Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2015, 11:29:09 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 619
76  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Hillary as an Independent in 2008? on: March 21, 2015, 05:39:03 pm
I think she would have been able to pull 20% of Obama's ultimate voters over to her.

77  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Hillary as an Independent in 2008? on: March 21, 2015, 05:28:05 pm
What would the map have looked like if, instead of dropping out on June 4, 2008, Hillary aggressively pursued her rights all the way to the Democratic convention in late August? Let's say she is narrowly defeated for the nomination by super-delegates in an extremely polarizing process, with accusations of racism and sexism flying everywhere, then asks her people to withdraw from the convention and announces her run as an independent. What would the map look like then?
78  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Hillary Supporters: Biggest Reason for supporting Hillary for President? on: March 21, 2015, 05:19:47 pm
I would probably support her because of all the crap that she goes through and how well she's handled it. I think it takes a very, very, very strong personality.
79  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Looks like Bernie Sanders is running on: March 20, 2015, 02:47:02 pm
At least he's not a complete phony unlike some Democrats who try to run to as true leftists.
80  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: US-Israeli Relations After the Election on: March 20, 2015, 12:59:00 pm
Would removing the military aid do that much? Israel could crush the Palestinians even without it.

It will not. Removing aid to Egypt would have a bigger impact - also on Israel.

I'm sure someone out there would enjoy seeing the Egyptians get spanked again. Maybe this time the IDF won't stop at the Suez. Cheesy

Anyway, the point if removing military aid to Israel isn't about Israel but rather something much simpler: It saves the U.S. some money.
81  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Huck: Obama "disdains" Israel because he identifies w/ the rest of the Mid-East on: March 20, 2015, 11:04:54 am
Huckabee is saying Obama sees himself as the Other, and hence as sympathy for the Other in the Middle East. But this is  largely a projection of Huckabee's views of Obama as the Other onto Obama's view of himself. That is, Huckabee thinks Obama views himself, in the manner that Huckabee views Obama.

In reality, Obama's friction with Israel is more a product of his tendency to be very tapped into the dovish mood of certain Americans which is usually ignored in Washington. It's a product of the same tendency which resisted intervention in Syria, and so on.
82  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How many counties will Hillary Clinton win in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses? on: March 20, 2015, 10:14:54 am
90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.

I can't wait for the Clinton campaign to resort to attacking caucuses again.

Caucuses are sort of like poll taxes, literacy requirements, and voter ID laws. Their main function is to drastically decrease the electorate by erecting a high barrier (e.g., being able to stand around for several more hours than usual) to voting. They're also unusually susceptible to fraud, manipulation, and arbitrary cutoffs. Regardless the of whether Clinton or whomever your candidate is, is winning them, it's hard to see why anyone who supports democracy could like them.

Except that turnout doesn't matter so much for partisan primaries (certainly not counting California's primaries there), and lower turnout means higher information voters.

Of course it matters. Higher turnout means a broader cross section of the population is represented.

We don't need voters who just vote for Clinton because of name recognition.

Recognizing someone's name and actually going to the polls to vote for that person are two different things.
There's absolutely no reason for the internals of a political party to be "democratic". A political party is there to nominate candidates for people to vote on. Insomuch as anyone has a fair chance to participate in the process, I don't see the problem.

Then why have caucuses and primaries at all? Why not just coronate Hillary in a smoke-filled room? I'd be alright with that if she runs. Smiley

Of course, some people might say that anyone doesn't have a fair chance to participate in the process, thanks to our first-past-the-post electoral system. They'd argue that the system is set up in such a way as to create a bias towards a two-party system, since third party candidates tend to act as spoilers. The result is that we usually end up with only two people with a realistic chance at winning, and those two people tend to be from the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively. Insomuch as a choice between two people cannot reflect the diversity of opinion in the U.S., those people would argue that it's important for them to have a say in determining who those people are to begin with, such that ideas that otherwise would not have a chance, have a chance at being represented.
83  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How many counties will Hillary Clinton win in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses? on: March 19, 2015, 02:18:09 am
90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.

I can't wait for the Clinton campaign to resort to attacking caucuses again.

Caucuses are sort of like poll taxes, literacy requirements, and voter ID laws. Their main function is to drastically decrease the electorate by erecting a high barrier (e.g., being able to stand around for several more hours than usual) to voting. They're also unusually susceptible to fraud, manipulation, and arbitrary cutoffs. Regardless the of whether Clinton or whomever your candidate is, is winning them, it's hard to see why anyone who supports democracy could like them.

Except that turnout doesn't matter so much for partisan primaries (certainly not counting California's primaries there), and lower turnout means higher information voters.

Of course it matters. Higher turnout means a broader cross section of the population is represented.

We don't need voters who just vote for Clinton because of name recognition.

Recognizing someone's name and actually going to the polls to vote for that person are two different things.
84  General Politics / Economics / Re: Federal Reserve Signals Higher Interest Rates are Imminent on: March 19, 2015, 01:47:00 am
Raising the rate by even ten basis points is going to cause a panic at this point, it seems.

It would cause a panic in emerging markets. The dollar is already absurdly strong.
85  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the U.S. education reform movement on: March 19, 2015, 01:43:53 am
At first I thought this thread was going to be about John Dewey.
86  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What do you think the US does well? on: March 19, 2015, 01:37:31 am
The U.S. does a good job at innovating consumer goods (Beet types on his iPhone).
87  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How many counties will Hillary Clinton win in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses? on: March 19, 2015, 01:35:02 am
90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.

I can't wait for the Clinton campaign to resort to attacking caucuses again.

Caucuses are sort of like poll taxes, literacy requirements, and voter ID laws. Their main function is to drastically decrease the electorate by erecting a high barrier (e.g., being able to stand around for several more hours than usual) to voting. They're also unusually susceptible to fraud, manipulation, and arbitrary cutoffs. Regardless the of whether Clinton or whomever your candidate is, is winning them, it's hard to see why anyone who supports democracy could like them.

Except that turnout doesn't matter so much for partisan primaries (certainly not counting California's primaries there), and lower turnout means higher information voters.

Of course it matters. Higher turnout means a broader cross section of the population is represented.
88  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Carson flubs foreign policy discussion in Hugh Hewitt interview on: March 19, 2015, 01:05:47 am
That's about as accurate as saying Africans trace back to Ham, and us Chinese were apparently dropped by spaceships.
89  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who would make the best Republican President? on: March 18, 2015, 04:53:11 pm
Wow, Bush, Kasich, and Paul tied at 25 each.
90  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: "America's anti-liberal myth" on: March 18, 2015, 04:41:02 pm
I think the 20th century left died when Khruschev's Secret Speech where he admitted that Stalin really was a HP leaked to the Israelis. As recently as 1938, respectable people had been saying the Soviet Union was a progressive state that would never sign a pact with Hitler. Even Sputnik 18 months later couldn't make up for that.
91  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: In Playboy Interview, Dick Cheney calls Obama "worst President of my lifetime." on: March 17, 2015, 07:17:44 pm
In other news, Jimmy Carter feels lust in his heart. Yes, even Jimmy Carter.
92  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama snuffs stoner dreams of legalization on: March 17, 2015, 12:57:24 pm
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/obama-snuffs-stoner-dreams-of-legalization-116125.html?cmpid=sf#ixzz3UalvNGxY

First of all, it shouldnt be young peoples biggest priority, Obama chided. You should be thinking about climate change, the economy, jobs, war and peace. Maybe way at the bottom you should be thinking about marijuana.

Legalization or decriminalization is not a panacea, he added, questioning whether it would work for drugs like meth and crack. There is a legitimate, I think, concern, about the overall effects this has on society.

Bu-bu-but marihuana is the most impor4nt issue evah!! Some DWS-hating Florida billionaire told me so!
93  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How many counties will Hillary Clinton win in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses? on: March 17, 2015, 02:25:49 am
90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.

I can't wait for the Clinton campaign to resort to attacking caucuses again.

Caucuses are sort of like poll taxes, literacy requirements, and voter ID laws. Their main function is to drastically decrease the electorate by erecting a high barrier (e.g., being able to stand around for several more hours than usual) to voting. They're also unusually susceptible to fraud, manipulation, and arbitrary cutoffs. Regardless the of whether Clinton or whomever your candidate is, is winning them, it's hard to see why anyone who supports democracy could like them.
94  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Tulsi Gabbard and the BJP on: March 17, 2015, 02:03:28 am
Hmm...She's into HP territory for me.
95  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What age did you first try marijuana? on: March 17, 2015, 02:01:45 am
21
96  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What's plan B for Democrats if.... on: March 16, 2015, 07:29:58 pm
Good post. This reminds me of how amusing I find the narrative of "big bad Wall Street funded corporatist bitch Hillary Clinton is going to sweep the primary because the elite wants her in. The fix is in, the everyday voters won't even get a say."

In reality, it's the complete opposite. The DC/NYC pundits in their bubbles and ivory towers are Hillary's strongest opponents, and they're fiercely against her. Her core support and the reason she will be the Democratic nominee is her support from regular every day voters that don't think it's the apocolypse because she used a .com rather than a .gov e-mail address.

Haha, so true! It's just like when people say, "Why Hillary doesn't have opposition! She needs opposition! It can't just be a coronation! She's got to earn it!"

Why she's just navigated (and is navigating) the most intense media scrutiny of any candidate in the field in at least a year. Before the first caucus next year, if she for some masochistic reason decides to run, she'll be the only candidate on either side of the aisle to have gotten votes and delegates in all 50 states and the territories. Heck, she might already have more primary votes under her belt than the eventual '16 nominee in either party will have earned by the convention.

Besides the GOP candidates already criticising her, you've got the bulk of the beltway pundit class and political papers lined up against her, and the left wing of her own party ready to jump at every shadow.

You can line up Clinton's opposition head to head against any candidate's. You can line up what she's done to earn a party nomination against any person's. If you really want to know what it's like to challenge an unquestioned assumption and fight a lonely fight, you can just ask me. I know how to do it, and I'm not afraid to do it. But by golly, being a Hillary detractor isn't that.
97  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: CNN/ORC national poll: Clinton = 53% favorable / 44% unfavorable on: March 16, 2015, 06:46:47 pm
47% won't even say she did anything wrong. Of the remaining 51%, a good chunk of them probably think it's a minor issue, certainly worth less time than the media has spent bleating over it.

What has been the ratio of negative to positive Clinton stories from November to March? 9 to 1? And she is still viewed favorably 53-44. Lol. Of course they'll get her eventually (which is why she should announce she's not running), but it's still funny.
98  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NY Post: Valerie Jarrett leaked Clinton email details to media on: March 16, 2015, 03:31:29 pm
I don't take RFK Jr's word as gospel. Fair enough if he didn't get offended by it, but it was a bloody stupid thing to say which pretty much summed up Hilary in 2008. And yes she did say that extact thing, she alluded to Obama getting killed

Ok, find me the quote.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.

Politicians tend to talk in code. I used the word 'allude' because Hilary is basically saying 'the popular, energetic candidate who had the lead in 1968 got killed, so it could happen in 2008 where there's another popular, energetic winning candidate. Barack was Bobby, she was Humphrey

No, because the chances of Obama getting killed were virtually nil. Besides, even if Obama had been killed, that wouldn't have been a reason for Hillary to stay in the race, since an alternative nominee would have had to be found, and Hillary would have been the logical choice whether she was in the race or not.

So even if you take that statement at what the media claimed it was, it makes no sense.

Clearly, Hillary was saying that Bobby Kennedy getting killed in June was a memorable event, hence why "we all remember" it, and that we all remember it was in June, so a nominating process lasting until June isn't unprecedented. This is because, the context of her remarks was her defense of staying in the race until June, and not dropping out earlier. She also used the example of her husband staying in the nomination until June 1992. This was a way of pointing out two historical precedents of nominating processes that lasted until June.

This is the only interpretation that incorporates all of the parts of her comment (including the "we all remember" part) so that they logically fit together, as well as the context and purpose of her remarks. In scientific theory (since common sense is insufficient in this case), it would definitely win because it elegantly explains the largest portion of the data.

The people from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader who were the ones who actually conducted the interview and were in the room, also put out a statement supporting that interpretation, although it was barely reported. However, I don't expect that to sway Hillary's detractors any more than the full transcript, JFK Jr.'s comments, or logic would.

In the larger context of the issue, Hillary was most certainly correct and vindicated. At the time, the Obama people were screaming hysterically that by staying in the nominating contest until June, Hillary would divide the party and open the way for a Republican victory, and hence she must drop out immediately. There was even a cartoon that someone here at Atlas sported (I don't remember who it was) that showed McCain being inaugurated, with Obama and Clinton sitting on the sidelines wrapped up in casts and with bruises all over.

In retrospect, the consensus is that the long Democratic nominating process in 2008 was a positive that tremendously helped energize the party.

The real irony is that when Ted Kennedy ran for president in 1980, he lost far more decisively to Jimmy Carter than Hillary Clinton lost to Obama, yet when he got to the convention he gave a speech harshly criticizing Carter that was widely seen to have damaged the party nominee. In contrast, when Hillary got to the convention, she folded all of her delegates into Obama's camp to make the nomination unanimous (against the wishes of many of her own supporters) and gave a full-throated endorsement of Obama.
99  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will MI correct the Electoral College bias towards Democrats? on: March 16, 2015, 03:01:11 pm
In the last two elections, an Electoral College bias in favor of the democratic candidate has developed. In 2008 Obama beat McCain by 7.26%, but it would have taken 9.5% shift nationwide towards McCain for the Republican to have won a majority of the Electoral Votes.  In 2012, Obama beat Romney by 3.86%, but it would have taken a 5.37% shift towards Romney for the Republican to win a majority of the Electoral Votes.  Thus, in the last two elections there has been about a 2% bias in the Electoral College, such that had either election been close, Obama could have won in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote by up to 2%.

The only way to eliminate a bias in the Electoral College using the popular vote as the metric of guidance would be to determine the election result by the popular vote. Hence, if Obama beats McCain by 7.26%, then it would take a 7.26% shift nationwide towards McCain for the Republican to win the election. If Obama beat Romney by 3.86%, then it would take a 3.86% shift towards Romney for the Republican to win the election.

See how simple that is? This is what Democrats have been proposing all along.

MI isn't proposing to correct bias, but to introduce new bias, by changing the rules on a selective basis, the sole reason why MI is selected being that it is a state expected to vote Democratic. Hence the purpose to sabotage the state's influence in presidential elections to bias the system towards the GOP. The Republicans are the only reason why the biased Electoral College system is in place to begin with, and now they propose to biased their own biased system, thus stacking bias on top of bias in an absurd contortion calculated to benefit themselves. Might as well just write in the next election winner ahead of time.
100  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Julius Caesar on: March 15, 2015, 11:26:34 pm
I'm with Al and Mikado

Ha. You rarely go wrong being with those two.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 619


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines