Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 31, 2015, 05:07:31 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 431
126  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: January 14, 2015, 01:46:29 am
I am bringing back this material on a State that rarely gets polled -- Indiana:



Indiana usually says something; it is about 10% more R than the rest of America in almost every Presidential election. Barack Obama campaigned heavily in Indiana and sank vast resources into the state to win it in 2008 and did not do so in 2012. He lost it by 10% in 2012 -- which should be a huge disappointment. Right?

Year     margin   

2012       10R
2008         1D

2004       21R
2000       16R
1996         6R*
1992         6R*

1988       20R
1984       24R
1980       18R*

1976         8R
1972       33R
1968       12R*

1964       12D
1960       10R
1956       20R
1952       17R

1948         1R
1944         7R
1940         1R


*Independent or third-party nominee may have had an effect. Bold is for the Democratic nominee winning the state. Bold indicates that the Democratic nominee won the state. Dark shades indicate electoral blowouts. Red -- the Democrat won the Presidential election in electoral and popular votes. Blue -- the Republican won the Presidential election in electoral and popular votes. Purple -- split on electoral and popular votes.

Wrong. Barack Obama campaigned extensively in Indiana in 2008 and won it -- and was effective enough in winning a raft of states that neither Gore nor Kerry won. He stayed out of Indiana in 2012 and lost it because he needed a laser focus on a small number of states that could decide the election. If he was going to win Indiana he was going to win Ohio anyway, but Ohio was easier for him to win against an opponent who could have overpowered him with campaign funds.   

Indiana has gone for the Republican nominee for President in 18 of the last 20 chances. This goes back to two elections involving FDR. Democratic nominees have won the popular vote 9 times and the Presidency 8 times -- and Republican nominees have won the popular vote 11 times and the Presidency 12 times.

The Republicans seem unable to win the Presidency if the Democrat loses the state by less than 11%. If Indiana votes by more than 11% for the Republican, then the Republican wins at the least the Electoral College (which is everything).

If you see the Republican nominee winning Indiana early in 2016 on Election Day but by a comparatively-small margin (let us say 7%), then it will be a bad night for the GOP.
127  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: 2016 Official Polling Map Thread on: January 14, 2015, 01:29:17 am
PPP will be polling the state in which Erie is in the northwestern corner (so written so that I can avoid excessive alliteration).

Yes, it's Pennsylvania. Plenty to poll. First of 2015, fifth state after the 2014 election.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/01/pennsylvania-question-suggestions.html#comments
128  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Huckabee slams Obama for letting daughters listen to Beyonce on: January 14, 2015, 01:19:39 am
Beyonce is supremely talented. She's also from a state that borders yours, Mr. Huckabee.
129  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: TNR: The case for Tom Cotton in 2016 on: January 14, 2015, 01:17:40 am
New, young, and from a State that now matters little in a Presidential election. Bill Clinton is the last President from Arkansas for a very long time.
130  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Boehner's bartender arrested for plotting to poison him on: January 13, 2015, 07:28:07 pm
Are we certain he hasnt been? the man is awfully orange.

Heavy use of ethyl alcohol is incompetent self-administration of a poison.

If John Boehner is an alcoholic, then he could do much good for America by coming out of the alcoholic 'closet'.
131  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas bill would punish state workers who issue same-sex marriage licenses. on: January 13, 2015, 07:20:40 pm
Good job Texas! Fight back against the courts.

Supreme Court decisions are law. If you think that same-sex marriage is a violation of God's Laws -- God is not a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
132  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Boehner's bartender arrested for plotting to poison him on: January 13, 2015, 07:17:22 pm
American politics are getting not only uglier these days -- but weirder. I hope this is nothing more than mental illness.
133  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Romney run again? on: January 13, 2015, 03:28:44 am
It's his character. He can no more avoid the limelight than a wolf can leave sheep alone. He is as flagrant a narcissist as I have seen go so high in American politics, and he has yet to figure why he lost. God and the Angel Moroni appointed him to be President now, but something must have gone wrong.Such won't happen again.

Except that he is much older he sees himself much as Dewey was going into 1948 -- still destined to be President. 
134  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: SD SSM ban struck down on: January 12, 2015, 10:37:59 pm
It will be appealed.  Don't celebrate yet. Does anyone know how the relevant Circuit Court will vote on it?

party pooper

No, just don't call South Dakota an SSM state until unmarried same-sex couples can ride into Sturgis on their Harleys, get married there, and begin their honeymoons riding off into the sunset (or the sunrise, depending on your metaphor) on Interstate 90.

Likewise for Michigan until unmarried same-sex couples can ride their Harleys into Sturgis (which is also close to Interstate 90 just across the state line in Indiana), get married there, and ride off into the sunset on Interstate 90 or head north on Route 66... OK, the road was never part of US 66, but it has its merits.  South on Michigan 66? It will get you to Interstate 90. 

If people hold off on such in either South Dakota or Michigan, then let the only cause be winter weather, which can be nasty in either city.  SSM will likely come to both Michigan and South Dakota before the last winter storms abate in 2015. 
135  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Fox News calls Birmingham (UK) an "all-Muslin city," the Tweets are priceless on: January 12, 2015, 09:31:17 pm
Pssst....

Do you know the difference between the National Enquirer and FoX News?

The National Enquirer tells truth without pretense of substance, and FoX News is pretense of substance but completely without truth!
136  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: California High-Speed Rail Thread on: January 12, 2015, 09:17:51 pm
The swiftest route would be parallel to Interstate 5, except that there are no cities between Stockton and Greater Los Angeles on Interstate 5 (as if we didn't already know that) ... this train is really being built to connect the southern Central Valley cities (Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Bakersfield) to the much-richer Bay Area and the Southland. Maybe there would be some interesting connections -- Sacramento and Stockton; Salinas and Monterrey; San Diego; and (what would be extremely suitable destination for a super-train) Las Vegas.

Considering how expensive LA, Bay Area and Silicon Valley real estate costs are, it could have some commuting value for those who could start their workday commuting.
137  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: SD SSM ban struck down on: January 12, 2015, 08:58:53 pm
It will be appealed.  Don't celebrate yet. Does anyone know how the relevant Circuit Court will vote on it?
138  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: January 12, 2015, 05:58:15 pm
South Dakota --

A judge ruled South Dakota's gay marriage ban unconstitutional on Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Karen E. Schreier wrote that the plaintiffs in the case "have a fundamental right to marry."

"South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification," Schreier wrote.

The decision is stayed pending a possible appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/south-dakota-gay-marriage_n_6458402.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices
139  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas bill would punish state workers who issue same-sex marriage licenses. on: January 12, 2015, 03:35:48 pm
State workers who issue same-sex marriage licenses would lose their salaries and benefits under a new bill proposed in the Texas legislature.

The bill, introduced last week by Rep. Cecil Bell (R), provides that state or local government employees "may not recognize, grant, or enforce a same-sex marriage license."

If a government employee did issue such a license, they "may not continue to receive a salary, pension, or other employee benefit at the expense of the taxpayers of this State," according to the bill.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/texas-bill-state-worker-salary-gay-marriage

Oh Texas.

Here's the text of the bill:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/HB00623I.htm

Such a law would be invalidated by any definitive federal court case mandating that SSM be permitted by law. It would be about as defensible as a law authorizing state police to arrest IRS agents for enforcing the federal income tax.   
140  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Conservatives Wont Care About Losing on: January 12, 2015, 03:23:06 pm
These Conservatives will think their nominee wasn't conservative enough when in fact the opposite may probably be true. For example, I think Rand Paul an Ted Cruz are too conservative. Rand Paul may have good views on civil liberties and foreign policy but he wants to go back to "Reaganomics" which will fail.

The sure loser is the one cast as a dangerous radical. A Republican nominee for President who threatens to privatize Social Security, abolish Medicare, shut down the Post Office, and end the minimum wage law is going to lose by a 60-40 margin in the popular vote. Someone who shouts "Bomb Teheran" while the President has  intricate talks attempting to restore diplomatic relations with Iran  (normalizing relations with Iran to destroy ISIS sounds like a good idea to me) will look like crass politics and dubious loyalty.
141  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: GOP being delusional about Jeb and Mitt on: January 12, 2015, 07:44:55 am
How many people here really think either one will beat Clinton? Romney was a pretty bad candidate in 2012 and Jeb has a last name that voters really aren't in love with. With the economy getting better, exactly what message do those guys have? GOP is better running someone like Kasich, Rubio or even Paul.

Romney would bring the same faults to a 2016 campaign. He can't turn off the flagrant narcissism, and his business record will hurt him again.

Thomas E. Dewey at the least was young enough that people could expect him to develop some as a politician after facing a drubbing by FDR. Romney would be the same person that he was in 2012.

Jeb? His family isn't squeaky-clean.
142  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: bombing at an naacp office in colorado on: January 12, 2015, 05:33:57 am
Cue the liberal media narrative of this being an example of "right-wing Tea Party violence."

I will wait until an arrest is made to make any judgment on the perp.
143  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Fifth Circuit appears likely to strike down gay marriage bans on: January 12, 2015, 05:32:21 am
I hope you have some basis for your optimism other than that particular quip.  After all, having sex and having families are unrelated according to SSM proponents, so I can't see that quip as indicating a preference for either side.

     Judge makes joke...so? I'm not seeing it.

A joke can tell much truth, even profound truth.
144  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Connecticut ranked best state to live on: January 12, 2015, 03:42:33 am
I didn't click 'show' on krazen's post but I'm sure whatever he said is absurd, flat-out wrong, or both.

Not wrong just completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. If anything, it's just making the Democrats' point that higher tax states are better places to live if you take the surveys together.

I suppose it might be ok for a freeloader. As the people are under siege, Connecticut ranks 45th in population growth and 44th in net migration.

I am so confused as to how that relates. When people get past working age, they leave the high paced New York metro area to either be more successful in a less high pressure (and thus usually less income) west coast job or go to a warm retirement location in a tax free southern state. It doesn't make sense to live there and pay property taxes when you stop using the amenities like the excellent schools. Why would anybody move to cold Connecticut? It's hard to go from a poor state to a rich state. Most of this country would die to have such amenities. They can't move in. Also, the lack of any rural area means there is going to be less population growth as the suburbs usually have pretty good birth control. The whole state is a suburb. Population has nothing to do

New York City seems like a tough place to live. City government has been very paternalistic for a very long time. Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg would be insufferable almost anywhere else. Real estate costs are astronomical and taxes are high. Population density itself imposes economic regimentation. 

But if you are at the top of your game, then you belong in New York City...maybe San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, Certainly not the rural South

If you're at the top of your game, you can live wherever the hell you want.

If you're poor, you face a tradeoff in that expensive states like New York are also often places where the poor are more likely to become non-poor, while low-cost states like Alabama and Texas may give the poor more purchasing power but also offer fewer opportunities to move out of poverty.

Arguably, if you're a poor "striver" with a very clear ambition and set of goals, you should move to a major city, deal with the high housing costs and take advantage of things like affordable public transportation and education to climb up the socioeconomic ladder. If you just want to "maintain" in a state of manageable squalor, you ought to decamp to a mobile home in the rural/suburban South. You won't have to worry about getting evicted and you'll always be able to afford dirt-cheap processed food at Walmart, but you'll have to accept that your children will never be able to expect anything more unless they join the military and get them to pay for their education.

If you are at the top of your game, and you don't live in a giant city, then you are in some place with some remarkable scenery or recreational activities.   

Of course it depends upon what one wants. Tony Bennett didn't sing "I left my heart in Waco, Texas". I can more imaginably think of a first line for a song... "The best two things about Waco are I-35 North and I-35 South..." only to recall some story of stereotypical country music heartache.  But even at that Waco is not the worst place possible in America.

There are people thoroughly content to go home after a crappy job to a trailer, situate themselves on a recliner, and watch televised sports with a cancerette in one hand a beer in the other with a bag of chips in easy reach. Do we need such people? Sure. Somebody has to do those awful jobs, and if someone doing those had any elevated purpose in life, he'd want out fast. Those awful jobs might never get done. You do need your oil changed, don't you? You know that someone has to guide the cattle through the feed lot, don't you... steak and hamburger don't grow on trees, after all. 

   
145  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: AR-The Arkansas Poll: Hillary leads generic R by 9 points on: January 11, 2015, 10:36:30 pm
Arkansas voters have clearly shown that the Clinton era is over. Arkansas' white voters (black voters are now irrelevant) fully believe in absolute plutocracy. 2014 may be the peak for the trend, but that trend will not abate quickly. So it is in Louisiana and Tennessee. The New South, in which poor whits and poor blacks believed that they had something in common due to their shared poverty and allowed a Carter victory in 1976 and Clinton victories in 1992 and 1996 is over. This is not to say that Jim Crow will be back in full force and that the White Citizens Councils are running the political show, but in essence the political realities of Arkansas circa 2016 will be  much like those of Arkansas in 1960 except that overt segregation is no more and that the reactionary interests are fully in command through the Republican party instead of the Democratic Party. 

Evertime liberals lose it is becasue of racism

No -- it is more likely that racism will result from the right-wing shift in Southern politics.

Southern politics have typically been all about patronage, with winners dealing out goodies to electoral supporters and high taxes to everyone else.  That is the Jacksonian tradition at its harshest. Such abated during the New South era, but that era is gone. What follows?

There won't be a return to Jim Crow. TV cameras exposed how nasty the South was during the early 1960s with network news typically showing some reactionary pol proclaiming "We treat our Nigras well, and we have trouble only because of outside agitators" followed to a cut to an image of squalor complete with poorly-clothed black children with distended bellies. 

So it won't be that bad. It will be bad schools, low pay, poor public service, ineffective -but-brutal law enforcement, horrible prisons, and laws that give exploiters all the advantages.  It will be a place for people with a work ethic but no other assets to leave.
146  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: AR-The Arkansas Poll: Hillary leads generic R by 9 points on: January 11, 2015, 12:41:07 pm
Arkansas voters have clearly shown that the Clinton era is over. Arkansas' white voters (black voters are now irrelevant) fully believe in absolute plutocracy. 2014 may be the peak for the trend, but that trend will not abate quickly. So it is in Louisiana and Tennessee. The New South, in which poor whits and poor blacks believed that they had something in common due to their shared poverty and allowed a Carter victory in 1976 and Clinton victories in 1992 and 1996 is over. This is not to say that Jim Crow will be back in full force and that the White Citizens Councils are running the political show, but in essence the political realities of Arkansas circa 2016 will be  much like those of Arkansas in 1960 except that overt segregation is no more and that the reactionary interests are fully in command through the Republican party instead of the Democratic Party. 
147  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Fix GOP rankings: Jeb, Rand, Walker on: January 11, 2015, 11:44:14 am
Scott Walker, the most devoted acolyte of the Great and Wonderful Koch Dynasty, would begin with a huge edge in fund-raising. He has done nothing to offend any core GOP constituency; he is a political survivor in a swing state in a 50-50 national election; he has shown himself fearless in confronting liberal interest groups. He will not make fruitless efforts to seek compromise from people who think him a demon.

He would be perfect for establishing permanent electoral majorities for a monolithic, authoritarian GOP -- which would win as Democrats are rendered increasingly irrelevant by culling the vote.
148  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush on: January 11, 2015, 11:29:57 am
I imagine a map like this one could be likely in a Clinton vs. Bush matchup:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Senator Mark Warner (D-VA): 320 Electoral Votes (52%)
Former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL)/Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL): 218 Electoral Votes (46%)
Others (Libertarian, Green, etc.) 0 Electoral Votes (2%)

Overall, the map is pretty similar to 2012, though Hillary Clinton is able to pick up North Carolina and Arizona and Jeb Bush is able to carry Colorado and Florida. In addition, Missouri and Georgia are also very close, but in the end, Jeb Bush carries both by a small margin.

As for their running-mate choices, I imagine that Jeb Bush would go with Jeff Sessions in order to reach out to very conservative voters and those who are reluctant to support him over his stance on immigration (as Jeff Sessions is one of the foremost advocates of a tougher immigration policy and is one of the closest Senate allies of Ted Cruz) while Hillary Clinton will probably go with Mark Warner, though his small re-election margin against Ed Gillespie might end up as a liability for the Clinton campaign.

Bush wouldn't lose AZ while winning CO and FL, and he certainly wouldn't select Sessions as his running mate.

The assumptions are that Colorado is swinging back to the right and that Jeb Bush would have a significant edge as a Favorite Son in a swing state while Arizona is ready to swing D due to demographics (McCain won Arizona by less than the usual Favorite Son effect in 2008).

The only relevance of Sessions as a VP nominee would be that he "used to be a Democrat". Being from a sure-thing state for a Republican and not well known outside of that state would be non-assets.
149  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: History of the legalization of same-sex marriage in America on: January 11, 2015, 02:10:13 am
Some other dominoes could fall soon:

Quote
There's going to be big news on Friday of this week. First, the Supreme Court will meet to decide whether to take up a marriage case from the Sixth Circuit in its next term. We won't know their decision right away, but we could find out next week or sometime soon thereafter. Also on Friday, the Fifth Circuit will hear oral argument in the long-awaited cases from Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi. The three judges assigned to the panel are an interesting mix: Judge James Graves Jr is a recent Obama nominee. Judge Patrick Higginbotham is a Regan appointee but calls himself left-of-center. And Judge Jerry Smith is a super outspoken conservative. There could be some very fiery rhetoric at that oral argument.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-baume/florida-marriage-equality_b_6415530.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices
[/quote]



Quote
A three-judge panel of the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Friday in three separate challenges to same-sex marriage bans in Southern states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The three-hour hearing at times turned comical as two of the judges grew increasingly skeptical of the state attorneys’ arguments — which were based on everything from federalism, to a 42-year-old precedent, to a government interest in channeling procreation.


When the attorney representing Mississippi argued that the state’s marriage law encourages people to have families, Judge Patrick Higginbotham, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan responded, “You don’t need an incentive to have sex.” ...
Quote

Higginbotham was widely viewed as the swing vote going into Friday’s hearing, with Graves expected to be firmly in the marriage equality camp, and Judge Jerry Smith, another Reagan appointee, to be solidly opposed. Smith largely fulfilled that role, repeatedly bringing arguments back to Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 case that determined laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples to be constitutional.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/5th-circuit-looks-poised-strike-down-same-sex-marriage-bans
150  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: January 11, 2015, 01:36:38 am
TEXAS, Louisiana, and Mississippi may be next

(size is proportional to electoral votes)

Quote
A three-judge panel of the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Friday in three separate challenges to same-sex marriage bans in Southern states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The three-hour hearing at times turned comical as two of the judges grew increasingly skeptical of the state attorneys’ arguments — which were based on everything from federalism, to a 42-year-old precedent, to a government interest in channeling procreation.

When the attorney representing Mississippi argued that the state’s marriage law encourages people to have families, Judge Patrick Higginbotham, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan responded, “You don’t need an incentive to have sex.”
... Judge James Graves Jr., a President Obama appointee, concurred...

Higginbotham was widely viewed as the swing vote going into Friday’s hearing, with Graves expected to be firmly in the marriage equality camp, and Judge Jerry Smith, another Reagan appointee, to be solidly opposed. Smith largely fulfilled that role, repeatedly bringing arguments back to Baker v. Nelson, a 1972 case that determined laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples to be constitutional.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/5th-circuit-looks-poised-strike-down-same-sex-marriage-bans
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 431


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines