Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 01, 2014, 06:11:16 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 411
126  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Colorado students walk out of class to protest right-wing revision of history on: September 25, 2014, 09:07:24 am
Disgraceful. Utterly disgraceful. People go to school so they can be taught, not so they can offer up social and political commentary. I mean honestly, I'm sure the forebears of many of these kids would have given their right arm to be taught history, whether it was portrayed in a good light or not.

Can't they just go outside the school gates and smoke dope - that was sufficient 'rebellion' at my school Tongue.

The ones smoking dope aren't the ones who think that the school board is trying to manipulate them. High-school students savvy enough to understand psychological manipulation in the form of political propaganda offered as 'education' are the best-and-brightest, and not dullards with personal grudges against a teacher or school administrator.

Just think how manipulative education can be in dictatorial regimes. If kids were being taught how wonderful 'socialism' is as was the norm in the Soviet Union and its satellites, would you as a conservative find that troubling? Or how wonderful it is to fight and die for the glory of the nation as in fascist states like Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and militarist Japan?

Even a word like "free" can be twisted into something perverse, as in "free" from capitalist exploitation, "free" from the Versailles treaty, "free" from the Jews, and from the beloved Horst-Wessel-Lied, the streets free to Nazi militias. In view of how "free enterprise" operates in the US today, it could mean that owners and managers are "free" to express their greed and power in the imposition of mass suffering.

Much is rotten in contemporary America. It is not the duty of the People to endorse the rottenness but instead to demand its excision through peaceful reform -- and to keep it out, as much as possible, from the public life. If We the People have no willingness to resist evil, whether of a tyrannical overlord or schemers from inside the System, then we Americans could end up with concentration camps and torture chambers -- maybe even peonage in all but name.
127  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How would you fix the Republican Party? on: September 24, 2014, 10:49:24 am
1. Support a $15 an hour minimum wage. What's more conservative than opposing government handouts to businesses that pay their employees so little that they have to take advantage of food stamps and other government programs in order to make ends meet?

Doesn't work that way. Higher min wage is associated with lower levels of employment, lower labor efficiency, and higher entitlement spending.

More of an incentive to work, to improve skills, and to stick with a job that one already has (lower turnover and hence lower training costs). Add to that, those with higher pay are able to spend more. 

Quote
2. Support the right to organize and repeal anti-union legislation. If the Republican Party really wants to avoid state-mandated redistribution of wealth, why shouldn't it support free individuals entering into agreements with one another and then bargaining collectively over wages, hours, and working conditions?

Unions have no acquitted themselves as being agents of the employees they represent. Their mission statement cannot overcome their recent history.

Corporate America hates unions. Without unions it would be able to hire spies to investigate workers to see if they have vulnerabilities to exploit in allegedly one-on-one 'negotiations' that better resemble a troika than a real negotiation.

Much of Corporate America would be perfectly happy to return to near-starvation pay for people compelled to work to exhaustion.

Quote
3. Support a universal basic income program. Again, if the Republicans want to get serious about slimming down the size of the state, why not implement a universal basic income program in lieu of traditional welfare programs? Send everyone a check every week and get rid of the counterproductive and often wasteful bureaucratic behemoths that deliver inadequate services and waste public money. As an added bonus, such a program would allow mothers to spend more time with their children (thus strengthening the family unit the GOP cares so much about!) rather than being swept up into the labor force after child birth.

The marginal tax rate is 100% for workers who do not eclipse the minimum income threshold. The current system is nearly as bad. Expanding the problem is not a solution, and no one wins if we continue pandering to the know-nothings.


The question may not be so much whether we can afford it as whether we can't.

Quote
4. Support paid parental leave and other family-friendly additions to the welfare state. Again, what's more conservative than allowing mothers time to take off work and provide for their children? What might strengthen the family unit more than allowing families more time off from work and more time with their children in the most critical years of their lives?

More conservative and liberal is creating an economy where the mother can choose to remain at home, if she is so inclined.

Ideally a husband's income is strong enough to allow that.

Quote
5. Support comparable worth laws for women. Pretty self-explanatory. If you want strong families, you should at least support paying women the same wages that men are paid, rather than put them in a situation whereby they are unable to provide for their families in the event that something tragic happens and the father is no longer around, no?

Women with equal education and experience are paid the same as men. The "pay gap" is a fictitious construct, exploited by amoral politicians who wish to disparage women for sacrificing compensation to have stable careers with lots of flex time (e.g. teaching).
[/quote]

In government agencies and to some extent in corporations with bureaucratic methods of setting compensation based on merit.
128  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Pat Roberts: Our country is headed for national socialism on: September 23, 2014, 07:18:58 pm
Holy excessive hyperbole Batman!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0Zf5jq0wOTo

And I will tell you that one of the reasons—I'm going to get partisan here—but one of the reasons I'm running is to change that. To change that. There's an easy way to do it. I'll let you figure it out. But, at any rate, we have to change course, because our country is headed for national socialism. That's not right. Changing the culture, changing what we're all about.

Has he forgotten what "National Socialism" really means?

Maybe he ought to ask why Henry Kissinger is in the United States.  
129  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 23, 2014, 06:03:20 pm

Here's my projection of the 2016 election based upon what I see in Hillary Clinton against the main four potential nominees in current polls. I pay no attention to Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, or Scott Walker, as they lose by ludicrous margins in all but sure-R states.  

I don't really like to change this map often, especially over a state with 'only' six electoral votes. The shift of Arkansas from barely R for everyone but Huckabee to having mixed results in polling forces a category change -- over very little.
  



Legitimate swing states:

white -- mixed results or any tie
pink --   D lead in all 4 current polls, but swing states in 2008 and 2012
pale blue -- R lead in all current polls, all but one of them under 4%

Fringe swing states:

medium red -- D lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012
medium blue -- R lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012

Non-swing states
dark red -- D lead with at least 50% in at least two polls
dark blue -- R lead with at least 50% in at least two polls

Gray -- no polling

Now, based on how states did in 2008 and 2012 and how analogous states do, I fill in the rest:



Legitimate swing states:

white -- mixed results or any tie  66
pink --   D lead in all 4 current polls, but swing states in 2008 and 2012, or a split 81
pale blue -- R lead in all current polls, all but one of them under 4% 14

Fringe swing states:

medium red -- D lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012 50
medium blue -- R lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012 76

Non-swing states
dark red -- D lead with at least 50% in at least two polls 199
dark blue -- R lead with at least 50% in at least two polls 32

Gray --  I have no idea (no suitable analogues) 12


I see America much less polarized now than it was in 2008 or 2012.  
130  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 23, 2014, 05:54:33 pm
PPP, Arkansas

Hillary vs Huckabee:41-53 (R+12%)
Hillary vs Bush: 41-46 (R+5%)
Hillary vs Rand Paul: 43-45 (R+2%)
Hillary vs Cruz: 43-44 (R+1%)

Hillary vs Christie: 42-41 (D+1%)

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/09/gop-ticket-leads-in-arkansas.html#more

Possibly in contention in 2016; the Senate race is a toss-up.


Christie looks like a horrible match for Arkansas. Really, if Rand Paul can do no better in Arkansas and Kentucky than recent polls suggest, he could lose the popular vote 55-45.

Alaska, PPP:


Hillary Clinton: 39%
Jeb Bush: 44%

Hillary Clinton: 36%
Chris Christie: 46%

Hillary Clinton: 39%
Ted Cruz: 46%

Hillary Clinton: 40%
Mike Huckabee: 44%

Hillary Clinton: 44%
Sarah Palin: 38%

Hillary Clinton: 40%
Rand Paul: 45%

The most northerly state in the Union looks like a Southern state in its voting. The most southerly state in the Union votes as if it were in New England.

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


   

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul




blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more






131  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeff Sessions on: September 23, 2014, 10:44:20 am
If anything, Kansas is more likely to go Democratic in 2016. But that would be a wash.
132  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls / Re: MI: PPP for LCV: Snyder holding narrow lead on: September 23, 2014, 10:42:26 am
Debate October 21.

Mark Schauer is not from southeastern Michigan, where the heavy Democratic vote is. Should he line that up, which he apparently has yet  to do, then he wins. It's a matter of getting known. There are a few county fairs left.

Republicans tend to lose elections close on October 1 in Michigan.
133  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ted Cruz on ISIS, and the split among GOP hawks on: September 23, 2014, 07:49:24 am
Seriously guys, no one else is going to comment in this thread?  This is an interesting potential fissure in foreign policy among GOP presidential candidates that we could see next year, and you'd all rather talk about whether the 100 year old former lieutenant governor of Guam could be vice president, or whatever?


I think its because its hard to take Ted Cruz serious as a Presidential contender, so it doesn't seem to matter much what he says. But I agree with the "worst of both worlds" comment. A Cruz-presidency would be terrible (also) on foreign policy.

Can you make the case that this will influence Republican foreign policy with some more likely nominee?


Ted Cruz is a political joke in the making -- at best the New Jesse Helms and at worst the New Joseph McCarthy.
134  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Reuters/Ipsos: 24% of Americans support secession for their state on: September 23, 2014, 07:43:35 am
New England probably would have had the highest support for secession during the Bush years, which shows that the real issue is frustration with and alienation from the Federal Government rather than actual desire for secession.

  No surprise. After all, New England was itself a hotbed of secession against increasingly-despotic leadership in the 1770s.
135  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gun control loons getting loonier on: September 22, 2014, 03:50:52 pm
Sport hunters are not the problem. Machine guns are intended to cause multiple casualties. 
136  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Joe Biden under fire from Jewish groups for using word 'Shylocks' during speech on: September 22, 2014, 03:27:10 pm
I have seen it used to describe loan sharks.  Not the (famously Jewish) Rothschild family, though, which seems to refuse to lend to people who would be hurt by the deal. The Rothschilds did not finance gambling on credit or consumer loans.



137  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Gun control loons getting loonier on: September 22, 2014, 03:16:10 pm
If we're talking about essentially military weapons, what is the point of owning them?  You don't go deer hunting with an M-16.  There is no legitimate purpose for consumers owning these guns.

First off, this rifle is akin to an M21 not a M16. As dead0man already pointed out, sniper rifles are a completely different beast than automatic rifles.  And you know what, while I don't see the appeal personally, especially at the price, I can easily see some hunting enthusiast wanting one so as to be able to brag about bringing down a trophy deer with a single shot at 1000 yards.  So the no legitimate purpose argument can be quickly be discarded.  So can the anti-terrorist argument since actual terrorist groups such as ISIL and DPM already have access to military sniper rifles that serve the same purpose and are cheaper.

You can play that game with any particular gun.  Sure, one boutique model of gun is probably not significant.  It's an issue of where you draw the line between legal and illegal.

True, but there is no bright line separating this gun from a "legitimate" hunting rifle, so trying to ban it will arouse a whole lot of heat from the pro-gun nuts, and even if the anti-gun nuts were to win such a battle, it's doubtful the win would end up having saved any lives as even if a genuine nut were to make use of it, that nut would likely have killed and wounded more people with a different gun.

Technically a hunter targeting a deer is a sniper except that the object of his attack is not human. A sniper is a specially-trained soldier who typically has a high likelihood of killing people but little of surviving once detected.

Accuracy of a shot and the potential for killing several persons at once is the difference between a hunting rifle and a machine gun. Getting extreme precision in a shot is inconsistent with rapid fire.

One typically has only one shot at a deer... or a high-value military target (let us say a senior officer or a high-level political figure).
138  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Molotov cocktail thrown into Rep. Cleaver's (D-MO) office on: September 22, 2014, 03:07:55 pm
Who would do this? So dumb.

Ted Kaczynski is by all accounts a brilliant fellow. Ill-developed emotionally, though. See also Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 atrocities.
139  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: A history lesson on the continuing development of the Republican party on: September 22, 2014, 04:38:50 am
Hoover arguably belongs on the Lincoln/Eisenhower side of the equation, despite the assumptions that scattershot readings of history make about him. He was an engineer and a product of the Industrial Revolution and the Machine Age. He saw society as one big factory and all of its citizens and institutions as its moving parts - solving public policy problems was no different than trying to make an assembly line run more smoothly. On one hand, it's optimistically liberal - it opens the door for central planning and reliance on experts over the collective decision making of market actors. On the other hand, it's unsympathetically conservative - it can give rise to a cold, managerial "run government like a business" mentality. But the fact that Hoover believed government could work well and be a positive force in society is what precludes him from being lumped in with the Tea Party.

Hoover was simply ill-suited to be President. He demonstrates that profit-and-loss experience is irrelevant to government, much of which (like justice and law enforcement) could never operate on a profit-and-loss basis.

The economic meltdowns beginning in 2007 and 1929 had much the same cause and did similar damage for about a year and a half. The difference? In 2009 Barack Obama backed the banks at the start of his term. In 1931, Herbert Hoover let the bank runs that would eventually shred the financial system 'sort things out'. That sorting-out undid about 25 years of economic progress. That is how business mangers see things in macroeconomics.

The Tea Party pols are cruel. Put them fully in charge, and they would give us a full-blown Depression.     

 
140  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NC-PPP: Paul, Christie, Cruz trails hard, Bush & Huck slightly ahead on: September 21, 2014, 12:32:23 pm
How do we know that they used the likely voter model to estimate the 2016 turn out in this poll? That's pure speculation in my view and probably false. Why couldn't they have asked all respondents this question? After all, they don't estimate the likely voter turnout until after the poll has been executed. When they ask a question related to 2016, there's no reason they'll spend heaps of resources to use a 2014 electorate to calculate such an outcome instead of just using the raw numbers.

"PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."

And since the focal point of the poll is the senate race, the likely voters are of the senate race.

Exactly. The likely voters are of the senate race. It doesn't say whether they used likely voters or registered voters for their 2016 calculation. I would be very surprised if they calculated a likely voter outcome this far in advance.

Every single question in the poll is answered by the 2014 likely voters.

PPP really should know better than to test 2016 matchups among 2014 likely voters.

How do you know that if it's not stated anywhere?
I don't consider this sentence to answer the question: "PPP surveyed 1,266 likely voters from September 11th to 14th."
It just tells about the poll in general (the main theme is after all the 2014 election), but don't say anything about specific questions within the larger poll. Do you think they only ask the baseball/American football questions to likely voters? I think not. I'm pretty sure it's only 2014 related questions which are screened using likely voters. This does of course also include policy questions that might influence their 2014 decisions, for instance their stance on minimum wage. Yet the 2016 universe is a whole 'nother ball game, so it doesn't apply really.

The sports questions are there in part to discover demographic trends. Sports teams do not indicate whether someone is Right or Left, but that large numbers of people in Florida or North Carolina are fans of the Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Cleveland Indians, Cincinnati Reds, or Detroit Tigers indicates that many of the adults are from elsewhere and have  had their political views formed elsewhere. Sports loyalties are among the most rigid, arguably as rigid as politics and religion that people do not change easily. (One would expect most North Carolinians to be fans of the Atlanta Braves, the closest major league baseball team).

So if one is a fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers and lives in San Antonio, one is likely to have cultural traits characteristic of southern California. Adults who were born in or near San Antonio are likely to become fans of the Texas Rangers or Houston Astros even if their parents are fans of the Chicago White Sox or Minnesota Twins.
141  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jeff Sessions on: September 20, 2014, 11:40:30 pm
Obviously Sessions is going to lose to Victor Sanchez Williams in a massive landslide this November, but if he somehow returns to congress next year and decides to run for president, how would he fare against:

-Hillary Clinton
-Martin O'Malley
-Bernie Sanders
-Joe Biden
-Generic Democrat

Discuss with Maps!

btw it will look like this when against Generic D:
 

The map is basically an inverse of 1936. You could do better.

I could show a map with the Republican winning only Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and the Third Congressional District of Nebraska. 

Maybe for Ted Cruz I could show an electoral map in which he wins his own state and roughly 47 other electoral votes -- which is one way to describe how Goldwater fared in 1964. Texas has 38 electoral votes instead of the five that Goldwater's Arizona had to offer in 1964...

Jeff Sessions is a Southern reactionary who will have little appeal in most of America outside of Dixie. Just look at the polls for Huckabee outside the South, which are awful. 

He would lose Florida and Virginia, by the way.
142  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Who "won" each cycle? on: September 20, 2014, 05:12:01 pm
1980: GOP overwhelmingly
1982: Dem barely
1984: GOP
1986: Dem
1988: GOP
1990: Dem barely
1992: Dem
1994: GOP overwhelmingly
1996: Dem
1998: Dem barely
2000: GOP barely
2002: GOP
2004: GOP
2006: Dem overwhelmingly
2008: Dem overwhelmingly
2010: GOP overwhelmingly
2012: Dem

It seems that neither party has had a monopoly on power as soon as each party gave up its "traditional" "moderate" bases of support.

Do you think that the era uninterrupted one-party (albeit superfluous at times) rule is over?


No -- not if one Party can entrench itself indefinitely through gerrymandering or (if possible) alteration of voting rights to the permanent advantage of the Party that enacts the alteration (yet to happen -- but if employers can control their employees' votes, such ensures one-Party rule indefinitely).
143  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: KY: Gravis: Clinton close to Paul on: September 18, 2014, 01:47:58 pm
Considering that Rand Paul is a Senator from Kentucky, this is a very weak early showing. He either has a very weak Favorite Son effect, or he would lose badly to Hillary Clinton nationwide -- or both.
144  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 18, 2014, 11:09:42 am
For what it is worth, Gravis shows Hillary Clinton only 2% behind Rand Paul in Kentucky.  Nothing else that fits this map, but that is a very weak performance for someone who should be a Favorite Son in a state that has gone R by large margins in the last few Presidential elections.  

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


   

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul




blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more






145  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 17, 2014, 01:37:49 pm
Here's my projection of the 2016 election based upon what I see in Hillary Clinton against the main four potential nominees in current polls. I pay no attention to Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, or Scott Walker, as they lose by ludicrous margins in all but sure-R states.  

I don't really like to change this map often, especially over a state with 'only' six electoral votes. But the state in question is Kansas, and at this point the state is beginning to show trouble for all potential GOP nominees except Jeb Bush. That is without taking Ted Cruz seriously. Three of four potential nominees would make Kansas very close in 2016.

States have rarely flipped as sharply as Kansas seems to be doing now.  This is 'awry' for Republicans who can't afford to lose anything that they used to find reliable, and potentially wondrous for Democrats.     



Legitimate swing states:

white -- mixed results or any tie
pink --   D lead in all 4 current polls, but swing states in 2008 and 2012
pale blue -- R lead in all current polls, all but one of them under 4%

Fringe swing states:

medium red -- D lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012
medium blue -- R lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012

Non-swing states
dark red -- D lead with at least 50% in at least two polls
dark blue -- R lead with at least 50% in at least two polls

Gray -- no polling

Now, based on how states did in 2008 and 2012 and how analogous states do, I fill in the rest:



Legitimate swing states:

white -- mixed results or any tie  66
pink --   D lead in all 4 current polls, but swing states in 2008 and 2012, or a split 81
pale blue -- R lead in all current polls, all but one of them under 4% 14

Fringe swing states:

medium red -- D lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012 50
medium blue -- R lead by at least 4% (but under 50%) in all but at most one poll but not swing states in 2008 or 2012 76

Non-swing states
dark red -- D lead with at least 50% in at least two polls 199
dark blue -- R lead with at least 50% in at least two polls 32

Gray --  I have no idea (no suitable analogues) 12


I see America much less polarized now than it was in 2008 or 2012.  
146  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: September 17, 2014, 01:03:19 pm
PPP poll of Kansas:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/09/orman-davis-lead-kansas-races.html#more

Bush 46%
Clinton 40%

Christie 42%
Clinton 40%

Clinton 44%
Cruz 41%

Huckabee 45%
Clinton 42%

Paul 43%
Clinton 41%

I find it hard to believe that Kansas could be close in the 2016 Presidential election -- but ignoring Ted Cruz (who puts the GOP at risk of losing as badly as Barry Goldwater did in 1964), Kansas would be in play with any Republican other than Jeb Bush.

We're talking about Kansas. Something is going on there. All that I can figure is that the Hard Right fully took over the GOP and purged away the moderates -- but forgot to govern competently. What were moderates in the GOP can basically join the Kansas Democratic Party and take it over much as dissident Democrats took over the Republican Party in some Southern states. It's only six electoral votes, so it isn't as significant as Virginia. The Republican Party still can't afford to lose Kansas.

Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush




Hillary Clinton vs. Chris Christie


   

Hillary Clinton vs. Mike Huckabee



Hillary Clinton vs. Rand Paul




blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more





147  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: September 16, 2014, 11:26:05 pm
Quote
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — People seeking clues about how soon the Supreme Court might weigh in on states' gay marriage bans should pay close attention to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Minnesota audience Tuesday.

Ginsburg said cases pending before the circuit covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee would probably play a role in the high court's timing. She said "there will be some urgency" if that appeals court allows same-sex marriage bans to stand. Such a decision would run contrary to a legal trend favoring gay marriage and force the Supreme Court to step in sooner, she predicted.

She said if the appeals panel falls in line with other rulings there is "no need for us to rush."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-marriage_n_5833090.html
148  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: AR: Gravis: Clinton trailing on: September 16, 2014, 04:59:47 pm
PPP seeks to poll Arkansas this weekend.
149  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Carson: ISIL is like Political Correctness on: September 16, 2014, 04:58:49 pm
The fallacy reductio ad Hitlerum has now become reductio ad statuum islamicum levantis.

Ugh!
150  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NC-PPP: Paul, Christie, Cruz trails hard, Bush & Huck slightly ahead on: September 16, 2014, 02:35:33 pm
Here's how the polls have Clinton vs. Bush:




blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

In the absence of polls of Clinton vs. Bush, here is my best guess (no, I have no idea how  Indiana, Missouri, or the Second Congressional District of Nebraska would go):



blue, Republican -- red, Democratic

30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

I'm not contradicting any recent poll. The tie in Georgia says what I consider reasonable about Missouri. Indiana? Because the most recent poll on SSM gives an edge in favor of SSM, I must consider it up in the air until I see otherwise.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 411


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines