Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 04, 2016, 08:06:49 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 507
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democratic New York Primary results thread (polls close at 9pm ET) on: April 19, 2016, 03:07:12 pm
Thinking it over, I'd be more okay with New York's closed primary if they handled it differently. There just seems to be way to many restrictions and impediments than just requiring folks to be registered.

I don't have much of an issue with a closed Primary, it should be up to each individual state, however the deadline to switch parties being six months before the Primary is absurd.
2  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: New Yorkers who did you vote for today? on: April 19, 2016, 09:34:36 am
Bernie
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Why did 9% of those who approved of Obama vote for Romney? on: April 18, 2016, 09:56:19 pm
Some of it might be moderate middle class suburbanites, but its certainly not that unheard of.  When Chaffee lost his re-election bid to the Senate his approval was 63% according to the exit poll.   Granted, that was a bit more of an extreme example with him being a Republican, in a brutal Republican year, in a state with ten Republicans.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Sanders to hold rally at Prospect Park on Sunday on: April 11, 2016, 07:34:08 pm
This could be an absolutely massive rally

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/rally/44t4q
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Where will Trump do better in New York? on: April 11, 2016, 06:19:16 pm
Downstate, his appeal is probably equal in both areas, but Cruz will be a complete tire fire here.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who will win Westchester County, NY (R)? on: April 10, 2016, 10:26:55 pm
Trump will win fairly easily, Kasich will be 2nd, Cruz is a terrible fit for Westchester and the NYC suburbs as a whole will be a distant 3rd.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why did Sanders only get 55.7% in Wyoming? on: April 10, 2016, 01:15:00 pm
Small number statistics. When you only have a few delegates for a county/precinct, you need to get very high percentages of caucus goers to support you to get that extra delegate. If a county has two delegates and you're getting 68% in the caucus there, assuming the viability threshold is say 30%, both Clinton and Sanders will get one delegate. And thus a 68/32 split turns into a 50/50. This can also work against Clinton too of course, but given the overall results its more likely to have helped Clinton more than hurt.

There were raw vote totals and Sanders won about 57.5% of the raw vote and 56% of the delegates. This hurt him slightly but nowhere to the extent you are mentioning

That would have resulted in a 8-6 delegate advantage instead of 7-7.  With that being said, one simple answer is simply there aren't that many liberals in Wyoming.  Even in some of the other heavily GOP states in the region, there are at least some areas that are fairly liberal.
8  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Right wing enclaves in Long Island, New York on: April 09, 2016, 11:49:14 pm
Garden City is probably the most traditionally conservative community and SE Nassau County as a whole probably the most traditionally conservative area of Long Island.  However, Lawrence has certainly passed them both with the explosion of the Orthodox populaion there.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Final poll: Who wins Wisconsin?(D) on: April 04, 2016, 09:54:58 pm
Sanders by 12, Bernie cracks 70% in Dane
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton and Sanders agree to CNN Brooklyn debate on April 14 on: April 04, 2016, 07:04:31 pm
Debate tobe on CNN & NY1.  

Sanders had previously planned and received a permit for a rally at Washington Square Park on the 14th (which is why he turned that date down)  De Blasio said he would work to get a permit for a Sanders rally for another day.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: COWARD Sanders refuses ALL THREE of Clinton's proposed NY debates!! on: April 03, 2016, 01:26:53 pm
It looks like the April 14th time slot was rejected because Sanders had already booked a highly coveted, yet to be announced space in Manhattan for a rally that evening (possibly Central Park).

If that is the case, certainly makes sense of why he would have an issue with that date.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie wins Clark county NV convention vote on: April 02, 2016, 11:28:19 pm
What bothers me the most is that likely a lot of hardworking Latino people were disenfranchised so that some white college kids can continue their Bernie fantasy for a little longer.

Exactly. Those maids and kitchen staff at the Strip Hotels who barely got off for an hour in February  were not fully represented today. You should not have to commit several weekends to have your vote count.  Not Sanders or Clinton's fault but the system has to change.

Not saying I disagree with that, but not everyone at those Caucus sites were kitcken staff, maids, etc.  In addition to voting for a candidate they also voted for delegates to represent them at the County Convention.  They shouldn't have voted for someone who couldn't make it to the later stages, and someone who couldn't have made it to the later stages should not have agreed to become a delegate to represent them at the later stages.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie wins Clark county NV convention vote on: April 02, 2016, 11:24:26 pm
BTW question for the Nevadans who attended today's Clark county convention, did they break delegates  down by congressional district or just county wide?

The entire convention hall remained as one group of county-wide delegates.

Hard to see how they can change the District delegate allocation if they did not vote by district.

Might be something we won't know until the State Convention, though with those figures for Clark it does appear likely that Sanders gains a delegate and Clinton loses 1 in at least CD-4 considering that she barely made it 4-2 instead of 3-3 on Caucus night.

Again, most reports are that the congressional district delegates were set by the results of the Feb precinct caucuses, only the at large delegates can change at the state convention. Unless of course the media are all wrong (not impossible). 

As per Green Papers it appears that at the Caucus, delegates were elected to the County Convention.   The delegates at the County Convention elect delegates to the State Convention which then in turn select the national Convention delegates on the CD level and statewide level.  Of course Green Papers could be wrong as not surprising, but there is plenty of conflicting information floating around.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: predict wisconsin margins on: April 02, 2016, 11:11:00 pm
Sanders by 13, and he cracks 70% in Dane.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Bernie wins Clark county NV convention vote on: April 02, 2016, 11:09:21 pm
BTW question for the Nevadans who attended today's Clark county convention, did they break delegates  down by congressional district or just county wide?

The entire convention hall remained as one group of county-wide delegates.

Hard to see how they can change the District delegate allocation if they did not vote by district.

Might be something we won't know until the State Convention, though with those figures for Clark it does appear likely that Sanders gains a delegate and Clinton loses 1 in at least CD-4 considering that she barely made it 4-2 instead of 3-3 on Caucus night.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: COWARD Sanders refuses ALL THREE of Clinton's proposed NY debates!! on: April 02, 2016, 09:13:42 pm
Hillary and the dnc establishment are doing the debates at times where Hillary can be covered easily (mornings, weekends, around sports) to deny fair play for Bernie to have his points heard (notice how few prime time Monday-Thursday debates the Dems have had this cycle) the GOP have had most of their debates in prime time.
Two of the proposed debates were primetime, Monday or Thursday. Then people complained that there was going to be a football game like an hour after the debate.

We don't even know the time of the Thursday proposed debate..  The Monday debate was slightly before primetime, and is the same night of the NCAA College basketball Championship, one of which that at the time of the proposal might have included Syracuse university (looking less likely now)
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: COWARD Sanders refuses ALL THREE of Clinton's proposed NY debates!! on: April 02, 2016, 03:04:03 pm
Tax day is the 18th this year, and Sanders has specifically agreed to a debate on Good Morning America in the past. Stop making excuses for him.

A debate when the other person is already scheduled to make an appearance at a public event, television, etc is a bit silly.  If Clinton was holding some event, would be on a television show on a certain date and Sanders offered a debate then instead it would be just as silly.

The only one that seems remotely like a good faith effort is the one on the 14th, but of course without knowing details it is hard to say.  With that being said I would like to know the reasons behind Sanders campaign denying the 14th (if that is indeed true), as well as their proposed times that they have indicated Clinton has said no to.  And of course the original date mentioned by Clinton, if anything shows it wasn't a realistic proposal.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Clinton to the right of Obama? on: April 02, 2016, 02:58:45 pm
Foreign policy wise she is without question to the right of him, on most social and economic issues probably slightly to the right, but in the same general ballpark, though a bit to the right on law and order type issues.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: COWARD Sanders refuses ALL THREE of Clinton's proposed NY debates!! on: April 02, 2016, 02:35:57 pm
Sanders campaign statement:

Quote
“We are very pleased that Secretary Clinton finally has accepted our request for a debate about the needs of New York and America. Unfortunately, the dates and venues she has proposed don’t make a whole lot of sense. The idea that they want a debate in New York on a night of the NCAA finals – with Syracuse in the tournament no less – is ludicrous. We have proposed other dates which they have rejected. We hope we can reach agreement in the near future. The people of New York and America deserve to see and hear a debate on the important issues facing the state and country.”
The Thursday evening debate time makes all the sense in the world.

The Sanders campaign comment was made to the initial proposal by Clinton.  As far as the Thursday night debate, we don't really know the details, time, location, etc.  If it was an out of prime time proposal similar to the Monday Night debate was, etc?
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 02:32:21 pm
Let's forget about wealthier taxpayers. The main thing I don't like about Bernie's tax plan is that he wants to substantially raise taxes on the middle class. That's not a good idea and it will severely hurt him in the GE if he were to win the nomination.

Bernie's tax pllan is a 2.2% increase in taxes on the middle class, plus for those with employer based health coverage, there health insurance premium is no longer tax deductible (since it doesn't exist anymore), so there overall taxable income will be a bit higher.  The flip side is there is no more health insurance Premium.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 02:29:49 pm
There's this weird misconception (especially amongst leftist) that a vast majority of rich people inherited their wealth and grew up in rich families.

That's far from the truth. 70% of billionaires didn't inherit anything and a majority of the Forbes 400 didn't come from rich families.

This discussion is pretty tangential to the "what marginal income tax rates are optimal" question, but this is... not even close to true:

Quote
Just 35 percent of the Forbes 400 last year were raised poor or middle class, compared to 95 percent of the broader public, as (reasonably) defined by UFE. Twenty one percent inherited enough money to join the 400 without lifting a finger, what UFE calls being “born on home plate.” Another 7 percent inherited at least $50 million or a “large and prosperous company,” 12 percent inherited at least a million bucks or a decent-sized business or startup capital from a relative, and 22 percent were “born on first base,” into an upper class family or got a modest inheritance or startup capital (UFE says it was conservative in assigning people to bases, so its report understates their advantages somewhat). So, at least 62 percent did not, in fact, make their fortunes “entirely from scratch.”

Fair enough, but tax increases on billionaires is far from what we're talking about.  If we're just talking about tax increases on those at that level, I'm OK with that.  What we were talking about is $10K+ increases in total tax bills for people just breaking the six figures.  That seems to be a different story entirely.

No we aren't talking about that, a website which is including an employer based tax (without taking into consideration employer based deduction in costs) is talking about that, but it is nowhhere near reality.

So I presume your employer would still give you the same amount of income with many, many more mandatory benefits? Makes sense! Guess we'll double the minimum wage too just to ensure it.

If we are going to have an honest debate on it, it is one thing.  Calling it a tax on the employee as in the Vox article and calulcator is simply false.  Not to mention the employer will no longer be laying out $$ for their employees health insurance.  So the 6.2% increase in the tax on the employer isn't actually anywhere near a 6.2% increase in out of pocket expenses for the employer.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 02:14:43 pm
There's this weird misconception (especially amongst leftist) that a vast majority of rich people inherited their wealth and grew up in rich families.

That's far from the truth. 70% of billionaires didn't inherit anything and a majority of the Forbes 400 didn't come from rich families.

This discussion is pretty tangential to the "what marginal income tax rates are optimal" question, but this is... not even close to true:

Quote
Just 35 percent of the Forbes 400 last year were raised poor or middle class, compared to 95 percent of the broader public, as (reasonably) defined by UFE. Twenty one percent inherited enough money to join the 400 without lifting a finger, what UFE calls being “born on home plate.” Another 7 percent inherited at least $50 million or a “large and prosperous company,” 12 percent inherited at least a million bucks or a decent-sized business or startup capital from a relative, and 22 percent were “born on first base,” into an upper class family or got a modest inheritance or startup capital (UFE says it was conservative in assigning people to bases, so its report understates their advantages somewhat). So, at least 62 percent did not, in fact, make their fortunes “entirely from scratch.”

Fair enough, but tax increases on billionaires is far from what we're talking about.  If we're just talking about tax increases on those at that level, I'm OK with that.  What we were talking about is $10K+ increases in total tax bills for people just breaking the six figures.  That seems to be a different story entirely.

No we aren't talking about that, a website which is including an employer based tax (without taking into consideration employer based deduction in costs) is talking about that, but it is nowhhere near reality.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 02:00:02 pm
I think it was the Upshot who had an app where you enter in your income and it tells you how your tax burden changes under each candidate.

Under Hillary's plan, I'd pay $200 more. No big deal at all. Under Bernie's plan, I'd pay over $14,000 more (?!) WTF, Bernie?!?! I'm nowhere close to being rich. I don't have an extra $14,000 laying around!

I would still vote for Bernie if he were somehow the nominee because I'm still loyal a Democrat above all and Trump is horrendous, but talk about an enthusiasm zapper...


Edit: It was Vox, not Upshot:  http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

Vox's numbers are complete and utter bs.

OK I guess? If you have some supporting evidence, I'll take a look, but I'm going to believe a legitimate national news source over a Sanders supporter on a message board, no offense of course.

Are you including "what I'd save in health insurance costs" in your figure?

For starters the Vox Calculator included the employer portion of the healthcare tax as a cost to you.   While doing so they are also not calulcating the employer savings from no longer paying for a health care plan, and not taking into consideration the savings from you not paying for healthcare premiums anymore.


http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/30/ezra-klein-and-terrible-horrible-no-good-tax-calculator


24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opinion of Bernie's Income Tax Plan? on: April 02, 2016, 01:44:15 pm
I think it was the Upshot who had an app where you enter in your income and it tells you how your tax burden changes under each candidate.

Under Hillary's plan, I'd pay $200 more. No big deal at all. Under Bernie's plan, I'd pay over $14,000 more (?!) WTF, Bernie?!?! I'm nowhere close to being rich. I don't have an extra $14,000 laying around!

I would still vote for Bernie if he were somehow the nominee because I'm still loyal a Democrat above all and Trump is horrendous, but talk about an enthusiasm zapper...


Edit: It was Vox, not Upshot:  http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/3/25/11293258/tax-plan-calculator-2016

Vox's numbers are complete and utter bs.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: COWARD Sanders refuses ALL THREE of Clinton's proposed NY debates!! on: April 02, 2016, 01:43:10 pm
A debate in the Morning??  A NY debate the day before the Wisconsin Primary Opposite of the NCAA Championship game??  Arre they seriously picking times in which the least amount of people will be watching??

Uh, what is wrong with April 14th, a Thursday night debate?

And the morning debate would be on Good Morning America, which has a huge audience.

The only one that appears to be a remotely serious proposal is the 14th, the initial proposal was absolutely asinine.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 507


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines