Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2017, 03:10:51 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 1268
101  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who is most likely to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination?(Apr 2017) on: April 16, 2017, 08:22:39 am
I don't think it will be Warren due to her weaknesses as a candidate and that she endorsed Clinton-she's losing the outsider image. Sanders would win if he ran, the only problem is he is too old. Brown seems a strong contender, but he would need to demonstrate some interest in running for President.

Warren endorsed Clinton in the general election, but so did everyone else (including Sanders).  Wasn't she neutral in the Clinton-Sanders primary?  Brown actually endorsed Clinton during the primary, so he's "worse" than Warren on that score, if you're rating the candidates on "outsiderness" by whether they refrained from endorsing Clinton last year.
102  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How many different countries were your great grandparents born in? on: April 16, 2017, 08:18:44 am
All in the US. The most recent immigrant was one of my great grandfathers who moved to Brooklyn from Montreal in the early 1870's.

Am I missing something here?  The question was how many countries were your great grandparents born in.  You said that yours were all born in the US, but then in the next sentence said that one of them immigrated to the US from Montreal.  If one of your great grandparents was an immigrant to the US from Canada, then wasn't he born outside the US?
103  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: April 16, 2017, 08:12:55 am
Sunday morning talk show watch: Bernie Sanders is on "State of the Union" this morning:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEWS_SHOWS?SITE=AP
104  Forum Community / Forum Community / How many different countries were your great grandparents born in? on: April 15, 2017, 02:12:07 pm
How many different countries were your great grandparents born in?  For simplicity, use modern international borders to define different countries, so as not to have to pull out pre-WWI maps.  (Though I guess many of the young folks here wouldn’t have great grandparents born before WWI.)  Or if you really want to use international borders as they existed at the time, fine.  Go ahead.  I leave it up to you decide how to count the constituent pieces of the UK.

For me it’s 5:

3 born in Canada (all in Ontario)
2 born in the US (one in Chicago and one in Milwaukee)
1 born in the UK (in Cornwall, England)
1 born in Germany (in Westphalia)
1 born in Norway
105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Who is most likely to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination?(Apr 2017) on: April 15, 2017, 02:01:02 pm
Last one of these polls before the Center for American Progress's Ideas Conference next month, at which several of these folks will be speaking.

Last month’s poll:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=260775.0

Incidentally, here’s the forum poll on the 2016 GOP race that was conducted four years ago:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=172417.0

The eventual nominee wasn’t even listed.  Though I would note that 10 of the 15 people listed as options did in fact at least end up running.  So the current signals that candidates are giving certainly correlate with willingness to run.
106  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Will there be protests in U.K. during Trump's state visit? on: April 15, 2017, 12:37:19 pm
Lol:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/white-house-demands-carriage-ride-trump-visits-u-article-1.3058887
107  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Atlas forum leaderboard on: April 15, 2017, 09:19:50 am
Tender passes Eraserhead to take 8th place:

1) BRTD 79,636
2) Al 61,154
3) Lewis 58,548
4) Phil 52,836
5) opebo 47,119
6) Kal 45,763
7) Antonio 44,648
8 ) Tender 42,261
9) Eraserhead 42,250
10) Lief 40,712

Eraserhead hasn’t posted in over a month now.  But the people outside the top ten are far enough behind that Eraserhead’s place in the top ten is most likely guaranteed until around the second half of 2018.

The next milestone to look forward to is BRTD reaching the 80,000 post mark, which should happen with the next two months.
108  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Warren stars in new moveon.org video about Trump's tax returns on: April 14, 2017, 04:05:13 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCgkqwXHXYk
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/domestic-taxes/328875-warren-on-trump-taxes-the-time-for-hiding-is-over

Quote
Warren voiced support for global rallies planned for Saturday aimed at forcing the release of Trump’s tax returns.

“People will be marching to tell Donald Trump they want to know who he really is working for and for Congress to force Donald Trump to release his taxes,” she said.

"The American people definitely didn’t elect Wall Street or Saudi Arabia or Russia to run our country."
109  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is there any chance Trump gets primaried from the right in 2020? on: April 14, 2017, 03:36:22 pm
For all this talk about party elites turning on Trump and what not, people seem to forget that Trump is still extremely popular among the Republican base.

Yes, I know that he's popular among the Republican base.  I'm talking about the extent to which a previously little known primary challenger might get elite media coverage, to the point where people following the campaign would actually know who they are (unlike the primary challengers to Obama in 2012, who only the nerdiest of political nerds would be able to identify).  I'm saying that if there are some Republican elites who are disillusioned with Trump, then they'll talk about a Republican primary challenger, even if it's someone in the mold of a McMullin or a Peterson, who might otherwise remain in obscurity.
110  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Foreign policy differences among 2020 Dems on: April 14, 2017, 03:25:50 pm
Warren on the MOAB use in Afghanistan: "Where's the strategy?":

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/operations/328803-warren-demands-explanation-after-moab-strike
111  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: California looking to move primary up to 3rd after IA/NH. on: April 14, 2017, 02:03:50 pm
Josh Putnam offers more details on the California move here:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2017/04/california-and-2020-prime-time-primary.html

As he says, this bill would not move California into the third spot on the calendar, and moving to the third spot on the calendar is pretty much impossible, since the other states would just move ahead of it anyway.
112  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is there any chance Trump gets primaried from the right in 2020? on: April 14, 2017, 01:58:35 pm
Name a challenger who got national traction in a primary who was a complete no-name like Austin Peterson. You can't because they don't exist.

But we've never had a president elected before who wasn't endorsed by more than 20% of his own party's Senators.  Smiley  The modern primary system has only existed since the 1970s, and during that time, up until Trump, we never had someone elected despite having this kind of resistance from a non-trivial minority of his own party's elite.  When said president now runs for reelection, the dynamics will not necessarily be what we're used to.

So I'd say we're in uncharted territory.  Maybe they'll all be cool with nominating Trump again in 2020, I don't know.  But if there are still some disgruntled folks at that point, I don't think it's obvious that they'd be able to recruit some bigger name candidate.  You're asking someone to turn their lives upside down and put a target on their back for a presumably doomed campaign.  Amash might do it, for example, or maybe a former governor like Kasich, but otherwise, you might just have someone like a McMullin or a Peterson.

And keep in mind, the folks looking for someone like McMullin last time around tended to be more media types (like Erick Erickson and Bill Kristol), moreso than politicians.  And even you seemed to be suggesting here:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=262379.msg5607740#msg5607740

that some of the politicians who didn’t endorse Trump last time won’t endorse him again.  If they’re not going to endorse him in the GE, then they of course also wouldn’t endorse him in the primary, leading to more discussion than is typical about what alternatives exist.
113  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Tulsi Gabbard will win the nomination in 2020 on: April 14, 2017, 01:24:00 pm
Bill Scher (sort of) hops on the Beet train:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/45784?in=26:46&out=28:20
114  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Tulsi Gabbard will win the nomination in 2020 on: April 14, 2017, 01:13:59 pm
Bernie Sanders was well known in political circles, even if just for being the only independent in Congress or a self described socialist. Sure he wasn't all that well known with your average person off the street outside of Vermont, but how many people can even name a Senator besides their own?

But who cares if you are or aren't "well known in political circles" two years before you declare your candidacy?  I don't see how it really makes a difference.  And in any case, what is "political circles"?  People who are not quite (but almost) political junkies?  Because for true political junkies, like the kind of people who post on this forum, Gabbard *is* known.  So then what are you saying?  Sanders was better known four years ago than Gabbard is now among people who aren't quite as nerdy about politics as we are, yet still more nerdy about politics than the average voter?  (Yet both were unknown among the public at large?)  That seems like hair splitting.

Well as noted above using Beet's highly scientific internet comments methodology, about half of people who talk about Gabbard think she's pretty awful (see the discussion on this very site, or places like DailyKos and DU.) I know jfern likes to handwave that by arguing that DailyKos and DU are establishment sell out sites now, but literally the only claim to being progressive that 72.98% on Crucial Votes scoring on Progressive Punch Tulsi Gabbard has is that she endorsed Bernie...thus meaning that Dan Lipinski must also be a progressive hero.

Oh sure, I agree that the attention Gabbard gets isn’t always positive.  My objection was more going back to the original question about name recognition, raised by LLR over her having “no national profile”, as if that’s a big problem for her at this very early stage.  Most of the candidates are unknown to the average voter right now, and that’s OK.  And it’s actually hard for me to imagine a scenario in which Gabbard runs, yet gets little media attention.  She certainly seems to polarize opinions among left-of-center posters here, and I can imagine that being replicated among the broader public, which would drive media attention.  “Name recognition” isn’t her problem.

In any case, like I’ve said in other threads, I’m not expecting her to win the nomination, but I am curious to see if she might at least pull off something like Ron Paul 2012, and capture a dedicated minority of the party, receiving a sizeable chunk of the vote in at least certain states.  I’m not predicting that that will happen.  (I mean, I’m not even predicting that she’ll run in the first place, though she seems more likely to do so than any other member of the House of Reps at the moment, not that that's saying much.)  But it certainly seems *possible* to me.
115  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: April 14, 2017, 12:54:03 pm
Are we sure Mondale was an inside job isn't a sock.

I'm pretty sure that he's DevotedDemocrat/LBJRevivalist/Dazey, but I obviously can't "prove" it.

I'm still confused about why you would think that.  Sure, they're both partisan Democrats, but their personalities are nothing alike.  In February (months after Mondale registered btw), this guy admitted to being an LBJRevivalist sock, and got banned:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=11955

And I believe it, because his posts read very much like those of LBJRevivalist.  Short and concern toll-y, in a very specific voice.  E.g.:

I been finding articles about  Democrats  defending Medicare and Obamacare ,but  none about Democrats defending Medicaid from being turn into block grants.

Are Democrats  planning to sacrifice Medicaid just to save Medicare and Obamacare?


That's the kind of post that LBJ Revivalist made all the time, but that's not what Mondale was an inside job sounds like.
116  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: April 14, 2017, 11:40:44 am
Back in November, Mark Warner offered a Shermanesque denial of interest in running for president in 2020, but he was just asked again, and his denial fell short of Shermanesque this time:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/mark-warner-russia-investigation-constituents-237106

Quote
And, for Warner, there’s the question of whether the national attention he’s receiving because of the probe could put him back in contention for the White House in 2020. Asked by a William & Mary student about a presidential run, the unabashedly moderate senator did not rule out the possibility.

“I'm going to try to do my job,” Warner said. “The problem with too many people in politics is they always try to plan what's next. Do your job, and who knows what happens.”

Warner is also mentioned in this story on the stage being set for 2020 in New Hampshire (as is Bill Richardson of all people):

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/04/13/the-new-hampshire-primary-has-begun/dzFIuxq7kpp1WTG3mMzkJM/story.html

Quote
[Rockingham County Dem. chair] Drake said only one potential campaign has reached out to him: a representative of O’Malley’s political action committee.

Indeed, it’s typical for party elites to be courted quietly by candidates in the early stages of the presidential primary. State Senator Lou D’Allesandro, a Democrat, said that O’Malley, “e-mails me all the time, but he just doesn’t connect with people for some reason.”

D’Allesandro is currently intrigued by US Senator Mark Warner of Virginia. He spoke with him via phone last week to discuss the impact of Trump’s budget on the Granite State (D’Allesandro called Warner — not the other way around).

D’Allesandro said he has also been in contact with former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, who ran for president in 2008.
117  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Trump 1.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: April 14, 2017, 11:12:36 am
Survey Monkey:

44% Approve (+2)
53% Disapprove (-3)

Source

On the page with the crosstabs, it says 45% for adults, and 46% for registered voters:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxpEMTW3kArbGp4UkFxYTlHekk/view

adults: 45/53% for -8%
RVs: 46/53% for -7%

men: +7
women: -24
whites: +9
blacks: -57
Hispanics: -38

white college grad: -17
white non-college grad: +20
non-white college grad: -47
non-white non-college grad: -37
118  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: April 14, 2017, 08:07:13 am
Brief story on the Biden, Kasich, and O’Malley visits to New Hampshire, in which former O’Malley campaign co-chair Jay Surdukowski says he “speaks to [O’Malley] often” and encourages him to run:

http://www.wmur.com/article/buzz-builds-for-2020-as-potential-candidates-visit-new-hampshire/9273708

I don’t get the sense that he actually needs much encouragement.

Speaking of which, here’s a columnist calling O’Malley “clowny” for his blatant 2020 moves:

http://www.citypaper.com/blogs/the-news-hole/bcpnews-martin-o-malley-is-being-clowny-with-all-these-2020-gestures-20170413-story.html

It affords the opportunity to use this picture:


119  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Tulsi Gabbard will win the nomination in 2020 on: April 14, 2017, 12:00:50 am
Bernie Sanders was well known in political circles, even if just for being the only independent in Congress or a self described socialist. Sure he wasn't all that well known with your average person off the street outside of Vermont, but how many people can even name a Senator besides their own?

But who cares if you are or aren't "well known in political circles" two years before you declare your candidacy?  I don't see how it really makes a difference.  And in any case, what is "political circles"?  People who are not quite (but almost) political junkies?  Because for true political junkies, like the kind of people who post on this forum, Gabbard *is* known.  So then what are you saying?  Sanders was better known four years ago than Gabbard is now among people who aren't quite as nerdy about politics as we are, yet still more nerdy about politics than the average voter?  (Yet both were unknown among the public at large?)  That seems like hair splitting.
120  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: April 13, 2017, 09:53:59 pm

I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't run for the nomination in 2020. I don't know why people think she's so likely to run.

I think she’s high on the list of people who are most likely to run, yet still less than 50% likely to do so.  Because it’s so early, and things can change, the only people I currently rate as more than 50% likely to run on the Democratic side are O’Malley and Booker.  But obviously there will be plenty of other candidates in the race, and Warren is high on that list of possibles (probably somewhere in the 40-50% range on chance of running).

Why is she high on that list of possibles?  The biggest reasons are:

1) Unlike in the 2016 cycle, she doesn’t rule it out when asked (though apparently she was thinking about it even in the 2016 cycle).  So at least that’s *something*.  Potential candidates who answer “maybe” tend to be more likely to run than those who give Shermanesque denials (though of course, neither answer is determinative at this early stage).

2) She joined the Armed Services Committee this year.  Senators rarely change their committee assignments, and Armed Services is a common stepping stone to running for national office, since it gives you national security cred.

3) She’s speaking at the CAP Ideas Conference next month, along with a bunch of other 2020 possibles.

4) She’s not seen as a longshot to win the nomination should she run.  Her chances of winning have got to figure into her calculus on the cost/benefit of running.  I mean, she’s leading the betting markets right now in predictions on who’s going to win the nomination.  People who are leading the markets at this very early stage don’t always win the nomination, but they do usually at least run.

Anyway, PredictIt currently gives her a 47% chance of running.  Are you saying that you think that’s too high?  Who would you put higher than her on likelihood to run?
121  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: April 13, 2017, 09:44:09 pm
I think this poster might be Eharding.

As I said before, that poster is only posting 4.5 times per day

oh well thank god there's no way for someone to moderate the amount of times they post per day so as to not raise suspicion
I'm just surprised no one has called me a Harding sock yet

You registered before he did.  So if anything, he'd be a sock of you.
122  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: April 13, 2017, 09:36:10 pm

Oh, I don’t know, I think you can read that piece either way.  To me, what’s actually notable here is that she acknowledges for the first time that running for president in 2016 is something that she seriously considered:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-describes-why-she-didnt-run-for-white-house-in-new-book-1492104021

Quote
She writes that she asked her husband for his view. “I knew what he would say first, and he said it: ‘I want you to do whatever you want to do. I’ll be there.’”

Ms. Warren, 67 years old, recounts her husband was supportive of her but added that “a race like this one looks pretty terrible. The Senate thing was bad enough, and running for president would be worse—a lot worse.’”
.
.
.
In her book, Ms. Warren writes that she was surprised by the attention she drew upon joining the Senate in 2013, and began contemplating a White House run in response to enthusiasm from  her supporters.

Her husband ultimately gave his blessing to a 2016 presidential bid, though Ms. Warren writes, “Talking with Bruce and asking the question out loud had settled it. I wanted to stay buckled down and keep doing my job—my Senate job—as completely and as effectively as I could.”

This doesn’t really move me to downgrade my assessment of the probability that she’ll run in 2020.  Her husband warned her that a presidential race would be gruelling, but don’t almost all presidential spouses say that?  You don’t think Michelle Obama said the same thing to Barack?  IIRC, Fred Thompson’s wife encouraged him to run, but that was a rare case in which the spouse was eager to take the plunge.

To me, she’s acknowledging here that the presidency is something she might be interested in pursuing, and I could certainly read it as a cost/benefit thing.  Running in 2016 wasn’t worth the personal cost to her, and I imagine the chances of success (when running against HRC, who was presumed to be heavily favored for the nomination) would have been part of that calculation.  But if she’s seen as a co-frontrunner going into 2020, it’s not clear to me that she’ll come to the same decision.  The very words she uses to describe the '16 decision ("stay buckled down and keep doing my Senate job") sounds like all the non-denials the presidential candidates give about how they're just focused on their current job and not thinking ahead to anything else....yet.
123  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: SurveyUSA: Big majority wants Spicer to step down after Holocaust remarks on: April 13, 2017, 02:11:59 pm
600 Adults:

Quote
Are you familiar with comments made yesterday by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer relating to the Holocaust?

67% Yes
29% No

Yeah, right.  67% of American adults follow the news closely enough to be familiar with what Spicer said about the Holocaust yesterday?  I'm no polling truther, but any "Are you familiar with X in the news?" polling result has got to be treated skeptically, as people are reluctant to admit that they're uninformed about something.
124  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: What's the probability that the 2024 GOP nominee is female or a racial minority? on: April 13, 2017, 12:59:28 pm
I still don't think the Republican Party will be ready for a woman to lead their ticket, and in any case, Haley is the only realistic female Republican nominee I can think of. No Republican female Governors or Senators stand out and most are pretty old.

Joni Ernst spoke at both CPAC and the Faith & Freedom conference last year, then met with the New Hampshire delegation at the RNC.  She also did an event in New Hampshire just a few weeks before the election.  So I'd say she was laying the groundwork for 2020 back when it looked like Hillary Clinton would be the incumbent that year.  Now that Trump is the incumbent in 2020, I suspect she'll most likely run in 2024.

That said, she doesn't seem like a very compelling candidate, so I'm not expecting her to win the nomination.
125  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / How many of Trump’s 2016 primary challengers will *not* endorse him next time? on: April 13, 2017, 11:40:52 am
Assuming he runs for a second term….

1) How many of Trump’s primary challengers from 2016 will not (as of the day of the Iowa caucus) endorse him for the 2020 Republican nomination?

2) How many of Trump’s primary challengers from 2016 will not (as of the day of the general election) endorse him in the 2020 general election?  (This of course assumes that he’s the nominee.)

As a reminder, four of his 2016 challengers ended up not endorsing him in the GE last time: Bush, Graham, Kasich, and Pataki
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 1268


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines