Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2017, 07:42:38 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 518
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Florida State Sen. calls collegues "asshole", "bitch", and "n**gers" on: April 23, 2017, 04:58:42 pm
Folks, bronz is a one trick pony, and frankly kinda dumb. He's not even interesting to respond against like some of the worst SOBs on this cite. Do yourselves a favor and put him on ignore.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Domestic terrorist group "By Any Means Necessary" (BAMN) on: April 23, 2017, 04:56:31 pm
English Pete has officially been triggered, folks! He'll be strapping the red laces into his Doc Martins forthwith!!
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: WaPo/ABC Poll: Most voters blame Trump/Republicans for first 100 days failures on: April 23, 2017, 04:53:04 pm
An in typical Fox fashion they only covered this poll when talking about 96% of Trump voters don't regret their vote part

Of course they did. Roll Eyes

What I wanted to know was how many respondents actually admitted to voting for him. It is a well documented phenomenon that many poll respondents deny or "forget" voting for an unpopular president when asked.

Still from my VERY rough back of the envelope math, based on the 46-43 election result if it occurred today, factoring the 4% declared Trump defectors vs. the tiny sliver of Clinton defectors (my mother in law is one, interestingly enough), I calculate that about 88% of Trump supporters still don't regret their vote. Meaning only about 1 in 12 do regret it.

Anyone getting different numbers? Please feel free to double check. 
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Merkel had to teach Trump how EU trade works 11 times on: April 23, 2017, 04:46:12 pm
He's never had to learn or work hard at anything before because his entire life has just been handed to him. I imagine (hope) that as he learns more about the actual world around him (and that it doesn't revolve around him) that he'll focus a little more on bettering it and not just go for another round of golf like he's on a four year vacation from life.


I mostly agree with this post (although Trump should get at least a little bit of credit for his management of his business). Hopefully he will learn on the job, and avoid any serious missteps in the meantime.

"Management of his business"?? The man was given hundreds of millions of dollars from his father via inheritance or other plush jobs where he earned megabucks for "helping" daddy's business. Putting that into an index fund would've made one a billionaire. This is a guy who has declared bankruptcy how many times? Remember the United States Football League?

The only "business" he's been an unqualified success at, financially and otherwise, is self-promotion. We could've just as easily elected one of the Kardashians on the same basis.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Donald-Trump-inherit-a-lot-of-money-and-then-increase-his-net-worth-at-an-unremarkable-rate

Quote
Donald Trump received a lot of financial support from his father ó in addition to a large inheritance.

The growth of his wealth since 1982 has been in line with that of the S&P 500, according to his own statements. Donald Trump's self-described net worth was $200 million in 1982. If he invested that money in the S&P 500, he'd be worth about $8.3 billion today. Today he claims his net worth is $8.7 billion. So based on his own claims, he has barely outperformed the S&P since 1982.

Some articles claim that Donald Trump's inheritance was somewhere between 40 and 200 million in 1974.[2][3][6][7][8] Since 1974, the S&P 500 is up about 74-fold. So his current claimed net worth of 8.7 billion would equate to about 120 million in 1974, which is right in the middle of estimates of what he inherited. In other words, if the articles are accurate, his performance was very close to that of the market from 1974 to present.

If he spent a small percentage of his net worth each year, it's possible he outperformed the market over time. If his inheritance was at the low end of those estimates, he outperformed more. It's also possible he received some money from his father prior to that inheritance. If that's true or if his inheritance was at the high end of those estimates, then he underperformed the market.

Keep in mind he was the CEO of his own company in addition to being an owner and that compensation would have covered expenses or boosted his return much further.

Because he also managed the real estate in addition to being an owner he would receive management fees, so he would have had that stream of income in addition to owning the assets.

Also, keep in mind that these estimates do not include the massive loan guarantees he received from his father. Loan guarantees, while not inheritance, are extremely valuable and can catapult someone's net worth upwards. If someone guarantees a loan to buy very expensive dollar building, then you can buy that building, take the equity in that building and benefit from the building's appreciation in value with very little of the downside. So you can turn a small amount of equity into a huge fortune really quickly if the building appreciates. On top of that Trump actually got loans to purchase buildings from his father, so between the loans, the loan guarantees and the inheritance it allowed him to do many things that most people can't do ó to quickly buy very expensive buildings for very little money and benefit as their prices increase ó growing his net worth much much more than the appreciation in the underlying real estate.[1] As one Trump biographer puts it ďall of the original dealsó[Trumpís father] Fred had to come in and sign the bank documents. None of them could have been done without Fredís signature.Ē[2]

Beyond that because Trump used so much leverage that he almost went bankrupt his returns should have been much higher. Recall that he told his daughter that a homeless man was worth billions more than he was, and he had to fight to avoid bankruptcy. Most people who invested in the S&P 500 do not have that risk. If you take on so much risk, you should expect a better return.

Another way to look at the data is assume that he invested in real estate rather than the S&P 500. In that case returns would have been even better, up about 100 fold since 1976, assuming he minimized his taxes via like-kind exchanges and made sure depreciation lowered his income taxes considerably.[3]

If you assume he invested in New York and Manhattan Real Estate, he did even better. The graph below shows Manhattan real estate returns before inflation and rent.[4]If add in inflation and rent, the returns are hugely better. So, to review, Donald inherited real estate and a real estate company and benefited a lot when real estate boomed.

Another way to look at the data is to assume he inherited $40 million in 1974, at the low end of estimates. If he had invested that $40 million in an S&P 500 index, fund, he'd be worth about 3 billion today ó which is in line with third party estimates of 3 and 4 billion today for his net worth.

Hereís another article that echoes many of the above points:

Quote
In 1982, Trump reported to New Jersey regulators a personal net worth of $321 million, built largely on his fatherís connections, as well as loans and guarantees for bank credit. Two years later, a Trump lieutenant testified that his worth had not changed much. In 2004, in reviewing his application for a loan, Deutsche Bank concluded he was worth $788 million. Trump now makes the highly dubious claim that he is worth $10 billion; Forbes estimates that the real number is $3.7 billion. Thatís a lot of money, to be sure, but suppose Trump had never done any deals and instead sold all of his assets back in 1982 and invested them in a fund based on the Standard & Poorís 500 index. With dividends reinvested, he would have increased his wealth to $535 million by 1985. By 2004, his personal wealth would have increased to $5.9 billion. And three years ago, he would have exceeded what he claims to be worth now by more than $1 billion; today, he would be worth more than $13 billion, just under three times the Forbes estimate.
[5]

Trump does deserve credit for a number of things. First, many heirs squander their fortune or spend recklessly. Trump by all accounts worked hard to invest his money well. Second, Trump made well-timed investments in Manhattan and he chose to stay invested in Manhattan. Heís made a number of excellent business decisions, and nearly everyone in business has made decisions they regret.

However, itís also clear that if he didnít have inheritance and financial support from his father, he couldnít have gotten started in the way that he did. Itís also clear that he has benefitted from normal compounding, as any investor would.

The long and short of that is that Trump is just as terrible at managing his businesses as he is at everything else he does.

Excellent find on a very good article summarizing the issue. The only caveat I'd add is, again, he's socked it away in his media empire of books, TV, "universities", etc. Thus my (apt, IMHO) comparison with the Kardashians.

He's not a financial "success"; he was born amazingly wealthy and simply stayed that way. The fact he hides his tax returns should be a red flag to anyone remotely impartial.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Now Sean Hannity facing sexual harassment accusations at Fox News on: April 23, 2017, 04:42:35 pm
I have English Pete on ignore, but couldn't resist peaking. I'm sorry I did. He truly is an awful human being.

In other news, Extreme Republican re-establishes he remains a virgin.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Now Sean Hannity facing sexual harassment accusations at Fox News on: April 23, 2017, 04:41:07 pm
Who knew that getting a bunch of "traditionalist" dudes together and giving them a platform for their outdated, misogynist views might lead to a culture of mistreating female colleagues and using their influence and standing to try to establish dominance over them?


Let's not forget the unwritten but assiduously followed rule posing every female sex kitten "journalist" at Fox in a mini-dress.

Hey, I'm as much a fan of such attire as any guy (though preferably not worn women who sound like they're channeling Ayn Rand and Eva Braun), but when the station treats its professional women like they're employees at a high class Hooters, the viagra brigade are bound to see no problems taking liberties as their due.
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Mulvaney offers Democrats $1 for Obamacare funds for every $1 for wall funds on: April 23, 2017, 04:35:20 pm
In fairness, while Trump has been at best a buffoon and at worst a nativist on the issue, border security DOES need improved (along with a path to citizenship), and the infrastructure WOULD be a welcome shot of (gasp!) stimulus spending.

Negotiate some reasonable form of the DREAM act passing for the wall funded and not only would I support it, I think it MIGHT get passed (though the Hasert Rule would still likely kill it in the end).
8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: NC election audit finds little evidence of voter fraud on: April 23, 2017, 04:30:51 pm
And literally only one of the instances identified was the type of in-person voter fraud that Voter ID laws actually prevent. But we need to crack down on all that rampant voter fraud! Roll Eyes

SURPRISE
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Merkel had to teach Trump how EU trade works 11 times on: April 23, 2017, 04:30:19 pm
He's never had to learn or work hard at anything before because his entire life has just been handed to him. I imagine (hope) that as he learns more about the actual world around him (and that it doesn't revolve around him) that he'll focus a little more on bettering it and not just go for another round of golf like he's on a four year vacation from life.


I mostly agree with this post (although Trump should get at least a little bit of credit for his management of his business). Hopefully he will learn on the job, and avoid any serious missteps in the meantime.

"Management of his business"?? The man was given hundreds of millions of dollars from his father via inheritance or other plush jobs where he earned megabucks for "helping" daddy's business. Putting that into an index fund would've made one a billionaire. This is a guy who has declared bankruptcy how many times? Remember the United States Football League?

The only "business" he's been an unqualified success at, financially and otherwise, is self-promotion. We could've just as easily elected one of the Kardashians on the same basis.
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Ohio '18: Renacci In on: April 23, 2017, 04:22:50 pm
I actually think way too many people give credit to gerrymandering, it's a factor, but it's rarely as egregious as everyone claims it is (Illinois congressional is, and Ohio's is bad, but it's also what congressional Ds wanted at the time to dump Kucinich). I honestly feel the democrats complete inaction on recruiting good candidates has been their downfall for some time, let's not forget they had the house not that long ago. And it's an epidemic that has trended statewide, David Pepper, Mary O'shaugnessy, Kevin Boyce, Nina Turner, Ed Fitzgerald, have all been pretty awful recruits for statewide races.

I'll put it this way, the ODP has under Chris redfern and now David pepper been a dumpster fire due to terrible management from the top.

Undervaluing gerrymandering is grotesquely wrong in Ohio. Not should one EVER separate it from candidate recruitment. The opposition isn't going to recruit good candidates, let alone well financed ones, to run in a sacrificial lamb district. Not to mention wheedling down the number of opposition legislative seat holders weakens the opposition's bench overall.

The problem with this statement is I believe everyone is over valuing gerrymandering, republicans are winning state house and state senate districts well out of where they should be.

House Districts with large D advantages like state house 5 and 89, as well as plenty of others which should be more competitive, like 3, 19, 55, 36, 37, 38, 94, 28, 29, 43, are not blowouts due to gerrymandering, these are close districts that democrats have not really competed in years

The 89th I'll give you as being competitive, but no way on the 5th. It's a single county (Columbiana) district that Obama lost twice by almost 8 points and even Sherrod Brown lost against Mandel. In the short term it's worth noting Trump carried it by over 40 points. At the local state house level it's R lean at least.

I think you are similarly overstating the competitiveness of some of the districts such as the 19th. More to the point, while there are no reasons Democrats can't be competitive in single county swing districts like the 3rd (Wood County), the "unique" mapping of districts such as the 19th or 55th make it at least tilt R in areas where, but for surgical drawing of boundary lines, Republicans generally would make little to know headway.

Plus, once one ensures control of the state legislature with such a map, don't ever underestimate the statewide fundraising advantage that gives the party in charge, which translates to wins in semi-competitive district. 

Sorry, but when the Republican Party writes a map that is baldly unfair and undemocratic statewide, I'm not going to give kudos and excuse it just for winning a few seats Democrats are still compitative in.

Ah how short is your memory. Columbiana county may have gone against Obama, but it elected D state rep in 2006, 2008, and 2012. This time? A joke candidate for the democrats.

And sure the 19th and the 55th tilt R with this map, so why then were the democrats literally unable to recruit a candidate in 55.

And that tilt R district 55? It went 67% for the democrat in 2012.


The 19th also featured an absolute joke of a candidate for the democrats. You can't always blame gerrymandering when a party can't find a candidate in a competitive district like 55 and 19.

Gerrymandering exists, absolutely, but the sheer ineptitude in candidate recruitment is the reason the republicans have super majorities, they are winning in democrat districts at this point.

Incumbancy has advantages for both parties. Taking the 5th in Columbiana County as an example, should we assume that Jim Hood being repeatedly re-elected as Attorney General shows MS is a lean-D state?

Again, enforced majorities create huge fund-raising advantages which affect every legislative race, which severely affects candidate recruitment. Those with expertise in gerrymandering are the first to crow about it (privately). Have the state Dems screwed up some recruitment opportunities? Sure. Could they break the super-majority (forget the majority) if they got their act together? Probably not without without all the cards going right and drawing an inside straight on election day. And THE reason for that is the district map.
11  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Would love to see Dems find a perfect candidate to challenge MS in 2018... on: April 23, 2017, 04:14:04 pm
12  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Congressional Special Elections Results Thread (5/2: SC-5 Primary) on: April 23, 2017, 04:13:29 pm
Who's who for thť SC-5 candidates?

For the Dems: Parnell is a Goldman Sachs executive, Frank is a student and army veteran (and African American), Murphy is a marine veteran who now works for the non-profit Carolina Veterans Commission. Essentially, uninspiring candidates that leave little hope for anti-trump forces, unless one of these is really good at campaigning.

As a rule - i don't believe in African American candidates winning majority white southern districts... There are some rare exceptions on state legislative level, but mostly the vote is too polarized by race.  IMHO, even with Trump this is a closest to Safe R special..

Sanford Bishop would like a word.

His district is about 50-50.  Compare this with SC-05. Democrats need districts to be 40-45% Black minimum, and pray, that 10-15% of whites will still vote Democratic, to have a chance. How many such districts exist? Even Bishop won his district narrowly couple of times (2010, 1996, 2000)..

All I'm saying is that, and I mean this as constructive criticism, you tend to generalize a lot (sometimes you're right, other times you're way off) and it might not be the worst idea to allow for the possibility of exceptions a bit more often.  

Well, if you show me recent examples of such biracial coalition (not pre-2010, but after it, when polarization soared, including - racial one) - i may reconsider my position. Bit so far - i stick to it... It's extremely difficult to elect Black candidate in white-majority Southern districts now. I can fathom that say, in Southern Florida or Research Triangle (which are more or less "non-siuthern" politically), but not in many ither places.. In "typical" southern districts correlation between Democratc aand Black percentages is very strong...

Senator Tim Scott says hi, both as Senator from South Carolina and Congressman from SC-1.  

Not all African-Americans are Democrats.  It is perfectly possible for a black Republican to win in the South a majority white district.

This is true. There are some African-American Republican politicians who enjoy white support. Though almost all African American voters are indeed Democrats.
13  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: UT-Sen: McMullin Leads Hatch as an Independent on: April 23, 2017, 04:09:28 pm
IF McMullin ran as an independent rather than going after Hatch in the primary (not sure if UT has a sore loser law prohibiting him from doing both), is there any doubt he'd caucus with the Republicans?
14  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GA-6 Special election discussion thread on: April 23, 2017, 04:07:59 pm
I agree that GA will go the way of VA, and this should happen very quickly. By 2030 or so, MS, LA and maybe NC could all lean D and TX and FL (and maybe SC) would be pure Tossups or lean D. The Democratic Party's base will be in the South.



Rhode Island and Delaware look random, and I can't see Illinois or New Mexico voting Republican on a presidential level unless the GOP makes significant inroads with Hispanics.  I also wouldn't put Georgia as safe D either, by any means.

There are few things that we can be certain of, but Mississippi not being a Democratic-leaning state in 13 years is one of them.  I kind of understand the argument for it being competitive in 2050 (even if I don't fully agree with it), but there is no way it is there in 2030.

The thing that makes MS so precarious is that it is wholly dependent on white block voting to keep it Republican. If MS whites voted as Republican as they do in neighboring states, it would be a lean Democratic state. There is also the factor that the bulk of those White Republicans are concentrated in the age bracket 65 and above. By 2030, half of those people will be gone. That means that the White Vote is going to naturally trend downward for the GOP over the next several years as 90% GOP Seniors are replaced with 50-50 Millenials starting to vote more frequently.

So 2030 is not at all unreasonable for it to be tilt Dem state.

That might be true if MS white millennials were voting 50-50, but the NY Times demographics calculator said they voted 86 or 88% (I can't remember which) for Romney in 2012.  White millennials as a whole voted for Trump, so they of course voted overwhelmingly for Trump in Mississippi of all places.  If it ever goes Democratic (apart from in a landslide), it will simply be because the black vote outvoted the white vote, which doesn't seem to be that close to happening yet, considering the 2016 results.  There is no NOVA or Atlanta that could anchor Mississippi to a rapid trend like Virginia and, possibly, Georgia.

I couldn't find exit polls showing breakdowns by age and race combined, but the NYT exit poll showed Democrats winning 18-29 year olds and 30-44 year olds in MS by 18 and 8 points respectively.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

Whether that's due to young whites not being so monolithically conservative as their elders or demographic shifts is a tomato-tomahto issue as either way it paints an optimistic future for state dems as actuarial tables play out, though I suspect it's the former.
15  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: PA-GOV 2018: Does Tom Wolf win a 2nd term? on: April 23, 2017, 03:49:58 pm
I think that Tom Wolf wins reelection during a midterm with a Republican president in office, but his victory is by no means guaranteed.
16  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Ohio '18: Renacci In on: April 23, 2017, 03:46:37 pm
I actually think way too many people give credit to gerrymandering, it's a factor, but it's rarely as egregious as everyone claims it is (Illinois congressional is, and Ohio's is bad, but it's also what congressional Ds wanted at the time to dump Kucinich). I honestly feel the democrats complete inaction on recruiting good candidates has been their downfall for some time, let's not forget they had the house not that long ago. And it's an epidemic that has trended statewide, David Pepper, Mary O'shaugnessy, Kevin Boyce, Nina Turner, Ed Fitzgerald, have all been pretty awful recruits for statewide races.

I'll put it this way, the ODP has under Chris redfern and now David pepper been a dumpster fire due to terrible management from the top.

Undervaluing gerrymandering is grotesquely wrong in Ohio. Not should one EVER separate it from candidate recruitment. The opposition isn't going to recruit good candidates, let alone well financed ones, to run in a sacrificial lamb district. Not to mention wheedling down the number of opposition legislative seat holders weakens the opposition's bench overall.

The problem with this statement is I believe everyone is over valuing gerrymandering, republicans are winning state house and state senate districts well out of where they should be.

House Districts with large D advantages like state house 5 and 89, as well as plenty of others which should be more competitive, like 3, 19, 55, 36, 37, 38, 94, 28, 29, 43, are not blowouts due to gerrymandering, these are close districts that democrats have not really competed in years

The 89th I'll give you as being competitive, but no way on the 5th. It's a single county (Columbiana) district that Obama lost twice by almost 8 points and even Sherrod Brown lost against Mandel. In the short term it's worth noting Trump carried it by over 40 points. At the local state house level it's R lean at least.

I think you are similarly overstating the competitiveness of some of the districts such as the 19th. More to the point, while there are no reasons Democrats can't be competitive in single county swing districts like the 3rd (Wood County), the "unique" mapping of districts such as the 19th or 55th make it at least tilt R in areas where, but for surgical drawing of boundary lines, Republicans generally would make little to know headway.

Plus, once one ensures control of the state legislature with such a map, don't ever underestimate the statewide fundraising advantage that gives the party in charge, which translates to wins in semi-competitive district. 

Sorry, but when the Republican Party writes a map that is baldly unfair and undemocratic statewide, I'm not going to give kudos and excuse it just for winning a few seats Democrats are still compitative in.
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Merkel had to teach Trump how EU trade works 11 times on: April 23, 2017, 03:17:05 pm
Well, he atleast seems to be interested in a trade deal with Europe, so I suppose that's positive.

When he's completely ignorant about the very fundamental basics of EU trade, that shows he doesn't have a clue in hell about the important details.

With that in mind, how good of a deal can we expect Trump to negotiate?
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump agrees to take Muslim refugees.... on: April 23, 2017, 03:13:27 pm
Trump sent Pence to Australia and it looks like the refugee deal is back on.

Now the refugees on Manus Island are causing issues with the Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton suggesting that the Iranian and Afghani refugees have been raping young boys.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-20/concern-for-5yo-may-have-led-to-manus-shooting-dutton-says/8457962

Raping young boys is common place in Afghanistan, but it looks as though the Papuan Police and Army have been less welcoming of the sexual preferences of some of the older islamic men.

Either way, Australia needs to send these people off our shores. They have not passed our tests for immigration, so now we will send them to the USA.

See if you guys can deal with them. Good luck.







http://www.cc.com/video-clips/5mmbxf/comedy-central-presents-other-countries
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Maine Democrats caught on tape laughing about rising white suicide rates on: April 23, 2017, 03:10:20 pm
The title is misleading.  It was a speaker who was promptly called out by people attending and has been disavowed.  But go on with you only presenting some of the facts.  It seems the only thing conservatives can do now.

Is this your first time on USGD? There's a thread like this by Dems every other day.

Because some Republican nowadays says something like this every other day.

This thread obviously "proves" the inevitable riposte that "both sides are just as bad".
20  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: The Green Thread: Marijuana in the states on: April 23, 2017, 03:06:54 pm
Representatives Tom Garrett (R-VA) and Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) have introduced bipartisan legislation to exclude marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, thus leaving states the authority to regulate the plant how best they see fit.

Should be interesting to see how many Republicans get behind this.  I'd expect it to get near-unanimous support from state delegations where it's been legalized and possible majority support from the Freedom Caucus.  I don't think every Democrat will vote for it, but I think this has a real chance at getting passed.  Fingers crossed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule
21  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: The Green Thread: Marijuana in the states on: April 23, 2017, 03:05:19 pm
National support at all-time high

88% support medical, 61% support recreational, and 71% oppose a federal crackdown on states that have legalized.

Our politicians routinely believe and act as if America is more conservative than it actually is.

Most politicians are old white men, too.  It's not hard to figure out. Tongue

And they all had it drilled into them throughout their school years how dangerous it was. Health classes that covered drug use back in the 60's-80's covered marijuana in the same section as heroin. It's very hard to overcome that deep early training, despite its common use in their college years, even as modern facts emerge.

Speaking as a high school student from the 80's, I concur.
22  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Ohio '18: Renacci In on: April 23, 2017, 03:01:21 pm
I actually think way too many people give credit to gerrymandering, it's a factor, but it's rarely as egregious as everyone claims it is (Illinois congressional is, and Ohio's is bad, but it's also what congressional Ds wanted at the time to dump Kucinich). I honestly feel the democrats complete inaction on recruiting good candidates has been their downfall for some time, let's not forget they had the house not that long ago. And it's an epidemic that has trended statewide, David Pepper, Mary O'shaugnessy, Kevin Boyce, Nina Turner, Ed Fitzgerald, have all been pretty awful recruits for statewide races.

I'll put it this way, the ODP has under Chris redfern and now David pepper been a dumpster fire due to terrible management from the top.

Undervaluing gerrymandering is grotesquely wrong in Ohio. Not should one EVER separate it from candidate recruitment. The opposition isn't going to recruit good candidates, let alone well financed ones, to run in a sacrificial lamb district. Not to mention wheedling down the number of opposition legislative seat holders weakens the opposition's bench overall.
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Florida State Sen. calls collegues "asshole", "bitch", and "n**gers" on: April 22, 2017, 01:41:52 am
he said he called them "-ahs" not "-ers." Supposedly this is a crucial distinction and these are two separate words.

Yeah, "supposedly". In reality, not so much.
24  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: April 2017 House Election on: April 22, 2017, 01:35:05 am
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - NINE SEATS


[3  ] Clyde1998 of Massachusetts
Labor Party

[  ] Dereich of Colorado
Independent

[4  ] drewmike87 of Wisconsin
Labor Party

[  ] Leinad of Georgia
Federalist Party

[  ] North Carolina Yankee of North Carolina
Federalist Party

[ 1 ] OneJ_ of Mississippi
Labor Party

[2  ] Peebs of North Carolina
Labor Party

[  ] Pessimistic Antineutrino of New Jersey
Federalist Party

[  ] Santander of Alabama
Atlas Conservative Party

[ 5 ] simossad of Minnesota
Labor Party

[  ] Write-in:______________________________
-__________________

[  ] None of the above
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: US drops 'largest non-nuclear bomb' in Afghanistan in area populated by Isis on: April 14, 2017, 02:55:12 pm
I have to say I'm not as impressed after watching the video of the MOAB test, but it probably is bigger than it looks. I can probably get behind this, but it doesn't change my opinion of our """""commander-in-chief"""""
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 518


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines