Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2017, 05:23:01 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1488
1  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Big Redistricting News Out Of PA! on: Today at 02:04:00 am
I will say again, Iowa has one of the best redistricting processes in the country in that it has no gerrymandering, nor the possibility of such. Any changes better be damn careful not to screw that up.

2  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: HB 1166: Police Responsibility Act (Debating) on: Today at 01:59:36 am
I am agreeable, if Mr. R is. Remember this is his amendment originally. Tongue
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Which safe R states are most likely to become swing/blue states any time soon? on: Today at 01:56:30 am
Alaska, obviously... it's trending bluer by the minute

I could see Kansas becoming a Lean R state in ten or 20 years if Wichita and the KC suburbs become Democratic, but it will still be outnumbered by the Republicans.

South Carolina might go the way of its two neighbors eventually, but it will take longer. Mississippi's more likely than Alabama but I doubt it will go D anytime soon

what is your evidence for Alaska becoming blue?
Democrats have their best position in the state house since the early 90s, also margin of victory:

2000 30.5%
2004 25.6%
2008 21.5%
2012: 14%
2016: 14.7%

Also, in 2016 Trump barely cracked 50%.

   Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   163,387   51.28%   3
   Hillary Clinton   Timothy Kaine   Democratic   116,454   36.55%   0
   Gary Johnson   William F. Weld   Libertarian   18,725   5.88%

   Willard Mitt Romney   Paul Ryan   Republican   164,676   54.80%   3
   Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   122,640   40.81%   
   Gary Johnson   James P. Gray   Libertarian   7,392   2.46%

John S. McCain, III   Sarah Palin   Republican   193,841   59.42%   3
   Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   123,594   37.89%

George W. Bush   Richard Cheney   Republican   190,889   61.07%   3
   John Kerry   John Edwards   Democratic   111,025   35.52%   0

George W. Bush   Richard Cheney   Republican   167,398   58.62%   3
   Albert Gore Jr.   Joseph Lieberman   Democratic   79,004   27.67%   0
   Ralph Nader   Winona LaDuke   Green   28,747   10.07%   

Except Hillary Clinton only got 5,000 more votes than John Kerry.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Which safe R states are most likely to become swing/blue states any time soon? on: Today at 01:49:14 am
What is the Atlas obsession with MS turning Blue.
I assume people think it'll become majority-black soon.
The African American population in MS has grown by less than 2% of the total population in the last two decades. There is no evidence of that.

The size of the African-American population, and the resulting requisite percentage Republicans need to get among Whites to keep the state Republican.

The current heavily GOP numbers among MS Whites is the product of Boomer's being exceptionally Republican. So the problem for the GOP is that 85% GOP whites will be replaced by 65% GOP whites, which is not high enough to keep it Republican.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Pennsylvania County Population Projections on: Today at 01:39:49 am
I recall a lot of people saying that Republicans were doomed in PA because 1) Republicans cannot win without all four PA Suburbs counties and 2) Republicans have lost them permanently. This was in 2006. As recently as last year, we heard the narrative about how it was impossible for a Republican to ever break through in PA. Whatever lets you sleep well at night I guess.

Keep in mind, that even in the PA suburbs, it is not all rich latte liberals and there a lot of people in those counties who are concerned about jobs, concerned about crime and concerned about terrorism and national security. A Jacksonian protectionist, is always going to be competitive in Pennsylvania. I would also note that a college education, doesn't guarantee you are either not a protectionist, nor a Jacksonian. Look no further that the multitudes of people with degrees who aren't working in their field of choice or have garbage degrees and mountains of debt. Also the anti-war sentiment is something to take note of as well. If the Democrats keep nominating globalists, then non-neocon Republicans will be able to siphon off bits and pieces of this disenchanted anti-war vote.
6  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: House Legislation Introduction Thread on: Today at 12:06:41 am
Quote
AN AMENDMENT
To reduce the number of seats in the Atlasian House of Representatives


Be it resolved by the Congress of the Republic of Atlasia and ratified by at least 2/3 of the Regions

Quote
Section 1. Title

This legislation may be cited as the Clean House Amendment.

Section 2. Amendment to Article III of the Fourth Constitution

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution is hereby amended;

Quote
1. The House of Representatives shall consist of nine seven members chosen at-large by the eligible voters of the Republic according to a method of proportional representation prescribed by the Federal Legislature. Representatives shall serve a term of two months, and shall be elected in the months of February, April, June, August, October, and December.

2. All elections for the House of Representatives shall be by single transferable vote, unless otherwise specified by law.

3. No person shall be a Representative who has not attained 100 or more posts, nor whose account is fewer than 720 hours old, nor who is not a citizen of the Republic of Atlasia.

4. The House of Representatives shall elect its Speaker and other officers, and shall have sole authority to determine its own methods of proceedings.

5. The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.

6. Vacancies in the House of Representatives shall be filled by the executive of the effected Party; but should a vacancy occur as the result of the death, expulsion, or resignation of a Representative not being a member of a major Party, then a special election shall be held to chose a replacement to serve the remainder of the existing term.

Section 3. Enactment

This amendment shall take effect on the first regularly scheduled federal election following ratification.
People's Regional Senate
Pending

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Pending
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: $1.5 Trillion GOP Tax Cut Thread on: Today at 12:03:02 am
If I am right, this is still a 51-49 match. Personally I wonder why Murkowski who voted nay in July she reversed her stance against ACA (individual mandate) or maybe what stuff from DC persuaded her to do this.

Wasn't Murkowski really opposed to Medicaid rollbacks, seeing as Alaska was a state where the Medicaid expansion was relatively popular? IIRC she was publicly against anything that would touch Medicaid but not against changes to the individual mandate or the exchanges.

For all the fawning over Murkowski post Miller, as some moderate hero, at end of the day she is just a corrupt nepotist who is deeper in the pocket of big oil than Joe Barton.

She will vote aye because ANWR drilling is in the bill.
8  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Big Redistricting News Out Of PA! on: November 22, 2017, 11:59:13 pm
Iowa is good by American standards but it isn't really that good compared to the rest of the world. In fact it's a great example of my point. The Des Moines urban area is split between all four congressional districts, while if you just split a single county then all of Des Moines could be united in one single congressional district. In the same vein Western Iowa is also split between two districts, when it could easily be united as one.
"urban area" has a quite specific meaning in the United States census. You may be using some entirely different meaning. What is the name of that county that you believe if it were split would unify Des Moines in a single congressional district.

If western Iowa were in a single district, as it was during the 2000s, what would the other three look like? Some of the others during the 2000s were ugly.
Because I am to lazy to draw my own this very second I'll just borrow a map from Dailykos:


Unfortunately for DK, IA has a very strict requirement to keep counties whole. The split county in this map does nothing to keep communities of interest whole. It does serve the political agenda of DK by packing the most conservative parts of the state into a single CD. This is what I mean by my concern over the lack of firm criteria; using soft standards invites subtle gerrymandering.

And Iowa has one of the best redistricting processes in the country.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is American Conservatism a "hollowed-out ideological shell"? on: November 22, 2017, 04:33:11 am
2010 John Kasich, who was a fiscal hawk and had an A rating from immigration restrictionists NumbersUSA, might well have won the primary and the general election.

But after Kasich got burned in 2011 on the referendums on his version of the WI stuff, Kasich basically did what Arnold Schwartzenegger did after he got likewise burned in 2005 on the initiatives in California. He moved to the center, but not just any center. He moved to the center, by which I mean center that is what his John McCain acolyte consultant shills told him.

Kasich would not have got the Trump base, because Kasich supports open borders and unilateral free trade in the face of a protectionist China. Kasich would not have campaigned on a trillion dollars of infrastructure, the wall or renegotiating NAFTA.


And there is no such thing as "The Jeb Bush Coalition". There is no Bush coalition out there waiting for right Republican to carry it to victory. It doesn't exist. The Bush "coalition" is now buried under thousands of pissed off Millenials in NOVA, who hate the Republicans not because of Trump (though they certainly hate Trump), but because of W's elective war in the Middle East.

There is no path to victory for an outright neocon and a big part of Trump's ability to rally  higher percentages of the WWC vote was because he ran against the Iraq War and talked endlessly of the wars diverting money from Infrastructure. This is a common mindset among that kind of secular, blue collar alienated worker, whose industry has gone, particular those who were alive during the Vietnam War, that went heavily for Trump in PA, NE OH And MI. Many of these same voters went to the Democrats in 2006 when Pelosi promised to set a time table, raise the minimum wage and "drain the swamp". That was not a message aimed at San Francisco, it was a message aimed at these same voters.

At lot of these same people also voted for Reagan. Not the Reagan that promised a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina, but the Reagan that put quotas on Japanese cars, pulled out of Lebanon to avoid a protracted conflict that wasn't in our interest and ended the stagflation in the economy.

Republican intellectuals, and conservative ideologues have tried to pretend that these people don't exist and have also white washed out of existence the inconvenient Reagan policies and positions that appealed to them. They continued to do this, even as their numbers ballooned in the GOP because of campaigns by Bush and others, as well as the unpopularity of the Democrats and their policies on coal, climate and immigration, while their preferred base slowly declined due to generational change and in-migration of diverse groups who mostly vote Democratic and have even less interest in those policies, no matter how favorable a face you you put on the immigration policy.




Kasich doenst need those exact voters to win Wisconsin(Scott Walker won there three times) or Pennsylvania as his suburban performance would be the best the GOP has done since 1988.


Kasich won those blue collar dem voters easily in (just look at the county by county map) in 2014 and he likely would do so again in 2014 .


Also if someone like Kasich won the nomination,  Jill Stein would do much much better than she did in OTL and she could possibly surpass Nader 2000 performance as the best the green party ever did.

1. Tommy Thompson also won in 1986, 1990, 1994 and 1998, but that didn't make it go for Bush 41 or 43. "Best suburban performance since 1988"? No Republican has won all four Philly suburban counties since Arlen Specter in 2004, and he is dead. Tom Corbett couldn't even get Montco and Delco in 2010 and he freakin won Allegheny Count outright. The key thing you are forgetting is, those suburbs were lost on generational change and defections on the abortion issue. Kasich is very conservative on that issue and that would be been the focus of the Democratic strategy in SE PA.

2. Maps and percentages can be misleading. Kasich got just 60,000 more votes than he did when he barely edged a win in 2010. The Democrats lost 800,000 votes. Kasich didn't flip many votes, the vast majority stayed home. I will say again, 2014 had the lowest turnout since 1942, remember that caveat always when citing 2014 data.

Mahoning County:
2014:
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   35,578   53.68%
Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   28,376   42.81%

2010:
Ted Strickland   Yvette McGee Brown   Democratic   56,228   65.76%
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   26,566   31.07%

Kasich +9,000   Dems - 28,000 If turnout was the same. this county would have voted 57% Dem 43% Kasich or thereabouts. It voted 53% Kasich, because 20,000 voters just disappeared.

2016 Presidential
Hillary Clinton   Timothy Kaine   Democratic   57,381   49.48%
Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   53,616   46.23%

2012 Presidential
Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   77,059   63.38%
Willard Mitt Romney   Paul Ryan   Republican   42,641   35.07%

By comparison, there was about a 7,000 vote decline between 2012 and 2016, when you account for 2,000 more Gary Johnson votes. Trump gained 11,000 over Romney and Clinton lost 20,000 votes. Trump got 20,000 more votes than Kasich in 2014 and almost 30,000 votes more than Kasich in 2010.



You also forget PVI , Kasich was leading Hillary by 8-10 in the polls whenever they matched up.


The question is what would Hillary attack Kasich on to make up for that polling deficit :


- Lehmen Brothers(For Which Kasich can attack Hillary for Goldman Sachs)

- His position on  Abortion( He opposed the Heartbeat bill , and supported a 20-24 week abortion ban which is supported by most Americans)

- His economic policies(Which would not work like they would on Rubio and Cruz as Kasich as a good economic record as the governor of Ohio).

- His support of NAFTA and the TPP(Which Kasich can point out Bill signed NAFTA and Hillary called TPP the gold standard)

- His position on Iraq(which is nearly identical to Hillary's )


on the other Hand Hillary would not be able to get away from these problems:

- The Email Scandal

- The Democratic party base not being enthusiastic enough to vote for Hillary while the GOP base would still be enthusiastic to vote Kasich as they hated Hillary that much. On the other hand Kasich would not come up across like Trump was in OTL which means much of the base stays home or voters for Stein.

- Kasich being much more popular than her among independents  


- Her being a bad campaigner in general




There was no inherent Bush coalition. Bush barely won in 2000 by moderating to try and pick off certain voters at the margins of the Clinton coalition. This is also what Bentsen might've done in '88, and what Kasich might've done in 2016, but it would not have been a landslide. Bentsen still wouldn't have won by a landslide.

Many of the weaknesses you mention also apply to Gore (replace email scandal w/ Lewinsky) and Bush Sr. in '88 (with the iran-contra investigation, Ollie North was indicted in the summer of 1988 and this investigation continued until 1993).

Rubio/Cruz were doubling down on the Tea Party platform that forced Romney to the right while pushing their own platforms even further to the right, similar to the way Dukakis/Dewey doubled down on Mondale/Willkie.


Heres a key difference though :


In 1988: 46% of the country believed things in the country was going in the right direction while 41% thought it was going in the wrong direction (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/presidential-elections/1988-presidential-election/ ))

In 2000: 47% of the country believed things in the country was going in the right direction while 41% thought it was going in the wrong direction( https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/presidential-elections/2000-presidential-election/ )

In 2016: 31% of the country believed things in the country was going in the right direction while 62% thought it was going in the wrong direction(https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/presidential-elections/2016election/)


Those numbers do show there is a major difference between 1988 and 2016 as in 1988 the right direction numbers were +5% while in 2016 they were  -31%.



Also a 7 point win, while winning 357 electoral votes  is not a landslide win.

It is a landslide by today's standards.

Also keep in mind that right track/wrong track has been wildly negative since probably 2005/2006. This is in large measure because of the economy, but also because Republicans do not like their own politicians and so it would naturally be so since Democrats and indies will be hostile obviously and a large number of perpetually dissatisfied Republicans. Also a large number of Democrats being minorities, would have reason to say wrong track, because of race relations and their economic condition not improving as fast as everyone else's.

Basically the one thing everyone can agree on, is everything is screwed up in the country. Therefore, Right Track/Wrong Track is probably a flawed indicator compared to the 1980's or 1990's.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What circumstances would result in this map? on: November 22, 2017, 02:48:14 am
Trump keeps his support with WWC, even gains more in the midwest but falls off a cliff with white college grads.

Maine would likely flip though, but basically yea.

Also it would have to be limited to sunbelt white college grads combined with substantially higher minority turnout. Which would make that map very plausible. This means that Trump would hold up better in some suburbs then others.
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is American Conservatism a "hollowed-out ideological shell"? on: November 22, 2017, 02:32:39 am
2010 John Kasich, who was a fiscal hawk and had an A rating from immigration restrictionists NumbersUSA, might well have won the primary and the general election.

But after Kasich got burned in 2011 on the referendums on his version of the WI stuff, Kasich basically did what Arnold Schwartzenegger did after he got likewise burned in 2005 on the initiatives in California. He moved to the center, but not just any center. He moved to the center, by which I mean center that is what his John McCain acolyte consultant shills told him.

Kasich would not have got the Trump base, because Kasich supports open borders and unilateral free trade in the face of a protectionist China. Kasich would not have campaigned on a trillion dollars of infrastructure, the wall or renegotiating NAFTA.


And there is no such thing as "The Jeb Bush Coalition". There is no Bush coalition out there waiting for right Republican to carry it to victory. It doesn't exist. The Bush "coalition" is now buried under thousands of pissed off Millenials in NOVA, who hate the Republicans not because of Trump (though they certainly hate Trump), but because of W's elective war in the Middle East.

There is no path to victory for an outright neocon and a big part of Trump's ability to rally  higher percentages of the WWC vote was because he ran against the Iraq War and talked endlessly of the wars diverting money from Infrastructure. This is a common mindset among that kind of secular, blue collar alienated worker, whose industry has gone, particular those who were alive during the Vietnam War, that went heavily for Trump in PA, NE OH And MI. Many of these same voters went to the Democrats in 2006 when Pelosi promised to set a time table, raise the minimum wage and "drain the swamp". That was not a message aimed at San Francisco, it was a message aimed at these same voters.

At lot of these same people also voted for Reagan. Not the Reagan that promised a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina, but the Reagan that put quotas on Japanese cars, pulled out of Lebanon to avoid a protracted conflict that wasn't in our interest and ended the stagflation in the economy.

Republican intellectuals, and conservative ideologues have tried to pretend that these people don't exist and have also white washed out of existence the inconvenient Reagan policies and positions that appealed to them. They continued to do this, even as their numbers ballooned in the GOP because of campaigns by Bush and others, as well as the unpopularity of the Democrats and their policies on coal, climate and immigration, while their preferred base slowly declined due to generational change and in-migration of diverse groups who mostly vote Democratic and have even less interest in those policies, no matter how favorable a face you you put on the immigration policy.




Kasich doenst need those exact voters to win Wisconsin(Scott Walker won there three times) or Pennsylvania as his suburban performance would be the best the GOP has done since 1988.


Kasich won those blue collar dem voters easily in (just look at the county by county map) in 2014 and he likely would do so again in 2014 .


Also if someone like Kasich won the nomination,  Jill Stein would do much much better than she did in OTL and she could possibly surpass Nader 2000 performance as the best the green party ever did.

1. Tommy Thompson also won in 1986, 1990, 1994 and 1998, but that didn't make it go for Bush 41 or 43. "Best suburban performance since 1988"? No Republican has won all four Philly suburban counties since Arlen Specter in 2004, and he is dead. Tom Corbett couldn't even get Montco and Delco in 2010 and he freakin won Allegheny Count outright. The key thing you are forgetting is, those suburbs were lost on generational change and defections on the abortion issue. Kasich is very conservative on that issue and that would be been the focus of the Democratic strategy in SE PA.

2. Maps and percentages can be misleading. Kasich got just 60,000 more votes than he did when he barely edged a win in 2010. The Democrats lost 800,000 votes. Kasich didn't flip many votes, the vast majority stayed home. I will say again, 2014 had the lowest turnout since 1942, remember that caveat always when citing 2014 data.

Mahoning County:
2014:
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   35,578   53.68%
Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   28,376   42.81%

2010:
Ted Strickland   Yvette McGee Brown   Democratic   56,228   65.76%
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   26,566   31.07%

Kasich +9,000   Dems - 28,000 If turnout was the same. this county would have voted 57% Dem 43% Kasich or thereabouts. It voted 53% Kasich, because 20,000 voters just disappeared.

2016 Presidential
Hillary Clinton   Timothy Kaine   Democratic   57,381   49.48%
Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   53,616   46.23%

2012 Presidential
Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   77,059   63.38%
Willard Mitt Romney   Paul Ryan   Republican   42,641   35.07%

By comparison, there was about a 7,000 vote decline between 2012 and 2016, when you account for 2,000 more Gary Johnson votes. Trump gained 11,000 over Romney and Clinton lost 20,000 votes. Trump got 20,000 more votes than Kasich in 2014 and almost 30,000 votes more than Kasich in 2010.
12  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Big Redistricting News Out Of PA! on: November 22, 2017, 02:14:39 am

Or a new swing seat in a court-drawn map where Chester has a D+ PVI. What a time to be alive

Chester is interesting - in 2008/2012 the county was easily still to the right of the state. In 2016 the county swung very hard to to the left, and it looks to be staying that way. Democrats appear to have made strides in the row offices last week, and the county backed the failed Liberal bid at the Supreme court, even while the Liberal Judge lost Lakawanna, Erie, and Lehigh all went for the Conservative. For reference, the race was 52-47 Conservative Judge.

This not completely new, I would note that a lot of gains were made in SE PA in 2005-2008, in Montco, Delco and Bucks. Chester seems to have the makings of a shift to the Democrats demographically, but I wouldn't read a lot into local level sweeps in an off year for the party not in power. Remember in 2009, the Republicans gained the school board in Wake County, NC leading to that big fight over community schools/busing. You have to pare back and separate cyclical decline and structural, and recognize that a lot of places that were once formerly Republican strongholds are now swing areas and vice versa. So you are going to see these kind of results that shift unfolds. Some areas will become solid for the other party.

13  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Big Redistricting News Out Of PA! on: November 22, 2017, 02:09:04 am

Or a new swing seat in a court-drawn map where Chester has a D+ PVI. What a time to be alive

Chester is interesting - in 2008/2012 the county was easily still to the right of the state. In 2016 the county swung very hard to to the left, and it looks to be staying that way. Democrats appear to have made strides in the row offices last week, and the county backed the failed Liberal bid at the Supreme court, even while the Liberal Judge lost Lakawanna, Erie, and Lehigh all went for the Conservative. For reference, the race was 52-47 Conservative Judge.

The weird thing is that when drawing fair districts in that region of PA, there is a Gordian Knot in the lines. You have the numbers for two districts (6/16) and a few extraneous pops to balance out the 13th or the 7th. However, the counties make things nice. Of Chester, Berks, and Lancaster, only two can get a district based around them. The third has to get brutally cut up between her neighbors. There is no way to avoid it. We have a map in this thread that cuts Chester, and a map that cuts Lancaster - and I always have liked to cut Berks. There is no real solution which is the better county to cut.

If two chops are needed and the chop is inevitably large, eg more than 5% of the district population, I find that the shapes can be best managed by putting both chops in one county. Metrics that look at chops sometimes build that in intentionally. For instance FL looks at how many counties are chopped, not how many chops are required and that forces all the chops into a few counties if applied rigorously.

Leaving aside the flawed numbers, I like how your map above looks in terms of PA-16 and PA-06. I also liked that you kept 11 in the NE and put 17 back where it belongs. Tongue

I would note that by splitting Lancaster, from my birds eye view, has the effect of a soft pro-GOP gerrymander, since Lancaster is traditionally Republican (though ebbing), putting a chunk in with a Chester based PA-06 and a Berks based PA-16, has the effect of tilting both to the Republicans in too steep way for either to flip. Whereas Lancaster plus a piece of Chester, would be Safe Republican for at least a while, while a Berks plus rest of Chester seat would actually be competitive.
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is American Conservatism a "hollowed-out ideological shell"? on: November 22, 2017, 01:47:33 am
2010 John Kasich, who was a fiscal hawk and had an A rating from immigration restrictionists NumbersUSA, might well have won the primary and the general election.

But after Kasich got burned in 2011 on the referendums on his version of the WI stuff, Kasich basically did what Arnold Schwartzenegger did after he got likewise burned in 2005 on the initiatives in California. He moved to the center, but not just any center. He moved to the center, by which I mean center that is what his John McCain acolyte consultant shills told him.

Kasich would not have got the Trump base, because Kasich supports open borders and unilateral free trade in the face of a protectionist China. Kasich would not have campaigned on a trillion dollars of infrastructure, the wall or renegotiating NAFTA.


And there is no such thing as "The Jeb Bush Coalition". There is no Bush coalition out there waiting for right Republican to carry it to victory. It doesn't exist. The Bush "coalition" is now buried under thousands of pissed off Millenials in NOVA, who hate the Republicans not because of Trump (though they certainly hate Trump), but because of W's elective war in the Middle East.

There is no path to victory for an outright neocon and a big part of Trump's ability to rally  higher percentages of the WWC vote was because he ran against the Iraq War and talked endlessly of the wars diverting money from Infrastructure. This is a common mindset among that kind of secular, blue collar alienated worker, whose industry has gone, particular those who were alive during the Vietnam War, that went heavily for Trump in PA, NE OH And MI. Many of these same voters went to the Democrats in 2006 when Pelosi promised to set a time table, raise the minimum wage and "drain the swamp". That was not a message aimed at San Francisco, it was a message aimed at these same voters.

At lot of these same people also voted for Reagan. Not the Reagan that promised a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina, but the Reagan that put quotas on Japanese cars, pulled out of Lebanon to avoid a protracted conflict that wasn't in our interest and ended the stagflation in the economy.

Republican intellectuals, and conservative ideologues have tried to pretend that these people don't exist and have also white washed out of existence the inconvenient Reagan policies and positions that appealed to them. They continued to do this, even as their numbers ballooned in the GOP because of campaigns by Bush and others, as well as the unpopularity of the Democrats and their policies on coal, climate and immigration, while their preferred base slowly declined due to generational change and in-migration of diverse groups who mostly vote Democratic and have even less interest in those policies, no matter how favorable a face you you put on the immigration policy.

15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is American Conservatism a "hollowed-out ideological shell"? on: November 22, 2017, 01:19:56 am
Keep in mind when you take away the controversies of Trump, the discussion invariably moves to the controversial policies espoused by Cruz, Rubio and Kasich.

All fall, you would have heard how horrible John Kasich is, and that he hates women because of the bills he signed in Ohio.

Rubio and Cruz would have both been hit on extreme positions and also inexperience.

Keep in mind, that part of why Trump won, was because Democrats focused all on his character, and there were enough angry, pissed off working class guys in the Midwest who thought Trump crazy enough to rip up NAFTA, spend a trillion on infrastructure and put tariffs on China.

Rubio, Cruz and Kasich would have had to charge up Little Round Top (NOVA).


Kasich would have won by 7 points IMO as he can combine both the Trump coalition along with the Bush Jr Coalition . There is nothing Hillary could attack Kasich on without being attacked on the same thing as well.  Also Jill Stein would have done much better than she did in OTL as the GOP nominee wasnt as scary as


In my opinion this would be the Hillary vs Kasich map





If Jill Stein wins 3.5-4% of the vote in Oregon Kasich wins Oregon too as PVI + Stein taking votes away from Hillary makes Oregon flip.




Lastly the idea that Kasich cant appeal to Working Class Voters is just not true , and here's proof of that:




Easiest way to win a landslide - Collapse Democratic turnout. Doesn't make your an electoral god. Kasich got just 60,000 more votes than he did in 2010, which he barely won. The Democrats lost 800,000 votes, because their candidate sucked.

Remember 2014 had the worst turnout since 1942, always keep that in mind when citing any election result from that year.

2016 Presidential
Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   2,841,006   51.31%   18
Hillary Clinton   Timothy Kaine   Democratic   2,394,169   43.24%   0

2012 Presidential
Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   2,827,709   50.58%   18
Willard Mitt Romney   Paul Ryan   Republican   2,661,437   47.60%   0

2014 Governor
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   1,944,848   63.64%
Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   1,009,359   33.03%

2010 Governor
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   1,889,186   49.04%
Ted Strickland   Yvette McGee Brown   Democratic   1,812,059   47.04%
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is American Conservatism a "hollowed-out ideological shell"? on: November 22, 2017, 12:15:50 am
Keep in mind when you take away the controversies of Trump, the discussion invariably moves to the controversial policies espoused by Cruz, Rubio and Kasich.

All fall, you would have heard how horrible John Kasich is, and that he hates women because of the bills he signed in Ohio.

Rubio and Cruz would have both been hit on extreme positions and also inexperience.

Keep in mind, that part of why Trump won, was because Democrats focused all on his character, and there were enough angry, pissed off working class guys in the Midwest who thought Trump crazy enough to rip up NAFTA, spend a trillion on infrastructure and put tariffs on China.

Rubio, Cruz and Kasich would have had to charge up Little Round Top (NOVA).
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is American Conservatism a "hollowed-out ideological shell"? on: November 22, 2017, 12:11:39 am
Cruz is a former Bush guy. He is a Texas Republican, it is basically all on the tin. The only exception would be Paulites of course.
18  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: HB 1173: Deregistration is for Real Act (Debating) on: November 22, 2017, 12:03:29 am
1. This bill needs to be amended to reflect the passage of the Deregistration waiting Period Act.


2. I must say that I am frankly opposed to this measure generally. We should definitely move to ensure move restrictions on not bypassed via deregistration, but I have long been a deregistration skeptic and if we are going to have deregistration as an active process, then I would prefer not to have ban people from returning at all. Frankly, I am wondering what benefit to the game there is from having such a restriction in place, and it seems to me that we are penalizing people for having left and then restricting them if they decide to change their minds.

3. Frankly, I do not see the point anymore in having such a restriction in place. You can make sure the move restrictions apply and are not bypassed by simply stating such in a bill. We had such in place pre-reset and have not had it in place post-reset. I have not seen any negative aspect, but I have seen people return and contribute significantly to the game in the a manner that would not have been allowed pre-reset.

So frankly, I guess it boils down to this, why should we be turning away anyone who wants to come in and play this game?
19  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: HB 1172: Protecting our Students Act (Debating) on: November 21, 2017, 11:54:01 pm
I am supportive of the intern here for sure, but two concerns both me. What is the scale of cost on the school districts for these mandates and two should we consider easing that burden on districts that are struggling?
20  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: HOUSE BILL: Atlasian Moving Bill (Debating) on: November 21, 2017, 11:43:30 pm
Since there seems to be no opposition, I will move to a final vote here. Representatives have 24 hours to object.
21  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Government / Re: The Budget Process committee (Template Vote, 48 hours!) on: November 21, 2017, 11:37:05 pm
The Carbon Tax Act is now law, so the template will need to be updated.  70% of revenues are evenly redistributed with 30% covering the cost of the Renewable Energy Rebate and Subsidy Act.

Well the good thing is some of that data at least is already available to the GM, at least for that aspect.

Where are we on this?
My apologies the department is working on this and it should be out by the 20th

It is now the 21st?
22  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Cook Political: A Democratic wave is coming on: November 19, 2017, 04:56:53 am
http://cookpolitical.com/analysis/house/house-overview/house-ratings-changes-seven-districts-gop-majority-peril

It's going to be the best year for Democrats since 2006 - this is what I wanted to happen if Hillary lost.  Her loss will the party's biggest gain in a decade.

And the party's biggest loss. Neil Gorsuch (and other court nominees) alone is so devastating to the party and the future of the left and liberalism that the 2018 election is small beans.

I don't know why everyone circle jerks over SCOTUS so much. Sure, if RBG, Kennedy and Breyer are replaced by Trump, the 2016 election will have been very damaging long-term, but Gorsuch replacing Scalia just maintains the status quo. And it's not like the Republican Justices besides Gorsuch are spring chickens either.

RBG - 84
Breyer 79
Sotomayor 63
Kagan     57

Average 71

Kennedy 81
Thomas 69
Alito 67
Roberts 62
Gorsuch 50

Average 66 with Kennedy, 62 without.


Maybe not spring chickens, but they are younger than the liberals for the most part.







23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Hypothetically, shouldn't the GOP just pack it up at this point? on: November 19, 2017, 04:47:52 am
All I have to say is that in 1928 the Republicans pretty much controlled the entire country outside of the Deep South, and look at what happened. At least back then they had a relatively sane center.

The GOP spent much of the 1920's accomplishing absolutely nothing. The GOP was bitterly divided between the Progressives and the Conservative pro-business faction. In fact, only with the 1928 election did the business wing get the upper hand and did Republicans win enough seats to have an effective governing majority.

The only issue that kept the Republicans together was support for Tariffs, it was their legacy issue. By this point they had long abandoned civil rights and had not even tried on the issue since the 1890's. Republicans raised tariffs in 1921 in response to the 1921 Depression and when the economy was beginning to weaken in 1930 (post crash, but before the bottom fell out in 1931), Republicans responded by pushing tariffs up to record levels. Obviously, it didn't stop the Depression and Republicans got swept out of office in the 1930 and 1932 elections.

It is very easy to think that the present is completely unprecedented, but when you look carefully, you realize that the past wasn't as awesome as it is made to look in hindsight. The 1920's GOP was built just as much on luck as well.


Taxes were reduced by even a larger margin than it was under Reagan(heck by 1928 only 2% of the country payed a federal income tax according to wiki).

Coolidge cut the size of the government by a lot , and even reduced the national debt by 25%

That was easy for them to do. Because as I said Republicans were united around high tariffs on imported goods. They favored that over domestic taxation, and used the revenues from those tariffs to cut taxes and reduce the national debt.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Changes in Raw Vote By State on: November 19, 2017, 02:37:13 am
Matches fairly well with the trend map.
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Hypothetically, shouldn't the GOP just pack it up at this point? on: November 19, 2017, 02:29:13 am
All I have to say is that in 1928 the Republicans pretty much controlled the entire country outside of the Deep South, and look at what happened. At least back then they had a relatively sane center.

The GOP spent much of the 1920's accomplishing absolutely nothing. The GOP was bitterly divided between the Progressives and the Conservative pro-business faction. In fact, only with the 1928 election did the business wing get the upper hand and did Republicans win enough seats to have an effective governing majority.

The only issue that kept the Republicans together was support for Tariffs, it was their legacy issue. By this point they had long abandoned civil rights and had not even tried on the issue since the 1890's. Republicans raised tariffs in 1921 in response to the 1921 Depression and when the economy was beginning to weaken in 1930 (post crash, but before the bottom fell out in 1931), Republicans responded by pushing tariffs up to record levels. Obviously, it didn't stop the Depression and Republicans got swept out of office in the 1930 and 1932 elections.

It is very easy to think that the present is completely unprecedented, but when you look carefully, you realize that the past wasn't as awesome as it is made to look in hindsight. The 1920's GOP was built just as much on luck as well.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1488


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines