HaroldWilson
15d ago
He admitted well before E-day that anything more than a very crude real time projection needed far more resources than he had - he borderline told people to just go and look at the NYT needle, and probably only did his thing because it wasn't known until the last minute whether the needle would be active.
HaroldWilson
15d ago
As it stands the government can dictate through federal funding that roads be marked for bike lanes
What's the alternative here? That the federal government be banned from attaching any conditions to any funding given to states? How would that even work?
HaroldWilson
18d ago
The main point that underscores all of this is that the demographics are pushing the country towards third world norms. If people care a lot about whatever third world hole they live in being controlled by people labeling themselves "Republican" instead of "Democrat"
Odd thing to comment on a thread explicitly about the electoral prospects of the Democratic party. Not every post is an invitation to kvetch about immigration.
HaroldWilson
18d ago
Would this result in bipartisan support for tougher immigration policies or less resistance in enforcement of border security is to be seen.
It may but I think the pendulum can swing really fast on this one if Trump overreaches and tries to indulge the 'mass deportations now' crowd. Being tough at the border but generous to people once they're established and resident in the country, even if illegally, seems a winning triangulation position.
Maybe the trans issue has been pushed too far.
I would be very surprised if this made any difference to the election outcome.
HaroldWilson
18d ago
you can't expect the West to be able to defeat Russia in every proxy war context.
This isn't even a symmetrical proxy war. The West is fighting only as a proxy against full Russian involvement. Feels a lot like Russia's Vietnam, even if in the long run Russia might eke out a points victory - a major power thwarted by a minor nation backed by opposing major powers, except even less flattering for Russia because at least Vietnam was half a world away and not bordering America.
HaroldWilson
18d ago
why I shouldn't take Biden's anomalously high vote count in 2020 as evidence of fraud?
Well, Democrats generally were more worried about Trump this time round given all of his post-2020 election denialism, so if 'they' had the ability to rig it last time, why didn't it happen this time round? After all while it wasn't 'close' this year, the actual number of votes needed to flip the election wasn't even particularly high given that only 3(?) states would need to change hands. I've heard the figure 120,000 in a few places. If you're alleging that fraudulent votes numbered in the millions in 2020 (otherwise what's the relevance of the disparity in total vote), could really have been that hard to find 120,000 votes this time round. My prior for election fraud was already non-existant, but if anything this should lower it even further. Covid also throws in huge uncertainty - boredom driving political engagement, anger at Trump's non-existent/incompetent response (except warp speed, which he then couldn't talk about because of his deranged supporters lol), world-wide anti-incumbent feeling (which we see again here).
It just doesn't pass the smell test that there were ~15 million people who were that excited to vote for Biden
If this is your argument then it implies the number of fraudulent votes must have been at least well over 5 million (after all there wouldn't be that much difference in plausibility between 10 mil above the last two cycles and 15 mil above), which is a truly extraordinary claim that would require commensurate evidence.
HaroldWilson
18d ago
Arguably true for Tulsi (though I'd like to think she feels sufficiently strongly about her broader progressive economic outlook that she would never be compatible in the long run with a Republican administration), but the other two can just go back to whatever they were doing before a/two/three year(s) ago. Neither of them really needs party politics.
HaroldWilson
18d ago
No, and it shouldn't be infeasible. When I say 'hundreds of elections' I don't mean hundreds of American cycles, it could be individual local races, worldwide electoral predictions etc. The data to do that sort of comparison should already exist.
HaroldWilson
19d ago
(crushed the poll prognosticators)
This is silly. You can't extrapolate from a single election, you'd have to compare their performance over hundreds of different elections until you can see how well the percentages hold up.
HaroldWilson
21d ago
Reports of a close race encourage turnout from an otherwise divided and demoralized Democratic base.
Maybe true but a) this functions both ways, so pollsters could, under this theory, equally be great polling results for Harris in order to avoid complacency, and more importantly b) the differences here are tiny (well within any MoE) between a close EV race and a popular vote tossup delivering a Trump victory, only one or two points. Polls can't pick up those tiny margins anyway, and the far more parsimonious explanations for polling predicting tight races in key states is herding - but once again this has no particular valence so could be hiding good results for either Harris or Trump.
HaroldWilson
24d ago
And if everyone were to suddenly come to this realization all together
Has this ever happened anywhere? FPTP always collapses into a two-party system (at least in individual races/regions, if not always country-wide as in the US). It's better that way though, and that's why I said it's better for the fiction to continue for democracy at large - if we all selected our favourite candidate among, say, twenty options all spread around various mixtures of ideology and policy the winner would have a) no legitimacy, as they'd have won a pathetic plurality of votes, and b) would on average be no closer than the median winner of two-party elections to the median American. After all, in such a scenario the winner would be pretty much randomly decided based on which candidate had the fewest spoilers in and around their ideological position. Multi-party countries only work with multi-party electoral systems, otherwise you get Belfast South. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
HaroldWilson
25d ago
If instead of expressing your desire, you try to influence the outcome in a strategic way, then again: you're probably just being bad at math.
In one sense obviously yes, one vote will not determine the outcome of the election, but think about it like this. If one side in the election all suddenly came to this realisation and freely discussed and acknowledged this fact, while the other still maintained the fantasy that 'every vote matters', then side B would win a landslide, and in a sense they've almost willed their fantasy into being. What I mean is that both for democracy at large and for your preferred candidate, it's pretty important that the general proposition that every vote matters is considered to be true, even if it isn't. And insofar as each individual contributes to keeping up the delusion, 'every vote matters' almost becomes true even while it is obviously strictly false.
HaroldWilson
25d ago
At best, it raises the idea that because marriage is rooted in history and tradition (which is what makes it a cognizable right), same sex marriage must also be rooted in history and tradition. This is absurd on its face.
This is a rather unfair reading. He freely admits that same-sex marriage is not itself rooted in tradition, but it doesn't need to be, as given that in many (even if not all) of the respects we do consider marriage to be an important liberty those rationales apply just as readily to same-sex marriages as traditional ones, such that preventing the former would be an abrogation of an important right, irrespective of whether the history and tradition that justifies that right was in fact exclusive of such marriages. Was marriage between prison inmates specifically rooted in history and tradition? If not, does that undermine Turner v. Safley?
when the Constitution clearly authorizes it.
Well that's sort of the nub. I defend clearly Constitutionally authorised rights/practices, you legislate from the bench, he tramples over states' rights.
But there is a noticeable political valence to respecting precedent and history.
Is there? I haven't been able to find any quantification of this question, but eyeballing some supposedly comprehensive lists it seems like except for a spate in the late 60s (most of which aren't particularly famous/significant) the overturning of precedents has happened at a relatively constant rate in the post-war period. Plus this is kind of another Russell conjugation - I rectify disastrous precedents, you have contempt for tradition. In any case, some of the most strongly conservative justices have the least regard for precedent. Thomas, most famously.
HaroldWilson
25d ago
It goes both ways. Comey re-opening the emails investigation could well have cost Hillary given the slim margins involved.
HaroldWilson
25d ago
To say nothing of using the Supreme Court to impose abortion and same-sex marriage on every single state
Obergefell was/is a very plausible extension of previous fourteenth amendment jurisprudence. Roe has obviously been done to death, but suffice it to say conservative courts have been just as willing to impose on the states - 2nd amendment cases most obviously, but also trade union law, campaign finance &c. There doesn't seem to be a notable political valence to legislating from the bench.
HaroldWilson
25d ago
If you're not voting with reference to the outcome, why bother going at all? If it's just a question of making yourself feel better, stay at home and throw darts at a picture of Kamala Harris, and let the people who actually care about who becomes President do the voting.
HaroldWilson
25d ago
violently disrupt the 2017 inauguration
There is simply no comparison here. Here is what Hillary said on it becoming clear she would lose;
We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought. But I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.
There is nothing Trump ever said with one hundredth the degree of grace and humility in her concession, and it wasn't even a particularly exceptional concession speech.
Further, Democratic-allied members of the government bureaucracy both supported false information (e.g. the Steele dossier) and falsely denigrated true information (the Hunter Biden laptop)
Again none of this is on the scale of Trump's contempt for the democratic process. This is not really much different from the general rough and tumble of political life - the Republicans had been dishing out similar nonsense for years. Members of Congress openly indulged birtherism! While I would no doubt question your interpretation of the Trump/Russia or laptop episodes, even if I accept Democrats were knowingly lying, politicians lying is not something new. Major politicians refusing to concede elections is.
When a Democrat says 'I just want to find [the number of votes it would take to change the outcome]', then I'll worry about them as much as Trump.
HaroldWilson
25d ago
This is the exact kind of thinking he is criticising. It would be more than a little narcissistic to choose whom to elect as President based on where each of the candidates fits into your own personal psychodrama (his word not mine) - that might be the narrative most personally compelling to him, but it isn't objectively of any importance compared to everything else at stake in the election. Voting isn't a question of 'aid and comfort', it's a dispassionate selection between the range of options offered to you. And Scott is saying that one shouldn't let personal animus or revulsion lead one into an erroneous selection. If one objects to Harris on the grounds she is closely associated with the broader cultural milieu that 'cancelled' Scott, one must also consider that Trump is personally extremely quick to 'cancel' or attempt to do so, and you aren't released from that obligation of considering what the alternative is just because you really hate the left-liberal establishment.
HaroldWilson
25d ago
'How is it not manifestly obvious these are the politics are policies of hate and destruction' seems like a pretty central example of boo outgroup/uncharitability, and incidentally also consensus-building.
HaroldWilson
25d ago
I think the intonation is definitely consistent with "the only garbage I see out there is his supporters'", as in the garbage of his supporters in terms of rhetoric in reference to Puerto Rico or just generally.
HaroldWilson
26d ago
There is already reference to an idea, the 'garbage' - as in the garbage his supporter(s) are putting out. Put without using an apostrophe, 'the only garbage I see floating out there is that of his supporters'. As above not saying this actually is definitely what he said, but it's definitely not impossible.
HaroldWilson
26d ago
May 12 2022
Do you just take any post as an opportunity to unload all your grievances about Democrats/the left?
How is it not manifestly obvious these are policies of hate and destruction?
If you just want to fantasise about how much Democrats hate you, just go and watch OAN or something with all the other morons.
HaroldWilson
27d ago
The fact people actively resist setting up something that's at least as secure as Athens' pottery shards tells me they're more interested in the result than the security of elections.
Stupid and uncharitable. There are undeniable trade-offs to many of these ways of making voting systems 'more secure'. Not saying you can't think they're worth it, but 'my opponents have contempt for democracy' is not in fact the only conclusion you can draw. As it happens I am pro-paper ballots and human counters but this doesn't seem to have any recognisable political valence - in fact hand-count states are mostly Democratic.
HaroldWilson
27d ago
The chance of anything meaningful happening relating to speech laws under a Democratic administration is zero. Even if they did control both chambers, which they won't, any national legislation on 'freedom of expression' would never get out of the starting blocks among swathes of Democratic congressmen and women. Walz made a silly comment, but it seems very paranoid to think this would ever actually amount to something. Certainly, if that is beyond the pale for you then you should be much more violently opposed to Trump, given his comments on freedom of expression have gone way beyond that. They're all well known now, but some of the worst below;
“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet, and we have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. And we have to talk to them. Maybe in certain areas closing that Internet up in some way [audience member cheers]… Somebody will say, ‘oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We have a LOT of foolish people.”
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected,
“it is frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write.”
Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!
"It's truly incredible that shows like Saturday Night Live, not funny/no talent, can spend all of their time knocking the same person (me), over & over, without so much of a mention of 'the other side,'" the president wrote. "Like an advertisement without consequences. Same with Late Night Shows. Should Federal Election Commission and/or FCC look into this?"
Now, Trump obviously can't/couldn't follow up on any of these threats for various practical or legal reasons, but nevertheless if it's a contest of 'who has more contempt for freedom of expression' Trump wins hands down.
Plenty of right-wing figures do this too, and got resultant egg on their faces in 2018, 2020 and 2022. It's hard to quantify but there are definitely a lot of left-wing pessimists and I don't think partisan boosterism is more prevalent on one side compared to the other.
In fact on twitter there were a lot of big right wing accounts predicting a Kamala win (legitimately or otherwise) shortly before the election.
More options
Context Copy link