I have more time over the summer) - it details numerous instances of such antebellum bedlam. The parallels between the southern Democrats of the 1850s and the GOP of today, between the northerners of the 1850s and the Democrats of today, is quite striking.

I don't consider the GOP today as being the Fire Eaters of the 1800s.  The Fire Eaters were a minority then, and the "Progressive" caucuses (the "Squad", other "Democratic Socialists", etc.) are a minority within the Democratic Party today, but they are a Tail That Wags The Dog much as the Fire Eaters were in 1860.

Had the Fire Eaters not controlled the 1860 Democratic National Convention (held, of all places, in Charleston, SC), the Democrats would have likely nominated Stephen A. Douglas in a unified convention without a need for the Fire Eaters to put on a show for the Home Folks if the convention was held in a different city.  Whatever the virtues and vices of Stephen A. Douglas were, had there been no Breckenridge and no Bell running, he'd have likely been elected President and there would likely have been no Civil War.  That, of course, begs the question of slavery; Lincoln's election cost us the Civil War (a truly awful war that was described as "The First Modern War), but gained the Emancipation, which many say would have come about eventually without the war, but don't really present compelling facts as to how that would have come about other than the kind of war we had that was, in fact, over that issue.

The big difference here is that we now have ideologically based parties.  This is a new development; the GOP had a significant number of liberals through the 1970s, and the Democrats had a significant number of conservatives through the 1970s as well. What happened was an end to the seniority system and the election of committee chairs by the Democratic Caucus.  Suddenly, you could no longer be a Rep. F. Edward Hebert (D-LA) or a Rep. Jamie Whitten (D-MS); you had to moderate your record.  Hebert would not and was ousted from his chair at Armed Services.  Whiten turned into a reliable Democratic vote and became chair of the Appropriations Committee.  That ideological realignment has now become complete; there is more ideological conformity in both parties now than at any time before in our history.  I expect the loggerheads to continue, to be honest.





 5 
 on: Today at 02:58:41 PM 
Started by Conservatopia - Last post by JimJamUK
At least some Tories now seem to be advocating wholesale destrudtion of our further education sector - one of our few success stories recently - and all just to grab a few newspaper headlines.

Nihilistic vandalism.
They are advocating the elimination of less useful degrees by keeping the real terms cut in university funding and getting rid of many international students. The problem is that courses judged socially useful and which provide a better return on investment for students are also often the more expensive courses that rely on cross-subsidising from the fees of cheaper to run courses as well as international students paying higher tuition fees.

 6 
 on: Today at 02:57:20 PM 
Started by DPKdebator - Last post by Cokeland Saxton
Wyoming rule

 7 
 on: Today at 02:55:30 PM 
Started by heatcharger - Last post by Rubensim
So trump campaigning in Virginia Minnesota and in a few days plan for a rally in new York city?
Seem like trump trying to cut the soft underbelly of the democrats by doing rally in these states But now how do you think Joe going to respond?.

 8 
 on: Today at 02:55:15 PM 
Started by Greedo punched first - Last post by Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope
I think either Burgum or Scott, depending on if he wants his new Mike Pence to play up the "inoffensive midwestern governor" angle or the "sexually confused evangelical sycophant" angle. Figured it would have been Noem before the whole dog thing, and for whatever reason I don't really see him picking a woman anymore.

 9 
 on: Today at 02:54:29 PM 
Started by GeorgiaModerate - Last post by LAKISYLVANIA
My ratings as of today would be this:


Mine are this




No data backs it up either.

Imagine thinking kansas is likely R in this environment...

Michigan is no lean D state (and neither is PA, President Johnson). Again no data backs that up, just are ratings based on wishy-washy thinking or personal gut feelings and ignoring that Biden is in trouble.

Might very well change in 6 months from now but if you really believe that, than don't make a map at all...

To observe an election, one has to be neutral and detached in order to have the best chance of accurately predicting the election. It's why i did well in 2018 - predicting all winning senators correctly - and correctly predicted the 2016 and 2020 winners despite not being an American. In fact, not being an American arguably helped, since i'm not as invested in this race as some of users are here...

It's my number 1 rule if one does online betting. Never bet on something you are invested in, because that clouds your judgment.

I would argue that other than messy polls, barely any fundamentals back up that Trump is indeed winning. Presidents usually get reelected unless they completely screwed up and/or presided over an economic recession. The polls overall show a close race most of the time, but are overall inconsistent and were off in both directions over the last few cycles. Even the higher quality polls usually don't mean so much as they're snapshots in time and can change either way.

Overall you still might consider Pennsylvania as a tossup (and tilt means Trump would at least have a 40-49% chance to win). Then I would move both this one and North Carolina as tossup.

I'm very sorry but the fundamentals actually do favour Trump. The only reason why it isn't a foregone conclusion yet...

is because he's running against Trump, someone almost as unpopular as he is.

In every other cycle he was DOA, simply because of his age, disapproval ratings, lack of progressive/grassroots support and the not so great economy - even if you are in denial about an economic recession, most Americans would simply disagree with that.

For presidential races, the polls actually underestimated Trump. Like, you are betting/hoping on an underestimation of Biden, which isn't really grounded in objective reasoning, but more in wishful thinking.

The only thing i agree with you on is that time is on Biden's side and that a lot can change in six months. But as of now, things don't look great for Biden.

 10 
 on: Today at 02:51:31 PM 
Started by Samof94 - Last post by Cokeland Saxton
No. It's its own religion

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 10 queries.