Page 14 of 25 FirstFirst ... 413141524 ... LastLast
Results 456 to 490 of 873

Thread: Dems are going to win.

  1. #456
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Topeka, KS
    Posts
    2,115

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    I'm feeling very 1928!

  2. #457
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Norwalk, Ohio
    Posts
    34,920

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunphy Snipe
    The thing is districting maps are updated every ten years to coincide with the constitutionally mandated federal census. The party in charge of the state's legislature gets to draw the maps....

    In a perfect world, there would be a better system, but I suspect neither party would be willing give up gerrymandering as a politically driven process. Changing the WI districting map could be done if the Democrats control the state legislature at the time of the next census. In the end, it is up to the voters, and maybe that's the best we can do.
    In Ohio the Republican dominated Ohio Redistricting Commission simply ignores the law and Ohio Supreme Court rulings. And you wonder why there are people saying democracy is on the ballot today.

    Ohio’s redistricting fiasco highlights fragility of the rule of law underpinning our democracy: Steven H. Steinglass

    Published: Sep. 14, 2022, 5:24 a.m.
    By Guest Columnist, cleveland.com

    CLEVELAND -- This has been a sad year in Ohio for those who believe in the rule of law.

    In the first five months of 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled five times that proposals of the Ohio Redistricting Commission for the decennial redistricting of the Ohio General Assembly violated the Ohio Constitution. The commission, enabled by the remarkable intervention of a three-judge federal district court panel, ignored each of the court’s decisions. As a result, Ohio voters on Nov. 8 will elect state legislators from districts distorted by partisan gerrymandering.

    All Ohioans should be concerned over such a brazen violation of a basic democratic principle –– the rule of law. Why did four lawyers in the commission majority and the Ohio secretary of state reject authoritative judicial decisions?

    In part, the answer is the majority party’s desire to protect incumbent legislators and obtain a veto-proof and referendum-proof advantage in the General Assembly.

    In 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court approved a state redistricting plan characterized by partisan gerrymandering. The court explained that the Ohio Constitution, at that time, did not prohibit partisan gerrymandering. The court noted that Ohio voters could change this.

    In 2015, Ohio voters did. By a 71-29 percent ratio, they approved an amendment declaring that districts shall not “be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a political party,” and that districts shall “correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio.”

    The 2015 amendment provides two paths for avoiding partisan gerrymandering. First, the seven-person Ohio Redistricting Commission (governor, secretary of state, state auditor, and four legislators representing both political parties) can adopt a ten-year redistricting plan with a bipartisan majority.

    Currently, five commission members are Republicans; two are Democrats. So a bipartisan majority required the votes of at least two Republicans and two Democrats. Alternatively, the commission can adopt a four-year plan with a simple majority. But this plan must comply with limitations on splitting counties and with nonpartisanship and proportionality standards.

    On Jan. 12, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the four-year plan approved by the five Republican commission members violated the Ohio Constitution.

    The court majority spoke clearly and repeatedly. And there is no room in a system governed by the rule of law for the court’s decisions to be defied. Yet that happened. And it happened five times.

    Early in the litigation, a group of Republican activists filed a parallel suit, asking a three-judge federal district court panel to order implementation of a redistricting plan that had been rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court.

    Understanding why this is shocking requires a dive into federal constitutional law and judicial federalism. First, federal courts have no authority to remedy partisan gerrymandering. Second, state courts, not federal, are the final arbiters of the meaning of state law. Even the U.S. Supreme Court recognized this in the notorious 2000 case of Bush v. Gore. The three-judge federal court panel in this year’s state legislative redistricting litigation recognized the first principle but ignored the second.

    The federal court’s intervention eliminated all possibility of serious bipartisan discussions within the commission, and it resulted in the adoption of a plan for the 2022 election of the General Assembly that had been found illegal by the Ohio Supreme Court.

    These events send a poignant message about the fragility of the rule of law and our democracy. If there is a hopeful note, the spectacle of the commission defying the Ohio Supreme Court, and violating the Ohio Constitution, may prompt a new effort to amend the state constitution.

    In her prescient concurring opinion in the court’s first decision in this litigation, Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, recognizing the hold of partisan forces on the redistricting process, suggested Ohio voters might need to mobilize to initiate an amendment that once and for all removes partisanship from the redistricting process by creating a truly independent, nonpartisan redistricting commission.


    Steven H. Steinglass is Dean Emeritus and Professor Emeritus at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.

    https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/20...teinglass.html
    "They have a lot of stupid people that vote in their primaries. They really do. I'm not really supposed to say that but it's an obvious fact. But when stupid people vote, you know who they nominate? Other stupid people." -- James Carville on the plethora of low-quality GQP candidates in the mid-term election.

  3. #458
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Norwalk CT
    Posts
    2,879

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boatbum View Post
    And yet the New York Times said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian Disinformation until verifying its authenticity two year later. Most media outlets carried the story that Abrams had her last election stolen - or at least they repeated what she said without contradicting its veracity. I think all news media outlets intend to be unbiased, but they are made up of people that have a variety of education, religious, scientific, cultural and experiential experiences. I am certain that reporters endeavor to be precise and unbiased, but it is no more possible than it is to generate truly random numbers from a formula. You are a byproduct of the events that got you to where you are. Add to this that some newer theories that journalists should NOT be impartial and it really gets unreliable.

    Perhaps you mean the difference between knowingly misreporting information and doing it more innocently. But even there, the evidence was there from the beginning that the Hunter Biden laptop was legitimate, but no one followed up or even asked. Media bias at its worst and by every major news outlet.

    I read the NYT every single day and I can tell you that they do not push conspiracy theories nor can I recall them saying that the Hunter Bidens laptop was Russian disinformation. If you can verify it ever being in print in the Times, please do. What they did report was that the circumstances surrounding Bidens laptop ending up in the hands of the likes of Steve Bannon after languishing in a repair shop for almost a year were suspect at best.
    Abrams never said her election was stolen. What she did say, and credibly, was that voter suppression was a factor in her loss and that Brian Kemp should not have been in a position to determine a contested outcome in an election in which he was running; also true in any objective sense. She conceded.
    There is simply no reasonable comparison between Fox and AON and mainstream media. You are dead wrong to assert that "Every major news outlet" is biased. Its just wrong. Every major news outlet does not peddle crackpot conspiracy theories, defend the big lie and claim that the people who stormed the capitol are "Patriots". If there is any implicit bias by every major news outlet, it a bias towards truth and facts. Right wing media does not in any way "Intend to be unbiased"; just the opposite. They crow about their right leaning bias and make a point of trumpeting the garbage generated by MTG, Gym Jordan and TFG.
    I have a hard time respecting your sincere beliefs when those beliefs are predicated on verifiable falsehoods.

  4. #459
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    62,488

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    You are dead wrong to assert that "Every major news outlet" is biased. Its just wrong.
    Not entirely wrong, but a very partial truth. Every news organization is staffed by imperfect human beings, who all have their own biases, although some try to overcome them with more or less success. No angels writing for any of them. However, that does NOT mean they're all equivalent propaganda dispensers. Too much cynicism is at least as bad as too little.

    How about we say say: 'Every major news outlet is baised, but some are much, much, much more reliable and less biased than others'.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  5. #460
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,903

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunphy Snipe View Post
    The thing is districting maps are updated every ten years to coincide with the constitutionally mandated federal census. The party in charge of the state's legislature gets to draw the maps. The Republicans have controlled the WI state legislature for quite some time, and as a result, we are using their map. Places like NY, I'm thinking, have drawn their map pretty effectively to help Democrats.

    The question arises if state legislatures don''t draw the lines, who should? I haven't really studied this, but there are federal guidelines that have been hammered out over the years that courts use to settle disputes that arise. I know the latest WI map was challenged in court and survived with maybe just minor changes.

    In a perfect world, there would be a better system, but I suspect neither party would be willing give up gerrymandering as a politically driven process. Changing the WI districting map could be done if the Democrats control the state legislature at the time of the next census. In the end, it is up to the voters, and maybe that's the best we can do.
    Nope. The problem is, it is NOT up to the voters, and under Republican control, it's likely that it never will be.

    Perhaps it's time to better educate yourself about what's going on in your state. Try some research on REDMAP for starters. Here's a good article that makes it clear just how much gerrymandering has advanced under Republicans, and how unbeatable it has become. A brief excerpt:

    epublicans certainly maintain the advantage in that game right now. They began the escalation over seven years ago, with the creation of the groundbreaking REDMAP initiative. As David Daley’s Ratf**ked illustrates, the first goal of the Republican State Leadership Committee’s REDMAP project was to seize control of vulnerable statehouses in purple states in the 2010 elections and grab ahold of the redistricting process, which by the Constitution occurs alongside the reapportionment of Congressional seats every 10 years with the results of the Census. With those seats in hand, the resulting end goal was not some shady conspiracy, and REDMAP’s own website proudly sums it best: “The party controlling that effort controls the drawing of the maps—shaping the political landscape for the next 10 years.”

    REDMAP was a spectacular success. First, on the strength of fundraising efforts in pivotal states with changing demographics—places like Wisconsin and North Carolina that have become new swing states—Republicans overran 2010 state legislative races in backwoods districts, to the tune of nearly 700 state legislative seats, the largest increase in modern electoral history.
    Republicans control the Wisconsin legislature BECAUSE the districts are gerrymandered. And as long as they remain gerrymandered, Republicans will retain control, voters' wishes be damned.

    As a former civics teacher, how do you not know this? Just sayin'...

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  6. #461
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Norwalk CT
    Posts
    2,879

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Not entirely wrong, but a very partial truth. Every news organization is staffed by imperfect human beings, who all have their own biases, although some try to overcome them with more or less success. No angels writing for any of them. However, that does NOT mean they're all equivalent propaganda dispensers. Too much cynicism is at least as bad as too little.

    How about we say say: 'Every major news outlet is biased, but some are much, much, much more reliable and less biased than others'.

    Agreed. In a nod to another Bilge thread, I will concede.

  7. #462
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Not entirely wrong, but a very partial truth. Every news organization is staffed by imperfect human beings, who all have their own biases, although some try to overcome them with more or less success. No angels writing for any of them. However, that does NOT mean they're all equivalent propaganda dispensers. Too much cynicism is at least as bad as too little.

    How about we say say: 'Every major news outlet is baised, but some are much, much, much more reliable and less biased than others'.
    Fair point

  8. #463
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    34,855

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    I have to say some of the people ( mostly republicans it seems) running for Office are total fruitloops.
    without freedom of speech, we wouldn't know who the idiots are.

  9. #464
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by willin woodworks View Post
    i read the nyt every single day and i can tell you that they do not push conspiracy theories nor can i recall them saying that the hunter bidens laptop was russian disinformation. if you can verify it ever being in print in the times, please do. what they did report was that the circumstances surrounding bidens laptop ending up in the hands of the likes of steve bannon after languishing in a repair shop for almost a year were suspect at best.
    Abrams never said her election was stolen. What she did say, and credibly, was that voter suppression was a factor in her loss and that brian kemp should not have been in a position to determine a contested outcome in an election in which he was running; also true in any objective sense. She conceded.

    we want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the new york post by president trump’s personal attorney rudy giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of russian involvement–just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the russian government played a significant role in this case.
    New York Times 10/19/2020

    Abrams did not concede, she acknowledged that Kemp's election as governor has been certified.

    She also said this: Abrams delivered a speech at the annual convention of Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network in 2019 and said, "despite the final tally and the inauguration [of Gov. Brian Kemp] and the situation we find ourselves in, I do have a very affirmative statement to make: We won. My full language was that it was stolen from the voters of Georgia. We do not know what they would have done, because not every eligible Georgian was permitted to participate fully in the election."

    There are tons of articles - even from liberal sites where she references the rules stealing the election form the voter. For it to be stolen from the voter it would also have to have been stolen from her. She is sayiong it was stolen without explicitly expressing this.
    Last edited by Boatbum; 11-08-2022 at 03:09 PM.

  10. #465
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,903

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    ^^^ #464

    Sorry, but the NYT saying "we do not know is the emails...are genuine or not" is a long long looooooooong way from them saying they were fabricated. To claim otherwise is dishonest. You can do better.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  11. #466
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Norwalk CT
    Posts
    2,879

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    You are making this too easy. The Times did NOT say that it was Russian disinformation. Pretty much like I said; the circumstances were suspect at best.
    You can argue facts or you can argue half truths and suppositions. Choose wisely.

  12. #467
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    2,421

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    “Regrettably, empirical studies reveal that authoritarians are frequently enemies of freedom, anti-democratic, anti-equality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral. They are also often conservatives without conscience who are capable of plunging this nation into disasters the like of which we have never known."

    John Dean, and he was spot on.

  13. #468
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    ^^^ #464

    Sorry, but the NYT saying "we do not know is the emails...are genuine or not" is a long long looooooooong way from them saying they were fabricated. To claim otherwise is dishonest. You can do better.

    Tom
    So you have information about a laptop. You have a business associate who on record claims that the emails in there between him and Hunter are real and you don't even interview him - nothing. Though you quoted one aspect of the NYT statement, you left this out....our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the russian government played a significant role in this case.

    So they didn't even investigate and they say the above and you don't think there is any bias there? Tom, sometimes you actually push me to do better. This time I am going to challenge you.....you can do better. If you don't see it, it is because you don't want to. Can you honestly say that they had given this story best journalistic effort if it were Donald Trump, Jr instead of Hunter Biden? Would you be defending their handling of this then?
    Last edited by Boatbum; 11-08-2022 at 03:28 PM.

  14. #469
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    o
    Posts
    10,558

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Not entirely wrong, but a very partial truth. Every news organization is staffed by imperfect human beings, who all have their own biases, although some try to overcome them with more or less success. No angels writing for any of them. However, that does NOT mean they're all equivalent propaganda dispensers. Too much cynicism is at least as bad as too little.

    How about we say say: 'Every major news outlet is baised, but some are much, much, much more reliable and less biased than others'.
    Agreed. We're not talking about individuals. These news agencies are comprised of many individuals, pros, and they are all educated and dedicated to the mission of the organization, which is all about disseminating information, and the competition is to be the one that gets it right first. If the organization has a political lean to it, it is not the individual reporters, but the publisher and the editorial staff overseeing them. It's a choice and conscious policy for a news organization to be right- or left-leaning, or to strive instead to be neutral and objective. The term 'mainstream media' has been a perjorative of the rabid right for a while now, and it shouldn't be.


  15. #470
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by willin woodworks View Post
    You are making this too easy. The Times did NOT say that it was Russian disinformation. Pretty much like I said; the circumstances were suspect at best.
    You can argue facts or you can argue half truths and suppositions. Choose wisely.
    They said "our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the russian government played a significant role in this case."

    That is almost worse as it is an opinion. Saying it is disinformation suggests that there is actual data fueling their claim. Opinions are subjective and subjectivity is fueled by bias.

  16. #471
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Norwalk CT
    Posts
    2,879

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    And facts are facts; supported by verifiable data.

    We can argue facts or we can argue opinions. I prefer to argue opinions based on facts, not on conspiracy theories and outright lies debunked time and again.

  17. #472
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Topeka, KS
    Posts
    2,115

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    I have to say some of the people ( mostly republicans it seems) running for Office are total fruitloops.
    Here in Kansas, some of my regular choices were not fruity enough, I had to split my ticket with the LP. I even wrote in a friend's name for one statewide office.

  18. #473
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    13,903

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boatbum View Post
    So you have information about a laptop. You have a business associate who on record claims that the emails in there between him and Hunter are real and you don't even interview him - nothing. Though you quoted one aspect of the NYT statement, you left this out....our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the russian government played a significant role in this case.

    So they didn't even investigate and they say the above and you don't think there is any bias there? Tom, sometimes you actually push me to do better. This time I am going to challenge you.....you can do better. If you don't see it, it is because you don't want to. Can you honestly say that they had given this story best journalistic effort if it were Donald Trump, Jr instead of Hunter Biden? Would you be defending their handling of this then?
    Do pay attention to what I actually said, Boatbum.

    You made a claim that the NYT published, in print--in your words:

    And yet the New York Times said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian Disinformation until verifying its authenticity two year later.
    And you posted a quotation that supposedly proved it.

    But they didn't say what you said. So you either misunderstood what they said, or are misrepresenting what they said, in a way that supports the claim you are desperately wanting to believe is true--the claim that the NYT lied. Problem is, they didn't say what you SAY they said.

    The next best step for you would be to admit that you were wrong. If you don't, it will look like you were NOT wrong, but were in fact LYING about something you knew wasn't true.

    I said nothing about whether the NYT is biased. I understand the implication of "our experience makes us deeply suspicious."

    I also understand that, like all credible media, the NYT goes to GREAT lengths to verify claims and sources, and is VERY careful to avoid publishing things they can't prove. AND that when they do get something wrong, they issue a retraction, publicly, to admit that they got it wrong.

    I also think that when the NYT says "in our experience" that they are drawing on LOTS of experience from lots of writers and lots of research, so their "experience" counts more than my opinion. Or yours. And yet, the NYT made no claims from that experience--all they said was that their "experience" made them "deeply suspicious."

    So:

    1. I think they had good reason to be suspicious, and appreciated that they informed me of their suspicions--AND that they made no absolute claims.

    2. Their statement that they are "deeply suspicious" is actually an open admission of their bias, and their awareness of that bias. Rather than making me trust them less, openly admitting that their experience has led them to lean toward being "deeply suspicious" actually makes me trust them more.

    Boatbum, you (like virtually every right-wing voter I know) have accepted a load of BS when you reject sources like the NYT. They are biased, as all institutions are. But in their news reporting, the bias is toward the FACTS, first and most importantly. And facts are generally biased against Republicans.

    Just because you don't like them, and don't put any weight behind their opinions, doesn't mean the NYT is not a credible source. They are. The fact that Republicans have a kneejerk rejection of sources like this tells me enough to know that I will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever think of voting for any Republican, anywhere.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  19. #474
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Norwalk, Ohio
    Posts
    34,920

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.


    There was no Red wave. The Democrats gave a surprisingly stronger showing than the polling predicted.

    Unfortunately Ohio stayed true to form as Republicans swept into office state-wide. My new junior U.S. Senator is Trumpkin J.D. Vance, may God help us.
    .
    Last edited by Tom Montgomery; 11-09-2022 at 06:02 AM.
    "They have a lot of stupid people that vote in their primaries. They really do. I'm not really supposed to say that but it's an obvious fact. But when stupid people vote, you know who they nominate? Other stupid people." -- James Carville on the plethora of low-quality GQP candidates in the mid-term election.

  20. #475
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    40,233

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    ^ Isn't Ohio the state that voted against the Republican-led anti-abortion bill? Then they turned around and voted Republicans in?
    "Where you live in the world should not determine whether you live in the world." - Bono

    "Live in such a way that you would not be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip." - Will Rogers

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

  21. #476
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Montgomery View Post

    There was no Red wave. The Democrats gave a surprisingly stronger showing than the polling predicted.

    Unfortunately Ohio stayed true to form as Republicans swept into office state-wide. My new junior U.S. Senator is Trumpkin J.D. Vance, may God help us.
    .
    Actually the result was right in line with the polling. Pretty much all outcomes were accurate within the margin of error. The only real surprise was Descants and Rubio margin of victory in Florida.

  22. #477
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Norwalk, Ohio
    Posts
    34,920

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by CWSmith
    ^ Isn't Ohio the state that voted against the Republican-led anti-abortion bill?
    No. Radical Republicans are in firm control of the State of Ohio.

    Ohio’s partisan supreme court election could decide abortion’s future in state

    Republicans sweep 3 Ohio Supreme Court races, unofficial results show

    Will lame duck Ohio legislature pass a near-total abortion ban? Scenarios for the future of abortion rights
    "They have a lot of stupid people that vote in their primaries. They really do. I'm not really supposed to say that but it's an obvious fact. But when stupid people vote, you know who they nominate? Other stupid people." -- James Carville on the plethora of low-quality GQP candidates in the mid-term election.

  23. #478
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Norwalk, Ohio
    Posts
    34,920

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boatbum
    Just noticed that fivethirtyeight just handicapped the election slightly in the favor of the GOP. Didn't see that coming.

    Attachment 123074
    How is that polling working out for you? It appears the Democrats have strengthened their control of the U.S. Senate by one seat while the control of the U.S. House is as yet undecided. Meanwhile election deniers and abortion opponents are losing broadly in state-wide elections and issues across the country.

    I predicted that this sort of poll averaging was likely inaccurate and that while the Democrats might lose control of the U.S. House they would gain at least one U.S. Senate seat. A silent majority - largely motivated by the Dobbs decision overturning Roe vs. Wade... and missed by the polling - turned out.
    Last edited by Tom Montgomery; 11-09-2022 at 08:23 AM.
    "They have a lot of stupid people that vote in their primaries. They really do. I'm not really supposed to say that but it's an obvious fact. But when stupid people vote, you know who they nominate? Other stupid people." -- James Carville on the plethora of low-quality GQP candidates in the mid-term election.

  24. #479
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Do pay attention to what I actually said, Boatbum.

    You made a claim that the NYT published, in print--in your words:



    And you posted a quotation that supposedly proved it.

    But they didn't say what you said. So you either misunderstood what they said, or are misrepresenting what they said, in a way that supports the claim you are desperately wanting to believe is true--the claim that the NYT lied. Problem is, they didn't say what you SAY they said.

    The next best step for you would be to admit that you were wrong. If you don't, it will look like you were NOT wrong, but were in fact LYING about something you knew wasn't true.

    I said nothing about whether the NYT is biased. I understand the implication of "our experience makes us deeply suspicious."

    I also understand that, like all credible media, the NYT goes to GREAT lengths to verify claims and sources, and is VERY careful to avoid publishing things they can't prove. AND that when they do get something wrong, they issue a retraction, publicly, to admit that they got it wrong.

    I also think that when the NYT says "in our experience" that they are drawing on LOTS of experience from lots of writers and lots of research, so their "experience" counts more than my opinion. Or yours. And yet, the NYT made no claims from that experience--all they said was that their "experience" made them "deeply suspicious."

    So:

    1. I think they had good reason to be suspicious, and appreciated that they informed me of their suspicions--AND that they made no absolute claims.

    2. Their statement that they are "deeply suspicious" is actually an open admission of their bias, and their awareness of that bias. Rather than making me trust them less, openly admitting that their experience has led them to lean toward being "deeply suspicious" actually makes me trust them more.

    Boatbum, you (like virtually every right-wing voter I know) have accepted a load of BS when you reject sources like the NYT. They are biased, as all institutions are. But in their news reporting, the bias is toward the FACTS, first and most importantly. And facts are generally biased against Republicans.

    Just because you don't like them, and don't put any weight behind their opinions, doesn't mean the NYT is not a credible source. They are. The fact that Republicans have a kneejerk rejection of sources like this tells me enough to know that I will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever think of voting for any Republican, anywhere.

    Tom
    Point taken. I did use the word "disinformation". But my point had much less to do with the wording and more to do with underscoring the bias that journalists have. Their bias led them to write off the information - they did not even interview a whistleblower. If you are interested in facts, might you reach out to the whistleblower and ask them for their information and perhaps and corroborating documents? They labeled it "deeply suspicious" and no further investigations or reports for two years. They never even attempted to speak to a person that could authenticate the laptop contents. Crickets. To me that is media bias. To clarify, I don't reject the NYT - in fact I will often cite it here, but I am not foolish enough to assume that their reporter are magically devoid of their own internal biases which influence what they report, what they don't report and how they report it. If their bias is facts, why didn't the NYT report on the contents of the laptop? If there was a Hunter Biden business partner who was willing to make on the record statements about the accuracy of emails on the laptop and was further willing to talk about business deals they had in China, why would those "facts" not be reported. The son of a Vice President/future President questionable business dealings with China including some evidence that his father (the future president) not only knew about it but was possibly benefitting financially. Seems to my that these are facts that might have been worthy of publishing in the weeks before an election.


    Now please answer my question. If it were Eric Trump, Jr and not Hunter Biden's laptop that was found in a repair shop, and a media outlet labeled it as deeply suspicious and did no further investigating or reporting would you be OK with that? Or would you think that the outlet was trying to ignore the story?

  25. #480
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    62,488

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Well, I'm cautiously relieved. And in Minnesota, Democrats appear to have won all the statewide races and made gains in both legislative houses - certainly Governor and Secretary of State (the Republican candidate for the latter was an utterly wacko election-denier), and probably Attorney General and Auditor as well. The pattern is exactly what we've seen lately - blue cities, purple rings around them, red countryside.

    Perhaps extremism is not the way to win elections. We can hope. Jonathan Chait early this morning (source).


    The Midterms Are a Shocking Vote of Confidence for Democrats
    By Jonathan Chait

    It is the normal state of affairs for a newly elected president to see his party rebuked decisively in the first midterm election. When the president is presiding over a bad economy — and, despite low unemployment, this very much is one — this tendency becomes something close to an iron law. The 2022 midterm elections appear to have broken that law. Democratic candidates for House, Senate, and governor have all performed far better than almost anybody expected. By the standards of how midterms elections go, it should be considered a vote of confidence in the party.

    To be sure, nothing about Joe Biden’s approval ratings suggests the public has genuine confidence in his presidency. It is more realistically a vote of no confidence in the Republican opposition. The reasons for this lack of confidence range from the Dobbs decision to Donald Trump’s bellicose presidency-in-exile to the flock of imitators inspired by his example to run for high office despite lacking even remotely appropriate credentials, ethics, or basic knowledge of public policy. Trump’s army of kooks bears considerable responsibility for the party’s underperformance.

    And yet the impulse of Republican elites to blame the whole debacle on the former president, while understandable, merely concentrates blame on a convenient scapegoat. It is not only Trump’s handpicked candidates who lost their races. Indeed, the defeat is consistent with the theory that, in the Trump era, Republicans tend to do badly when Trump is off the ballot. The party did shockingly well in 2016, and Republicans gained seats in 2020, despite all expectations. They lost the Georgia Senate runoff, again, with Trump off the ballot.

    Most of these results came as a surprise to observers, but one way to make sense of all of them is to assume that Trump’s looming presence in the national debate repels swing voters whether or not he is personally running and that a slice of arch-populist right-wing voters is inspired to cast a ballot only if he is on the ticket.

    Republicans have been trying to create an environment that would allow them to enjoy all the benefits of Trump’s hallucinatory grievance narrative without any of the costs. But the midterms may instead suggest they must choose between mobilizing every last one of his cult followers and maintaining sane, or sane-ish, ancestral Republican voters.

    The Republicans’ calculation all along has been that they could regain power by exploiting public dissatisfaction over rising prices without publicly defining any plan, however skeletal, to redress it. They understood that their domestic-policy agenda remains a political liability. This is why they hoped to force Biden to sign their chosen ideas into law by extorting him with the threat of a debt crisis. They may yet have that chance, depending on how the House races land.

    What they will not be able to claim, even to themselves, is that the public has granted them a mandate or turned in some decisive way against the Democratic incumbents. Biden has haltingly found his way to a relatively effective message that acknowledges the public’s desire for low crime and low gas prices, even if he has failed to deliver these things. The public’s dismay with his performance is by and large an expression of dissatisfaction and concern, not the raging hatred expressed by his opponents. Despite everything, there is still a robust constituency in this country for leaders who are not overtly crazy.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  26. #481
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Montgomery View Post
    How is that polling working out for you? It appears the Democrats have strengthened their control of the U.S. Senate by one seat while the control of the U.S. House is as yet undecided. Meanwhile election deniers and abortion opponents are losing broadly in state-wide elections and issues across the country.

    I predicted that this sort of poll averaging was likely inaccurate and that while the Democrats might lose control of the U.S. House they would gain at least one U.S. Senate seat. A silent majority - largely motivated by the Dobbs decision overturning Roe vs. Wade... and missed by the polling - turned out.
    Uhhhhh there is a lot to unpack here.

    1. fivethirtyeight does not really do polling, they do simulations (40,000 at a time) to determine the probability based on other people's polling. Their probability had been steadily shifting for about 6 weeks. Remember that about 12 weeks ago the Democrats had a 75% probability that they would increase their control of the senate. The shift in the last day was substantial, but even Nate Silver would say that the shift still kept the race at a "toss up" I was commenting more on the sudden shift than what would happen from it.

    2. There are still four undecided senate races: Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia with the Democrats and the GOP evenly split at 48 each. Though anything is possible, it looks like Laxalt will win in Nevada (a GOP flip), and Johnson will win in Wisconsin (A GOP hold). Though only 67% of the Arizona votes have been counted it looks like Kelly will win comfortably (A DNC hold). What this all means is that in all likelihood control of the Senate will be determined by a Dec 2 runoff between Warnock and Walker. Though there is a possibility the Democrats will "strengthen" their hold on the Senate, it is more likely that they will still hold at 50/50 not an increase. I want to be clear: These are currently undecided elections so anything is possible and I am only commenting on the most likely outcome

    3. If you look back you will see that I predicted the following: Senate would remain tied at 50/50 and the GOP would end up with a 10 seat advantage over the DNC. Right now, I'm still feeling like that is what the end result will be. I never waivered from my prediction though I may have been wrong about the pick up of governorships.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boatbum View Post
    So here is my prediction......

    Republicans will win the house and will have a majority of at least 10 seats. The senate will remain 50/50 giving the Democrats control. And the GOP will pick up two more governorships than they have now.
    4. I am delighted with the election outcome. All I really wanted was a divided congress. I do not like it when either party controls the White House, Senate and House.

    5. The polling was actually pretty much dead on - I think, for the most part, every win/loss was within the margin of error except for Desantis and Rubio in Florida who far-exceeded polling. All the races were predicted to be close - fivethirtyeight did say that too.
    Last edited by Boatbum; 11-09-2022 at 09:15 AM.

  27. #482
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    21,392

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    well, winning is just a concept, i suppose.

    democrats love to talk about how we get more votes even when we lose, because of the electoral college and district gerrymandering.

    but today we will talk about how we won even though we got fewer votes, because the world didn't end.

    4C9C2A8E-2AFC-4E93-BB59-68C7B3F0B068.jpg

  28. #483
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    I have to say some of the people ( mostly republicans it seems) running for Office are total fruitloops.
    Sadly yes

  29. #484
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by L.W. Baxter View Post
    well, winning is just a concept, i suppose.

    democrats love to talk about how we get more votes even when we lose, because of the electoral college and district gerrymandering.

    but today we will talk about how we won even though we got fewer votes, because the world didn't end.

    4C9C2A8E-2AFC-4E93-BB59-68C7B3F0B068.jpg
    Don't get too confident. This was a mid term election year and voter turnout is less - particularly on the Democrat side. In 2020 158,000,000 people voted - 80,000,000 for Biden alone.

  30. #485
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    31,069

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Relieved overall, but disappointed in certain races. Still, we lost the House, which means Kevin McCarthy will be Speaker ( gag me ) and you will see crazy talk flow copiously from the Republican caucus.
    Gerard>
    Albuquerque, NM

    Next election, vote against EVERY Republican, for EVERY office, at EVERY level. Be patriotic, save the country.

  31. #486
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    49,572

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    A couple of the Dem losses are hard. Val Demings vanquished by Rubio, Tim Ryan falling to Vance. I'd frankly been concerned ever since Demings announced, not because of who she is (or even who Rubio is), but because of how Florida is. But Ryan? That guy, well, it hurts.

    I'm not surprised (though I'm disappointed) that Stacey Abrams lost to Kemp, but I'll be really bummed out it Warnock ultimately falls to Walker. Cripes, the fact that it's even in question is beyond embarrassing.

    That's the big takeaway for me. As with other hugely misshapen differences between the parties, the Dems require candidates to be actually quite stunning and effective people, even to get through a nomination process. The nationalization of races means, however, that the Reps don't have to give a f#ck about such things. Walker, Oz, and Vance illustrate that all you need is plausible name recognition, a pulse, and willingness to vote solely as a member of the block. Representation of your constituents be damned - while Vance lived in Ohio when he decided to run there, neither Walker nor Oz even lived among the people they claimed to want to represent. Highlighting that they really didn't want to run to represent Georgians or Pennsylvanians, but Trump.

    I feel like it's analogous to a modern army strictly adhering to modern laws of War, not targeting citizens or using some weaponry or using terror tactics or etc., while fighting an enemy who rejects all that. It truly is fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

    And as I said back during the Afghanistan conflict, the very worst thing to do is to take that hand out from behind your back, and fight the enemy on equally savage terms. It's crucial to not become who you fight, because of the example it sets about one's contingent commitment to the ideals one's allegedly fighting for.

    It sucks that the Dems lost Florida congress seats to gerrymandering, and DeSantis' win shows how much a majority of voting Floridians approve of his tactics. But it's no reason to gerrymander, let alone as deviously. It's reason to try to get the federal Voting Rights Act passed, somehow.
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  32. #487
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerarddm View Post
    Relieved overall, but disappointed in certain races. Still, we lost the House, which means Kevin McCarthy will be Speaker ( gag me ) and you will see crazy talk flow copiously from the Republican caucus.
    I'm also glad to see that it was as close as it turned out because it makes it more likely that Biden will run for a second term.

  33. #488
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    21,392

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boatbum View Post
    Don't get too confident.
    you misapprehend.

  34. #489
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,304

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by TomF View Post
    A couple of the Dem losses are hard. Val Demings vanquished by Rubio, Tim Ryan falling to Vance. I'd frankly been concerned ever since Demings announced, not because of who she is (or even who Rubio is), but because of how Florida is. But Ryan? That guy, well, it hurts.

    I'm not surprised (though I'm disappointed) that Stacey Abrams lost to Kemp, but I'll be really bummed out it Warnock ultimately falls to Walker. Cripes, the fact that it's even in question is beyond embarrassing.

    That's the big takeaway for me. As with other hugely misshapen differences between the parties, the Dems require candidates to be actually quite stunning and effective people, even to get through a nomination process. The nationalization of races means, however, that the Reps don't have to give a f#ck about such things. Walker, Oz, and Vance illustrate that all you need is plausible name recognition, a pulse, and willingness to vote solely as a member of the block. Representation of your constituents be damned - while Vance lived in Ohio when he decided to run there, neither Walker nor Oz even lived among the people they claimed to want to represent. Highlighting that they really didn't want to run to represent Georgians or Pennsylvanians, but Trump.

    I feel like it's analogous to a modern army strictly adhering to modern laws of War, not targeting citizens or using some weaponry or using terror tactics or etc., while fighting an enemy who rejects all that. It truly is fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

    And as I said back during the Afghanistan conflict, the very worst thing to do is to take that hand out from behind your back, and fight the enemy on equally savage terms. It's crucial to not become who you fight, because of the example it sets about one's contingent commitment to the ideals one's allegedly fighting for.

    It sucks that the Dems lost Florida congress seats to gerrymandering, and DeSantis' win shows how much a majority of voting Floridians approve of his tactics. But it's no reason to gerrymander, let alone as deviously. It's reason to try to get the federal Voting Rights Act passed, somehow.
    Tom-

    Here are my takeaways:

    The DNC did a great job. They made some mistakes like making the election about abortion and saving democracy instead of telling voters how they would make their lives better. But they came aout of this about as good as you could hope for. It is a mid-term election with a president that has very low voter approval.

    They spent way too much money on people like Beto and Abrams - money that could have helped them in more competitive elections. Neither of these people have won a big election - complete waste of money.

    The GOP had lousy candidates. In some cases because the DNC made donations to the very same wingnuts in the primaries. I wouldn't count on that in 2 years.

    Even if the GOP does end up controlling the senate (which I do not believe), it will not be the end of Democracy.

    I've been in Florida recently - Demmings was never going to win. I met a ton of people who, demographically, should be Democrats, but they loved Rubio and Desantis. They love how Desantis handled COVID and hurricane Ian.

    You are a good person and I hope you don't let this bring you down much.

  35. #490
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Deerbrook WI USA
    Posts
    159

    Default Re: Dems are going to win.

    Last night was a very bad night for the country. Perhaps it should have been more expected. Schools and universities have been indoctrinating students for 50 years and more and turning out students willing and eager to vote for the misguided policies of candidates like Mandela Barnes, Tony Evers, and John Fetterman to mention just three.

    The country desperately needed a sharp turn in direction. But it didn't happen. The insanity of the Biden administration policies won't be stopped like many of us were hoping. Accountability for corruption in high places was delayed while gross mismanagement in office was rewarded.

    There will be consequences of course. Even more blatant corruption should be expected. Even more restrictions on free speech and personal freedom will be coming. Our once proud military will continue its descent into mediocrity losing respect and effectiveness along the way. Out of control federal spending, and the inflation associated with it, will continue, as will the sexualization of young children in our public schools. The grooming of children to be gender-fluid will, of course, go on as well. Energy costs can be expected to remain high and especially burdensome to the poorest among us. The crisis at the southern border will continue along with the human suffering associated with the easy availability of illegal drugs.

    I think most of you here voted for all of this. I, of course didn't, but unfortunately we will all be sharing in the results.
    Last edited by Dunphy Snipe; 11-09-2022 at 09:50 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •