Octopus Overlords

Grifman wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:05 am

hepcat wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 8:54 pm I wonder if Obama would have insisted on the presidential seal on HIS mask?

I actually think that's pretty cool, myself.

Grifman wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:12 am Another point of interest, Senator Cornyn is at less than 50%, with a large number of undecided and the Democratic primary still to be held. That undecided number is probably large because we don't know yet who the challenger would be, but that formerly shoo-in race might suddenly become interesting if Trump continues to collapse.

coopasonic wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:05 pm

Grifman wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:12 am Another point of interest, Senator Cornyn is at less than 50%, with a large number of undecided and the Democratic primary still to be held. That undecided number is probably large because we don't know yet who the challenger would be, but that formerly shoo-in race might suddenly become interesting if Trump continues to collapse.

I refuse to get hopeful on the Senate side (or the presidential side, for that matter). We re-elected Ted god damn Cruz.

Grifman wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:12 am Texas is now a battleground state, and if Trump loses here, game over.

coopasonic wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:05 pm

Grifman wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:12 am Another point of interest, Senator Cornyn is at less than 50%, with a large number of undecided and the Democratic primary still to be held. That undecided number is probably large because we don't know yet who the challenger would be, but that formerly shoo-in race might suddenly become interesting if Trump continues to collapse.

I refuse to get hopeful on the Senate side (or the presidential side, for that matter). We re-elected Ted god damn Cruz.

hepcat wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:14 pm

coopasonic wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:05 pm

Grifman wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:12 am Another point of interest, Senator Cornyn is at less than 50%, with a large number of undecided and the Democratic primary still to be held. That undecided number is probably large because we don't know yet who the challenger would be, but that formerly shoo-in race might suddenly become interesting if Trump continues to collapse.

I refuse to get hopeful on the Senate side (or the presidential side, for that matter). We re-elected Ted god damn Cruz.

And your state did so, knowing full well his father killed JFK.

hepcat wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:19 pm Good point. Yeah, Mrs. Cruz has NEVER been asked to pose topless by a magazine, has she?

hepcat wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:45 pm I think I understand where you're going with that assertion, and I would have to agree: the war of 1812 would have been more amusing if they had rubber chickens instead of cannons. Also, manwich isn't really made from real men.

stessier wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:25 pm I was listening to the Bakari Sellers podcast from last week where he talked to Jason Johnson. They were talking about presidential polling and brought up that if the Democrats get 40-41% of the white vote, they will win in a landslide - like GA and TX in play landslide. I had no idea Democrats have historically gotten so few white votes.

Holman wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:30 pm

stessier wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:25 pm I was listening to the Bakari Sellers podcast from last week where he talked to Jason Johnson. They were talking about presidential polling and brought up that if the Democrats get 40-41% of the white vote, they will win in a landslide - like GA and TX in play landslide. I had no idea Democrats have historically gotten so few white votes.

I think I've read that no Dem presidential candidate has won a majority of the overall white vote since LBJ.

(This is skewed by age, since older Americans have always been and still remain disproportionately white.)

Holman wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:30 pm
(This is skewed by age, since older Americans have always been and still remain disproportionately white.)

Defiant wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:56 pm I remain skeptical of polls until after the conventions/labor day, when the General Election and campaigning begin in earnest. In most elections, there's some people from either party (or leaners to that party) that flirt with voting for the other side or third parties and even voting for the other party. They usually "come to their senses" and return to their party once the campaigning begins and they remember their partisanship. IIUC, between this point and the election, there's an average of 7 points difference between the polling average and the election (average, so sometimes larger, sometimes smaller).

I'm not saying that that will happen this time - indeed, I would definitely think/hope that this year we see more people on the right stay with the Democrat, and see a landslide for Biden - but I want more evidence before feeling confident it won't. And who knows, maybe the 7 point swing will be towards Biden.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:25 pm Trump's going to need to win over declared Biden supporters, which in general is a tougher road.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:25 pm

Defiant wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:56 pm I remain skeptical of polls until after the conventions/labor day, when the General Election and campaigning begin in earnest. In most elections, there's some people from either party (or leaners to that party) that flirt with voting for the other side or third parties and even voting for the other party. They usually "come to their senses" and return to their party once the campaigning begins and they remember their partisanship. IIUC, between this point and the election, there's an average of 7 points difference between the polling average and the election (average, so sometimes larger, sometimes smaller).

I'm not saying that that will happen this time - indeed, I would definitely think/hope that this year we see more people on the right stay with the Democrat, and see a landslide for Biden - but I want more evidence before feeling confident it won't. And who knows, maybe the 7 point swing will be towards Biden.

This is true, but this doesn't really give much hope to Trump as applied to this election. In 2016, Clinton steadily lead Trump throughout the campaign, BUT: (1) her lead was consistently smaller than Biden's (~ 4-6% vs. 10%), and more importantly: (2) she never sniffed 50% of the vote in the polls, with large independents / undecideds (e.g., her lead was usually something like 43% - 38%). Whereas Biden both has a bigger lead AND has repeatedly hit 50%+ in polls, with much smaller groups of independents / undecideds.

So, it's not just that Biden has a huge lead. It's also that whereas in 2016 Trump only needed to win over independents / undecideds to win, in 2020 Trump's going to need to win over declared Biden supporters, which in general is a tougher road.

Holman wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:17 pm In an election that will 100% be a referendum on Trump, I don't think it makes as much sense to talk about the campaign only really beginning after Labor Day. I think this campaign has been underway for years.

Holman wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:17 pm I wonder to what degree incumbency is a factor in (or against) the "natural" tightening of late-race polls?

Clinton/Trump was a battle between two unpopular candidates, neither currently in office, and it was still possible for some (deluded) people to believe that Trump would be something new and exciting in Washington. But now it's 2020, and Trump has removed all doubt about what he is.

In an election that will 100% be a referendum on Trump, I don't think it makes as much sense to talk about the campaign only really beginning after Labor Day. I think this campaign has been underway for years.

Holman wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:17 pm I wonder to what degree incumbency is a factor in (or against) the "natural" tightening of late-race polls?

Clinton/Trump was a battle between two unpopular candidates, neither currently in office, and it was still possible for some (deluded) people to believe that Trump would be something new and exciting in Washington. But now it's 2020, and Trump has removed all doubt about what he is.

In an election that will 100% be a referendum on Trump, I don't think it makes as much sense to talk about the campaign only really beginning after Labor Day. I think this campaign has been underway for years.

Defiant wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:27 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:25 pm

Defiant wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:56 pm I remain skeptical of polls until after the conventions/labor day, when the General Election and campaigning begin in earnest. In most elections, there's some people from either party (or leaners to that party) that flirt with voting for the other side or third parties and even voting for the other party. They usually "come to their senses" and return to their party once the campaigning begins and they remember their partisanship. IIUC, between this point and the election, there's an average of 7 points difference between the polling average and the election (average, so sometimes larger, sometimes smaller).

I'm not saying that that will happen this time - indeed, I would definitely think/hope that this year we see more people on the right stay with the Democrat, and see a landslide for Biden - but I want more evidence before feeling confident it won't. And who knows, maybe the 7 point swing will be towards Biden.

This is true, but this doesn't really give much hope to Trump as applied to this election. In 2016, Clinton steadily lead Trump throughout the campaign, BUT: (1) her lead was consistently smaller than Biden's (~ 4-6% vs. 10%), and more importantly: (2) she never sniffed 50% of the vote in the polls, with large independents / undecideds (e.g., her lead was usually something like 43% - 38%). Whereas Biden both has a bigger lead AND has repeatedly hit 50%+ in polls, with much smaller groups of independents / undecideds.

So, it's not just that Biden has a huge lead. It's also that whereas in 2016 Trump only needed to win over independents / undecideds to win, in 2020 Trump's going to need to win over declared Biden supporters, which in general is a tougher road.

Except that some people do declare themselves as supporting another candidate (the Democrat or the Republican or the independent) and then back off when the general election starts, the campaigning starts and they're reminded how the person they're voting is "really" a commie or a fascist and they need to support their own party to save the courts/America/Freedom. Plus, of course, dirty tricks/voter suppression is also a possibility. And hopefully, Bidens huge, historic lead, and Trump continuing to mess up will prevent that being significant, but we'll see.

Also, what specifically prompted me posting that was remarks about Texas polls and other red states showing close races or Biden leads. Those are the ones I'm especially skeptical of.

Remus West wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:25 am I simply find it depressing that tRump has any percentage of the population behind him beyond the completely nuts and/or overtly racist groups.

Remus West wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:25 am I simply find it depressing that tRump has any percentage of the population behind him beyond the completely nuts and/or overtly racist groups. I honestly can not think of a single thing he has done that has benefitted our nation. Given how badly he has mangled the pandemic and social unrest how can it even be possible he might win. The fact that we have to account for that "might" is sorely depressing. Add in the voter suppression and outright cheating I am sure he will at least attempt to commit and will certainly encourage and it just looks bleak for the nation regardless of the outcome of the election. We were fractured before but he has shattered us as a cohesive society.

Remus West wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:25 am I honestly can not think of a single thing he has done that has benefitted our nation.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:06 am

Remus West wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:25 am I honestly can not think of a single thing he has done that has benefited our nation.

Those are objective and depending on your philosophies determine how good/bad they are. Some will play out over time.

• He reduced taxes on corporations - thus pushing the increase in income disparity from the poorest to the wealthiest while throwing out the money that might have otherwise gone into providing needed social services, like universal healthcare so the poorest don't have to decide between a doctor's visit and the rent. This has been playing out over time since Reagan, and it hasn't gone well for the general population. Great for the 1%, though.
• He reduced the number of folks coming here illegally - in itself good, but the methodology of terrorizing families and locking kids in cages is verybad. Villainizing and promoting hate towards immigrants is very bad. Immigrants are the backbone of US growth and it should be made easier to come here legally and become a tax-paying, card-carrying citizen - not harder.
• He nominated two conservative supreme court judges - two people who are expected to try and roll back social progress towards giving women rights over their bodies and lean towards favoring GOP agendas, like dismantling social services and killing regulations.
• He rolled back tons of regulations - regulations are the only thing keeping the US from becoming a desolate wasteland. Corporations don't limit themselves willingly; that's wishful thinking of the worst kind. If they did, we wouldn't have regulations to begin with. Rolling them back is essentially fucking the environment and the future for a quick buck today. My feelings on this mimic The Lorax.
• He has challenged the EU on NATO payments - Challenged? Great. Pissing off allies and throwing epic tantrums? Bad.
• He has challenged China on trade - this is maybe one thing I might like, but that's because I don't like the way China treats it's populace and it's less about a trade imbalance. I'm cool with an affordable imbalance with countries that work towards making the world a better place. China is not one of them.
• He reworked NAFTA - I don't think he reworked NAFTA as I didn't see any commentary on crayons and sharpies during the process. By all accounts it was overdue and all he really did was sign a line. Even a stopped clock, etc.

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:26 am From your list, based on my philosophies:

ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:30 am

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:26 am From your list, based on my philosophies:

That's exactly his point. You're looking at it from your philosophies and finding it bad. Others with differing philosophies will disagree with you and find those results positive.

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:06 am

Remus West wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:25 am I honestly can not think of a single thing he has done that has benefitted our nation.

That's only because you disagree with him philosophically. He reduced taxes on corporations. He reduced the number of folks coming here illegally. He nominated two conservative supreme court judges. He rolled back tons of regulations. He has challenged the EU on NATO payments. He has challenged China on trade. He reworked NAFTA.

Those are objective and depending on your philosophies determine how good/bad they are. Some will play out over time.

Remus West wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:38 amat least I can understand why, or at least that, some do.

Paingod wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:26 am

noxiousdog wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:06 am

Remus West wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:25 am I honestly can not think of a single thing he has done that has benefited our nation.

Those are objective and depending on your philosophies determine how good/bad they are. Some will play out over time.

From your list, based on my philosophies:

• He reduced taxes on corporations - thus pushing the increase in income disparity from the poorest to the wealthiest while throwing out the money that might have otherwise gone into providing needed social services, like universal healthcare so the poorest don't have to decide between a doctor's visit and the rent. This has been playing out over time since Reagan, and it hasn't gone well for the general population. Great for the 1%, though.
• He reduced the number of folks coming here illegally - in itself good, but the methodology of terrorizing families and locking kids in cages is verybad. Villainizing and promoting hate towards immigrants is very bad. Immigrants are the backbone of US growth and it should be made easier to come here legally and become a tax-paying, card-carrying citizen - not harder.
• He nominated two conservative supreme court judges - two people who are expected to try and roll back social progress towards giving women rights over their bodies and lean towards favoring GOP agendas, like dismantling social services and killing regulations.
• He rolled back tons of regulations - regulations are the only thing keeping the US from becoming a desolate wasteland. Corporations don't limit themselves willingly; that's wishful thinking of the worst kind. If they did, we wouldn't have regulations to begin with. Rolling them back is essentially fucking the environment and the future for a quick buck today. My feelings on this mimic The Lorax.
• He has challenged the EU on NATO payments - Challenged? Great. Pissing off allies and throwing epic tantrums? Bad.
• He has challenged China on trade - this is maybe one thing I might like, but that's because I don't like the way China treats it's populace and it's less about a trade imbalance. I'm cool with an affordable imbalance with countries that work towards making the world a better place. China is not one of them.
• He reworked NAFTA - I don't think he reworked NAFTA as I didn't see any commentary on crayons and sharpies during the process. By all accounts it was overdue and all he really did was sign a line. Even a stopped clock, etc.