Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 10, 2016, 03:58:58 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 552
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: GOP Wants to Repeal Obamacare NOW, and Replace Later....Much Later on: December 06, 2016, 03:27:32 pm
Republicans are playing with fire here. Many of the people making less than 30k who switched to vote for Trump are tremendously helped by Obamacare. Taking away their healthcare just before the 2020 election would not be a good idea. This is especially true in the Medicaid expansion states, and the great lakes swing states, with the exception of Wisconsin, have all expanded. Even a nominal swing among these people along with other demographics staying the same equals Trump losing re-election.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Jeff Sessions' Coming War on Legal Marijuana on: December 06, 2016, 02:48:44 pm
I welcome this fight, as long as the Democrats don't pussy out. This is a winning issue for them.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Why did Kansas swing towards Clinton? on: December 06, 2016, 03:46:41 am
Kansas is a very educated state.

So?  The college grads there are largely White, and that group voted for Trump.

Trends matter. College educated whites may have voted Republican again, but just barely. The reason why Hillary won the popular vote is because of college-educated whites.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: 2000-2016 Trends: A comparison/map/analysis on: December 06, 2016, 02:37:53 am
If this continues on, it would mean a natural Dem House majority (and control of a bunch of large states) with a major Republican advantage for everything else.  Sort of like the 1870's-1890's.

Why does this pattern portend a natural Dem House majority?

Also, looking at the medium-long term for Presidential elections, Texas and Florida are the key. If Democrats can get those two states on their side (along with perhaps Georgia and North Carolina), they can afford to lose the entire midwest minus Illinois.

Edit: Texas flipping is the tipping point though. That's when we likely see another realignment. Florida is also a wild card. Lots of minority growth but also lots of elderly Northeastern and Midwestern white growth as well. It always looks like Florida will vote more Democrat than the nation and then it doesn't happen.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should California be allowed to secede from the union? on: December 06, 2016, 02:06:27 am
Ironically the US GDP would plummet if California left. I doubt very much we would let the blue states secede because the red states are - how to gently put this? - uneducated and less productive compared to the bluer states.

Basically axe NY, CA, and IL and the US would go from a super economy to a second rate one. 

Turn off CA's water from other western states and watch its legendary agricultural sector crater overnight. Independent CA is going to be in for a rough time without Coloradan water.

Meh, there's plenty of water in Northern California. We just don't want to dam the Klamath, and want to protect our pretty little fishes and crap.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obamacare repealed...then what? on: December 06, 2016, 02:02:33 am
If they play the 2020 brinksmanship game, I think the optimal strategy is to 1. filibuster the replacement bill and 2. offer an amendment enrolling the entire country in Medicare with near unanimous Dem support  3. have the 2020 Dem nominee pledge to sign it immediately upon taking office.  That would be their best strategy IMO.

There wouldn't be anywhere close to "unanimous Dem support" for single payer...

There is going to be widespread support for "medicare for all" but not for "single payer". Democrats should be smart and advocate for "medicare for all" during this whole debate and run on it in 2020.

I don't see how the Republicans are able to lower the cost of insurance in the exchanges, which is what people are pissed about. Maybe they institute high risk pools and lower costs for everyone else? Who goes into those high risk pools though? Anyone with diabetes or heart disease? Or only those with complications or a history of cardiovascular events? And this isn't even tackling those with a history of a myriad of other health conditions. Perhaps they offer extra subsidies for those in these pools, but will a fiscally conservative Republican caucus go along with that? Should be interesting......

If you are disabled then you should get medicaid, right?

If you are disabled you get Medicare. I am not talking about those people. I am talking about people with a history of heart disease (history of MI,stroke or CHF) or diabetes with complications. These people are not necessarily disabled, but would have a very hard time getting insurance at a decent price without the protection afforded by Obamacare.
7  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Dems in Trump CD's; Reps in Clinton CD's on: December 06, 2016, 01:59:25 am
If I were one of those Republicans in California I'd be pissing myself now.  It's always bad to be in the party of a newly elected President during midterms but Trump + California might be the perfect storm for a Republican bloodbath there.

Problem is Hispanic turnout tanking in midterms. The Central Valley seats, in particular, seem to jump 6-7 points to the right every mid-term.

Also students and young people in general. For example, Mimi Walters district in OC contains UC Irvine, a very large university. Turnout will likely be down there in 2018 and the Democrat needs a nice margin there if they have any hope of defeating Walters. Also, Orange County is exactly the type of place that votes for Democrat for President or Governor vs down ballot. Besides Darrell Issa, I am not that optimistic about any of the other OC Republicans being defeated anytime soon. Perhaps in 2020 if Trump is defeated with a healthy margin.
8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obamacare repealed...then what? on: December 05, 2016, 02:22:44 am
If they play the 2020 brinksmanship game, I think the optimal strategy is to 1. filibuster the replacement bill and 2. offer an amendment enrolling the entire country in Medicare with near unanimous Dem support  3. have the 2020 Dem nominee pledge to sign it immediately upon taking office.  That would be their best strategy IMO.

There wouldn't be anywhere close to "unanimous Dem support" for single payer...

There is going to be widespread support for "medicare for all" but not for "single payer". Democrats should be smart and advocate for "medicare for all" during this whole debate and run on it in 2020.

I don't see how the Republicans are able to lower the cost of insurance in the exchanges, which is what people are pissed about. Maybe they institute high risk pools and lower costs for everyone else? Who goes into those high risk pools though? Anyone with diabetes or heart disease? Or only those with complications or a history of cardiovascular events? And this isn't even tackling those with a history of a myriad of other health conditions. Perhaps they offer extra subsidies for those in these pools, but will a fiscally conservative Republican caucus go along with that? Should be interesting......
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy on: December 04, 2016, 04:29:16 pm
Think about 2009.  Would Republicans be where they are going to be in 2017 if they had given Obamacare 3/4ths bipartisan majorities in exchange for adding a few pro-market provisions and more conscience protections on birth control/abortion?  No, of course not.  Trump is already seen as the most moderate president in a generation.  Do you really think it's a winning strategy to give him overwhelming bipartisan majorities for tariffs, walls, and giant rural infrastructure projects just because those bills require union labor and send $1B to Colin Peterson's and Tim Walz's districts or to West Virginia and North Dakota?  So you rubber stamp his economic agenda so that he looks like the next Ike and then attack him for not going far enough in 2020?  Good luck winning more than 10 states!

No, I think it's time for congressional Republicans to find out that resentment is a 2 way street.  You make them pass the tariffs, trade deal repeals, infrastructure projects, etc. on a strict party line vote and then turn them into the Republican version of Obamacare.  Then it's 3-7 years of "President Trump just made all of your groceries cost twice as much so that he could deport your neighbors and build bridges to nowhere for a bunch of hicks who don't even think you should be allowed to vote.  Let's show him who's boss in 2018/20/22!"  Half of the CA/TX/FL Republican delegations would be quaking in their boots at the sight of it.  It wouldn't exactly make me feel good inside, but we've clearly seen that it works.

Well, I think Senate Democrats (especially those in red/swing/Trump states up for reelection in two years) are not as stupid as that. Or else 2018 will make 2002 look like a Democratic landslide.

Umm...no. Democrats should not cooperate with Trump at all. They should oppose him at every turn, and when the eventual recession happens, blame it all on him and the Republicans. Demographically speaking, the Democrats are in a very nice place to take advantage of this. A nice swing back among working class whites in the north, same amount of support among college educated whites and stronger turnout among minorities= 400+ EV victory (depending on if Texas flips).

Pretty much this.  They should be operating on the assumption that the 4 Romney state senators are gone and try to keep net loses at 3 or lower.  IMO, it's time to encourage Manchin and Heitkamp to take Trump admin positions so that you don't have to spend a dime on their seats.  Focus on flipping NV and AZ and making something else competitive (probably MS or TX, both of which also have seats up in 2020).  Beyond that, the senate is best conceded until 2020 and the fight taken to the House.  Turn out enough of Cleveland and Philly and use the tariffs and trade restrictions as a wedge issue with retirees in FL/AZ/PA, the energy industry, and free market types in general.

Yeah, Trump policies could cause stagflation....sound familiar?
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy on: December 04, 2016, 04:08:42 pm
Think about 2009.  Would Republicans be where they are going to be in 2017 if they had given Obamacare 3/4ths bipartisan majorities in exchange for adding a few pro-market provisions and more conscience protections on birth control/abortion?  No, of course not.  Trump is already seen as the most moderate president in a generation.  Do you really think it's a winning strategy to give him overwhelming bipartisan majorities for tariffs, walls, and giant rural infrastructure projects just because those bills require union labor and send $1B to Colin Peterson's and Tim Walz's districts or to West Virginia and North Dakota?  So you rubber stamp his economic agenda so that he looks like the next Ike and then attack him for not going far enough in 2020?  Good luck winning more than 10 states!

No, I think it's time for congressional Republicans to find out that resentment is a 2 way street.  You make them pass the tariffs, trade deal repeals, infrastructure projects, etc. on a strict party line vote and then turn them into the Republican version of Obamacare.  Then it's 3-7 years of "President Trump just made all of your groceries cost twice as much so that he could deport your neighbors and build bridges to nowhere for a bunch of hicks who don't even think you should be allowed to vote.  Let's show him who's boss in 2018/20/22!"  Half of the CA/TX/FL Republican delegations would be quaking in their boots at the sight of it.  It wouldn't exactly make me feel good inside, but we've clearly seen that it works.

Well, I think Senate Democrats (especially those in red/swing/Trump states up for reelection in two years) are not as stupid as that. Or else 2018 will make 2002 look like a Democratic landslide.

Umm...no. Democrats should not cooperate with Trump at all. They should oppose him at every turn, and when the eventual recession happens, blame it all on him and the Republicans. Demographically speaking, the Democrats are in a very nice place to take advantage of this. A nice swing back among working class whites in the north, same amount of support among college educated whites and stronger turnout among minorities= 400+ EV victory (depending on if Texas flips).
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie's enthusiasm wasn't because he was far left. on: December 04, 2016, 03:33:42 pm
Post-election, I've seen some Democrats say, "well, we have to go faaaaaaar left now, cause Bernie woulda won". Leaving aside the counterfactual, the enthusiasm Bernie got wasn't because he was far left.

Bernie's enthusiasm was because first of all, people trusted him and believed him when he said he was out to look after the American worker over domestic special interests. Basically the same thing Trump was saying. It's not either left nor right. It was just good politics.

Yes, exactly. Democrats don't need to promise a socialist revolution in 2020, they just need to emphasize they will stand up for the working class (white and non-white) and be authentic about it. Clinton just wasn't able to do that.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy on: December 04, 2016, 03:13:06 pm
I totally agree with this article.  Democrats need to look to the future not the past.  I suspect another factor going on in the midwest is the reverse migration of African Americans from industrial states back to the South.

The fact is, a lot more attention was paid to Ohio and Iowa than Georgia or Arizona, which ended up being closer.  Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin are all trending Republican.  Yes, Wisconsin and Michigan are still winnable, but the focus should be on where there are positive gains. 

I am not convinced that Pennsylvania is trending Republican long-term though...  There is a significant portion of that state that is very East Coast and will trend Democrat (Philly + Burbs). 

Anyways, Democrats should focus on Florida, Arizona and Georgia.  They should also focus on house races in Texas.  With that much Democratic growth in the state they have to make gains there unless there is truly outrageous gerrymandering.

I think it's so weird people seem to be ignoring the fact that gaining power only matters if you have representatives, Senators and governors who will help you enact your ORIGINAL policy goals ... you know, the reason you wanted that power in the first place?

Picking off some college-educated Whites is much different than openly courting economically conservative college-educated Whites, specifically in the South.  Why do you even want them?  You might have a random guy or gal with a D next to the name in DC, but they'll be beholden to their voters who DON'T want a minimum wage increase, DON'T want stronger unions, DON'T want a stronger safety net, DON'T want an expanded welfare state, etc.  There reaches a point where getting to 270 (or a majority in Congress) doesn't even matter if your caucus can't agree on anything.

Because I am a democrat that is economically conservative and this is where the parties are headed.  Republicans will be the party of the white working class (i.e., voters without a college degree or a college degree from a low-tiered school who still end up working blue collar jobs)... Democrats will be the party of educated whites + minorities.  I am a democrat, but I do not generally support unions or an expanded welfare state.  I vote democrat because I am not into a lot of dumb wars, I am not into homophobic candidates, and I support gun control.  I have nothing in common with poor working class unionized whites in Ohio... which is the exact direction the Republican party is headed.

So, I do want our caucus to agree, just not with the issues you mention above.

Not that the rest of your post wasn't stupid as hell, but you are WAY out of line with your party - and especially with the wing of your party that is CLEARLY gaining power after the 2016 defeat - in the bolded sentence.  The Democrats are VERY CLEARLY going in a more economically progressive, populist direction.  I don't see how that's even debatable.  College educated Whites voted for Trump.  Trump's vote share went up DIRECTLY with a rise in income.  Your fantasy about what it means to be a Democrat exists only in your mind, bro.  It's the party of the poor, it's the party of inner-cities, it's the party of disadvantaged minorities, it's the party of unions, and its most "elite" faction is a bunch of PhD holders with no income who jerk each other off in Starbucks.  Embrace it!

I wouldn't be so confident, buddy. While Democrats have to push the populist message, college educated whites are trending Democrat and that will continue to happen. Especially with younger voters. This won't hit the GOP hard till another decade, but you guys better figure out how to appeal to college educated millenials who have >100k in student debt.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What would a Trump win over Bernie look like? on: December 04, 2016, 01:59:02 am
Trade MI/WI/PA for NV/VA

Bernie would have done better in Nevada for sure. Bernie did pretty well with Hispanics so if anything enthusiasm for him would have been even greater for him than Clinton. And he would have done better with working class whites in general, which is the reason why Nevada was one of the few western states to trend Republican this year.

I agree he would have done worse in Virginia, but I don't think he would have lost it. He would have done worse in Texas and Orange county, CA as well.........
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Southeast and Southwest democrats strategy on: December 04, 2016, 01:35:18 am

It really does though.  You can't win everyone.  The Republican party has become the party of poor, working class, no college degree whites. We have to just accept that. Democrats have courted minorities and college educated whites.  This has caused a backlash among whites without a college education.  If we started courting whites without a college education we'd have to severely change our party value system (e.g., drop support for gay marriage, support the confederate flag, etc. etc.)... most liberals don't want to do any of that.

Or maybe you just want it that way. The latter part of your post is basically admitting it is not set in stone.





Yes I do.  However, it does have to be that way because the vast majority of the party also wants it that way, so it will end up being that way.  Do you think most Democrats will want the party to shift on gay marriage just to court rural voters in Wisconsin?  It's not going to happen. 

They don't have to shift on gay marriage to win back Wisconsin. They just have to have an economically populist message, like Obama did. Democrats will always do better with that message. Even in places like Georgia, Florida, Texas and North Carolina, the Democratic base is the working class. I do agree that the white working class is moving away from the Democrats, and that will likely continue over time, but the Democrats will still do better with an economically populist message. That message will both help them grow long term in diversifying states, while mitigating their decimation in the midwest in the short term.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Oregon 2016 GE Pres Results on: November 29, 2016, 06:53:32 pm
I just wanted to stop by and say this is an excellent thread!

Have you looked into the differences between the Presidential vote and the Senate vote?
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Making English the national language on: November 20, 2016, 09:05:57 pm
I don't really mind this-- indeed I guess I'm for it-- provided it's more or less symbolic. Restricting people's rights to speak other languages, besides being blatantly unconstitutional, would obviously be horrific. I've always felt there's something a bit weird in putting official documents, such as ballots, in foreign languages, but I don't really object to it, and am not particularly inclined towards preventing people from accessing government services or exercising their rights; anyways, that's a matter for the states.

If we had parts of the country where immigrants could live for generations without ever even learning English, that might be an concern, but history shows that such things don't really persist in that way and communities integrate in a fairly short amount of time.

I agree everyone should speak English, and should really try to do so, but I can empathise with those who cannot-- learning a new language is hard, especially when older. I can no longer bring myself to mock or complain about anyone's poor English when I know my French is almost certainly worse.

So a one line page, fine. Even then I'd be concerned people would take such a law as a license to harangue others for not speaking English, and it's hard to see such a law could serve as effective red meat without provoking such a response. Anything more than that would probably be, well, problematic.

Yeah, something symbolic would be nice. A message that if you want to live in America, you need to learn English. Or at the very least, don't expect others to speak your language or understand you. While this is not a problem in most of the country, there is some expectation on the part of a few in Southern California that everyone should understand Spanish. I especially feel bad for Hispanics who don't know Spanish. They really get a bad attitude from some people.

I also say this as an immigrant who speaks two other languages besides English. I don't want to restrict anyone's ability to speak another language. I don't have anything against people learning multiple languages (voted yes on proposition 58). Indeed, that is a good thing. There just shouldn't be an expectation that anyone needs to know any language other than English to go about their day in this country. I also hate Trump, as an FYI. I just think if he is going to do something draconian, this would be better than deporting 12 million humans. 
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary breaks 50% in Orange County, California on: November 17, 2016, 01:38:57 am
It will be interesting to look at the precinct results once they are published to see where the major swings happened in OC....

Was it the result of a huge shift in Vietnamese (and other Asian-Americans) swinging hard towards the Democrats? Was it the result of a voting surge and swing among Latino-Americans? Was it the wealthy Anglos living up in the hillsides and beach condos that typically voted Republican rejecting the Trumpist brand of Republicanism?

Or was it all of the above?

Regardless, of some of the sniping going on in this thread, I am actually interested in the changing political coalitions in the sixth largest county in the US, regardless of if they happen in traditionally Republican or Democratic counties....

There are plenty of other threads to squabble about the outcome of the election in, but since this one happens to be about OC swinging hard to the Democrats....

For example, it appears that despite the Senate election only had two Democrats on the ballot, there wasn't the type of dramatic drop-off in votes between the Presidential and Senate elections that one might expect in a traditionally Republican County.

Anyways, still looking forward to seeing precinct level results from OC once this is over so that we can understand what happened in OC that caused such a dramatic shift, in essentially the only remaining large Republican population center in Cali....

You can see the precinct results mapped here. It looks like Trump fell hardest in the Cypress/La Palma/Buena Park/west Anaheim area. Parts of Garden Grove and Irvine also swung hard to Clinton. I would guess therefore that it was the Asian areas that were most responsible for the swing with some increased Hispanic turnout for good measure.
So it looks like the myth of wealthy and retired Republican Anglos in OC swinging hard towards the Democrats did not happen, at least looking at the map and seeing the solid sea of Trump purple in the wealthy Beach communities of OC, as well as the SE hills/canyons of OC.

Not so fast! Remember, those beach communities and southern OC are pretty Republican to begin with. Even a large swing might not change the map much. It is indisputable that the main swing came from the Vietnamese areas along with places like Cypress, Fullerton, Buena Park and Irvine which have a large Asian population. Lots of Koreans in north OC areas like Fullerton and Buena Park and lots of Chinese in Irvine. That being said look at the results in Aliso Viejo, a wealthy mostly white south OC city. It was basically tied in 2012 but Clinton seems to have won almost every precinct this time around. Clinton won Mimi Walters and Dana Rohrbacher's districts.  Has anyone calculated the preliminary city results in Orange County and compared them to 2012? I think we would see a lot of swing in south OC as well as the beach. Now, inland anglo areas like Yorba Linda and the Anaheim Hills are another issue. Those areas probably didn't swing as much to Clinton, if at all.
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Making English the national language on: November 16, 2016, 08:28:01 pm
Should Trump push for English as the official language of the United States? It's a great way to throw red meat at his base while not pissing off moderate whites or non-SJW non-whites. And it will make the SJW's overreact. Should he do it?
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Should democrats focus on the South instead of Upper Midwest going forward? on: November 14, 2016, 02:26:00 pm
Focus on everybody. Just because demographic changes are favoring you (and they are) doesn't mean you pretend like the rest of the country doesn't matter. It might lead to a backlash.....
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nashville/Davidson Co. TN Precinct results maps on: November 14, 2016, 01:03:10 am
So black people swung to Trump and rich whites swung to Hillary. Definitely a correlation between income and the vote. Trump seems to have gained in some parts of southeast Nashville and Antioch, which considering the changing demographics of this area, one wouldn't expect. Turns out there were more whites voting Democrat in these places than one would think. In any case the white vote has definitely realigned in this election.
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is Medicare privatization going to hurt the GOP like O-Care? on: November 12, 2016, 03:27:57 am
I don't think a lot of establishment Republicans understand the lessons of this election. Right now they have power, and are giddy at the prospect of getting done whatever they want. With the exception of the Supreme Court, I don't think the right gets much from these coming years, besides immigration policy. Certainly not Medicare or Social Security cuts. That is not what the country wants, and the results of the election should have made that clear. If Trump goes along with this, watch for the Democrats to roar back in 2020 promising tax hikes on the rich and saving Medicare and Social Security from the Republicans.
22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What happens to marijuana? on: November 11, 2016, 08:19:20 pm
Is it just me or is there no way Christie becomes AG. Christie is Trumps bitch and he won't get any important positions in the cabinet. Just watch the body language between them during his victory speech. Trump doesn't respect him.
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What happens to marijuana? on: November 11, 2016, 04:09:41 am
Hopefully Chris Christie becomes AG and starts enforcing drug laws in this country.
Bring it on. You can take our Marijuana from our cold, dead hands.

But seriously, the Republicans need to suppress the millenial vote, not energize it.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Millennial Turnout Decisive Factor? Hillary received 7M less votes than Obama12 on: November 11, 2016, 03:46:34 am
I think it has something to do with her disappointing performance, though I'm not sure if it would have been decisive. Probably in Michigan, but Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? Not sure. In any case, I bet these clowns who didn't vote are the ones causing riots in the streets.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: This easily could have been the map on: November 10, 2016, 04:50:22 pm
This is why even with demographic changes the Democrats can't give up on the Midwest or just appeal to a certain portion of those states.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 552


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines