Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 21, 2017, 04:51:32 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 1213
101  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The GOP's best solution on health care on: January 13, 2017, 05:56:55 pm
I was half-joking. You're right that it probably wouldn't pass.

But politically, it's the only way I can see them possibly both technically keeping their promise and not causing themselves a catastrophe.

I think it's quite possible that no plan is actually able to pass in the end, and so current law remains intact.  Remember that while they can defund the current law with 50 votes in the Senate plus a majority in the House, they can't actually change insurance regulations without being subject to a Democratic filibuster, and good luck with that.

So Trump and others insist on it being "repeal and replace" rather than just "repeal and nothing", but they can't actually get the votes to pass their "replace" option, so nothing passes, and Trump tries to blame the Dems for thwarting his election promise.
102  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rep. John Lewis "I do not consider the president-elect to be legitimate" on: January 13, 2017, 05:51:31 pm
Is he suggesting that Trump's parent were unmarried when he was born?
103  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who is most likely to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination? on: January 13, 2017, 05:43:42 pm
Warren if she runs.

how does Warren appeal to any of HRC's coaltion outside of maybe older white women? She'll need more than that + Sanders 2016 to win a primary. You could even make the case that it's Sanders' 2016 voters who are more likely to splinter into different factions than HRC's voters are (who are much more "establishment" oriented, and if Booker becomes favored among them, I just don't see how anyone overcomes him). Maybe she can win a one-on-one, but in a multi-candidate field, I just don't see how Booker isn't well-positioned. Fwiw, I don't believe for a minute that Biden will run, but if he did, he seems like the most likely threat to Booker's "establishment" grip.

There's no reason to believe that the more "establishment"-friendly voters are all going to line up behind one person.  Heck, look at the 2016 GOP primary.  There were at least a half dozen "establishment" candidates who all ran.  For that matter, which coalition of voters support the "establishment" candidate changes from one election to the next.  Look at the Clinton 2008 primary coalition vs. the Clinton 2016 primary coalition.  It's a very different group of people.

In any case, at least so far, there seem to be more "establishment"-friendly Dems angling to run for president in 2020, if you count Booker, Castro, Cuomo, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar among their ranks.  (Does O'Malley count among that group too, because I don't think he's ever been embraced by the progressive wing?)  On the other side, I think Warren has a decent shot of scooping up the bulk of the "progressive insurgent" side of the electorate, *if* neither Brown nor Sanders run.  And Sanders is really old, so might be deterred from running based on age.  And Brown hasn't really done anything to indicate interest yet, unlike the other names I mentioned.  (And he even gave a soft denial interest the other day, though I guess you could argue that he has to play down any presidential ambitions he might have for now, because he faces a tougher 2018 reelection than the others do.)

So it seems at least *plausible* that Warren gets a big enough share of support from her faction to get plurality victories in the early primaries, and then goes on to consolidate support from there.  I mean, it's so early that who can say, but that's why I'd tentatively count her as the frontrunner.
104  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Will we ever have a president born in the 1950's? on: January 13, 2017, 05:23:31 pm
It now looks like Pence is the leading possibility for "president born in the 50s", if we ever have one.  Though there are a handful of possibilities on the Democratic side for 2020: Sherrod Brown, Andrew Cuomo, John Hickenlooper, Deval Patrick....

But there seem to be more 2020 Dems born in either the 40s or 60s.  Tongue
105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How can progressives enthusiastically support Booker in a Dem primary? on: January 13, 2017, 05:03:22 pm

I'm not sure, but it looks like that may have been an accidental retweet.  From this context:

https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/276834377370058753

it looks like he was arguing with the guy, and may have done an accidental retweet of the guy he was arguing with?

But I'm not a Twitter aficionado, so I may have that wrong.
106  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who is most likely to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination? on: January 13, 2017, 03:45:57 pm
For those looking for entertainment, here's our January 2013 poll on who would win the 2016 GOP nomination:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=168343.0
107  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Who is most likely to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination? on: January 13, 2017, 03:44:22 pm
I don’t think we’ve had one of these polls since November (right after the election), so time to do another one….
108  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: latest Betfair odds on: January 13, 2017, 02:33:31 pm
Do they have which party will win yet?

Betfair's market on that is still very low volume, so adds up to way more than 100%.  But every bookie now has the Dems as being at least slightly favored to win.  E.g., Ladbrokes has it as 58% chance of the Dems winning, 42% for the GOP.  Most of the others have it a bit closer.
109  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: PSA: Voters don't give a f[inks] who endorsed who four years ago on: January 13, 2017, 02:16:45 pm
The idea that they do is based on Atlas nerds assuming all voters think like they do. I laugh at the idea Tulsi Gabbard automatically inherits all 13 million+ Sanders votes if she runs for this reason (and of course the notion that "Bernie Bros" made up the majority of Sanders supporters and not just some neckbeards on Reddit) and that working class white Democrats want to punish Sherrod Brown for endorsing Hillary or whatever. Most voters don't even KNOW who endorsed someone four years ago.

I'd go even farther than that, and note that the "Sanders coalition" is heavily dependent on college kids, and most of the college kids of 2020 are still in high school now, and probably paying little attention to politics.  Whatever ~10 million+ votes the next Sanders-like candidate gets will largely come from voters who are currently too young to vote (slight exaggeration).  Tongue
110  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: latest Betfair odds on: January 13, 2017, 12:14:06 pm
Betfair's now taking bets on whether the following people will run for prez in 2020:

Booker 73
Cuomo 66
Gillibrand 39
Mark Cuban 23
111  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will the first 2020 general election polls look like? on: January 13, 2017, 10:18:25 am
I imagine he'll be trailing Biden and Sanders, but leading other potential opponents if only because of name recognition.

Isn't PPP supposed to have a North Carolina poll out soon?  I'm wondering if they'll include a 2020 GE matchup poll.
112  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How can progressives enthusiastically support Booker in a Dem primary? on: January 13, 2017, 09:19:45 am
You are a Republican Kasich voter (7%) who voted for Hillary. You think as per your lens, a small section electability will be determined.

Unfortunately people like you are completely cut off from the Dem primary base. Because if there were more like you, then Hillary would be President. She got 7% of you guys & lost 9% of Dems against Trump. That number would be MUCH bigger in Rust Belt states where she also got very low turnout among her base.

The exit poll says it was 8% each way: 8% of Dems voting Trump and 8% of Republicans voting Clinton:

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls
113  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Favorite Poster: Best of the Best on: January 13, 2017, 09:07:59 am
Cathcon and I appear to be the only posters from this series who didn't make it.  Tongue
114  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of Nofap? on: January 12, 2017, 10:56:45 pm
Its debatable whether your own faith forbids it.
Quote
... and no less an authority than Maimonides claimed that it could not be punishable by the court because there was not an explicit negative commandment forbidding it.
Love it when random people on the internet look up the first Google result and think they know more about halachic debates than I. Hint: you don't.
Then explain why Maimonides was wrong.
He's not, but you're misunderstanding his argument. Maimonides states that the Tanakh does not ban [male] masturbation, which is true. However, the Talmud, on which Jewish law is largely based, does, and this has also been codified in the Shulchan Aruch which is nowadays almost universally considered to be authoritative.

Well that settles it. If I was born Jewish I would 100% guaranteed convert out of it. It should go without saying whether hipster Christianity has any problem with this activity.

(In fact my church seems to consider it an act of empowerment, especially for women)

And if your parents were Trey Parker and Matt Stone, you would 100% guaranteed hate South Park?



If I was born BRTD, I would immediately convert to Mordenism.

All Morden, all the time.
115  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: DoJ is investigating Comey and possibility of rogue FBI agents on: January 12, 2017, 10:38:05 pm
The DoJ is investigating Comey and possibility of rogue FBI agents, it was breaking news this afternoon. Surprised there isn't a thread yet.

There is a thread:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=256354.0
116  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Is dyeing your hair morally acceptable on: January 12, 2017, 10:35:48 pm
What if the hair dye is applied by Harambe in a transgender bathroom, and the color's so bright that it goes back in time and kills baby Hitler?  Is that morally acceptable?  Or does it all depend on the whims of Justice Kennedy?
117  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Poland's foreign minister mocked after naming non-existent country... on: January 12, 2017, 05:52:28 pm
This has happened before:

http://www.theonion.com/article/us-ambassador-to-bulungi-suspected-of-making-count-790
118  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him on: January 12, 2017, 04:58:17 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/politics/joe-biden-donald-trump-intelligence-report/index.html

Quote
Vice President Joe Biden confirmed Thursday that he and President Barack Obama were briefed last week by intelligence officials on unsubstantiated claims that Russia may have compromising information on President-elect Donald Trump.
119  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Pew polls US partisan divide on Israel, Russia, world leaders, etc. on: January 12, 2017, 04:53:30 pm
     Why does the question about Mideast sympathies not add up to 100% between the three options?

Because there's a fourth option not shown: "don't know"
120  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Pew polls US partisan divide on Israel, Russia, world leaders, etc. on: January 12, 2017, 03:48:27 pm
Latest from Pew:

http://www.people-press.org/2017/01/12/the-world-facing-trump-public-sees-isis-cyberattacks-north-korea-as-top-threats/














121  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2020ers voting on Trump Cabinet confirmations megathread on: January 12, 2017, 03:35:42 pm
The waiver passes the full Senate, 81-17:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/full-senate-passes-waiver-allowing-mattis-to-be-defense-secretary/article/2611684

Klobuchar voted in favor of the waiver, while Booker, Gillibrand, Sanders, and Warren all voted no.
122  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The CrabCake Bureau of Funny Post Archival on: January 12, 2017, 02:52:46 pm
Context...

I think he just really needed to poop. That's a classic "I need to poop" face.
123  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump News Conference Commentary on: January 12, 2017, 02:48:43 pm
Donald Trump... makes me regret the biggest mistake of my youth.

Not becoming a chain smoker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmW-ScmGRMA
124  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: James Clapper (DNI): U.S. intel has not verified accusations against Trump on: January 12, 2017, 02:17:40 pm
Trump’s “fake news” charge seems to be conflating two separate questions: 1) Is there a dossier alleging that Russia is holding blackmail material over Trump, which also describes what the alleged Trump indiscretions are, for which the intel chiefs provided a summary to Trump and Obama last week?  2) Are the allegations in the dossier true?

What CNN and other news orgs reported a few days ago was #1.  They said that yes, there is such a dossier, which the intel chiefs at least thought was worth sharing a summary with Trump, for whatever reason.  This isn’t fake news.  The statement by Clapper, plus the statement by McCain, plus Trump’s own comments on the matter would seem to confirm that there is such a dossier whose contents were shared with Trump by the intel chiefs.  That hardly seems in dispute at this point.

But what about #2, are the allegations in the dossier true?  Neither CNN nor any of the other MSM outlets said that they were true.  They don’t know if they were true, and they said as much.  Yet Trump lumps it all together, implying that CNN was claiming that they were true, and thus brands CNN “fake news”.
125  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump Cabinet confirmation hearings **live commentary thread** on: January 12, 2017, 02:07:31 pm
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/819608462053228546

Quote
After hearing, @SenSherrodBrown says he's considering supporting Ben Carson's nomination to lead HUD.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 1213


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines