2020 Election Thoughts

[pcq]

12 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

Gotcha.  Na I just got pissed watching young white people try to hijack a super important time.  Like STFU and listen, with your heart.  
 

like I said, if there’s a red wave, then I’m most scared for minority communities.  They are the ones who are gonna have to deal with all the carnage caused by pretending-to-be-mad white people.  
 

I hope Biden wins just to spare them from that crap

Imagine if Biden and Obama had presided over 230,000 Covid deaths. We went from a crashed economy to bustling recovery to crashed economy. Vote for Cheeto and The Supremes. I ain't wearing no mask.

[whitesoxfan99]

The current Republican Party is complete trash part 5,000,000:

https://mobile.twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1322602843661021184

The Texas Supreme Court already ruled not to prohibit drive-thru voting.  

[hi8is]

3 hours ago, pcq said:

Vote for Cheeto and The Supremes. I ain't wearing no mask.

[The Beast]

26 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

The current Republican Party is complete trash part 5,000,000:

https://mobile.twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1322602843661021184

The Texas Supreme Court already ruled not to prohibit drive-thru voting.  

Do voters have any recourse on Monday and Tuesday if their votes get thrown out? That’s what I’d want to know.

[whitesoxfan99]

2 hours ago, The Beast said:

Do voters have any recourse on Monday and Tuesday if their votes get thrown out? That’s what I’d want to know.

Other than appealing a court decision, probably not.  GOP’s only play is voter suppression.  Just the worst people.

[The Beast]

3 hours ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

Other than appealing a court decision, probably not.  GOP’s only play is voter suppression.  Just the worst people.

One day the darkest side of those suppressing votes and peddling crap that brings us to 1950 will fall and hopefully a new party will be born. The GOP should have followed the autopsy report from 2012 but didn’t. The post-Trump Republican Party needs a new identity and I hope it isn’t Josh Hawley at Tom Cotton but more like Larry Hogan.

[caulfield12]

Iowa seems to be trending away from Dems in both key races (Ernst vs. Greenfield).

The Senate is is likely going to be 49-51/50-50/51-49.  Assuming a Biden win, that’s not much breathing room considering Manchin.

 

North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Arizona...could seemingly go in any direction.  Then you have Minnesota, Georgia, Texas.

I would have assumed NV and then those single districts in NE and Maine to Biden, but who really knows.

The record voting totals came when Biden was way out in front.  If he’s also in the lead election night but in-person voters, because of, let’s say a combination of weather and Covid fears, come out 2 or 3 to 1 for Trump, it possibly gets really interesting...especially with PA and North Carolina and other states counting late into the week, if not over the following weekend.   There will be so many suits and countersuits heads will be spinning.
 

Comes down to PA and WI again.  MI is probably out of reach for Trump at this point.

 

Regardless of the outcome, imagine 20+ million losing ObamaCare coverage for preexisting conditions thrown into the middle of that mess, and a re-elected Trump not caring one iota and a 6-3 Supreme Court for another decade?

Then you would really start to see a number of states seriously considering separation from the US. over climate change, Covid, abortion rights, etc.

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, The Beast said:

One day the darkest side of those suppressing votes and peddling crap that brings us to 1950 will fall and hopefully a new party will be born. The GOP should have followed the autopsy report from 2012 but didn’t. The post-Trump Republican Party needs a new identity and I hope it isn’t Josh Hawley at Tom Cotton but more like Larry Hogan.

Can pols like Hogan, Kasich/DeWine and Baker survive primaries, is the question...governing from centrist positions is always going to be challenging from a motivational and fundraising perspective with so much polarization on the right and left wings.

[The Beast]

2 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Can pols like Hogan, Kasich/DeWine and Baker survive primaries, is the question...governing from centrist positions is always going to be challenging from a motivational and fundraising perspective with so much polarization on the right and left wings.

True, but wouldn’t it be nice if we were governed by centrists and leave the polarization behind us with the wings being voted out? ? I’m glad that the progressive wing don’t wield as much power as the usual moderate wing does. We could use more people in then problem solvers caucus.

Edited November 1, 2020 by The Beast

[Balta1701]

8 hours ago, The Beast said:

True, but wouldn’t it be nice if we were governed by centrists and leave the polarization behind us with the wings being voted out? ? I’m glad that the progressive wing don’t wield as much power as the usual moderate wing does. We could use more people in then problem solvers caucus.

Why? Why is centrism for its own sake a good thing? It sets up one obvious problem - if one party lurches to an extreme beyond what was there previously, then the so-called centrists lurch with them.

13 or so years ago the conservative on this site and I discussed immigration and there was a lot in common, but he wanted to know why we were giving preferential treatment to people from a neighboring country rather than somewhere like Africa. Now we basically have shut down immigration from both those locations as that party lurched into racism, Bush’s immigration concepts would be laughed away as socialist amnesty designed to dilute the white gene pool by the center today.

Or on health care for example, in the 1960s Richard Nixon offered an employer health care mandate for a way to reach universal coverage, Ted Kennedy turned it down because he wanted a single payer plan. In the 1990s, Hillary Clinton’s plan was based around a similar employer mandate and the conservatives opposed it as government run health care. Mitt Romney then passed an individual mandate while he was the Republican governor of Massachusetts, getting that state close to universal coverage. When Obama proposed a similar individual purchase mandate, it was labeled a socialist takeover of health care and a theft of all freedom. The republicans have lurched to one side and are now at the point where they believe that poor people should simply not have health care. How is a centrist position obviously correct when one side moves farther away and the other side chases them in the same direction? 

[Danny Dravot]

On 10/27/2020 at 5:38 PM, Harry Chappas said:

I have voted for the winning President in every election I have voted in except 1992 which was the first year I voted.

If you don't mind sharing, I'm somewhat curious what political philosophy you hold that led you to vote Bush 41-Clinton-Bush 43 (x2)-Obama (x2)-Trump. Not judging any of it and respect your position, but interested to hear what overall outcome you're trying to achieve with that particular history of decisions.

Myself, I voted McCain-Romney-Trump-Biden. I was a collegiate Ron Paul fan who hated Bush but fell into a sort of binary thinking by the time ED rolled around in 2008. By 2012, I was a "standard" Republican and Romney was the obvious choice. In 2016, I held my nose and voted for Trump because I was still a Republican and figured he would do conservative things but simply in a more obnoxious package. I've done a lot of reading over the last few years and broadened my political beliefs, and it's now clear to me that even if he wasn't a bombastic, racist, conspiracy-mongering idiot, his philosophy still isn't mine. My juvenile hatred of Bush as a chickenhawk has long since disappeared and I'd now give my left nut to vote for his type again. I want reasonably limited government and respect for the Constitution, but absolutism is stupid. Capitalism should be defended, free trade makes us all better off, and Tucker Carlson nazbol-type stuff is blasphemy. Culture wars are counterproductive, if you don't like "drag queen story hour", don't attend one and the best way to protect Christianity is to disentangle it from the state entirely. The United States should use an interventionist foreign policy to promote liberal democracy around the world and prevent atrocities. Honestly, I'll never mention it to anyone I know in person, but if 2016 happened again, I'd probably vote for Clinton. I strongly disapprove of the Sanders wing of the DP, but Clinton-Biden simply isn't that and I don't buy into the idea that said wing will control Biden. After all, if that's what Democrats wanted, they would have gone straight to the source rather than opt for a puppet show.

Anyways, I think Trump gets destroyed next week. Using 270towin.com, I could see Biden getting up to 412 EC votes. The high turnout suggests voter rage, and all Trump has done for four years is entertain his base rather than expand it, so it's not new folks voting FOR him. Realistically, I think TX, NC, and GA remain red, and Biden wins with 343. I think Republicans keep the Senate with 51 seats, showing that voters wanted to punish Trump rather than the entire GOP. Loeffler, Perdue, Tillis, and Ernst win, Collins loses.

[Balta1701]

Well at least we never have to hear anyone complain when protests involving African Americans shut down roads or highways after the last 2 days.

[The Beast]

6 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Why? Why is centrism for its own sake a good thing? It sets up one obvious problem - if one party lurches to an extreme beyond what was there previously, then the so-called centrists lurch with them.

13 or so years ago the conservative on this site and I discussed immigration and there was a lot in common, but he wanted to know why we were giving preferential treatment to people from a neighboring country rather than somewhere like Africa. Now we basically have shut down immigration from both those locations as that party lurched into racism, Bush’s immigration concepts would be laughed away as socialist amnesty designed to dilute the white gene pool by the center today.

Or on health care for example, in the 1960s Richard Nixon offered an employer health care mandate for a way to reach universal coverage, Ted Kennedy turned it down because he wanted a single payer plan. In the 1990s, Hillary Clinton’s plan was based around a similar employer mandate and the conservatives opposed it as government run health care. Mitt Romney then passed an individual mandate while he was the Republican governor of Massachusetts, getting that state close to universal coverage. When Obama proposed a similar individual purchase mandate, it was labeled a socialist takeover of health care and a theft of all freedom. The republicans have lurched to one side and are now at the point where they believe that poor people should simply not have health care. How is a centrist position obviously correct when one side moves farther away and the other side chases them in the same direction? 

Let me try and clarify. Since the Democrats lost control of the Senate, McConnell has blocked most legislation that has come to his desk and a Supreme Court nominee. The house also was controlled by republicans during the time when the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill was being considered. Since 2019, bills have sat on McConnell’s desk and didn’t get considered.

Since 2018, Democrats in Illinois have had a supermajority and have passed lots of tax reforms, but haven’t considered any structural debt reforms for unfunded liabilities. For example, pension reforms haven’t been mentioned and Madigan wouldn’t entertain these (he is another issue since he has been in power forever and he can’t be term limited).

Going back to health care, I watched the all of the Democratic primary debates and the arguments for expanding the ACA and Medicare for All. My understanding is the same as yours in that the Individual Mandate was originally something Romney passed in MA, and I believe framework of the ACA might have been a Heritage Foundation proposal. The issue that I have with the more progressive health care plan is the cost, the lost of many jobs across the health insurance industry and collectively bargained health care plans that would be lost with a government plan.

I guess from my standpoint, I don’t like how the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the Freedom caucus and people like Mitch McConnell don’t really leave much room for negotiations or bipartisan legislation when some bills prove it is possible as do people like Joe Biden. I don’t like how in my local example, one party can control for decades and ignore reforms that are badly needed to make retirement benefits fair for taxpayers and retirees.

Perhaps I want to see incremental change in some areas (health care) and more reform in other areas (immigration, climate change) and a balance (balanced budgets) but I just don’t feel it is possible with one side in power (like in Illinois) or with the wings of the spectrum (like the ones I have mentioned) to get things done.

[greg775]

Harris/Biden are locks to win. Have you seen the Vegas odds? Vegas DOES NOT miss by that much and it's Harris in a landslide according to oddsmakers.

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, The Beast said:

Let me try and clarify. Since the Democrats lost control of the Senate, McConnell has blocked most legislation that has come to his desk and a Supreme Court nominee. The house also was controlled by republicans during the time when the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill was being considered. Since 2019, bills have sat on McConnell’s desk and didn’t get considered.

Since 2018, Democrats in Illinois have had a supermajority and have passed lots of tax reforms, but haven’t considered any structural debt reforms for unfunded liabilities. For example, pension reforms haven’t been mentioned and Madigan wouldn’t entertain these (he is another issue since he has been in power forever and he can’t be term limited).

Going back to health care, I watched the all of the Democratic primary debates and the arguments for expanding the ACA and Medicare for All. My understanding is the same as yours in that the Individual Mandate was originally something Romney passed in MA, and I believe framework of the ACA might have been a Heritage Foundation proposal. The issue that I have with the more progressive health care plan is the cost, the lost of many jobs across the health insurance industry and collectively bargained health care plans that would be lost with a government plan.

I guess from my standpoint, I don’t like how the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and the Freedom caucus and people like Mitch McConnell don’t really leave much room for negotiations or bipartisan legislation when some bills prove it is possible as do people like Joe Biden. I don’t like how in my local example, one party can control for decades and ignore reforms that are badly needed to make retirement benefits fair for taxpayers and retirees.

Perhaps I want to see incremental change in some areas (health care) and more reform in other areas (immigration, climate change) and a balance (balanced budgets) but I just don’t feel it is possible with one side in power (like in Illinois) or with the wings of the spectrum (like the ones I have mentioned) to get things done.

Note what you are doing though - you are arguing the finer points of policy. This is not a blanket statement that something is good because it’s in-between the two parties. That is fundamentally different from saying “the wings should be voted out”, it’s a request to focus on policy differences. I’m mostly ok with that (outside of inhuman policies like what Trump is doing with immigration which should have people in the government right now being sent to jail.) when you say the wings should be voted out, you lose policies on immigration and climate change that you might well support.

[greg775]

16 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Well at least we never have to hear anyone complain when protests involving African Americans shut down roads or highways after the last 2 days.

If you watch the Seattle real estate podcasts you will see the nightly riots in Portand and Seattle have decimated those downtowns, which are now ghosttowns. Keep on breaking windows marchers, you've effectively ruined your downtowns. Dowtowns ruined. And I'm not blaming African Americans. If you watch the nightly riots they are 85 percent white twenty somethings in full body armor doing the damage.

[Heads22]

4 hours ago, greg775 said:

Harris/Biden are locks to win. Have you seen the Vegas odds? Vegas DOES NOT miss by that much and it's Harris in a landslide according to oddsmakers.

Harris is not running for president.

[Stinky Stanky]

12 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Or on health care for example, in the 1960s Richard Nixon offered an employer health care mandate for a way to reach universal coverage, Ted Kennedy turned it down because he wanted a single payer plan. In the 1990s, Hillary Clinton’s plan was based around a similar employer mandate and the conservatives opposed it as government run health care. Mitt Romney then passed an individual mandate while he was the Republican governor of Massachusetts, getting that state close to universal coverage. When Obama proposed a similar individual purchase mandate, it was labeled a socialist takeover of health care and a theft of all freedom. The republicans have lurched to one side and are now at the point where they believe that poor people should simply not have health care. How is a centrist position obviously correct when one side moves farther away and the other side chases them in the same direction? 

Good history, Balta.  Thx.  

Do you recall Obama saying that he would prefer the single payer system but the employer financed system was already in place and he had to work with it?  I guess that places O to the political right of Ted.  Which makes me ask, doesn't the employer financed system hurt the smaller employers with labor-intensive businesses and favor the capital-intensive businesses with fewer employees?

[StrangeSox]

 

 

[Chisoxfn]

I’m kind of annoyed everyone is saying the polls are what they are and that Biden is going to win. Worry people aren’t going to vote and next thing you know everyone is in shock and it’s another 4 years.

[The Beast]

6 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Note what you are doing though - you are arguing the finer points of policy. This is not a blanket statement that something is good because it’s in-between the two parties. That is fundamentally different from saying “the wings should be voted out”, it’s a request to focus on policy differences. I’m mostly ok with that (outside of inhuman policies like what Trump is doing with immigration which should have people in the government right now being sent to jail.) when you say the wings should be voted out, you lose policies on immigration and climate change that you might well support.

I guess I would also add that I don’t want to see a majority progressive Democratic Party like I don’t want to see a mostly Trumpian Republican Party. The current Democratic congress is mostly left of center but there are more progressives being elected. It would seem that a party with balance would be better at advancing initiatives we have discussed. I still don’t understand why they didn’t pass that Gang of Eight bill, unless Boehner just didn’t want to give Obama a win.

[The Beast]

54 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I’m kind of annoyed everyone is saying the polls are what they are and that Biden is going to win. Worry people aren’t going to vote and next thing you know everyone is in shock and it’s another 4 years.

One of my favorite sites, https://thebulwark.com, had articles declaring Trump as being toast and then other perspectives came on saying otherwise. Where do you think the polls could be wrong and where do you worry that people won’t vote? I’m not saying you’re wrong, just curious.

[The Beast]

6 hours ago, greg775 said:

If you watch the Seattle real estate podcasts you will see the nightly riots in Portand and Seattle have decimated those downtowns, which are now ghosttowns. Keep on breaking windows marchers, you've effectively ruined your downtowns. Dowtowns ruined. And I'm not blaming African Americans. If you watch the nightly riots they are 85 percent white twenty somethings in full body armor doing the damage.

How do you address what happened on the Texas and New Jersey highways?

[caulfield12]

Trump has to take Iowa, NC, PA, FL and AZ to win. 

Run the table.    Odds of that would seem to be something like 1/32...although 1/16 still seems more realistic. 

Vegas is still giving 30~35% odds on Trump.   But 538.com and the Iowa Presidential Stock Market seem to be better indicators. 

 

https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/

Edited November 2, 2020 by caulfield12

[greg775]

1 hour ago, Chisoxfn said:

I’m kind of annoyed everyone is saying the polls are what they are and that Biden is going to win. Worry people aren’t going to vote and next thing you know everyone is in shock and it’s another 4 years.

IMO, Don't worry or be annoyed about that Chisoxfn ... Vegas odds are decisively in favor of Biden and no way in hell the odds would be THIS decisive in Vegas if Trump had a chance. Just my take. Vegas always knows.