Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 23, 2017, 04:51:34 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 ... 1321
101  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Anti-science views in the left on: September 10, 2017, 02:38:38 pm
This issue is basically a "both sides" meme deployed to deflect right-wing ignorance over climate change.

Anti-GMO is one thing I can think of, although the issue is much more nuanced than one may think.
cough cough dead0man

That said, the anti-GMO movement on the left is somewhat overstated, I mean, Bill Nye was originally against GMOs but came around and admitted fault (and this was a while ago, too).

The anti-vax movement also once held ground with some of the nuts on the left, but this issue is now more associated with the right; Donald Trump is an anti-vaxxer, while there are no power-holding left-wing politicians that are anti-vaxxers.

The ultra-authoritarian far left, i.e. Mao and Stalin, were quite anti-science.

Despite all of this, I would say that anti-science views are, objectively speaking, much less common on the left than on the right.



Ah yes, who can forget that the non-vaccination rate is highest in those Trumpist bastions; Oregon and Vermont.

Uhh Donald Trump himself said he was an anti-vaxxer in a nationally-televised GOP debate, as did several other Republican candidates...

Is there a disconnect between regular voters in the party and party elites then?  Republican elites are more likely to voice anti-vax views than Dem. elites, but the group of people who believe it enough to actually not vaccinate their kids are more likely to be Dems?
102  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: amended early March primary bill advances in California legislature on: September 10, 2017, 01:18:37 pm
It forces all the other candidates into a catch-22 where if they campaign hard in California and lose, they only make the loss look more significant, whereas if they don't, they lose massive delegates. Either way they're at an unfair disadvantage.

Well OK, I agree that an early California primary is an advantage for Harris (or, less likely, some other California candidate).  And yes, obviously winning California offers a big advantage for winning the nomination.  But winning the state doesn't guarantee that you'll win the nomination, as we saw in 2008.  And so my point was simply that the margin there could be important, even if there's a favorite son or daughter running.

This is especially possible if there's still a large field of candidates in the race, and Harris wins California, but with less than 50% of the vote.  Potentially, that could even lead to a contested convention (not likely, but not out of the question).

As for the catch-22 you talk about with regard to how hard do the candidates campaign in California....I'm assuming that none of them will have time to campaign that hard there at all.  If they only have a week or less after Nevada or South Carolina to campaign in 10+ different states, including California and Texas, then there isn't much time to do anything.  They would only be able to coast off of free media at that point.  Even the candidates with money would struggle to be able to put enough ads on the air to make an impact.

The difference is that in 2008, there was no favored daughter California candidate. So candidates only win California by small margins (~10 points), as opposed to say a massive 20-30 point margin local candidate often get. In 2008, they really had a super tuesday with New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc. etc. a ton of states all going on the same day. Unless New York and Illinois moves up to the same day California will dominate the day.

I don't know that Harris will win the California primary by as much as 20 points.  There are plenty of examples of candidates not winning their home states in presidential primaries by margins that big.  The prototypical case where a favorite son wins his home state primary by an overwhelming margin is where the candidate in question has been entrenched in the state for a long time, and it's a small state whose primary electorate isn't splintered into many factions.  E.g., Mike Huckabee in Arkansas in 2008.  Or heck, Howard Dean winning Vermont in 2004 even after he'd dropped out of the race.  California's big, and Harris has only held statewide office since 2010 (as attorney general and then junior senator, not positions that allow you to dominate the state's politics as a governor would), so I don't know that a blowout victory is a given.

And even if it is, having California as a home state is an advantage that exists for her even if the primary is held later.  How advantageous it is for her if it's held early is something that we don't know yet, because it depends on how big a factor momentum will be.  2004, for example, was a primary contest where early momentum played a big factor, but then you've got cases like 2008, where, after the first few contests, you could predict how most of the rest of the primaries would go just on the basis of demographics.  By moving to an earlier primary, California sacrifices the delegate bonuses that it would get for going later, on the bet that determining early momentum will be more important than having some extra delegates.  But I'm not yet sure to what extent that bet will pay off.
103  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: "Medicare for all" Single Payer Mega Thread on: September 10, 2017, 01:00:14 pm
It is the only form which is not unconstitutional in the US & can be universal. All other forms are unconstitutional if universal.

I don't think so.  SCOTUS said the Medicare expansion in Obamacare was unconstitutional because of how the federal government was coercing the states to pay for it.  If you do a multi-payer system that doesn't rely on state governments to fund it, then I don't see what the constitutional problem is.
104  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: amended early March primary bill advances in California legislature on: September 10, 2017, 12:55:29 pm
It forces all the other candidates into a catch-22 where if they campaign hard in California and lose, they only make the loss look more significant, whereas if they don't, they lose massive delegates. Either way they're at an unfair disadvantage.

Well OK, I agree that an early California primary is an advantage for Harris (or, less likely, some other California candidate).  And yes, obviously winning California offers a big advantage for winning the nomination.  But winning the state doesn't guarantee that you'll win the nomination, as we saw in 2008.  And so my point was simply that the margin there could be important, even if there's a favorite son or daughter running.

This is especially possible if there's still a large field of candidates in the race, and Harris wins California, but with less than 50% of the vote.  Potentially, that could even lead to a contested convention (not likely, but not out of the question).

As for the catch-22 you talk about with regard to how hard do the candidates campaign in California....I'm assuming that none of them will have time to campaign that hard there at all.  If they only have a week or less after Nevada or South Carolina to campaign in 10+ different states, including California and Texas, then there isn't much time to do anything.  They would only be able to coast off of free media at that point.  Even the candidates with money would struggle to be able to put enough ads on the air to make an impact.
105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: amended early March primary bill advances in California legislature on: September 10, 2017, 12:35:58 pm
As stated in the article Cali is not a good retail state at all it is so big and expensive will be really difficult for someone with lower name ID like Bullock to break thru.

I actually don't agree.  I mean, I agree that it's tough for someone with low name ID to do well on Super Tuesday, but there remains a straightforward way to boost name ID: Win one of the first four early states.  Or heck, even just start polling well in one of them, and you start getting a bunch of national media attention.

Consider, for example, Mike Huckabee 2008.  No one knew who he was in 2005 and 2006, and once he launched his presidential campaign, he couldn't raise any money.  But he campaigned in Iowa and slowly boosted his poll #s there, to the point where he gained a huge amount of national media attention, and used that to actually become competitive in national polls (ultimately winning Iowa and a bunch of Super Tuesday states, despite still having virtually no money).  Sure, he didn't actually win the nomination, but that was because he was always limited in his appeal.  He was the Evangelical identity politics candidate.  There's no reason why some currently little known candidate with broader appeal couldn't use an Iowa win to slingshot them to the nomination.

I actually think stacking up such a huge portion of the primary contests into the first week of March likely makes the first four states even more important.  It means that any bounce a candidate gets out of winning those contests might not have faded yet by the time all those Super Tuesday states are voting.  If you delayed those contests until several months after IA/NH/NV/SC, then those early wins would have had time to fade from people's memories.
106  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: amended early March primary bill advances in California legislature on: September 10, 2017, 12:23:41 pm
are there any other date switch bills in any other states, or just this one?

At least as of a few months ago, North Carolina was considering a bill to move their primary up to Super Tuesday as well:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2017/06/north-carolina-inches-toward-joining.html

But I'm not sure where that stands.  Also, Arkansas's Super Tuesday primary date has expired, so as current law stands, their 2020 primary would revert back to May.  But there's still plenty of time for them to change it back, if they wish.
107  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary to blame Bernie in a chapter in her new book on: September 10, 2017, 12:05:17 pm
I guess it's fair to ask how Hillary would have done in a wide open race where there were a full stable of Democratic candidates for President in 2016.  How would the thing have played out of Hillary didn't have DWS clearing the decks for her at the DNC, and she went up against a field of, say, VP Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Gov. Martin O'Malley, former Gov. Deval Patrick, former Sen. Jim Webb, Sen. Sherrod Brown, and a few other challengers.  Would she have still won the nomination?  Indeed, if the decks hadn't been cleared, I think O'Malley (for example) would have done better. 

DWS and the DNC aren't that powerful.  The decks weren't cleared by them.  They were cleared by party elites (including elected officials and the like) and big money donors, not the DNC itself.  These folks basically signalled to Cuomo, Klobuchar, Patrick, etc. that they were going to back Clinton, and so there was no space for a non-Clinton establishment candidate in the race.  It's similar to what happened with Romney in 2015, where the big $ donors and other elites who he was hoping would back another run by him ended up migrating to Jeb Bush, leaving no space for a Romney candidacy.  That was something that happened because of the party elite, not the actual RNC.

So I'm not sure exactly what you mean in your hypothetical about the decks not being cleared.  If the question is "What would have happened if the 200 or so Congressional Dems and a couple of dozen governors hadn't all endorsed Clinton early on, or if her Super PAC backers hadn't backed her, and had instead spread their money around to folks like Cuomo and Biden?", then I think the answer is that Sanders would very likely have won a plurality of the vote, because the "establishment lane" would have been split, while the "insurgent lane" would have all been Sanders.
108  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: WaPo-The Fix: Top 15 2020 Democratic Contenders, Ranked on: September 10, 2017, 11:52:17 am
Including elderly Jerry Brown and Eric Garcetti but not Gavin Newsom is tragic.

It's not clear to me what exactly is being ranked.  Probability of becoming the nominee?  If so, then Garcetti ahead of Newsom is absolutely justified, since Garcetti is dropping hints of presidential interest, whereas Newsom isn't.  Newsom even called the presidency "the most miserable job in the world":

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=233345.msg5447343#msg5447343

109  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Warren's Secretary of State on: September 10, 2017, 10:31:59 am
Sure, Obama picked his primary rival Hillary Clinton as SoS, but she actually seemed to care about foreign policy.  Booker doesn't.  Yes, he sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, but it seems like he's just going through the motions, because sitting on either the Foreign Relations Committee or Armed Services Committee is something that you do before you run for president.  Same applies to most of the other 2020ers, like Warren and Gillibrand.  Foreign policy doesn't seem to be much of a priority for them, yet they've got to sit on the right committees in order to get "national security experience" before their presidential runs.

I guess the one 2020er in the Senate who does seem to care about foreign policy is Chris Murphy, so if Warren (or any other potential Dem. nominee) really wants to pick a Secretary of State who ran in the primaries, he's an option.

Tulsi Gabbard also cares about foreign policy, but I'm guessing that she won't make the list.  Tongue
110  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: amended early March primary bill advances in California legislature on: September 10, 2017, 10:23:28 am
The other wrinkle here is that California actually loses delegates by moving earlier.  As described here:

https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-Alloc.phtml

going late in the process in 2016 actually gave California a 20% boost in its delegate allocation, because there are bonuses for going later, and those would now be lost.  So the move earlier is premised on momentum being important (that is, on earlier wins being more decisive).  If momentum doesn't matter, and each voter acts independently of the results of previous primaries, then California would be giving up power in doing this.
111  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: WaPo-The Fix: Top 15 2020 Democratic Contenders, Ranked on: September 09, 2017, 09:02:35 pm
It's unclear to me if these are meant to be "power rankings", meaning that it's a ranking of who would be most likely to win the nomination conditional on them running in the first place, or if it's meant to factor in the possibility that a candidate doesn't run at all.

Either way, including Chris Murphy and Jerry Brown in the top 5 is rather ridiculous.
112  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: amended early March primary bill advances in California legislature on: September 09, 2017, 06:06:20 pm
Cali and Texas on the same day might suck the oxygen out of the other states... not sure what to think of this.
That CaliFORNIA and TX are finally getting what they deserve.

There's not going to be a real contest in California if it's just going to be in the bag for one candidate from the start.

We can't prove Harris is running yet, Newsom/Chiang won't run due to being Governor for just two years, and Garcetti can't carry the whole state.

Besides, the Dem. delegate allocation is proportional, so even if there's a favorite son or daughter candidate running and they're heavily favored, the margin by which they win is important.
113  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: amended early March primary bill advances in California legislature on: September 09, 2017, 04:55:03 pm
I do wonder if the Dems are inadvertently setting themselves up for a possible contested convention.  It's not super likely, but it's not impossible with the Democratic delegate rules.  I mean, if the 2016 Republican primaries had been run with the Democratic delegate allocation rules, then a contested convention would have been an inevitability.

What you need for a contested convention is:

1) More than two candidates win a non-negligible %age of the vote fairly deep into the primary season.

2) The delegate allocation is proportional, or close enough to proportional that the leading candidate struggles to get a majority of the delegates.

3) The second and third and/or fourth place candidates refuse to formally drop out of the race and release their delegates.

The Dems have much more proportional delegate allocation rules than the GOP does, and that doesn't look like it's going to change.  They've recently had primary contests that quickly coalesce into a 2-person race early on, but that's not guaranteed to happen again next time.  And if California is going to move to March 3rd, which will be only about a month after Iowa, then I can see 3rd and 4th place candidates talking themselves into staying in the race through Super Tuesday, just in case something happens.  You can talk yourself into waging a zombie campaign where you already know you're dead if it's only for a couple of weeks.  A bit harder to do that for months and months.

The Dem. rules do offer the possibility that the superdelegates will unite behind the pledged delegate leader, in order to prevent a contested convention, but it looks like the number of superdelegates will be reduced in 2020 (or rather, some of them will be pledged on the basis of the primary result in their state, which means that they won't really be superdelegates anymore), so it might not be enough.  I don't know the exact math, but if the leading candidate only has 43 or 44% of the pledged delegates, there might not be enough superdelegates to give that candidate a majority.

So the final escape clause is if the trailing candidates gracefully bow out and release their delegates, which would then allow the leading candidate to pick off enough of them to win a majority.  This works as long as the 2nd and 3rd place candidates find the 1st place candidate an acceptable nominee.  But is this a given, considering the splits within the party, which may be exacerbated if there's another contentious primary contest in 2020?  And even if the candidates themselves concede defeat, do the divisions in the party make it less likely that their delegates will be willing to vote for another candidate than would have been the case in primary campaigns past?
114  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump on: September 09, 2017, 04:32:11 pm
Probably something like this, assuming the campaign is generic, Trump's approvals stay as they as they are and no recession.



Harris
Trump

Harris wins the Deep South and Utah, while a third party candidate wins most of the North and Trump gets zero electoral votes?
115  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Is this an accurate description of *some* of Atlas Forum's members? on: September 09, 2017, 04:29:49 pm
Heavily white, fairly well educated (at least in civics), disproportionately male, around 18 to 35 years old, political junkie, with a broad independent streak, socially libertarian, distrustful and cynical to a degree, but isn't completely jaded.

Is the forum actually any more white than the North American and European countries from which it draws its membership?
116  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Who will end up on the Iron Throne? (Game of Thrones) on: September 09, 2017, 03:05:54 pm
Dany ending up as ruler of Westeros is the dumbest possible ending.  The Iron Throne is something that she's hoped to gain for for most of the series, so the ending is that she does indeed get it?  Boring.  What is her character arc then?  She learns how to be a better ruler?  Again, boring.  Somewhat better would be her having to make a choice between gaining the throne and something more important (e.g., the survival of the human race).

I guess Jon ending up on the throne would be a little better, but still not my preferred outcome.  If anyone's going to end up as a monarch at the end (and I still think it's possible that no one will), my preference would actually be Sansa.  Her arc would be that she got what she wanted from the beginning (to be queen), but not under the circumstances that she wanted, and only after all of her fantasies about the royal life have been shattered.

Yes, I just said that a similar arc would be dumb for Dany, but that's because Dany has already been a Queen for half the series, so I don't think it works the same for her.  It would work better for Sansa, if they're going to go that route with anyone.
117  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Winter is Coming (GoT is back) on: September 09, 2017, 10:17:29 am
1) Daario - 5%

I would have put Daario at like 80%. He was a mercenary from Essos, and Euron is ferrying over mercenaries from Essos. Just makes sense that he might be one of them.

I don't know if he'll be one of them, but the fact that we have characters (both Euron and now apparently Theon in pursuit of him) headed back to Essos bumps up the chances of Daario showing up again.
118  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Winter is Coming (GoT is back) on: September 09, 2017, 09:46:35 am
There are various minor characters who are still alive but who could, conceivably, not be shown again, depending on what the endgame focuses on.  What do you think is the probability that we'll ever again see the following characters?:

1) Daario
2) Meera Reed
3) Howland Reed (have still only seen him in a flashback)
4) Robin Arryn
5) Edmure Tully
6) Gendry
7) Dolorous Edd
8 ) Sam's mother
9) Hot Pie
10) Nymeria
119  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Kamala Harris primary on: September 08, 2017, 11:43:16 pm
Likely schedule:
IA - Warren
NH - Warren
CA - Harris
NV - Harris
SC - Harris

California isn't going to hold its primary before Nevada and South Carolina, despite what some of the confused reporting on this topic might have suggested.

State legislator Ricardo Lara sponsored a bill to hold its primary before Nevada and South Carolina.

No he didn't.  Read the text of the very article that you just linked to.  It says that his bill (in its original form) would have moved the California primary to the third Tuesday of March.  The third Tuesday of March is *not* before Nevada and South Carolina.  Now, it also would have allowed the governor to move the primary even earlier, but moving it before Super Tuesday was never realistically on the table.

In any case, as I noted in this thread:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=272438.0

the bill has now been amended so that it would move the primary to the first Tuesday of March (Super Tuesday), and the earlier proposal to give the governor the power to move it even earlier has been amended away.  Either way, putting the primary third behind just Iowa and NH was not something that was ever going to happen.
120  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: September 08, 2017, 11:03:04 pm
Here's Sanders on Colbert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv-hgegVq0k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTIStPerVNw

And here's a direct link to the part where Colbert asks him about 2020, and Sanders dodges the question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTIStPerVNw&t=2m42s
121  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / amended early March primary bill advances in California legislature on: September 08, 2017, 10:31:47 pm
Looks like the state Assembly and Senate in California have settled on a bill to put forth (not actually voted on yet) that would move California's primary date to the first Tuesday in March, which is March 3rd in 2020, or "Super Tuesday".  This would put it on the same date as a slew of other (mostly Southern) states, like Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee.

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2017/09/bells-and-whistles-removed-amended.html
122  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: September 08, 2017, 09:25:38 pm
Sunday morning talk show watch: Bernie Sanders will be on "Meet the Press" this Sunday:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEWS_SHOWS?SITE=AP
123  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gun to your head - Harris, Gillibrand or Klobuchar - The best candidate ? on: September 08, 2017, 07:58:26 pm
I would fear that Gillibrand and Klobuchar would get massive disapproval by the far left - not that Harris would be close to their ideal candidate either, but she's more liberal than the other two. Gillibrand also could easily come off as a Clinton clone (even though I personally think that's unfair). Harris would also be the best for boosting minority turnout. So, overall, I would say Harris, though I think all three would win against Trump.

I just don't see Gillibrand as a Clinton clone, or really as being any further right than Harris is.  And as I said upthread, in some ways Klobuchar is more of a Clinton clone than Gillibrand is.

I mean, in the Clinton vs. Sanders debates from last year, the two of them had plenty of disagreements on issues.  But at least based on her presently stated policy positions, what does Gillibrand even disagree with Sanders on?  She now agrees with him on almost everything.  There would be some foreign policy disagreements, but even there, Gillibrand isn't nearly as hawkish as Clinton.  It's Klobuchar who's more in the Clinton mold on foreign policy.

The main sense in which Gillibrand deviates from Sanders and Warren is on issue emphasis.  Sanders and Warren are mostly fixated on economic issues, whereas Gillibrand also talks a lot about things like sexual assault in the military and on college campuses, abortion, and LGBT issues.  Though I can't help but think that she won't talk quite as much about those issues if and when she launches a presidential bid.  You can't reach the White House on the basis of your efforts to stop sexual assault in the military.  It's not the sort of thing that most people think is relevant to them.
124  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Elizabeth Warren vs. Kamala Harris primary on: September 08, 2017, 07:47:41 pm
Likely schedule:
IA - Warren
NH - Warren
CA - Harris
NV - Harris
SC - Harris

California isn't going to hold its primary before Nevada and South Carolina, despite what some of the confused reporting on this topic might have suggested.
125  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: September 08, 2017, 02:56:58 pm
This week’s #2020Vision column:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/08/politics/2020-vision-democrats-single-payer/index.html

Again, much of it has already been covered in this thread.  I feel like this line from Harris was already mentioned here, but I can’t find it, so I’ll quote it again:

Quote
Kamala Harris has played a leading role in the Democratic response to Trump's move to end DACA. But she dodged when MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell needled her about a potential 2020 presidential run. "Lawrence, I don't even know what I'm having for dinner," Harris said.

Also, Eric Garcetti is making his acting debut:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/rambling-reporter/la-mayor-eric-garcetti-make-movie-acting-debut-valley-girl-remake-1035317
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 1321


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines